# Is 3D about dead?



## tomtastic

I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years. That being said, can 3D survive? It seems like there's just been too much post converted 3D, or lack of content to begin with. Haven't seen much released on Blu ray that's been decent 3D in awhile, all seems to just be post converted or just lame depth only stuff. If they don't make 3D standard on TV's I just don't see it continuing much longer.


I was really excited about a year ago, now I'm thinking about getting a 3D camcorder but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. Is 3D once again, just another passing fad? I really hope not because there is a lot of potential with movies like Gravity and documentaries just doesn't seem to be gaining steam now. If you look at TV content it will probably disappear altogether in the next year. There's what, 2 channels left? ESPN's gone, which I never understood why that was 3D anyway if they weren't going to show live content, there's nothing new on 3D TV.


So are manufactures backing off 3D? Or is it still going forward like it was a few years ago? I noticed there's not much in the way of 3D camcorders.


----------



## Don Landis

Troll warning!


----------



## d james

Well I was wondering this myself for a while, but I don't think its going anywhere. I think people didn't see the value in it, thinking its only gimmicky because of hokey pop out. Now even movie reviewers are starting to see the light, that it does add a great amount of depth just like you're there, or looking into a window, which you can't get with 2d. True glasses are kind of a pain and it sucks they dim the picture, but with time this will change. I think the real barrier is the price point, maybe its still too new. Think about how long it took for blu ray to catch on, and still its not completely mainstream, there are still far more dvds being produced and sold compared to Blu-ray. Everytime I walk into a video store, its obvious dvd has a huge hold, but that hasn't killed are HD format.


Netflix just added a separate category for 3D and released it for everyone regardless of membership. Speaking of Gravity, I read that 80% of the sales for that movie were for the 3d version, the article stated that it made more money in 3d than avatar 3d ticket sales. I remember reading that it was only a few million extra to go 3d, so it would be a bad move for a studio to not jump on that to make ten times that or more back. I think some of the movies released over the summer would've made more money had they been in 3d such as the lone ranger. It also seems as though post 3d is getting better and I would assume cheaper. Look how good gravity was with its conversion. I think the real barrier is the price to have it, no one wants to go out and buy a new tv, and dvd player, when they probably already have something fairly new, plus those movies are way to much money


----------



## gadgtfreek

Not much decent released on blu-ray in awhile? Have you been looking?


----------



## bravia3D

I don't think it is about dead. With releases like Man of Steel, Pacific Rim and Monsters University just coming out on blu-ray. There are many movies still coming in 3D!


----------



## TonyDP

As long as we get quality titles that are designed with 3D in mind, like Gravity, 3D at the movies will be fine. That film has made $289 million so far and is further proof that if you make a quality movie where the 3D adds to the experience, people will pay more to watch it. Hopefully the ratio of films made with 3D in mind (be they native or post-conversions) to those where the 3D is a bolted on afterthought will get better.


3D at home is a bit more iffy and I think it will remain very much a niche market for the foreseeable future. The manufacturers and studios seem to have gone out of their way to botch the rollout of 3D at the home, overpricing the hardware and forcing people to buy 4 disc sets just to get access to a 3D movie. Gaming on consoles has also been disappointing since the current generation (PS3, Xbox 360) really aren't powerful enough for high quality 3D. As long we continue to get the new 3D blockbusters and the occasional catalog title I for one will be happy.


----------



## d james




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TonyDP*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23868973
> 
> 
> As long as we get quality titles that are designed with 3D in mind, like Gravity, 3D at the movies will be fine. That film has made $289 million so far and is further proof that if you make a quality movie where the 3D adds to the experience, people will pay more to watch it. Hopefully the ratio of films made with 3D in mind (be they native or post-conversions) to those where the 3D is a bolted on afterthought will get better.
> 
> 
> 3D at home is a bit more iffy and I think it will remain very much a niche market for the foreseeable future. The manufacturers and studios seem to have gone out of their way to botch the rollout of 3D at the home, overpricing the hardware and forcing people to buy 4 disc sets just to get access to a 3D movie. Gaming on consoles has also been disappointing since the current generation (PS3, Xbox 360) really aren't powerful enough for high quality 3D. As long we continue to get the new 3D blockbusters and the occasional catalog title I for one will be happy.



Yes I agree, I don't understand this whole 4 disc thing, they must have some kind of deal with manufactures or something, I mean I want the 3d disk, that's all, I don't need the dvd, regular blu ray or some ultraviolet crap that has zero value in my home. Sure they can still sell and market this type of package, but why force it on everyone. Some of those movies are just way overpriced, I can't believe I see movies at bestbuy like freight night for 44 dollars, Really? Who's going to spend that kind of money on that. Then there are the other movies that they could sell a lot of like house of wax 1953, but not at the 30 price point. Im sure people would be more willing to do a blind buy on such an old movie, if it was reasonably priced. It could be the greatest 3d ever made, but most people are not willing to spend that on an old movie when they can get something just released with better CGI effects and 7.1 sound.


----------



## loader963

I love 3d but admit that it will always be a minority compared to my 2d movies, mainly to lack of content. I also never understood 3d channels as i bet probably only 2% of people will watch a 30 minute (much less an hour) show entirely on couch without going to bathroom, kitchen, or just moving around. How ever i strongly disagree about 3d gaming being a failure. Maybe its the kid in me but i love 3d gaming and thinks it makes for a much more immersive experience. If ( and theres a good chance that its really when unfortunately) 3d fails i won't blame the consumers or the studios. However i will blame tv manufacturers. Wearing glasses doesnt matter to me as much as lower brightness, ghosting, less contrast, most tvs lack of game mode in 3d, lighter blacks and crushing shadow details. I admit no 3dtv has all of these problems but all 3dtvs have some of them.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TonyDP*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23868973
> 
> 
> As long as we get quality titles that are designed with 3D in mind, like Gravity, 3D at the movies will be fine. That film has made $289 million so far and is further proof that if you make a quality movie where the 3D adds to the experience, people will pay more to watch it. Hopefully the ratio of films made with 3D in mind (be they native or post-conversions) to those where the 3D is a bolted on afterthought will get better.
> 
> 
> 3D at home is a bit more iffy and I think it will remain very much a niche market for the foreseeable future. The manufacturers and studios seem to have gone out of their way to botch the rollout of 3D at the home, overpricing the hardware and forcing people to buy 4 disc sets just to get access to a 3D movie. Gaming on consoles has also been disappointing since the current generation (PS3, Xbox 360) really aren't powerful enough for high quality 3D. As long we continue to get the new 3D blockbusters and the occasional catalog title I for one will be happy.



3d at home in my eyes will remain a niche until the average screen size gets a lot bigger or how people view content at home changes.


To me even on a 60" tv, 3d only works well if you sit closer then most and have the lights off and even then for films it isn't the same as a cinema experience. Now consider watching 3d at home using a front projector at 100 inches or larger. Suddenly it is an amazing and enveloping experience. 3d in cinemas isn't going anywhere and 3d at home will likely remain a slow growing niche.


As for the 3d roll out at home, near on every first generation device was terrible at 3d. Most either had massive issues with crosstalk, brightness or both. This no doubt has stunted the growth of 3d at home as it was simply pushed out in devices that technically could do 3d, but not in a way that was anywhere near good enough for most people. Also many had to not only buy a new television but a new player who's only benefit was often that it could also do 3d. So the desire people have had to upgrade hasn't been there yet, 4k with 3d is likely to do better as 3d will not be the only upgrade present. Plus 4k will likely lead to much larger screens which of course is a good thing. For example I use a ps3 as my blu-ray player, I have a front projector set up but had my ps3 not been updated to have 3d capability I would not yet have 3d at home for films as I would be waiting for a device that offered more then just added 3d.


We also must consider that a large number of people when watching films at home do so in a very casual manner, they will get up and make a drink or get something to eat etc and won't pause the film. Likewise they will also pull out their phone/laptop and browse the internet or similar and thus are watching the film in a much more casual manner that of course does not suite 3d viewing.


As for 3d always being a minority, we cannot say for certain. I however can see a future where non 3d content is as rare as black and white content is now. I however I don't fell this will occur in the near future and will take a very long time to happen (maybe even decades). As for 3d dying, I just can't see that happening, it is making more and more money every year, film makers are getting more apt at utilizing 3d effectively, we are continuously being able to show 3d with less artifacts and more then sufficient brightness, conversion to 3d and shooting in 3d is becoming less expensive etc.


----------



## tomtastic

I guess what's really disappointing is that so many people are just opposed to 3D in general. You go online to places like this and yeah, the majority are going to say they love 3D, bring it on! But around my house at least, it seems like all I do is defend 3D. Some find it physically unbearable. I don't. My wife does. She could hardly watch Gravity. I never took my eyes off it. If they roll out 3D as a standard feature with 4K sets I guess that will be good news, but if not... 4K could be the next thing and 3D the old. Also, it really is a different kind of viewing like some have mentioned. I'm often on my laptop or iPad while watching TV, switching to 3D you have to put it down and focus on that. When company is over, I don't even bother with 3D anymore. Most everyone is on a portable device with their concentration split between that and whatever I have on TV. I haven't shared 3D content in a long time, I think if I did I might get some irritated looks. I generally just keep 3D to myself now and the kids if it's an appropriate movie.


As for TV content, I was sad to see N3D go, not ESPN though, I think we can all agree that was a waste. Since that channel was sponsored by Panasonic, has that impacted their manufacturing of new 3D equipment? In particular 3D camcorders? I've been considering buying a Z10k or waiting for a newer release. I'm just sort of on the fence right now because it seems like the market for 3D is still very niche. Right now my only option is buying 2 year old equipment or just going with a nice 2D camera. I'll be getting something in about 3 or 4 months so I've got time to think it over.


----------



## Don Landis

tomtastic- I shoot with many 3D rigs, including twin rigs. But, for casual shooting I always grab for one of my HDR TD10's. The reason is size. It shoots very good 3D quality and is not a chore to haul along all day at a crowded theme park. However, if I am working on a serious documentary, I will take my entire kit of cameras and shoot twin rigs, Z10k or TD10 or 3D1 as the scene calls for. When I'm out shopping or just visiting with the family, I usually like to carry even smaller than the TD10. I have a tiny pouch with my Panasonic 3D1 and a couple spare batteries that attaches to my belt same as my smart phone. If I shoot anything today, it goes in the camera as 3D. I don't think there is any more to offer in the technology for 3D camcorder that the Z10k doesn't now have. In the future, look for 4K recording with 3D camcorders. If you don't need that now, go ahead and select one of the 2 year old technologies for your one cam does all. Personally, I would select a TD20 if I were you.


But, I don't need everything to be 3D I watch. It's a nice treat to see a good movie in 3D. But I don't miss 3D for news, mundane dramas, sports, or even some thrillers. In most scifi's especially those with space travel, nature documentaries, children's animations, and action movies, I prefer to be in 3D with 7.1 surround sound. I want the maximum entertainment value I can get.


----------



## tory40

IIMO, with theaters able to show 3D at will, 3D aint going anywhere. I think its here to stay as long as they can dig themselves out of the 2D-conversion hole they dug themselves into.


----------



## d james




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tory40*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23873152
> 
> 
> IIMO, with theaters able to show 3D at will, 3D aint going anywhere. I think its here to stay as long as they can dig themselves out of the 2D-conversion hole they dug themselves into.



That's a good point I really didn't think about, they need to recoup all that money they spent converting all their theaters to 3D, so they aren't going to let it go away anytime soon


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *d james*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23876362
> 
> 
> That's a good point I really didn't think about, they need to recoup all that money they spent converting all their theaters to 3D, so they aren't going to let it go away anytime soon



Nor are audiences, just look at what happens when a film utilizes 3d well (Gravity and over 80% of revenue coming from 3d screens n America which is even higher then Avatar).


----------



## kevin j

The soccer match between Real Madrid and F.C. Barcelona's going to be on beINSPORT 3D at 12pm et[the pregame's on in 3D now btw].Just a heads up.


----------



## xhonzi

I hope it's here to stay, even if it remains niche.. But if it does fade back out, we all should be able to continue to play our extensive libraries we've all built.


Amiright?


----------



## peterfram

My 9 year old daughter said she is done with 3D about six months ago. She prefers movies at home and at the theater in 2D now. And, I noticed the number of 3D showings at local theaters dropped continuously over the past year with each new major movie release. Seems to have bottomed out recently. When we went to see Monsters University a week or so after it opened, they only had one 3D showing per day at the local theaters vs a dozen or so 2D showings at local theaters. New movies about a year earlier offered 4, 5 or 6 3D showings per day in the same theaters if I recall correctly.


I also regularly check top selling Blu ray lists on Amazon when movie shopping. I noticed that 3D versions of new releases have dropped much further in the rankings, compared to the 2D version, than they were earlier this year. It seems many consumers are no longer willing to spend a few dollars more to get the 3D Blu ray version.


So demand for 3D indeed appears to have declined rapidly this year. And my statistically invalid survey of young future movie content consumers indicates they have outgrown it.


3D capable is not that expensive to add as a feature to display devices. I expect it will continue to be an infrequently used optional feature listed on some TV's for years to come. Theaters will continue to offer 3D showings only if demand justifies it. It appears in some regions that demand for 3D is not enough to offer more than one 3D showing per day right now.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *peterfram*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23880434
> 
> 
> My 9 year old daughter said she is done with 3D about six months ago. She prefers movies at home and at the theater in 2D now. And, I noticed the number of 3D showings at local theaters dropped continuously over the past year with each new major movie release. Seems to have bottomed out recently. When we went to see Monsters University a week or so after it opened, they only had one 3D showing per day at the local theaters vs a dozen or so 2D showings at local theaters. New movies about a year earlier offered 4, 5 or 6 3D showings per day in the same theaters if I recall correctly.
> 
> 
> I also regularly check top selling Blu ray lists on Amazon when movie shopping. I noticed that 3D versions of new releases have dropped much further in the rankings, compared to the 2D version, than they were earlier this year. It seems many consumers are no longer willing to spend a few dollars more to get the 3D Blu ray version.
> 
> 
> So demand for 3D indeed appears to have declined rapidly this year. And my statistically invalid survey of young future movie content consumers indicates they have outgrown it.
> 
> 
> 3D capable is not that expensive to add as a feature to display devices. I expect it will continue to be an infrequently used optional feature listed on some TV's for years to come. Theaters will continue to offer 3D showings only if demand justifies it. It appears in some regions that demand for 3D is not enough to offer more than one 3D showing per day right now.



Meanwhile 80% of revenue for Gravity in its opening weekend came from 3d screenings, and in the second weekend 82% came from 3d screenings. 3d is still very popular, the problem is many have become hesitant as there has been far to large a number of tacked on conversions that range from incompetently done (clash of the titans) to competently done but still not adding to the film (Iron Man 3).


The problem is currently studios are using it as a cash grab and it is often not being driven by the film makers. In nearly every example of amazing 3d you will find the film makers where the ones pushing or shorting for 3d (Avatar, Coraline, Prometheus, Avengers, Titanic, Gravity, Hugo), and in nearly every example of 3d not working or at least not adding it was tacked on against the film makers wishes or intent (Clash of the Titans, Iron Man 3, The Last Airbender, Man of Steel). There are some misnomers of excellent 3d conversions that do add to the film that where not driving by the film makers but these are few and far between (Star Trek Into Darkness).


Basically what needs to happen is we need to see 3d only occur when it is what the film makers wanted to do. We also need to see it not only applied to big budget spectacle films. In Scorsese's own words on 3d "every subject matter can encompass this medium, really any subject can" and "when the image comes up and it's in 3d and you have that extra element it is special".


----------



## andy sullivan

We watched Gravity 3D Saturday morning and then watched Prometheus at home Saturday night. The basic PQ with Prometheus was much better than Gravity. I was underwhelmed with the clarity of the majority of Gravity. Prometheus was crystal clear and pure candy to the eyes. The 3D with Gravity seemed forced. Much less engaging than say Avatar.and lacked the WOW factor. The 3D with Prometheus reinforced my love for 3D. So realistic you forgot you were watching 3D yet when you thought about it the WOW factor was every where. Especially the water fall scene at the beginning of the movie. Quite a bit of disappointment chatter coming from the folks leaving the theater.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23884908
> 
> 
> We watched Gravity 3D Saturday morning and then watched Prometheus at home Saturday night. The basic PQ with Prometheus was much better than Gravity. I was underwhelmed with the clarity of the majority of Gravity. Prometheus was crystal clear and pure candy to the eyes. The 3D with Gravity seemed forced. Much less engaging than say Avatar.and lacked the WOW factor. The 3D with Prometheus reinforced my love for 3D. So realistic you forgot you were watching 3D yet when you thought about it the WOW factor was every where. Especially the water fall scene at the beginning of the movie. Quite a bit of disappointment chatter coming from the folks leaving the theater.



To be far Prometheus did have Dariusz Wolski as dop who is simply amazing. Also home vs cinema isn't a fair comparison for 3d, a well set up home dlp will kill anything that cinemas can do currently (i'm not sure what your set up is). Also if most where walking away disappointing I would strongly suggest the error was on the cinemas end as whilst I would not say gravity is gthe best 3d I have seen it is still extremely good. To top it off Prometheus I believe used better cameras which where more limited in Gravity due to how Gravity was shoot, Gravity's live action was also converted to 3d from 2d as a result of this whereas Prometheus was shoot entirely in 3d (though I'm sure like near on always they had to convert some shoots where the cameras lost sync etc).


On the plus side Dariusz Wolski and Ridley Scott are currently making another 3d film with one another.


----------



## TonyDP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23884908
> 
> 
> We watched Gravity 3D Saturday morning and then watched Prometheus at home Saturday night. The basic PQ with Prometheus was much better than Gravity. I was underwhelmed with the clarity of the majority of Gravity. Prometheus was crystal clear and pure candy to the eyes. The 3D with Gravity seemed forced. Much less engaging than say Avatar.and lacked the WOW factor. The 3D with Prometheus reinforced my love for 3D. So realistic you forgot you were watching 3D yet when you thought about it the WOW factor was every where. Especially the water fall scene at the beginning of the movie. Quite a bit of disappointment chatter coming from the folks leaving the theater.



Comparing Gravity at the movies to Prometheus at home is very much an apples and oranges comparison. I have never ever seen a movie that looked better at the theater than it did on one of my TVs at home. The home presentation is always sharper, clearer and far more colorful. I'll be curious to see how Gravity 3D looks at home when it is eventually released..


Everyone's opinions of what makes good 3D is different but, while I generally liked the 3D in Prometheus I found it didn't enhance my enjoyment of the film as much as the 3D in Gravity did. Paying a premium for 3D projection and glasses only to then watch a movie which you forget is in 3D for long stretches seems kind of pointless and strikes me as a self-defeating model for 3D to become more widely accepted. Personally, I think that for 3D to continue to thrive at the movie theater you need more exaggerated presentations that aren't afraid to draw attention to themselves and that stand out from conventional 2D movies. In that respect, I thought Gravity really worked as scenes like the one where the Sandra Bullock character is trying to escape the ISS really drew me into the experience to a degree that neither Prometheus or Avatar never did. The natively shot Journey to the Center of the Earth and even a post-conversion like Pacific Rim, with their exaggerated sense of depth strike me as far more engaging 3D experiences than most native 3D movies with conservative depth cues (Spider-Man, Jack the Giant Slayer, Dredd, etc.) and it is interesting to note that even James Cameron recently conceded that he should have gone more aggressive with the 3D in Avatar but backed off for fear of viewer fatigue, especially given the extended length of that movie.


----------



## cbcdesign

3D is going nowhere for several reasons in my opinion:-


1. Used properly 3D can be a very engaging movie going experience as Gravity has proved.

2. Its very popular in the far east and the population there is huge meaning big bucks for the studios.

3. The cost of equipping cinemas with 3D equipment need to be recouped.


It's slowed down that's for sure but largely because the suits in Hollywood made the idiotic mistake of trying to cash in on 3D with poor presentations and after thought conversions instead of allowing film makers who are comfortable with the format and can see how it can enhance their movies, to use it as they want too. Hopefully they will understand the lessons that the inappropriate use of 3D can teach before too long and we will get a greater number of "Gravity" type features and far fewer "Clash of the Titans".


OH, and I cannot agree that 3D at home is inferior to 3D at the theatre. In my experience its exactly the opposite in most instances. 3D at home is sharper, more colourful and more 3D. You just need a decent TV.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23887618
> 
> 
> 3D is going nowhere for several reasons in my opinion:-
> 
> 
> 1. Used properly 3D can be a very engaging movie going experience as Gravity has proved.
> 
> 2. Its very popular in the far east and the population there is huge meaning big bucks for the studios.
> 
> 3. The cost of equipping cinemas with 3D equipment need to be recouped.
> 
> 
> It's slowed down that's for sure but largely because the suits in Hollywood made the idiotic mistake of trying to cash in on 3D with poor presentations and after thought conversions instead of allowing film makers who are comfortable with the format and can see how it can enhance their movies, to use it as they want too. Hopefully they will understand the lessons that the inappropriate use of 3D can teach before too long and we will get a greater number of "Gravity" type features and far fewer "Clash of the Titans".
> 
> 
> OH, and I cannot agree that 3D at home is inferior to 3D at the theatre. In my experience its exactly the opposite in most instances. 3D at home is sharper, more colourful and more 3D. You just need a decent TV.



Size matters, so unless you have a front projector at home cinemas have a clear advantage, and even if you do have a front projector cinemas use three chip dlps which will still give them a sharpness advantage over what 99% of people can afford for home. With that being said at home it is much easier to get a sufficiently bright image in 3d that is cross talk free (assuming dlp at home) so it is hard to say which is best as there are pros and cons to both. Personally for me bright crosstalk free 3d at home wins over the slight sharpness advantage cinemas should have.


----------



## TonyDP

I sit about 6-7 feet away from a 63" plasma 3D TV. To my eyes, the 3D image is more than sufficiently large enough to pull me into the experience (assuming of course the movie uses 3D well in the first place). I'm sure a projector will provide an even more immersive experience but for those of us that don't have the room, sitting a reasonable distance away from a good plasma in the 60-70 inch range can still be very immersive.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TonyDP*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23888779
> 
> 
> I sit about 6-7 feet away from a 63" plasma 3D TV. To my eyes, the 3D image is more than sufficiently large enough to pull me into the experience (assuming of course the movie uses 3D well in the first place). I'm sure a projector will provide an even more immersive experience but for those of us that don't have the room, sitting a reasonable distance away from a good plasma in the 60-70 inch range can still be very immersive.



It most certainly can, with a 60" though you really do need to sit closer to truly get a cinema like immersive experience. Then again some people like sitting in the front row and some like sitting in the back, so personal preference also comes into effect.


----------



## SFMike

I sit 7 to 10 feet away from my 70" Sharp Aquos and find the image is big and bright enough to improve on the image quality seen at most theaters. I usually find the home enviroment superior to that of a theater with low light output projectors. I even like the contrast setting I have set up better than those at the show. Watching 3D at home has made me appreciate a well done conversion such as Star Trek or Pacific Rim. I feel they had much more depth and were more involving than when I experienced them the theater.


In regard to the studios dropping the ball on 3D, today I went to WalMart to check out new releases the neither Monster University or R.I.P.D were on the shelves in their 3D edition. I bet they get them in a week or two. At least my WalMart has brought back their 3D video section. My local Best Buy continues to mix 3D in with the rest of the releases. Also I've noted no retailer is giving a discount for these blu-rays, $29.99 is the lowest on both. Again, a complete lack of interest in the promotion of these releases in 3D and a big screw you to those of us they see as the suckers who will pay for three differnt versions of the same film. Home 3D is not yet dead but it appears that 3D is quite dead to the maketing depatments of the studios.


----------



## AVTrauma

I agree the marketing departments have not only dropped the ball on 3D, they seemed to have thrown it under the bus. Disney 3D blurays have not broken the $29.00 price for the most part, yet the latest release of "The Little Mermaid" on Bluray was advertised predominately as Bluray... no mention of 3D to be found! It can't be said that there isn't a profit for them in selling the 3 disc combo pack... they just aren't pushing 3D. And they are not alone. Very little mention of the excellent 3D conversion of "Wizard of Oz" Blurays now available. The profits for the double/triple dipper studios are there. I have been awaiting the "extended version" of the Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey" and I'm disappointed that it's only available in a 5 disc pack (that's not what I'm disappointed about) that has a "pre-sale" price of $54.00! Ouch!

What will be a significant indicator of the state of home 3D... it will be the marketing and sales numbers for "Gravity" (probably not going to be available before the Holidays I imagine).


----------



## coolhand

I assume Gravity will get a lot of Oscar buzz and will stay in theaters long enough to make holiday release an impossibility.


I am quite curious if 3D movies will be highlighted over the holidays at all. I bought a lot of movies last year around the holidays and I think I could get more for the movies now than what I paid for them, which is patently ridiculous.


----------



## crab

Hate to say it guys but more than any other factor I think the problem comes down to money. Most people are not willing to spend more for movies than they already are and by and large 3D is usually more. Often a lot more. Combine that with the fact that many would have to replace working hardware with 3D capable hardware just to get to the point where they can say hello to extremely limited content at stupid high prices and you don't have to be particularly clever to figure out why adoption isn't moving along at breakneck speed.


Honestly I think some folks here forget that we are enthusiast. For the average Joe the value simply isn't there.


----------



## guitarman512

Well guys - have a read at this http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/08/06/pacific-rim-the-lone-ranger-and-the-necessary-evil-of-3d/ 

it seems to make a profit nowadays it has to be made or converted to 3d. Thats fine by me ;0) I would have enjoyed Battleship and Oblivion a lot more if they were in 3d and I bet the studio's wish they had the foresight to convert them.


" With 3D, After Earth would surely be looking at around $300m worldwide. In 3D, Battleship may well have crossed $350m worldwide, while a 2D John Carter would have lost even more money. The movie is the movie, but 3D makes big films bigger and helps big flops earn just a little more when every dollar counts. Artistic intent aside, in this current environment, where 3D is still a major deal overseas, a 3D conversion basically amounts to money for nothing."


----------



## TVSTAR

I think native 3D is dead, but conversions are more than alive, they are the future of 3D movies. Conversion allows the director to concentrate on the movie and not on the 3D. Sure, they can use certain camera angles in preparation, and since cgi is already in 3D, it makes it even more enticing and much less expensive. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I welcome more conversions after seeing Titanic and some of the latest conversions. They work just fine for me. The cost of 3D is making it, not in watching it these days.


----------



## TK Doom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *d james*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/0_100#post_23869356
> 
> 
> Yes I agree, I don't understand this whole 4 disc thing, they must have some kind of deal with manufactures or something, I mean I want the 3d disk, that's all, I don't need the dvd, regular blu ray or some ultraviolet crap that has zero value in my home. Sure they can still sell and market this type of package, but why force it on everyone. Some of those movies are just way overpriced, I can't believe I see movies at bestbuy like freight night for 44 dollars, Really? Who's going to spend that kind of money on that. Then there are the other movies that they could sell a lot of like house of wax 1953, but not at the 30 price point. Im sure people would be more willing to do a blind buy on such an old movie, if it was reasonably priced. It could be the greatest 3d ever made, but most people are not willing to spend that on an old movie when they can get something just released with better CGI effects and 7.1 sound.



I like the combo packs. I travel a lot and DVDs work better battery wise on my laptop inflight.


Also, the entertainment system in our cars is DVD not bluray.


Just my 2 cents.


If its a 3d title, give me the 3 disc version every time. 2d, 3d and DVD. UV I don't need though.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TVSTAR*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23907712
> 
> 
> I think native 3D is dead, but conversions are more than alive, they are the future of 3D movies. Conversion allows the director to concentrate on the movie and not on the 3D. Sure, they can use certain camera angles in preparation, and since cgi is already in 3D, it makes it even more enticing and much less expensive. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I welcome more conversions after seeing Titanic and some of the latest conversions. They work just fine for me. The cost of 3D is making it, not in watching it these days.



I couldn't disagree more. Outside of Titanic every film that has been converted has shoots that show it was converted. This includes Gravity which was mostly native 3d (the cgi). If you are making a film that is going to be 3d, the director should be concentrating on the 3d, as 3d should be part of the film.


Shooting in 3d is getting easier and more affordable. The future to me is represented by the hobbit, 48fps (or higher would be even nicer) and native 3d. The film disappointing but HFR and 3d did not.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TK Doom*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23908430
> 
> 
> I like the combo packs. I travel a lot and DVDs work better battery wise on my laptop inflight.
> 
> 
> Also, the entertainment system in our cars is DVD not bluray.
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> 
> If its a 3d title, give me the 3 disc version every time. 2d, 3d and DVD. UV I don't need though.



The problem is choice. Why can't those wanting just the film in 3d and nothing else not be able to get that. I for example never use dvd's for films I own on blu-ray as I only watch films at home and the only special feature I have watched in years was a five minutes of the Prometheus commentary and the Flyn Lives short film for Tron Legacy. I would like to not have to pay more for numerous items I do not want.


----------



## TVSTAR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FilmReverie*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23908452
> 
> 
> I couldn't disagree more. Outside of Titanic every film that has been converted has shoots that show it was converted. This includes Gravity which was mostly native 3d (the cgi). If you are making a film that is going to be 3d, the director should be concentrating on the 3d, as 3d should be part of the film.
> 
> 
> Shooting in 3d is getting easier and more affordable. .



I am not saying the director should not concentrate on 3D, but when shooting in 3D, each shot must include parallax adjustment, object alignment, and host of other things that double the length of production. Just as you've seen several conversion issues, I've seen lots of native 3D issues in films where the alignment was off and confusing to the eye. So yes, I will agree that if you can get a director that is instructed in 3D, using 3D, then that's a win-win, but for the most part, I've enjoyed conversions as much as I've enjoyed native 3D ala Avatar (had gross misalignment issues in the opening scenes, and some of the interior shots of soldiers had very mixed depth-of-field issues). Notable mediocre native 3D includes: Resident Evil-Afterlife, Transformers 3, Final Destination, Drive Angry. I really worried about 3D fading quick after I saw these.


Anyway, the argument will continue, and let's hope we are both on the winning side of it--


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *guitarman512*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23905842
> 
> 
> I would have enjoyed Battleship and Oblivion a lot more if they were in 3d



Oblivion I can see being well suited to 3D, but Battleship's seizure-cam photography and epileptic editing in 3D would have audiences puking in the aisles.


----------



## SFMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVTrauma*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23894777
> 
> 
> I agree the marketing departments have not only dropped the ball on 3D, they seemed to have thrown it under the bus. Disney 3D blurays have not broken the $29.00 price for the most part, yet the latest release of "The Little Mermaid" on Bluray was advertised predominately as Bluray... no mention of 3D to be found! It can't be said that there isn't a profit for them in selling the 3 disc combo pack... they just aren't pushing 3D. And they are not alone. Very little mention of the excellent 3D conversion of "Wizard of Oz" Blurays now available. The profits for the double/triple dipper studios are there. I have been awaiting the "extended version" of the Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey" and I'm disappointed that it's only available in a 5 disc pack (that's not what I'm disappointed about) that has a "pre-sale" price of $54.00! Ouch!
> 
> What will be a significant indicator of the state of home 3D... it will be the marketing and sales numbers for "Gravity" (probably not going to be available before the Holidays I imagine).



I don't foresee much of a marketing push when "Gravity" is released on blu-ray. If 3D is to grow the marketing has to be shared across the board with the studios and the TV manufacture’s the way it was when 3D TVs first came out. The problem then was a lack of content and poor response from retailers in their presentation of the hardware. Although Best Buy still has a small 3D display area set up, most of the sets or viewing glasses are not working right or plain out broken. Even when they are working they show generic 3D demo material instead of current 3D content. I don't remember ever seeing "The Hobbit" or "Pacific Rim" running as a 3D demo in any store. No...wait, I remember the Hobbit preview being show on the big screen Sharps on display last fall at Costco and this always seemed to get people’s attention. So without a coordinated marketing effort I don't see any growth in 3D which goes right along with the manufacturer’s predictions. I imagine we will see the video release of "Gravity" in a multi-disc package with an excellent transfer and good supplemental material as this is a Warner Bro release and they do a great job on their releases. I bet there will even be a 3D lenticular cover to set the 3D version apart but I don't think there will be any extra marketing push for the 3D version. They didn’t push "The Wizard Of OZ" 3D and they did a fantastic job on this.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SFMike*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23910967
> 
> 
> I don't foresee much of a marketing push when "Gravity" is released on blu-ray. If 3D is to grow the marketing has to be shared across the board with the studios and the TV manufacture’s the way it was when 3D TVs first came out. The problem then was a lack of content and poor response from retailers in their presentation of the hardware. Although Best Buy still has a small 3D display area set up, most of the sets or viewing glasses are not working right or plain out broken. Even when they are working they show generic 3D demo material instead of current 3D content. I don't remember ever seeing "The Hobbit" or "Pacific Rim" running as a 3D demo in any store. No...wait, I remember the Hobbit preview being show on the big screen Sharps on display last fall at Costco and this always seemed to get people’s attention. So without a coordinated marketing effort I don't see any growth in 3D which goes right along with the manufacturer’s predictions. I imagine we will see the video release of "Gravity" in a multi-disc package with an excellent transfer and good supplemental material as this is a Warner Bro release and they do a great job on their releases. I bet there will even be a 3D lenticular cover to set the 3D version apart but I don't think there will be any extra marketing push for the 3D version. They didn’t push "The Wizard Of OZ" 3D and they did a fantastic job on this.



Indeed, I think for 3d to grow we need consistency in the quality of 3d people see at cinemas. We need to get rid of poor conversions or unnecessary conversions. We also need to abandon the idea that 3d only works in some kind of films. Still for 3d to really grow to where 2d is at we need to have glasses free 3d or a massive change in viewing behavior when at home which I don't see happening anytime soon. I'm okay with that as long as 3d is successful enough at home to continue existing (which I can't see why it wouldn't be) then it will slowly grow.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TVSTAR*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23909069
> 
> 
> I am not saying the director should not concentrate on 3D, but when shooting in 3D, each shot must include parallax adjustment, object alignment, and host of other things that double the length of production. Just as you've seen several conversion issues, I've seen lots of native 3D issues in films where the alignment was off and confusing to the eye. So yes, I will agree that if you can get a director that is instructed in 3D, using 3D, then that's a win-win, but for the most part, I've enjoyed conversions as much as I've enjoyed native 3D ala Avatar (had gross misalignment issues in the opening scenes, and some of the interior shots of soldiers had very mixed depth-of-field issues). Notable mediocre native 3D includes: Resident Evil-Afterlife, Transformers 3, Final Destination, Drive Angry. I really worried about 3D fading quick after I saw these.
> 
> 
> Anyway, the argument will continue, and let's hope we are both on the winning side of it--



Could I get some time stamps for the issues in avatar, only asking as I have never noticed them before (or maybe I have it has been around a year since I last watched it). I think there is room for both 3d native and conversions, for obvious reasons I would prefer native 3d continue getting easier and cheaper to film with and be the main way for making a 3d film over a conversion.


Also the reaction to Afterlife's 3d was generally positive as it was for the fifth Final Destination (the forth I recall being rather negatively received for its use of 3d so maybe you mean that one), Transformers 3 was also largely a conversion (at least half) and if I recall correctly the reaction to the 3d was rather positive as well. The start alone of Transformers 3 in 3d I would think would have most peoples jaws hitting the floor.


----------



## AVTrauma

3D will grow, but I feel it will not grow as fast as it rightfully should due to the lack of manufacturer's advertising budget with promoting this form of entertainment. As time goes on, more flat panel sets are being replaced (as funds allow), and even "medium" price range sets are now coming with 3D and internet connectivity.... that's "old" stuff. The newest stuff (and the expensive stuff) is all about 4K... and every 4K set also includes 3D and internet connectivity. Remember 3D is an option, and with Avatar/Promethius/Hugo/Gravity type films available, more will eventually take the plunge to see if it works in their own home.


(Caveat to this... with minimal expense as possible. Many won't rush out to "double dip" something like Avatar which they probably have in their library already, but a new release like Gravity, or Hobbit might entice some to give it a shot and check out what their recently purchased flat panel can do. And the farther into the future you go, the greater number of 3D sets will be in consumers homes, and the larger the quality offerings will be to check out.)


Not even close to dead, not needing life support... but definetely not "thriving" either. Eventually it will be more "mainstream", presuming the conversions remain high caliber (Titanic/Wizard of Oz) and the native shot are planned & directed correctly (Avatar/Hugo/Promethius)


Anyways, I'll sit back and enjoy my home 3D experiences, regardless what others/many/most believe/hope/wish.


----------



## Peterpack

3D isn't dead but it hasn't taken off as big as studios would have hoped for


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Peterpack*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23931469
> 
> 
> 3D isn't dead but it hasn't taken off as big as studios would have hoped for



Considering the lack of advertising/promotion, they shouldn't be surprised.


----------



## dclark

3d isn't dead but it is barely surviving. Too many post conversions, combined with just bad movie making. I thought Hugo was the best 3d movie, a non action movie which made used 3d to make you feel like you were there. The Hobbit was also excellent, though I saw it in 48 frame, which also enhanced things.

When I say bad movies, this also applies to 2d. I mean, how many remakes (True Grit, Carrie, Total Recall, etc) do we have to endure?

Going back to the op, he mentioned 3d camcorder.Whether you buy one should have nothing to do with the popularity of theatrical 3d movies.

I own a panny 3d1 and a Sony 3d cam, I shoot 3d videos and pics when I travel and watching them is like reliving my vacation.


----------



## mldardy

Barely surviving? I don't think so. With the number of movies coming out in the future I don't call that barely surviving.


----------



## Cyrano

Gravity's opening weekend was great and stayed great. 3D did extremely well. Here's an excerpt about opening weekend revenue numbers. I think movies of this quality being in 3D will further the concept to the larger audience out there. When it is done with taste (and not a "poking things out at the audience" silly effect) 3D becomes as important a component of making a movie's story believable as any other technical component of Film.

*Box Office Report: 'Gravity' Rockets to October Record*

_'Gravity"_

By Gary Susman

October 6, 2013 3:05 PM ET


WINNER OF THE WEEK: Gravity. The Warner Bros. space opera stunned with an opening estimated at $55.6 million, well above predictions of $35 to $42 million. That $55.5 million sets all kinds of records. It's the biggest October opening ever (beating the $52.6 million earned by Paranormal Activity 3 in 2011) and the biggest opening ever for stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. (It's also the biggest non-Harry Potter opening for director/co-writer Alfonso Cuaron.) The movie, which demands to be seen in 3D and on the biggest possible screen, earned $11.2 million of its take from IMAX venues, also an October record. Not only did IMAX revenues make up 20 percent of Gravity's total, but 3D tickets made up a full 80 percent. (Usually, glasses rentals account for just 30 to 50 percent.) So not only did Gravity elevate the box office, but it proved that 3D isn't necessarily a dying fad but rather an enhancement viewers will cough up extra dollars for, given the right movie.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/box-office-report-gravity-rockets-to-october-record-20131006#ixzz2kHgFFUNz


----------



## dclark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mldardy*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23932965
> 
> 
> Barely surviving? I don't think so. With the number of movies coming out in the future I don't call that barely surviving.



Barely surviving is accurate. It looks like the number of real 3d movies released this is five, three if you take away Monsters U.. and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs..


----------



## Peterpack

i think things will pick up again


a few years ago when Avatar bought 3D to the fore again, people had to actively seek out a 3D tv and they weren't cheap, now a few years down the road and it's hard to find a new decent tv which doesn't have 3D so i think things will turn around as the potential 3D audience expands purely from people buying new TVs, not from people actively seeking 3D


I know i bought my new TV a month ago based on a heap of factors and 3D capability wasn't one of them but when i checked it out, i love it


----------



## dclark

it might pick if the new glasses free sets are affordable when they come out and look good. Then again, we are back to the chicken or egg problem, namely, getting progamming to feed them. Yeah, there are some nice 3d movies out there that can be looped over and over at BB, but people don't want to watch that over and over, they want to watch tv shows and sports. Sports, thought to be a way to bring 3d home, died with the killing of 3d espn.

I have directv and now, the only 3d is ppv or 3dnet, which is just a few shows shown over and over. Hell, at least when I had crappy cable, they offered 3d hbo.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dclark*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23936747
> 
> 
> it might pick if the new glasses free sets are affordable when they come out and look good. Then again, we are back to the chicken or egg problem, namely, getting progamming to feed them. Yeah, there are some nice 3d movies out there that can be looped over and over at BB, but people don't want to watch that over and over, they want to watch tv shows and sports. Sports, thought to be a way to bring 3d home, died with the killing of 3d espn.
> 
> I have directv and now, the only 3d is ppv or 3dnet, which is just a few shows shown over and over. Hell, at least when I had crappy cable, they offered 3d hbo.



3d for standard tv is a long way off. For films and documentaries there is a huge array of options (hundreds). I don't think the main issue is glasses free though that will certainly help the more casual viewers where I think 2d is better suited anyway. I think the main issue is we need the average tv set to continue to get bigger as that really makes a huge difference with 3d and for 4k to support 3d. As upgrading for just 3d isn't really that great of an option for most, but when there are many other benefits it suddenly becomes more attractive.


----------



## Cyrano

I like 3D but I just think the general public thinks of it as Gimmicky - a "one trick pony". And the glasses are just annoying to some.

Sometimes after watching a 3D movie 2D seems like a step back. As though one part of what make film seem real is missing.

Will 3D make it. I don't know, but I don't think I would invest in it as a stock. In another thread there is talk of Glasses-free 3D and maybe that will be an actual, workable technology. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1495465/ultra-d-glasses-free-3d-update


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cyrano*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23936798
> 
> 
> I like 3D but I just think the general public thinks of it as Gimmicky - a "one trick pony". And the glasses are just annoying to some.
> 
> Sometimes after watching a 3D movie 2D seems like a step back. As though one part of what make film seem real is missing.
> 
> Will 3D make it. I don't know, but I don't think I would invest in it as a stock. In another thread there is talk of Glasses-free 3D and maybe that will be an actual, workable technology. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1495465/ultra-d-glasses-free-3d-update



Do you know that the revenue of 3d has increased something like 40% each year for the last four years and we are also getting doing some films doing more business in 3d then even Avatar did. To me that seems like rather good traction.


One thing that means 3d isn't going anywhere is the Chinese market for better and worse.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FilmReverie*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23936827
> 
> 
> Do you know that the revenue of 3d has increased something like 40% each year for the last four years and we are also getting doing some films doing more business in 3d then even Avatar did. To me that seems like rather good traction.
> 
> 
> One thing that means 3d isn't going anywhere is the Chinese market for better and worse.



All right, I accept the rebuke.










I hear so much backlash against it around here that I wonder how it can make it if the "Techies" don't like it. The opposition seems strong.


Personally I think it is a technique that, if used to make films more realistic and not just "poking things out at the audience" it could be a very useful tool. I sometimes feel as though 2D films are lacking after I've seen good use of 3D in a 3D film. And I wonder if we will someday look back and wonder why there was so much resistance against 3D use.

I do know that my estimation of 3D has risen since I got my 3D projector. The realism factor rose more than the wow factor. There are some films that are quite good in 3D. And some that don't work as well. Some have a gradual effect and make things seem rounded, others have a stronger effect and objects seem flatter. But I'm just beginning in the exploration of 3D movies.


----------



## TonyDP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cyrano*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23936889
> 
> 
> I hear so much backlash against it around here that I wonder how it can make it if the "Techies" don't like it. The opposition seems strong.



In my experience, the amount of noise a group makes if often inversely proportional to its size.










Yes there are some loud 3D detractors out there but I really think its more about them trying to be noticed than having their pulse on the technology's popularity. And even the most hardened of 3D detractors usually clam up when a movie that really takes advantage of the technology comes along; I heard nary a peep from the usual suspects (mainstream film critics, Gizmodo, etc.) about wanting to see Gravity in 2D when it premiered.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mldardy*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23932965
> 
> 
> Barely surviving? I don't think so. With the number of movies coming out in the future I don't call that barely surviving.



For the home market, 3D is barely surviving. There is no easy or economical way to get 3D at home. Buying 3D blurays is not cheap or convenient. Netflix doesn't seem too keen on 3D with its limited selection and limited number of supported devices (and picture problems with its most popular device for 3D (PS3)). Get cable?







I really like and want 3D but my 3D TV, unfortunately, doesn't get to flex its 3D ability too often.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23944717
> 
> 
> For the home market, 3D is barely surviving. There is no easy or economical way to get 3D at home. Buying 3D blurays is not cheap or convenient. Netflix doesn't seem too keen on 3D with its limited selection and limited number of supported devices (and picture problems with its most popular device for 3D (PS3)). Get cable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really like and want 3D but my 3D TV, unfortunately, doesn't get to flex its 3D ability too often.



I know what you're saying. I am hoping that Holiday (Black Friday) Sales will see some good sales on 3D BDs. Keeping my eyes open.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23944717
> 
> 
> For the home market, 3D is barely surviving. There is no easy or economical way to get 3D at home. Buying 3D blurays is not cheap or convenient. Netflix doesn't seem too keen on 3D with its limited selection and limited number of supported devices (and picture problems with its most popular device for 3D (PS3)). Get cable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really like and want 3D but my 3D TV, unfortunately, doesn't get to flex its 3D ability too often.



What picture problems are there with the ps3 doing 3d blu-ray?


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FilmReverie*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23944968
> 
> 
> What picture problems are there with the ps3 doing 3d blu-ray?



The context was in PS3 doing Netflix 3D, not 3D Bluray. Sorry if I wasn't clear.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23945239
> 
> 
> The context was in PS3 doing Netflix 3D, not 3D Bluray. Sorry if I wasn't clear.



I see I read that as a separate point and was confused. The only issue I have is no dolby lossless audio in 3d, which the ps4 should resolve. If not I plan on getting a nice stand alone once 4k is released anyway.


----------



## Peterpack

I will say Espn closing their 3D channel is not good


----------



## joed32




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Peterpack*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23946184
> 
> 
> I will say Espn closing their 3D channel is not good



Why, it was only reruns of two year old sporting events with an occasional live broadcast which most people didn't know was on unless they went to the website. Completely useless channel.


----------



## Peterpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joed32*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23946686
> 
> 
> Why, it was only reruns of two year old sporting events with an occasional live broadcast which most people didn't know was on unless they went to the website. Completely useless channel.



That's the point. If it developed how ESPN envisaged it would, more and more sporting events would be in 3D and bigger and bigger ones,,


But obviously it wasnt that popular hence the outdated content


2011 seems to be the year when people were giving 3D a real crack but it hasn't been following up by more content in 2012 and yet more in 2012


I know it's not the greatest measure but take for example the Sports Illustrated swimsuit video in 3D for 2011. If that had sold well, you can bet they would have done 2012 and 2013 in 3D as well, but they haven't


----------



## rupterr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *joed32*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/40_20#post_23946686
> 
> 
> Completely useless channel.



Except for "The Masters" in 3D!


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Peterpack*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/30#post_23948818
> 
> 
> That's the point. If it developed how ESPN envisaged it would, more and more sporting events would be in 3D and bigger and bigger ones,,
> 
> 
> But obviously it wasnt that popular hence the outdated content
> 
> 
> 2011 seems to be the year when people were giving 3D a real crack but it hasn't been following up by more content in 2012 and yet more in 2012
> 
> 
> I know it's not the greatest measure but take for example the Sports Illustrated swimsuit video in 3D for 2011. If that had sold well, you can bet they would have done 2012 and 2013 in 3D as well, but they haven't



I think you are right. Yet I think 3D is something that may sputter and start and stop before it gets rolling. I wasn't really aware of 3D being so available in so many consumer TVs in 2011. It was last year that I began to notice so sets having 3D as an option. (Last Christmas I noticed a little 32" Vizio selling for $279 new and I hesitated and by the January 2013 it was about $450. I had wanted it for a Computer monitor. It is now hard to find.)


I got into 3D 1 month ago with a projector. $750 and the 3D is excellent. Finding good 3D movies at a good price is keeping me from viewing more. But slowly I'll find those I want.


I wonder if perhaps as more of the public have 3D capable set happens we'll see a resurgence of interest by broadcasters. Maybe not. It seems a coin toss with the odds against as it appears right now. But I am hoping someday we'll get the option of it offered again.


----------



## joed32

Yeah that was nice.


----------



## Isnoreatmovies

Is color TV about dead?


The first color tvs and broadcasts started in about 1954. The broadcasters didn't go to an all color primetime until '66 and all color programming until '72 or so. Even then, color tv set sales didn't match black and white set sales until '72.... 18 years and color wasn't in a majority of American households... certainly it must've died.


----------



## tory40

Clarity and details are so important to 3D, I don't see how TV broadcasts can supply the bandwidth needed for a quality of 3D that will keep people wanting more. I can't get Netflix 3D in Seattle on Comcast broadband for some reason so i don't know what thats like but i did try downloading my Mass Effect game video using the Youtube App on my Samsung 3DTV and the quality was far less than in my PC's browser, which is far less than the original, which is somewhat less than in-game. It was horrible and a bad example for 3D.


By clarity being important to 3D, i just mean they go hand in hand. High Def content makes things look very real, while 3D lays those very real looking objects in front of you. Its simple concept, but not widely realized from my experience.


Clarity, FOV and 3D all greatly compliment each other IMO.


The Oculus Rift (consumer version) I hope will help show non-gamers what a high FOV can do for immersion.


----------



## Don Landis

tory40-


Netflix 3D requires only select 3D Tv's or a PS3 right now. Also minimum bandwidth to receive it. Comcast just announced more bandwidth for some areas but it's reassuring they are not standing stil. The quality on some titles are very good here and others have some issues. Overall quality varies as does the optical disks on the market. Generally the titles that are good on disk, look just as good on Netflix. Active screens with shutter glasses will result in higher resolution than passive monitors but passive screens still give good enjoyable quality similar to a good DVD.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isnoreatmovies*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23955124
> 
> 
> Is color TV about dead?
> 
> 
> The first color tvs and broadcasts started in about 1954. The broadcasters didn't go to an all color primetime until '66 and all color programming until '72 or so. Even then, color tv set sales didn't match black and white set sales until '72.... 18 years and color wasn't in a majority of American households... certainly it must've died.



The difference is broadcasters embraced "color" technology and started broadcasting in color in about 1954 as you've said. Not so with 3D.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23956630
> 
> 
> The difference is broadcasters embraced "color" technology and started broadcasting in color in about 1954 as you've said. Not so with 3D.



Yes. I think 3D is going to take longer to gain acceptance and really get going. I think we need some technological breakthroughs. 3D is more of a niche type of thing than color was, I think. But I could be wrong. I am not sure everyone "digs" it. I do.


----------



## Isnoreatmovies

I wouldn't call 12 years to commit to evening broadcasts and 18 years to commit to all day programming in color "embraced".


Avatar and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs essentially ushered in the new era of 3D movies in 2009, Panasonic offered the FIRST modern 3D television in the spring of 2010. We're talking just 3 years ago.


It took 18 years for sales of color tv sets to match the sales of black and white, 3D has come a long ways fast comparatively. Whether it becomes the dominant medium or not in the future is unknown, but it is quite early to even say it's faltering by any means.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isnoreatmovies*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23957840
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call 12 years to commit to evening broadcasts and 18 years to commit to all day programming in color "embraced".
> 
> 
> Avatar and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs essentially ushered in the new era of 3D movies in 2009, Panasonic offered the FIRST modern 3D television in the spring of 2010. We're talking just 3 years ago.
> 
> 
> It took 18 years for sales of color tv sets to match the sales of black and white, 3D has come a long ways fast comparatively. Whether it becomes the dominant medium or not in the future is unknown, but it is quite early to even say it's faltering by any means.



Agreed and on top of all that it has only been around a year and a half that true quality 3d gear has been available at home (there where some earlier displays that where good but most where rather bad).


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isnoreatmovies*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23957840
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call 12 years to commit to evening broadcasts and 18 years to commit to all day programming in color "embraced".
> 
> 
> Avatar and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs essentially ushered in the new era of 3D movies in 2009, Panasonic offered the FIRST modern 3D television in the spring of 2010. We're talking just 3 years ago.
> 
> 
> It took 18 years for sales of color tv sets to match the sales of black and white, 3D has come a long ways fast comparatively. Whether it becomes the dominant medium or not in the future is unknown, but it is quite early to even say it's faltering by any means.



Absolutely embraced. The broadcasters of old wanted "color." They clearly saw "color" as the future of TV. The willingness was absolutely there.


You say the time it took to fully implement the color technology is an indication of not embracing the color technology? You are missing the context of the era. You are used to the rapid development and distribution of technology today. Four years is almost a generation in today's technology lifespan. Not so back in the days. Things moved much more slowly than now.


Also don't forget the relative cost. Color TV in olden days cost hell of a lot more than 3D TV today to an average consumer which would impede the penetration rate. In fact, technology is a whole lot cheaper in general. Do you remember how much VCR was when it first came out? And put that price in today's dollar. You will be astounded.


Of course, by today's standard, the time it took the broadcasters to adopt the color technology seem abnormally long but that has no bearing on the broadcasters' want and willingness to have "color." You have to consider that shifting from black and white to color is a wholesale change in equipment; and I am sure the cost was not cheap. You can understand why broadcasters would take their time when you take the cost and required effort to convert to "color" into consideration.


On the contrary, for 3D TV technology, the cost and effort should not be so odious in comparison for the broadcasters. The reason for lack of 3D broadcasting is that the willingness is simply not there for the broadcasters. There is no commitment. Who's broadcasting in 3D now?


Let's look at it from another angle. Once started broadcasting in color, did any broadcasters of old stopped broadcasting in color? Did any of the pundits of old claim that "color" TV is a fad and will die/is dying? I don't know but that is exactly what's happening with 3D TV today.


Don't get me wrong. I really, really hope that you are right since I am simply enamored with 3D. All I can say is it's still way too difficult to get 3D in terms of cost and convenience; and it doesn't look like it's going to get better anytime soon.


----------



## d james

If they keep implementing 3D into televisions at cheaper and cheaper prices, I suspect it will stick around. if manufactures didn't have hope in it, or make money on it, then they wouldn't include them into tvs. You can buya 42 inch 3d tv for less than 500 bucks now, so that becomes more inspiration for people to go out and buy them. Of course they have to bring the price down, 30+ dollars is too much money for most people on a budget


----------



## Isnoreatmovies




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23959527
> 
> 
> Absolutely embraced. The broadcasters of old wanted "color." They clearly saw "color" as the future of TV. The willingness was absolutely there.
> 
> 
> You say the time it took to fully implement the color technology is an indication of not embracing the color technology? You are missing the context of the era. You are used to the rapid development and distribution of technology today. Four years is almost a generation in today's technology lifespan. Not so back in the days. Things moved much more slowly than now.
> 
> 
> Also don't forget the relative cost. Color TV in olden days cost hell of a lot more than 3D TV today to an average consumer which would impede the penetration rate. In fact, technology is a whole lot cheaper in general. Do you remember how much VCR was when it first came out? And put that price in today's dollar. You will be astounded.
> 
> 
> Of course, by today's standard, the time it took the broadcasters to adopt the color technology seem abnormally long but that has no bearing on the broadcasters' want and willingness to have "color." You have to consider that shifting from black and white to color is a wholesale change in equipment; and I am sure the cost was not cheap. You can understand why broadcasters would take their time when you take the cost and required effort to convert to "color" into consideration.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, for 3D TV technology, the cost and effort should not be so odious in comparison for the broadcasters. The reason for lack of 3D broadcasting is that the willingness is simply not there for the broadcasters. There is no commitment. Who's broadcasting in 3D now?
> 
> 
> Let's look at it from another angle. Once started broadcasting in color, did any broadcasters of old stopped broadcasting in color? Did any of the pundits of old claim that "color" TV is a fad and will die/is dying? I don't know but that is exactly what's happening with 3D TV today.
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I really, really hope that you are right since I am simply enamored with 3D. All I can say is it's still way too difficult to get 3D in terms of cost and convenience; and it doesn't look like it's going to get better anytime soon.



You seem to have higher expectations of today's broadcasters than those of the past. What major network is going to commit to a format that few in the general public can even access? ESPN did, then realized it jumped the gun. I read earlier that 3D capable TVs are getting about 20% of the TV sales since their introduction. I also read that about 6% of all households now have 3D capable TVs. Even if sales jump to 50% of all sold TVs are 3D capable, it will still take a number of years before the majority of all households can watch a 3D broadcast. Give it time.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isnoreatmovies*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23962352
> 
> 
> You seem to have higher expectations of today's broadcasters than those of the past. What major network is going to commit to a format that few in the general public can even access? ESPN did, then realized it jumped the gun. I read earlier that 3D capable TVs are getting about 20% of the TV sales since their introduction. I also read that about 6% of all households now have 3D capable TVs. Even if sales jump to 50% of all sold TVs are 3D capable, it will still take a number of years before the majority of all households can watch a 3D broadcast. Give it time.



Not at all. I was simply refuting your comparison of advent of color television to 3D. To borrow your method, I can turn around and ask what major network is going to commit to a *color* format that few in the general public can even access? But networks did.


I am saying that despite cost, effort, and time, the broadcasters of old converted to color because they believed that color was the future of TV and committed to that fact.


3D, on the other hand, despite being easier and cheaper to implement than conversion from b&w to color, will never be adopted on a broad scale (if ever) because the broadcasters and consumers do not believe in it. 3D is not the future of TV. 4K is. 3D is a gimmick that is merely a sideshow to HDTV and will never take the center stage.


Hence, your rather droll comparing of color TV to 3D TV is invalid.


My guess is that 3D TV will be relegated to a niche market for aficianados like how LDs were. Unless something extraordinary like glasses-free 3D TV comes along.


----------



## Peterpack

I do think good glassless 3D TVs which are cheap will be the rebirth of 3D


Even though they aren't that expensive, too many people use the hassle/headaches from/can't multitask etc excuse of the glasses


Get rid of them and still have 3D and you have a winner


I don't mind wearing the glasses but you have to sit pretty much straight on to get the best effect, i mean with your head at 90 degrees to the floor. Lying on your sofa with your head at a weird angle isn't as good for 3D


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Peterpack*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23967526
> 
> 
> I do think good glassless 3D TVs which are cheap will be the rebirth of 3D
> 
> 
> Even though they aren't that expensive, too many people use the hassle/headaches from/can't multitask etc excuse of the glasses
> 
> 
> Get rid of them and still have 3D and you have a winner
> 
> 
> I don't mind wearing the glasses but you have to sit pretty much straight on to get the best effect, i mean with your head at 90 degrees to the floor. Lying on your sofa with your head at a weird angle as good for 3D


Agreed. I do think 3d is pretty good now,and I don't mind sitting up for 3d movies but for it to become as common a moviemaking tool as color or sound it must be glasses-free.


I think form of 3d is inevitable. Each advance in film was in the pursuit of increased reality. We won't accept an 18fps black and white silent film as representing reality. Advances always come.


----------



## Josh Z




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cyrano*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23967575
> 
> 
> I think form of 3d is inevitable. Each advance in film was in the pursuit of increased reality. We won't accept an 18fps black and white silent film as representing reality. Advances always come.



Watching movies is rarely about realism. No one paid to see Man of Steel to watch a "realistic" movie about an invincible man from outer space who can fly.


Besides which, I would hardly call 3D photography "realistic."


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23970247
> 
> 
> Watching movies is rarely about realism. No one paid to see Man of Steel to watch a "realistic" movie about an invincible man from outer space who can fly.
> 
> 
> Besides which, I would hardly call 3D photography "realistic."



Well, let me try and be more clear. Though you might still disagree. When sound first came on the scene there were many who thought it was not an advance in the Art of making movies more "realistic". (I am not referring at all to "plots" when I say realistic.) Color even had its detractors. And I am more in the camp of those who think 3D is not currently making what we see appear more like real life (realistic).

Some of the 3D films are pretty good. After watching _Avatar_ I found it kind of a mental adjustment to watch something more flat. Yet I don't wish to see everything "converted" into 3D.


For the last month I have been watching 3D on my recently acquired Optoma HD131Xe 1080P PJ on a 100" screen. I rarely paid extra to see 3D versions of any of the movies of the last several years at the Cinema. I did enjoy _MIB3_ in 3D and I saw _Gravity_ twice at two different venues. I thought _Gravity_ was really well done in all aspects. (Okay - a few physics plot points were sketchy.)


But at home there was a difference. Seeing the entire image as something in which everything is in view all at once, like a large painting, or window has made 3D more comfortable for me.


I do think the craft of motion pictures will continue to evolve and 100 years from now techniques will be employed that will make images seem more Real than what we can do now. And a thousand years hence I can only project from what we've accomplished since 1900 or so that what will be displayed will seem miraculous to people of today. I imagine that some aspect of depth or "perceived solidity of objects" will be employed.



I think it was you who I remember writing reviews in a publication in the late 80's and 90's. I cannot now remember the magazine's name, but it was a publication whose issues we laserdiscphiles looked eagerly forward to. There was always good writing that couldn't be found elsewhere in it.


----------



## Isnoreatmovies




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Josh Z*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_23970247
> 
> 
> Watching movies is rarely about realism. No one paid to see Man of Steel to watch a "realistic" movie about an invincible man from outer space who can fly.



Wait, you mean that wasn't real?


----------



## SFMike

As a indicator of how little regard the media manufactuers currently give to 3D, take note that Sony's new Playstation 4 has been released without the ability to playback blur-ray 3D content. http://www.gamefront.com/sony-no-3d-blu-ray-on-ps4-at-launch/ 

It is also reported that the XBOX One will not be 3D enabled at launch. Read this article for another take on 3D's future. http://www.techhive.com/article/2062317/microsofts-xbox-one-wont-play-3d-blu-ray-movies.html 

For those who don't want to link I submit an excerpt below:

_*"Who cares?*


It's unlikely that many people will notice or even care that Microsoft's console won't let you watch 3D movies, though. While 3D was all the rage in 2010 it's barely a footnote three years later.


Take, for example, the latest sales numbers of Blu-ray discs in the U.S. as reported by Home Media Magazine. Only nine of the top 20-selling Blu-ray disc titles included any significant sales of 3D discs during the week ending November 3, 2013—the most recent numbers available.


And of those nine top titles, 3D disc sales were just a sliver of the overall sales. The top Blu-ray seller that week was Monsters University, but only 5.54 percent of those sales were for Monsters University in 3D. The rest of the list isn't much better.


With 3D disc sales taking up a slim margin of overall Blu-ray sales, Microsoft probably won't suffer much for ignoring 3D movie playback, especially if this is just a short-term setback."_


I think this is a message from SONY that their active support for 3D is over. The end of "Sony 3D World" is here. As a side note, at my local theater they did not even show Sony Picture's "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2" in 3D and only one week of partial 3D showings of "Thor 2." It is obvious that our corporate masters do not want to be bothered with the expense of 3D in the North American market. Let's hope the Asian market keeps 3D going a little longer.


----------



## AVTrauma

From what I have heard/read... "Serious" Gamers love 3D. Do the PS4 & XBox One support 3D gaming? If they do support 3D gaming but not 3D Blu ray, that would seem short sighted on the manufacturer's part. (Unless Sony is trying to increase sales of their 3D Blu ray players to those who have been able to avoid that expense up to this point.)


----------



## rupterr

PS4 supports 3D gaming but not 3D movie playback yet. It will with a future firmware update.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVTrauma*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24006629
> 
> 
> From what I have heard/read... "Serious" Gamers love 3D. Do the PS4 & XBox One support 3D gaming? If they do support 3D gaming but not 3D Blu ray, that would seem short sighted on the manufacturer's part. (Unless Sony is trying to increase sales of their 3D Blu ray players to those who have been able to avoid that expense up to this point.)



It is a gaming console, they have ensured the gaming portion is as finished as it can be at release and will update the other areas later.


----------



## Dr_jitsu

I look it this way (I have not read all the posts, so I apologize if this view has already been promulgated.) Remember when HD came out? I remember being amazed at the difference between HD and lower D. I purchased my first HD TV, a Mitsubishi CRT HD set. Wow, I still remember the first show I watched, and was 100% certain that eventually there would be content available in HD. A few years later, we saw the explosion of Blue Ray playears.


The first time I watched Avatar, I did so in 3D. I also watched it in Blue Ray. Yes, the 3D obviously had more depth, but was overall just a bit better then Blue Ray.


As it is now, if I want 3D I usually have to pony up and buy the disk. I have been underwhelmed by 3D.


If it improves greatly, and I don't have to wear glasses I might change my mind.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24020527
> 
> 
> I look it this way (I have not read all the posts, so I apologize if this view has already been promulgated.) Remember when HD came out? I remember being amazed at the difference between HD and lower D. I purchased my first HD TV, a Mitsubishi CRT HD set. Wow, I still remember the first show I watched, and was 100% certain that eventually there would be content available in HD. A few years later, we saw the explosion of Blue Ray playears.
> 
> 
> The first time I watched Avatar, I did so in 3D. I also watched it in Blue Ray. Yes, the 3D obviously had more depth, but was overall just a bit better then Blue Ray.
> 
> 
> As it is now, if I want 3D I usually have to pony up and buy the disk. I have been underwhelmed by 3D.
> 
> 
> If it improves greatly, and I don't have to wear glasses I might change my mind.



In what areas exactly is it underwhelming you at the moment? Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons? [Also I have to correct this as it to this day irks me, it is blu-ray not blue ray].


----------



## Dr_jitsu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FilmReverie*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24043132
> 
> 
> In what areas exactly is it underwhelming you at the moment? Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons? [Also I have to correct this as it to this day irks me, it is blu-ray not blue ray].





Oh the irony: "In what areas [plural] is it exactly [singular]...at the moment (singular) you ask? I would be much more concerned about the massive subject verb disagreement that plagues your torturing of the English language.


Film R.:" Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons?" I have no idea what that sentence means, Ebonics?


But hey, don't feel bad, you got the -right.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24043536
> 
> 
> Oh the irony: "In what areas [plural] is it exactly [singular]...at the moment (singular) you ask? I would be much more concerned about the massive subject verb disagreement that plagues your torturing of the English language.



I do this myself at times. And I would like to know what the correct way to examine the effects of a singular problem in multiple situations is.


Why can't this inquiry of a singular problem that may occur in multiple situations be resolved or examined in a single (presumably present) moment?


thanks.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24043536
> 
> 
> Oh the irony: "In what areas [plural] is it exactly [singular]...at the moment (singular) you ask? I would be much more concerned about the massive subject verb disagreement that plagues your torturing of the English language.
> 
> 
> Film R.:" Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons?" I have no idea what that sentence means, Ebonics?
> 
> 
> But hey, don't feel bad, you got the -right.



How about just answering his question?







As long as the meaning is conveyed, grammar is secondary, just a garnish.


----------



## Dr_jitsu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24044592
> 
> 
> How about just answering his question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as the meaning is conveyed, grammar is secondary, just a garnish.



Do you really believe that? You want me to 'just answer the question", but based upon what was asked it is not possible to do so. The inconsistency between subject and verb makes it impossible ferret out the question. Grammar is not secondary, it is not a "garnish," it is fundamental to understanding.


Let me illustrate the larger problem. Oh, and BTW, English was my worst subject. You have an idea, you write that idea down. It is now once removed. Someone reads it, it is twice removed. If it was well written, then the reader should have a pretty good idea about your idea. If we are heuristically sloppy, then by the time the reader reads the majority of your meaning is lost. The sentence "Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons?" Illustrates the problem. I simply have no idea what this question means, and how I can "just answer it."


Back to 3D, here are my problems: As stated, I am very disappointed w/ the the lack of available material. The last 3 years have taught me that if I want to watch in 3D I have to buy the disk. The number of movies I would pay $4 to watch are not movies I would pay $25-30.00 to own.


----------



## Dr_jitsu

Next, the actual 3D material is not that impressive (and hence the "underwhelmed comment). Movies have more depth, but no other advantages over 2D. In fact the darkness often more than counters any benefit from being 3D.



I do not like wearing the glasses. I bought into the 3D hype 3 years ago, in the hope that 3D would grow, the opposite of what has actually happened. The money spent (can't remember if it was $300 or $500) was a lesson I should already know (don't be an early adopter).


----------



## TonyDP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24045195
> 
> 
> Next, the actual 3D material is not that impressive (and hence the "underwhelmed comment). Movies have more depth, but no other advantages over 2D. In fact the darkness often more than counters any benefit from being 3D.



If the film looks dark, then you're doing something wrong with your setup. A properly mastered 3D movie playing back on a properly calibrated TV should look nearly as bright as its 2D counterpart.


If you had watched a movie that was designed with 3D in mind (just about any of the Imax features, Pacific Rim, House of Wax, etc.) you'd see that there is A LOT more to 3D than just enhanced depth. Those titles use the 3D to really pull you into the presentation.



> Quote:
> I do not like wearing the glasses. I bought into the 3D hype 3 years ago, in the hope that 3D would grow, the opposite of what has actually happened. The money spent (can't remember if it was $300 or $500) was a lesson I should already know (don't be an early adopter).



As someone who has had to wear prescription glasses since I was five years old, I never have any sympathy for the "glasses wearing" argument. If you're sitting in front of a TV to watch a movie then I don't see how wearing plastic glasses that weigh next to nothing can be such a chore.


If you are trying to multitask while watching a 3D movie (ie talking to your friends, moving about the room, cooking dinner, etc.) then you really should not be watching the movie at all. Multitasking and 3D do not co-exist well together and I think a lot of the complaints about 3D stem from people who try to do exactly this while the movie is playing. In my experience, most movie fans - you know, people who actually sit down and watch the movie instead of having it basically be background noise while they do other stuff - enjoy it.


Also, what possible kind of 3D rig could you have gotten for $300-$500? Three years ago, just the BluRay players were going for close to that amount.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24045195
> 
> 
> Next, the actual 3D material is not that impressive (and hence the "underwhelmed comment). Movies have more depth, but no other advantages over 2D. In fact the darkness often more than counters any benefit from being 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not like wearing the glasses. I bought into the 3D hype 3 years ago, in the hope that 3D would grow, the opposite of what has actually happened. The money spent (can't remember if it was $300 or $500) was a lesson I should already know (don't be an early adopter).



Thankyou for finally answering the question and as for my grammar, I was deaf until I was just under ten and my written English has always suffered as a result. I have worked incredibly hard at improving in this area and still do, but those years are rather vital and something I was not fortunate enough to benefit from. Just try and remember that some people that you scrutinize have worked extremely hard to get there English to where it currently is but for various reasons it isn't as easy for very real reasons for some as it is for others.


3d has grown by 40% each year for the last four years, if you where expecting larger growth then fair enough, but it has exceeded my expectations (I know some where expecting a massive boom but I never thought that was realistic or would happen anytime soon). Glasses don't bother me but is a fair complaint and one that should be addressed shortly. Brightness at home shouldn't really be an issue anymore as long as you buy the right equipment. With that being said the initial wave of 3d display devices where nearly all terrible for displaying 3d with both brightness and crosstalk issues. Can I presume that when you can get a glasses free display without brightness issues your interest will be present again? (as that is the direction for home that seems to be the next step for 3d).


----------



## Dr_jitsu

Replies in BOBL


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TonyDP*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24045369
> 
> 
> If the film looks dark, then you're doing something wrong with your setup. A properly mastered 3D movie playing back on a properly calibrated TV should look nearly as bright as its 2D counterpart. *Replies in bold. I installed everything, and had the TV (Mitsu 82 inch DLP) professional calibrated. The main reasons were for picture quality and the 9 large speakers and 6 18 inch subs.*
> 
> 
> If you had watched a movie that was designed with 3D in mind (just about any of the Imax features, Pacific Rim, House of Wax, etc.) you'd see that there is A LOT more to 3D than just enhanced depth. Those titles use the 3D to really pull you into the presentation.
> 
> As someone who has had to wear prescription glasses since I was five years old, I never have any sympathy for the "glasses wearing" argument. If you're sitting in front of a TV to watch a movie then I don't see how wearing plastic glasses that weigh next to nothing can be such a chore. *I was fortunate enough to have good eyesight until about 4 years ago...Please don't hate. My hair has gone gray, if that helps*
> 
> 
> If you are trying to multitask while watching a 3D movie (ie talking to your friends, moving about the room, cooking dinner, etc.) then you really should not be watching the movie at all.*You are preaching to the choir my friend. I put together my whole system (and then had it tuned/calibrated). If you count the kick ass American made seats and the cheap Chinese seats My system ran over $35K ....I built it over 6 months and got many things on sale. I put put heart and soul into this system. and that was before hiring a pro to tune.*Multitasking and 3D do not co-exist well together and I think a lot of the complaints about 3D stem from people who try to do exactly this while the movie is playing. In my experience, most movie fans - you know, people who actually sit down and watch the movie instead of having it basically be background noise while they do other stuff - enjoy *it. I don't budge, when I watch a movie, nothing else matters. I don't even eat.*
> 
> 
> Also, what possible kind of 3D rig could you have gotten for $300-$500? Three years ago, just the BluRay players were going for close to that amount.


*I have an OPPO, phenomenal unit. It was $500 and given the upscaling well worth it. The $300- 500...now that I think about it, it was $300 for the accessories and the glasses, which are not light, BTW.*


----------



## Dr_jitsu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FilmReverie*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24045503
> 
> 
> Thankyou for finally answering the question and as for my grammar, I was deaf until I was just under ten and my written English has always suffered as a result. I have worked incredibly hard at improving in this area and still do, but those years are rather vital and something I was not fortunate enough to benefit from. Just try and remember that some people that you scrutinize have worked extremely hard to get there English to where it currently is but for various reasons it isn't as easy for very real reasons for some as it is for others.
> 
> 
> 3d has grown by 40% each year for the last four years, if you where expecting larger growth then fair enough, but it has exceeded my expectations (I know some where expecting a massive boom but I never thought that was realistic or would happen anytime soon). Glasses don't bother me but is a fair complaint and one that should be addressed shortly. Brightness at home shouldn't really be an issue anymore as long as you buy the right equipment. With that being said the initial wave of 3d display devices where nearly all terrible for displaying 3d with both brightness and crosstalk issues. Can I presume that when you can get a glasses free display without brightness issues your interest will be present again? (as that is the direction for home that seems to be the next step for 3d).



OK, now I feel like a big jerk. Those 10 years are critical, and I am very sorry you had them taken from you. My son is 6 and seems to learn new things everyday.


Please accept my Olive branch.


Having said that, I am again taken back to my original position; 3D still needs extensive development, Hopefully it will eventually become an option that requires nothing special beyond choice of TV and 3D/ Blu-Ray player. As Tony notes, the first iteration of 3D capable set ups had.have many problems.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24045648
> 
> 
> OK, now I feel like a big jerk. Those 10 years are critical, and I am very sorry you had them taken from you. My son is 6 and seems to learn new things everyday.
> 
> 
> Please accept my Olive branch.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I am again taken back to my original position; 3D still needs extensive development, Hopefully it will eventually become an option that requires nothing special beyond choice of TV and 3D/ Blu-Ray player. As Tony notes, the first iteration of 3D capable set ups had.have many problems.



Have you seen Hugo, if so what do you think of its use of 3d? I agree many films are not embracing 3d, they are utilizing it but not truly embracing it as part of the medium. Hugo to me is a great example that does this.


----------



## TonyDP




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24045579
> 
> 
> Replies in BOBL
> *I have an OPPO, phenomenal unit. It was $500 and given the upscaling well worth it. The $300- 500...now that I think about it, it was $300 for the accessories and the glasses, which are not light, BTW.*



Gotcha; based on your original post it read like you'd spent $300-500 on a TV and that just didn't make sense to me.


As FilmReverie has said Hugo is another great example of 3D serving the story and enhancing the experience. Life of Pi does that as well and, when it is released on home video, I'm sure Gravity will be another great 3D experience. Yes there are a lot of cash grab duds out there but there are also some real gems.


----------



## Dr_jitsu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FilmReverie*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24045868
> 
> 
> Have you seen Hugo, if so what do you think of its use of 3d? I agree many films are not embracing 3d, they are utilizing it but not truly embracing it as part of the medium. Hugo to me is a great example that does this.



Yes, I saw HUGO, but it was standard Blu-Ray. I believe I had netflix back then. Beautiful movie and story (Borat and Ghandi in one movie)


My TV is a 3d ready 82 inch Mitsu I bought 3 years ago. There was a 3D package that I paid for. To be honest, I am pretty happy w/ my system (9 free standing Klipsch 6 Chase HT 18 inch subs) Onkyo, Emotiva amp, etc.) and watching Blu-Ray for now.


I am not a refined audiophile like many here who would not even consider a non-tube amp made in China, or Klipsch, but for me, w/ a 7.1 audio, my system blows me away. Klipsche can be a bit too sharp for some, but for movies I love them. And the RF 7's are American made. One thing I need not worry about is the WAF, my wife watches more TV than I do. I told her that our house *does not let that vile Kardashian crap in but she watches it anyway.*










I just get tired of the constant struggle for quality movies....I pretty much have to buy them, or use red box which rarely has what I want.


I used to love NetFlix, but nearly every movie I put in my Que became "unavailable" by the time it was to be mailed out.


Has Net flix gotten better?


I think someone mentioned another source, so I will go back and look for their suggestions. 3-4 good Blue-Ray movies a week will keep a simple man like me happy. Someday, I may seek out more 3d material. I have taken some huge financial hits these last 2-3 years so I am going to be happy w/ what I have. One of my financial hits was of my own making. I sunk $140 k into a race car and sold it for $65k. Very expensive hobby. The beauty of building a good HT system is it holds value and gives incredible entertainment in the meantime.


----------



## FilmReverie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24047233
> 
> 
> Yes, I saw HUGO, but it was standard Blu-Ray. I believe I had netflix back then. Beautiful movie and story (Borat and Ghandi in one movie)
> 
> 
> My TV is a 3d ready 82 inch Mitsu I bought 3 years ago. There was a 3D package that I paid for. To be honest, I am pretty happy w/ my system (9 free standing Klipsch 6 Chase HT 18 inch subs) Onkyo, Emotiva amp, etc.) and watching Blu-Ray for now.
> 
> 
> I am not a refined audiophile like many here who would not even consider a non-tube amp made in China, or Klipsch, but for me, w/ a 7.1 audio, my system blows me away. Klipsche can be a bit too sharp for some, but for movies I love them. And the RF 7's are American made. One thing I need not worry about is the WAF, my wife watches more TV than I do. I told her that our house *does not let that vile Kardashian crap in but she watches it anyway.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just get tired of the constant struggle for quality movies....I pretty much have to buy them, or use red box which rarely has what I want.
> 
> 
> I used to love NetFlix, but nearly every movie I put in my Que became "unavailable" by the time it was to be mailed out.
> 
> 
> Has Net flix gotten better?
> 
> 
> I think someone mentioned another source, so I will go back and look for their suggestions. 3-4 good Blue-Ray movies a week will keep a simple man like me happy. Someday, I may seek out more 3d material. I have taken some huge financial hits these last 2-3 years so I am going to be happy w/ what I have. One of my financial hits was of my own making. I sunk $140 k into a race car and sold it for $65k. Very expensive hobby. The beauty of building a good HT system is it holds value and gives incredible entertainment in the meantime.



Indeed, so it is more its use. Not an actual flaw in how the 3d is presented from a technical stand point (outside of the inconvenience of glasses). I only watch blu-rays and the occasional dvd or vhs (for films not available on blu-ray) and where I live we have quickflix (Australia) which is like netflix but netflix has much better streaming but quickflix has a much better mail out system from what I can gather. If you get a chance check out films like Coraline, Gravity, Hugo, Life of Pi, Avatar, Avengers (especially the last battle) or some imax documentaries etc on a nice 3d display (preferably large as well, personally anything less then 50" really doesn't work in 3d all that well unless your sitting really close [and yes I know yours is large but I assume you may also watch films elsewhere







]). It's a shame that so many afterthought conversions are done as they very rarely work (the only one that to me is exceptional is Star Trek Into Darkness. Conversions like The Wolverine, Painted Skin 2, Thor 1 and 2, Iron Man 3, Clash of the Titans and anything that essentially never has any moments that benefit from 3d (and even worse have several moments that are hindered by 3d) need to stop as they really are hurting the medium and slowing it from progressing.


You are using a dlp which is perfect for 3d as well (though brightness may be lower then desirable in 3d from what I am told).


[edit: I wouldn't expect quality 3d streaming to be available to most any time soon, 2d streaming is already barely good enough and the extra bandwidth needed for 3d just makes it unfeasible for most. Also I didn't know about the Kardashians until I read your post and googled it...... damn you, and what has been seen cannot be unseen That is all I can say].


----------



## PGTweed

I had my BenQ MW519 showing Despicable Me 3D in my living room on a sunny day. I found the active 3d glasses darken the movie to be good rather than terrible. The iceberg hitting the RMS Titanic in Titanic 3D the darkness of the active glasses were not as good as my passive glasses. I watched Titanic later that evening.


----------



## NSX1992

I am an early adaptor. I still remember when my 73" Mitsubishi DLP finally had 3D material and to see 3D at home was exhilarating. Then I moved on to Mitsubishi 82" and 92" sets which did not have any crosstalk issues only dimming due to the active glasses. My current setup is an 84" 4K LG that I bought for $13,000 and now can be bought for less than $10,000 online. The upscaling negates the passive resolution reduction resulting in 3D better than the theaters. So I totally disagree with those waiting for better 3D. It is here now. Passive glasses are very easy to use, no recharging, cheap and light. 4K sets are the answer with 65" sets available for less than $5,000.


I have a vast library of 3D material including my home 3D videos. In my opinion almost every movie is better in 3D.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24045160
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that? You want me to 'just answer the question", but based upon what was asked it is not possible to do so. The inconsistency between subject and verb makes it impossible ferret out the question. Grammar is not secondary, it is not a "garnish," it is fundamental to understanding.
> 
> 
> Let me illustrate the larger problem. Oh, and BTW, English was my worst subject. You have an idea, you write that idea down. It is now once removed. Someone reads it, it is twice removed. If it was well written, then the reader should have a pretty good idea about your idea. If we are heuristically sloppy, then by the time the reader reads the majority of your meaning is lost. The sentence "Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons?" Illustrates the problem. I simply have no idea what this question means, and how I can "just answer it."



I do. Language is a living thing that constantly evolves and changes. As such, grammar is flexible. Do you have trouble understanding Southern dialect, so-called Ebonics or even pidgin English spoken by various immigrant groups because they don't use correct grammar? Heck, even UK English is different than American English. Do you have trouble understanding a Brit? If you do, that would explain why English was your worst subject. It's not the English language, it's you, buddy.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24045160
> 
> 
> The sentence "Just how it is often being used or other technical reasons?" Illustrates the problem. I simply have no idea what this question means, and how I can "just answer it."



I took it as he wants to know how you view your 3D, I.e., is it in a light-controlled environment, how far do you sit from the screen, is it active or passive, etc. etc. etc. You know... technical aspects of your viewing.


I know it's hard but try to use your noodles once in a while. I hear it can delay an onset of dementia later on in your life. Nothing but good can come from using your noodles.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24048848
> 
> 
> 
> I know it's hard but try to use your noodles once in a while. I hear it can delay an onset of dementia later on in your life. Nothing but good can come from using your noodles.



Well said.

If we all put as much effort into understanding as we do in trying to make our own view understood we'd get a lot further. The point is to enjoy, not to just feel "right".


----------



## Dr_jitsu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24048800
> 
> 
> I do. Language is a living thing that constantly evolves and changes. As such, grammar is flexible. Do you have trouble understanding Southern dialect, so-called Ebonics or even pidgin English spoken by various immigrant groups because they don't use correct grammar? Heck, even UK English is different than American English. Do you have trouble understanding a Brit? If you do, that would explain why English was your worst subject. It's not the English language, it's you, buddy.



Wow, thank you for the tutorial on linguistics. Is dissension in the Mid-East and famine in Africa also on "you, [me] buddy?"



Yes, English was my weaker area, and in part responsible for me being a HS drop out. However, today I have a doctorate (went back to JC and did well). I'm sorry, Apostate, if my request for hermenutical clarity made you sad, angry or ruined your day - if it did, you might want to tell me what adaptations I need to make to understand recent "garnishments."


I don't want to have to continue making the point (this is the third time) Apostate. The point was/is that human communication is not just a garnishment. Please go back to my posts, but this time, try and keep up.


Back to the OT, we have a trend. Supporters of 3D who believe that eventually the format will redeem itself, and those that that think it is a dying technology. Personally I am in the middle, as my early adoption was a turn off. What the future holds, I do not know.


----------



## oleus

The doctor keeps digging his own hole. He's making a worthwhile discussion unappealing to take part in with his attitude. I actually agree with him as an early adopter who has been more disappointed than impressed with 3d implementation overall, yet I have zero interest in discussing this matter with him. And I know I did just that, before he points that out with a snarky reply. He is a doctor, in case he hasn't reminded you guys of that again.


----------



## oleus

Wow. Keep digging !


( I see that he's already updated his reply twice and since deleted his post)


I've been a member of this forum for almost 12 years and have seen people who play this way around here have short lives on the boards. Doc's first reply to the poster who he thought fell short of his grammar standards should have been fair warning ... Even given his half hearted apology. But your latest post goes into "report" territory so I can't wait for it to show up again.


----------



## ferl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24047233
> 
> 
> One of my financial hits was of my own making. I sunk $140 k into a race car and sold it for $65k. Very expensive hobby.



Merlin?


----------



## Seihaku

I'm a late adopter, in fact I only have a $700 projector that just happens to do a phenomenal job with 3D. So I hope it sticks around, while I think studios have abused 3D a bit causing over-saturation, I still find it enhances a lot of movies: Life of Pi and Gravity come to mind first and foremost. Actually, I think Gravity did a lot of good in reinvigorating people's interest in the format.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Seihaku*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24050942
> 
> 
> I'm a late adopter, in fact I only have a $700 projector that just happens to do a phenomenal job with 3D. So I hope it sticks around, while I think studios have abused 3D a bit causing over-saturation, I still find it enhances a lot of movies: Life of Pi and Gravity come to mind first and foremost. Actually, I think Gravity did a lot of good in reinvigorating people's interest in the format.


+1

I've found a number of films that are improved with 3D. Avatar, Wizard Of Oz, and some that aren't as good, but are still pleasant to watch: Star Trek, Into Darkness and Jurassic Park; and that's all I've seen so far.

I have Life Of Pi, Hugo, Pacific Rim and Lion King here and will soon watch.


I am glad 3D got as popular as it did, and hope it continues to grow.


I also look forward to the issuance of Gravity since we saw it twice at different venues in 3D and thought the 3D effect was intelligently utilized.


----------



## oleus

even if you aren't a fan of the film, I highly recommend watching TITANIC. It's by far the best post-conversion I've seen and actually vastly improved the movie itself IMHO.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24049146
> 
> 
> Wow, thank you for the tutorial on linguistics. Is dissension in the Mid-East and famine in Africa also on "you, [me] buddy?"



You're quite welcome. That lesson was given to me by a person who taught linguistics at an Ivy League university. So you actually are getting a high quality "learning." Also I will ignore your clumsy attempt at red herring. Dissension and famine indeed.










> Quote:
> Yes, English was my weaker area, and in part responsible for me being a HS drop out. However, today I have a doctorate (went back to JC and did well). I'm sorry, Apostate, if my request for hermenutical clarity made you sad, angry or ruined your day - if it did, you might want to tell me what adaptations I need to make to understand recent "garnishments."
> 
> 
> I don't want to have to continue making the point (this is the third time) Apostate. The point was/is that human communication is not just a garnishment. Please go back to my posts, but this time, try and keep up.



Oh, where to begin. Let's take a holistic approach. You acknowledge English is your worst or weaker area. You show numerous spelling and punctuation errors in your posts. Yet you berate others on grammar? Is that irony or hypocrisy? Or is it simply _chutzpah_?


Let me tell you about doctorate degrees. Only people who refer to themselves as a "doctor" are medical doctors and dentists; and only in a professional setting. I thought that was a bit pompous and asked my doctor friends. They all replied that it was to give reassurance to the patients that they were in qualified "good hands." I know several PhDs and they never refer to themselves as "doctors." Did you know that lawyers were "doctors?" JD is doctorate degree. Heck, by your standard, I should call my wife a doctor. She's a pharmacist and she has a doctorate degree. Also, please keep in mind that all those online school doctorate degrees are not real doctorate degrees even if they call it as such.


It's been my experience that only people who tout their doctorate degrees are usually insecure and crave/demand recognition as a compensation for their insecurity. I admit your path to your doctorate degree is rather unusual. I don't know a single "doctor" who went to decent schools took the path that you did. Is that the source of your insecurity? That you went to a no-name school? Or your doctorate degree was in a vocational subject? You do know that doctorate in massage therapy is not really a doctorate degree, right?


While I pity your psychological projections in your post, I have to point out that you used "hermenutical" wrong. Also garnishment has a quite different meaning from a garnish. Roget is only your friend if you take the time to look up the actual meaning of his synonyms instead of just taking the first synonym that pops up. I am a bit surprised by your level of writing since all the "doctors" I know were decent writers (since they all had to write so many research papers and what not).


I just want you to know that it's okay. You don't have to always try to seem intelligent. Just accept yourself. You don't have to look like something that you are not.


----------



## oleus

Apostate - you didn't even get to see the doozie he directed towards me. It was quickly deleted.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24051572
> 
> 
> even if you aren't a fan of the film, I highly recommend watching TITANIC. It's by far the best post-conversion I've seen and actually vastly improved the movie itself IMHO.



An economically necessary oversight. I'm waiting for the price to come down to where I will purchase it.


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cyrano*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24051963
> 
> 
> An economically necessary oversight. I'm waiting for the price to come down to where I will purchase it.



when the time comes, you won't be disappointed. i really disliked the film back when it first came out. this 3d presentation is breathtaking especially once the action gets going, and truly adds to the emotional impact of the film.


----------



## jvh4

I think the rental market is delaying widespread acceptance. Starting with Alice in Wonderland, my wife and I have seen almost every movie that comes out in 3D in the 3D IMAX theater near us. We finally bought a 3D projector to bring this experience into our home. We've watched 3-5 3D movies in our home the last 6 months since installing it.


So here are two people who are not quite early adapters, but ahead of the mainstream who took the leap, and even we aren't watching 3D at home with any regularity.


Why? Because we don't buy movies. We purchase 3 to 5 movies per year. We do have Netflix 2 DVD plus streaming and we rent a redbox movie most weekends. But 3D isn't an affordable option.


We have actually discovered recently that Starz has 3D movies OnDemand and have watched a few that way, so our viewing may increase (I really hope). We can rent 3D movies through Xfinity on Demand or through PSN, but at $5-8 per rental, we can't justify it for more than a special occasion. We certainly aren't about to drop $40 to buy a combo-pack.


In essence, it appears we are still in the early stage of the supply demand equation where early adopters burden the cost of low demand. How long will we be satisfied with the status quo? If our patience wanes before the mainstream jumps in, 3D will die.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24052040
> 
> 
> when the time comes, you won't be disappointed. i really disliked the film back when it first came out. this 3d presentation is breathtaking especially once the action gets going, and truly adds to the emotional impact of the film.



I had friends who felt the same as you about the film. (Though, perhaps not for the same reasons; I can't know that.) I loved it. I still have the laserdisc.

It may be a clinched love story with villains too broadly drawn and heroes too good to be true, but I sat in my theater seat and bought the whole thing.

At the end when old Rose traveled in her final (?) slumber's dreams to connect once again with the source of her life's inspiration I was moved.


I think Cameron's Avatar is easily criticized as was Titanic. And I cannot disagree with the observation that there are clinched elements. But he has a strong vision and is not afraid to "go for it".


As for Titanic, I own the large DVD version, and the Blu-ray version and will enjoy the 3D version I am sure.


Last Christmas I saw it come down to $20.


----------



## Seihaku




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24051572
> 
> 
> even if you aren't a fan of the film, I highly recommend watching TITANIC. It's by far the best post-conversion I've seen and actually vastly improved the movie itself IMHO.



I can see how that could happen, I will have to check it out. The most impressive post-conversion for me is still Gravity, that was pretty awesome.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Seihaku*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24053068
> 
> 
> The most impressive post-conversion for me is still Gravity, that was pretty awesome.



I did not know it was a was a post-conversion. I saw it twice in two different theatres. Both times in 3D. What a great movie and what excellent use of the 3D technology.


I look forward to the disc release. I'll have to watch the 2D version at least once for comparison sake.


----------



## Seihaku

It's sort of a cheat I suppose, since the movie is 90% CG.


----------



## superleo

Read most of this thread... I'm having second thoughts about posting since grammar and correct English use (or is it usage) will be scrutinized







.


Anyone with any kind of disability has my full support, no matter how old you are (just see my avatar).


Now for the fun part... we just started enjoying 3D. I would say that I like it and if I can watch it 3D or is available in 3D that would be my preference. However, my wife hates it, finds it rather annoying having to wear grasses and she feels the picture is to dim, nevertheless she plays along and watches 3D once in a while.


The greatest obstacle I see is that content, good or bad, is way too expensive. I believe 3D will not be widely accepted until we can buy a 3D movie for $15 or better yet we can rent a 3D movie (physical media) anywhere for $2, otherwise is a novelty of the few.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Seihaku*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24053131
> 
> 
> It's sort of a cheat I suppose, since the movie is 90% CG.


You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *superleo*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24053145
> 
> 
> The greatest obstacle I see is that content, good or bad, is way too expensive. I believe 3D will not be widely accepted until we can buy a 3D movie for $15 or better yet we can rent a 3D movie (physical media) anywhere for $2, otherwise is a novelty of the few.



+1


I was surprised to enjoy 3D so much. I use DLP-LINK glasses and I do not think there is any increased darkness at all.


I hope 3D continues to increase its audience. But at the very least there seems to be enough support to keep it going for now. As with any "niche" technology there will be naysayers. And 3D is still developing so it needs its critics to continue to improve.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *superleo*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24053145
> 
> 
> The greatest obstacle I see is that content, good or bad, is way too expensive. I believe 3D will not be widely accepted until we can buy a 3D movie for $15 or better yet we can rent a 3D movie (physical media) anywhere for $2, otherwise is a novelty of the few.



Hear, hear. I had such high hopes for Netflix 3D. I don't know what Netflix was thinking. I have three 3D blu-ray players, a 3D TV and a PS3. Out of those five, only PS3 supports Netflix 3D (which is currently on hiatus and/or really buggy from what I read in other threads).


There really isn't a convenient and/or cheap way to get 3D at home.


----------



## old corps




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24053320
> 
> 
> Hear, hear. I had such high hopes for Netflix 3D. I don't know what Netflix was thinking. I have three 3D blu-ray players, a 3D TV and a PS3. Out of those five, only PS3 supports Netflix 3D (which is currently on hiatus and/or really buggy from what I read in other threads).
> 
> 
> There really isn't a convenient and/or cheap way to get 3D at home.



+1


I've got a 3D TV, a 3D projector, 2 3D Bluray players and 3 Rokus but no access to Netflix 3D.










Ed


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> There really isn't a convenient and/or cheap way to get 3D at home.



Bull Sh!t


YouTube 3D FREE Thousands of 3D stuff to watch.

Wealth 3D TV on Vizio 3D TV's FREE

Sony PS3 has dozens of 3D shorts and even free games in 3D to download.

While not as cheap as Red Box, 3D movies from 3Dblurayrentals.com is a great way to get top rated 3D movies for about 1/3 the price of buying the disk new. Plus, they offer some older titles, previously viewed to purchase for a fraction of the price of the new disks.

VUDU has quite a few 3D titles for download to your PS3. But their prices for first run 3D movies are indeed overpriced (IMO). Some lesser titles and documentaries are actually good bargains. Their pricing is all over the place. But here is opportunity.


Re Netflix 3D- A year ago it was not even known. At CES2013, January, they announced Netflix 3D with a couple titles that would be available to a limited number of ISP's. In October they opened the test up nation wide but only on a couple of platforms. It's still available but with lots of glitches and buffering. Netflix 3D will be only offered in frame packed 1080 24p so your system must be capable of seeing that at 1080 24p or down converting to 720 60p (PS3 format). Why they are having problems getting it working I do not know but we're still in development stages.


The bottom line is 3D viewing in the home has more sources for 4th qtr 2013 than ever before and still growing. But 3D viewing in the home is not yet ubiquitous. The resources are specific. If you want to be on the cutting edge of this hobby, be prepared to roll with the development setbacks.


The dumbest assumption I hear, Is 3D dead? But even dumber are those who believe it is. Just because the latest offering has had some technical troubles at launch, doesn't mean the entire art form needs to be packed up and locked away. Just because another technological advancement has been offered ( 4K) doesn't mean that all other new technologies need to be halted with all attention on 4K. Per Panasonic rep- first we have 3D, then we offer 4K, and next it will be 3D in 4K. Yes, that is coming but not this year, at least not in cameras for consumers. Look for it in TV's now.


It's OK to complain about the lack of 3D program offerings, as long as you are open to suggestions where you may be missing opportunity. And, you understand and respect that with all technology, new offerings may not happen 100% perfect on day one. Heck, even the Federal Government can't get Obamacare working on a website after 4 years and Billions in investment and development on day one. But trying to convince 3D enthusiasts who come here to discuss their passion that what they enjoy or want to enjoy is soon to go away, is what is called FUD. It is mean spirited and uncalled for. People who do this are considered Trolls and have nothing constructive to add to our enjoyment. Posting negative opinions by other 3D haters are no better. There are plenty of these FUD purveyors out there and we don't find their opinions worthy of any credibility. The only proof they ever offer is another Troll's opinion, meanwhile the reality is theaters are continuing to show more movies in 3D, More titles are being offered in 3D, and more TV's are being made with 3D as an option. These Trolls can gloat when they can show theater chains world wide are pulling their 3D projectors out because no movies have been made for years, they can gloat when no manufacturer offers any 3D equipment for home viewing, when it is like buying a new VHS vcr, or latest movie distributed on laser disk, can you then gloat, 3D is dead. Until then, I say if you intend to Troll , please just go away. You are boring!


----------



## jvh4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24055482
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull Sh!t
> 
> 
> YouTube 3D FREE Thousands of 3D stuff to watch.
> 
> Wealth 3D TV on Vizio 3D TV's FREE
> 
> Sony PS3 has dozens of 3D shorts and even free games in 3D to download.
> 
> While not as cheap as Red Box, 3D movies from 3Dblurayrentals.com is a great way to get top rated 3D movies for about 1/3 the price of buying the disk new. Plus, they offer some older titles, previously viewed to purchase for a fraction of the price of the new disks.
> 
> VUDU has quite a few 3D titles for download to your PS3. But their prices for first run 3D movies are indeed overpriced (IMO). Some lesser titles and documentaries are actually good bargains. Their pricing is all over the place. But here is opportunity.
> 
> 
> Re Netflix 3D- A year ago it was not even known. At CES2013, January, they announced Netflix 3D with a couple titles that would be available to a limited number of ISP's. In October they opened the test up nation wide but only on a couple of platforms. It's still available but with lots of glitches and buffering. Netflix 3D will be only offered in frame packed 1080 24p so your system must be capable of seeing that at 1080 24p or down converting to 720 60p (PS3 format). Why they are having problems getting it working I do not know but we're still in development stages.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is 3D viewing in the home has more sources for 4th qtr 2013 than ever before and still growing. But 3D viewing in the home is not yet ubiquitous. The resources are specific. If you want to be on the cutting edge of this hobby, be prepared to roll with the development setbacks.
> 
> 
> The dumbest assumption I hear, Is 3D dead? But even dumber are those who believe it is. Just because the latest offering has had some technical troubles at launch, doesn't mean the entire art form needs to be packed up and locked away. Just because another technological advancement has been offered ( 4K) doesn't mean that all other new technologies need to be halted with all attention on 4K. Per Panasonic rep- first we have 3D, then we offer 4K, and next it will be 3D in 4K. Yes, that is coming but not this year, at least not in cameras for consumers. Look for it in TV's now.
> 
> 
> It's OK to complain about the lack of 3D program offerings, as long as you are open to suggestions where you may be missing opportunity. And, you understand and respect that with all technology, new offerings may not happen 100% perfect on day one. Heck, even the Federal Government can't get Obamacare working on a website after 4 years and Billions in investment and development on day one. But trying to convince 3D enthusiasts who come here to discuss their passion that what they enjoy or want to enjoy is soon to go away, is what is called FUD. It is mean spirited and uncalled for. People who do this are considered Trolls and have nothing constructive to add to our enjoyment. Posting negative opinions by other 3D haters are no better. There are plenty of these FUD purveyors out there and we don't find their opinions worthy of any credibility. The only proof they ever offer is another Troll's opinion, meanwhile the reality is theaters are continuing to show more movies in 3D, More titles are being offered in 3D, and more TV's are being made with 3D as an option. These Trolls can gloat when they can show theater chains world wide are pulling their 3D projectors out because no movies have been made for years, they can gloat when no manufacturer offers any 3D equipment for home viewing, when it is like buying a new VHS vcr, or latest movie distributed on laser disk, can you then gloat, 3D is dead. Until then, I say if you intend to Troll , please just go away. You are boring!



I agree with you to a point. I won't repeat my experiences, since I outlined them in a previous post, but the bottom line is it takes considerably more effort and money to rent a 3D movie than a standard Blu-ray. Enthusiasts like those here, which I hope includes me, are willing to expend that time, effort and money to enjoy 3D, but I think it's a little naive to think your typical American is patient enough to do the same.


I don't want to start another boring argument of comparing one technology over another, but I remember getting my 1st Blu-ray player and asking for Blu-ray versions if movies for Christmas and people refused to buy them for me because they were twice as expensive as DVDs, and they didn't understand the technology. I am now defending 3D to those same people. haha. Blu-ray is doing ok, right?


My trepidation with VUDU is all 10 or so titles I checked on their website last night were purchase only. There was no filter for 3D rental, so I gave up and moved on since my wife was getting impatient. We watched a 2D movie OnDemand instead.


The 3DBlurayRental website show most titles out of stock and in the $6-8 per rental range. I'm not all that excited about either. 3D YouTube is an interesting venue I plan to explore this week though, so thanks for that.


My biggest source of hope is actually the 3D offerings from Starz and HBO. They tend to have their pulse on the industry. I am making a point of watching every 3D they offer in hopes that someone somewere is counting. Hell, I'll hit play and walk away to another room if I have to. I really hope Netflix 3D comes back soon. I watched a documentary on there a few weeks ago, and was hopeful they'd add hit theatrical releases.


----------



## superleo

@ Don


I would have to agree that 3D content might be freely available, but in order for 3D to really get commercial traction, the content needs to be what most people want to watch. My personal experience, I could not get my son to watch a documentary, but play a well know movie and he'll watch. Also, most people do not have the technical knowledge or equipment to set something like this up. I know for most of us in this forum is second nature, but ask my wife to set Netflix up... might take her a couple of days to figure out, fi she doesn't give up, and she is a very smart woman ... just not enough interest when it comes to this stuff. Good, or let me rephrase, desirable content, that is easy and convenient to play is expensive an very scarce. I'm rooting for it, its taken regular HD 10 years to really be mainstream -- so lets give 3D some time.


Thanks for the list of 3D content, I'll give it a try.


----------



## Lyle Wheeler

If you have a Roku here ya go! Enjoy! ....................... https://owner.roku.com/add/3DCPrivateCh 


Ace


----------



## superleo

^^^


Don't own a Roku player but will find a way to check this out too. Thanks


BTW -- 3D is not dead nor dying










PS.

Anyone would be interested on a 3D demonstration disc?


----------



## Don Landis

Please don't misunderstand my post as one who insists that 3D content be mainstream. My only point is that there is plenty of 3D content to check out most of you never consider. I am a firm believer that the most important aspect of entertainment is the story! For me and a few other enthusiasts, 3D just adds to the entertainment value. I don't expect everyone to be as enthusiastic as I am. BUT, I do expect those who aren't will just go about their own business and leave me to enjoy what I do. I don't need any troll coming into this 3D section and explain to me how the art form is dying because they read some comment on the internet.


I'm also not claiming that all 3D content is good. Whether good or not is a matter of personal taste. What I do claim is there is a huge and growing amount of 3D content to explore. Some you will enjoy, and others you may find awful. Some you will find affordable and others you way too expensive. The key issue here is you have a choice.

When it comes to Vudu, there are far more than 10 titles in 3D and the list keeps changing. I bought all the documentaries that sell for 99 cents. A couple were not so good but others I thought a bargain. 3DBR stock changes all the time. When it is out of stock you may wait for 20 days. I have never waited longer than 10 days. Since they became available, I have bought less than 4 3D BR disks this year. They saved me lots of money. I only watch titles more than once on a few so then I buy those titles.


BTW- there is also an industry rule on when movies can go from theater, to PPV to Buy to rental to subscription, in that order. I agree that when a movie does go from retail sale to rental, Vudu should update the offering. Often they don't. Maybe we should start a mass suggestion campaign. But don't expect these new releases to be offered for rent before the contract dates. I recall Blockbuster stores once had a special arrangement with a couple studios to get a 30 day lead on their competitors.


I do want to learn more about your suggestion on HBO and Starz 3D offerings. Thank you for the lead to check out. It's this kind of information that we should be discussing here that benefits 3D enthusiasts, not arguing about grammar or whether an art form is going to die.


----------



## jvh4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24057769
> 
> 
> Please don't misunderstand my post as one who insists that 3D content be mainstream. My only point is that there is plenty of 3D content to check out most of you never consider. I am a firm believer that the most important aspect of entertainment is the story! For me and a few other enthusiasts, 3D just adds to the entertainment value. I don't expect everyone to be as enthusiastic as I am. BUT, I do expect those who aren't will just go about their own business and leave me to enjoy what I do. I don't need any troll coming into this 3D section and explain to me how the art form is dying because they read some comment on the internet.
> 
> 
> I'm also not claiming that all 3D content is good. Whether good or not is a matter of personal taste. What I do claim is there is a huge and growing amount of 3D content to explore. Some you will enjoy, and others you may find awful. Some you will find affordable and others you way too expensive. The key issue here is you have a choice.
> 
> When it comes to Vudu, there are far more than 10 titles in 3D and the list keeps changing. I bought all the documentaries that sell for 99 cents. A couple were not so good but others I thought a bargain. 3DBR stock changes all the time. When it is out of stock you may wait for 20 days. I have never waited longer than 10 days. Since they became available, I have bought less than 4 3D BR disks this year. They saved me lots of money. I only watch titles more than once on a few so then I buy those titles.
> 
> 
> BTW- there is also an industry rule on when movies can go from theater, to PPV to Buy to rental to subscription, in that order. I agree that when a movie does go from retail sale to rental, Vudu should update the offering. Often they don't. Maybe we should start a mass suggestion campaign. But don't expect these new releases to be offered for rent before the contract dates. I recall Blockbuster stores once had a special arrangement with a couple studios to get a 30 day lead on their competitors.
> 
> 
> I do want to learn more about your suggestion on HBO and Starz 3D offerings. Thank you for the lead to check out. It's this kind of information that we should be discussing here that benefits 3D enthusiasts, not arguing about grammar or whether an art form is going to die.



Point taken.


As far as VUDU, I really want to like it. I'll give it another chance. I saw the 3D selection was quite good, but I literally couldn't find one to rent. I treid at least 10 movies - I will try some older ones, maybe the ones I checked were too new to rent. I really wish I could sort by 3D rentals. Thanks for insight into why I may be having issues. Is the vudu interface different on your device than on the PC?


I noticed HBO had Jack the Giant Slayer and the Hobbit in 3D OnDemand. The only one I noticed on Starz was Oz The Great and Powerful which we watched. It was side by side and the quality was quite good considering.


If you would find it helpful, I'd be happy to go on tonight and make a list of all the current 3D offerings for both networks.


----------



## Apostate

@Don


Wow. Tell us how you really feel.










I stand by my statement that there is no convenient and/or cheap way to get 3D at home. 3D as in mainstream, quality 3D as someone else clarified. All the sources you cited are either not worth the time or too expensive as others have stated. For example, I am not really interested in watching video game trailers and home-brewed amateur stuff in 3D as offered by Youtube.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24057769
> 
> 
> I don't need any troll coming into this 3D section and explain to me how the art form is dying because they read some comment on the internet.



I am not sure if I'm the troll you are referring to but there is the issue right there. You refer to 3D as an art form while to an average joe like me, 3D is just a neat way to watch a movie or a show. Perhaps a fanatic like you may be intrigued and engrossed by home-made 3D snippets, what software was used and what not but an average joe like me just wants to watch 3D movies and shows as easy and cheap as, let's say, Netflix.


I am not certain where the misunderstanding happened but I never said the "art form" was dying. As I recall, I quoted Neil Hunt's interview where he stated that Netflix will focus on 4K and *not* 3D; and that Netflix may not phase out 3D but definitely will not add to it. Neil Hunt, Chief Product Officer of Netflix, was cited in response to your citation of a customer service rep who said Netflix will add to 3D programming. I believe I said I put more credence on what Hunt says than what a customer service rep says.


Just because you don't agree with what I have to say doesn't make me a troll, Don. Also I agree with you about the silliness about arguing about grammar.


----------



## GregK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24058113
> 
> 
> @Don
> 
> 
> I stand by my statement that there is no convenient and/or cheap way to get 3D at home. 3D as in mainstream, quality 3D as someone else clarified. All the sources you cited are either not worth the time or too expensive as others have stated. For example, I am not really interested in watching video game trailers and home-brewed amateur stuff in 3D as offered by Youtube.



The cheapest and easiest way to get 3-D at home as been the side by side squeezed format. For a few years now, Comcast has offered 3-D content this way- including a few 24hr 3D channels and Starz and HBO first run Hollywood content. And it didn't cost me anything extra to get HBO or Starz, i just haggled with them on the price and they threw those channels in for free, which include the 3D versions.


----------



## ferl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24058113
> 
> 
> For example, I am not really interested in watching video game trailers and home-brewed amateur stuff in 3D as offered by Youtube.
> 
> 
> You refer to 3D as an art form while to an average joe like me, 3D is just a neat way to watch a movie or a show. Perhaps a fanatic like you may be intrigued and engrossed by home-made 3D snippets, what software was used and what not but an average joe like me just wants to watch 3D movies and shows as easy and cheap as, let's say, Netflix.



I don't want to take sides here, but this reference to appreciating 3D is exactly how I feel. I really want to watch movies in 3D, but I can't understand how someone can be so starved for 3D content, that they would in any way be interested in the youtube version of someone's day at Disney or anywhere else for that matter. I couldn't care less about watching someone's home movies in 2D or 3D. I have no interest in watching 3D just because it's 3D. It's a challenge to find interest in the majority of commercially available 3D movies. When I first purchased the requisite components to watch 3D in my home, I made the mistake of buying every 3D movie that was released. Now I have a 3D library bloated with content that only appeals to children too young to wear the glasses or movies that were so bad I couldn't finish watching them in their entirety.


----------



## Isnoreatmovies

Is HD about dead?


This is sort of a rehash of my "Is color about dead?" post. It took decades for color TV broadcasts to catch on. HD has been experimented with in one form or another since 1936... yes, 1936. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television Back in the Clinton Presidency years, digital television, thence HD, was pretty much mandated. It was '98 that the first regular HD broadcasts came out in the US. It was only a few years ago that HD really took over at the major network level, and still you can get non HD signals of just about all US networks. Despite it's long history, HD doesn't have a lock on broadcasting or recording media. DVD sales outstrip Blu-Ray. As of this year, only 75% of US homes own even a single HD television.


The modern 3D television set, and modern 3D movies, have been around for all of 3 years or so and people are proclaiming them dead or dying. Seems ridiculous when compared to how long the adoption of color and HD media in general has taken.


Aloha


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Isnoreatmovies*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24059187
> 
> 
> Is HD about dead?
> 
> 
> This is sort of a rehash of my "Is color about dead?" post. It took decades for color TV broadcasts to catch on. HD has been experimented with in one form or another since 1936... yes, 1936. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television Back in the Clinton Presidency years, digital television, thence HD, was pretty much mandated. It was '98 that the first regular HD broadcasts came out in the US. It was only a few years ago that HD really took over at the major network level, and still you can get non HD signals of just about all US networks. Despite it's long history, HD doesn't have a lock on broadcasting or recording media. DVD sales outstrip Blu-Ray. As of this year, only 75% of US homes own even a single HD television.
> 
> 
> The modern 3D television set, and modern 3D movies, have been around for all of 3 years or so and people are proclaiming them dead or dying. Seems ridiculous when compared to how long the adoption of color and HD media in general has taken.
> 
> 
> Aloha












Trying a different analogy? With reference and everything. Not bad at all. Not sure what your point is though.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregK*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24058376
> 
> 
> The cheapest and easiest way to get 3-D at home as been the side by side squeezed format. For a few years now, Comcast has offered 3-D content this way- including a few 24hr 3D channels and Starz and HBO first run Hollywood content. And it didn't cost me anything extra to get HBO or Starz, i just haggled with them on the price and they threw those channels in for free, which include the 3D versions.



But your way entails subscribing to cable. How is that cheap?


----------



## GregK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24059286
> 
> 
> But your way entails subscribing to cable. How is that cheap?



Ohhhh ... I see.


You want a wide variety of 3-D programming, presumably including new Hollywood features... for free?


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregK*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24059419
> 
> 
> Ohhhh ... I see.
> 
> 
> You want a wide variety of 3-D programming, presumably including new Hollywood features... for free?



Nope. I am willing to pay a fair price which would be less than $150 a month, i.e., monthly cable bill. Between Netflix, Amazon and Red Box, I spend about $30 - 35 a month which I think is reasonable. If I could get 3D and keep it in that range, that would be great. Mind you, this is not including cinema movies.


Good for you if you are willing to pay a cable bill. Me? I don't like the idea of subsidizing/paying for programs I don't watch nor want. But as PT Barnum has said...


----------



## Don Landis

jvh4- I don't subscribe to HBO or starz. Only Showtime. I would get HBO and Starz on Dish Network service using a VIP 722K. Maybe this service and equipment is not capable. I've seen those movies you mention as 3DBR rentals but if on HBO I could easily sit through those titles again. Rather than list the titles on these networks, could you let us know what service and equipment you use to get these two networks?



Apostate-


> Quote:
> I am not sure if I'm the troll you are referring to but there is the issue right there. You refer to 3D as an art form while to an average joe like me, 3D is just a neat way to watch a movie or a show. Perhaps a fanatic like you may be intrigued and engrossed by home-made 3D snippets, what software was used and what not but an average joe like me just wants to watch 3D movies and shows as easy and cheap as, let's say, Netflix.
> 
> 
> I am not certain where the misunderstanding happened but I never said the "art form" was dying. As I recall, I quoted Neil Hunt's interview where he stated that Netflix will focus on 4K and not 3D; and that Netflix may not phase out 3D but definitely will not add to it. Neil Hunt, Chief Product Officer of Netflix, was cited in response to your citation of a customer service rep who said Netflix will add to 3D programming. I believe I said I put more credence on what Hunt says than what a customer service rep says.
> 
> 
> Just because you don't agree with what I have to say doesn't make me a troll, Don. Also I agree with you about the silliness about arguing about grammar. wink.gif



If you have no interest in promoting the hobby or professional interest in 3D but come here to just spread FUD and negativity about 3D in this section where we all gather to help each other enjoy the state of the art, then yes you decide if you are guilty of being a TROLL. It has nothiong to do with whether I disagree with YOU or not. It has to do with your motive. As a matter of fact, I said Neil Hunt didn't say those things and the author, an obvious negative story blogger made some very clever mix of pull quotes we assume Hunt actually said and his own commentary to make Hunt sound like Netflix is "dumping 3D" In reality Hunt NEVER said any such thing. If anything, look at what has happened. This wannabe reporter got it exactly backwards. If you just look at what took place, Netflix offered a number of titles in October in both UHD and 3D. There were some problems with the 3D delivery from their servers. So they pulled the titles, all of them both 3D and the ultra HD. tests. So which titles have made a test return? No UHD and no SHD. But, we did get back a couple titles in 3D. My problem is not with Hunt. My problem is with Nowak and those who think he has posted a factual article. As usual, these 3D haters continue to get it wrong and never come back to say that. They just quietly go away. Furthermore, Hunt made it plain that he was NOT planning to destroy 3D at Netflix. Go read the article, slowly. He said they would be keeping what they had but will focus on 4K for the future. My take on that actual quote is prior to realizing they had these technical issues, he was ready to move on to the next big deal in home video, 4K. He wants to be ready when the 4K set population is out there. If he was on a mission to kill 3D at Netflix, I'm sure Reed would be slapping him about the head. Reed made some pretty bold promises last January on where Netflix would be going with 3D and 4K. 3D is very wide spread today while 4K is just beginning to go retail. Hunt is not the fool that this blogger made him to be. I don't see Netflix rapidly expanding the titles they have licensed for 3D beyond the ~55 we had in November once they get the technical difficulties worked out. That is in line with the actual quote Hunt made. However, if Netflix finds that their servers are busy with those titles, that public demand will dictate Netflix offers more. If I'm wrong and Hunt does plan to kill a popular offering, then my next prediction is he will not be working at Netflix for long. Besides, keep in mind, neither 3D nor 4K is Hunt's primary interest. His favorite project is to create apps that predict your personal interests in movies.

Finally, I have no problem with you being very picky about what you feel is worthy of your viewing time. But just because you are that fussy over what is good 3D to you does not mean that nobody finds these offerings interesting. This comment:


> Quote:
> " I really want to watch movies in 3D, but I can't understand how someone can be so starved for 3D content, that they would in any way be interested in the youtube version of someone's day at Disney or anywhere else for that matter. I couldn't care less about watching someone's home movies in 2D or 3D.


I have no problem with that attitude. Some people find it boring while others don't.. There are far more people watching prime TV than watch You Tube. BUT, I have achieved over 106,000 views on my You Tube channel and these are the people I feel I have given something back to the craft. I don't do a pet falling off a roof or some other stunt to grab the viral status. My videos are 3D of the day at Disney or some other place. I also look for 3D videos of places I would like to go see and 3D gives me a more real world experience, than a flat view. I'm interested in expanding my horizons but I respect those that don't want to do that. People posting their own experiences as they visit a place I plan to go gives me lots of insight to the location that simple pictures on a website doesn't.


I think to sum up my point is, for those of us who enjoy 3D, we need to recognize there is indeed lots of content to look through. Nobody is saying you have to love everything out there. But if you hate everything except 2-3 movies a year, then maybe you just don't like the medium.


----------



## Trebor Pyn

My 2 cents.


There just are not that many "regular Joes" interested in 3D tv or even HD TV...yet.

I know a lot of people from a lot of different walks of life. None of them have a 3D TV and most do not care if their broadcast signal is HD or SD.

They may have an HD display, but just feed it an SD cable or satellite signal, SD DVD or VHS.


Younger generations (I'm 50) don't even own a display other than a computer / laptop or smartphone. They don't care about quality let alone 3D.


When I start to talk about my personal passion for newer technology they have no interest.


That being said, although I enjoy the 3D experience, I am not as excited about it as I once was.

Off axis viewing not very pleasing or effective.

Wearing the glasses becomes a bit of a nuisance.

The cost of the disc.



I don't think its dead, I just think its still may be in its infancy.


----------



## jvh4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24059854
> 
> 
> jvh4- I don't subscribe to HBO or starz. Only Showtime. I would get HBO and Starz on Dish Network service using a VIP 722K. Maybe this service and equipment is not capable. I've seen those movies you mention as 3DBR rentals but if on HBO I could easily sit through those titles again. Rather than list the titles on these networks, could you let us know what service and equipment you use to get these two networks? .



Don,


I have the X1 box (MOTOROLA DCX3200MR) on Comcast Xfinity. I have their HD Preferred Tier which includes HBO and Starz and Cinemax. I know certain providers have different deals with networks, so I'm not sure if Dish provides any HBO/Starz 3D programming. Does a device need to be 3D enabled to use side-by-side for 3D? I assumed my projector was doing the conversion of the two 2D side by side images to create the 3D image. If you call dish and say you're thinking about adding HBO, I'm sure they'll give you a free month. I've done this successfully on Comcast and Fios in the past. Then you could find out 1st hand? Just make sure you call and cancell before they auto renew you and charge you if the 3D doesn't work.


The nice thing about HBO is their line up changes every week. So this week the Hobbit, Jack the Giant Slayer, and Wrath of the Titans are the available 3D movies, but next week a few movies will be dropped and a few new ones will be added. Any given movie is usually around for 3-4 weeks. My hope is the 3D movies will maintain a healthy rotation too. I don't watch starz as much, but I'm going to look into it now that I know they carry some 3D material.


The odd thing is, neither HBO nor Starz advertizes their 3D. If you go to their website their movie schedule doesn't identify which movies are 3D. It's like it's some big secret.


----------



## ferl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24059854
> 
> 
> 
> I think to sum up my point is, for those of us who enjoy 3D, we need to recognize there is indeed lots of content to look through. Nobody is saying you have to love everything out there. But if you hate everything except 2-3 movies a year, then maybe you just don't like the medium.



Sorry for the Disney reference, I didn't know you had a Disney video. As far as YouTube, I hadn't bothered with it since I was not impressed a couple of years ago. I poked around a bit this morning on your videos and found the quality to be quite good and a video I enjoyed. I watched your space center video and needless to say, passed on the Disney









I briefly looked at other YouTube videos and the quality of the few I looked at we're not as good as yours.


As far as hating the medium, if one only enjoys 2-3 movies a year, perhaps that determination is made by the movie not the medium. As I said before, I no longer buy or rent movies based on the medium, I buy or rent based on the movie. I don't watch TV 8 hours a day. When I do decide to watch a movie, I make that choice based on my interest and if a 3D version is available, that would be my preference. That being said, 2-3 movies a year in 3D might be accurate for some years based on the fact that fewer movies are released in 3D. I will buy a movie like Gravity and The Hobbit, but will pass on the silly turtle movies and teen dancing flicks. I don't "hate" those movies, but I won't pay to watch them. I would consider watching them if they were free on Netflix, had nothing I really wanted to watch and needed a 3D fix.


I also like to "expand my horizons", just not necessarily via YouTube 3D offerings. The content and video quality of 2D offered by most service providers is hard to beat when one chooses to expand their horizons. If i sat down in the afternoon to kill an hour or 2 with TV and only had OTA service, I might very well choose to peruse the YouTube 3D offerings.


Unless I needed to keep up with the cardashians


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jvh4*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24060690
> 
> 
> Don,
> 
> 
> I have the X1 box (MOTOROLA DCX3200MR) on Comcast Xfinity. I have their HD Preferred Tier which includes HBO and Starz and Cinemax. I know certain providers have different deals with networks, so I'm not sure if Dish provides any HBO/Starz 3D programming. Does a device need to be 3D enabled to use side-by-side for 3D? I assumed my projector was doing the conversion of the two 2D side by side images to create the 3D image. If you call dish and say you're thinking about adding HBO, I'm sure they'll give you a free month. I've done this successfully on Comcast and Fios in the past. Then you could find out 1st hand? Just make sure you call and cancell before they auto renew you and charge you if the 3D doesn't work.
> 
> 
> The nice thing about HBO is their line up changes every week. So this week the Hobbit, Jack the Giant Slayer, and Wrath of the Titans are the available 3D movies, but next week a few movies will be dropped and a few new ones will be added. Any given movie is usually around for 3-4 weeks. My hope is the 3D movies will maintain a healthy rotation too. I don't watch starz as much, but I'm going to look into it now that I know they carry some 3D material.
> 
> 
> The odd thing is, neither HBO nor Starz advertizes their 3D. If you go to their website their movie schedule doesn't identify which movies are 3D. It's like it's some big secret.



I did a little homework too since your advisory on how 3D is much alive even at HBO and starz. I actually was quite amused at how ironic this was since so many 3D FUD purveyors seek out and hunt down negative statements about 3D. Yet, as much as I follow 3D I was not aware that HBO and starz has now jumped on board then 3D offerings. Contrary to the FUD Trolls claims, it appears that we are heading more toward ubiquity than death. I find this very amusing. Unfortunately, the sad part is as you said, it's like a big dark secret.


Anyway, I did see some HBO listings for their 3D offerings and verified what your said. If it's SBSh that would make it easy to broadcast, although not at the highest resolution. SBSh does become a noticeable quality issue especially for those of us with larger HT screens like 110" or more. Personally, I don't have a problem with that as story is the most important factor in my viewing. Frame packing broadcasts will require special equipment and is why broadcasts like Vudu 3D and Netflix is not available on all devices.


While we have xfinity and Comcast here, I do not subscribe to those services. Next year I may spring for the service after I return from a couple trips, but I really hope these SBSh offerings could be made available on the WD TV or Apple Tv or Roku boxes. That would be ideal for me and I'm sure lots of us.


Anyway, I really want to thank you for bringing up the HBO and starz 3D offerings. Made my participation in this thread all worthwhile. I will be following their progress. I will also write a couple letters to them suggesting they open up the 3D channels to these streaming devices, like PS3, Roku, etc. As for Dish Network, they don't offer it and unlikely ever will until some management changes. However, their Hopper DVR is 3D frame packing capable. They only do a rare PPV 3D however.


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferl*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24060895
> 
> 
> Sorry for the Disney reference, I didn't know you had a Disney video. As far as YouTube, I hadn't bothered with it since I was not impressed a couple of years ago. I poked around a bit this morning on your videos and found the quality to be quite good and a video I enjoyed. I watched your space center video and needless to say, passed on the Disney
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I briefly looked at other YouTube videos and the quality of the few I looked at we're not as good as yours.
> 
> 
> As far as hating the medium, if one only enjoys 2-3 movies a year, perhaps that determination is made by the movie not the medium. As I said before, I no longer buy or rent movies based on the medium, I buy or rent based on the movie. I don't watch TV 8 hours a day. When I do decide to watch a movie, I make that choice based on my interest and if a 3D version is available, that would be my preference. That being said, 2-3 movies a year in 3D might be accurate for some years based on the fact that fewer movies are released in 3D. I will buy a movie like Gravity and The Hobbit, but will pass on the silly turtle movies and teen dancing flicks. I don't "hate" those movies, but I won't pay to watch them. I would consider watching them if they were free on Netflix, had nothing I really wanted to watch and needed a 3D fix.
> 
> 
> I also like to "expand my horizons", just not necessarily via YouTube 3D offerings. The content and video quality of 2D offered by most service providers is hard to beat when one chooses to expand their horizons. If i sat down in the afternoon to kill an hour or 2 with TV and only had OTA service, I might very well choose to peruse the YouTube 3D offerings.
> 
> 
> Unless I needed to keep up with the cardashians




No need to apologize. I don't expect everyone to love Disney. I try to do variety, but mostly travel documentary stuff. Most of my Disney stuff is about the attractions, not my family and "look at me on vacation" videos. I agree those are boring to me too. But I have done several that are on a personal level. These are hidden from view to general public and put up only for close family.


I bought quite a few movies in my time, VHS collection, then DVD, then BluRay, and then 3D. Last summer I threw out over 500 DVHS recordings of HD HBO movies, I never really watched. What a wasteful obsession I have had over the years collecting movies I only ever watched once. No More! But recognizing only about a dozen do I ever watch more than once, I now just rent or use the subscription services. If I find a movie I need to own then I buy it. MNost of my DVD and BluRay collection I gave to family. For example, I do have a few kids movies I must own because I have grandkids who love to watch the same stuff over and over. The Croods in 2D and 3D is their latest, going on 14 views now. Every time they come over we have to watch the Croods now. I know all about Croods. I have no idea what cardashian is but I hear that all the time. I need to look that up and learn why everyone is always talking about cardashian.


You should check out You Tube more often. It's more than entertainment. I use it to help me be more efficient at car repair. Saved a lot of money and time doing my homework on YT before doing anything. Learn from others experience.


But for just fun 3D, you should check out this thread here for some 3D YT channels posted by our members:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332757/youtube-home-3d-videos-section 

Probably the links near the end of the thread are better because the stuff from years ago we did, we were all new at it and it's unlikely you or many here would be interested in seeing anything from the early days.


----------



## Josh Z

For all the bickering there has been on the grammar issue, I can't believe that no one pointed out that Dr_jitsu was completely incorrect in his dissection of the sentence.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/60#post_24043536
> 
> 
> Oh the irony: "In what areas [plural] is it exactly [singular]...at the moment (singular) you ask? I would be much more concerned about the massive subject verb disagreement that plagues your torturing of the English language.



Although I would personally either remove or change the position of the "exactly," the original sentence was gramatically sound overall, at least enough to convey the question he wanted to ask. You have confused the subject and verb. The "it" refers to the movie [singular], not to "areas" [plural]. Consider this response:

_At the moment, it is underwhelming in these areas._


Your confusion is reader error, not writer error.


----------



## Robt Clark


I just wanted to mention that in addition to HBO and Starz, Epix had Attack of the 50ft Cheerleader on demand last year, unfortunately for some reason it didn't work for my system.


----------



## Dr_jitsu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/90#post_24051904
> 
> 
> Apostate - you didn't even get to see the doozie he directed towards me. It was quickly deleted.



Correct. I realized how pathetic it was/is to turn a substantive discussion into an annoying pissing match. I was hoping to direct the exchange back to the OT. Unfortunately, Apostate, with your help, chose to take the thread to a higher level of hostage taking rant. Lucky us that he has an abundant amount of time to waste.







Unlucky us we have to read through his garbage.


I apologize to everyone who wasted 10 minutes of their life reading his/oleus' Troll efforts. Personally, I am going to put both on ignore.


So, back to 3D. 2 nights ago I did some head to head comparisons' using the 3D on Pacific Rim. I watched the second battle scene, the one where Gypsy Danger uses a big ship to deliver a beating upon the Kaiju Otachi.


Wow, I must admit that 3D was spectacular. Having said that, I had to shell out 30 bucks. I cannot spend that kind of money every time I want to watch a movie in 3D. The bottom line for me is that 3D needs to grow in order to provide movies that utilize the technology. Several posters have predicted that eventually it will. Others are not so sure.


----------



## GregK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24059766
> 
> 
> Nope. I am willing to pay a fair price which would be less than $150 a month, i.e., monthly cable bill. Between Netflix, Amazon and Red Box, I spend about $30 - 35 a month which I think is reasonable. If I could get 3D and keep it in that range, that would be great. Mind you, this is not including cinema movies.
> 
> 
> Good for you if you are willing to pay a cable bill. Me? I don't like the idea of subsidizing/paying for programs I don't watch nor want. But as PT Barnum has said...



When I was a cable subscriber I paid under a $150 a month for cable / high speed internet / and phone. It was a great deal. But hey.. If you want to stick to $30-$35 a month, try renting. Besides Netflix, there is an on-line 3-D bluray rental company. Heck .. here in market #107, we have video stores that rent 3-D blurays. This really isn't a tough thing to figure for most people.


----------



## superleo

I have not watched too many 3d home movies as of yet; I've watch more 3d movies in theaters. I believe the experience, although similar, is totally different. For me, Pacific Rim has been the best 3d home movie so far.


Awaiting Despicable Me 2, for every review I read says is the best 3D movie of the year.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *superleo*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24062741
> 
> 
> I have not watched too many 3d home movies as of yet; I've watch more 3d movies in theaters. I believe the experience, although similar, is totally different. For me, Pacific Rim has been the best 3d home movie so far.
> 
> 
> Awaiting Despicable Me 2, for every review I read says is the best 3D movie of the year.



I am somewhat new to 3D at home too. I just got Pacific Rim 3D today. I saw the 2D and enjoyed it. Sometime soon I'll watch the 3D version.


Check out Avatar 3D. Depth and realistic imagery is great.


I really liked Despicable Me 2 at the movies. Looking forward to seeing it at home. So far I have found 3D at home to be better than at the movies.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24059854
> 
> 
> If you have no interest in promoting the hobby or professional interest in 3D but come here to just spread FUD and negativity about 3D in this section where we all gather to help each other enjoy the state of the art, then yes you decide if you are guilty of being a TROLL. It has nothiong to do with whether I disagree with YOU or not. It has to do with your motive. As a matter of fact, I said Neil Hunt didn't say those things and the author, an obvious negative story blogger made some very clever mix of pull quotes we assume Hunt actually said and his own commentary to make Hunt sound like Netflix is "dumping 3D" In reality Hunt NEVER said any such thing. If anything, look at what has happened. This wannabe reporter got it exactly backwards. If you just look at what took place, Netflix offered a number of titles in October in both UHD and 3D. There were some problems with the 3D delivery from their servers. So they pulled the titles, all of them both 3D and the ultra HD. tests. So which titles have made a test return? No UHD and no SHD. But, we did get back a couple titles in 3D. My problem is not with Hunt. My problem is with Nowak and those who think he has posted a factual article. As usual, these 3D haters continue to get it wrong and never come back to say that. They just quietly go away. Furthermore, Hunt made it plain that he was NOT planning to destroy 3D at Netflix. Go read the article, slowly. He said they would be keeping what they had but will focus on 4K for the future. My take on that actual quote is prior to realizing they had these technical issues, he was ready to move on to the next big deal in home video, 4K. He wants to be ready when the 4K set population is out there. If he was on a mission to kill 3D at Netflix, I'm sure Reed would be slapping him about the head. Reed made some pretty bold promises last January on where Netflix would be going with 3D and 4K. 3D is very wide spread today while 4K is just beginning to go retail. Hunt is not the fool that this blogger made him to be. I don't see Netflix rapidly expanding the titles they have licensed for 3D beyond the ~55 we had in November once they get the technical difficulties worked out. That is in line with the actual quote Hunt made. However, if Netflix finds that their servers are busy with those titles, that public demand will dictate Netflix offers more. If I'm wrong and Hunt does plan to kill a popular offering, then my next prediction is he will not be working at Netflix for long. Besides, keep in mind, neither 3D nor 4K is Hunt's primary interest. His favorite project is to create apps that predict your personal interests in movies.



Oh, Don, you mad ayatollah of 3D forum. Just because I don't share your fanaticism doesn't make me a troll or a spreader of "negativity about 3D." Just because I gripe about lack of affordable and convenient home 3D and don't really care for amateur rubbish on Youtube doesn't make me a "3D hater." You are correct that I don't have a professional interest in 3D since I am not in that industry. As to "promoting the hobby," I figure buying the over-priced 3D blu-rays and going to 3D movies is support enough an average joe can give.


As to Hunt's quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." If you choose to distort and skew the interpretation of Hunt's word to fit your wishful thinking, that's your prerogative. Hunt was quoted specifically that Netflix won't be expanding its 3D offerings, no matter how you spin it.


> Quote:
> Finally, I have no problem with you being very picky about what you feel is worthy of your viewing time. But just because you are that fussy over what is good 3D to you does not mean that nobody finds these offerings interesting. This comment:
> 
> I have no problem with that attitude. Some people find it boring while others don't.. There are far more people watching prime TV than watch You Tube. BUT, I have achieved over 106,000 views on my You Tube channel and these are the people I feel I have given something back to the craft. I don't do a pet falling off a roof or some other stunt to grab the viral status. My videos are 3D of the day at Disney or some other place. I also look for 3D videos of places I would like to go see and 3D gives me a more real world experience, than a flat view. I'm interested in expanding my horizons but I respect those that don't want to do that. People posting their own experiences as they visit a place I plan to go gives me lots of insight to the location that simple pictures on a website doesn't.



So you have a vested interest in Youtube 3D. Is that why you rant and rave when some of us say we don't care for it?


> Quote:
> I think to sum up my point is, for those of us who *are fanatic about* 3D, we need to recognize there is indeed lots of content to look through. Nobody is saying you have to love everything out there. But if you hate everything except 2-3 movies a year, then maybe you just don't like the medium.



There, I fixed your quote for you. Obviously, you do more than enjoy 3D. I get it that you adore 3D, calling it an art form, craft, and medium. The medium is actually film or movies. 3D is merely an enhancement to movie medium. I enjoy and prefer 3D movies. Isn't that enough?


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dr_jitsu*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24062218
> 
> 
> Correct. I realized how pathetic it was/is to turn a substantive discussion into an annoying pissing match. I was hoping to direct the exchange back to the OT. Unfortunately, Apostate, with your help, chose to take the thread to a higher level of hostage taking rant. Lucky us that he has an abundant amount of time to waste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlucky us we have to read through his garbage.
> 
> 
> I apologize to everyone who wasted 10 minutes of their life reading his/oleus' Troll efforts. Personally, I am going to put both on ignore.



I think there is a term for what you are doing, i.e., you post garbage and troll and then turnaround and accuse others of doing what you did. Oleus and I were trolls? Really?


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregK*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120#post_24062529
> 
> 
> When I was a cable subscriber I paid under a $150 a month for cable / high speed internet / and phone. It was a great deal. But hey.. If you want to stick to $30-$35 a month, try renting. Besides Netflix, there is an on-line 3-D bluray rental company. Heck .. here in market #107, we have video stores that rent 3-D blurays. This really isn't a tough thing to figure for most people.



I covered all the venues in my previous posts, GregK. I have streaming from Netflix, Amazon and occasionally Vudu. I rent from Netflix and Redbox. None of which offer 3D for rent. (I know one can buy 3D streaming movie but I might as buy 3D blu-ray at that price).


The online 3D blu-ray rental company charges $6-10 a pop with 8-10 days turnaround; and frequently out of stock as another poster noted. Doesn't seem like a good deal to me.


And video stores? I haven't seen those around where I live in years. Where do you live? You are lucky that you can rent 3D blu-rays.


I also covered the cable company previously. I am glad that cable companies (Comcast, Fios or whatever) have people like you to support it.


I can't figure it out, oh, wise GregK. Please enlighten me as to how I can get affordable and convenient 3D at home. I beseech you.


----------



## GregK

Apostate- per your request I've pondered this, and realize you want high quality first run 3-D content (youtube apparently is no good to you), but outside of compressed streaming, you don't want to pay more for it, nor can you apparently rent from anywhere, as you haven't seen a video rental store in years.


I guess (like high quality only slightly compressed 2-D 1080p content) you will have to purchase said media or simply do without. Highly compressed streaming media seems to be fine for you. .. and seriously .. if you really feel paying anything more for anything better is in "the PT Barnum group", then maybe this isn't the format for you. Then be at peace with it and move on.


You "beseeched" me. I answered. I also know your type far too well and will not waste my time any further.


----------



## Apostate

@GregK


I thought you said this really isn't a tough thing to figure for most people. So your advice is to purchase 3D blu-rays or do without?







I realized that a while ago. What did you think I was griping about? In fact, I recently bought five 3D BDs for about what you would pay to cable company in a month. I wasn't happy about it, let me tell you. And don't knock streaming media. Beggars can't be choosers so I would take streaming 3D any day (if it's available, Netflix!).


But, seriously, Youtube has high quality first run 3D content??? And where do you live that you have video stores??? I am completely sincere when I say I haven't seen a video store in years.


Anyway, you make a flippant, rather snarky, remark. I call you on it and you can't back up your comment so you make an _ad hominem_ attack then scurries away? Nice.


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> As to Hunt's quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." If you choose to distort and skew the interpretation of Hunt's word to fit your wishful thinking, that's your prerogative. Hunt was quoted specifically that Netflix won't be expanding its 3D offerings, no matter how you spin it.



Well, I don't know where the lady doth protest Hunt quote came from but I didn't see that in the article.


I'm not the one distorting anything: I don't have a problem with any of the actual quotes in the article that were attributed to Neil Hunt. I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH PETER NOWAK'S OWN PREDICTION AS TO WHAT NETFLIX PLANS TO DO WITH 3D.


We'll start with the title "Ditch 3D" Peter Nowak made this claim. Nowhere in the article did that come from anyone at Netflix. Get it?


“We [internet video] are often perceived as the last game in town, the scratchy video in 380p, but here we can really leapfrog to the front. I’d like to win a technical Emmy for delivery.” This was an actual quote from Hunt according to the article. I have no problem with Hunt wishing to be the guy credited with winning an Emmy. We all have our priorities. Although, I would think, the team at Netflix all play a role in this achievement including those delivery services Netflix uses, such as contracted distribution services.
_

On the other hand, Netflix is taking the opposite tack to 3D, which it announced on a test basis in the United States earlier this year. That feature has proven to be unpopular with subscribers, mainly because people don’t want to wear glasses at home. The situation is different in movie theatres, since the glasses are part of that special experience, but it doesn’t necessarily translate well into home viewing._ This was not a quote from Hunt. It was a statement made by Nowak. You seem to believe it was a quote from Hunt. Get it? I claimed that THE FACTS at Netflix and what they are doing indicate just the opposite. Peter Nowak has it completely wrong. He is not the first internet blogger to get the story backwards.


"We’re probably looking to back out of it in the end. I’m not sure there’s enough value in it.” Hunt says. “We’ve got a small collection and we’ll keep that going but we’re certainly not looking to expand it.” According to the article, this was an actual quote from Hunt and comes the closest to a statement that Netflix won't be expanding 3D. BUT, we all know that Netflix as an organization has made claims as to what they planned to do in the future that cost then billions of dollars in lost revenue when those plans were discovered unpopular. They have had to backtrack and reverser their position. That is just history. Reed Hastings admits his mistake in doing that and would not do that again. Predicting 3D will not be expanded or that they wish to back out of it, I would guess will be based not on one executive's comment to a blogger in 2013, but will be based on the subscriber demand for more content as the future unfolds. If my guess is wrong, and Netflix did not learn their lesson in dictating to the public, then Netflix will again fail and cost them like it did in the past. Our desire for 3D content will come from one of their competitors. That my friend is the beauty of the free market. If, I'm the only one left who remains a 3D fanatic, then I suppose I will just have to watch my own productions. At any rate, if this was what Hunt said, then it does not measure up to the title claim by Nowak, that Netflix is ditching 3D, it just means what he said, they will keep what they have going but won't expand it.


One thing we all must never lose sight of in the news media- When things change, so does the news. Don't get caught making a bold prediction that you don't have control over the outcome. This is what Hunt needs to learn as did his boss. If 3D continues to grow at it's current rate, Netflix will not only have more content but so will many of it's competitors.


Finally, I DO recognize that you love 3D as an art form, but only for a few genre's and quality that meets your high standards. I don't have a problem with that, but there is no need to ridicule those who wish for more, even if it is not perfect by your standards.


PS- do I have a _vested_ interest in YT? Actually, I do. I not only own Netflix stock now for several years but also Google.


----------



## d james

I don't know about the other guy, but over here in Michigan we have video stores that rent 3d blu ray, as a matter of fact they sell the used copies after a month for ten bucks and go down from there. I've got 24 3d movies and only two of them are store bought, the rest are from the store, many of which only cost 2 dollars each., There were a couple I passed on like freight night, although it may have been worthwhile for only two bucks, I couldn't see myself watching it again.


----------



## Don Landis

That's pretty cool. Our last Video rental store, Blockbuster only ever had a couple that were dual 3D - 2D titles. But all BB stores are now closed. No other video rental stores in the area except the porn shops.


----------



## superleo

I like real media. I was getting rental Bluray discs from BB by mail, but now even that is gone. I know Redbox still available for HD Blurays, and I read that if you call the customer service number they can arrange to have some 3D discs. Not sure how true this is but is worth a try.


----------



## Don Landis

Thanks for the suggestion. I may try that as well. Since the demise of BB here, I have opened an account with Redbox too. I'm getting used to the change. The box is actually within walking distance from my house. BB was 16 miles away so gas cost became a real cost to rental. Plus there are a half dozen more just a little farther wa. I can rent 25 BluRay's a month and break even with my old BB expense. So far they don't carry that many. But, it is a nice service right around the corner. If Redbox does place 3D, that would be fantastic.


----------



## GregK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24063983
> 
> 
> @GregK
> 
> 
> I thought you said this really isn't a tough thing to figure for most people. So your advice is to purchase 3D blu-rays or do without?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realized that a while ago. What did you think I was griping about?



Actually my initial advice was to try a pay TV service if you don't like what streaming as to offer. That's how we got started on this spiral.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24063983
> 
> 
> In fact, I recently bought five 3D BDs for about what you would pay to cable company in a month. I wasn't happy about it, let me tell you. And don't knock streaming media. Beggars can't be choosers so I would take streaming 3D any day (if it's available, Netflix!).



You had called me snarky .. Isn't that the same as calling anyone who purchases cable (and apparently at any price) "a sucker" .. per your previous PT Barnum remark?


You spent more in a month on blurays than I used to on phone, cable, and internet combined. So does that make you a sucker? My 2 cents: "No".. I would say it is a choice. Now if you don't want cable HBO, Starz, and its extra 3D content, I also understand. You just said "beggars can't be choosers" which is more closer to the truth .. as that infers a choice, and different than calling cable users "suckers".


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24063983
> 
> 
> And where do you live that you have video stores??? I am completely sincere when I say I haven't seen a video store in years.



A city in Indiana (and not the capitol) ..which has plenty of video rental stores, with a few offering 3-D bluray rental. There are also places here that sell used 3-D blurays. On a sidenote, used 3D blurays account for most of my library. They go for anywhere between $7 to $16, depending on the title.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24063983
> 
> 
> Anyway, you make a flippant, rather snarky, remark. I call you on it and you can't back up your comment so you make an _ad hominem_ attack then scurries away? Nice.



To be 100% fair, we both have had some flippant, snarky remarks. When discussions degrade like this, they serve neither of us any good, nor any of the AVS membership. Hence my previous "goodbye". No scurrying here, just exiting.. when its quite clear we are wasting time. Please feel free to have the last remark, slam .. or whatever...


----------



## old corps




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *d james*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24064345
> 
> 
> I don't know about the other guy, but over here in Michigan we have video stores that rent 3d blu ray, as a matter of fact they sell the used copies after a month for ten bucks and go down from there. I've got 24 3d movies and only two of them are store bought, the rest are from the store, many of which only cost 2 dollars each., There were a couple I passed on like freight night, although it may have been worthwhile for only two bucks, I couldn't see myself watching it again.



Would that be Family Video? Just wondering. There are 2 of them close to me and I keep telling myself to check but haven't.............


Thanks!


Ed


----------



## GregK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *old corps*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24068218
> 
> 
> Would that be Family Video? Just wondering. There are 2 of them close to me and I keep telling myself to check but haven't.............
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Ed



Yep! Be sure to check them out or give them a call. We have a few Family Videos here, and the two I've checked out both carry 3-D blu, along with a local video store.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24064333
> 
> 
> Well, I don't know where the lady doth protest Hunt quote came from but I didn't see that in the article.



My apologies. My sentence was poorly structured which was made more confusing by the Shakespeare quote. What I was trying to say is that you are overly and needlessly vociferous in your supposition regarding Hunt's quote which you re-stated below.


> Quote:
> "We’re probably looking to back out of it in the end. I’m not sure there’s enough value in it.” Hunt says. “We’ve got a small collection and we’ll keep that going but we’re certainly not looking to expand it.” According to the article, this was an actual quote from Hunt and comes the closest to a statement that Netflix won't be expanding 3D.



"...certainly not looking to expand it (3D programming)" is more than "comes closest." That sounds pretty definite. In fact, the first part of Hunt's quote sounds like Netflix might cancel 3D altogether. I sincerely hope not but that's what it sounds like.


> Quote:
> BUT, we all know that Netflix as an organization has made claims as to what they planned to do in the future that cost then billions of dollars in lost revenue when those plans were discovered unpopular. They have had to backtrack and reverser their position. That is just history. Reed Hastings admits his mistake in doing that and would not do that again.



When has Netflix ever backtracked and reversed their position because it was unpopular? Did Netflix re-merge the DVD and streaming into one package again and lower the price? Are you referring to Quickster or whatever name change that was never implemented in the first place? Reed Hastings is a great innovator but I am not sure if he's a great manager.


> Quote:
> Predicting 3D will not be expanded or that they wish to back out of it, I would guess will be based not on one executive's comment to a blogger in 2013, but will be based on the subscriber demand for more content as the future unfolds. If my guess is wrong, and Netflix did not learn their lesson in dictating to the public, then Netflix will again fail and cost them like it did in the past. Our desire for 3D content will come from one of their competitors. That my friend is the beauty of the free market. If, I'm the only one left who remains a 3D fanatic, then I suppose I will just have to watch my own productions. At any rate, if this was what Hunt said, then it does not measure up to the title claim by Nowak, that Netflix is ditching 3D, it just means what he said, they will keep what they have going but won't expand it.



Again, Hunt is more than just a executive. He's a Chief-level executive. A big difference. His words actually count.


I am with you on hoping that 3D will be offered by one of Netflix's competitors but, unfortunately, streaming market is not really free market. The cost of entry is so great that no one can just jump in and start competing.


> Quote:
> Finally, I DO recognize that you love 3D as an art form, but only for a few genre's and quality that meets your high standards. I don't have a problem with that, but there is no need to ridicule those who wish for more, even if it is not perfect by your standards.
> 
> 
> PS- do I have a _vested_ interest in YT? Actually, I do. I not only own Netflix stock now for several years but also Google.



I wouldn't say love.







I prefer 3D if I can get it but I've survived on mere 2D since the big old LD days. I don't know how you equate me stating that I don't care for Youtube offerings to me ridiculing those who do. You are putting words into my mouth.


Also, I didn't mean financially when I said you had vested interest in Youtube but, heck, you did pretty well if you have had held Netflix and Google for several years.







Very nice!


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregK*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24067629
> 
> 
> Actually my initial advice was to try a pay TV service if you don't like what streaming as to offer. That's how we got started on this spiral.



Ah, yes. If you had left at that, it would have been fine. I believe the downward spiral started with your snide comment about me wanting 3D free, which I took it as you were implying that I wanted pirated material rather than legitimately paying for it. That was followed by another snide comment and so forth. Does mocking others make you feel better?







If you are going to offer advice, continue to keep it sincere and civil.


> Quote:
> You spent more in a month on blurays than I used to on phone, cable, and internet combined. So does that make you a sucker? My 2 cents: "No".. I would say it is a choice. Now if you don't want cable HBO, Starz, and its extra 3D content, I also understand. You just said "beggars can't be choosers" which is more closer to the truth .. as that infers a choice, and different than calling cable users "suckers".



Ah, no. I don't spend that much on blu-rays month after month. If I did that, I might as well just pay for cable. That was a once in a blue moon splurge made after a careful selection and research. I don't quite understand the second part about beggars, suckers, and choice. After paying for cable for many, many years, I considered certain facts and my needs and decided that cable TV was for suckers and I wanted no part of it anymore. Like I've said before, good for you if you want to pay for cable. I couldn't care less.


> Quote:
> A city in Indiana (and not the capitol) ..which has plenty of video rental stores, with a few offering 3-D bluray rental. There are also places here that sell used 3-D blurays. On a sidenote, used 3D blurays account for most of my library. They go for anywhere between $7 to $16, depending on the title.



If I had a video store near me that offered 3D rentals, that would make my gripe about affordability and convenience mostly moot. How does the brick-and-mortar video rental business model still work in the Midwest?







Cable, Netflix, and Redbox wiped out the brick-and-mortar video stores like Blockbusters and Hollywood Videos years ago here in the East. You Midwest guys have cable, Netflix and Redbox too. How did your video stores survive?


> Quote:
> Please feel free to have the last remark, slam .. or whatever...



So passive-aggressive... It's like talking to my tweener son.


----------



## jvh4

It seems to me that you both agree . . .


You both admit that 3D content is available for those who care to spend the resources (effort and money) to get it. You both agree that the amount of resources needed to obtain 3D content is greater than the amount needed to obtain HD and SD material. You both seem to also agree that a large segment of the market won't care to expend those extra resources. The only difference is one of you are in the camp who will and one is in the camp who wont.


It's seems like a very personal choice based on a myriad of factors where one can't be right or wrong.


I think the point of this thread was to look at the future of 3D. Is it growing or fading?


Your back and forth isn't really addressing this point. You're just arguing about your personal choices regarding 3D consumption. PM each other if this interests the two of, but I am quite bored of your off-topic petty arguing.


You have both provided valid points to the original topic, and I hope we can return to that topic and save this thread?


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jvh4*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24069595
> 
> 
> It seems to me that you both agree . . .
> 
> 
> You both admit that 3D content is available for those who care to spend the resources (effort and money) to get it. You both agree that the amount of resources needed to obtain 3D content is greater than the amount needed to obtain HD and SD material. You both seem to also agree that a large segment of the market won't care to expend those extra resources. The only difference is one of you are in the camp who will and one is in the camp who wont.
> 
> 
> It's seems like a very personal choice based on a myriad of factors where one can't be right or wrong.
> 
> 
> I think the point of this thread was to look at the future of 3D. Is it growing or fading?
> 
> 
> Your back and forth isn't really addressing this point. You're just arguing about your personal choices regarding 3D consumption. PM each other if this interests the two of, but I am quite bored of your off-topic petty arguing.
> 
> 
> You have both provided valid points to the original topic, and I hope we can return to that topic and save this thread?



Thanks jvh4.


----------



## Don Landis

Apostate- I think we both wasted enough time posting our opinions on Peter Nowak's Blog. Further discussion is no more productive than either of us doing crystal ball gazing. Out of this thread I have found several new directions to receiving 3D programming. So my time here hasn't been a total waste.


Re Amazon Prime 3D- I tested this on my PS3 and Sony 3D projector. I could find no actual 3D movies offered in Prime. I did a search on "3D" and found many claiming to be 3D offerings but all were 2D, including The Avengers and some documentaries that were sold as 3D. Continued searching I finally had some success! There was an old movie "The Light at the End of the World" claiming to be side by side half resolution but I had to buy it for $6. No big deal in the interest of cost of experiment. I've spent more on other experiments that failed. As it turns out, this title was indeed SBS half and after putting my projector in SBS mode, the movie was presented in 3D. The bad news was it was very poor picture quality. Had little dimension and much of it appeared more like 2D pushed back behind the screen plane. No pop out at all. Plus the ghosting was rather obvious in many of the scenes. I'll give Amazon a C for effort but I would not recommend any of you waste money on this one. Considering this movie was made in 1970, being 43 year old technology, I guess that's all that can be expected for a video of that era. Back then I didn't even own a 3/4 Umatic VCR.


Regarding You Tube on PS3 in 3D- I discovered there is a new app finally for the PS3 that does You Tube direct. It works very nice but has a couple problems. The You Tube support forums tells me these problems are quite common to all PS3 users. The app does not allow you to switch resolution to 1080 and fixes all video to 720P output from the PS3. While this only reduces maximum resolution on 2D, it presents a conflict for my Sony Projector for 3D. It seems that my projector only does SBSh for 1080, so when the projector saw 720, it's compatible mode was Over under for manual 3D. Unfortunately, the PS3 app does not allow switching these programs to over under. One support poster claimed he found a work around using his smart phone paired to the PS3 to switch the resolution on the YouTube. I haven't tried that yet. The other technical problem with the YT PS3 app is it zooms in and crops off the controls for the YT videos regardless of 2D or 3D. Using the remote IR control you can operate the pause control but that is about it. The PS3 YT app is only a couple months old and still needs work but I found it a pleasure to quickly use for searching some 2D documentaries and got hooked on these for a couple hours. Hopefully, I'll find a work around for the 3D 720p issues and be able to use this for 3D on the PS3. If not, I may decide to get the WD TV or Apple TV for my YouTube Home theater player.


Meanwhile- I report status quo on Netflix 3D titles. Just a couple now in test mode. I'm hoping, like last year, they are working to get this back up before CES so they can make some announcements of success. The great new interface they are bragging about is not being met with much excitement from what I can see. In fact, it appears like this had coincidental timing to the problems with the 3D that were all resolved on the PS3 that I could see, just before they pulled them all down.


----------



## jvh4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24069928
> 
> 
> Apostate- I think we both wasted enough time posting our opinions on Peter Nowak's Blog. Further discussion is no more productive than either of us doing crystal ball gazing. Out of this thread I have found several new directions to receiving 3D programming. So my time here hasn't been a total waste.
> 
> 
> Re Amazon Prime 3D- I tested this on my PS3 and Sony 3D projector. I could find no actual 3D movies offered in Prime. I did a search on "3D" and found many claiming to be 3D offerings but all were 2D, including The Avengers and some documentaries that were sold as 3D. Continued searching I finally had some success! There was an old movie "The Light at the End of the World" claiming to be side by side half resolution but I had to buy it for $6. No big deal in the interest of cost of experiment. I've spent more on other experiments that failed. As it turns out, this title was indeed SBS half and after putting my projector in SBS mode, the movie was presented in 3D. The bad news was it was very poor picture quality. Had little dimension and much of it appeared more like 2D pushed back behind the screen plane. No pop out at all. Plus the ghosting was rather obvious in many of the scenes. I'll give Amazon a C for effort but I would not recommend any of you waste money on this one. Considering this movie was made in 1970, being 43 year old technology, I guess that's all that can be expected for a video of that era. Back then I didn't even own a 3/4 Umatic VCR.
> 
> 
> Regarding You Tube on PS3 in 3D- I discovered there is a new app finally for the PS3 that does You Tube direct. It works very nice but has a couple problems. The You Tube support forums tells me these problems are quite common to all PS3 users. The app does not allow you to switch resolution to 1080 and fixes all video to 720P output from the PS3. While this only reduces maximum resolution on 2D, it presents a conflict for my Sony Projector for 3D. It seems that my projector only does SBSh for 1080, so when the projector saw 720, it's compatible mode was Over under for manual 3D. Unfortunately, the PS3 app does not allow switching these programs to over under. One support poster claimed he found a work around using his smart phone paired to the PS3 to switch the resolution on the YouTube. I haven't tried that yet. The other technical problem with the YT PS3 app is it zooms in and crops off the controls for the YT videos regardless of 2D or 3D. Using the remote IR control you can operate the pause control but that is about it. The PS3 YT app is only a couple months old and still needs work but I found it a pleasure to quickly use for searching some 2D documentaries and got hooked on these for a couple hours. Hopefully, I'll find a work around for the 3D 720p issues and be able to use this for 3D on the PS3. If not, I may decide to get the WD TV or Apple TV for my YouTube Home theater player.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- I report status quo on Netflix 3D titles. Just a couple now in test mode. I'm hoping, like last year, they are working to get this back up before CES so they can make some announcements of success. The great new interface they are bragging about is not being met with much excitement from what I can see. In fact, it appears like this had coincidental timing to the problems with the 3D that were all resolved on the PS3 that I could see, just before they pulled them all down.



Thanks for taking one for the team and testing Amazon Prime! I'm encouraged that they are looking to provide 3D. To me that a sign that 3D is trending the right way. Amazon has so much market data, I'm sure they analyzed the market for 3D and found it to be a worthwhile investment. Not to mention they are a direct competitor to Netflix, VUDU Redbox instant etc. which is a good sign for price parity.


----------



## Apostate

@jvh4


You are absolutely right. I apologize for derailing this thread. I will try to stay on the topic.


@Don


Regarding Nowak/Hunt, you do know that I am actually on your side; I hope that I am reading it wrong and that you are right. Losing Netflix 3D before it had a chance to spread its wings would be terrible. I apologize for getting hung up on minutiae, Don.


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24070191
> 
> 
> @jvh4
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right. I apologize for derailing this thread. I will try to stay on the topic.
> 
> 
> @Don
> 
> 
> Regarding Nowak/Hunt, you do know that I am actually on your side; I hope that I am reading it wrong and that you are right. Losing Netflix 3D before it had a chance to spread its wings would be terrible. I apologize for getting hung up on minutiae, Don.



I hope so too, obviously. Moving on...


----------



## Apostate

I apologize if this is off-topic but I really am curious about availabilty of video rental stores in the Midwest. How did the brick-and-mortar video rental business model survive in the Midwest? As I've stated before, cable, Netflix, and Redbox wiped out the brick-and-mortar video stores like Blockbusters and Hollywood Videos years ago here in the East. I thought brick-and-mortar model got obsolete to my regret. Last video store I saw (Philly suburb) was Hollywood Videos store 20 minutes away from me that shut its doors two years ago.


You Midwest guys have cable, Netflix and Redbox too, right? How did your video stores survive? And why don't they come back to the East?


----------



## Robt Clark


Apostate..being that you mentioned Philly suburb..I don't know if you're near Viva Video in Ardmore..they have Avatar, Iron Man 3, Pina, Man of Steel, Wreck It Ralph, Star Trek Into Darkness, Static, Upside Down, World War Z, Escape From Planet Earth, Pacific Rim

Brave, Wolverine, Great Gatsby and Hugo all for rent


----------



## upstate-avfan-da

3D will meet its demise unless we get some more quality gaming content - this is where 3D shines. PS4/XBO with 3D would be awesome. But for movies....


I have a growing number of 3D titles that only cost me a few bucks more than buying the "normal" combo pack, no big loss there. I do watch the 2D some times, but for those movies that the experience will be enhanced - we will watch the 3D disc. FWIW, I could care less about 3D streaming capability - compression's a b*ch. You really need a 3D BD to get the quality to enjoy the experience, since the tech is not perfect (ie: flicker, ghosting, whatever) all that streaming does is make these more apparent. I think this is what has caused people to discard 3D at home.... better streaming delivery to rival 3D BD quality and you'll see more people enjoy it. Well, better delivery and better content - I hate the fact there are a million boring documentaries in 3D lol.


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> I hate the fact there are a million boring documentaries in 3D lol.



Interesting! I just spent a good 7 hours reviewing people's personal documentaries on You Tube ( yes, home videos) so I can get a preview of what to expect on my next trip there. I do plan to shoot my own 3D documentary. Some of these were good, some really bad, but in all cases, I picked up a couple tips on what to do and what not to do. For example- I learned that in Carlsbad Caverns NP, the wind can get pretty strong and ruin any audio so I plan to fix my wind sock to my camera mic and bring along a wireless lav mic as well. I also was able to determine that the distant lighting was adequate in the main tour areas but foreground lighting needed help. Only the pros brought adequate lighting. I have three nice LED camera lights I will be bringing plus extra batteries for the day. As far as shooting, I gathered a few more tips too. None of these were intended by the people who shot them. I was wishing, they were in 3D but none that I saw. 3D would have given me a clue on the depth of some of the large rooms. When I complete my documentary in 3D, at least the next stereographer will have something he can use to plan his trip.


I hate the fact there are boring people who hate the tools of education and learning. I find interest, and appreciate the effort these people have made, even those who's work leaves lots to be desired in the craft.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24063399
> 
> 
> I covered all the venues in my previous posts, GregK. I have streaming from Netflix, Amazon and occasionally Vudu. I rent from Netflix and Redbox. None of which offer 3D for rent. (I know one can buy 3D streaming movie but I might as buy 3D blu-ray at that price).
> 
> 
> The online 3D blu-ray rental company charges $6-10 a pop with 8-10 days turnaround; and frequently out of stock as another poster noted. Doesn't seem like a good deal to me.
> 
> 
> And video stores? I haven't seen those around where I live in years. Where do you live? You are lucky that you can rent 3D blu-rays.
> 
> 
> I also covered the cable company previously. I am glad that cable companies (Comcast, Fios or whatever) have people like you to support it.
> 
> 
> I can't figure it out, oh, wise GregK. Please enlighten me as to how I can get affordable and convenient 3D at home. I beseech you.



I've been using 3d-blurayrental.com all year now. Mostly for 3D BD rentals. I had purchased a 3D capable LED DLP set in 2008, but didn't really start watching 3D content until I got a Mitsubishi 3D DLP at the end of 2012. Since then I have been typically watching one or two 3D titles a week from BD, or more if I use 3D streaming. I use the subscription plan from 3d-blurayrental and can easily get at least 3 titles a week, even though I am on the East Coast and they are on the West Coast. Because they will ship out the new titles before receiving the previous titles. The day I put a title in the mail, I can order another title to be shipped to me.


For me they have worked very well to supplement my Netflix subscription and my streaming services from Vudu, Amazon, Netflix, etc.


The monthly subscription plans are $15.99, $25.99, and $35.99 for one, two, and three out at a time plans., I subscribe to the three out plan and sometimes supplement that with 3D rentals that I pay for individually.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *upstate-avfan-da*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24072474
> 
> 
> 3D will meet its demise unless we get some more quality gaming content - this is where 3D shines. PS4/XBO with 3D would be awesome. But for movies....
> 
> 
> I have a growing number of 3D titles that only cost me a few bucks more than buying the "normal" combo pack, no big loss there. I do watch the 2D some times, but for those movies that the experience will be enhanced - we will watch the 3D disc. FWIW, I could care less about 3D streaming capability - compression's a b*ch. You really need a 3D BD to get the quality to enjoy the experience, since the tech is not perfect (ie: flicker, ghosting, whatever) all that streaming does is make these more apparent. I think this is what has caused people to discard 3D at home.... better streaming delivery to rival 3D BD quality and you'll see more people enjoy it. Well, better delivery and better content - I hate the fact there are a million boring documentaries in 3D lol.



Without HDMI 2.0, 3D gaming from consoles can only be at 720P60. Otherwise it's limited to 1080P24. With HDMI 2.0 they can do 1080P60 with 3D, but of course the current TVs don't support it any way. Either way, for me, while I like watching 3D Movies and 3D documentaries, I have no desire to play any games in 3D, but I like playing the games in 2D.


----------



## upstate-avfan-da




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24073354
> 
> 
> Interesting! I just spent a good 7 hours reviewing people's personal documentaries on You Tube ( yes, home videos) so I can get a preview of what to expect on my next trip there. I do plan to shoot my own 3D documentary. Some of these were good, some really bad, but in all cases, I picked up a couple tips on what to do and what not to do. For example- I learned that in Carlsbad Caverns NP, the wind can get pretty strong and ruin any audio so I plan to fix my wind sock to my camera mic and bring along a wireless lav mic as well. I also was able to determine that the distant lighting was adequate in the main tour areas but foreground lighting needed help. Only the pros brought adequate lighting. I have three nice LED camera lights I will be bringing plus extra batteries for the day. As far as shooting, I gathered a few more tips too. None of these were intended by the people who shot them. I was wishing, they were in 3D but none that I saw. 3D would have given me a clue on the depth of some of the large rooms. When I complete my documentary in 3D, at least the next stereographer will have something he can use to plan his trip.
> 
> 
> I hate the fact there are boring people who hate the tools of education and learning. I find interest, and appreciate the effort these people have made, even those who's work leaves lots to be desired in the craft.



I wont take it personally but 3D I dont imagine was envisioned for the mass of documentaries was my point. They are find in 2D for the most part. I dont have a problem with documentaries in general, most of my cable tv watching is non-fiction based programming. When I want to view 3D I want it to be something like Avatar/Kung Fu Panda 2 which can be enjoyed by my family as well.


----------



## upstate-avfan-da




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24074127
> 
> 
> Without HDMI 2.0, 3D gaming from consoles can only be at 720P60. Otherwise it's limited to 1080P24. With HDMI 2.0 they can do 1080P60 with 3D, but of course the current TVs don't support it any way. Either way, for me, while I like watching 3D Movies and 3D documentaries, I have no desire to play any games in 3D, but I like playing the games in 2D.



Current gen consoles (PS4/XBO) wont be capable of 1080p 3D definitely... next gen probably. Devs are just figuring out now how to optimize 1080p 2D for consoles. But my F9000 Samsung will handle HDMI 2.0 when the new box is released, but 1080p 3D using active shutter for movies is possible with a UHD 4K set since you dont need more than 24/30 refresh for film. Samsung actually upscales 3D to UHD pretty well and it is definitely making me rewatch my favorites


----------



## Don Landis

I don't know about XB one but, I've been assured that 3D and in UHD will be on the PS4 when they get to it with the firmware updates. The hardware is capable. No time frame announced. Some of us also want to know if the PS4 will do AVCHD in 3D as well. I didn't get an answer to that but likely it will.


FYI- I posted this elsewhere but, _once again_ the FUD people had it wrong. Netflix 3D section is back and the streaming I viewed tonight was great. Saw a new offering too that was an interesting action movie, "Don 2" I don't recall seeing this one in the 3D section last month. Was it there and I missed it? If not then this is a new 3D release for us.


----------



## Don Landis

More news about 3D on the international scene:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/international-3d-festival-opens-south-665544 

_SEOUL — The International 3D Festival 2013 opened Friday in Coex, southern Seoul. Held annually by the South Korean Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning, the event has gathered industry insiders from the U.S., China, France, and Japan to discuss recent trends in 3D and VFX._


----------



## jvh4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24075851
> 
> 
> I don't know about XB one but, I've been assured that 3D and in UHD will be on the PS4 when they get to it with the firmware updates. The hardware is capable. No time frame announced. Some of us also want to know if the PS4 will do AVCHD in 3D as well. I didn't get an answer to that but likely it will.
> 
> 
> FYI- I posted this elsewhere but, _once again_ the FUD people had it wrong. Netflix 3D section is back and the streaming I viewed tonight was great. Saw a new offering too that was an interesting action movie, "Don 2" I don't recall seeing this one in the 3D section last month. Was it there and I missed it? If not then this is a new 3D release for us.



Great news. Was 3D back to being its own genre, so you can find them easily? As far as you can tell are the IMAX titles all there and working? Can't wait to start watching some of these. FWIW, I also don't remember a "Don 2" being in the list when I was looking before the shut down.


EDIT: Sorry found the answer in the Netflix 3D thread.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jvh4*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24080272
> 
> 
> Great news. Was 3D back to being its own genre, so you can find them easily? As far as you can tell are the IMAX titles all there and working?



I could't play several selections. I was trying to play certain kid's programs but I got error messages with some of them. I remember one was "I Heart Shakey"(?) and some animated fare.


Does anyone know if Netflix is completely back with 3D or is Netflix still rolling in titles? If it's latter, why is Netflix displaying programs that are not ready for viewing?


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Robt Clark*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/150#post_24072290
> 
> 
> Apostate..being that you mentioned Philly suburb..I don't know if you're near Viva Video in Ardmore..they have Avatar, Iron Man 3, Pina, Man of Steel, Wreck It Ralph, Star Trek Into Darkness, Static, Upside Down, World War Z, Escape From Planet Earth, Pacific Rim
> 
> Brave, Wolverine, Great Gatsby and Hugo all for rent



Thanks! I didn't know brick-and-mortar video stores still existed in Philly area. Unfortunately, Ardmore is 30-40 minutes away; a bit too far for me.


I wonder if there is any video stores closer to where I am. I just assumed the video stores went extinct in Philly. I didn't even consider that independent video stores may still be around.


----------



## Mike-90

So after the the announcement at CES that Vizio are doing away 3d completely is the fate of it is more less inevitable at least at home? people on here have said that they believe it'll continue on as more a "niche" thing but now I'm not so sure.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike-90*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24173729
> 
> 
> So after the the announcement at CES that Vizio are doing away 3d completely is the fate of it is more less inevitable at least at home? people on here have said that they believe it'll continue on as more a "niche" thing but now I'm not so sure.



I think the Vizio announcement was a huge blow to 3D. Vizio sells the most TVs in the US. So if none of their new sets will have 3D, I would think this might be the beginning of the end for 3D at home. It was already a niche, but when the biggest US seller drops it, it seems like it's only a matter of time until it's gone.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24174103
> 
> 
> I think the Vizio announcement was a huge blow to 3D. Vizio sells the most TVs in the US. So if none of their new sets will have 3D, I would think this might be the beginning of the end for 3D at home. It was already a niche, but when the biggest US seller drops it, it seems like it's only a matter of time until it's gone.


Unfortunately I think your observation is correct.


----------



## Mike-90




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24174103
> 
> 
> I think the Vizio announcement was a huge blow to 3D. Vizio sells the most TVs in the US. So if none of their new sets will have 3D, I would think this might be the beginning of the end for 3D at home. It was already a niche, but when the biggest US seller drops it, it seems like it's only a matter of time until it's gone.


I was hoping for some form of reassurance but yeah, sadly that looks to be the the reality of things.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike-90*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24174391
> 
> 
> I was hoping for some form of reassurance but yeah, sadly that looks to be the the reality of things.


And I was just getting into it.

Ebb and flow. But this would appear to be a major setback.


----------



## jvh4

Yeah, the Vizio announcement is bad news for 3D, but there is some silver lining. They will continue to sell the 2013 model 3D TVs and they are still continuing work on their glasses free 3D with Dolby, and they will continue to monitor the market. I won't be naive, they have one foot out of 3D and the other foot could follow at any minute, but at least they still have a foot in . . .


----------



## PGTweed

I prefer 3D Projectors than a 3D TV. Which begs the question, Which is selling more: 3D Projectors or 3D TVs?


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24174103
> 
> 
> I think the Vizio announcement was a huge blow to 3D. Vizio sells the most TVs in the US. So if none of their new sets will have 3D, I would think this might be the beginning of the end for 3D at home. It was already a niche, but when the biggest US seller drops it, it seems like it's only a matter of time until it's gone.



Shhh. Don't let Don Landis hear you say that. He'll start his rage again and you'll be branded as a Debbie Downer troll.


----------



## loader963




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PGTweed*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24175626
> 
> 
> I prefer 3D Projectors than a 3D TV. Which begs the question, Which is selling more: 3D Projectors or 3D TVs?



IDK about home projectors but i far prefer my TV when watching 3D over a movie theatre. But I have a passive display and i do like a brighter image. I have read that home projectors do a better job than the local cinema does too so maybe they will post their opinions.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PGTweed*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24175626
> 
> 
> I prefer 3D Projectors than a 3D TV. Which begs the question, Which is selling more: 3D Projectors or 3D TVs?



Considering that far more TVs are sold than projectors, by deduction, I'll guess more 3D TVs are sold than 3D projectors.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mike-90*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24173729
> 
> 
> people on here have said that they believe it'll continue on as more a "niche" thing but now I'm not so sure.



There are too many (much?) 3D hardware and software out there for 3D to die completely. At worst, it'll be like LD from the days gone by. Who knows? With the advent of glasses-free 3D, the genre might rise from the coma it's in right now. It's not being reported yet but Ultra D and Sharp. so far, are displaying glasses-free 3D TVs at 2014 CES.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24174103
> 
> 
> I think the Vizio announcement was a huge blow to 3D. Vizio sells the most TVs in the US. So if none of their new sets will have 3D, I would think this might be the beginning of the end for 3D at home. It was already a niche, but when the biggest US seller drops it, it seems like it's only a matter of time until it's gone.



I would suggest to all of those whose interest in 3D is more than just "fad of the moment" to write to Vizio and express your dissatisfaction.

I doubt it will have an impact but every way we can vote we should: be it with our dollars or our words.


Just a thought. I really do enjoy the quality 3D has become in the last couple of years.

Last night we watched Hugo 3D and it was well done.


Just found this in another thread:




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *J y E 4Ever*  /t/1506304/ces-2014/150#post_24176111
> 
> http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/01/07/ces-vizio-isnt-giving-up-on-3d-thinks-glasses-free-is-the-way-to-go CES: VIZIO ISN'T GIVING UP ON 3D, THINKS 'GLASSES FREE IS THE WAY TO GO' Vizio showed off a prototype 3D 4K resolution television at CES. BY: JUSTIN RUBIO JANUARY 7, 2014 Without a doubt, 3D television technology has been completely eclipsed by 4K TVs at this year's CES, and popular manufacturer Vizio has even gone as far as showcasing an entire new retail line of televisions that do not include 3D capabilities. However, while the company looks to be concentration on the budding 4K market more than anything else, it hasn't completely given up on 3D. In addition to its new HD and 4K TVs, Vizio also had a proof-of-concept 55-inch 3D television on display at CES that pushed out 4K resolution. But the company is carefully planning out the technology it will use in the televisions, if they ever even reach store shelves. "We think glasses-free is the way to go," a Vizio spokesperson told IGN. In fact, the prototype television featured an impressive 14 3D viewing angles. Vizio also said it was working with Dolby 3D technology for its television. At this point, there's no tentative launch window for a new 3D television from Vizio, but we do know that the company hasn't completely turned its back on the technology, even though its clear the trend is moving towards higher-resolution displays instead.


----------



## jvh4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cyrano*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24176106
> 
> 
> I would suggest to all of those whose interest in 3D is more than just "fad of the moment" to write to Vizio and express your dissatisfaction.
> 
> I doubt it will have an impact but every way we can vote we should: be it with our dollars or our words.
> 
> 
> Just a thought. I really do enjoy the quality 3D has become in the last couple of years.
> 
> Last night we watched Hugo 3D and it was well done.
> 
> 
> Just found this in another thread:



That's correct. They also plan to continue to sell the 2013 models with 3D.


----------



## fxrh

I'm curious. I have read that the Vizio 3D sets used LG screens, which would make sense since LG also had passive 3D technology. If that's the case, I wonder if Vizio's dropping of 3D might be related to the possible ending of an arrangement with LG as of 2014 (not that I've heard of anything like that actually happening).


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fxrh*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24182733
> 
> 
> I'm curious. I have read that the Vizio 3D sets used LG screens, which would make sense since LG also had passive 3D technology. If that's the case, I wonder if Vizio's dropping of 3D might be related to the possible ending of an arrangement with LG as of 2014 (not that I've heard of anything like that actually happening).



They actually do use LG screens...I was able to get into the service menu and noted that the panel was identified as an LG panel. However, I don't understand this move on Vizio's part...at least not this early in the "glasses-free 3D" game. The FPR panels do present technical issues when used in the smaller UHDTVs (Sony's 55" model cannot display 1080p while in 3D mode), and Vizio's partnership with 3DGo! has been less than successful (the streaming app simply will not work with some models even though they're listed as being "compatible").


I suppose we will just have to see if glasses-free 3D is ready for primetime. I've watched a couple of interviews with the execs from UltraD, and they explained that content must first be converted to their proprietary format in order for it to work with any TV that incorporates their technology. I expect that the other types of glasses-free 3D have the similar limitations as well.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fxrh*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24182733
> 
> 
> I'm curious. I have read that the Vizio 3D sets used LG screens, which would make sense since LG also had passive 3D technology. If that's the case, I wonder if Vizio's dropping of 3D might be related to the possible ending of an arrangement with LG as of 2014 (not that I've heard of anything like that actually happening).



I think you hit the nail on the head. IIRC, I read that Vizio is using Sharp and AUO panels for 2014 models. No LG = no 3D, sounds about right.


----------



## Don Landis

Rudy-

The ultra D system does require conversion but their system does this behind the scenes, this year, in the form of a special chip on a small circuit board inside the set. The conversion should not be of any concern to the viewer, anymore than every set also converts AC power to various DC voltages to run the TV.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24201897
> 
> 
> The ultra D system does require conversion but their system does this behind the scenes, this year, in the form of a special chip on a small circuit board inside the set. The conversion should not be of any concern to the viewer, anymore than every set also converts AC power to various DC voltages to run the TV.



I read your posts on Ultra-D in other threads, Don Landis. I take it you give it two thumbs up. Now the $5000 question is, is Ultra-D ready for prime time? Will you buy it when it comes out?


I don't have a shred of doubt when it comes to your expertise on 3D but I wonder if you'll be unbiased when it comes to actual judging of PQ or you'll give automatic thumbs up because it's 3D.


----------



## threed123

We have to remember that the cable channels, and especially media streamers, etc. are way behind the hi-def curve, and mobile is taking over and it's compressed (read low tech) video for now (ala youtube and flash) and a lot of it is just plain garbage. A whole change in video infrastructure needs to take place for 4K/Ultra to grow mainstream. It will take many years for that to happen. The cable companies are stretched now, and you can see that Netflix has reached a technical limit of sorts--they can't get 3D sent with any real speed yet. Just saying.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jvh4*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/120_60#post_24056250
> 
> 
> My biggest source of hope is actually the 3D offerings from Starz and HBO. They tend to have their pulse on the industry.


 

Though the UI design is hopelessly inept, the FIOS interface does allow you access to a section of current 3D movies to rent.  Usually $5.99 to $7.99.  I know renting sucks, but it's there. hey have what looks to be a large selection of major titles, including StarTrek into darkness 3D, The man of steel 3D, etc.

 

It's absurdly hidden under their "Collections" section.


----------



## jvh4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24233137
> 
> 
> Though the UI design is hopelessly inept, the FIOS interface does allow you access to a section of current 3D movies to rent.  Usually $5.99 to $7.99.  I know renting sucks, but it's there. hey have what looks to be a large selection of major titles, including StarTrek into darkness 3D, The man of steel 3D, etc.
> 
> 
> It's absurdly hidden under their "Collections" section.



This has been pretty much my experience on Comcast Xfinity as well. The new interface on the X1 box makes finding this a little faster. Right now though I can bring up Starz or HBO, but it won't show what content is 3D until I select a program to watch. On the other hand I can sort all content by 3D, but I don't know if its a rental or free with my subscription until I select it to watch.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jvh4*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24238587
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24233137
> 
> 
> Though the UI design is hopelessly inept, the FIOS interface does allow you access to a section of current 3D movies to rent.  Usually $5.99 to $7.99.  I know renting sucks, but it's there. hey have what looks to be a large selection of major titles, including StarTrek into darkness 3D, The man of steel 3D, etc.
> 
> 
> It's absurdly hidden under their "Collections" section.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has been pretty much my experience on Comcast Xfinity as well. The new interface on the X1 box makes finding this a little faster. Right now though I can bring up Starz or HBO, but it won't show what content is 3D until I select a program to watch. On the other hand I can sort all content by 3D, but I don't know if its a rental or free with my subscription until I select it to watch.
Click to expand...

 

Having a *single* search criteria is absolutely annoying.  I'm sure the general public would get even more confused then.  BTW, the comcast guys' idea of a UI made me want to hit the STB with a sledgehammer.  Seriously, their design drove me NUTS.

 

FIOS is better, but has that single search criteria thing.  Annoying.  What they should do is have a button *on the remote* which toggles Techie vs. Joe 6-pack interfaces, so we can get what we want.

 

Actually, can anyone help me with this: I *desperately* need an interface that I can search through easily (android app, or website or both) that I can click off the channels I'm interested in (including FIOS rental), and netflix, hulu, and Amazon, and say: What do we have for free in sci-fi.  Or what's the latest box-office smash movies.  Etc.


----------



## jvh4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24238701
> 
> 
> Having a _single_ search criteria is absolutely annoying.  I'm sure the general public would get even more confused then.  BTW, the comcast guys' idea of a UI made me want to hit the STB with a sledgehammer.  Seriously, their design drove me NUTS.
> 
> 
> FIOS is better, but has that single search criteria thing.  Annoying.  What they should do is have a button _on the remote_ which toggles Techie vs. Joe 6-pack interfaces, so we can get what we want.
> 
> 
> Actually, can anyone help me with this: I _desperately_ need an interface that I can search through easily (android app, or website or both) that I can click off the channels I'm interested in (including FIOS rental), and netflix, hulu, and Amazon, and say: What do we have for free in sci-fi.  Or what's the latest box-office smash movies.  Etc.



It's an industry wide issue. Vudu is the same way. You can sort by 3D or by rental, but not isolate 3D rentals on their app. You have to hover over the title and see if its "buy from xxx" or "rent from xxx" I find the new streamlined Netflix app to be a pain also. It's this whole move to blocky, mock mobile devices, Window 8 movement. Simple is _NO_T always better. Unfortunately the technologically inept are a large segment of the market. This is not solely a main stream issue. How many high-end devices catered toward video/audiophiles still have awkward labyrinth style menus?


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24202005
> 
> 
> I read your posts on Ultra-D in other threads, Don Landis. I take it you give it two thumbs up. Now the $5000 question is, is Ultra-D ready for prime time? Will you buy it when it comes out?
> 
> 
> I don't have a shred of doubt when it comes to your expertise on 3D but I wonder if you'll be unbiased when it comes to actual judging of PQ or you'll give automatic thumbs up because it's 3D.



I've given it no thumbs but did say it is ready for prime time. If you read all my posts on it I've been pretty consistent on the image quality. To repeat-

I said it does not appear to be as detailed and sharp as true LCD passive 4K TV's but better than 1080p TV's

I said it works as a glasses free 3D TV and is probably better suited for advertising panel in commercial applications. Here the ad will be an eye grabber and head turner which is what is needed in ads.

I said the main artifact continues to be a wobble of the image as you move your viewing position horizontally. The depth appears to go in and out. While there are many sweetspots for full depth, if you are off this, the depth can disappear.

The Ultra D image is better than the Dolby 3D system which has a larger "dot pitch" to the screen.

It is ready for prime time also because until this year the electronics for the signal conversion was too bulky. They reduced it to a chip and small circuit board that fits inside the TV case.

If a 50" TV size works for you and glasses free is top priority, this TV may be what satisfies if you don't mind the wobble. Getting used to a slightly softer 4K image is not difficult until you watch it side by side to a good Sony or LG 4K passive.


Will I personally buy one? Likely not. My reason is when I put a budget to a small panel, 4K TV it needs to be better than what I am now using in my edit suite. More likely that will be a passive LED 3d 4K panel that is 32 inches if they ever make one that size. I have a space limitation. I have never complained about hating wearing glasses. I only post this stuff for those who can't get to the shows and glasses free is their top priority. As for my home theater, I would install a 65" panel behind the roll down 105" screen for daytime viewing, but based on what I see today and the enjoyment of my bigger screen, I just don't want to spend the money, even for a 65" LED version. I don't like OLED due to the high reflection.


I'll be happy to answer any specific questions but I believe the above summarizes everything I'm already posted here and in the Satelliteguys CES threads.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24252790
> 
> 
> I said it does not appear to be as detailed and sharp as true LCD passive 4K TV's but better than 1080p TV's



Better than 1080p is good enough for me. (You mean full 1080-line, not 540-line picture like passive 3D, right?)


As to "wobble," doesn't that happen with current 3D TV as well? I thought I saw the picture shift some when I moved my head with my passive 3D TV.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24255083
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24252790
> 
> 
> I said it does not appear to be as detailed and sharp as true LCD passive 4K TV's but better than 1080p TV's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better than 1080p is good enough for me. (You mean full 1080-line, not 540-line picture like passive 3D, right?)
> 
> 
> As to "wobble," doesn't that happen with current 3D TV as well? I thought I saw the picture shift some when I moved my head with my passive 3D TV.
Click to expand...

 

I don't think I've ever seen that.  I'm not sure why it would.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24255359
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever seen that.  I'm not sure why it would.



I swear when I linearly move my head side to side (like when I scoot over on the sofa), the background shifts slightly relative to the foreground object. I was wondering if that was called "wobble." There is nothing negative about it.


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24255694
> 
> 
> I swear when I linearly move my head side to side (like when I scoot over on the sofa), the background shifts slightly relative to the foreground object. I was wondering if that was called "wobble." There is nothing negative about it.



I believe what he's referring to is the slight movement in the image as you shift your position from one "ideal" viewing spot to another...the entire image moves, not just the background or the foreground. On some systems it is very slight, but on others it is quite noticeable. I suppose the ideal system would not need to have multiple "ideal" viewing spots...the image would retain its full 3-dimensional quality no matter where you happened to be viewing from, and the transitions from one viewing position to another would be absolutely smooth. The only thing I've ever seen that does that is a hologram, and who knows when we will see a display that can do that.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24256821
> 
> 
> I believe what he's referring to is the slight movement in the image as you shift your position from one "ideal" viewing spot to another...the entire image moves, not just the background or the foreground. On some systems it is very slight, but on others it is quite noticeable.



Thank you! So I am not crazy and seeing things after all.


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180#post_24255083
> 
> 
> Better than 1080p is good enough for me. (You mean full 1080-line, not 540-line picture like passive 3D, right?)
> 
> 
> As to "wobble," doesn't that happen with current 3D TV as well? I thought I saw the picture shift some when I moved my head with my passive 3D TV.



I think the Samsung, LG and Sony offer equal passive LED screen quality in 4K panels. The Ultra D looks to my eyes to be less detailed in the image than these brands, like a coarser dot pitch. I have not seen a Resolution chart on these sets yet, nor an Ultra D side by side to a passive monitor, so I just have to make a guess on the opinion it is not really 4K after they modify the screen for glasses free. If the res chart shows true 4K detail, then the test would prove my judgement wrong.


I have never seen the Ultra D wobble on other panels except on the competitive Italian Ultra D knock-off glasses free demo. It does the same thing. The picture depth shift you see on your passive screen is the same with ALL s3D screens, including the movies. The shift in the viewer's focal point is the convergence of the frustums of the pyramid of viewing, which is a physical property of stereo 3D. Passive screens have a loss of convergence as you move vertically so with passive you need to view with eyes horizontal (with linear FPR) and perpendicular to the vertical of the panel's surface. Active screens do not have this limitation.


All 3D screens have some form of limitation, the buyer just needs to decide which are tolerable and which are not.



edit, I just thought- maybe the Ultra D has high video noise due to lots of processing and this is what I am seeing to make me believe the resolution is lower than 4K. Or, maybe none of their demos were sourced from 4K. Mark may know the answer to that.


----------



## Don Landis

Rudy1- Yes but hologram is not stereo 3D. It's a totally different projection technology. The Dolby s3D system I saw didn't seem to have the wobble effect. But the crowds were such that I couldn't move around too easily.


So people don't get the wrong idea. I sat in front of the Ultra D screen for quite awhile. ( Also needed to rest my feet







) and once positioned, I did not have a problem with the wobble with small natural movements of my eyes. A major reposition in the seat required a slight adjustment to get the 3D effect perfect again. I could actually reduce the image to flat world in some positions.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24257553
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24256821
> 
> 
> I believe what he's referring to is the slight movement in the image as you shift your position from one "ideal" viewing spot to another...the entire image moves, not just the background or the foreground. On some systems it is very slight, but on others it is quite noticeable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you! So I am not crazy and seeing things after all.
Click to expand...

 

No wait.  I think you two are talking about different things.  Rudy1, were you talking about glasses-free TV?

 

In the case of glasses-free 3D implementations there's these reported little disturbing artifacts as you move about.  I've heard of discomfort going from one "ideal" spot to another "ideal" spot.

 

In all 3D TV as you slide along a couch, your brain does extra work trying to figure out what's going on: it's getting left-right stereo separation that distorts with the viewport (tv facing glass) and squeezes together or relaxes as the angle of incidence to that glass changes.  After all, a TV and painting get skinnier when viewed at slight angles, but the eyes of the person drawn on them remain looking at you.

 

But there is no *"wobble"* from one "ideal spot to another" in passive/active, because within the viewing angle on the couch (particularly the vertical viewing angle for passive), *you remain in the ideal spot* (leaving out the extreme cases).  You get the distortive effects I mentioned, but no wobble.  *Or is there something here about stereo TV that I am missing?*

 

Have you tried gently moving your glasses around and see if the wobble is in the lens?


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24258549
> 
> 
> No wait.  I think you two are talking about different things.  Rudy1, were you talking about glasses-free TV?
> 
> 
> In the case of glasses-free 3D implementations there's these reported little disturbing artifacts as you move about.  I've heard of discomfort going from one "ideal" spot to another "ideal" spot.
> 
> 
> In all 3D TV as you slide along a couch, your brain does extra work trying to figure out what's going on: it's getting left-right stereo separation that distorts with the viewport (tv facing glass) and squeezes together or relaxes as the angle of incidence to that glass changes.  After all, a TV and painting get skinnier when viewed at slight angles, but the eyes of the person drawn on them remain looking at you.
> 
> 
> But there is no wobble from one "ideal spot to another" in passive/active, because within the viewing angle on the couch (particularly the vertical viewing angle for passive), you remain in the ideal spot (leaving out the extreme cases).  Or is there something here about stereo TV that I am missing?
> 
> 
> Have you tried gently moving your glasses around and see if the wobble is in the lens?



Yes, I was talking about the glasses-free 3D demos I've seen. It's almost as if the image is being displayed on a surface that is not flat...it's like you are looking at a cube and and when you move from side to side you are looking at each of the surfaces of the cube. Each time you cross over from one surface to the other, the image appears to wobble a bit. I have also seen what I think Apostate is referring to, and the best I can describe it is that in some instances it appears that the objects in the background of a (active/passive) 3D image shift slightly as you change your viewing position. Sometimes it's so pronounced that you get the distinct impression that you could actually "look behind" the objects in the foreground.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24258594
> 
> 
> I have also seen what I think Apostate is referring to, and the best I can describe it is that in some instances it appears that the objects in the background of a (active/passive) 3D image shift slightly as you change your viewing position. Sometimes it's so pronounced that you get the distinct impression that you could actually "look behind" the objects in the foreground.


 

I'm going to have to experiment with this.  I move around quite a bit when I have the neighborhood kids over to watch 3D.  (We're the 3D house.  LOL...)  I may be seeing it, but attributing it to the separation/viewport-angle distortion I was talking about earlier.


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> is there something here about stereo TV that I am missing?



tgm- I don't think so, you seem to have a pretty good understanding of the subtle differences among the various technologies.


Also, there is no image wobble on the little auto stereo monitors on my 3D camcorders. But there are multiple sweet spots to see depth or double along the horizontal.


For 3d passive, I don't see a sweet spot along the horizontal but do see the sweet spot on the vertical viewing angle.



I think what people need to realize, and I'm repeating myself here, that there is no perfect artifact free 3D stereo system. While active glasses projector systems seem to have the best overall viewing experience, the primary disadvantage here is the shutter glasses which are expensive and darken the image significantly but they have no horizontal or vertical loss of 3D, or image wobble. Cost, powered glasses, brightness, and contrast ratio is the limitation on active projector systems. People who are waiting for glasses free will have it this year if we are to believe the Ultra D people's timing prediction but I'm afraid they will not be 100% happy with the experience if they are thinking this will be perfect.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24258674
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> is there something here about stereo TV that I am missing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tgm- I don't think so, you seem to have a pretty good understanding of the subtle differences among the various technologies.
> 
> 
> Also, there is no image wobble on the little auto stereo monitors on my 3D camcorders. But there are multiple sweet spots to see depth or double along the horizontal.
> 
> 
> For 3d passive, I don't see a sweet spot along the horizontal but do see the sweet spot on the vertical viewing angle.
> 
> 
> 
> I think what people need to realize, and I'm repeating myself here, that there is no perfect artifact free 3D stereo system. While active glasses projector systems seem to have the best overall viewing experience, the primary disadvantage here is the shutter glasses which are expensive and darken the image significantly but they have no horizontal or vertical loss of 3D, or image wobble. Cost, powered glasses, brightness, and contrast ratio is the limitation on active projector systems. People who are waiting for glasses free will have it this year if we are to believe the Ultra D people's timing prediction but I'm afraid they will not be 100% happy with the experience if they are thinking this will be perfect.
Click to expand...

 

What I personally think is near, or at least *hope* is near is having a movie rendered from the real-time perspective of your choosing.  Imagine given an iPad and watching a dynamically rendered Avatar from any angle, switching to the eyes of any main character, hovering over the battle, sitting on the ships, or just wandering around (whatever what completed).  You move your tablet to the angle you want and you see under the ships, the sides of the buildings, etc.  VR googles like OR and the like are obvious mates for this.

 

Of course, the real stereo-filmed scenes would have to be redone....can't walk around a living person unless that person is first in VR.  But the purely CGI parts of Avatar would be a candidate for this.  As would anything made by pixar, etc.

 

I started a thread to this effect a long time ago, and it's pretty clear that gaming hardware has brought us to a close enough level for this.

 

Note: "Real time rendering of movies"  has come to mean something else, akin to merely short-cutting the post production rendering process, and other weird uses.  What I'm talking about needs a new term unfortunately.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24258594
> 
> 
> I have also seen what I think Apostate is referring to, and the best I can describe it is that in some instances it appears that the objects in the background of a (active/passive) 3D image shift slightly as you change your viewing position. Sometimes it's so pronounced that you get the distinct impression that you could actually "look behind" the objects in the foreground.



This is exactly it. It's almost as if you can see around the foreground object. So this effect is not "wobble," I take it? I don't think it's negative, it's rather cool actually.


----------



## Peterpack

I'm disappointed the Sports Illustrated 2011 came out in 3D but none since !


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24259796
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24258594
> 
> 
> I have also seen what I think Apostate is referring to, and the best I can describe it is that in some instances it appears that the objects in the background of a (active/passive) 3D image shift slightly as you change your viewing position. Sometimes it's so pronounced that you get the distinct impression that you could actually "look behind" the objects in the foreground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly it. It's almost as if you can see around the foreground object. So this effect is not "wobble," I take it? I don't think it's negative, it's rather cool actually.
Click to expand...

 

If this is what I think it is, then what this likely is is the brain receiving 3D information, knowing it's moving to the right, and trying to make sense of the fact that its not gaining extra behind-object information.

 

It's a little like when your head spins and you're convinced the room is tilting (if you went to college LOL), or when staring at those weird optical illusion images that your brain is convinced is moving.

 

I'm fairly certain that what your seeing is the 3D part of the brain being engaged to interpret data that would be there in real life viewing, but is missing in stereoscopic 3D TV.  Nothing in evolution would have prepared us for that.

 

BTW, this, among the lack of focus cues, is one of the reasons that I give credence to the warnings given by optical neurologists about very young kids spending very long amounts of time in front of 3D displays.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Peterpack*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24259991
> 
> 
> I'm disappointed the Sports Illustrated 2011 came out in 3D but none since !


 

There are some cross-eye images on the web of various things.  Even some on youtube.  Trickling in little by little, but it's there.  Perhaps some of those will be body-painted models...LOL....


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24259993
> 
> 
> If this is what I think it is, then what this likely is is the brain receiving 3D information, knowing it's moving to the right, and trying to make sense of the fact that its not gaining extra behind-object information.
> 
> 
> It's a little like when your head spins and you're convinced the room is tilting (if you went to college LOL), or when staring at those weird optical illusion images that your brain is convinced is moving.
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that what your seeing is the 3D part of the brain being engaged to interpret data that would be there in real life viewing, but is missing in stereoscopic 3D TV.  Nothing in evolution would have prepared us for that.
> 
> 
> BTW, this, among the lack of focus cues, is one of the reasons that I give credence to the warnings given by optical neurologists about very young kids spending very long amounts of time in front of 3D displays.



It's really weird how the brain tricks you into thinking you can actually look behind the foreground objects. The first time I noticed it I was quite startled and froze immediately. Then I realized what was happening because I knew what I thought I was seeing was not actually possible. I suppose my reaction to good 3D is not typical, but I still instinctively duck whenever something appears to come flying out of the screen.


----------



## Phil17108

I DON'T much care if it's dead or not, I do have 2 of them and have not watched much 3D. I think it's like a lot of other TV technology in the past, color was for ever coming slow until thats all there was and I think 3D well be something like that, get better and better and some time it well be part of the norm and without glasses. I remember the first color TV was really cool and looked about like 6 or 12 colors, the NBC logo is a good example. Todays viewers just could not watch it.


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24259993
> 
> 
> If this is what I think it is, then what this likely is is the brain receiving 3D information, knowing it's moving to the right, and trying to make sense of the fact that its not gaining extra behind-object information.
> 
> 
> It's a little like when your head spins and you're convinced the room is tilting (if you went to college LOL), or when staring at those weird optical illusion images that your brain is convinced is moving.
> 
> 
> I'm fairly certain that what your seeing is the 3D part of the brain being engaged to interpret data that would be there in real life viewing, but is missing in stereoscopic 3D TV.  Nothing in evolution would have prepared us for that.
> 
> 
> BTW, this, among the lack of focus cues, is one of the reasons that I give credence to the warnings given by optical neurologists about very young kids spending very long amounts of time in front of 3D displays.



What you describe has future application for the gaming industry. Performing arts, not so much. I pay to be entertained, not be the entertainment. I'm content to sit in the audience and observe. Others want to participate and that's why we have game consoles. Holographic gaming will be great for gamers. For those who just want to see performing art, not so much.


----------



## Jedi2016




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24256821
> 
> 
> I believe what he's referring to is the slight movement in the image as you shift your position from one "ideal" viewing spot to another...the entire image moves, not just the background or the foreground.


I don't think it has anything to do with viewing angle, I think it's a misinterpretation by your brain and visual cortex as to what you're seeing. Here's what I think is happening:


You're watching 3D content. Movie, game, whatever, doesn't matter. Your brain is interpreting the scene as having _physical_ depth. That's how 3D works, after all. Now, when you move your head, your brain _fully expects_ to see the viewing angle of the 3D content change perspective, as it would if you were looking at a real physical object. But, _that doesn't happen_... your viewpoint remains the same. The only way that can be happening is if the entire _scene_ is moving. So you get this momentary sensation that the image on the screen is physically moving from side to side, or rotating slightly to keep the same angle pointed at you at all times. It's the only way your brain can compensate for the concept of your movement changing, but the 3D perspective in front of you _doesn't_.


That's my theory, anyway.


I wonder if the effect is more or less pronounced depending on what kind of display you're using? I have a passive display and I notice the effect every time I so much as turn my head slightly (I don't find it bothersome, though, merely a curiosity). Do those that don't see it, or don't notice it, have active displays?


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> That's my theory, anyway.



I think you need to get in front of an Ultra D screen and test your theory. You just might need to do some modification.










The wobble effect is a combination of two artifacts- The horizontal movement causes the base image at the screen plane to distort as you move your head horizontally. This looks closest to the artifact of judder on fast pans at video with low frame rates. The second artifact is very similar to what we see on passive screens as you adjust your viewing vertically. The depth collapses to a 2D image and as you keep moving horizontally it returns to full depth. On a passive monitor, you can see the same depth reduction if you move vertically from a position perpendicular to the screen plane. No theories here, just observations.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24270430
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> That's my theory, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to get in front of an Ultra D screen and test your theory. You just might need to do some modification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wobble effect is a combination of two artifacts- The horizontal movement causes the base image at the screen plane to distort as you move your head horizontally. This looks closest to the artifact of judder on fast pans at video with low frame rates. The second artifact is very similar to what we see on passive screens as you adjust your viewing vertically. The depth collapses to a 2D image and as you keep moving horizontally it returns to full depth. On a passive monitor, you can see the same depth reduction if you move vertically from a position perpendicular to the screen plane. No theories here, just observations.
Click to expand...

 

On my TV I don't see a depth reduction moving vertically, unless we're talking about the minute effect of the screen rectangle turning into a trapezoid and the resulting minute confusion it gives the brain.  But that's not a depth reduction specific to passive.  Continuing vertically I of course *do* see the FPR start to no longer cover the correct scanline fully, which results in unbearable crosstalk.


----------



## Don Landis

tgm- I set up an experiment using a picture in picture. The overlay picture was pulled into negative parallax in front of the screen and the surrounding image was at screen plane. this is with normal viewing perpendicular. As I stood up the overlay picture that was in front began to push back to the screen plane and continued to punch through the surrounding image behind the screen plane.


In a more complex image set where the images possess thickness and depth perspective within the elements, yes parts of the image will deconverge into double image as you move vertically. This is because parts of the image get pulled against other parts which are pulled in the opposite direction. All these illusions of 3D imaging are artifacts of the FPR technology of passive panels. In the demos of silver screen polarized projector technology I've seen, this does not happen and appears similarly artifact free just like active shutter glasses projector images or commercial movie theaters.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24282087
> 
> 
> tgm- I set up an experiment using a picture in picture. The overlay picture was pulled into negative parallax in front of the screen and the surrounding image was at screen plane. this is with normal viewing perpendicular. As I stood up the overlay picture that was in front began to push back to the screen plane and continued to punch through the surrounding image behind the screen plane.
> 
> 
> In a more complex image set where the images possess thickness and depth perspective within the elements, yes parts of the image will deconverge into double image as you move vertically. This is because parts of the image get pulled against other parts which are pulled in the opposite direction. All these illusions of 3D imaging are artifacts of the FPR technology of passive panels. In the demos of silver screen polarized projector technology I've seen, this does not happen and appears similarly artifact free just like active shutter glasses projector images or commercial movie theaters.


 

In both active and passive, the geometric changes should yield the same distortive effects, except for the crosstalk information (the deconverging you saw) which is all explainable by the FPR covering up the wrong scanline or just allowing information to leak under it, no?  I'm not sure what you're seeing that incrementally pushes along the z axis like that.  Nor do I understand why that would happen differently from passive & active.

 

I'll go run Avatar quickly, pause it, and report back in a few.


----------



## tgm1024


Ok, the test I used was pretty good IMO.  I simply used the Avatar menu screen, which is composed of scenes from Avatar entirely in 2D (sitting right at the facing plane of the TV), with 3 menu items hovering in front (closer to me).

 

As I move back and forth, I get the common sense of a decrease or increase in perspective.  This isn't under debate, and is common: it's just the mind trying to make sense of diverging information that doesn't "collapse" along the Z axis the way things do IRL.  (The example of a zoomed in photograph of two people far apart in Z collapsing to look as if they're near each other comes to mind).

 

As I move up and down, as soon as the crosstalk starts, I then get dual images as each eye is receiving both L and R information.  This eliminates the fusing and puts the menu items as blurry images right on the facing glass with the background imaging.  As long as I'm *within* the viewing angle though I see no movement at all along the Z axis.  Actually, we have to be careful here: as you look at any one spot on the screen, if you move your head in a straight line parallel to the facing glass the distance to the item increases.  So you can see a *minute* amount of increased perspective from that.  If I move carefully (accurate to the inch) to make sure that my eyes are as far from that menu item as they were before, then I see absolutely no depth change.

 

And of course, when I go to an *absurdly* steep angle and look downward, the items do separate again and I'm able to get the FPR information reversed, pushing the menu items behind the facing plane as my L eye gets R info and vice versa.  This is as expected: the FPR line is now covering the wrong line entirely.

 

Do you have the Avatar 3DBD?  The three 3D menu items in front of a 2D backdrop is great for this.  Did I misunderstand your test?


----------



## tgm1024


Addendum.

 

I need a term for something.  The discussion is with me staying entirely within the vertical viewing angle.

 

If I am directly in front of the "Play" menu item, I see it at, say 4 inches up.  When my head moves upward and I look downward, instead of seeing what I would see in real life a inscrease in distance in line of sight from "play" to the section of screen underneath (say 6" now), I (must) see a distored shape over a distored shape with a line of sight difference of 4 inches.  I wonder if I'm mis-reporting this.

 

In real life:

 


Code:


[B]P[/B]: Imaginary "play" menu item 4 inches in front of a wall
[B]E1[/B]: Starting eye position
[B]E2[/B]: Ending eye position
 [B]A[/B]: E1's line of sight intersection with wall
 [B]B[/B]: E2's line of sight intersection with wall

  Real Life   Real Life
    Wall    Eye Positions
     |
     |
     |            
     |
     |         E2
     |        /
     |       /
     |      12 
     |     /
     |    /
     A-4-P----12----E1
     |  /
     | 6 
     |/
     B
     |

 

In the above P-A appears as 4" when at E1.  But P-B appears as 6" away when eye is at E2.  I'll have to think about the theory here a bit, because in the case of TVs, There is only an A, and it is always 4" away from P.


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> And of course, when I go to an absurdly steep angle and look downward, the items do separate again and I'm able to get the FPR information reversed, *pushing the menu items behind the facing plane* as my L eye gets R info and vice versa. This is as expected: the FPR line is now covering the wrong line entirely.



Yes, we see the same change in depth of the image.



> Quote:
> Do you have the Avatar 3DBD? The three 3D menu items in front of a 2D backdrop is great for this. Did I misunderstand your test?



Yes, I have the Avatar 3D disk but don't need to go get it. We are seeing the same thing. You just described the viewing angles and observations with more detail and precision than I did. You also explained why it was happening.


My point here was to point out to readers that in this and other threads, each of these viewing technologies; passive, active, panels, projectors, big screen, come with their own set of imperfections or artifacts or inconveniences. Some are just restrictions such as the viewing angles. While glasses free technology as a group offers the advantage of viewing s3D without glasses, these systems will come with their own set of imperfections and restrictions. Each person must decide what is tolerable and what is not. Personally, I find for 3D editing the passive panel is the best both from restrictions and artifacts. The glasses are so easy I forget I have them on. But watching a 3D program for enjoyment, I prefer the big screen of a projector, and a panel is out because my room requires Home theater conversion and therefore a roll up screen is mandatory. For this I tolerate the active glasses.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24282532
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> And of course, when I go to an absurdly steep angle and look downward, the items do separate again and I'm able to get the FPR information reversed, *pushing the menu items behind the facing plane* as my L eye gets R info and vice versa. This is as expected: the FPR line is now covering the wrong line entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we see the same change in depth of the image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Do you have the Avatar 3DBD? The three 3D menu items in front of a 2D backdrop is great for this. Did I misunderstand your test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I have the Avatar 3D disk but don't need to go get it. We are seeing the same thing. You just described the viewing angles and observations with more detail and precision than I did. You also explained why it was happening.
> 
> 
> My point here was to point out to readers that in this and other threads, each of these viewing technologies; passive, active, panels, projectors, big screen, come with their own set of imperfections or artifacts or inconveniences. Some are just restrictions such as the viewing angles. While glasses free technology as a group offers the advantage of viewing s3D without glasses, these systems will come with their own set of imperfections and restrictions. Each person must decide what is tolerable and what is not. Personally, I find for 3D editing the passive panel is the best both from restrictions and artifacts. The glasses are so easy I forget I have them on. But watching a 3D program for enjoyment, I prefer the big screen of a projector, and a panel is out because my room requires Home theater conversion and therefore a roll up screen is mandatory. For this I tolerate the active glasses.
Click to expand...

 

Just hope passive stays alive long enough to make it into the gigantic screens coming out.  The stupid questionable decisions of Vizio aside.


----------



## Don Landis

addendum-


You are about to venture into a topic I, at this point in my work with 3D do not care to spend more time on. Sorry!










This is a topic for optics physics and all I will say on it is it has been covered quite extensively in the literature. I suggest you find a copy of 3D Movie Making by Bernard Mendiburu 2009 printing release. It comes with a DVD that has explanations using 3D studio examples that is too difficult to explain in 2D print media. Here, Bernard, covers all these questions you have. A little background study just might be what it takes to answer all your questions and the 3D Studio examples on the DVD will help you visualize the physics in the book. I think there is a newer printing but do not know if it has the explanations described, but it may be a good update since it will likely include the most recent camera and display technology.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/180_60#post_24282598
> 
> 
> addendum-
> 
> 
> You are about to venture into a topic *[...]*


 

Nah, continuing that within a text based thread is of no use to anyone.  Besides, my interest is primarily in the neurological side of optics, because after all, it's the best machine to study there is.


----------



## andy sullivan

Referring to the original question," Is 3D about dead", I would say no but it is on life support. Using medical terms, they (manufactures, studios etc) have a cure but they do not see enough profit to manufacture said cure.


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24287009
> 
> 
> Referring to the original question," Is 3D about dead", I would say no but it is on life support. Using medical terms, they (manufactures, studios etc) have a cure but they do not see enough profit to manufacture said cure.



A few new titles are coming this year:

http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/3d-release-calendar


----------



## mldardy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24287009
> 
> 
> Referring to the original question," Is 3D about dead", I would say no but it is on life support. Using medical terms, they (manufactures, studios etc) have a cure but they do not see enough profit to manufacture said cure.



LOL. Not on life support. There's still plenty of 3D coming out for years to come. If it was on life support there wouldn't be any upcoming 3D movies.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mldardy*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24287166
> 
> 
> LOL. Not on life support. There's still plenty of 3D coming out for years to come. If it was on life support there wouldn't be any upcoming 3D movies.



I would not call that a long list of movies coming out in 3D. There were around 40 movies released in 3D in 2013. It looks like 2014 will only have around half that amount.


----------



## mldardy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24287235
> 
> 
> I would not call that a long list of movies coming out in 3D. There were around 40 movies released in 3D in 2013. It looks like 2014 will only have around half that amount.



There's 26 movies coming out on 3D this year and more titles in the future and there will be more that haven't even been announced yet. If it was on life support there would hardly be anything being released on 3D in the future. Just stop with this 3D is dead or on life support or whatever. Currently it isn't in either case.


----------



## jvh4

Wow, there are some awesome movies in that list that I didn't know were announced for 3D. Now to find out how many were actually shot for 3D and which are just converts.


2014 real 3D confirmed:

D-Day, Normandy 1944

Every Thing Will Be Fine

Godzilla

The Hobbit: There and Back Again

Hunter

The Legend of Hercules

The Lego Movie

Mr. Peabody & Sherman

The Nut Job

Pompeii

X-Men: Days of Future Past


I'm bummed the 300 movie will be fake 3D. A little further out, but based on how cool the converted Jurassic Park was, a true 3D Jurassic Park should be cool. Let's just hope the story is decent.


----------



## andy sullivan

The reasons I think Life Support is an appropriate term revolves around two separate situations. First and perhaps most importantly is Vizio's dropping of 3D. On it's face that might not seem to be a big deal but I think with Vizio's two newest TV's coming out in 2014, the P Series and the Reference Series, Vizio will be the go to large screen display. Even the hard core video aficionados will be hard pressed to deny the bang for the buck provided by Vizio for 2014. Secondly we have the studios making it way too easy for customers to say no to purchasing a 3D version. It's just too expensive. Gravity is a perfect example. Very very popular 3D in theaters and the 3D version at this moment is priced at $30 on Amazon. If it was priced at $20-$22 you would see a good percentage of 3D TV owners seriously considering opting 3D version in a combo pack. Some would be first time 3D movie buyers and thus also in the market for a new 3D blu-ray player (top brands for well under $80 now). I know of several friends that bought 3D TV's with no serious intention of using the 3D feature. But, with the right movie to entice them and the player price so low the plunge suddenly seems reasonable. If Vizio continues their abandonment of 3D it may be worse than life support.


----------



## mldardy

The Vizio angle really needs to die or I wish it would. There are plenty of options besides Vizio. People are not going to stop buying 3D because Vizio stopped selling them. The Gravity price is the norm for 3D. In that $25-30 range. You may get lucky and get a 3D title in the $20-25 range but that isn't the norm. I own 20 3D blu rays and only 1 of them, Man Of Steel, is currently below $25.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mldardy*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240_60#post_24287452
> 
> 
> The Vizio angle really needs to die or I wish it would. There are plenty of options besides Vizio. People are not going to stop buying 3D because Vizio stopped selling them. The Gravity price is the norm for 3D. In that $25-30 range. You may get lucky and get a 3D title in the $20-25 range but that isn't the norm.


 

I don't think Andy is doing this, but there is absolutely an unhealthy "ha ha" motivation regarding 3D that is sickening.  A little like people trying to feel better for not having a 3D TV themselves and want to bash those that like it.  Or "you thought you were so cool with your 3D TV but we showed you".  Or something like that.  But it's lame lame lame and pathetic as hell.  Trying to put us all in our place or something?

 

I've seen no end of people so chomping at the bit to say words to the effect of "They really F'd up with 3D", or run to starting threads trying to list out all the reasons (even weak ones) to support their theory.  If you don't care about 3D, why would you care so much to bash it?  Because in their eyes, there's a win in bashing it.  As juvenile as it may be.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mldardy*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24287452
> 
> 
> The Vizio angle really needs to die or I wish it would. There are plenty of options besides Vizio. People are not going to stop buying 3D because Vizio stopped selling them. The Gravity price is the norm for 3D. In that $25-30 range. You may get lucky and get a 3D title in the $20-25 range but that isn't the norm. I own 20 3D blu rays and only 1 of them, Man Of Steel, is currently below $25.


The problem is that Vizio sells more TVs than anyone else in the US. And since they dropped 3D from all their 2014 TVs, that will mean fewer 3D TVs sold.


That is not a good trend for those of us that enjoy 3D.


----------



## Isnoreatmovies




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24287235
> 
> 
> I would not call that a long list of movies coming out in 3D. There were around 40 movies released in 3D in 2013. It looks like 2014 will only have around half that amount.



I saw a list of 41 US films and 15 or so international films set to come out in 3D on another forum. Not sure if that list was all-inclusive either. There's a lot of year left.


----------



## Cyrano

So much that is said here that I agree with. The fluctuations of 3D may be something that is normal in the development of a "new" technology. I do think there is a lot of "lowest common denominator" stuff that is keeping 3D from growing as fast as it could.

I think a great strategy for positive growth would be for there to be an abundance of attractively priced 3D media available to the general buying public. It is still too much of a niche group.


We may see 3D fall even further in acceptance. I think tcm1024 and Andy have said better than I could rephrase about the forces that seem to be steering the present situation.


What to do is to write to manufacturers who are dropping the ball, and to movie makers who are exploiting the small 3D buying group rather than trying to expand its size.


Or so it seems to me at the present moment. Things change.


----------



## Isnoreatmovies




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24287586
> 
> 
> The problem is that Vizio sells more TVs than anyone else in the US. And since they dropped 3D from all their 2014 TVs, that will mean fewer 3D TVs sold.



Vizio's own people say they haven't ditched 3D. They just don't have new 3D models this year but will continue to put out last year's models. They were getting their passive screens from LG, that's changed. It'll be curious what happens in the future with their next generation of 3D appears down the line.


----------



## Rudy1

I believe what is lost on a lot of posters is that the one thing Vizio had going for them was that their TVs were cheap, so getting into 3D could cost a lot less than if you went with a LG or Samsung or Sony in the same price range. Also, keep in mind that the company has routinely "revamped" existing model lines without actually coming out with a new model, so we will probably see model number variations on the existing M3D series during 2014.


UHD is the "big thing" right now, but even the industry professionals acknowledge in their trade magazines that the lack of content is going to be a problem for the foreseeable future, at least in places other than Japan. Everyone's talking about streaming 4K, but I have yet to see a source that can stream 1080p content that looks exactly like a well-mastered Blu-ray disc...and my download speeds average 50 Mbps!


I am pretty certain that, when confronted with the cost of the new 4K sets, most consumers will want the best bang for their buck...and that will most likely mean they will chose a 4K set with 3D over one that doesn't if the pricing is similar. And those gorgeous 100-inch plus 4K sets that thrilled people at CES are not going to end up in one out of every ten households in America, whether they have 3D or not. Prices are going to dictate what sells, and even though manufacturers would love it if everyone went out and bought a 4K set, it's just not going to happen. In fact, they may see sales of the new UHD TVs being cannibalized by the large left over inventory of overpriced 3D 1080p sets that Samsung and LG came out with in 2013. We on AVS may think there isn't enough 3D content to go around, but for a buyer who's new to the medium even the most inane documentaries that we have ignored or trashed over the last 3 years will seem fascinating. In the end, I think all 3D needs is better PR and less commentary from TV reviewers whining about how "nerdy" the 3D glasses make you look. Do they realize you're only required to wear them while watching a movie in the theater or in your home...not when you're making out with a Victoria Secrets model or a Chippendale dancer?.


----------



## jvh4




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24288354
> 
> 
> I believe what is lost on a lot of posters is that the one thing Vizio had going for them was that their TVs were cheap, so getting into 3D could cost a lot less than if you went with a LG or Samsung or Sony in the same price range. Also, keep in mind that the company has routinely "revamped" existing model lines without actually coming out with a new model, so we will probably see model number variations on the existing M3D series during 2014.
> 
> 
> UHD is the "big thing" right now, but even the industry professionals acknowledge in their trade magazines that the lack of content is going to be a problem for the foreseeable future, at least in places other than Japan. Everyone's talking about streaming 4K, but I have yet to see a source that can stream 1080p content that looks exactly like a well-mastered Blu-ray disc...and my download speeds average 50 Mbps!
> 
> 
> I am pretty certain that, when confronted with the cost of the new 4K sets, most consumers will want the best bang for their buck...and that will most likely mean they will chose a 4K set with 3D over one that doesn't if the pricing is similar. And those gorgeous 100-inch plus 4K sets that thrilled people at CES are not going to end up in one out of every ten households in America, whether they have 3D or not. Prices are going to dictate what sells, and even though manufacturers would love it if everyone went out and bought a 4K set, it's just not going to happen. In fact, they may see sales of the new UHD TVs being cannibalized by the large left over inventory of overpriced 3D 1080p sets that Samsung and LG came out with in 2013. We on AVS may think there isn't enough 3D content to go around, but for a buyer who's new to the medium even the most inane documentaries that we have ignored or trashed over the last 3 years will seem fascinating. In the end, I think all 3D needs is better PR and less commentary from TV reviewers whining about how "nerdy" the 3D glasses make you look. Do they realize you're only required to wear them while watching a movie in the theater or in your home...not when you're making out with a Victoria Secrets model or a Chippendale dancer?.



So when everyone is reading that 3D is over and 4K is king and they decide to go buy a 4K TV and the cheapest option is a Vizio without 3D, I don't think many people will deiced to pay the extra money for a Sony set with 3D. That's what people are worried about with the Vizio news. Unfortunately for those of us who like 3D, more non 3D ready TVs in homes is bad news for the medium.


I personally believe glasses free 3D is 3Ds best chance at becoming mainstream. Right now 3D in the home is only for movie watching, not TV watching. TV watching drive a lot more TV sales than movie watching I'd wager. To enjoy 3D in the home you need a pretty big display, and you need glasses, and 3D content. It all worth it to many of us. For me its 3D projector in the theater and 2D TV in the living room.


----------



## Rudy1

Forget about glassless 3D. I want 360 degree, full color holograms!


----------



## Louis Sytsma

For me the allure of the 3D lies in gaming not in movies. Every game I have played that works properly in 3D is a greatly enhanced experience. Tomb Raider 2013 is flat out awesome in 3D. Trine on the PS4 is gorgeous.


Movies that are enhanced by 3D occur much less frequently and the use of 3D is best suited for live action movies when setting a tone or story telling style. Avatar, Gravity, Hugo, Life of Pi are the few examples of live action movies which integrate 3D into the presentation of telling a story. Most live action movies gain nothing by adding 3D and often the use of 3D has the opposite effect - it detracts from the story. Animated movies offers greater possibilities.


But in gaming - especially with Oculus Rift on the horizon - that is where I believe 3D will flourish.


----------



## inefekt

The problem with 3DTV is that it's not the right medium for 3D. The lure of 3D lies in its immersion and you simply cannot get that on a 50" TV. A 3D projector with a 120" screen on the other hand covers a much higher percentage of your field of view which is exactly what is required to create that immersion experience. The whole 3D world is almost sucking the viewer in, there are very few peripheral distractions to take your mind off the action in front of you. There is no way a 50" screen 10 feet away from you is going to have remotely the same effect. I've seen people who have experienced 3DTV and been left unimpressed but when I demo my projector they're left with their mouths open and their jaws on the floor. Unfortunately not everybody is willing to fork over $3k for a full HD 3D projector so 3D is stuck being a niche market and big companies don't make money from niche markets.

As mentioned, the next big thing is 4K UHD TV which is taking consumers away from 3D though I'm really looking forward to UHD 3D projectors hitting the market!


----------



## fredl

I have been a 3D skeptic except for a select few 3D titles at the move theatre (Avatar, A turtles tale, Hugo). But since getting a 3d front projector at home (w1070) I have reconsidered. 144 hz 3D is awesome and adds to the viewing experience. Both Bolt and Jurassic Park were very enjoyable.


117" from 15' makes for immersive movie watching. 3D gaming is also very cool.


----------



## tgm1024


No, not size.  It's about FOV, FOV and FOV.  (In that order).

 

And the statements I hear from time to time to the effect of "you *have* to go huge" are completely incorrect.  I have *absolutely no trouble* enjoying a 3D movie on my 60R550A at ~12.  And that's certainly a tighter field than someone watching a 50" at 6 feet.

 

In those home theaters of yours, how many PH's do you sit back?


----------



## johnny905

If my experience this weekend is any indication, then 3D is far from dead. I had some friends over for some a game of cards this weekend. 3 years ago when I bought my 3DTV I tried to "show it off" to them doing a similar card game and none of them had any interest whatsoever. It was, "I'm not really into 3D", "I don't like 3D", etc, and they didn't really want to see ANY of the 3D demos I planned to show them. So I've never really brought up the topic of 3D since.


Fast forward 2 years and one of them says out of the blue, "hey, this is a 3DTV right? How is it? Do you like it?". He tries on a pair of glasses and asks what 3D movies I have. And then ALL of my friends ended up spending the last 2 hours of the night first watching clips from Under The Sea and Pacific Rim, and then watching Resident Evil in its entirety. All along they were all saying things like, "this is really cool", "I've got to get one of these", etc.


I was shocked that they had any interest in 3DTV, let alone that most of them now suddenly want to get a 3DTV as their next TV. I really question Vizio's decision to shun 3D in their new TVs at this stage in the cycle.


----------



## mldardy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnny905*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24335945
> 
> 
> If my experience this weekend is any indication, then 3D is far from dead. I had some friends over for some a game of cards this weekend. 3 years ago when I bought my 3DTV I tried to "show it off" to them doing a similar card game and none of them had any interest whatsoever. It was, "I'm not really into 3D", "I don't like 3D", etc, and they didn't really want to see ANY of the 3D demos I planned to show them. So I've never really brought up the topic of 3D since.
> 
> 
> Fast forward 2 years and one of them says out of the blue, "hey, this is a 3DTV right? How is it? Do you like it?". He tries on a pair of glasses and asks what 3D movies I have. And then ALL of my friends ended up spending the last 2 hours of the night first watching clips from Under The Sea and Pacific Rim, and then watching Resident Evil in its entirety. All along they were all saying things like, "this is really cool", "I've got to get one of these", etc.
> 
> 
> I was shocked that they had any interest in 3DTV, let alone that most of them now suddenly want to get a 3DTV as their next TV. I really question Vizio's decision to shun 3D in their new TVs at this stage in the cycle.



Awesome


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnny905*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24335945
> 
> 
> If my experience this weekend is any indication, then 3D is far from dead. I had some friends over for some a game of cards this weekend. 3 years ago when I bought my 3DTV I tried to "show it off" to them doing a similar card game and none of them had any interest whatsoever. It was, "I'm not really into 3D", "I don't like 3D", etc, and they didn't really want to see ANY of the 3D demos I planned to show them. So I've never really brought up the topic of 3D since.
> 
> 
> Fast forward 2 years and one of them says out of the blue, "hey, this is a 3DTV right? How is it? Do you like it?". He tries on a pair of glasses and asks what 3D movies I have. And then ALL of my friends ended up spending the last 2 hours of the night first watching clips from Under The Sea and Pacific Rim, and then watching Resident Evil in its entirety. All along they were all saying things like, "this is really cool", "I've got to get one of these", etc.
> 
> 
> I was shocked that they had any interest in 3DTV, let alone that most of them now suddenly want to get a 3DTV as their next TV. I really question Vizio's decision to shun 3D in their new TVs at this stage in the cycle.



Vizio doesn't have much choice though since they aren't getting their panels from LG any more. The LG panels were 3D capable while their new supplier isn't.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johnny905*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240_60#post_24335945
> 
> 
> All along they were all saying things like, "this is really cool", "I've got to get one of these", etc.
> 
> 
> I was shocked that they had any interest in 3DTV, let alone that most of them now suddenly want to get a 3DTV as their next TV. I really question Vizio's decision to shun 3D in their new TVs at this stage in the cycle.


 

What's sad is that people with absolutely no credentials whatsoever will kill off this technology with a lot of he-said she-said *crap* conversations around the water cooler.  My non-technical mom called me after I bought my TV all worried because she "heard on the news that 3D TVs were going away".  THE NEWS!  The people expounding upon the pitfalls of 3D largely just do not know WTF they are talking about regarding the state of the technology itself.  How many times have we heard people ignorantly parrot the phrase "3D is a gimmick"?


----------



## coolhand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredl*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24332437
> 
> 
> I have been a 3D skeptic except for a select few 3D titles at the move theatre (Avatar, A turtles tale, Hugo). But since getting a 3d front projector at home (w1070) I have reconsidered. 144 hz 3D is awesome and adds to the viewing experience. Both Bolt and Jurassic Park were very enjoyable.
> 
> 
> 117" from 15' makes for immersive movie watching. 3D gaming is also very cool.



This is entirely my situation. I bought a PJ because my last one was on its last legs and wanted 1080p. I gave no value to the fact that it was reviewed as a solid 3d PJ, I just knew I got a deal on it and it was going to be really nice 2d. After watching a few movies in 3d, I am completely infatuated. We live a fair ways from most of our friends but when they finally came over to see it they were pretty amazed. One was positing that he had been wasting his money on all the wrong toys and made a comment on how I had changed his life.


I scoff at the notion that 3D is dying. And frankly, I would have NO PROBLEM if it remained a niche market.


----------



## aaronwt

There is no question that 3D is waning. Although I still enjoy it once or twice a week. But personally I know a bunch of people with 3D sets. The only other person I know that uses 3D regularly is my broher. The other people tried it out a couple of times and didn't like it enough to continue using it.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inefekt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24332042
> 
> 
> The problem with 3DTV is that it's not the right medium for 3D. The lure of 3D lies in its immersion and you simply cannot get that on a 50" TV. A 3D projector with a 120" screen on the other hand covers a much higher percentage of your field of view which is exactly what is required to create that immersion experience. The whole 3D world is almost sucking the viewer in, there are very few peripheral distractions to take your mind off the action in front of you. There is no way a 50" screen 10 feet away from you is going to have remotely the same effect. I've seen people who have experienced 3DTV and been left unimpressed but when I demo my projector they're left with their mouths open and their jaws on the floor. Unfortunately not everybody is willing to fork over $3k for a full HD 3D projector so 3D is stuck being a niche market and big companies don't make money from niche markets.
> 
> As mentioned, the next big thing is 4K UHD TV which is taking consumers away from 3D though I'm really looking forward to UHD 3D projectors hitting the market!





Agreed. Size does matter when it comes to 3d in my experience as well. The difference between viewing 3d on a 65" Panny plasma over at a family members house even from 8-10' away vs watching 3d on my 9' wide 2.35 screen at home is dramatic to say the least. One experience is pretty cool, but the novelty wears off quick while the other is captivating and really sucks you into whatever you are watching. I definitely think this is part of why 3d has not caught on as much as it could have as you just don't get the full experience on a relatively small ~65" flat panel or smaller.



As far as 3d being dead, I don't think that is the case, but rather it is simply settled at this point. We had the big 3d hype push and now it is just another feature it seems with 4k being the new buzz word. Obviously it did not catch on quite as much as some had hoped by this point for various reasons including what I mentioned above, but I don't see it dying at this stage.


----------



## coolhand




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24287586
> 
> 
> The problem is that Vizio sells more TVs than anyone else in the US. And since they dropped 3D from all their 2014 TVs, that will mean fewer 3D TVs sold.
> 
> 
> That is not a good trend for those of us that enjoy 3D.



The first part is obvious. The second part, not so much.


Vizio's market position is definitively the lower end of the TV market. Outside of the fact that hey don't produce 3d tech and their supplier is gone, they elected to save a little money on their TVs by taking out some options. This is very common and probably a good business decision. But removing the low end of the market is a good thing. 3D has suffered when bad conversions and bad tech make viewing a negative experience. Any TV that has lousy 3D is doing the tech a disservice.


This need to gain mainstream acceptance is peculiar to me. Lets keep it a quality niche market where there isn't a huge profit motive to reduce the quality of the presentations.


----------



## SFMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24287009
> 
> 
> Referring to the original question," Is 3D about dead", I would say no but it is on life support. Using medical terms, they (manufactures, studios etc) have a cure but they do not see enough profit to manufacture said cure.



At this time I believe Hollywood wants out of domenstic 3D. Proof being the announcment from Paramount that they will release a conversion of Darren Aronofsky's NOAH overseas but not in the US. http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2014/02/darren-aronofskys-noah-goes-3d.html 


I really wonder if they will even release the 3D version on bluray. My gut feeling is they will not.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SFMike*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240_60#post_24337610
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/210#post_24287009
> 
> 
> Referring to the original question," Is 3D about dead", I would say no but it is on life support. Using medical terms, they (manufactures, studios etc) have a cure but they do not see enough profit to manufacture said cure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this time I believe Hollywood wants out of domenstic 3D. Proof being the announcment from Paramount that they will release a conversion of Darren Aronofsky's NOAH overseas but not in the US.
Click to expand...

 

I want to make sure I understand you here:

 
1 announcement of
1 movie company
not releasing in the US 1 movie
that is a 3D conversion

 

is somehow "proof" that all of Hollywood wants out of domestic 3D?

 

Good grief, I think you made one heck of a leap.


----------



## Rudy1

I still believe that the biggest detractors of 3D are the TV reviewers who from the very beginning complained bitterly about how uncomfortable and ridiculous-looking the glasses were. Many began reviews of new 3D TV sets by stating quite emphatically that they "hated 3D", and some even slanted their reviews in such a way as to portray a particular model's 3D capabilities as a non-factor in their overall rating of a set---without actually testing the set's 3D performance. Never mind their professional obligation to be objective and impartial...if they didn't like 3D, you shouldn't either. Things got worse as time went by, until they just stopped rating these sets altogether, leaving consumers interested in the technology to wonder what which set performed best.


Manufacturers weren't just standing around waiting patiently for sales to increase...they were actually busy shooting themselves in the foot by releasing sets with crosstalk so bad as to make the 3D feature completely unusable. Vizio's active 3D, FALD sets were absolutely awful, and some of LG's 3D models are nothing short of an embarrassment. I mean, how the hell can you screw up passive 3D so badly that no matter what settings you choose there is ALWAYS a significant amount of crosstalk??? DLPs had the best 3D, but Mitsubishi decided they'd lost enough on consumer displays and shut their factories down. Can you imagine a UHD 3D DLP?


The lack of 3D content on cable, coupled with the inability of most directors to frame and compose for 3D and the really awful 2D to 3D conversions, didn't help matters either. And when it became "cool" to bash 3D as just a "stupid gimmick", you had people who had never even watched anything in 3D proclaiming that it was a waste of time and money. This, though some of the biggest detractors stated early on that even the worst 3D TV was a "superior" 2D TV.


Ah, and of course there was (and still is) all that "misinformation" in the retail stores. I get such perverse pleasure out of behaving like an ingenue when a well-meaning salesman tries to explain that 3D TVs and 3D-capable Blu-Ray players cannot play standard 2D content. Or that a simple firmware update will enable full 4K capability on a Samsung UN55F8000. I am so happy that the lives of the innocent are not in the hands of these people.


Having owned 3D sets in all of their variants except for front projectors, I can say that I've seen the very best and the very worst, and I still like 3D. When done right, it adds a lot to the subject matter; in a worst case scenario, good 3D makes for excellent eye candy. It is a shame that the technology didn't ever get the PR management it deserved, nor the commitment to excellence it needed from the TV manufacturers and the content providers. Everybody (except maybe a couple of well-known directors) was in it for a quick buck, and as soon as they got bored they decided to move on to the "next big thing". Hollywood stands to lose the most from not having a 3D option, as they will no longer have two separate profit streams (from 3D in the theaters and through Blu-Ray releases of the same movie). So I just don't get their apparent lack of enthusiasm. Maybe those uncomfortable, ridiculous-looking glasses are a turnoff for the studio chiefs as well.


----------



## cinema13

Have there even been any TV commercials promoting the format? Except for a couple on-line ads for a Blu-Ray title, I've never seen one. Even most print ads for TVs don't mention 3D on the enabled models they're selling. Not exactly the best way to draw buyers. Nor are the lack of demos in most stores. It takes more than just one year of half-hearted promotion to intrigue buyers. I've always felt the consumer electronics industry is the most inept group in the entire business world.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24337793
> 
> 
> I want to make sure I understand you here:
> 1 announcement of
> 1 movie company
> not releasing in the US 1 movie
> that is a 3D conversion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is somehow "proof" that all of Hollywood wants out of domestic 3D?
> 
> 
> Good grief, I think you made one heck of a leap.



the movie Frozen, 3D BD release was also dropped from the US. Although the UK 3D BD is still supposed to be released.


----------



## SFMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24337793
> 
> 
> I want to make sure I understand you here:
> 1 announcement of
> 1 movie company
> not releasing in the US 1 movie
> that is a 3D conversion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is somehow "proof" that all of Hollywood wants out of domestic 3D?
> 
> 
> Good grief, I think you made one heck of a leap.



I'm looking at what I feel is a trend and not basing my opinion on one announcment. I'm also basing my opinion on what I see in the scheduling of 3D showingings at theaters and the lack of promotion and production of new 3D titles. It seems that the fact that a film is in 3D is almost treated as an embarassment rather than a feature. So no I'm not using this one instance as "proof" all Hollywood wants out of 3D. But it is proof that a major studio finds 3D non-profitable in the US and there are not that many major studios.


In the digital age, releasing the 3D conversion in the US would not cost Paramount anymore since the conversion is already paid for, so I would assume that what they would consider a slight increase in US profits is not worth the effort of having exhibitors flip the 3D switch on some showings at the theaters. It proves to me that they do not see 3D as a profit point here and, to the corporate mind, it becomes something to get rid of. I believe that behind the scenes at all the studios the discussion of ending 3D is going on due to it's lack of mega profits and the feeling that overall US audience opinion is that it is not "cool."


----------



## cinema13

Did Aronofsky even shoot under the consideration that 3D would be applied? If not, it may not be a big deal. THE WOLVERINE 3D conversion might just as well have been in 2D. Ditto for MAN OF STEEL (which I purchased in 3D but the effect adds little to the movie).


----------



## SFMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24337935
> 
> 
> I still believe that the biggest detractors of 3D are the TV reviewers who from the very beginning complained bitterly about how uncomfortable and ridiculous-looking the glasses were. Many began reviews of new 3D TV sets by stating quite emphatically that they "hated 3D", and some even slanted their reviews in such a way as to portray a particular model's 3D capabilities as a non-factor in their overall rating of a set---without actually testing the set's 3D performance. Never mind their professional obligation to be objective and impartial...if they didn't like 3D, you shouldn't either. Things got worse as time went by, until they just stopped rating these sets altogether, leaving consumers interested in the technology to wonder what which set performed best.
> 
> 
> Manufacturers weren't just standing around waiting patiently for sales to increase...they were actually busy shooting themselves in the foot by releasing sets with crosstalk so bad as to make the 3D feature completely unusable. Vizio's active 3D, FALD sets were absolutely awful, and some of LG's 3D models are nothing short of an embarrassment. I mean, how the hell can you screw up passive 3D so badly that no matter what settings you choose there is ALWAYS a significant amount of crosstalk??? DLPs had the best 3D, but Mitsubishi decided they'd lost enough on consumer displays and shut their factories down. Can you imagine a UHD 3D DLP?
> 
> 
> The lack of 3D content on cable, coupled with the inability of most directors to frame and compose for 3D and the really awful 2D to 3D conversions, didn't help matters either. And when it became "cool" to bash 3D as just a "stupid gimmick", you had people who had never even watched anything in 3D proclaiming that it was a waste of time and money. This, though some of the biggest detractors stated early on that even the worst 3D TV was a "superior" 2D TV.
> 
> 
> Ah, and of course there was (and still is) all that "misinformation" in the retail stores. I get such perverse pleasure out of behaving like an ingenue when a well-meaning salesman tries to explain that 3D TVs and 3D-capable Blu-Ray players cannot play standard 2D content. Or that a simple firmware update will enable full 4K capability on a Samsung UN55F8000. I am so happy that the lives of the innocent are not in the hands of these people.
> 
> 
> Having owned 3D sets in all of their variants except for front projectors, I can say that I've seen the very best and the very worst, and I still like 3D. When done right, it adds a lot to the subject matter; in a worst case scenario, good 3D makes for excellent eye candy. It is a shame that the technology didn't ever get the PR management it deserved, nor the commitment to excellence it needed from the TV manufacturers and the content providers. Everybody (except maybe a couple of well-known directors) was in it for a quick buck, and as soon as they got bored they decided to move on to the "next big thing". Hollywood stands to lose the most from not having a 3D option, as they will no longer have two separate profit streams (from 3D in the theaters and through Blu-Ray releases of the same movie). So I just don't get their apparent lack of enthusiasm. Maybe those uncomfortable, ridiculous-looking glasses are a turnoff for the studio chiefs as well.



Rudy....Really well written. I believe you got it all right. 3D has had one of the worst promotional campaigns ever. My experience has been that when the 3D works right and is good, people get excited about it. The manufactuers and retailers have done a great job of shooting themselves in the foot on every step of the way. Now they see 4K as the new cash cow and are repeating the same mistakes. Does the public even know that 4K TVs can show 3D too? I feel that Hollywood has already given up on the 3D option as the profit point has proven to be to low. Thanks for your insight.


----------



## SFMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24338175
> 
> 
> the movie Frozen, 3D BD release was also dropped from the US. Although the UK 3D BD is still supposed to be released.



I heard that on initial bluray release the 3D version would be a Walmart or Best Buy exclusive. Anyone else hear this?


----------



## superleo

Expanding a little on what Rudy1 mentioned... Studios and TV companies really need some GOOD marketing consultants. Not my industry at all, but If they would consult me







they had the perfect opportunity to increase sales all around. Drop the cost of regular BDs, engineer a Kick butt 3D TV that can be franchise. Once these are in place, market the heck out of 3d at the current prices. WIN, WIN, WIN + WIN consumer all the way to the bank.


Then the the experts in the industry really need to actually try it, instead of saying "You look stupid wearing those glasses" before even really knowing. Another chance for the industry to redesign the 3D glasses into something really cool and usable... the more different items that people want ... more money for the industry.


Is not that 3D is dying, is that the people that could actually make it a hit don't know what they have.


----------



## mldardy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240#post_24336775
> 
> 
> What's sad is that people with absolutely no credentials whatsoever will kill off this technology with a lot of he-said she-said *crap* conversations around the water cooler.  My non-technical mom called me after I bought my TV all worried because she "heard on the news that 3D TVs were going away".  THE NEWS!  The people expounding upon the pitfalls of 3D largely just do not know WTF they are talking about regarding the state of the technology itself.  How many times have we heard people ignorantly parrot the phrase "3D is a gimmick"?



LOL my mom and brother did the same thing to me. I bought my 3dtv in 2012 and told them and both were so worried and concerned about me doing it and said they heard it wouldn't last, and other stuff and now both have 3dtv's in there homes. My feeling back then and now is if it dies tomorrow I'm still going to keep and enjoy my 3dtv because I like having the option of watching my favorite movies over and over again in 3d.


----------



## mldardy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SFMike*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24338190
> 
> 
> I'm looking at what I feel is a trend and not basing my opinion on one announcment. I'm also basing my opinion on what I see in the scheduling of 3D showingings at theaters and the lack of promotion and production of new 3D titles. It seems that the fact that a film is in 3D is almost treated as an embarassment rather than a feature. So no I'm not using this one instance as "proof" all Hollywood wants out of 3D. But it is proof that a major studio finds 3D non-profitable in the US and there are not that many major studios.
> 
> 
> In the digital age, releasing the 3D conversion in the US would not cost Paramount anymore since the conversion is already paid for, so I would assume that what they would consider a slight increase in US profits is not worth the effort of having exhibitors flip the 3D switch on some showings at the theaters. It proves to me that they do not see 3D as a profit point here and, to the corporate mind, it becomes something to get rid of. I believe that behind the scenes at all the studios the discussion of ending 3D is going on due to it's lack of mega profits and the feeling that overall US audience opinion is that it is not "cool."


It has been pointed it in this thread that there isn't a lack of promotion and production of new 3D titles. 3D is still going strong despite what you may think. It's not going away whether it's 4K or non-4K.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SFMike*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24338614
> 
> 
> I heard that on initial bluray release the 3D version would be a Walmart or Best Buy exclusive. Anyone else hear this?



That would be great if true. But I thought I read that it was cancelled in the US?


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24338953
> 
> 
> That would be great if true. But I thought I read that it was cancelled in the US?


r

Looks like both stores removed them. Don't even know if the overseas edition will actually be available. One reason I heard is that Disney wants to use the title to promote their 3D Smart TV app they have with Sony (called 3Net, if I'm not mistaken). I haven't seen this movie...is it even worth the concern? (Not a big fan of kids movies)


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24339017
> 
> 
> r
> 
> Looks like both stores removed them. Don't even know if the overseas edition will actually be available. One reason I heard is that Disney wants to use the title to promote their 3D Smart TV app they have with Sony (called 3Net, if I'm not mistaken). I haven't seen this movie...is it even worth the concern? (Not a big fan of kids movies)



I just know it's very popular. It's made over 900 million so far worldwide and is still bringing money in heading toward One Billion. It is currently ranked 25 all time in the US and 28 all time worldwide. I figure if so many people like it then it should be at least worth renting. 3DBD rental shows them getting the UK 3D version in April. So I'm hoping it's still released there so I can rent it and watch it in 3D.


----------



## tgm1024


If the movie manufacturers do start to throttle down the production of 3DBDs and they become tough to impossible to find, I might for the first time in my life actually promote the notion of piracy.  It would be an interesting argument against me too (although, sadly, a perfectly legal one): "No, you can't buy that 3D movie you want, but you can't copy it off of someone else either."


----------



## superleo

^^^


I went to a Best Buy last weekend, while I was waiting I went to the BD/DVD area to look for Titaninc 3D. They DID NOT have a single 3D BD NONE.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *superleo*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240_60#post_24342260
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> I went to a Best Buy last weekend, while I was waiting I went to the BD/DVD area to look for Titaninc 3D. They DID NOT have a single 3D BD NONE.


 

Yeah, Target is similarly lame.  Thus far the biggest sellers of 3D that I've found have been:

 
Amazon (duh...)
BB online
Frys online

 

I haven't seen hardly any selection in any store.


----------



## Lyle Wheeler

Thats funny. I went to my Best Buy and they had a dedicated section of all 3D Bd's!


Ace


----------



## superleo

That's what I remembered, from the last time I was at a BB. Not kidding, no 3D BDs at all.


All the 3Ds that I've bought had been through Amazon - except one that my wife got at Target.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lyle Wheeler*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24342329
> 
> 
> Thats funny. I went to my Best Buy and they had a dedicated section of all 3D Bd's!
> 
> 
> Ace



Same thing for me a couple of weeks ago. Lots of 3D discs in a special section.

Most priced too high though, IMO.


----------



## aaronwt

if the 3D titles don't sell at a store they will remove them from the shelves. Otherwise it is wasted space.


----------



## Don Landis

For those interested in the Frozen 3D for home viewing, it is true that Disney, for now, has suspended the distribution of a Frozen 3d Blu Ray. The reason is mainly that they want to keep that special to viewing in the theaters. They did announce that the Frozen 3D version will still be available through a digital download to purchase. This is expected to be available on February 25th for purchase for $34.99 from Vudu.


I suspect considering the delayed distribution rollout world wide and the fact that it is such a hit movie making millions yet in the theater, that Disney wants to capitalize on the title for as long as it continues to make profits.


The 2D release in DVD and Blu Ray will be delayed another month after the digital downloads.


Yes there are some bloggers who hate 3D are trying to make the claim that Frozen and other 3D movies are not popular and this is the reason Disney is dropping 3D release which is just_not_true.

http://www.vudu.com/movies/#!content/493947/Frozen-3D 



So why 3D Blu Ray suspension and not the digital downloads? 3D Blu Ray is not secure. Digital Downloads are secure. Just like Disney has done in the past, when their movie blockbusters begin to saturate the theater profit curve, they will be releasing the 3D Blu Ray too. You just have to wait. Want it now? Pay the price.




Another unconfirmed source- I just learned is 4/15 for the Frozen 3D Blu Ray release.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SFMike*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/240_60#post_24338190
> 
> 
> But it is proof that a major studio finds 3D non-profitable in the US and there are not that many major studios.


 

How?  How is that "proof" that a major studio finds 3D non profitable in the US?  You making sweeping statements and are operating on *exceedingly small amounts of data*.


----------



## Jedi2016




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24342471
> 
> 
> ...Frozen 3D version will still be available through a digital download...


That's stupid, because I'm pretty sure that the typical consumer has absolutely no idea how to play a downloaded 3D video file, if they even have the capability at all.


----------



## Apostate

They sure do make it tough for consumers to get 3D. Frozen was only 3D movie my little girl actually said she wanted.


----------



## Don Landis

Jedi- That's not the point. Disney doesn't have any intention of hitting the mass market with an "overpriced" digital download. Most of us here know that the most popular easy to use digital download is through access like Vudu+, the Sony Store and other similar outlets. So if you really must have it "now" and can't wait another 2 months, pay the price. The business decision is to allow the movie to run it's course in the theaters and extract as much money there as possible, then release it on hard media like DVD. Look for it in 3D BD the middle to end of April. If you really want it at low price, then wait another 4 to 6 months. Don't forget, the movie was just released in China and it needs to run it's course in theaters around the world. We heard the same arguments with other 3D Titles like Avatar.


I stopped worrying about whether J6P can easily and cheaply buy a BD for home viewing a long time ago. If he wants it and has to have it he will learn. If not, he will continue to watch home movies from a DVD player connected to his TV via a piece of coax with the screen stretched wide.


Lets all focus on accurate information as to how we enthusiasts can see these great movies and when. That's why I don't want to proliferate the 3D hater's blogs with falsehoods and trash they persist in repeating and find the truth and facts.



Tonight I just watched a flat world movie that was fantastic. It was a Red Box rental for $1.50 in Blu Ray. _Ender's Game_. My wife and I were curious as to whether this was available in 3D and I spent some time looking it up. It seems the Director Gavin Hood wanted to do it in 3D but failed to figure out how to achieve good 3D of many of the scenes using his favored long lens and tight focus. he said he likes to shoot his scenes with out of focus backgrounds in the long shots and 3D doesn't like out of focus shots. ( I agree) Also he claims he could not figure out how to shoot the final battle scenes and create the depth of space. I think he made the common beginner's mistake in stereography of trying to adapt stereo to 2D style shooting rules and should have taken lessons from the stereography masters who have done successful job of design for 3D stereography in their films. There are some really good 3D outer space movies that should have been studied. The movie is a fun sci fi for sci fi fans. It's too bad it was not released with a 3D version. If it had been a bigger box office success, maybe it would have justified a 3D conversion at least. I give the director a C- for at least considering 3D.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24345801
> 
> _Ender's Game_. My wife and I were curious as to whether this was available in 3D and I spent some time looking it up. It seems the Director Gavin Hood wanted to do it in 3D but failed to figure out how to achieve good 3D of many of the scenes using his favored long lens and tight focus. he said he likes to shoot his scenes with out of focus backgrounds in the long shots and 3D doesn't like out of focus shots. ( I agree) Also he claims he could not figure out how to shoot the final battle scenes and create the depth of space.



I was wondering why Ender's Game wasn't 3D. From the trailers, I thought it would have made an excellent 3D movie. Gravity takes place in space as well and it was raved for its 3D effects. It's too bad that the director couldn't figure out or have had the knowledge to incorporate 3D.


----------



## Cyrano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24347742
> 
> 
> I was wondering why Ender's Game wasn't 3D. From the trailers, I thought it would have made an excellent 3D movie. Gravity takes place in space as well and it was raved for its 3D effects. It's too bad that the director couldn't figure out or have had the knowledge to incorporate 3D.



Big agree. From a trailer I saw I assumed it _was_ in 3D.

So many shots would have been great in 3D. The training module, the land-based shots, the final battle, and the dream sequences.

I really was surprised it was not done in 3D. I saw that article about their considering 3D too. They should have done it in 3D.


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cyrano*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24347903
> 
> 
> Big agree. From a trailer I saw I assumed it _was_ in 3D.
> 
> So many shots would have been great in 3D. The training module, the land-based shots, the final battle, and the dream sequences.
> 
> I really was surprised it was not done in 3D. I saw that article about their considering 3D too. They should have done it in 3D.



Well, at least the DOCTOR WHO 3D disc had some space battles.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24350275
> 
> 
> Well, at least the DOCTOR WHO 3D disc had some space battles.



Isn't that a Brit TV show with campy effects? Ah, you are making a joke, I presume.


----------



## inefekt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SFMike*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24338614
> 
> 
> I heard that on initial bluray release the 3D version would be a Walmart or Best Buy exclusive. Anyone else hear this?



Not sure if this has been mentioned but I believe having these kinds of exclusive releases, where a 3D movie is only available to people who buy certain TV's or projectors or whatever, did more harm than good for the 3D market. Avatar was a massive hit in cinemas and was one of the big reasons that 3D became so popular but the 3DBD remained exclusive to people who purchased Panasonic products. So you had millions of people who wanted to re-experience this incredible visual spectacular at home but couldn't because they had a Sony 3DTV or a Mitsubishi 3D projector. Dumb move.


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24355040
> 
> 
> Isn't that a Brit TV show with campy effects? Ah, you are making a joke, I presume.



Campy? Actually the effect were pretty good in the Day of the Doctor 3D Bluray, both the 3D and the battle effects.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24356815
> 
> 
> Campy? Actually the effect were pretty good in the Day of the Doctor 3D Bluray, both the 3D and the battle effects.



My son likes Doctor Who TV shows. I never thought the SFX were that special but then again it's a TV show with a TV show budget.


Is it a TV movie or an actual "cinema" movie? Maybe I'll check it out.


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24357417
> 
> 
> My son likes Doctor Who TV shows. I never thought the SFX were that special but then again it's a TV show with a TV show budget.
> 
> 
> Is it a TV movie or an actual "cinema" movie? Maybe I'll check it out.



Actually, although broadcast in 2D on TV, it was transmitted to movie theaters in 3D on the day and did very well financially


----------



## cbcdesign

It is a kids show in fact and yeah, the budget is a bit limited.

The 3D Day of the Doctor was a 50th anniversary 1 hour long special. Not a movie as such, more of a celebratory episode.


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24357713
> 
> 
> It is a kids show in fact and yeah, the budget is a bit limited.
> 
> The 3D Day of the Doctor was a 50th anniversary 1 hour long special. Not a movie as such, more of a celebratory episode.



It was 75 mins long actually (without commercials). John Hurt co-starred. I should add that, altho I have yet to see the 3D version (but I will), those who haveseen it have praised the dimensionality as being better than most big-budget theatrical 3D releases.


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24357823
> 
> 
> It was 75 mins long actually (without commercials).



Oh right! Fair comment. Even better then.


----------



## ferl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24357713
> 
> 
> It is a kids show in fact and yeah, the budget is a bit limited.
> 
> The 3D Day of the Doctor was a 50th anniversary 1 hour long special. Not a movie as such, more of a celebratory episode.



Kids show? Thanks, I'm a fan at 59. I was also a fan of Monty Python. Do Brits consider that childish humor?

My Brain Hurts


----------



## cbcdesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferl*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24358036
> 
> 
> Kids show? Thanks, I'm a fan at 59. I was also a fan of Monty Python. Do Brits consider that childish humor?
> 
> My Brain Hurts



I'm a fan too and I am 49 but it is considered in the UK by the BBC who make it to be a kids show. See http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-05-17/of-course-doctor-who-is-a-childrens-show-says-steven-moffat---but-that-doesnt-mean-its-childish


----------



## ferl

That article makes some good points. Being appreciated on different levels is accurate. It's very well written at an adult level, but I can't see the attraction to kids even with the goofiness factor of the current doctors.


From a kids perspective, I wouldn't want to be the 8 year old going to bed at night after watching the angels. Hell, I even leave the lights on. That way I see if they're looking at me.


I think I'm going to buy the 3D version after reading this thread.


----------



## cbcdesign

Hiding behind the sofa when Dr Who is on is one of the joys of being a Kid growing up in the UK.


----------



## ferl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24358229
> 
> 
> Hiding behind the sofa when Dr Who is on is one of the joys of being a Kid growing up in the UK.



I rest my case. Wink wink, nudge nudge.


----------



## fxrh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *inefekt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/270#post_24355851
> 
> 
> Not sure if this has been mentioned but I believe having these kinds of exclusive releases, where a 3D movie is only available to people who buy certain TV's or projectors or whatever, did more harm than good for the 3D market. Avatar was a massive hit in cinemas and was one of the big reasons that 3D became so popular but the 3DBD remained exclusive to people who purchased Panasonic products. So you had millions of people who wanted to re-experience this incredible visual spectacular at home but couldn't because they had a Sony 3DTV or a Mitsubishi 3D projector. Dumb move.



I am in complete agreement that AVATAR was a wonderful opportunity to promote 3D that was squandered by requiring purchases of Panasonic products. But we're now past that nonsense (which, to be fair, other suppliers such as Samsung engaged in as well with MONSTERS VS ALIENS et al.). The release of FROZEN originally was announced to be a Walmart exclusive, but at least it was not marketed as requiring some additional hardware purchase.


It is hard to imagine how home theater 3D could have been initially marketed more poorly. The only 3D demo that is still available in my neck of the woods is LG passive technology at Best Buy -- and one of the employees there told me last week that it was going to be removed soon.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ferl*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24358264
> 
> 
> I rest my case. Wink wink, nudge nudge.



Monty Python! I was trying to figure out where I've heard that before. IIRC, my local PBS station used to have Monty Python when I was growing up. That show was definitely different.


----------



## Cyrano

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c&feature=youtube_gdata_player 

http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm


----------



## washbanjo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead#post_23887618
> 
> 
> 3D is going nowhere for several reasons in my opinion:-
> 
> 
> 1. Used properly 3D can be a very engaging movie going experience as Gravity has proved.
> 
> 2. Its very popular in the far east and the population there is huge meaning big bucks for the studios.
> 
> 3. The cost of equipping cinemas with 3D equipment need to be recouped.
> 
> 
> It's slowed down that's for sure but largely because the suits in Hollywood made the idiotic mistake of trying to cash in on 3D with poor presentations and after thought conversions instead of allowing film makers who are comfortable with the format and can see how it can enhance their movies, to use it as they want too. Hopefully they will understand the lessons that the inappropriate use of 3D can teach before too long and we will get a greater number of "Gravity" type features and far fewer "Clash of the Titans".
> 
> 
> OH, and I cannot agree that 3D at home is inferior to 3D at the theatre. In my experience its exactly the opposite in most instances. 3D at home is sharper, more colourful and more 3D. You just need a decent TV.


----------



## tomtastic

Original Poster here.


I wanted to think everyone that added something to this thread. It had a big impact on my decision. I haven't gotten thru all 11 pages yet to catch up. I had no idea this one would go on this long. The question whether 3D is Dead is certainly an interesting debate and I have to say for awhile I thought it was over even after Gravity. But even on new TVs now they're basically adding 3D as a feature so it's still there and will continue to be there.


I decided to go ahead with a 3D camcorder. For awhile I was thinking about getting into 4K but decided against it for several reasons. Cost number one. Camera, plus a fast enough machine with 4k gpu, with at least one 4k display and a 4k TV, I just bought a 3DTV just 2 years ago so not ready to buy a 4k tv. Really the only benefit of 4k is for larger displays anyway. I'll get into 4k at some point, when the price is lower and more affordable.


But what is affordable right now?

*3D.* Just purchased a Panasonic AG-3DA1 for a fairly reasonable price. Also got the 0.6 wide angle lens kit for it for very cheap. 3D has been out for a few years. I've taken some advice from what I've read here. I was a little worried about getting a camera that's 3 years old but really the tech hasn't changed that much with 3D and HD altogether so not worried about getting older camera. 2D cameras aren't updated that much either. Canon hasn't updated their pro cameras since 2011.


I've had some time to play around with the 3DA1 today and wow! this thing is awesome. It's just weird creating your own 3D like I need to put the Blu ray back in the case when I'm done. Already I see a few problems with this one, some I already knew beforehand but not much I can do about it. Not sure why they would make a pro camera with 384 kb dolby digital audio instead of LPCM. The focal range is also pretty bad. 1.8-2.4, already knew both of these issues before I got it, but the wide angle lens will help with the focal range up close.


I'm also getting the HDC Z10k.

This one I might use to solve the audio problem on the 3DA1, and use the Z10K for audio. Also has better focal range 1.5-2.7. Plus 2D. Looking to do some projects here soon when it gets green outside still the 3DA1 looked amazing outside in the drab, colorless yard. I've got 2 big projects I want to do this summer and put on 3D Blu ray.


So from what I understand the 3DA1 compresses each frame left/right at 21 mbps avg 24 max each while the Z10k compresses both frames together at 28? Meaning the 3DA1 is compressed at a much higher overall rate? Overall, I really like the 3DA1 so far, I will say it feels a little too plastic, then again, it would weigh a ton if it were of stronger material. The plastic looks and feels strong, but I wouldn't want to drop it and find out. The push buttons could also be different, they're a little hard to press. The manual focus and manual zoom rings are really nice and easy to adjust, but you have to be careful not to bump them. An easier auto mode would be nice instead of manual everything. But because 3D is mostly a specific recording medium, it won't be difficult to set up each shot specifically to its needs. Also no anti shake, but it's about 6 lbs so it doesn't move around that much even when hand held. Overall, I like it, it has a few faults, but it captures amazing 3D pictures.


----------



## Don Landis

The Z10k 5.1 mic suffers quite a bit with wind chatter. I resolved that problem with a wind suppressor fur. You can buy these and they just stick on the mic with double stick tape. I leave mine on all the time and the wind chatter is gone.


----------



## tgm1024


Don, have you ever created any "cross eye" 3D video (for viewing on 2D displays)?  You could use that to show examples of the various techniques you've discovered, or when you're trying to explain a mistake that you've learned from.  Would be fascinating!

 

You'll see cross-eye 3D every now and then on youtube.


----------



## tomtastic

Ok, I'll put one on it right away. I plan on using external mics for most stuff anyway.


----------



## Don Landis

I never played with creating the cross eye method because it is not easy to force your vision that unnatural way and it causes too much eye strain for most people. It's in that category of something that works but not ever going to be a real method to view stereoscopic 3D programming.


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tomtastic*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24463052
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll put one on it right away. I plan on using external mics for most stuff anyway.



This is similar to what I used:

http://www.amazon.com/WindCutter-Microphone-Windscreen-Camcorder-Panasonic/dp/B0066DOPPG


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24464195
> 
> 
> I never played with creating the cross eye method because it is not easy to force your vision that unnatural way and it causes too much eye strain for most people. It's in that category of something that works but not ever going to be a real method to view stereoscopic 3D programming.


 

I have no problems with it at all if the images are small.

 

I'm not advocating starting a content service based upon it; I was advocating you using it to explain pitfalls or successes you had with various techniques of yours.  Forum conversations only.  Such as "As a novice I ended up making a classic mistake, look at the rock on the right...."  (etc.).  It would go a long way further than trying to explain your front-line experience with mere words.


----------



## cbcdesign

Cross Eyed 3D Great for some, a nightmare for others. I am lucky and it looks very good to me but I couldn't watch anything like that for very long!


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cbcdesign*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24502642
> 
> 
> Cross Eyed 3D Great for some, a nightmare for others. I am lucky and it looks very good to me but I couldn't watch anything like that for very long!


 

Again, I was only suggesting it as an occasional explanation vehicle.  No feature length distribution.  A moving picture is worth 1,000 images which is worth 1,000,000 words.


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24503162
> 
> 
> A moving picture is worth 1,000 images...



1,000 images? That's not even a minute of a moving picture.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24511135
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24503162
> 
> 
> A moving picture is worth 1,000 images...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1,000 images? That's not even a minute of a moving picture.
Click to expand...

 

LOL.  I extended the aphorism "a picture is worth a thousand words."

 

Besides: I was talking about him using it as film technique *examples*, (both good and bad).  Cross-eye is hardly a comfortable technique for long multi-minute segments.


----------



## Rudy1

*ANOTHER "EXPERT" SPEAKS OUT AGAINST 3D:*

http://www.cnet.com/news/heres-why-watching-3d-movies-is-miserable/ 


I bet Bakalar wouldn't have any issues with playing all of his games in 3D.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24784117
> 
> *ANOTHER "EXPERT" SPEAKS OUT AGAINST 3D:*
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/heres-why-watching-3d-movies-is-miserable/
> 
> 
> I bet Bakalar wouldn't have any issues with playing all of his games in 3D.


 

Are we *purposefully* posting articles by hacks now?


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rudy1*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24784117
> 
> *ANOTHER "EXPERT" SPEAKS OUT AGAINST 3D:*
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/heres-why-watching-3d-movies-is-miserable/
> 
> 
> I bet Bakalar wouldn't have any issues with playing all of his games in 3D.





> Quote:
> ...3D also makes things look miniaturized....



What the heck kind of 3D is this person watching?


----------



## kimg1453

All these 3D detractors need to do one simple thing: "Don't watch it if you don't like it and just be quiet!" Its really getting old hearing from all these whiners. There are lots of people, myself included, who really enjoy it.


----------



## PGTweed

I would point out the misleading Ticket sales chart in the C/Net article. No where does it break down which percentage is 2D and which are 3D. Are 2D or 3D films doing better based on ticket sales?


----------



## cakefoo

The fact that journalists are still trying to convince people that 3D is garbage, is actually kind of encouraging- it means that these writers acknowledge that people still enjoy it. And what an idiotic way to go about it. Gravity got 80% of its opening revenue from 3D screenings and won best VFX, cinematography, editing, director, etc. Pinpointing Gravity specifically and saying the 3D "barely worked" is like trying to convince people at Starbucks that coffee sucks.


----------



## Rudy1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24788487
> 
> 
> The fact that journalists are still trying to convince people that 3D is garbage, is actually kind of encouraging- it means that these writers acknowledge that people still enjoy it. And what an idiotic way to go about it. Gravity got 80% of its opening revenue from 3D screenings and won best VFX, cinematography, editing, director, etc. Pinpointing Gravity specifically and saying the 3D "barely worked" is like trying to convince people at Starbucks that coffee sucks.



Bakalar is notorious for having (and voicing) strong opinions about everything, including subjects where his level of expertise is questionable at best. I posted the link to his rant because he is not a regular TV reviewer at CNet...his thing are games. I guess anyone who has ever even just HEARD of 3D feels morally obligated to warn the world about what a waste of time it is.


----------



## Don Landis

I really don't care what these flat world numbskull bloggers worry over, as long as the directors and producers continue to deliver more and more entertaining films to keep me busy watching is all I care about.


Get a life and stop trying to convince others the world is better flat!


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300#post_24788487
> 
> 
> The fact that journalists are still trying to convince people that 3D is garbage...



I don't know if I'd call Bakalar a journalist. That's giving him too much credit. He's a blogger at best... a gamer who can manage to put together a word or three somewhat coherently.


----------



## Apostate

@Don Landis


What's with the picture of a guy with an eye patch?


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24791810
> 
> 
> @Don Landis
> 
> 
> What's with the picture of a guy with an eye patch?



No depth perception!


The biggest problem with 3D are the theaters showing it. There seems to be no quality-control. I saw CAPT AMERICA 2 at an AMC IMAX. In 3D the image was darker and fuzzier, and less detailed. Seemed like the 3D added nothing to the movie. But then recently I saw a 3D clip of the elevator fight and the German trailer (where it's called THE RETURN OF THE FIRST AVENGER) on YouTube...and it looked much, MUCH better! When the 3D looks better at home (on a 47" screen no less) via YouTube than the theatrical presentation, then somethings very wrong. As most can probably verify, 3D varies from theater to theater. And a bad presentation can turn off a lot of viewers...and I'd be willing to bet that top-grade presentations are the exception when it should be the norm.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24791936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Apostate*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24791810
> 
> 
> @Don Landis
> 
> 
> What's with the picture of a guy with an eye patch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No depth perception!
> 
> 
> The biggest problem with 3D are the theaters showing it. There seems to be no quality-control. I saw CAPT AMERICA 2 at an AMC IMAX. In 3D the image was darker and fuzzier, and less detailed. Seemed like the 3D added nothing to the movie. But then recently I saw a 3D clip of the elevator fight and the German trailer (where it's called THE RETURN OF THE FIRST AVENGER) on YouTube...and it looked much, MUCH better! When the 3D looks better at home (on a 47" screen no less) via YouTube than the theatrical presentation, then somethings very wrong. As most can probably verify, 3D varies from theater to theater. And a bad presentation can turn off a lot of viewers...and I'd be willing to bet that top-grade presentations are the exception when it should be the norm.
Click to expand...

 

I've seen focus issues with both 2D and 3D.  I was always wondering if it's just the staff *slowly* getting up to speed on the settings of their new digital equipment.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24791936
> 
> 
> No depth perception!
> 
> 
> The biggest problem with 3D are the theaters showing it. There seems to be no quality-control. I saw CAPT AMERICA 2 at an AMC IMAX. In 3D the image was darker and fuzzier, and less detailed. Seemed like the 3D added nothing to the movie. But then recently I saw a 3D clip of the elevator fight and the German trailer (where it's called THE RETURN OF THE FIRST AVENGER) on YouTube...and it looked much, MUCH better! When the 3D looks better at home (on a 47" screen no less) via YouTube than the theatrical presentation, then somethings very wrong. As most can probably verify, 3D varies from theater to theater. And a bad presentation can turn off a lot of viewers...and I'd be willing to bet that top-grade presentations are the exception when it should be the norm.



It was just the opposite in the AMC IMAX lite theater I saw Captain America 2 in. The 3D presentation was more detailed than I can ever recall seeing before.


----------



## rekbones

I saw Gravity at a Regal LieMAX theater and it was the worst 3D presentation I had ever seen. The color convergence was of by a large amount and picture was very blurry as a result. I had seen Star Trek IND in the same theater and it was spot on. The theaters are cutting there own throats by such poor setup performance. As far as I am concerned I will wait for the Blu Ray and watch in the comfort of my own theater with perfect setup, sound and almost free popcorn. I did send a scathing email to Regal with no response so I guess they don't care for my business.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rekbones*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24793281
> 
> 
> I saw Gravity at a Regal LieMAX theater and it was the worst 3D presentation I had ever seen. The color convergence was of by a large amount and picture was very blurry as a result. I had seen Star Trek IND in the same theater and it was spot on. The theaters are cutting there own throats by such poor setup performance. As far as I am concerned I will wait for the Blu Ray and watch in the comfort of my own theater with perfect setup, sound and almost free popcorn. I did send a scathing email to Regal with no response so I guess they don't care for my business.


 

I walked out of a theater before demanding a refund and got it.  Try that next time rather than have Gravity ruined for you.  That was really too bad....sounds like you never got pulled into the story.


----------



## superleo

I can tell you that I fell into the "3D for home is dumb" category based on the so call "experts" opinion until I experienced it for my self.

3D for home absolutely complements movies and other programing. I had even tried the TV's 3D conversion while watching basketball and I love it!!!


To me this is very subjective, and just because someone does not like it does not mean that the majority of consumers will not like it either. The right way of marketing this would make a heck of a difference.


----------



## Jedi2016

Well, _I_ like it, and that's what matters to me. I buy pretty much every release in 3D these days, even the ones i didn't catch 3D in the theaters.


----------



## NSX1992

I love 3D and have every movie. I just watched Avatar again but for the first time on my 84" 4K LG passive tv. I'll say it again the secret for home 3D is 4K passive. The 4K upscales while the passive downscales resulting in a great picture. Avatar looked fantastic, better than the theater.


----------



## Don Landis

Only one thing I like more than watching 3D movies in my home theater and that is shooting and editing my memories in 3D.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24797314
> 
> 
> Only one thing I like more than watching 3D movies in my home theater and that is shooting and editing my memories in 3D.


 

You certainly have the equipment, but what about the casual home user?  Do you have any opinions on the current state of low-end consumer 3D cameras?


----------



## Don Landis




> Quote:
> Do you have any opinions on the current state of low-end consumer 3D cameras?



Sure! But is this the right thread?


Consumer camcorders are divided in two categories for two types of amateur photographers. Those, like me who take movie making serious, and those who will shoot a few seconds, post it on You Tube, Facebook or never look at it again. For the later, I would say 3D may be a waste of product marketing but if the manufacturers insist, probably one of the most important features they can add is OIS., good auto focus, and good auto iris/white balance. In other words the casual consumer should not need or want to be concerned with anything manual. Then put all that in the smart phone because low end consumers today, aren't interested in making movies with a multi themed story thread. They don't want to carry a camera, just the cell phone. But these cell phone videos are often horribly shaky and in dire need of OIS. 3D in them only makes the video worse and now excruciatingly painful if also shaky. Notice I said, "if the manufacturers insist," because I don't see the low end consumer screaming for 3D cellphone cameras.


As far as availability- I am disappointed the TD20; TD30, and JVC TD1, and Panasonic 3D1 are so hard to find for those who want to do more serious amateur shooting.


By comparison, for professional, broadcast, EFP, and low end professional such as wedding and event professional, 3D camcorders are readily available.


----------



## NickTheGreat

Damn . . . I wish our wedding videographer would have used 3D


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24799225
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Do you have any opinions on the current state of low-end consumer 3D cameras?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure! But is this the right thread?
Click to expand...

 

Yes, because folded into the concept of whether of not 3D is "about dead" are all the uses for 3D that the general public might have.


----------



## RolandL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rekbones*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24793281
> 
> 
> I saw Gravity at a Regal LieMAX theater and it was the worst 3D presentation I had ever seen. The color convergence was of by a large amount and picture was very blurry as a result. I had seen Star Trek IND in the same theater and it was spot on. The theaters are cutting there own throats by such poor setup performance. As far as I am concerned I will wait for the Blu Ray and watch in the comfort of my own theater with perfect setup, sound and almost free popcorn. I did send a scathing email to Regal with no response so I guess they don't care for my business.



IMAX is a joke. They use to have super large screens and showed films in real IMAX 70mm. Now its just digital blown up to a big screen.


Getting back to 3D, I use to see all the 3D films at a movie theatre before I purchased my Panny AE8000. My image is 140 inches wide and I haven't been to a movie theatre since.


I mostly purchase Blu-ray 3D discs that have a lot of pop-out as I find the ones with just depth are pretty boring 3D.


I think if the studios release too many films with just boring 3D and the attendance declines because of it, 3D might eventually die. I hope it doesn't.


----------



## tomtastic

Most directors don't include pop out or hyper 3D, because it's too eye straining, they generally shoot at more comfortable levels and therefore less 3D effect. They generally shoot 3D at a comfort level for the masses, at a midpoint, not too extreme and not too weak. That's the general consensus among filmmakers.


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tomtastic*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24800735
> 
> 
> Most directors don't include pop out or hyper 3D, because it's too eye straining, they generally shoot at more comfortable levels and therefore less 3D effect. They generally shoot 3D at a comfort level for the masses, at a midpoint, not too extreme and not too weak. That's the general consensus among filmmakers.



SOme extensions shouldn't be eye-straining. No one is looking for an entire film to have that. But there should be moments! 3D should be an experience...THAT'S what people would remember and keep the format going. Nothing wrong with having to duck to avoid the debris...that's part of the fun. Too many filmmakers forget that.


----------



## huskerbear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24801367
> 
> 
> SOme extensions shouldn't be eye-straining. No one is looking for an entire film to have that. But there should be moments! 3D should be an experience...THAT'S what people would remember and keep the format going. Nothing wrong with having to duck to avoid the debris...that's part of the fun. Too many filmmakers forget that.




+1


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *huskerbear*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24802899
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24801367
> 
> 
> SOme extensions shouldn't be eye-straining. No one is looking for an entire film to have that. But there should be moments! 3D should be an experience...THAT'S what people would remember and keep the format going. Nothing wrong with having to duck to avoid the debris...that's part of the fun. Too many filmmakers forget that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
Click to expand...

 

-1, but only because IMO it misses the point entirely: That kind of fly around gets very old quickly.  The *fun* is being immersed into the plot.  If occasional stuff between you and the screen is warranted (and there always is a legitimate scene for it sooner or later) then *sure* I want them to put it in.  Every movie (even what I regard as the reference 3D *still* of Avatar) has it, and if it's part of the scene in a way that keeps you in the film and not yanked out into your living room or theater too much then it helps.

 

But it's not because the 3D for 3D sake is "fun".  The *movie* is fun.


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24802929
> 
> 
> -1, but only because IMO it misses the point entirely: That kind of fly around gets very old quickly.  The *fun* is being immersed into the plot.  If occasional stuff between you and the screen is warranted (and there always is a legitimate scene for it sooner or later) then _sure_ I want them to put it in.  Every movie (even what I regard as the reference 3D *still* of Avatar) has it, and if it's part of the scene in a way that keeps you in the film and not yanked out into your living room or theater too much then it helps.
> 
> 
> But it's not because the 3D for 3D sake is "fun".  The _movie_ is fun.



Okay, then let's just say it makes it even _more_ fun!


----------



## huskerbear




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24802929
> 
> 
> -1, but only because IMO it misses the point entirely: That kind of fly around gets very old quickly.  The *fun* is being immersed into the plot.  If occasional stuff between you and the screen is warranted (and there always is a legitimate scene for it sooner or later) then _sure_ I want them to put it in.  Every movie (even what I regard as the reference 3D *still* of Avatar) has it, and if it's part of the scene in a way that keeps you in the film and not yanked out into your living room or theater too much then it helps.
> 
> 
> But it's not because the 3D for 3D sake is "fun".  The _movie_ is fun.



Lots of different opinions about pop out. I'm guessing the keep it subtle and behind the screen (what I call 3D lite or barely 3D) crowd are getting their way, at least in the U.S as most movies these days fall into the 3D lite category.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *huskerbear*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24802997
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24802929
> 
> 
> -1, but only because IMO it misses the point entirely: That kind of fly around gets very old quickly.  The *fun* is being immersed into the plot.  If occasional stuff between you and the screen is warranted (and there always is a legitimate scene for it sooner or later) then *sure* I want them to put it in.  Every movie (even what I regard as the reference 3D *still* of Avatar) has it, and if it's part of the scene in a way that keeps you in the film and not yanked out into your living room or theater too much then it helps.
> 
> 
> But it's not because the 3D for 3D sake is "fun".  The *movie* is fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of different opinions about pop out. I'm guessing the keep it subtle and behind the screen (what I call 3D lite or barely 3D) crowd are getting their way, at least in the U.S as most movies these days fall into the 3D lite category.
Click to expand...

 

Those diminutives don't apply.  For example, the behind the screen scenery in, *Oz: The Great and Powerful*, was hardly "lite" or "barely".


----------



## Lyle Wheeler




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *huskerbear*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24802899
> 
> 
> +1



+2



Ace


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lyle Wheeler*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/300_60#post_24803050
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *huskerbear*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24802899
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +2
> 
> 
> 
> Ace
Click to expand...

 

Well, -3 then.


----------



## tomtastic

I agree completely. In fact, I think I must have misunderstood what 3D was about when I first bought my TV because I thought I'd be seeing more of it. From what I've been reading/watching I think the main goal is to make it comfortable for the masses, that or many see it as a gimmick with pop out effects. As a result we don't see it often, and pop out aside, it also appears that the depth isn't enhanced in the background much on distance shots. it appears many films are just shot with wide angle with a beam splitter but not enhanced any.


In some ways I agree with that. When you're looking at the distance in reality, say a mountain about 2 or 3 miles away, you don't see it in 3D because it's just too far away. Depth in reality has its limits and I can see not adding enhanced depth in those cases, but you do have the option of adding depth with wider spacing. I haven't seen it done much in most action movies but in one or two documentaries. In action scenes, the more divergence you have the more your eyes have to work, which can cause fatigue, so they keep it comfortable and not too far apart. I've been noticing that eye fatigue can set it rather quick when filming macro stuff with pop out, I'm hoping to eliminate the proximity issue with a macro lens kit. That and just keeping a nice blend of macro and wide angle, panning shots and zoom shots. When your eyes are forced to diverge in/out that's where the strain comes in, with positive (distance) parallax and negitive (macro) parallax.


----------



## Toe

+3

Conservative 3d lite in general sucks IMO. I would personally rather have things leaning a bit too much on the aggressive side vs conservative if given the choice.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *huskerbear*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24802997
> 
> 
> Lots of different opinions about pop out. I'm guessing the keep it subtle and behind the screen (what I call 3D lite or barely 3D) crowd are getting their way, at least in the U.S as most movies these days fall into the 3D lite category.


3D to me is about increased depth perception. I would die a happy person if I never saw another explosion fly towards my face. Totally not needed from a story perspective. And that's what cinema is about. There are no 3D checklists to fill out other than "does it add anything to the story."


Popout will NOT save 3D!!! Popout is an easy and cheap ploy. Saving 3D requires actual effort and sincerity. GRAVITY and AVATAR and HUGO and LIFE OF PI were pretty successful films because they had engaging plots, ample stereo strength, creative cinematography and seamless 3D+story integration. NOT because of objects invading personal space.


----------



## tgm1024


^^^Bingo!


----------



## Apostate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24803559
> 
> 
> Popout will NOT save 3D!!!



But it sure is fun every now and then.


----------



## ekaaaans




> Quote:
> GRAVITY and AVATAR and HUGO and LIFE OF PI were pretty successful films because they had engaging plots, ample stereo strength, creative cinematography and seamless 3D+story integration. NOT because of objects invading personal space.


Every one of those movies featured pop-out 3D. Clearly the easy and cheap ploys didn't ruin the experience for you.

 

Citing these movies only undermines your bashing of objects leaving the screen. I will agree with you that saving 3D requires actual effort, but that would include intelligent use of 3D's most striking feature. Eschewing it altogether...would be the opposite of intelligent.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360_60#post_24809112
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> GRAVITY and AVATAR and HUGO and LIFE OF PI were pretty successful films because they had engaging plots, ample stereo strength, creative cinematography and seamless 3D+story integration. NOT because of objects invading personal space.
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of those movies featured pop-out 3D. Clearly the easy and cheap ploys didn't ruin the experience for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Citing these movies only undermines your bashing of objects leaving the screen. I will agree with you that saving 3D requires actual effort, but that would include intelligent use of 3D's most striking feature. Eschewing it altogether...would be the opposite of intelligent.
Click to expand...

 

"Opposite of intelligent"?  Look at your post above.

 

In that post you quoted, he clearly said that they were successful for reasons other than having the objects pop out.  He didn't say that those movies had none of it.  He was talking about what made them successful, and it wasn't popout that did it.

 

New poster, please be more careful.


----------



## ekaaaans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24809119
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Opposite of intelligent"?  Look at your post above.
> 
> 
> 
> In that post you quoted, he clearly said that they were successful for reasons other than having the objects pop out.  He didn't say that those movies had none of it.  He was talking about what made them successful, and it wasn't popout that did it.
> 
> 
> 
> New poster, please be more careful.


Where does my post state he said that those movies had no pop-out? I'm new to posting, but not reading.

 

And what does "opposite of intelligent" have to do with anything you said afterwards? If you don't think pop-out should be eschewed altogether, the comment has nothing to do with you.


----------



## Jedi2016

Those movies would have been successful regardless of whether they had any pop-out... that is NOT what made audiences "ooh" and "aah" over them. Is that what you believe?


----------



## ekaaaans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedi2016*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24809191
> 
> 
> Those movies would have been successful regardless of whether they had any pop-out... that is NOT what made audiences "ooh" and "aah" over them. Is that what you believe?


Nope. But conversely, the pop-out did nothing to *diminish* the enjoyment of someone very critical of pop-out. Which supports the position of people like myself who think ALL aspects of 3D should be used.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360_60#post_24809143
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgm1024*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24809119
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Opposite of intelligent"?  Look at your post above.
> 
> 
> 
> In that post you quoted, he clearly said that they were successful for reasons other than having the objects pop out.  He didn't say that those movies had none of it.  He was talking about what made them successful, and it wasn't popout that did it.
> 
> 
> 
> New poster, please be more careful.
> 
> 
> 
> Where does my post state he said that those movies had no pop-out? I'm new to posting, but not reading.
> 
> 
> 
> And what does "opposite of intelligent" have to do with anything you said afterwards? If you don't think pop-out should be eschewed altogether, the comment has nothing to do with you.
Click to expand...

 

Here is what you said:

 


> Quote:
> 
> Quote:Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360_60#post_24809112
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> GRAVITY and AVATAR and HUGO and LIFE OF PI were pretty successful films because they had engaging plots, ample stereo strength, creative cinematography and seamless 3D+story integration. NOT because of objects invading personal space.
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of those movies featured pop-out 3D. Clearly the easy and cheap ploys didn't ruin the experience for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Citing these movies only undermines your bashing of objects leaving the screen.
Click to expand...

 

How does citing those movies undermine his bashing of objects leaving the screen?  *His statement had to do with what made them good, not what bad parts they may have had.*


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360_60#post_24809208
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedi2016*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24809191
> 
> 
> Those movies would have been successful regardless of whether they had any pop-out... that is NOT what made audiences "ooh" and "aah" over them. Is that what you believe?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. But conversely, the pop-out did nothing to *diminish* the enjoyment of someone very critical of pop-out. Which supports the position of people like myself who think ALL aspects of 3D should be used.
Click to expand...

 

Fair enough.  This conversation has been repeated many times.  There always seems to be nuances that are misunderstood.

 

That gray area in the middle gets muddied quickly.


----------



## ekaaaans




> Quote:
> How does citing those movies undermine his bashing of objects leaving the screen?  *His statement had to do with what made them good, not what bad parts they may have had.*


GRAVITY, AVATAR, HUGO and LIFE OF PI are great 3D *in spite* of their "bad parts"? I'm not sure that's what he meant, but I personally don't see how locking the visuals completely behind the window would have improved things. It just seems to me a post calling pop-out a cheap ploy, would cite movies that didn't have ANY noteworthy examples of it.(CARS 2 for instance) But I completely agree that 3D requires equal parts effort and intelligence


----------



## superleo

Matter of perspective...


I love 3D, even bad 3D -- although I rather say - not as good 3D compared to the great 3D content that comes out once in a while.

I'll watch not so good 3D and await for "THE ONE" awesome 3D when it happens. No problem here.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24809112
> 
> 
> Every one of those movies featured pop-out 3D. Clearly the easy and cheap ploys didn't ruin the experience for you.


The claim was that popout would save 3D, not avoid offending me:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/330#post_24801367
> 
> 
> But there should be moments! 3D should be an experience...THAT'S what people would remember and keep the format going.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24809112
> 
> 
> 3D's most striking feature


It's definitely not 3D's most versatile feature, or it's strongest storytelling technique. There has to be a good reason for it, other than eye candy. Hugo used it well the couple times it had floating heads, but other than that, I can't think of any good popout that made me feel more connected with the story. It might not be necessary most of the time, that's why it's not being used more. Just because someone WANTS popout, because that's what THEY think of when they think of 3D, doesn't mean their wants are what Hollywood should be doing to grow their income. For that question I would point to the general consensus of the most successful 3D films, and those people are showing that they don't mind movies being popout moment-free, as long as the 3D is strong and the cinematography is great.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24809628
> 
> 
> It just seems to me a post calling pop-out a cheap ploy, would cite movies that didn't have ANY noteworthy examples of it.(CARS 2 for instance) But I completely agree that 3D requires equal parts effort and intelligence


I'm just saying the most successful 3D films are not known for their popout. Less that 1% of their runtime is blatant popout. So no, they don't need popout to make money. Just good cinematography. That's the common characteristic of all the movies I just mentioned.


----------



## tgm1024


^^^I have a bit of a theory about this.  When watching a TV I sometimes think we "zoom our focus inward" to the screen.  This allows us to watch a smaller screen and a larger screen and much later on have a tough time remembering which was which.  Our focus essentially brings the TV to our mind's eye (or our focus forward, take your pick).

 

When you have negative parallax show up, for a quick moment that "zoom in" of your focus is pushed backward to make room for the 7 feet of video objects now entangled in your living room hovering over the dog.  This pushes you *out* of the movie storyline because the TV is suddenly slammed back again and you've left the movie and are back on your couch.

 

It's not a complete theory.


----------



## ekaaaans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cakefoo*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24810621
> 
> 
> 
> The claim was that popout would save 3D, not avoid offending me:


Thing is...if movies with very noteworthy instances of pop-out 3D are among your favorites, there's really no good reason for filmmakers to resist using it. Large segments of the paying audience are walking in with an expectation of seeing it, and...*evidently...*detractors will tolerate it. Pop-out may not "save 3D" but it sure as hell won't do any harm. Boring, conservative, or all-around shoddy 3D is the real threat IMO.  

 

 

For the record, pop-out 3D almost NEVER has the effect of taking me out of a story. It's just another visual effect, with varying degrees of effectiveness.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24812800
> 
> 
> Pop-out may not "save 3D" but it sure as hell won't do any harm. Boring, conservative, or all-around shoddy 3D is the real threat IMO.


Improving the quality of an average 3D film would save the format, but there are only a handful of filmmakers out there who are motivated enough to blaze that trail. The rest are content to rest on their laurels and let the postconversion teams polish their turds, because to them it's just about the production, they get paid either way. If only they had a cash incentive, like a bonus for hitting certain 3D revenue share milestones.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360_60#post_24812800
> 
> 
> Pop-out may not "save 3D" but it sure as hell won't do any harm.


 
It sure "as hell" can.  Positive parallax done poorly is bad enough, but negative parallax done poorly is a killer to the movie.

 

Anyway, this discussion goes on and on and has been mooted: Thankfully there has been a strong weeding out of schlock-3D films of the heavy positive parallax kind and the latest crop of directors seem to know what they're doing.


----------



## Don Landis

Cakefoo- While that certainly sounds like a good idea to raise 3D revenues, you would probably see more directors gaming the system and giving the majority what they want in 3D, the gimmick slap in the face thrill of something different. 3D pop out to the extreme.










You are too young to have been through this era of when stereo first hit the market from monaural sound in movies and records. What we experienced was a _few years_ where the popular selling gimmick was to put in the gratuitous ping pong or table tennis and other hard left and right hole in the middle sound stages. Eventually, that popularity of the majority went away but it seemed producers of anything stereo had to show their audience the Left right left sound gimmicks. In those days even pianos were recorded with all the low notes on the left and highs on the right. It was rare that sounds came out of both left and right speakers because that detracted from "real stereo." There were those experiments that never caught on such as Hafler 3 Channel stereo but at the end of the day, we as a society just needed to evolve beyond the ping pong gimmicks for stereo just as we will evolve beyond the gratuitous slap in the face pop out.


----------



## ekaaaans




> Quote:
> It sure "as hell" can.


I'll take the dreaded quote punctuation to mean I've once again annoyed you.  I'm reasonably confident in my opinion on this subject, but I assure you my tone isn't meant to be confrontational tgm.

 


> Quote:
> Positive parallax done poorly is bad enough, but negative parallax done poorly is a killer to the movie.


Anything done poorly will negatively impact the final product. If I advocate using a particular visual tool, consider my hope that it be used intelligently a given.


----------



## tgm1024




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360_60#post_24813418
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> It sure "as hell" can.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take the dreaded quote punctuation to mean I've once again annoyed you.  I'm reasonably confident in my opinion on this subject, but I assure you my tone isn't meant to be confrontational tgm.
Click to expand...

 

No worries....didn't take it as offensive though I see why it looked like I was reacting that way.  I threw the punctuation in as an afterthought because I was just reusing the your emphasis and it seemed like the way to do it.


----------



## ekaaaans




> Quote:
> You are too young to have been through this era of when stereo first hit the market from monaural sound in movies and records. What we experienced was a *few years* where the popular selling gimmick was to put in the gratuitous ping pong or table tennis and other hard left and right hole in the middle sound stages. Eventually, that popularity of the majority went away but it seemed producers of anything stereo had to show their audience the Left right left sound gimmicks. In those days even pianos were recorded with all the low notes on the left and highs on the right. It was rare that sounds came out of both left and right speakers because that detracted from "real stereo." There were those experiments that never caught on such as Hafler 3 Channel stereo but at the end of the day, we as a society just needed to evolve beyond the ping pong gimmicks for stereo just as we will evolve beyond the gratuitous slap in the face pop out.


I have a Jimi Hendrix CD where certain tracks will lose the vocals completely if one speaker goes down. So I know what you're talking about. In today's movies though, we hear highly directional sound on levels well beyond old school stereo. In GRAVITY I can literally hear George Clooney's voice moving from left to right behind my head in synch with the floating camera. The analogy I would draw is arguing that such audio trickery was cheesy nonsense that evolved audiences should disdain.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24813241
> 
> 
> Cakefoo- While that certainly sounds like a good idea to raise 3D revenues, you would probably see more directors gaming the system and giving the majority what they want in 3D, the gimmick slap in the face thrill of something different. 3D pop out to the extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are too young to have been through this era of when stereo first hit the market from monaural sound in movies and records. What we experienced was a _few years_ where the popular selling gimmick was to put in the gratuitous ping pong or table tennis and other hard left and right hole in the middle sound stages. Eventually, that popularity of the majority went away but it seemed producers of anything stereo had to show their audience the Left right left sound gimmicks. In those days even pianos were recorded with all the low notes on the left and highs on the right. It was rare that sounds came out of both left and right speakers because that detracted from "real stereo." There were those experiments that never caught on such as Hafler 3 Channel stereo but at the end of the day, we as a society just needed to evolve beyond the ping pong gimmicks for stereo just as we will evolve beyond the gratuitous slap in the face pop out.



But will 3D be around long enough to evolve?


----------



## Jedi2016




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ekaaaans*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24813481
> 
> 
> In GRAVITY I can literally hear George Clooney's voice moving from left to right behind my head in synch with the floating camera.


Yeah, but that's done for a specific effect in a specific shot. He's talking about the entire _movie_ being like that. And the vast majority of dialogue in the vast majority of movies these days comes from center channel, with only some minor bleedover into the front L/R channels. About the only time we get dialogue with zero center channel is when the actor isn't even in frame. Then it makes sense to push it off to the sides or the rear.


----------



## Ricoflashback




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24813241
> 
> 
> Cakefoo- While that certainly sounds like a good idea to raise 3D revenues, you would probably see more directors gaming the system and giving the majority what they want in 3D, the gimmick slap in the face thrill of something different. 3D pop out to the extreme.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are too young to have been through this era of when stereo first hit the market from monaural sound in movies and records. What we experienced was a _few years_ where the popular selling gimmick was to put in the gratuitous ping pong or table tennis and other hard left and right hole in the middle sound stages. Eventually, that popularity of the majority went away but it seemed producers of anything stereo had to show their audience the Left right left sound gimmicks. In those days even pianos were recorded with all the low notes on the left and highs on the right. It was rare that sounds came out of both left and right speakers because that detracted from "real stereo." There were those experiments that never caught on such as Hafler 3 Channel stereo but at the end of the day, we as a society just needed to evolve beyond the ping pong gimmicks for stereo just as we will evolve beyond the gratuitous slap in the face pop out.



Gee, how about "Quadrophonic?" Now there's a surround sound technology that never took off (but morphed into 5.1+) I believe "The Who" meant to record/release "Quadrophenia" in Quad but the mixer they had was horrible. I remember in the movie when Townsend said the mix sounded terrible.


As far as gimmicks go, I enjoyed Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" with the sound ping ponging back and forth back in the day. Then again, it was hard to see the speakers from all the smoke in the room....










I enjoy 3D movies and I'm not ashamed to say that I enjoy the "pop-outs." I rent Bluray movies that entertain me and while most of them are 2D, I'm always on the lookout for an interesting 3D flick.


It would be great to have a "pop-out," 3D reference disc. Maybe a solid two hours of "in your face," slap happy scenes. That way you could always play it when you felt the 3D's you were watching didn't have enough pop outs.


I know there is an artistic side to this story, but I think that studios and manufacturers will also go for what is commercially successful. Cinemascope was launched in the 50's to keep people from being glued to their new TV sets. Back then, a 21" set was huge. I believe 3D's intent was to perk up big screen TV sales and drive an incremental revenue source.


I will still buy 3D movies and I hope the technology gets better and Samsung, Sony & Vizio still make 3D sets. If they could make it easier to view (active or passive) - - that would be a huge plus. The active glasses are a pain - - especially if you wear glasses to begin with. I'd love to find a place that makes active, prescription 3D glasses. I'd pay for those just to enjoy my current 3D movie collection.


My main point is that evolving also has a very close connection to what the market wants, i.e., what will sell. Gimmicks can work but only temporarily. At the end of the day, you have to be wowed or at least entertained - - motivated enough to buy.


----------



## cakefoo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don Landis*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24813241
> 
> 
> Cakefoo- While that certainly sounds like a good idea to raise 3D revenues, you would probably see more directors gaming the system and giving the majority what they want in 3D, the gimmick slap in the face thrill of something different. 3D pop out to the extreme.


I doubt that Don. Directors only need to look to Gravity and Avatar, perfect examples of how to make money making 3D films, and they didn't have extreme popout. To save 3D more directors just need to carefully follow in the footsteps of Cameron, Scorsese, Cuaron, Lurhmann, and Ang Lee. These guys made traditional films where the 3D set the proper tone in every scenario, enhacing the spectacle, action, drama, adventure, and emotion. Notice these are some of the basic tentpoles in films dating back a hundred years, and this is what most people are used to cinema being, and that's why 3D is going to find the most success being a harmonious complement rather than being too present or not present enough. The problem with a lot of action movies is that they pile all the money into the action scenes, but the dialog scenes are undercooked. If Hollywood would just try harder for the ENTIRE movie, things would be gravy on the blockbuster action film front.


But Hollywood also needs to get away from the dangerous mindset that 3D is only suitable for action scenes in action movies. There needs to be more than just action movies in 3D. Adventure is sort of a progression away from action towards something more spectacle-oriented without relying on violence and shiny vehicles and buff superheroes. Hugo and Great Gatsby were great in 3D in my opinion, and I'd love to see The Prodigious TS Spivet if it ever comes to the US, and I'm looking forward to Ang Lee's boxing movie, which I'm sure will have a lot of engaging dialog scenes and immersive fight scenes.


3D provides a sense of presence and immersion, and these qualities can enhance ANY genre if the cinematography is done properly.


----------



## Steve Tack

I sometimes wish that 3D movies didn't exist. I don't have an inherent problem with 3D and even enjoy it sometimes at the theater and at home, but there are some significant challenges.


When you want to go out to a movie and some of your party is anti-3D, you end up limiting your choices. In some cases you don't get to see the movie on the biggest screen in your theater that you used to like watching movies on. I don't have a strong preference one way or another, and I have to admit that I've rarely had the thought after watching the 2D version: "gee, I really feel like I missed out on something." There are a few "event" movies that I will be sure to see in 3D, however, Gravity being the latest.


The biggest issue though, is the lack of a consistent experience. I'm sure that's due to a huge number of variables, like how the movie was shot, what kind of hardware is used, how that hardware is set up, and a whole host of physical and psychological issues that differ by person. I find that the 3D in most content does not yield a very natural result (to me), is inconsistent in perceived depth, and sometimes is just way too dark. A big exception to that one is Hugo, which was just amazing from start to finish. So consistent.


Home hardware is all over the place. I have a JVC RS45 projector which has OK 3D capabilities, but does suffer from ghosting on certain high contrast content. It's fun to watch 3D movies sometimes (Madagascar 3 was fun!). Yet when both options are available on Blu-ray, I often get more enjoyment out of the more "relaxing", non-flickering, brighter, no-ghosting, no-eye strain, no-glasses 2D version.


I don't think 3D is near dead or anything, but I don't think it's ever going to really explode until the average quality of the experience goes way up.


Ideally there'd be some kind of quality rating applied to projection equipment, a specific theater's setup, and the content itself, but I have no idea how that'd work.


----------



## mo949

Looks like huge market in China for 3D. They've post converted Robocop and Noah and it seems to be doing more than well there.

http://celluloidjunkie.com/2014/03/12/robocops-3d-success-china-spells-trouble-imax/ 


They also are a big TV component supplier to the West


----------



## andy sullivan

Who decides if a movie will be shot in 3D? The director or the studio? I would think that if the studio wants 3D they would choose a director experienced in 3D and actually likes 3D.


----------



## aaronwt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andy sullivan*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24816203
> 
> 
> Who decides if a movie will be shot in 3D? The director or the studio? I would think that if the studio wants 3D they would choose a director experienced in 3D and actually likes 3D.



Aren't most movies converted from 2D to 3D instead of being shot in 3D.


----------



## ekaaaans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jedi2016*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24814868
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but that's done for a specific effect in a specific shot. He's talking about the entire *movie* being like that. And the vast majority of dialogue in the vast majority of movies these days comes from center channel, with only some minor bleedover into the front L/R channels. About the only time we get dialogue with zero center channel is when the actor isn't even in frame. Then it makes sense to push it off to the sides or the rear.


My point had to do with the accepted use of directional sound, not voices in particular. The stereo sound analogy he was making happens to juxtapose nicely with the question of how available technology should be used in today's movies.


----------



## Jedi2016




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  /t/1496126/is-3d-about-dead/360#post_24816253
> 
> 
> Aren't most movies converted from 2D to 3D instead of being shot in 3D?


It's shifting. Most of the 3D films being released in 2014 are native.

http://realorfake3d.com/


----------



## aaronwt

Jedi2016 said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *aaronwt*
> 
> Aren't most movies converted from 2D to 3D instead of being shot in 3D?
> 
> It's shifting. Most of the 3D films being released in 2014 are native.
> 
> http://realorfake3d.com/


 WoW! I would have never guessed that X-Men: Days of Future Past was a Native 3D movie.


----------



## SFMike

aaronwt said:


> WoW! I would have never guessed that X-Men: Days of Future Past was a Native 3D movie.


Yes it is sad how many of the natively filmed 3D movies have the 3D effect "dialed back" to the point that they end up looking like a conversion. I feel this is one of the major things hurting 3D movie production today, director apathy when shooting in 3D. It seems so many of them can't be bothered to think how they can optimize the 3D presentation and just do the "same old" job in setting up shots. That's why I'm not against a good conversion, as its most likely going to be as good or better than a lack luster natively shot film.


----------



## tgm1024

SFMike said:


> Yes it is sad how many of the natively filmed 3D movies have the 3D effect "dialed back" to the point that they end up looking like a conversion. I feel this is one of the major things hurting 3D movie production today, director apathy when shooting in 3D. It seems so many of them can't be bothered to think how they can optimize the 3D presentation and just do the "same old" job in setting up shots. That's why I'm not against a good conversion, as its most likely going to be as good or better than a lack luster natively shot film.


You can have a conversion that has enormous pop-out. The two issues are distinct.


----------



## SFMike

tgm1024 said:


> You can have a conversion that has enormous pop-out. The two issues are distinct.


Right....At this point in time you can get out of a conversion almost whatever you creatively want to. That's why I feel coversions shouldn't be considered the ugly stepchild of a navtive production. It's the lack of creative will of the filmakers in using 3D effectively. Or the will to write good scripts..ect.


----------



## cinema13

VARIETY June 17

*3D Stages a Revival (Again)
*


3D may have staged yet another revival.

Last summer, the premium format went from sizzle to fizzle, with most audience members opting not to don the tinted specs for the likes of “Turbo,” “The Wolverine” and “World War Z.”

What a difference an Oscar-winning space epic makes.

Analysts and exhibitors credit “Gravity” with making 3D cool again, and in recent months the format’s box office contribution has increased.

“You can’t overlook ‘Gravity’s’ impact,” said Eric Wold, an analyst with B. Riley & Co. “All it takes is one good movie to spark consumer interest. ‘Gravity’ doing what it did got people to think about 3D differently, and it got some people to come back after having a bad experience.”

“It changed the mindset,” said James Goss, managing director of research at Barrington Research Associates. “Studios and RealD and theater operators are now looking for movies that play well in 3D and that are enhanced by it instead of just making everything in 3D.”

Films such as “Edge of Tomorrow” and “Godzilla” didn’t match “Gravity’s” 80% 3D take — but they racked up roughly half of their opening weekends from 3D screenings, while “The Amazing Spider-Man 2″ brought in 43% of its debut haul from 3D engagements. That’s in sharp relief to the 34% market share “World War Z” carved out from the format in its initial frame or the 30% “The Wolverine” earned from 3D in its first weekend of release.

Also brightening the picture — directors such as Gareth Edwards (“Godzilla”) and Marc Webb (“The Amazing Spider-Man 2”) have urged fans to see their films in 3D, while advertising campaigns for major summer movies have urged ticket-buyers to spring for the premium format.

“When a studio sets the tone that a film is meant to be seen in 3D, moviegoers respond,” said Michael Lewis, chairman and CEO of the 3D provider RealD. “Filmmaker endorsements are an especially powerful tool. When a filmmaker explains how they envisioned the film in 3D and the benefits of seeing the film in 3D, moviegoers have better context when buying tickets.”

For studios and exhibitors, a higher 3D share equates to millions of dollars in incremental box office because those tickets carry a healthy surcharge. Central to the format’s improved fortunes has been a more fervent embrace by theater owners, who are offering more 3D showings and have become more willing to pair it with other premium large screen formats such as Imax.

That required an attitude adjustment throughout the industry.

“We all took 3D for granted,” said Cinemark CEO Tim Warner. “The studios made them in 3D, but they didn’t sell them in 3D. The exhibitors just said, ‘If people want to see them in 3D, fine. If they don’t, fine.’ So we didn’t market them either. We all saw that ‘Hey, here’s something that has really become about 20 percent of our box office, and if it goes away, none of us really has an idea to replace it.’”

Now things have changed, he argued.

“If they’re going to make a movie in 3D and market it, we’re going to show it in 3D, and we’re not going to take it for granted,” Warner said.

Of course, not everything has worked. Family films such as “How to Train Your Dragon 2″ (32% 3D market share) and “Maleficent” (21% 3D market share) have given ticket-buyers sticker shock, showing that the format is not the preferred choice for the price-conscious or customers bearing children.


----------



## tgm1024

^^^The link for that is here:

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/box-office-3d-stages-a-revival-again-1201220911/
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/box-office-3d-stages-a-revival-again-1201220911/


----------



## cakefoo

Gravity succeeded because in addition to being great eye candy, the cinematographer and director were masters of storytelling, and they made a great film period. There is an intelligent audience out there who loves a good film first, and only wants 3D if it enhances the story. Make more of those kinds of films and you'll see 3D perception improve immensely.

That's not to say action movies can't be good in 3D-- Avatar is one of the exceptions because it was conceived as a 3D film all the way through, and Cameron knew what he was doing. Not conceiving a film for 3D, or not knowing what you're doing, will yield mixed results.


----------



## Josh Z

cinema13 said:


> Also brightening the picture — directors such as Gareth Edwards (“Godzilla”) and Marc Webb (“The Amazing Spider-Man 2”) have urged fans to see their films in 3D,


That's funny, because Seamus McGarvey, the cinematographer of Godzilla, has urged fans to see the film in 2D.

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/godzilla-director-speaks-3d-go-see-godzilla-3d/


----------



## aaronwt

Josh Z said:


> That's funny, because Seamus McGarvey, the cinematographer of Godzilla, has urged fans to see the film in 2D.
> 
> http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/godzilla-director-speaks-3d-go-see-godzilla-3d/


One of his reasons for disliking 3D is also based on old tech...

"... Each lens change was 45 minutes, it was a disaster to align the cameras up..." 

I know with the new Digital IMAX 3D cameras this is not the case any more.

then he later says "..It's just not fun in cinema, and I always get a headache when I watch a 3D movie. Everything seems fuzzier..."

I don't know what 3D cinemas he is watching in, but the last few 3D movies I have seen have looked extremely sharp and crisp.
Headaches, well that is the case with a certain percentage of people. I'm not one of them and even my 80 year old dad and my GFs 89 year old mother has no problem watching 3D.


----------



## Jedi2016

His reasoning basically boils down to "just because", and I refuse to pay any attention to people like that.


----------



## cajieboy

I think 3D is definitely here to stay. Movie makers have been trying for decades to get it right, but the technological know-how was lacking to say the least. Not true any longer, and 3D paired with the right type of movie just brings the viewer to a whole new level of movie-watching experience. True for certain documentaries too.

The new 4K format benefits the 3D format tremendously, and in the near future you'll see bigger screens the norm and big advancements in 3D to match. Now I realize there's been a love/hate relationship in regards to 3D. Some love it, some hate it, and some undecided. Certain movies & subjects do not lend themselves well to the benefits of 3D, and by converting these mis-matched films from 2D to 3D, causes some folks to want to chuck the whole format. I love 3D, but know that I'm highly selective to which films to watch in this manner. At home, I really enjoy the active shutter glasses vs those el-cheapo throwaways at the theater. Still, I do enjoy 3D in the theater too because of huge screen, excellent sound and 4K projectors.

Quick note. Amazon announced today it is releasing it's new 3D Amazon Fire smartphone. Now you can have 3D on the go!


----------



## tgm1024

cajieboy said:


> Quick note. Amazon announced today it is releasing it's new 3D Amazon Fire smartphone. Now you can have 3D on the go!


Amazon's "Dynamic perspective" isn't 3D in the traditional sense. It's just a redrawing of the display based upon the angle of the phone. It's still a 2D display AFAICT.


----------



## cajieboy

tgm1024 said:


> Amazon's "Dynamic perspective" isn't 3D in the traditional sense. It's just a redrawing of the display based upon the angle of the phone. It's still a 2D display AFAICT.


Oh well....given time. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Josh Z

Jedi2016 said:


> His reasoning basically boils down to "just because", and I refuse to pay any attention to people like that.


Whether you agree with his opinion on 3D or not, the man actually shot the movie, and he's outright saying that he did not plan for or make any accommodations for 3D at all. He shot Godzilla as a 2D movie and told the people in post to do whatever the studio needed them to do, then walked away.

While 3D conversions can be very good these days, good 3D requires a completely different cinematic language that starts with active planning in the shot compositions and editing. McGarvey says that when he shot The Avengers, they had stereographers on set to advise with that. He found the process a tremendous pain in the neck and didn't want to work that way again, so there were no stereographers on set during Godzilla and he gave no thought to 3D at all. 

Far too many recent 3D movies are shot as 2D movies, with too many tight close-ups, shallow depth of field, shaky-cam and quick-cut editing - none of which is conducive to good 3D. You might get an isolated shot here or there that happens to look good in 3D, but the overall viewing experience is visually confusing and fatiguing to watch. I'm talking about movies like Star Trek into Darkness, World War Z, Man of Steel, G.I. Joe: Retaliation and numerous others. These movies are best watched in 2D, even though 3D versions are available.


----------



## andy sullivan

Josh Z said:


> Whether you agree with his opinion on 3D or not, the man actually shot the movie, and he's outright saying that he did not plan for or make any accommodations for 3D at all. He shot Godzilla as a 2D movie and told the people in post to do whatever the studio needed them to do, then walked away.
> 
> While 3D conversions can be very good these days, good 3D requires a completely different cinematic language that starts with active planning in the shot compositions and editing. McGarvey says that when he shot The Avengers, they had stereographers on set to advise with that. He found the process a tremendous pain in the neck and didn't want to work that way again, so there were no stereographers on set during Godzilla and he gave no thought to 3D at all.
> 
> Far too many recent 3D movies are shot as 2D movies, with too many tight close-ups, shallow depth of field, shaky-cam and quick-cut editing - none of which is conducive to good 3D. You might get an isolated shot here or there that happens to look good in 3D, but the overall viewing experience is visually confusing and fatiguing to watch. I'm talking about movies like Star Trek into Darkness, World War Z, Man of Steel, G.I. Joe: Retaliation and numerous others. These movies are best watched in 2D, even though 3D versions are available.


Can you list the latest ten or so movies that are worth watching in 3D?


----------



## Rudy1

A good 3D movie lets me forget I'm wearing the glasses.


----------



## CinemaAndy

Here is a list of current and upcoming 3D movies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films

3D depends on the content producer. Some like to have it popping out in your face and making the audience jump, some prefer the depth part of it.

It is safe to say 3D for the cinema is not dead or dying. I think the recently founded 3D commission that is working on setting standards for consumer 3D will work wonders to reel in some of the confusion and conflicting designs that have plagued the consumer 3D market. I think glasses free 3D is only a few years away for certain commercial cinema's.


----------



## aaronwt

CinemaAndy said:


> Here is a list of current and upcoming 3D movies.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films
> 
> 3D depends on the content producer. Some like to have it popping out in your face and making the audience jump, some prefer the depth part of it.
> 
> It is safe to say 3D for the cinema is not dead or dying. I think the recently founded 3D commission that is working on setting standards for consumer 3D will work wonders to reel in some of the confusion and conflicting designs that have plagued the consumer 3D market. I think glasses free 3D is only a few years away for certain commercial cinema's.


I hope that isn't a complete list. Otherwsie there aren't many titles that will be released in 3D for the rest of the year.


----------



## tgm1024

CinemaAndy said:


> Here is a list of current and upcoming 3D movies.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films
> 
> 3D depends on the content producer. Some like to have it popping out in your face and making the audience jump, some prefer the depth part of it.
> 
> It is safe to say 3D for the cinema is not dead or dying. I think the recently founded 3D commission that is working on setting standards for consumer 3D will work wonders to reel in some of the confusion and conflicting designs that have plagued the consumer 3D market. I think glasses free 3D is only a few years away for certain commercial cinema's.


How? Big massive display panels????? There is no "glasses free" solution for projected images.


----------



## cakefoo

aaronwt said:


> I hope that isn't a complete list. Otherwsie there aren't many titles that will be released in 3D for the rest of the year.


I'm more concerned about the quality. There isn't a single 3D movie I'm looking forward to in the near future.


----------



## CinemaAndy

tgm1024 said:


> How? Big massive display panels????? There is no "glasses free" solution for projected images.


Form the minds at M.I.T.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/19/mit-glasses-free-3d-projector/


----------



## CARTmen

CinemaAndy said:


> Form the minds at M.I.T.
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/19/mit-glasses-free-3d-projector/


We were discussing it in another topic here:http://www.avsforum.com/forum/194-3d-tech-talk/1535302-glasses-free-3d-projector.html

But it seems that this kind of technology isn't such a great breakthrough and it has a lot of problems. Even if it were, they are just presenting it on paper on August, and it seems to be in the initial steps of development, so it would take a lot of time until this could be produced in a large scale.


----------



## tgm1024

CARTmen said:


> We were discussing it in another topic here:http://www.avsforum.com/forum/194-3d-tech-talk/1535302-glasses-free-3d-projector.html
> 
> But it seems that this kind of technology isn't such a great breakthrough and it has a lot of problems. Even if it were, they are just presenting it on paper on August, and it seems to be in the initial steps of development, so it would take a lot of time until this could be produced in a large scale.


Interesting. I'll keep a eye on it. But I question Engadget when they say things like _*"the technology uses a graphics card's computational power to preserve as much of an image's original information (and therefore its brightness) as possible." *_


----------



## Josh Z

andy sullivan said:


> Can you list the latest ten or so movies that are worth watching in 3D?


I think there are already enough threads about that in this forum.

I was impressed with Gravity recently. Even though the live action portions were converted from 2D, the movie was clearly planned for 3D from the beginning and had a lot of thought put into how the 3D would enhance the experience.


----------



## andy sullivan

Josh Z said:


> I think there are already enough threads about that in this forum.
> 
> I was impressed with Gravity recently. Even though the live action portions were converted from 2D, the movie was clearly planned for 3D from the beginning and had a lot of thought put into how the 3D would enhance the experience.


You may be correct Josh about the number of threads regarding 3D movies. However, keep in mind that the majority of opinions are based on personal preference. Your take is more based on the technical aspect and most of us do not share your back ground and knowledge. What I may like is one thing but I'm asking you for a assessment based on the actual technical quality of the 3D and perhaps the steps involved in creating the specific 3D experience of a given movie. Actually there may not even be 10 movies that meet your criteria for rating a movie highly.


----------



## Josh Z

andy sullivan said:


> You may be correct Josh about the number of threads regarding 3D movies. However, keep in mind that the majority of opinions are based on personal preference. Your take is more based on the technical aspect and most of us do not share your back ground and knowledge. What I may like is one thing but I'm asking you for a assessment based on the actual technical quality of the 3D and perhaps the steps involved in creating the specific 3D experience of a given movie. Actually there may not even be 10 movies that meet your criteria for rating a movie highly.


It's really not that technical. Shaky-cam and quick-cut editing are bad for 3D because they don't give viewers' brains enough time to register and process the 3D effect. The combination of 3D with hyperactive movement is visually confusing and can make many viewers nauseous. This should be really obvious if you try to watch some of these 2D action movies converted to 3D. 

Even Michael Bay was wise enough to tone down his camerawork and editing in the third Transformers movie. His stereographers warned him that adding 3D to his usual filming style would have audiences puking in the theater aisles. 

If you want to make a good 3D movie, you should also frame your shots to position characters and objects to make some meaningful use of the depth. A DP like McGarvey who has admitted that he gave no thought to 3D will not make that effort.


----------



## Deja Vu

Josh Z said:


> It's really not that technical. Shaky-cam and quick-cut editing are bad for 3D because they don't give viewers' brains enough time to register and process the 3D effect. The combination of 3D with hyperactive movement is visually confusing and can make many viewers nauseous. This should be really obvious if you try to watch some of these 2D action movies converted to 3D.
> 
> Even Michael Bay was wise enough to tone down his camerawork and editing in the third Transformers movie. His stereographers warned him that adding 3D to his usual filming style would have audiences puking in the theater aisles.
> 
> If you want to make a good 3D movie, you should also frame your shots to position characters and objects to make some meaningful use of the depth. A DP like McGarvey who has admitted that he gave no thought to 3D will not make that effort.


I agree with you that having 3D in mind when shooting a 3D movie makes a difference to the final product; however there are some 2D movies I have converted into 3D using a Teranex processor that look very good -- maybe I am one of a fortunate few and I don't get headaches. Some artful 2D shots look stunning when converted to 3D. Shaky cams don't bother me in 2D but I would avoid material such as this in 3D. I am now watching all my favourite 2D movies in 3D and for me at least it is a better experience.

People here can argue over 3D until the cows come home -- me, I'm just going to enjoy my movies in 3D whether they were shot in 3D or 2D. 3D draws me deeper into the story and that's the escapism for which I'm looking. To each his own -- I'm now free to choose to watch any movie in the dimension(s) I happen to prefer. Freedom of chose is a wonderful and liberating thing.


----------



## tomtastic

Disney dropping 3D Blu ray market is really blow to 3D. Hopefully they reverse this decision because not everyone, including myself can stream, nor would I want to if I could.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> Disney dropping 3D Blu ray market is really blow to 3D. Hopefully they reverse this decision because not everyone, including myself can stream, nor would I want to if I could.


When did Disney drop 3D from Blu-ray Disc? The last 3D Disney title I got was Frozen. Earlier this year. So are they not coming out with any more 3D BD titles? It seems like a waste if the movie is going to be in 3D anyway at the theaters.

EDIT: I see that Captain America: The Winter Soldier is being released on BD soon in 3D. And Disney owns Marvel.


----------



## tomtastic

That'd be the first release I've seen from Disney is awhile now in 3D, everything else is overseas, so I'm not counting those since I can't buy them here in US.


----------



## Don Landis

tomtastic said:


> That'd be the first release I've seen from Disney is awhile now in 3D, *everything else is overseas, so I'm not counting those since I can't buy them here in US*.


Who told you you can't buy them here? Maybe you can't walk into the local B&M store and buy it in your town. Here in Florida we have something new you may not have heard of. It's called mail order.  The biggest is Amazon and ebay. You buy from your computer and in a few days to a couple weeks, it is delivered to your door. You don't need to travel to another part of the world to buy stuff only sold "over there" Not only that but if a 3D BD is only rendered in one of the other two region codes, you can buy a 3D Blu Ray player that ignores the region codes on the disk. _We have lots of options and that is why I know 3D is not dead.
_
Everyone has their personal limitations. Some people refuse to acknowledge a 3D movie if it doesn't meet their personal high limited standards of production. Others feel 3D as a streaming or digital download doesn't count. Others refuse to watch conversions. 

I understand if you live where you don't have 21st century internet, still can't stream video at 9+ Mbs which is required for good quality 3D playback. 

Even I have my limitations on what counts as available. For me, I don't count bit torrent bootlegged copies. I won't do bit torrents. 

I think we will soon see people in this AVS community posting that unless the movie is in 4K 3D it doesn't count. Really?


----------



## cakefoo

Don Landis said:


> Who told you you can't buy them here? Maybe you can't walk into the local B&M store and buy it in your town. Here in Florida we have something new you may not have heard of. It's called mail order.  The biggest is Amazon and ebay. You buy from your computer and in a few days to a couple weeks, it is delivered to your door. You don't need to travel to another part of the world to buy stuff only sold "over there" Not only that but if a 3D BD is only rendered in one of the other two region codes, you can buy a 3D Blu Ray player that ignores the region codes on the disk. _We have lots of options and that is why I know 3D is not dead._


You could also have bought a plane ticket to China to see Noah 3D in theaters. Only then are you a TRUE AVSFORUM 3D FAN.


----------



## tomtastic

It doesn't do much good to mail order if I still can't play it, I guess I should have been more specific.


----------



## Don Landis

tomtastic said:


> It doesn't do much good to mail order if I still can't play it, I guess I should have been more specific.


Still limiting yourself. PLEASE, open your horizons. 

Consider the logic- if you didn't own a 3D TV you couldn't watch any 3D. 

To watch a BD from another region you need to have a region free player. There are plenty of those for sale and not too much more than the OEM product. Plus, depending on your player, you can buy for much less a simple plug-in kit to make it Region Free. OPPO can do this, on some you don't even need to open the case. 

The option is yours to choose.


----------



## NorthSky

3D is not dead yet, but Disney is for sure accentuating the deceased decision! 

And by the way, where is *Avatar 2* and *Prometheus 2*, both in 3D? 
...And *The Lord of the Rings Extended Edition Trilogy* in 3D?
...*The Incredibles, Ratatouille* in 3D?

This world of ours is in 3D, so get on with the program. ...Adjust, or rust.


----------



## Don Landis

> ...Adjust, or rust.


Good advice! Please take it yourself.


----------



## JimP

NorthSky said:


> 3D is not dead yet, but Disney is for sure accentuating the deceased decision!
> 
> And by the way, where is *Avatar 2* and *Prometheus 2*, both in 3D?
> ...And *The Lord of the Rings Extended Edition Trilogy* in 3D?
> ...*The Incredibles, Ratatouille* in 3D?
> 
> This world of ours is in 3D, so get on with the program. ...Adjust, or rust.


Ratatouille???? really??? lol


----------



## Deja Vu

3D may not be dead but it's a pretty small niche. For some reason it seems to do better at the box office than in the home theatre market. I know people that will see a movie in 3D at the theatre but have never watched a 3D movie on their 3D capable T.V. I suspect 4K will end up also being a niche market. 4K T.V.s will replace 1080p T.V.s but few will watch real 4K on them and, if they do, it will most likely be streamed. When the 4K cycle is complete and the market saturated we'll move on to 8K and begin again -- little or no real content but that means little to nothing. Bigger is better and you must have it even if you don't use it. Personally I'd rather have an exceptional 3D 1080p display for a reasonable price than 4K, 8K, 24K or whatever. Maybe in a few years an 80" 4K 3D OLED T.V. will prove me wrong. I sure hope so.


----------



## NickTheGreat

Don Landis said:


> Who told you you can't buy them here? Maybe you can't walk into the local B&M store and buy it in your town. Here in Florida we have something new you may not have heard of. It's called mail order.  The biggest is Amazon and ebay. You buy from your computer and in a few days to a couple weeks, it is delivered to your door. You don't need to travel to another part of the world to buy stuff only sold "over there" Not only that but if a 3D BD is only rendered in one of the other two region codes, you can buy a 3D Blu Ray player that ignores the region codes on the disk. _We have lots of options and that is why I know 3D is not dead.
> _...


Being able to buy a Disney 3D title from Amazon UK is NOT the same them as them releasing it in the US. 

It really pisses me off too, because a lot of the 3D titles we want at home are Disney titles. And to make it such a PITA is ridiculous. 

I'll agree that Disney isn't trying to kill off 3D. They like 3D, and they are trying to kill off physical media. Which is another issue for another thread


----------



## cinema13

aaronwt said:


> EDIT: I see that Captain America: The Winter Soldier is being released on BD soon in 3D. And Disney owns Marvel.


Yes, but they do not RUN Marvel. Marvel operates autonomously from Disney so they can release movies in 3D as they choose.


----------



## tomtastic

Don Landis said:


> Still limiting yourself. PLEASE, open your horizons.
> 
> Consider the logic- if you didn't own a 3D TV you couldn't watch any 3D.
> 
> To watch a BD from another region you need to have a region free player. There are plenty of those for sale and not too much more than the OEM product. Plus, depending on your player, you can buy for much less a simple plug-in kit to make it Region Free. OPPO can do this, on some you don't even need to open the case.
> 
> The option is yours to choose.


One thing I am not doing is buy another player. I have no more room, nor should I be forced to buy a product I can't play on my player I have now. If studios were interested in selling me a copy I could order locally they'd have released it here. I have bought some region B discs for playback on my media player but not many, and at this point I'm not purchasing any more because the cost is significantly more when you do because of the extra shipping or price hikes. Just because there is a solution in another region doesn't mean that product can be available to those in North America. Most don't go to the extremes many here do to acquire those that are available elsewhere and even the ones that do wished they didn't have to.

As for the 3D TV itself, yes, but I didn't have to order it from Germany or France either. It was local at Best Buy.

Getting back to Disney not releasing for NA, it feels a little like the downward spiral for 3D, which I hope isn't the case. There's plenty of decent titles they could be releasing here in 3D, which will go largely unsold without a release. Like I said, those that ordered Frozen from UK, including myself, are the exception. I'd be willing to bet the numbers are pretty small, less than 500 3D copies that actually crossed the ocean. Disney's choice to region lock Ratt., they probably didn't even consider those 500 copies that left region b.


----------



## Don Landis

cinema13 said:


> Yes, but they do not RUN Marvel. Marvel operates autonomously from Disney so they can release movies in 3D as they choose.


And so can Disney. They choose to release various parts of a theme on their own schedule. But, as I said before the limitation is your own. When world conditions change, you have a choice to change with those conditions or sit around and pout while the rest of us are having fun. 

I never said that ordering a Disk from the UK or China is the same as buying from your neighborhood Best Buy. I said you have a choice.


----------



## Don Landis

Deja Vu said:


> 3D may not be dead but it's a pretty small niche. For some reason it seems to do better at the box office than in the home theatre market. I know people that will see a movie in 3D at the theatre but have never watched a 3D movie on their 3D capable T.V. I suspect 4K will end up also being a niche market. 4K T.V.s will replace 1080p T.V.s but few will watch real 4K on them and, if they do, it will most likely be streamed. When the 4K cycle is complete and the market saturated we'll move on to 8K and begin again -- little or no real content but that means little to nothing. Bigger is better and you must have it even if you don't use it. Personally I'd rather have an exceptional 3D 1080p display for a reasonable price than 4K, 8K, 24K or whatever. Maybe in a few years an 80" 4K 3D OLED T.V. will prove me wrong. I sure hope so.


I have a cousin who bought one of the most expensive 4K 84" TV's when they first came out, He bought a 3D BR Player too. Plus a whole bunch of popular titles in 3D. He did not have a server for 4K. When I visited him back in June, I complimented him on his choice of a 3D TV. He said, well when the installer set everything up he didn't show him how to use it for 3D. I had to explain to him he needed to use the glasses, which he promptly retrieved from the unopened packaging and we got them working. I showed him Netflix 3D and he liked the story on Boeing because he was an engineer on one of the components shown in the video. We looked at some movie disks too. He really liked the 3D, was rather fascinated by it. Seems hard to imagine him not even caring about it but then he travels around the world so much, hardly ever home, so it was more for his wife than him. She told me that the new set doesn't work right that the sound has an awful echo. I fixed that for them with the delay setting between the TV speakers and the 7.1 surround system. He insisted on having both active. 
Fact is we are a small niche, probably about the same size as 7.1 surround enthusiasts. I don't really care about others. I'm just happy to enjoy what I have. But I understand I have what I have because the companies believe there is enough popularity to produce 3D. As long as they keep the titles coming, I can wait the additional time, or order from the other side of the planet if necessary.


----------



## cinema13

Don Landis said:


> And so can Disney. They choose to release various parts of a theme on their own schedule. But, as I said before the limitation is your own. When world conditions change, you have a choice to change with those conditions or sit around and pout while the rest of us are having fun.
> 
> I never said that ordering a Disk from the UK or China is the same as buying from your neighborhood Best Buy. I said you have a choice.


"World conditions" have little to do with Disney not releasing 3D discs. Actually, it is the rest of the world that has the access! Disney policies are THEIRS alone. (But it does seem that they'd LIKE to rule the world.)


----------



## mo949

NorthSky said:


> 3D is not dead yet, but Disney is for sure accentuating the deceased decision!
> 
> And by the way, where is *Avatar 2* and *Prometheus 2*, both in 3D?
> ...And *The Lord of the Rings Extended Edition Trilogy* in 3D?
> ...*The Incredibles, Ratatouille* in 3D?
> 
> This world of ours is in 3D, so get on with the program. ...Adjust, or rust.


I have Ratatouille in 3D sitting at home in the plastic


----------



## Don Landis

tom, you make some good points, Probably the most valid is that YOU choose to refuse to buy a disk unless it plays on your existing equipment and it is available from your local store. You make your choices and that's fine. But, these solutions are not necessarily larger or take up more space. I was surprised hos small my region free player was when it arrived and the added benefits of hundreds of apps and an internet browser and ability to stream DLNA from my server... Heck it took me a whole afternoon to get everything set up. I also got two free movies with the purchase. Buying from around the world on the internet is not hard. You don't even need to read Chinese. Everything is easy but you need plastic money and the internet. click buy and enter your plastic money numbers and wait a few days. Takes less time than buying at Best Buy, but you will have to wait for the shipping time. The one thing that we may find a disadvantage is if the disk we want from another country, doesn't have the English audio. That would be a bummer but so far the description alerts us to that issue before ordering.

Please understand, that while I really don't care if you never advance your system beyond what you have now and never buy on a global scale, I do care that you have the wrong impression that you believe you are "forced" to go without. The fact that those of us who want to watch it do and make our choices can't be disputed. 

Interesting that this conflict keeps surfacing with everything Home Theater. I'm sure the veterans here recall the hate posts on Sony because they strong armed BluRay over HDDVD. I still have my original HD DVD player and my XBOX HDDVD attachment. Yes, I had both BluRay and HDDVD and didn't care about the debates that seemed to never end. I didn't care whether the title was released on BD or HDDVD. Which ever released first, that was what I bought.


----------



## Don Landis

cinema13 said:


> "World conditions" have little to do with Disney not releasing 3D discs. Actually, it is the rest of the world that has the access! Disney policies are THEIRS alone. (But it does seem that they'd LIKE to rule the world.)


I wasn't referring to political conditions. I was referring to world market conditions that differ in different parts of the world. 



> they'd LIKE to rule the world.


LOL! I suppose it will be a big battle then who rules the world. A Battle between, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Google, Alibaba, Netflix, Intel, Amazon, The NFL, McDonalds, Starbucks, Coca Cola, etc...


----------



## tgm1024

Don Landis said:


> LOL! I suppose it will be a big battle then who rules the world. A Battle between, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Google, Alibaba, Netflix, Intel, Amazon, The NFL, McDonalds, Starbucks, Coca Cola, etc...


And if you have kids: minecraft.


----------



## tomtastic

I have over 200 HD DVD's, mostly cause they were cheap to buy after they ended. I still need to get them ripped and added to server. I have bought a few titles overseas, like the BD release of Open Range German release. As far as I know it hasn't been released here yet and I really liked the movie. I can't play it on disc but I have it added to my media server. But I don't do it very often because of the increased cost of shipping and mark up. I think Open Range was around 30.00 altogether which if it was released here, about half that. It's mostly a cost issue, yes I know you can but it just isn't feasible. 

That also hurts the local secondary market. You don't see too many region B or other region discs for sale since almost no one has a player that can play them. I do buy discs locally if the price is right. Blu ray's often sell for as little as 4.99 here and there. You can't even get them that cheap on Amazon now that shipping is what 3.99? Maybe if they're .99. 

As for buying another player that could play them from disc, I have too much already hooked up, last thing I need is another player to plug in. I need to go the other way and unhook stuff. After moving it's really been an eye opener what I think I need and what I can live without.


----------



## cinema13

Don Landis said:


> I wasn't referring to political conditions. I was referring to world market conditions that differ in different parts of the world.


I got that...was being a bit facetious! But although I don't have any numbers, I find it difficult to believe that they'd have sold more 3D FROZENs in the UK than it would have sold in the U.S. As I mentioned earlier, I'd say that FROZEN would have been the biggest selling 3D disc to date. That won't happen now, even if they do release it later. Too many have already opted for alternate options or will settle for the 2D they already have in their homes.


----------



## mo949

cakefoo said:


> You could also have bought a plane ticket to China to see Noah 3D in theaters. Only then are you a TRUE AVSFORUM 3D FAN.


why doesn't buying the 3D bluray from China count??

Now if you'd said 3d cinema release of Robocop that would be a different matter


----------



## mo949

tomtastic said:


> One thing I am not doing is buy another player. I have no more room, nor should I be forced to buy a product I can't play on my player I have now. If studios were interested in selling me a copy I could order locally they'd have released it here. I have bought some region B discs for playback on my media player but not many, and at this point I'm not purchasing any more because the cost is significantly more when you do because of the extra shipping or price hikes. Just because there is a solution in another region doesn't mean that product can be available to those in North America. Most don't go to the extremes many here do to acquire those that are available elsewhere and even the ones that do wished they didn't have to.
> 
> As for the 3D TV itself, yes, but I didn't have to order it from Germany or France either. It was local at Best Buy.
> 
> Getting back to Disney not releasing for NA, it feels a little like the downward spiral for 3D, which I hope isn't the case. There's plenty of decent titles they could be releasing here in 3D, which will go largely unsold without a release. Like I said, those that ordered Frozen from UK, including myself, are the exception. I'd be willing to bet the numbers are pretty small, less than 500 3D copies that actually crossed the ocean. Disney's choice to region lock Ratt., they probably didn't even consider those 500 copies that left region b.



It took me a while before I took the plunge and added a second player. Ironically it was for bluray releases that were not in 3D that motivated me to do so as I did not want to be stuck with just the DVD as an option in those cases- the 3D is more than a welcome bonus though! its now the reason after the fact.

I actually keep the extra player disconnected and just use my receivers HDMI port in the front to plug it in for the small handful that I need it for. I can think of many other things at costco that could eat up the 100$ I paid for it; I could drink it away in an evening even


----------



## DRaven72

NickTheGreat said:


> Being able to buy a Disney 3D title from Amazon UK is NOT the same them as them releasing it in the US.




Ahhhh. Yeah. It is. I bought Frozen 3d from Amazon.uk . Only thing I can't do is use the reward points from UK to here. Whoopdee do. I have it in 3d and didn't have to wait for Disney to do another US release (probably around Xmas) for 3D. Same disc, Region free. Same with Captain America:WS. Received mine on 8-25. Region free. 3D to boot. Both discs work on Panasonic BDP-210 model. So yes, exact same and in the case of Frozen, I have 3d. And with cap, I have it a lot earlier than anyone else.


----------



## cakefoo

mo949 said:


> why doesn't buying the 3D bluray from China count??
> 
> Now if you'd said 3d cinema release of Robocop that would be a different matter


Looking at it in the context of the opening post and thread title, an import doesn't count as anything more than a drop in the bucket, because as someone else said, the number of imports is likely microscopic compared to the lost sales on native soil. You can't expect people to import in mass quantities.


----------



## Don Landis

> I actually keep the extra player disconnected and just use my receivers HDMI port in the front to plug it in for the small handful that I need it for.


When I made the HT upgrade to 3D a few years ago, I knew HDMI would be the connectivity of the future. I searched for an Avr that had the most hdmi inputs and outputs. Mine has 6 in on the back and one in the front. Plus two outputs. I have them all used and now have to share the new region free player with my HDDVD player which rarely gets used. I keep the front one for my ipad, Surface Pro or one of my camcorders that would be temporary. 

I have yet to need the region free but I feel the sense of freedom now that I made the move on it. It seems tiny but the quality equals my Oppo and the apps I have available are impressive. I discovered quite a few that have 2D HD movies for free. But they do have advertising which is how they are funded. If this works out, I may be retiring the WDTV Live since the New Sony region Free has all the same apps, plus the Netflix has the 3D content too, which the WDTV Live does not. 

I plan to be traveling soon so when I get back I'm going to shop for some region B and C imports so I have a couple just for testing. Maybe by then Malificent 3D will be out in one of the other regions.


----------



## mo949

cakefoo said:


> Looking at it in the context of the opening post and thread title, an import doesn't count as anything more than a drop in the bucket, because as someone else said, the number of imports is likely microscopic compared to the lost sales on native soil. You can't expect people to import in mass quantities.


I meant why doesn't it count as being a true AVS forum 3d fan ?!


----------



## cakefoo

mo949 said:


> I meant why doesn't it count as being a true AVS forum 3d fan ?!


Oh just being facetious, gotta keep raising that bar!

On topic: While importing may be a viable option that doesn't significantly affect people here on an individual level right now, the US getting snubbed is a bad sign for the future of worldwide 3D Blu-ray support.


----------



## mo949

Don Landis said:


> When I made the HT upgrade to 3D a few years ago, I knew HDMI would be the connectivity of the future. I searched for an Avr that had the most hdmi inputs and outputs. Mine has 6 in on the back and one in the front. Plus two outputs. I have them all used and now have to share the new region free player with my HDDVD player which rarely gets used. I keep the front one for my ipad, Surface Pro or one of my camcorders that would be temporary.
> 
> I have yet to need the region free but I feel the sense of freedom now that I made the move on it. It seems tiny but the quality equals my Oppo and the apps I have available are impressive. I discovered quite a few that have 2D HD movies for free. But they do have advertising which is how they are funded. If this works out, I may be retiring the WDTV Live since the New Sony region Free has all the same apps, plus the Netflix has the 3D content too, which the WDTV Live does not.
> 
> I plan to be traveling soon so when I get back I'm going to shop for some region B and C imports so I have a couple just for testing. Maybe by then Malificent 3D will be out in one of the other regions.


Oh my! way more connectivity than I can handle Don (physically and mentally!) - come to think of it, my belkin 12 outlet strip is already maxed out as it is!. I'm more in the 'less is more' camp in the last couple of years, but I want that 'less' to be of the best quality I can afford and fit; and I just don't think I'd be a true film fanatic without my region free player allowing me to see titles in HD, and 3D. Funny enough, my wife and I really like bill murray's the 'city of ember' and that was one of the titles that kicked this off.

Goodluck on your trip!


----------



## Don Landis

tgm1024 said:


> And if you have kids: minecraft.





cinema13 said:


> I got that...was being a bit facetious! But although I don't have any numbers, I find it difficult to believe that they'd have sold more 3D FROZENs in the UK than it would have sold in the U.S. As I mentioned earlier, I'd say that FROZEN would have been the biggest selling 3D disc to date. That won't happen now, even if they do release it later. Too many have already opted for alternate options or will settle for the 2D they already have in their homes.



I don't have specific numbers either. Disney doesn't publish them. I go by what they do say and have to trust that their bean counters know their specific areas of the business better than me and I am a stock holder. What matters to me is, are they making money in these endeavors and if they are, I keep my mouth shut or say buy more. When that metric changes, I say sell! Take my profits and move on to another investment. In the past 5 years Disney has done very well and is my third best income producer of 25-35 stocks. Beat only by Apple and Wynn Resorts. I do believe by this time next year if nothing changes, Netflix will bump them from my thirdhttp://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3 position. But Netflix is not as secure as Disney. 

When it comes to Frozen 3D, I think that will be bundled with additional disks of extras for a Christmas release along with a second Theatrical showing, so the numbers will be further hidden. I have no info on that but as I said, these marketing strategies have no rules. Expect anything.


----------



## NickTheGreat

DRaven72 said:


> Ahhhh. Yeah. It is. I bought Frozen 3d from Amazon.uk . Only thing I can't do is use the reward points from UK to here. Whoopdee do. I have it in 3d and didn't have to wait for Disney to do another US release (probably around Xmas) for 3D. Same disc, Region free. Same with Captain America:WS. Received mine on 8-25. Region free. 3D to boot. Both discs work on Panasonic BDP-210 model. So yes, exact same and in the case of Frozen, I have 3d. And with cap, I have it a lot earlier than anyone else.


Yeah it is a way to get the disc in the US. But it should not count as Disney releasing 3D in the US. Seeing how you have to go outside the US to purchase.


----------



## cinema13

Don Landis said:


> When it comes to Frozen 3D, I think that will be bundled with additional disks of extras for a Christmas release along with a second Theatrical showing, so the numbers will be further hidden. I have no info on that but as I said, these marketing strategies have no rules. Expect anything.


No logic either (as the OZ release certainly proved..."Hey guys! Wanna pay double?!?!")
And it wouldn't surprise me if those bozos probably used the damage they did on that title to justify what they are doing now. Brilliant. A high school drop-out would have more sense. (No offense meant to any drop-outs...I give them more credibility than the HV "What's marketing?" guys at Disney.)


----------



## Don Landis

> But it should not count as Disney releasing 3D in the US.


Please don't accuse me of keeping some sort of score in that way. My point has always been, can you access the movie to watch or is it simply not available, no restrictions? I couldn't care less if Best Buy stops selling all 3D BD. If I can access every title ( I want) just by ordering it from the UK or China, I'm good with that. If I can rent those titles I don't want to own, I'm good with that. If there is never a BD sold anywhere but it is available on Vudu, then I'll enjoy the movie that way. 

I will probably be dead or go blind in one eye before the 3D movie business stops making 3D movies.


----------



## cakefoo

I wouldn't say 3D's dead, but it is going through a very long lull. It's apparent to me that 3DTV with glasses has a finite lifespan. Laser theater projectors and autostereoscopic TV sets need to get here. Once those solutions are in place I think consumers and Hollywood directors will respond positively, and the next issue can be tackled - content quality and availability.


----------



## cajieboy

Don Landis said:


> Please don't accuse me of keeping some sort of score in that way. My point has always been, can you access the movie to watch or is it simply not available, no restrictions? I couldn't care less if Best Buy stops selling all 3D BD. If I can access every title ( I want) just by ordering it from the UK or China, I'm good with that. If I can rent those titles I don't want to own, I'm good with that. If there is never a BD sold anywhere but it is available on Vudu, then I'll enjoy the movie that way.
> 
> I will probably be dead or go blind in one eye before the 3D movie business stops making 3D movies.


More likely than your ability to simply watch a 3D movie, you'll be able to actually "BE" in the movie with immersive 3D virtually reality!


----------



## rabident

I don't understand the naysayers. If you don't like 3D, don't watch it. It's not like the 2D option is taken from you. Paper or plastic? Pick what you want for whatever reason, but why hope or push for the demise of _options_ other people enjoy?

BoxOffice Mojo has a list of the 3D movies to date (246) plus upcoming 3D movies that have been announced so far (70) http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=3d.htm 

Plenty of content out there and more on the way. Hopefully 3D is here to stay and will become a staple the same way widescreen, surround sound, and color became defacto standards.

If you haven't see Gaurdians of the Galaxy in 3D at IMAX, it's worth watching.


----------



## cakefoo

I don't think anyone in this thread is naysaying 3D, just realistically observing its rise and fall, and trying to figure out why the mass market is responding the way it is.


----------



## NorthSky

JimP said:


> Ratatouille???? really??? lol


The French, and the British already have *'Ratatouille'* in 3D BD. ...So why can't we too?

By the way, this is my favorite PIXAR Disney animation flick.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> Disney dropping 3D Blu ray market is really blow to 3D. Hopefully they reverse this decision because not everyone, including myself can stream, nor would I want to if I could.





aaronwt said:


> When did Disney drop 3D from Blu-ray Disc? The last 3D Disney title I got was Frozen. Earlier this year. So are they not coming out with any more 3D BD titles? It seems like a waste if the movie is going to be in 3D anyway at the theaters.
> 
> EDIT: I see that Captain America: The Winter Soldier is being released on BD soon in 3D. And Disney owns Marvel.


*Frozen, Maleficent, Need for Speed, Ratatouille, Oz the Great and Powerful*, ..all in 3D. 
Is everyone reading the news? When was the last time you visited your local Blu-ray movie store?
...Or that you check over @ amazon.com and amazon.ca? ...North America. 

Yeah, *Oz* came, but in a different type of package. ...Not the old original 'Oz', but the newest one;
with a separate 2D and 3D versions, from two different purchases. 

...The rest, only from overseas.


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> 3D is not dead yet, but Disney is for sure accentuating the deceased decision!
> 
> And by the way, where is *Avatar 2* and *Prometheus 2*, both in 3D?
> ...And *The Lord of the Rings Extended Edition Trilogy* in 3D?
> ...*The Incredibles, Ratatouille* in 3D?
> 
> This world of ours is in 3D, so get on with the program. ...Adjust, or rust.


NorthSky did you see the trailer for the next hobbit movie in 3D? It looked STUNNING (I saw the 3D trailer when I went to see GOTG... The Hobbit's 3D looked way better than anything I saw... I'm guessing due to the increased resolution/ film speed). I think 3D will see a massive come back when glasses free 3D TV's come out/ Star Wars/ Avatar 2 are released. Is Avatar 2 not supposed to be in 3D? I'm guessing Star Wars will be given JJ's usage of the medium as of late/ IMAX.


----------



## NorthSky

Don Landis said:


> Who told you you can't buy them here? Maybe you can't walk into the local B&M store and buy it in your town. Here in Florida we have something new you may not have heard of. It's called mail order.  The biggest is Amazon and ebay. You buy from your computer and in a few days to a couple weeks, it is delivered to your door. You don't need to travel to another part of the world to buy stuff only sold "over there" Not only that but if a 3D BD is only rendered in one of the other two region codes, you can buy a 3D Blu Ray player that ignores the region codes on the disk. _We have lots of options and that is why I know 3D is not dead.
> _
> Everyone has their personal limitations. Some people refuse to acknowledge a 3D movie if it doesn't meet their personal high limited standards of production. Others feel 3D as a streaming or digital download doesn't count. Others refuse to watch conversions.
> 
> I understand if you live where you don't have 21st century internet, still can't stream video at 9+ Mbs which is required for good quality 3D playback.
> 
> Even I have my limitations on what counts as available. For me, I don't count bit torrent bootlegged copies. I won't do bit torrents.
> 
> I think we will soon see people in this AVS community posting that unless the movie is in 4K 3D it doesn't count. Really?





cakefoo said:


> You could also have bought a plane ticket to China to see Noah 3D in theaters. Only then are you a TRUE AVSFORUM 3D FAN.





tomtastic said:


> It doesn't do much good to mail order if I still can't play it, I guess I should have been more specific.


Yeah, welcome to the new 3D mail-to-order world. ...And true universal Blu-ray players.

You like it, you want it; it's all there. ...Just not the same way it used to be; the times they are a-changin'.

And 3D ain't going anywhere but up, and over there, across the oceans...

♦ *'Noah'* in 3D. ...It's up there too, across the rain, up in the sky...


----------



## NorthSky

cinema13 said:


> "World conditions" have little to do with Disney not releasing 3D discs. Actually, it is the rest of the world that has the access! *Disney policies are THEIRS alone. (But it does seem that they'd LIKE to rule the world.)*


That sounds like Mickey Jackson and Disneyland all over the world. ...Maybe that's why 3D is having a rough time to penetrate deeper? 

Are we fortunate, or not? ...To live in a 2D world still...


----------



## NorthSky

mo949 said:


> I have Ratatouille in 3D sitting at home in the plastic


Wanna unseal and sell it...to me?


----------



## NorthSky

Don, I've read all your posts, I've checked your site, I like what I'm reading, what I'm seeing, what your thinking, your all attitude is impeccable; and that's what I'm afraid of.  ...Seems to be too easy.


----------



## NorthSky

NickTheGreat said:


> Yeah it is a way to get the disc in the US. But it should not count as Disney releasing 3D in the US.
> * Seeing how you have to go outside the US to purchase.*


Travelling overseas is good for the soul.


----------



## NorthSky

Don Landis said:


> Please don't accuse me of keeping some sort of score in that way. My point has always been, can you access the movie to watch or is it simply not available, no restrictions? I couldn't care less if Best Buy stops selling all 3D BD. If I can access every title ( I want) just by ordering it from the UK or China, I'm good with that. If I can rent those titles I don't want to own, I'm good with that. If there is never a BD sold anywhere but it is available on Vudu, then I'll enjoy the movie that way.
> 
> I will probably be dead or go blind in one eye before the 3D movie business stops making 3D movies.


Don, did you see *'Noah'* in 3D?


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> NorthSky did you see the trailer for the next hobbit movie in 3D? It looked STUNNING (I saw the 3D trailer when I went to see GOTG... The Hobbit's 3D looked way better than anything I saw... I'm guessing due to the increased resolution/ film speed). I think 3D will see a massive come back when glasses free 3D TV's come out/ Star Wars/ Avatar 2 are released. Is Avatar 2 not supposed to be in 3D? I'm guessing Star Wars will be given JJ's usage of the medium as of late/ IMAX.


I'm a huge sucker for everything The LOTR Extended Edition Trilogy 3D and The Hobbit Extended Edition Trilogy 3D. I just seem that I can't have enough of it. ...I must have over hundred discs easily so far just on them two trilogies, except for the last Hobbit (that would extend my collection to just short of two hundred discs). 

The true (real) Cinema lovers and Art connoisseurs...are some of my best 3D friends.
...And they make the best 3D lovers in the world, with true/3DReal dedicated passion. 

♦ I'm new to this thread, but I won't be the last...


----------



## cajieboy

Just got back from DC, and while there took in the Smithsonian on the Mall. Never get tired of that place. The big deal at their IMAX theater are the 3D movies. I saw "Jerusalem". Cool documentary, and a near full theater in attendance. I think most people are attuned to wearing the glasses at these 3D showings, and I've never been bothered with wearing them. In fact, after a few minutes of getting engrossed in the film, you soon forget you're even wearing them.


----------



## NorthSky

Aras_Volodka said:


> ... Is Avatar 2 not supposed to be in 3D? I'm guessing Star Wars will be given JJ's usage of the medium as of late/ IMAX.


*'Avatar 2'*, in 3D of course, what do you expect! Anything less is cheap whiskey.

*'Star Wars'* triple trilogy (original versions) in 3D? ...Bring it on man! ...That'll be the day! ...When FOX need a bunch of more trillion dollars...


----------



## Aras_Volodka

NorthSky said:


> *'Avatar 2'*, in 3D of course, what do you expect! Anything less is cheap whiskey.
> 
> *'Star Wars'* triple trilogy (original versions) in 3D? ...Bring it on man! ...That'll be the day! ...When FOX need a bunch of more trillion dollars...


I did see a post on this site that the original trilogy was converted to 4k... that might be a possibility but I'd actually say probably not, because on Reliance Media Works page it lists Star Wars as a "restoration" project, nothing mentioned about 3D (whereas other projects are specified as 3D)... but I'd love that if they could. If Reliance Media Works uses rotoscope to convert 3D then it's a given  But.... at least it looks like we'll see a high res despecialized edition of the original trilogy. I believe Disney owns the rights to all except the first film... I'm guessing they worked out a deal for the 4k transfer. 

I remember Wilkinson saying the phantom menace 3D was an awful conversion... so they'd have to redo the PT trilogy. I think the problem with that is being filmed at 1080 p we'll never get a good high res 3D image from that anyway, right? But who knows, maybe Disney will figure something out. 

I will for sure be sitting in the 3D theater with my nephews on episode 7 opening night


----------



## aaronwt

cajieboy said:


> Just got back from DC, and while there took in the Smithsonian on the Mall. Never get tired of that place. The big deal at their IMAX theater are the 3D movies. I saw "Jerusalem". Cool documentary, and a near full theater in attendance. I think most people are attuned to wearing the glasses at these 3D showings, and I've never been bothered with wearing them. In fact, after a few minutes of getting engrossed in the film, you soon forget you're even wearing them.


That is how I feel but I also prefer to see a movie in 3D. Out of a couple of dozen people I have talked to, that have seen 3D, only a couple actively go see it. The rest just do not like wearing the glasses. For me I have no problem wearing the active glasses for my DLP at home(and on occasion passive for an LCD set). So the passive at the theater I have no problem with. But it just seems between wearing the glasses and the higher cost at the theater, a lot of people just are not interested in viewing 3D at the theater And it seems to be even worse numbers for people viewing 3D at home.


----------



## cajieboy

aaronwt said:


> That is how I feel but I also prefer to see a movie in 3D. Out of a couple of dozen people I have talked to, that have seen 3D, only a couple actively go see it. The rest just do not like wearing the glasses. For me I have no problem wearing the active glasses for my DLP at home(and on occasion passive for an LCD set). So the passive at the theater I have no problem with. But it just seems between wearing the glasses and the higher cost at the theater, a lot of people just are not interested in viewing 3D at the theater And it seems to be even worse numbers for people viewing 3D at home.


My personal experience has been quite the opposite than yours. Whenever a new blockbuster movie comes out and the theaters are showing both 2D & 3D, some even in IMAX, the place is packed full. Interesting, especially given the fact that the 3D screen is the more expensive ticket. I travel a lot, and this experience has been repeated over and over across the country. 

I don't know the statistics, but I can only imagine that the 3D screens provide a healthy percentage of a theater's revenue stream. At the end of these 3D movies, I can't recall any of the viewing audience whining about the glasses they had to wear to achieve that great 3D effect. You would think that if all those people attending the thousands of 3D screens at theaters across the country and paying extra for the priviledge, then left the theater hating the experience, I doubt seriously there would be the investment in 3D that has been made thus far.


----------



## EVERRET

I was checking out the new Transformers blu-ray promo........... did anyone notice....



> "The Blu-ray 3D includes *expanded images* as seen in IMAX theaters."


Aspect ratio: 2.40:1, *1.78:1*
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14840

I wish all....... made for IMAX movies....... would do this for their BluRay releases.

(I also noticed it's only for the 3D version)


----------



## NorthSky

I prefer watching 3D @ home than @ my local IMAX Theater. 

Why? More details @ home, better colors, cleaner picture. ...And my sound is just fine too.

@ IMAX: Huge screen; more immersion on the eyes, and big sound too.

But, the picture is not as sharp, unfocused, un-calibrated, and not as polished like seeing through a clean window but with a grainy veil of fog, smoke, and dust particles in the air.
I like the sound best; to equal that @ home is impossible, same as the screen size. There IMAX truly rules. 

But I'm just glad that I got a glimpse of it, a satisfying glimpse, @ home too. I sit closer to the 60" screen; 7 feet or so with 3D.
And I sometimes listen @ reference THX level; with peaks in the 115dB range occasionally. 

IMAX is cool, home is comfy, and cheaper. And no matter what, I just luv 3D. ...And Atmos is next.

P.S. I did not see The Hobbit's third installment 3D trailer. But! ...


----------



## Don Landis

NorthSky said:


> Don, did you see *'Noah'* in 3D?


I have it from China. Took nearly 3 weeks to get here. For a dark 3D, I still enjoyed it. You need to read the NOAH 3D thread for my complete impressions on this title.


----------



## Don Landis

I stopped going to the small multiplex IMAX theaters in town. Over crowded, more expensive, sound is too distorted, and yes, often blurry projection. For the past two years now I travel about 20 miles to World Golf Village which is a much bigger IMAX screen, more powerful speakers and I go in the afternoons, price is $10, $4 less than the big Multiplex. Plus the place is usually about half full with senior citizens so no texting and phone chatting during the movie by obnoxious kids. Heck they don't even serve meals, just popcorn and soda. The company prides itself in IMAX presentation so the image has always been... perfect. I am fortunate to have this resource nearby. 

Some movies in 3D I like sitting back row in my theater, it expands the Z axis but other movies I like the idea of immersion, like The Universe Documentaries and Gravity. I use my front row seating so I'm almost vision filled with screen.


----------



## NorthSky

Don Landis said:


> I have it from China. Took nearly 3 weeks to get here. For a dark 3D, I still enjoyed it. You need to read the NOAH 3D thread for my complete impressions on this title.


So many 3D movies so little time.


----------



## Don Landis

NorthSky said:


> Don, I've read all your posts, I've checked your site, I like what I'm reading, what I'm seeing, what your thinking, your all attitude is impeccable; and that's what I'm afraid of.  ...Seems to be too easy.


Thank you! It's only easy when I'm having fun. I try to make that my primary purpose. Everything is a learning experience. I shoot with many different 3D rigs. But all of them have to be carried and managed by one person. I study and admire guys like Les Stroud. He doesn't do 3D but works by himself in the field. Les is a great talent who is fun to just sit and chat with about the cameras and rigging for his survival programs.


----------



## bigtev

For the original op, I thought 3d at home was pretty much a gimmick and not worth the time after purchasing a samsung passive 6yrs ago, recently updated the tv to a fairly generic cheapo 65' led/lcd brand that that has 3d active and must say I have been watching most movies in 3d and am now completely hooked.I think for people like myself that never really enjoyed the benefits of 3d either havn't calibrated properly and just take for granted that modern tv's work the way they expect out of the box and because of this forum I have found it far from the truth

I saw Gravity at Imax and watched it again at home last night and would agree with NorthSky and will be saving a lot more money by staying at home and watching in comfort and at my own convenience.

Probably upgrade again very soon to something that has 4k and a bit better quality, I've caught the bug lol


----------



## Don Landis

I missed your comment, cakefoo:

These days I try to avoid air travel because of some bad and expensive experiences with TSA. But I do the tourist thing several times a year. I like cruise ships. Leaving again soon and hope to 3D shoot some of the Myan ruins as long as the hurricane weather cooperates. I'm sure I enjoyed NOAH 3D in my own theater more. I don't speak Mandarin... yet.  Planning a Chinese trip along with Thailand and Singapore in 2016. I want to shoot the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand in 3D. I have a relative who is from Singapore and we will be traveling with his family. 


Originally Posted by *cakefoo*  
_You could also have bought a plane ticket to China to see Noah 3D in theaters. Only then are you a TRUE AVSFORUM 3D FAN.

_


----------



## Apostate

Someone should change the title of this thread from "Is 3D about dead?" to "Is 3D about to be killed?" It definitely feels like the powers-that-be are trying hard to discourage or kill 3D in the consumer market, at least here in the United States. 

What I don't understand is if 3D is so popular in Asia and the studios are actively trying cash in on the popularity, how much more effort does it take to offer the same 3D offering to us here in the States? How much more effort does it take to change the regional lock, print out some extra discs and offer them to us, especially when the hard part, i.e., authoring and conversion, has been done already. The logic of the whole situation runs counter to what I learned in business school.


----------



## NickTheGreat

bigtev said:


> For the original op, I thought 3d at home was pretty much a gimmick and not worth the time after purchasing a samsung passive 6yrs ago, recently updated the tv to a fairly generic cheapo 65' led/lcd brand that that has 3d active and must say I have been watching most movies in 3d and am now completely hooked.I think for people like myself that never really enjoyed the benefits of 3d either havn't calibrated properly and just take for granted that modern tv's work the way they expect out of the box and because of this forum I have found it far from the truth
> 
> I saw Gravity at Imax and watched it again at home last night and would agree with NorthSky and will be saving a lot more money by staying at home and watching in comfort and at my own convenience.
> 
> Probably upgrade again very soon to something that has 4k and a bit better quality, I've caught the bug lol


I liked 3D on my 46" Sammy LED set. It added to the movie.

But on my 110" PJ . . .


----------



## NickTheGreat

Apostate said:


> Someone should change the title of this thread from "Is 3D about dead?" to "Is 3D about to be killed?" It definitely feels like the powers-that-be are trying hard to discourage or kill 3D in the consumer market, at least here in the United States.
> 
> What I don't understand is if 3D is so popular in Asia and the studios are actively trying cash in on the popularity, how much more effort does it take to offer the same 3D offering to us here in the States? How much more effort does it take to change the regional lock, print out some extra discs and offer them to us, especially when the hard part, i.e., authoring and conversion, has been done already. The logic of the whole situation runs counter to what I learned in business school.


I subscribe to the theory that Disney is trying to phase out physical media. Meaning, they don't have to print discs at ALL and still get money from us.


----------



## jmschirmer

tomtastic said:


> I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years. That being said, can 3D survive? It seems like there's just been too much post converted 3D, or lack of content to begin with. Haven't seen much released on Blu ray that's been decent 3D in awhile, all seems to just be post converted or just lame depth only stuff. If they don't make 3D standard on TV's I just don't see it continuing much longer.
> 
> 
> I was really excited about a year ago, now I'm thinking about getting a 3D camcorder but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. Is 3D once again, just another passing fad? I really hope not because there is a lot of potential with movies like Gravity and documentaries just doesn't seem to be gaining steam now. If you look at TV content it will probably disappear altogether in the next year. There's what, 2 channels left? ESPN's gone, which I never understood why that was 3D anyway if they weren't going to show live content, there's nothing new on 3D TV.
> 
> 
> So are manufactures backing off 3D? Or is it still going forward like it was a few years ago? I noticed there's not much in the way of 3D camcorders.


There is a development in the pipeline by DDD S.A. de C.V. to develop a holographic 3D video system which does not require glasses nor creates headaches. The Star Wars scene with the princess being displayed into the space of the other actors is an example of holographic 3D. DDD has created a transform to carry as many as 100 views simultaneously which this requires. 
A prototype is being built and tested without funding from any of the big consumer electronics or content providers to keep the technology neutral.


----------



## Don Landis

NickTheGreat said:


> I subscribe to the theory that Disney is trying to phase out physical media. Meaning, they don't have to print discs at ALL and still get money from us.


Not a theory. They have already stated they are a strong proponent of cloud distribution and most recently announced alliance with Netflix. 

The question is not whether they support this, the question is whether they will just be a content provider to an existing service like Netflix, whether they will build their own, or buy a company already doing it. Their recent announcement left me with the impression they will not be building their own cloud service but I know that decision can change overnight. 

There was no announcement they will end hard media distribution. Like many other companies, I see a long transition period where eventually cloud will dwarf the hard media sales and then hard media will die off.


----------



## Apostate

Don Landis said:


> The question is not whether they support this, the question is whether they will just be a content provider to an existing service like Netflix, whether they will build their own, or buy a company already doing it.


Since Netflix is trying so hard to be like a cable company, I can see Netflix creating a separate PPV section with exclusive content not offered elsewhere. And I also can envision Netflix offering tiers of offering a la basic cable and premium cable.

What galls me is that people have made Netflix a success because people (myself included) got tired of cable company shenanigans. And I fear those same people will be subject to same shenanigans again except it's done to us by Netflix. It will be akin to Netflix spitting on our faces.


----------



## tomtastic

Don Landis said:


> Not a theory. They have already stated they are a strong proponent of cloud distribution and most recently announced alliance with Netflix.
> 
> The question is not whether they support this, the question is whether they will just be a content provider to an existing service like Netflix, whether they will build their own, or buy a company already doing it. Their recent announcement left me with the impression they will not be building their own cloud service but I know that decision can change overnight.
> 
> There was no announcement they will end hard media distribution. Like many other companies, I see a long transition period where eventually cloud will dwarf the hard media sales and then hard media will die off.


I don't see cloud or streaming taking over completely for everyone. I've often thought it might but ISP infrastructure isn't improving that much. A friend of mine who works at a cable company sees it all the time.

Customers call complaining that they can't stream Netflix and are told to call their ISP, which is why they're being sued. It's not the cable company's fault they can't keep up with Netflix. If Netflix and other streaming venues want to increase bandwidth for ISPs that's one thing, but telling their customers to complain to their ISP when it was their increased demand is another. And it's only going to get worse with 4k. People think that ISPs can just turn up a dial somewhere, but that's so far from the truth. They're already working at capacity with the existing nodes, it's just not going to happen unless big dollars are put in to upgrade their systems.

If you live in newer areas with fiber and faster connections you won't have an issue but there are many that don't. Where I used to live, 12mb down was maxed out on the lines behind our house and the phone company was not going to replace them. I now live in a rural area and about 2 mb down is max and I'm pretty sure that won't change either.

The problem with cloud and streaming is you don't already have the content locally when you need it. From what I remember of Netflix, there were always delays in skipping, backing up and playing content. Much easier to have the content on a local network and much fatter and faster pipe. Even with a fast connection you still will have to deal with outages and bottlenecks during peak hours. And the next thing that could possibly be coming and has already in certain areas, is data limits. So you might end up paying more or watching less with cloud or streaming down the road.


----------



## NorthSky

NickTheGreat said:


> I liked 3D on my 46" Sammy LED set. It added to the movie.
> 
> *But on my 110" PJ* . . .


Much bigger 3D effects. 

* Did you see *'Ratatouille'*...in 3D? ...From a Blu-ray disc.


----------



## NorthSky

NickTheGreat said:


> I subscribe to the theory that Disney is trying to phase out physical media. Meaning, they don't have to print discs at ALL and still get money from us.


...And we get inferior quality.


----------



## NorthSky

jmschirmer said:


> There is a development in the pipeline by DDD S.A. de C.V. to develop a holographic 3D video system which does not require glasses nor creates headaches. The Star Wars scene with the princess being displayed into the space of the other actors is an example of holographic 3D. DDD has created a transform to carry as many as 100 views simultaneously which this requires.
> A prototype is being built and tested without funding from any of the big consumer electronics or content providers to keep the technology neutral.


Is this in Japan?


----------



## NorthSky

Netflix, the Cloud, ...movies in 3D; how many lines of resolution...360-480? ...DD+ for audio? ...Commentary tracks? ...Deleted scenes?


----------



## SFMike

Don Landis said:


> Not a theory. They have already stated they are a strong proponent of cloud distribution and most recently announced alliance with Netflix.
> 
> There was no announcement they will end hard media distribution. Like many other companies, I see a long transition period where eventually cloud will dwarf the hard media sales and then hard media will die off.


This whole anti-3D thing could be the result of just the US home video division acting on it's own within the corporation. I believe some executive in Disney US marketing hates 3D for some reason (He doesn't like wearing the glasses, he gets a headache, ect.) and feels it is to much trouble serving the 10% of the market which wants 3D so he says kill it. And he has the proof of low sales from that brilliant marketing experiment he devised for the botched OZ release last year. Maybe they save a tiny bit on packaging or something but a tiny bit of savings might be just enough to make you look good for a bonus to your boss/corporate master.

We can imagine anything we want because they refuse to communicate whats going on with the consumer. This is very sad for me as I had in the past always admired the high standard of customer service that the old Walt Disney corporation would provide. Those days are gone and customer service is now just a marketing term with no real meaning to corporate america.


----------



## NorthSky

Don, are you an executive @ Disney?


----------



## tgm1024

Don Landis said:


> There was no announcement they will end hard media distribution. Like many other companies, I see a long transition period where eventually cloud will dwarf the hard media sales and then hard media will die off.


I don't see that transition as quite that long unfortunately. And this rots for me, because I just don't trust anything in the cloud.


----------



## cinema13

tgm1024 said:


> I don't see that transition as quite that long unfortunately. And this rots for me, because I just don't trust anything in the cloud.


And you shouldn't. I've already lost a few movies there. And a few more have had the audio DOWNGRADED from 5.1 to just Dolby! Anyone who thinks buying/storing something from a third party digitally in "the cloud" is the same as actual ownership is just fooling themselves. It's there for as long as some corporations allow it to be. When things change (as they have with CinemaNow, for example), you are S.O.L. Whether it's in a year or 5 or 10 years, your library is at the mercy of the corporations which (as Disney has shown) couldn't give a rat's a** about the consumer.


----------



## NorthSky

Well said; that's the reality world we live in.


----------



## Don Landis

Look, there are parts of the planet that you choose to live where your access to 21st century civilization are just not available. Heck, some parts of Alaska you don't even have running water or indoor toilets, much less internet and even less electricity. So just because you live where your download is not up to minimum requirements for streaming 3D doesn't mean it isn't available for others and that it will never be available for your future enjoyment. Never judge what the future can do by your present day limits. And, never blame others for the limitations you placed on yourself.



> Don, are you an executive @ Disney?


 Much better, I'm a stock holder. That means I get paid and don't need to work for them.  

I too don't blindly trust the cloud, but that does not mean I have to avoid the benefits of what it brings in the present. Unlike some here, I don't need to own the Library of Congress. I try to only own copies of classic stuff I will watch again over and over, like Star Wars and others. I used to be like some of you, paranoid I would never have access to my movies so I made copies and they collected dust on the shelves and in boxes, kept inventory lists so I knew what I had, etc. My last obsession ended what I threw out over 500 DVHS movies recorded from HBO and Showtime HD channels because the FUD was circulating that HD was going do die and we would revert back to SD since few people would ever buy those expensive HDTV's. When Dish Network added over 50 HDTV channels I finally hauled all my DVHS videos to the trash. With all the streaming and other resources and 3D versions, when I gave my 2D OPPO player to my daughter, I packed up over 300 2D DVD's and BD movies for her library. She gave over 3/4 away now as she too has Netflix and like me, needs the space. 

Now, I love to just rent, and watch streaming. Much cheaper and I have no problem with the quality. That keeps getting better with time. I bought two hard copies of movies in the past 6 months. Frozen 3D from the UK and Noah 3D from China. Yet, I do have over a hundred+ 3D BD now on my shelves. I've pretty much given away all the 2D titles. I have two close relatives who own 3D TV's now and will probably clean out the 3D disks soon as I never watch them. I'm not the public library, so why keep a movie on the shelf I haven't watched in 3 years?


----------



## SMHarman

NorthSky said:


> The French, and the British already have *'Ratatouille'* in 3D BD. ...So why can't we too?
> 
> By the way, this is my favorite PIXAR Disney animation flick.


Why? My guess is Netflix. The streaming services in Europe are not as large, as cheap and have fewer titles so if you want a title you buy it. 
In the USA you stream it. 
If people are not buying the physical media then why make it ?


----------



## cajieboy

Don Landis said:


> Look, there are parts of the planet that you choose to live where your access to 21st century civilization are just not available. Heck, some parts of Alaska you don't even have running water or indoor toilets, much less internet and even less electricity. So just because you live where your download is not up to minimum requirements for streaming 3D doesn't mean it isn't available for others and that it will never be available for your future enjoyment. Never judge what the future can do by your present day limits. And, never blame others for the limitations you placed on yourself.
> 
> Much better, I'm a stock holder. That means I get paid and don't need to work for them.
> 
> I too don't blindly trust the cloud, but that does not mean I have to avoid the benefits of what it brings in the present. Unlike some here, I don't need to own the Library of Congress. I try to only own copies of classic stuff I will watch again over and over, like Star Wars and others. I used to be like some of you, paranoid I would never have access to my movies so I made copies and they collected dust on the shelves and in boxes, kept inventory lists so I knew what I had, etc. My last obsession ended what I threw out over 500 DVHS movies recorded from HBO and Showtime HD channels because the FUD was circulating that HD was going do die and we would revert back to SD since few people would ever buy those expensive HDTV's. When Dish Network added over 50 HDTV channels I finally hauled all my DVHS videos to the trash. With all the streaming and other resources and 3D versions, when I gave my 2D OPPO player to my daughter, I packed up over 300 2D DVD's and BD movies for her library. She gave over 3/4 away now as she too has Netflix and like me, needs the space.
> 
> Now, I love to just rent, and watch streaming. Much cheaper and I have no problem with the quality. That keeps getting better with time. I bought two hard copies of movies in the past 6 months. Frozen 3D from the UK and Noah 3D from China. Yet, I do have over a hundred+ 3D BD now on my shelves. I've pretty much given away all the 2D titles. I have two close relatives who own 3D TV's now and will probably clean out the 3D disks soon as I never watch them. I'm not the public library, so why keep a movie on the shelf I haven't watched in 3 years?


Pretty much the same for me as well. I rarely buy a movie, and am quite satisfied to rent and stream video content. Grew tired of having "my collections" sit collecting dust. I'm done with that part of my A/V hobby, and to be honest, there are so many films, TV shows, documentaries, etc., etc. constantly being released that I just don't have the time available to even keep-up with the current crop. I do re-watch a few titles, but I prefer to wait awhile first, and then discover some of the fine details I missed from the first viewing. That's fun for me, and my wife kinda digs it too.


----------



## Don Landis

> Since Netflix is trying so hard to be like a cable company, I can see Netflix creating a separate PPV section with exclusive content not offered elsewhere. And I also can envision Netflix offering tiers of offering a la basic cable and premium cable.


Actually, for the moment, Netflix is trying hard to be like a HBO. But, I think you are onto something, they most certainly would like to try to have first run content as high priced PPV say right after the theatrical premiere week. They could never, based on other PPV businesses, replace the core bread and butter business and become a PPV only. No reason you should fret if Netflix offers this.


----------



## NorthSky

SMHarman said:


> Why? My guess is Netflix. The streaming services in Europe are not as large, as cheap and have fewer titles so if you want a title you buy it.
> In the USA you stream it.
> If people are not buying the physical media then why make it ?


Release *'Ratatouille'* on 3D Blu-ray here in North America and Disney is going to make a bundle of $$$.
I guarantee it. 

And even if they don't; they won't lose anything @ all and they're going to gain consumer's love - big time. 
Here, @ home, on the land of the free, on our continent, in the USA, in CANADA, in North America, all across the world, over all the universe...

* Don mentioned the "Disney financial strategy" before; you want to make money, don't piss your customers off by making them double and triple and quadruple dipping and by making them purchasing from overseas. Movies on Blu-ray are released every single day; there is plenty for everybody. ...Give the kids what they want, what you have to share, the love... That's how you make money; by pleasing all your customers (us, kids and adults) all around the world.

- You own Disney stocks; tell Disney that they can improve their fair market share simply by making everyone happy. The true smart investors are investing in people's happiness, first and foremost; that is what truly pays off. 

Don, I understand 100% your viewpoint (FUD), but there is always a flip side to a coin. ...The righteous side. 

By the way, I watched this in 3D last night ::: 










♦ That was pretty good (better than in 2D), and Disney made more money with me, and they also hurt the child in me, my pride, my freedom, my values, my belief in life's existence on our planet, my peace, and all that jazz. ...They gain money but they lost the real essence. They could have made much more money if they would have follow their heart first, instead of their head stuck in their gold bars vault. 

That is my honest & frank opinion. ...No more no less, without prejudice, without losing sleep over it, no anger, no hate, no nothing else but the simple truth. I just adjust with reality, no matter how good or how bad it is. ...My reality, because we all have our own reality, and we all deserve to be respected in our realities; everywhere on our planet. ...And helping all each other is to be truly rich. ...The world wasn't made just for the few fortunate ones, but for all. 

And all of this; I am saying it from the bottom of my heart and with abso!ute peace in my soul.
...In 3D too.


----------



## NorthSky

Another thing; we don't all choose where we are living on this planet. ...We live where we were/are accommodated by our own surroundings. And we accept it no matter what because it is our home, our family, our origin...source.

We are what we are, and we live where we live. ...We have more or less freedom to change; some more than others...it's just life.


----------



## cinema13

NorthSky said:


> Another thing; we don't all choose where we are living on this planet. ...We live where we were/are accommodated by our own surroundings. And we accept it no matter what because it is our home, our family, our origin...source.
> 
> We are what we are, and we live where we live. ...We have more or less freedom to change; some more than others...it's just life.


Very laudable sentiments...I do wish we lived in a world like that. Unfortunately, the soul of Disney passed back in the 1960s. And regrettably, it is now run by greed merchants for whom great profits are just not enough. 

And to add to your comment about residences, it also not possible for everyone to spend hundreds on another BD player just to play 2 or 3 discs. Disney may have deep pockets, but most consumers do not.


----------



## cajieboy

cinema13 said:


> Very laudable sentiments...I do wish we lived in a world like that. Unfortunately, the soul of Disney passed back in the 1960s. And regrettably, it is now run by greed merchants for whom great profits are just not enough.
> 
> And to add to your comment about residences, it also not possible for everyone to spend hundreds on another BD player just to play 2 or 3 discs. Disney may have deep pockets, but most consumers do not.


Could you explain more specifically what you meant by "not possible for everyone to spend hundreds on another BD player just to play 2 or 3 discs"? thanks.


----------



## wuther

The last I read 2014 has brought less money then 2013 theater tickets wise so it looks like stereovision is not the savior/cash cow the studio thought it would be.


jmschirmer said:


> There is a development in the pipeline by DDD S.A. de C.V. to develop a holographic 3D video system which does not require glasses nor creates headaches. The Star Wars scene with the princess being displayed into the space of the other actors is an example of holographic 3D. DDD has created a transform to carry as many as 100 views simultaneously which this requires.
> A prototype is being built and tested without funding from any of the big consumer electronics or content providers to keep the technology neutral.


An entirely new theater would have to be built for it or have it rotating so people could see from all angles. Being inclosed as all other holographic displays I have seen would be a deal breaker.


NorthSky said:


> Release *'Ratatouille'* on 3D Blu-ray here in North America and Disney is going to make a bundle of $$$.
> I guarantee it.


I gotta wonder if you are joking. Ratatouille had the most disappointing BO take of all the pixar movie which is probably why disney is in little hurry to release it.


----------



## CARTmen

What is the difference between the DDD technology and, for example, the ultra-D technology? They seem the same thing to me. 
If they are the same thing, the technology doesn't work with projectors, and doesn't have a 360º of vision. They aren't real holograms, so no worries about theaters here. hehe


----------



## aaronwt

wuther said:


> The last I read 2014 has brought less money then 2013 theater tickets wise so it looks like stereovision is not the savior/cash cow the studio thought it would be.
> 
> An entirely new theater would have to be built for it or have it rotating so people could see from all angles. Being inclosed as all other holographic displays I have seen would be a deal breaker.
> 
> I gotta wonder if you are joking. Ratatouille had the most disappointing BO take of all the pixar movie which is probably why disney is in little hurry to release it.


I remember when I first saw Ratatouille. It seemed kind of creepy/disgusting with the rat running around the kitchen. Several people I know that saw it felt the same way. Not sure how I will feel watching the 3D. But if it does come out in the US I will get it. Or if I can get a good price on it from Amazon UK I will get it from there and just watch it in 3D from my media player.


----------



## cajieboy

aaronwt said:


> I remember when I first saw Ratatouille. It seemed kind of creepy/disgusting with the rat running around the kitchen. Several people I know that saw it felt the same way. Not sure how I will feel watching the 3D. But if it does come out in the US I will get it. Or if I can get a good price on it from Amazon UK I will get it from there and just watch it in 3D from my media player.


I don't watch a lot of animation, but my last two favorites are "Rango" and "Puss in Boots". Had me laughing all the way through. As for Ratatouille, I rate it about a 6 on the 10 scale.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> I remember when I first saw Ratatouille. It seemed kind of creepy/disgusting with the rat running around the kitchen. Several people I know that saw it felt the same way. Not sure how I will feel watching the 3D. But if it does come out in the US I will get it. Or if I can get a good price on it from Amazon UK I will get it from there and just watch it in 3D from my media player.



Well, points for Pixar for making a cartoonish 3D-modeled rat look real enough to give you the creeps. LOL.


----------



## cinema13

cajieboy said:


> Could you explain more specifically what you meant by "not possible for everyone to spend hundreds on another BD player just to play 2 or 3 discs"? thanks.


You'd need to buy a Region-Free player in order to view the region-locked Disney discs. (Which will not work on standard U.S. BD players)


----------



## NorthSky

cinema13 said:


> Very laudable sentiments...I do wish we lived in a world like that. Unfortunately, the soul of Disney passed back in the 1960s. And regrettably, it is now run by greed merchants for whom great profits are just not enough.
> 
> And to add to your comment about residences, it also not possible for everyone to spend hundreds on another BD player just to play 2 or 3 discs. Disney may have deep pockets, but most consumers do not.


1. Talk to Don here about this & that. ...See what he has to say...he has a valid theory, his own reality.

2. True, some people (kids) have nothing, not even a roof, and no water.


----------



## NorthSky

wuther said:


> I gotta wonder if you are joking. Ratatouille had the most disappointing BO take of all the pixar movie which is probably why disney is in little hurry to release it.


Too bad because in my opinion *'Ratatouille'* is the best PIXAR film animation of all times.
...Right up there with *'Up'* and *'The Incredibles'*.

I don't care about money; I care about real value, the one in our soul.


----------



## cinema13

NorthSky said:


> 1. Talk to Don here about this & that. ...See what he has to say...he has a valid theory, his own reality.
> 
> *Indeed. I've read them and I understand his POV. But keeping product out of the consumers' hands will not increase their stock. Actually, if FROZEN had been released and became the biggest-selling 3D title to date, it might even have caused the stock to rise a point! But his take on the Disney actions only illustrates the greed aspect. Disney thinks that by withholding product that could be profitable, only to (MAYBE) release it later when demand has eased or been minimized by using other options is a the way to "maximize profits". So...if a 3D FROZEN appears later, sales will be lighter than it would have been otherwise. The Disney marketing "geniuses" will then say "Well, we did eventually release it but sales were weak" and use it as an excuse to continue withholding 3D. (As they probably felt with OZ, when it was their own botched release that did it.) Probably wouldn't even enter their dim minds that many people have obtained it already...one way or the other. And if they do know, they won't pay it no mind anyway.
> 
> Disney has some of the worst marketing ever. Remember the great job they did with JOHN CARTER. Sheesh, you'd think they'd at least have put something like "From Edgar Rice Burroughs--Creator of Tarzan" in the advertising. Or even mention Mars! As if they thought EVERYONE would know the name John Carter.) Disney successes primarily come from the brand name and NOT from their incompetent marketing personnel. They couldn't market cheese to a mouse. So they play games instead to justify their undeserved positions.*
> 
> True, some people (kids) have nothing, not even a roof, and no water.


*Yep. Even the least well-off of us are luckier than others*


----------



## NorthSky

Cinema, I totally agree with your line of thinking and sharing.


----------



## Apostate

The problem with Don Landis' position is that he believes we, the consumers, should cater to Disney's business strategy, which I find absolutely baffling. The entertainment industry makes its money by catering to the consumers, not the other way around. If Don believes that Disney's strategy is correct... well, I hope Don gets out of his position in time because Disney's stance will eventually come around and bite them in their ass sooner or later.

I completely agree that Disney's long term strategy is to get out of physical media business all together. I believe what Disney is doing is shaping consumers' expectations and buying habits. Disney is actively trying to steer consumers' to online streaming which means fatter profit margin and more control for them. As others have said it's all about greed. As consumers, the only and most powerful weapon we have is our wallet. For 3D programs, I will only buy blu rays. If Disney refuses to provide for my need then they simply won't get my money.

For casual viewing, I love the convenience of streaming but for ownership, I want physical media. To me, physical media such as blu ray gives me better A/V quality and control. The problem with owning movies in the cloud is that there is no guarantee that what you paid for is what you end up with; the ultimate control is with whichever company that holds the movies for you. The company can take away *your *movies' features to fit their situation. Even worse, you can end up losing *your *movies. You are held hostage to the company's vagaries and you have no recourse. With the movies in the cloud, the fact that the movies you paid for and own are not really your own bothers the heck out of me. It's downright un-American.


----------



## Apostate

Don Landis said:


> ... I finally hauled all my DVHS videos to the trash...


Can DVHS videos be recycled? It'd be a shame if you couldn't and had no choice but to throw them away. There is so much stuff that can be recycled, reused, or reclaimed for parts/materials that gets thrown away because we have no option or don't know what to do with them. I have obsolete electronic and computer gears sitting in my garage. It drives my wife crazy but I don't feel right throwing them away, filling up landfills and causing pollution. We need a better, more comprehensive and clearer recycling program in this country.


----------



## Apostate

jmschirmer said:


> There is a development in the pipeline by DDD S.A. de C.V. to develop a holographic 3D video system which does not require glasses nor creates headaches. The Star Wars scene with the princess being displayed into the space of the other actors is an example of holographic 3D. DDD has created a transform to carry as many as 100 views simultaneously which this requires.
> A prototype is being built and tested without funding from any of the big consumer electronics or content providers to keep the technology neutral.


Is this the one that uses lasers? Isn't there some issues with lasers that are used being too powerful and can possibly injure people?


----------



## Apostate

Don Landis said:


> Actually, for the moment, Netflix is trying hard to be like a HBO. But, I think you are onto something, they most certainly would like to try to have first run content as high priced PPV say right after the theatrical premiere week. They could never, based on other PPV businesses, replace the core bread and butter business and become a PPV only. *No reason you should fret if Netflix offers this*.


What I fret is Netflix favoring its PPV business (if that becomes reality), dedicating more resources, i.e., bandwidth, over its core bread and butter business. Netflix streaming can get pretty bad on some days as it is.

What I fret is Netflix spending money building out its new business, spending money it can use to get better and more programming for its core bread and butter business.

What I fret is Netflix raising its price, citing infrastructure or whatever cost as the reason, while cutting back the programming (like 3D) for its core bread and butter business.


----------



## cajieboy

cinema13 said:


> You'd need to buy a Region-Free player in order to view the region-locked Disney discs. (Which will not work on standard U.S. BD players)


Ok thanks, that clears it up for me. I've never even considered buying a region-free player, but I can see there are pros and cons. Not really worth it for me personally to shell-out the bucks for one because if I can't get the USA version of a 3D BD, then I just go on to some other title. Most likely, the film will get released here sooner or later. We're just too big of a market to totally ignore. 

As for Disney...I live pretty close to Mickey Land, and know how this entertainment corporation can gouge its customers. I've seen this progression go on for the past 25 years, and it's been a bit sad to witness. All that being said, Disney runs the best theme parks bar none. It's just very expensive, and you do have this feeling that you're over-paying for everything from the price of attendance to anything you eat & drink while at their parks. 

For decent Mickey movies, Pixar or not, if Disney offers the 3D BD, then I'll probably rent it. If not, I'll shed a few crocodile tears and move on to better things. Fortunately, there are just too many great titles out there (past, present & future) for me to even worry about it.


----------



## NorthSky

jmschirmer said:


> There is a development in the pipeline by DDD S.A. de C.V. to develop a holographic 3D video system which does not require glasses nor creates headaches. The Star Wars scene with the princess being displayed into the space of the other actors is an example of holographic 3D. DDD has created a transform to carry as many as 100 views simultaneously which this requires.
> A prototype is being built and tested without funding from any of the big consumer electronics or content providers to keep the technology neutral.





Apostate said:


> Is this the one that uses lasers? Isn't there some issues with lasers that are used being too powerful and can possibly injure people?


Some' like this ::


----------



## Apostate

NorthSky said:


> Some' like this ::
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEaBqiLeCu0


That is just too cool. I can't believe technology stuff you only saw in sci-fi movies is becoming everyday reality. Maybe I'll see a flying car in my lifetime after all.


----------



## Don Landis

Apostate said:


> The problem with Don Landis' position is that he believes we, the consumers, should cater to Disney's business strategy, which I find absolutely baffling. The entertainment industry makes its money by catering to the consumers, not the other way around. If Don believes that Disney's strategy is correct... well, I hope Don gets out of his position in time because Disney's stance will eventually come around and bite them in their ass sooner or later.
> 
> I completely agree that Disney's long term strategy is to get out of physical media business all together. I believe what Disney is doing is shaping consumers' expectations and buying habits. Disney is actively trying to steer consumers' to online streaming which means fatter profit margin and more control for them. As others have said it's all about greed. As consumers, the only and most powerful weapon we have is our wallet. For 3D programs, I will only buy blu rays. If Disney refuses to provide for my need then they simply won't get my money.
> 
> For casual viewing, I love the convenience of streaming but for ownership, I want physical media. To me, physical media such as blu ray gives me better A/V quality and control. The problem with owning movies in the cloud is that there is no guarantee that what you paid for is what you end up with; the ultimate control is with whichever company that holds the movies for you. The company can take away *your *movies' features to fit their situation. Even worse, you can end up losing *your *movies. You are held hostage to the company's vagaries and you have no recourse. With the movies in the cloud, the fact that the movies you paid for and own are not really your own bothers the heck out of me. It's downright un-American.



1. Not my position entirely. My position is you don't have to accept the business motive, but you should understand it. Disney, like most SUCCESSFUL public businesses work for the benefit of it's owners, not for an altruistic benefit of the world's population. Those who understand my position understand that I do not have the same rules as a user of products as I do as an investor. As I user, I want to have the products I want and I want them at the lowest price and most convenient way. As an investor, I want the company to make products that the people will buy and generate the company the most profit. I may love Disney products forever, but as an investor, when they cease to make profits and grow fast enough, I will indeed sell, take my money and move on to the next successful business. Trust me, I learned the hard way, not to ride a company all the way up and right back down, losing it all. Today, I'm always taking a little off the table and spending it ( a little to the tax man too) so when the day comes, I can even sell a little at a loss and still know I had a fun ride along the way. The entertainment industry makes it's money and is a success by UNDERSTANDING the consumer spending habits, not by giving him everything he wants when he wants, where he wants it, it for a price he wants to pay. 

2. By present trends, media companies see where we are heading in the distribution business, hard media distribution day's are numbered. There is a better way. The trick is timing the transition. I agree with you that you have a choice not to buy what Disney is selling, at least until you change your mind. Disney, on the other hand is they remain true to a successful business strategy ( you call greed) will _adjust it's business along the way_ that works to maximize profits. Michael Eisner said, " We will raise our gate price for the parks 10% per year until the business falls off 10%". It was an oversimplification of a successful business model. 

3. There will come a day when streaming meets your high standards. Fact is streaming has no permanent upside for delivery quality. The limit we have today is just temporary. I agree with you that Owning a COPY of a moviein the cloud is with greater risk of loss of control than the hard media but both are subject to loss unexpectedly. The best defense against this is redundancy. That's why I have two copies of Frozen 3D. One on Blu Ray for permanency subject to physical damage and a playback hardware failure. And on the cloud, because it was available immediately, and is quicker access from many locations. Un-American???? What is that? Maybe by your definition, but the only thing I find truly "American" is our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms that supposedly guarantees our freedom and even there many "Americans" work hard every day to take those freedoms away. There is no constitutional guarantee that you can have everything you want, when you want it, and where you want it at the expense of others including businesses. You are guaranteed the freedom to choose not to do business with them, that is all. And even in some areas of commerce those rights have been taken away by our "American" government. Nobody is holding you hostage, except yourself and your own limitations you place on yourself.


> Can DVHS videos be recycled?


Maybe but here, unless the item has a recycle logo imprinted on it, our state recycling laws won't allow it. I tried once putting a carton of VHS blank tape out as it has no resale value and the recycle pickup people refused to take it because it doesn't have the authorization symbol. Sony has their internal recycling program where they grind up surplus CD and DVD stock and make cases for new products from that. The HDR TD30 3D camcorder and my new Region free modified 3D BD player is made from recycled CD's. 


> What I fret is Netflix,,,


As I said, don't worry about them only doing PPV That business model needs to change drastically to make it popular enough for Netflix to jump in 100% unless Reed goes on a suicide mission. 

Netflix is spending money currently on increasing it's subscribers numbers_ world wide._ Secondly, it is spending on doing original programming to augment licensed content. Both of these have been shown to work for the success of the business. 

Netflix could triple it's subscription price and still be the best deal on the block. As an investor I would favor that as it would fatten the bank and put the company in a price to earnings multiple similar to Apple and Microsoft. BUT, the mainstream media would berate them and users would cut off their nose to spite there face and the plan would flop. Consumers trip over dollars to pick up pennies all the time. Netflix already made the mistakes of raising prices to match their nearest competitor before and won't do that again. They will remain a fantastic deal, way under the competition. Kind of like Red Box does.


----------



## Apostate

I am glad that whatever works for you, works for you, Don. You are already aware of the conflict of interest inherent in your POV so I won't get into that. Just know that your POV is not the only POV nor is it necessarily the correct POV. 

As to your other ramblings, I can tell you of companies which the profit or "greed" is not the only nor primary motivation. I can tell you what Michael Eisner is saying is of the most basic economic concept of supply and demand. I can tell you what American means as our Founding Fathers intended. But then I would be rambling.

You do your thing and enjoy. We'd do our thing and enjoy as well. Live and let live. Now that's American.


----------



## Don Landis

> We'd do our thing and enjoy as well.


Just remember, I'm not the one complaining, and not the one feeling being ripped off by businesses. I don't enjoy feeling being ripped off. I'm having fun. Some people do enjoy being miserable and not happy unless they are complaining about everything.


----------



## NorthSky

Apostate said:


> That is just too cool. I can't believe technology stuff you only saw in sci-fi movies is becoming everyday reality. Maybe I'll see a flying car in my lifetime after all.


This has been around for the last four years and more; there are a bunch of holographic music concert shows here in California, Japan, overseas, ... and many of them on youtube. ...Just google around. :nerd:


----------



## Apostate

Don Landis said:


> Just remember, I'm not the one complaining, and not the one feeling being ripped off by businesses. I don't enjoy feeling being ripped off. I'm having fun. Some people do enjoy being miserable and not happy unless they are complaining about everything.


With Disney, I am even worse than being miserable. I am completely apathetic. I do not care anymore.  You are right though... some people do enjoy being miserable. Schadenfreude!


----------



## Apostate

NorthSky said:


> This has been around for the last four years and more; there are a bunch of holographic music concert shows here in California, Japan, overseas, ... and many of them on youtube. ...Just google around. :nerd:


Four years, what? Dang, I am getting old. I don't know what the young whipper-snappers are doing anymore.


----------



## Apostate

Don Landis said:


> Consumers trip over dollars to pick up pennies all the time. Netflix already made the mistakes of raising prices to match their nearest competitor before and won't do that again. They will remain a fantastic deal, way under the competition. Kind of like Red Box does.


Ha! That's true.  People don't blink twice about paying $5 coffee a day and get outraged at $1 or 2 per *month* increase in their Netflix charge. I don't know about three times but I do agree that even at twice the current rate, Netflix would still be one heckuva deal.


----------



## NorthSky

Don, I know what you're saying, and I just don't follow that philosophy.
All my life I was an investor, in many technologies, and for the best of humanity. I am no longer a money investor. 
I've seen enough deceptions to make me sick that I can die over and over @ perpetuity and it won't heal anything @ all. 

I simply don't believe in beneficial investments. @ the end it's always about dirty money, since the very beginning when money (trade) was invented. 

And nothing is going to change this world of capitalism, materialism, consumption, corruption, disease, and financial greed and power.

Best investment is in the people, families, children; their welfare, their sanity, their balance, their love and life values; peace, liberty, freedom, independence, in touch with the wild, with the nature, with the senses, with the planet, with the earth, with each other in harmony. 

All the money in the world is its own virus towards total destruction of man's own soul. 
The cure is to give. ...To the ones without access to simple life necessities; water, warm clothes for the cold days, a roof to protect against the rough nights, and a chance @ peace. ...Food. 

Disney they can do whatever with their 3D Blu-ray movies; I just don't really care about them. They are certainly not ruling my life.
I'll take the good from them, I'll buy it; and leave the rest to themselves so that they can rot in hell with it. After all, that's exactly what they're good at; giving us some good stuff, and denying us access to their world by making us pay more than we have to. ...The greed, the corporations, the monsters of extreme capitalism @ the service of the riches from the head of their headquarter's strategists. ...Wrong strategy; they are already the biggest losers of them all in the view of us all so many.

And I'm saying that in total numbness and calmness. ...Disconnected of it all, without having anything to do with it. 

I will simply keep appreciating the good they bring, and that's all. 

And if ever 3D die (I know it won't); I'll be blaming them a little, for sure. 

* The words mean nothing without seeing their speakers.

If you think that I am complaining, you are mistaking; I am simply giving you my honest straight opinion in the now. Life is beautiful; and the world can be a much better place without Disney's money strategists. 
Dreamworks is doing just fine. ...Warner Brothers too. ...And Columbia not bad @ all. ...Universal: ok.
Criterion: Chapeau! ...FOX: Forget it.


----------



## NorthSky

Don Landis said:


> Just remember, I'm not the one complaining, and not the one feeling being ripped off by businesses. I don't enjoy feeling being ripped off. I'm having fun. * Some people do enjoy being miserable and not happy unless they are complaining about everything.*


Internet's perception/deception/interpretation big time; much more often than not.
What we read is not always what it truly appears to be. ...All in our mind, all in our own mind. 
When we judge is when we fail. ...Who is truly complaining after all; the one who sat quietly @ distance,
or someone else.


----------



## tomtastic

Apostate said:


> Can DVHS videos be recycled? It'd be a shame if you couldn't and had no choice but to throw them away. There is so much stuff that can be recycled, reused, or reclaimed for parts/materials that gets thrown away because we have no option or don't know what to do with them. I have obsolete electronic and computer gears sitting in my garage. It drives my wife crazy but I don't feel right throwing them away, filling up landfills and causing pollution. We need a better, more comprehensive and clearer recycling program in this country.


I was recycling for years, or at least a few years recently and I've been scraping stuff like crt's and computer parts but now I'm going the other direction with plastic bottles and other household stuff. I wouldn't have a problem continuing to recycle, IF we actually saw some cost benefit to it. First, you have to pay more for recycling, the extra container plus the extra pickup, when they make money off the contents they receive. Now if it didn't cost more and they gave you a discount, I would jump all over it. 

Next, since all those materials are being reused, then you have the raw materials there that should save cost for future purchases which you don't ever see. And I actually don't have the option of recycling now where I live, it's just not offered, and I'm not hauling everything off myself, so it's just going to the landfill and I'm going to burn some of the trash, maybe even some of the plastic. But I agree, we need something, but there has to be an incentive or no one will do it, including myself.


----------



## Don Landis

Apostate said:


> Ha! That's true.  People don't blink twice about paying $5 coffee a day and get outraged at $1 or 2 per *month* increase in their Netflix charge. I don't know about three times but I do agree that even at twice the current rate, Netflix would still be one heckuva deal.


Explanation- I used 3X because I currently pay $7.99 per mo. That would put me at $24 per month. I subscribbed to Blockbuster subscription service last at $35 per month for about the same number of movies before they went bust. Today I have 3DBR and get maybe 3 disks a month for about $20. Hulu+ I hardly watch it since there is never anything I'm interested in. I need to drop the subscription. Amazon Prime is good as it is free since I use Prime for free shipping. I watch a couple titles on Prime a month. 

My suggestion would be- Gladly pay 2 or even 3 times for 3D streaming titles as they are released to disk. Would there be enough like me to make it work? I doubt it because most people are too cheap to see the benefit. The others would complain that the streaming doesn't work for them or if it does, they would miss out on the director's comments because they need those to complete their film school class assignment. ( This last excuse I just learned exists from these threads, I must admit, it's different.)


----------



## akm3

Gravity seemed like a major boost to 3D, do we think the Avatar sequel will do the same?

Hobbit was very famously 3d but didn't seem to do much to boost 3d.


----------



## tgm1024

akm3 said:


> Gravity seemed like a major boost to 3D, do we think the Avatar sequel will do the same?
> 
> Hobbit was very famously 3d but didn't seem to do much to boost 3d.


The problem I see with A2 is that the leap from before-Avatar to Avatar was _so_ hugely impacting that Cameron might not be able to have a similar leap from Avatar to Avatar2. And IMO people often use this relative criteria and judge movies overly harshly.

I've heard 100 times too often words to the effect of "yeah, but it wasn't anything different".


----------



## CaseyH71

akm3 said:


> Gravity seemed like a major boost to 3D, do we think the Avatar sequel will do the same?
> 
> Hobbit was very famously 3d but didn't seem to do much to boost 3d.


Agree akm3, I felt the Hobbit was more like being sucked in to a 3d video game. The 2d was great.


----------



## akm3

CaseyH71 said:


> Agree akm3, I felt the Hobbit was more like being sucked in to a 3d video game. The 2d was great.


I saw the High Frame Rate version, and it just felt weird. It looked weird. I can't say it looked bad, I'm sure it was technically better, but it was weird and distracting.


----------



## mo949

I don't think the hobbits first 55 minutes stuck in the same house did much to help the 3d experience.


----------



## NorthSky

Personally, I prefer both Hobbit movies in 3D, over 2D. ...On Blu. 

In 2D I am bored to boredom death. In 3D I am alive and kicking of vivacity.

That, is my true and honest impression after watching them both in their two different versions.

And the same with LOTR trilogy; I would much prefer to have their Extended Editions in 3D, I am fully convinced of that.

But hey, that's just me.


----------



## mo949

Wher do you find Lotr extended editions in 3d?


----------



## NorthSky

Nowhere, ...yet. 

* Read my above post carefully (_I "would" much prefer ..."_).


----------



## cajieboy

mo949 said:


> I don't think the hobbits first 55 minutes stuck in the same house did much to help the 3d experience.


I thought the Hobbit House scene was a good one, and helped establish all the characters that were going on the journey. Very close to the book. The LOTR Triology was a true 3-book story, but The Hobbit is actually only one book that's been stretched into 3 movies. For this reason, I expect story detail to be strong, which I particularly like having read the book years ago. I saw The Hobbit in a 3D theater, and it was everything I had hoped it would be in a flick directed by Peter Jackson. The dude has got it down when it comes to Tolkien stories.


----------



## mo949

NorthSky said:


> I*'m a huge sucker for everything The LOTR Extended Edition Trilogy 3D and The Hobbit Extended Edition Trilogy 3D. *I just seem that I can't have enough of it. ...I must have over hundred discs easily so far just on them two trilogies, except for the last Hobbit (that would extend my collection to just short of two hundred discs).
> 
> The true (real) Cinema lovers and Art connoisseurs...are some of my best 3D friends.
> ...And they make the best 3D lovers in the world, with true/3DReal dedicated passion.
> 
> ♦ I'm new to this thread, but I won't be the last...


Northsky. I read your posts a little too carefully. You made it sound like both the hobbit and LOTR were in 3D in your above post. 

I'm bummed you didn't have a surprise for me there


----------



## aaronwt

akm3 said:


> I saw the High Frame Rate version, and it just felt weird. It looked weird. I can't say it looked bad, I'm sure it was technically better, but it was weird and distracting.


I was not a fan of the HFR version. To the point that I avoided it with the second movie. Plus at the local AMC theater, the HFR version was on the smaller screen(real 3D) anyway. I saw the first one twice in the 3D IMAX lite and in the real 3D HFR. The second one I just stuck with the IMAX lite theater in 3D and saw it once. I think I might try out the DOlby ATmos theater, a few miles up the road, if the third movie is in Dolby Atmos with 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

mo949 said:


> Northsky. I read your posts a little too carefully. You made it sound like both the hobbit and LOTR were in 3D in your above post.
> 
> I'm bummed you didn't have a surprise for me there


What! LOTR EE trilogy is not on 3D. ...Don't worry, it will.  

* Anything to do with LOTR and I got that often; over ecstatic. 
You are an attentive reader; now read the emotion (the dream) behind the lines.  ...All in good spirit, always. ...And optimism. ..._"I'm a huge sucker"_ (I'm a positive dreamer).


----------



## cinema13

NorthSky said:


> What! LOTR EE trilogy is not on 3D. ...Don't worry, it will.


I seem to recall that Jackson said the LOTR films were going to be converted to 3D. (But don't know which versions.) Probably for theatrical re-release, after THE HOBBIT films have run their course. Not sure where that stands right now.


----------



## mo949

Holy %|€=>


----------



## cajieboy

cinema13 said:


> I seem to recall that Jackson said the LOTR films were going to be converted to 3D. (But don't know which versions.) Probably for theatrical re-release, after THE HOBBIT films have run their course. Not sure where that stands right now.


The 3rd and final film of the Hobbit trilogy will be titled "The 5 Armies" and is due to be released on December 17, 2014. I can see that I'll be at our local 3D IMAX over Christmas!!


----------



## tomtastic

I have the extended edition of LOTR on Blu ray but I think that was a mistake. Just wayyyy to long and feels like a lot of unneeded scenes. The extra scenes are also very uninteresting. I need to get the theatrical editions on Blu ray. I won't be buying the extended editions of Hobbit this time. I'm happy with the 3D/2D of theatrical.

I saw the first Hobbit in HFR 3D, but honestly I couldn't tell the difference. I didn't see the 2nd in theater, not sure if I'll go to the 3rd, I might just wait for Blu ray.

A 3D conversion of LOTR? Yeah, I'd probably buy it if it was the theatrical versions.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> I have the extended edition of LOTR on Blu ray but I think that was a mistake. Just wayyyy to long and feels like a lot of unneeded scenes. The extra scenes are also very uninteresting. I need to get the theatrical editions on Blu ray. I won't be buying the extended editions of Hobbit this time. I'm happy with the 3D/2D of theatrical.
> 
> I saw the first Hobbit in HFR 3D, but honestly I couldn't tell the difference. I didn't see the 2nd in theater, not sure if I'll go to the 3rd, I might just wait for Blu ray.
> 
> A 3D conversion of LOTR? Yeah, I'd probably buy it if it was the theatrical versions.


I thought the extended editions of LOTR were the only ones worth watching. They had all the extra content put back in that was removed from the theatrical version. So many scenes make more sense now or are better explained.


----------



## cinema13

aaronwt said:


> I thought the extended editions of LOTR were the only ones worth watching. They had all the extra content put back in that was removed from the theatrical version. So many scenes make more sense now or are better explained.


Amen to that. The extended versions capture much more of the books feel. The theatricals just seem to havemerely enough plot to get to the next action beat. The added footage also serves to provide a greater investment in the characters...so much so that the longer version of ROTK seems shorter than the theatrical version. I can't imagine ever watching the theatrical versions again.


----------



## tomtastic

I used to think that too, and I originally bought the extended DVD's around 2004. I think I only watched them once or twice back then. I recently got the extended Blu rays. But I should have just got the Theatrical version. The thing is, it's not a book, it's a movie. Big difference. They were already long movies, and then all the extra scenes, just seemed like filler info and nothing important. If anything, they could have cut more out. Same with Hobbit, mainly the first one. They could have cut out about half the dinner scene at the beginning.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> I have the extended edition of LOTR on Blu ray but I think that was a mistake. Just wayyyy to long and feels like a lot of unneeded scenes. The extra scenes are also very uninteresting. I need to get the theatrical editions on Blu ray. I won't be buying the extended editions of Hobbit this time. I'm happy with the 3D/2D of theatrical.
> 
> I saw the first Hobbit in HFR 3D, but honestly I couldn't tell the difference. I didn't see the 2nd in theater, not sure if I'll go to the 3rd, I might just wait for Blu ray.
> 
> A 3D conversion of LOTR? Yeah, I'd probably buy it if it was the theatrical versions.


Interesting, because the LOTR trilogy, the Extended Edition; is the better version than the theatrical three films. ...In my book, even if they run roughly an hour each longer.

And the Hobbit, I don't truly care about the Extended Editions. But it don't matter @ all; what does is that they are in 3D. 

So, LOTR EE trilogy; yes, give it to me in 3D, BIG time.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> I thought the extended editions of LOTR were the only ones worth watching. They had all the extra content put back in that was removed from the theatrical version. So many scenes make more sense now or are better explained.


...And each film is on two discs; better picture and sound quality*. ...Plus the added content is extremely cool and adds to to the overall presentation, storyline, character's development.
It is the definitive trilogy, the EE. 

* Higher rate.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> I used to think that too, and I originally bought the extended DVD's around 2004. I think I only watched them once or twice back then. I recently got the extended Blu rays. But I should have just got the Theatrical version. The thing is, it's not a book, it's a movie. Big difference. They were already long movies, and then all the extra scenes, just seemed like filler info and nothing important. If anything, they could have cut more out. Same with Hobbit, mainly the first one. They could have cut out about half the dinner scene at the beginning.


Tom, you are tastic.  ...Them all are masterpieces from the maestro; nothing to be cut here.  

* I think you are the first person ever that I met who prefer LOTR trilogy theatrical version.
Es cool man, I respect you. Films are like women, the longer they last the ....


----------



## tomtastic

As I said, I used to like the extended versions. But last viewing on Blu ray...it was just too much and I wanted the shortened original version. It had been years since last viewing of these too. The extra scenes, just slowed the pacing down too much and I came to realize they just weren't needed.

No, some friends of mine thought the same thing when they saw Hobbit wondering if Jackson knew what editing was, I'm sure many out there have never even seen the extended versions. But then again, they're not home theater geeks like us. I kind of thought the same thing with the first Hobbit, but the second it felt entertaining from beginning to end, the first one just started a little slow with the dinner scene and was just, well boring for the first 40 minutes.

But I really can't wait for the next installment on 3D Blu ray, theatrical version of course.


----------



## cajieboy

Since the early 1970's, when I first read The Hobbit and later LOTR, myself and countless other Tolkien fans have been clamoring for a well-made movie of these stories. Several attempts were made, but all flopped and/or fell through because of the sheer scope of this tale. Not to mention the gazillion problems involving sets, props, special make-up, costumes, etc. in order to make Middle Earth believable. Otherwise, the story would just look hokey and cartoonish. 

Then, along comes a director name Peter Jackson willing to take on this enormous project, and a masterpiece is born. The Hobbit, Tolkien's first novel was written in 1936 and drew inspiration by the poem Beowulf. Lord of the Rings took 10 years to write and came out around 1955. The book became very popular in the 1960's, especially with the younger "earth people" crowd. This is where I first became associated with Tolkien. I had always thought that the music of "Yes" would be a great soundtrack if a movie was ever made of the novels. In fact, if you look at all the Yes album artwork on Fragile & Close To The Edge, you can easily imagine that it must have been inspired by LOTR.

If anyone has not read the actual Tolkien novels, I highly recommend it. Looking forward to the final installment of The Hobbit in December. Now if only the moviemakers can get their hands on the rights to The Silmarillion.


----------



## NorthSky

@ our age a four-hour long movie is quite a challenge too.  ...Add 3D on top of that, and our eyes are going to get buttery. 

* The first Hobbit was boring to death, my first viewing, in 2D. ...But then in 3D it all just opened up like magic. ...The second, fantastic. ...The third, bring it on. 

LOTR EE trilogy in 3D: I'm ready, I was even before they started filming.


----------



## NorthSky

cajieboy said:


> I had always thought that the music of "Yes" would be a great soundtrack if a movie was ever made of the novels. In fact, if you look at all the Yes album artwork on Fragile & Close To The Edge, you can easily imagine that it must have been inspired by LOTR.


That, is awesomely well said. ...Huge Yes' fan here, from all their LPs in the 70s.


----------



## cajieboy

NorthSky said:


> That, is awesomely well said. ...Huge Yes' fan here, from all their LPs in the 70s.


Thanks NorthSky. Super band, and Chris Squire is one of the top guitarist of all time.


----------



## tgm1024

cajieboy said:


> In fact, if you look at all the Yes album artwork on Fragile & Close To The Edge, you can easily imagine that it must have been inspired by LOTR.


That, or by drinking the bong water. I love Yes, but they were *out* there a tad. "Mountains come out of the sky and they stand there." LOL.....


----------



## tomtastic

young hayley said:


> Aim your sniper scope with real depth like a real pro.


Aren't scopes 2D? I think I only tried one game in 3D, might have been Call of Duty Black Ops. I didn't see much improvement but I'll have to give it another try. I might have 2 games in 3D. 


LOTR/Hobbit

I had to read the Hobbit for a Fantasy/SciFi English class for school. I had a hard time with it and didn't finish it. I think just the way it was written, the subject matter was fine, just couldn't get into the style. The same for Dracula, just couldn't read it. Never tried to read LOTR. I suppose I would have had the same problem. Not sure if I'd feel the same way now, perhaps not.


----------



## PGTweed

tomtastic said:


> I used to think that too, and I originally bought the extended DVD's around 2004. I think I only watched them once or twice back then. I recently got the extended Blu rays. But I should have just got the Theatrical version. The thing is, it's not a book, it's a movie. Big difference. They were already long movies, and then all the extra scenes, just seemed like filler info and nothing important. If anything, they could have cut more out. Same with Hobbit, mainly the first one. They could have cut out about half the dinner scene at the beginning.


If you like Tom. I'll trade you my theatrical blu-ray discs of The Lord of The Rings Trilogy for your Extended blu-ray edition.


----------



## aaronwt

Gaming is the last the I want to do in 3D.


----------



## tomtastic

*3Net is dead? * 

Closed on August 12, I had suspended my Directv account for 3 months and I just found this out. Now, there's no more 3D on Directv besides ordered movies. Another blow to 3D. It wasn't a great channel but it did have some content from time to time. I still have a few episodes of the National Parks in 3D recorded. This is a pretty big blow, it was a joint effort from Sony, Discovery and IMAX and it failed.

From an article at realscreen:

"Discovery, Sony and IMAX launched 3net to much fanfare in 2011, hoping to capitalize on the emergence of 3D television sets. Despite the hype surrounding the technology, 3D-ready TVs failed to catch on with consumers due to the unpopularity of 3D glasses and the high costs associated with producing 3D content.

*"Due to limited viewer adoption of 3D technology, 3net (ch. 107) has been discontinued as of August 12. This channel will no longer be offered to any entertainment providers, including DirecTV*,” the satellite provider wrote in a message on its customer support forum.

*The closure throws a question mark over the future of 3D television - at least in its current form.*

The news comes after ESPN last year announced the closure of its 3D sports network, and *the BBC indefinitely shelved plans to produce 3D programming*. This month, UK broadcaster Sky confirmed that it would not air Premier League soccer matches on its 3D channel this season.

DirecTV previously axed 3D channel n3D in 2012, citing a lack of consumer interest. It still offers Hollywood blockbusters in 3D via its DirecTV Cinema channel.

At the Consumer Electronics Show in January, *manufacturer Vizio dropped 3D-ready televisions from its line-up as other brands shifted focus to 4K technology and glasses-free (or autostereo) 3D TVs*."

Looks pretty daunting for 3DTV, if they stop making 3D displays that will put an end to it.


----------



## NorthSky

3D, properly done, is truly a cinema art form on a higher level. ...Another notch/dimension of superior moving pictures experience.

Art, true art, usually die if not associated with financial profits. ...Same with plasma TVs. 

I love people who love 2D. I admire people who are 3D lovers. I love 3D. 

Stereo sound is big. ...Multichannel surround sound not as much. ...2D sound sounds flat. 3D sound sounds more immersing.
If ever stereo sound dies, that'll be the day. And if more and more channels are added/needed, then we'll need to figure out how to create that magic from only two channels. ...Then two-channel stereo/3D surround will live forever; immortality.

3D picture will never die; it will expire here and there for some time, but it will always resurrect, with more advanced technology and much more immersive movie experience. ...Lasers, holographic images, no glasses, 4D. ...Real-life imageries.


----------



## EVERRET

*4k 3d tv*

Everytime i check the 3D 4k TV Trends they keep going staight up ......

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=3d tv 4k&cmpt=geo

It would be ironic if the manufacturers get out of 3D just when it's about to take off. 
They should be showcasing the 4K advantages to 3D on these new sets & have actual *working* demos at all the stores. 

Let us not mention the 200+ 3D titles now available on BluRay.
+ If you just look at all the new activity on many of the 3D Forums lately, the future looks promising if the manufactures would just put out any effort at all to support it. 

The size & quality of TV's (& projectors) are finally starting to show how great 3D can really be in your living room , better than most theaters ! 

The biggest reasons TV 3D programs have failed so far is lack of Live + New programing, & the drop in resolution when broadcasting 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

3D on Blu is well alive and kicking. ...There are several hundreds of films and documentaries and animations and adults on 3D Blu-rays. ...Much much more than 200, and with hundreds more coming up worldwide. 

Keep in touch with the places where it's happening. 

And 4K 3D is going to be AWESOME!

Forget 3D from cable/satellite and downloads; there is simply not enough grip to get all the grid.
... Get the Blu Get The Blu Get the Blu


----------



## tomtastic

Yeah, but it was nice just turning on CH 107 and seeing what was already playing. 24/7 3D content that was free (non pay per view). Of course it repeated a lot but nice still. Major disappointment, despite the lower bit rate and repeating content but I'll miss it.

There was a lot of content on 3Net that wasn't available on 3D Blu ray or anywhere else, for that matter. If I'd known they were going to cancel it I would have kept more content saved on my DVR. I just have the National Park series still, but no way to capture it off. Won't work with my HD PVR.


----------



## NorthSky

Data bandwidth?


----------



## tomtastic

NorthSky said:


> Data bandwidth?


Not sure, I've read between 6-8 mbps just like the other HD chs. and they used the same 1920x1080 framing for SbS 3D for 3Net, not sure on the 3D movies, they might be more. 3Net/N3D/ESPN 3D were a noticeably grainy.

I know my HD PVR via component won't capture it. The DVR wants to see HDMI first. I checked on the newer HDPVR 2 with HDMI and it doesn't capture 3D.


----------



## tomtastic

This doesn't look too good either:










Though I think there's more than 16 titles this year. But clearly 2011 was the height of 3D's recent resurgence. As we've said, we need everyone to get over the 4k/OLED wave and the next thing may be 4k 3D. Or not. It might be lesson learned for most broadcasters and content providers if 3D doesn't hold its own now. Hollywood will have no choice but to follow suit and so will manufacturers of displays.

Here's another interesting chart:









This is a neat chart showing the 3D timeline: Click here for larger image.


----------



## cbcdesign

I count 35 releases in the US for 2014, over twice as many as your chart!


----------



## SFMike

*3D Dead In A Silicon Valley SONY Store*

See my complete post in *Will Sony have a 70" passive 3D TV in 2015?* I wanted to point out that on visiting a nearby SONY store, in upscale Palo Alto CA in the Stanford Mall, it appears that 3D TV is already dead. They have an extensive display of all their new 4K sets in all sizes with computer terminals for accessing in depth information on availble features and on no set or display is 3D even mentioned as an option. Also the 3D camcorders and Playstation 3D acessories are gone with no 3D software of anykind evident in the store. It's as if 3D doesn't exist. I think this says a lot about where SONY is going with 3D. I guess in the future we will have to import our replacement sets like we have to import Disney 3D software. This really sucks.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> This doesn't look too good either:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though I think there's more than 16 titles this year. But clearly 2011 was the height of 3D's recent resurgence. As we've said, we need everyone to get over the 4k/OLED wave and the next thing may be 4k 3D. Or not. It might be lesson learned for most broadcasters and content providers if 3D doesn't hold its own now. Hollywood will have no choice but to follow suit and so will manufacturers of displays.
> 
> Here's another interesting chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a neat chart showing the 3D timeline: Click here for larger image.


That graph, and that chart above; that is for the State of Nevada, or Texas? 

Do you have one for the WORLD? ...That includes ALL 3D stuff worldwide? 

♦ Here's a very small one (for the state of Quebec, Canada): www.3dmovielist.com/list.html


----------



## NorthSky

SFMike said:


> See my complete post in *Will Sony have a 70" passive 3D TV in 2015?* I wanted to point out that on visiting a nearby SONY store, in upscale Palo Alto CA in the Stanford Mall, it appears that 3D TV is already dead. They have an extensive display of all their new 4K sets in all sizes with computer terminals for accessing in depth information on availble features and on no set or display is 3D even mentioned as an option. Also the 3D camcorders and Playstation 3D acessories are gone with no 3D software of anykind evident in the store. It's as if 3D doesn't exist. I think this says a lot about where SONY is going with 3D. I guess in the future we will have to import our replacement sets like we have to import Disney 3D software. This really sucks.


How many people live in San Francisco? Is your town the only town in the world? 

Sony, are they from the USA? ...Do they do business with Japan, UK, Italy, Rome, Singapore, China, Canada, Spain, Russia, Argentina, Brazil, Hawaii, Alaska, Morocco, Africa, Kathmandu, Nepal, Tibet, Shanghai, Tokyo, Honk Kong, Philippines, Dubai, Malaysia, Indonesia, Iceland, Ireland, Scandinavia, Switzerland, Germany, France, Scotland, ...and all their other world's partners? 

How big is the world? ...How truly big is 3D? ...Any idea?


----------



## NorthSky

cbcdesign said:


> I count 35 releases in the US for 2014, over twice as many as your chart!


For the State of Florida?


----------



## rfbrang

Some of these were late 2013 and some of these are preorder, but our purchases made in 2014 include... X-Men , Transformers Age of Extinction, Captain America The Winter Soldier, Maleficent, Godzilla, 300 Rise of an Empire, The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug(can't wait for the battle of the five armies too), Guardians of the Galaxy, TMNT, Planes Fire and Rescue.... Our theatre will be showing 3D for quite some time.


----------



## NorthSky

3D content (software) will die if companies like Sony and Disney in North America continue their trend.
But only in North America, and not in the world. Sony and Disney don't represent the world, they are just business dealers. 
They are not scientific experts on what the worldwide population truly love. 

3D will never die, just like the Rolling Stones. ...Rock&Roll man! ... >

♦ When I dream, I dream in 3D. ...When I walk in my neighborhood, I walk in 3D. ...When I talk, I talk in 3D. ...And hear in 3D too.


----------



## tomtastic

cbcdesign said:


> I count 35 releases in the US for 2014, over twice as many as your chart!


Not my chart, I did say there were more than 16. But not as many as previous years for sure.


----------



## NorthSky

rfbrang said:


> Some of these were late 2013 and some of these are preorder, but our purchases made in 2014 include... X-Men , Transformers Age of Extinction, Captain America The Winter Soldier, Maleficent, Godzilla, 300 Rise of an Empire, The Hobbit Desolation of Smaug(can't wait for the battle of the five armies too), Guardians of the Galaxy, TMNT, Planes Fire and Rescue.... Our theatre will be showing 3D for quite some time.


You a theater operator (manager)? 

* If you look @ the 3D releases so far for 2014 (worldwide; all titles, all type of moving stuff), and for the year's remaining, plus what's coming in 3D for 2015 (so far) you are going to discover a reality vision. ...3D is strong, and healthy, and is just going to grow even more stronger and stronger. ...And with 3D 4K, and with 3D OLED, and with 3D Dolby Atmos, and with 3D Auro-3D, and with 3D DTS-UHD, and with 3D laser front projectors (4K), and with 3D HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2, and with 3D 8K, and with 3D Ultra High Definition Galaxy.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> Not my chart, I did say there were more than 16. But not as many as previous years for sure.


Your chart seems to be from a very small section of the entire global market; like from the state of New York and not beyond. ...If I may say with full respect.


----------



## Don Landis

Reminder of what I heard from the Marketing people from Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and LG. They all said the same thing. First we have 3D, then we'll get 4K perfected and then we'll add back 4K 3D. While the TV sets are pretty much available in 4K 3D now, the camera companies, mainly Sony, Panasonic and JVC are yet a year away from introducing new 4K 3D camcorders. But as one Panasonic Engineer told me that year, they have the Z10000 like I have for 4K all ready to go as soon as the TV end and media in 4K is established. Sony even said they will have a 4K 3D consumer camcorder similar to the TD30 when the 4K 3D TV's are established. 

Currently we do have a couple consumer affordable 4K 3D cameras. GoPro is one of the first in the Hero 4 with their 3D housing.


----------



## andy sullivan

I live in the US. Everybody I know lives in the US. Sorry but I don't care how 3d is marketed in the rest of the world. Selfish I know but it's the truth. The way 3d DVD movies are sold in the US is counter productive. Sacrifice on the profit margin and increase the market penetration. Stop forcing me to buy the BR version and the SD version to get the 3D version I want. Am I wrong in assuming that the US DVD market is the largest market? If the major manufactures of 3D players can drop those prices into the $50 range why not make the discs more appealing?


----------



## tomtastic

NorthSky said:


> Your chart seems to be from a very small section of the entire global market; like from the state of New York and not beyond. ...If I may say with full respect.


It is a relative chart. In other words the previous years mentioned only mention the major studios efforts, not small budget stuff. So comparatively, it is accurate, save for 2014 which does seem shy of actual releases. Likely the chart was originated sometime in 2013, so that makes sense not showing actual 2014 releases. There's not a date on it, but indication of "finished years" would indicate 2012 or 2013. A quick look at the list over at is it real or fake 3d I counted 41 for 2014 compared to 49 from 2013. A small decline from 2013.


----------



## NorthSky

andy sullivan said:


> I live in the US. Everybody I know lives in the US. Sorry but I don't care how 3d is marketed in the rest of the world. Selfish I know but it's the truth. The way 3d DVD movies are sold in the US is counter productive. Sacrifice on the profit margin and increase the market penetration. Stop forcing me to buy the BR version and the SD version to get the 3D version I want. Am I wrong in assuming that the US DVD market is the largest market? If the major manufactures of 3D players can drop those prices into the $50 range why not make the discs more appealing?


UK, Japan, China, France, South America, Germany, Italy, Korea, Brazil, Canada, ...etc., we're all part of the 3D world economy. 

AVS Forum is a global forum with members from all over the world. 

* I understand what you're saying about the 2D version included, plus the DVD, plus the digital copy, plus Ultra-Violet, ...and we are being charged for all of it, when all we truly want is the Blu-ray 3D disc, and that's all. ...We don't want to pay $30 or so ($40 in Canada), when we want only one 3D disc. 
Twenty bucks, @ most ($17), should be plenty for all of them studios to still make huge amounts of cash profits, tones of piles of money to store in their bank vaults, millions of gold bars accumulated worldwide in the safest world's banks with the highest investment interest rates. 
{They can sell the single-disc 2D version for the people who only want that one.; about $13}
{And they can sell only the one-dic DVD to the DVD people; about $10}.

But this is not a long-term smart affair to please the general public (us the customers), but always a quick greed for the first greedy people on that quick line of the conglomerates...if you know what I mean. 

This is reality, a sad reality of the world we've been living in and still live in. 
There is no rest for the wicked. It's a virus, a vice, that keeps growing and growing, and spreading till we no longer find real human values and true happiness in this world.

You are right; it is a very selfish world, the one surrounding us.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> It is a relative chart. In other words the previous years mentioned only mention the major studios efforts, not small budget stuff. So comparatively, it is accurate, save for 2014 which does seem shy of actual releases. Likely the chart was originated sometime in 2013, so that makes sense not showing actual 2014 releases. There's not a date on it, but indication of "finished years" would indicate 2012 or 2013. A quick look at the list over at is it real or fake 3d I counted 41 for 2014 compared to 49 from 2013. A small decline from 2013.


The year ain't over yet; still two months and half to go man. ...Tom


----------



## tomtastic

NorthSky said:


> The year ain't over yet; still two months and half to go man. ...Tom


Yeah, but I think they're already including upcoming movies for 2014 over at is it real or fake 3D where I got the 49/41 figures. Strangely 46 titles in 2012 less than 2013 and 55 titles for 2011. A slight dip in 2012 but 2011 was the best year for 3D. If 2015 is worse than this year, then it's a steady decline of 3D. Whether those figures account for all major releases, idk. 

There's something going on with the US 3D market vs Rest of World. ROW is still going strong, China just about everything is required to be in 3D these days. But interest here is drying up. More and more titles not going to theater in 3D, not arriving on 3D Blu ray, 3DTV is pretty much dead now, 3Net, N3D, ESPN, Sky. One local store of mine had a 3D section, about the size of Best Buy's, and removed it a few weeks back. I asked them why and they said, "little interest".


----------



## NorthSky

Too bad, and I understand Tom. ...Don, I, and other members here we've already talked about this, and that, on other treads.

3D is becoming a Global affair. ...And the North American market is more into some' else. ...MONEY. 

Amazon.3Dglobal - that's where it's @ /// Dot ca and dot com have both vanquished, for 3D Blu.

...People are starting to move; Japan, Tokyo, Honk Gong, Godzee, China, Beijing, Europe, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil, Amsterdam, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines, Tibet, Nepal, Everest, K2, Tapai, Vietnam, Marrakech, Casablanca, ...anywhere and everywhere where 3D is still alive, and away from the United States of America, and away from Canada, and away from the North American continent, even from Alaska people are moving away. 

Tom, it's just the way it is; follow your heart, follow 3D, wherever it might lead you. 

Me, I'll just stay here for now, and deal with it, with amazon.3dglobal, and simply order my 3D Blu-ray flicks from them. ...And the same for Ultra 3D 4K HD TVs. ...We still have a local 3D IMAX. ...You?


----------



## EVERRET

tomtastic said:


> Not my chart, I did say there were more than 16. But not as many as previous years for sure.


That *inaccurate* at the time anti - 3D article & chart was posted on cinemablend *9-6-2013 *

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Does-Graph-Prove-3D-Movies-Over-39322.html

It was Just another lazy .......... attention getting.......... anti 3D Post. 

If you want a list of almost every 3D film in the last few years here is a nice list ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2014_3D_films
& http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films

When popular movies like Gravity & Guardians of the Galaxy comes out , people will want to see it like in the theaters in 3D , the only way to do that is on a 3D TV or 3D Projector.

You can see the interest/views going way up in all of the 3D forums lately.


----------



## Don Landis

2011 was the year for early adopters of 3D that got us away from the red/blue glasses on regular TV sets.

2015 will be the renaissance of the mainstream consumer who will discover 3D TV's as they venture into 4K and 3D options for their new home movies.


----------



## tomtastic

EVERRET said:


> That *inaccurate* at the time anti - 3D article & chart was posted on cinemablend *9-6-2013 *
> 
> http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Does-Graph-Prove-3D-Movies-Over-39322.html
> 
> It was Just another lazy .......... attention getting.......... anti 3D Post.
> 
> If you want a list of almost every 3D film in the last few years here is a nice list ....
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2014_3D_films
> & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films
> 
> When popular movies like Gravity & Guardians of the Galaxy comes out , people will want to see it like in the theaters in 3D , the only way to do that is on a 3D TV or 3D Projector.
> 
> You can see the interest/views going way up in all of the 3D forums lately.


Of course 3D talk in 3D forums will go up, there's an inherit bias there. People who want to swim, go to a swimming pool, right? People who don't, you won't see them there complaining. 

But is 3D well received in the general entertainment industry? Not exactly. 3D has always had big hurdles to jump: it's a gimmick, the glasses, more expensive, can be nauseating to some, sit in a certain spot, all these negatives outweigh the simple positives of 2D that have never failed.

To the few of us 3D enthusiasts here, we overcome the negatives easily enough to get our enjoyment from it but for most, it just isn't worth it. With 4k emerging, it's simply improving the reliable format we've always had with 2D. 

4k 3D saving 3D? The more I think about that, I don't think I would rely on it. Maybe on 3D Blu ray where bandwidth isn't an issue, but broadcast and streaming, it's more of a strain and cost issue. 

Broadcast, I can't see cable/sat going 4k anytime soon. It will likely be like the few 3D channels that launched a few years ago. You'll have your major players, like ESPN and maybe the movie channels. But I don't think it will die like 3D did on broadcast. It may take awhile longer, but it's merely a matter of getting the bandwidth and distribution upgraded and replacing existing receivers in homes which will take time. But the bottom line is: it won't be like 3D because there's no negative hurdles to overcome, you don't have to find your glasses and then clean them, etc. etc. It's simple and reliable and works from channel to channel.

Glasses free 3D? In theory this could save 3D for the casual 3d viewer, but I have a feeling that tech is awhile off from being perfected for those of us who want the best looking 3D experience, you just have to have the glasses for it to work right. And I'm OK with that, you're OK with that, but for the general entertainment world ... well what do they care? They're not here reading anyway, right? They're happy with 2D like they have been for years. And 2D enthusiasts here are over in the general 2D sections.

A few positives with this era of 3D. 

1. *It Ain't Over Yet!* We've had about 5 years now since 2009? The hype has really dwindled since 2013 maybe late 2012 even, but still the movie content is still churning out. Might not be as good as the peak numbers and 2015 will be interesting how much content is out there. But the hits keep on coming. For now.

2. *4K*. Most major 3D films are in 4k 3D already depending on how they framed the shots and final HD post rendering, we're in good shape for 4k 3D if ever it comes to be on the home market. Most likely the major efforts aren't scaling down the 4k shots for cropping for HD, just a straight 4k transfer to 2k. So there should, in theory be a good back catalog of 4k 3D titles to start things off. So ironically, the thing killing off 3D right now, 4K, could bring it back in a year or two, but I lean toward potentially. I'm just not convinced it will for sure.

3. *3D Blu ray.* As much as I loath monopolies, which Sony sure has with 3D, 3D Blu ray might be the one thing keeping 3D limping along. You've got theaters, but if they see the home market dry up, that will be the end of it. There's streaming, Netflix and a few others, but Netflix seems to look to what trends are heading. With broadcast ceasing 3D production, and a decline in 3D ticket sales, that might be enough for Netflix to stop 3D streaming altogether. Youtube deserves a mention too, but it's really 3D Blu ray that's still the go to source for 3D.

4. *A 3D established base*. Lot's of home 3D ready equipment out there already. I don't want to name all the delivery methods but you get the idea. We've bought the displays and the 3D Blu ray players, the PS3 already does it. Why stop providing content when there are some that will still view it? And with most equipment now, it can just be an added feature to the product that is if manufactures will continue to support it. Vizio, I guess dropped it. A 3D standard would be nice here, just include it as a feature and then up to the user if it's used or not.

5. *If you build it, He will come.* Hollywood's on our side, which is a good thing for 3D. This is probably the best positive for 3D right now. It's a money thing, if it sells more tickets and higher priced tickets, they'll keep the content rolling in. And it can't hurt to have some major directors on board that recognize the need for 3D: James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Michael Bay, Ridley Scott among others.

As I recall, way back in 2011, I was mostly a naysayer on 3D. I wasn't concerned with it. I didn't need it. But I started looking at it more and more. Pretty soon it grew on me and the next thing you know I have a 3D display, 3D Blu ray player, 60 or 70 3D Blu ray titles, next step was a couple of 3D camera rigs and filming my own projects in 3D. The more I look at 4k, it does look convincing too. I want to get it, but I also want 3D. I think I'll just wait on 4k until it's cheaper and more content and stick with 3D for now, maybe by then we'll have 4k 3D. That would really be something.


----------



## EVERRET

3D revival:
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/box-office-3d-stages-a-revival-again-1201220911/

(That's not including Transformers & Guardians of the Galaxy)

If all goes well..... 3D will take off when more people "like us" discover how great all these 3D movies can look at home.


----------



## Don Landis

tom- I've been a 3D enthusiast for a long long time. I've also had as my main viewing TV a projector system since the Kloss Nova beam in the late 70's. Until 2010, it was very difficult to get 3D in the home, but since then, it has exploded. Just when I think 3D has become saturated, it doubles in films released per month. In addition, several of my relatives who aren't 3D enthusiasts have purchased TV's in the past couple years bought 3D because they only upgrade about every 10 years. So when they ask me what to get, they want the state of the art so it won't be dead in a year. None of them are upset at having to buy 3D because like me, they see more and more content to play on their 3D TV at home. Its here to stay because it is an art form, now with technology the public can have at consumer prices. 

3D doesn't need 4K to save it. 3D is here to stay because it sells in the theater, and then people want it in the home. But others like me can't be delusional on 3D. I realize that while I like 3D in most cases, it is not 100%. I don't need the 6 oclock news to be in 3D. I trade stocks for my income and I don't need any of my 3 monitors monitoring the markets to be in 3D. But I do like 90% of my entertainment movies to be in 3D. 

When I shoot video for a project, I still do 2D often as the project might not gain much by being 3D. I also shoot still photos, both 2D and 3D. Basically, while being an advocate for 3D, I'm not obsessed with the medium. To me it is just another tool, like color vs. black and white. stereo vs surround. I like having the option of switching to 3D so all my camera systems are 3D capable now in my kit. Just recently, I wanted to return to shooting underwater video, although my physical limitations now at my age prevents me from scuba diving, I did just build up a small 3D snorkeling camera system using the new GoPro knockoff, the Nabi. There was a day I would have a full blown 3D underwater camera as I made my living shooting underwater back in the late 80's and early 90's. Back then I recall wishing I had 3D on some of my projects but the technology just didn't exist.


----------



## aaronwt

EVERRET said:


> Everytime i check the 3D 4k TV Trends they keep going staight up ......
> 
> http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=3d tv 4k&cmpt=geo
> 
> It would be ironic if the manufacturers get out of 3D just when it's about to take off.
> They should be showcasing the 4K advantages to 3D on these new sets & have actual *working* demos at all the stores.
> 
> Let us not mention the 200+ 3D titles now available on BluRay.
> + If you just look at all the new activity on many of the 3D Forums lately, the future looks promising if the manufactures would just put out any effort at all to support it.
> 
> The size & quality of TV's (& projectors) are finally starting to show how great 3D can really be in your living room , better than most theaters !
> 
> The biggest reasons TV 3D programs have failed so far is lack of Live + New programing, & the drop in resolution when broadcasting 3D.


UNfortunately some titles on 3D BD are already not being released in the US. For instance the Disney title Ratatouille. It was released in 3D on BD earlier this year. But not in the US. I had to purchase it from the UK to get it in 3D. And Disney has several other titles that are not being released in 3D on BD in the US.


----------



## NorthSky

EVERRET said:


> 3D revival:
> http://variety.com/2014/film/news/box-office-3d-stages-a-revival-again-1201220911/
> 
> (That's not including Transformers & Guardians of the Galaxy)
> 
> If all goes well..... 3D will take off when more people "like us" discover how great all these 3D movies can look at home.


Right on man! :nerd:


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> UNfortunately some titles on 3D BD are already not being released in the US. For instance the Disney title Ratatouille. It was released in 3D on BD earlier this year. But not in the US. I had to purchase it from the UK to get it in 3D. And Disney has several other titles that are not being released in 3D on BD in the US.


Very true; about six-seven 3D blu-ray titles now. ...Very sad.  
But! It won't last forever; soon or later they'll wake up, them Disneyland people in charge of such a travesty.


----------



## tomtastic

Don Landis said:


> tom- I've been a 3D enthusiast for a long long time. I've also had as my main viewing TV a projector system since the Kloss Nova beam in the late 70's. Until 2010, it was very difficult to get 3D in the home, but since then, it has exploded. Just when I think 3D has become saturated, it doubles in films released per month. In addition, several of my relatives who aren't 3D enthusiasts have purchased TV's in the past couple years bought 3D because they only upgrade about every 10 years. So when they ask me what to get, they want the state of the art so it won't be dead in a year. None of them are upset at having to buy 3D because like me, they see more and more content to play on their 3D TV at home. Its here to stay because it is an art form, now with technology the public can have at consumer prices.
> 
> 3D doesn't need 4K to save it. 3D is here to stay because it sells in the theater, and then people want it in the home. But others like me can't be delusional on 3D. I realize that while I like 3D in most cases, it is not 100%. I don't need the 6 oclock news to be in 3D. I trade stocks for my income and I don't need any of my 3 monitors monitoring the markets to be in 3D. But I do like 90% of my entertainment movies to be in 3D.
> 
> When I shoot video for a project, I still do 2D often as the project might not gain much by being 3D. I also shoot still photos, both 2D and 3D. Basically, while being an advocate for 3D, I'm not obsessed with the medium. To me it is just another tool, like color vs. black and white. stereo vs surround. I like having the option of switching to 3D so all my camera systems are 3D capable now in my kit. Just recently, I wanted to return to shooting underwater video, although my physical limitations now at my age prevents me from scuba diving, I did just build up a small 3D snorkeling camera system using the new GoPro knockoff, the Nabi. There was a day I would have a full blown 3D underwater camera as I made my living shooting underwater back in the late 80's and early 90's. Back then I recall wishing I had 3D on some of my projects but the technology just didn't exist.


Very realistic points, which I agree with. I come off as negative, that's what my wife says, but I like to call myself a realist. I can't ignore the truth. 3D is great for certain things, where you really want to enhance something, so it's inherently a niche medium anyway. 

Right now 3D, it seems to have moved from the selling attraction to an included feature, which I do think 3D was way over hyped to begin with back in 2011/2012 and was expected to take the world over by storm, so to speak. 

As long as being and included feature doesn't go away, I think we're all fine. The main hold on keeping 3D ready devices going, has to be the theater now for expected content to reach the home market, since broadcast 3D is dead. Although in the case of a few now, let's see, Robocop, Noah, Planes Fire and Rescue, not the case at least in the US market.

I just worry if things get worse, there won't be hardware to view content down the road. Granted, the existing equipment will last for many years. Maybe even until the next explosion in 15 years if it doesn't keep going or create a new one with 4k 3D hopefully just a year or two away. 

Also, theaters have a vested interest in 3D with equipment, so they're already tooled for it, just need the content and there's plenty of directors who advocate for 3D.


----------



## cbcdesign

tomtastic said:


> Not my chart, I did say there were more than 16. But not as many as previous years for sure.


When I said your Chart I didn't mean you produced it, just that it was on your post.


I think releases have settled down because Studios were trying to cash in with poor quality 3D conversions that many of us got fed up with pretty quickly. Less but better quality releases are the reason for the apparent drop but that's a good thing I think. I certainly don't accept that 3D is dead when new Blockbuster movies keep coming out in 3D. Besides the Asian Market for 3D is too big for Hollywood to drop the format altogether, its more or less certain to survive now with such a big far east market.


----------



## Don Landis

tom, your observation of broadcast 3D being dead is odd. I don't believe it ever caught on for broadcast so death was not even in the cards.  . We did have a couple cable and satellite channels dedicated to 3D but these have fallen off. But here's the real truth- Broadcast 2D TV is about dead! I worked in the broadcast business beginning in '93 and saw its demise back then. The trouble is the 30 second commercial which is the bread and butter of broadcast. They never evolved into the 90's so they have trouble turning a profit big enough to support the programming which continues to demand bigger and bigger budgets to keep what audiences they have left. You may not have heard but CBS finally woke up and will be starting a subscription IPTV for their programming. Obviously this does not include the broadcast division. They must still rely on the 30 second commercial. In the 90's we had 4-5 30 sec spots per break. Last night, on ABC, I counted 17 30 second spots during the middle break of a one hour show that only ran for 31 minutes of content. The take home message hear is Broadcast TV needs to update and reinvent itself if it intends to survive.

3D itself is doing fine and growing in the movie business every year. It is not going away this time. Too much infrastructure now in place both in the home and the multiplex and IMAX stand alones. In addition, more documentary videographers, like myself are shooting our travels in stereo because it offers so much realism. Right now I have 4 big projects in the can waiting for the time to edit. These are not commercial projects as I'm retired, so they have amateur photographer budgets. You Tube is the place to find many really great 3D variety, but you'll have to sift through lots of junk to find the few gems. If you like underwater video, you'll love 3D underwater. Barry C a member here does some of the best 3D underwater I have ever seen. But the real problem is with 3D YT, you'll need to learn how to get your TV working for 3D YT. There are a limited number of devices that support it. WDTV IP box is the one I use, and then you have to put the TV in SBS mode. This box supports the full 1080p 3D. The PS3 also does but only at 720p. See what I mean? 

tom, my outlook is realistic and positive, because my history with TV and 3D tv goes way back, so I have experienced the growth curve of 3D over 5 decades. I didn't just read about it, I lived it. This gives me the advantage of seeing the little valleys in segments of the 3D industry activity, with a broader perspective and how insignificant those few valleys are now. You have come off a high in 2011 for home 3D marketing blitz but the theater has not waned one bit on 3D film production and technology growth in 3D conversions continues forward. These 3D conversions are getting so good now, in a true evaluation between native shot 3D and a good conversion, the only give away that it may be a conversion is every scene is perfectly composed in depth. 3D Cameras are a compromise for the scene. They can only capture a perfect stereo at one small range of depth with the extremes in the scene going to 2D flatworld. Conversions don't have to have that restriction. But the latest software for conversion can create a 3D image that has no flaws of falling off to 2D flat. What neither can do is produce a 3D scene that can capture all sides and back from front to rear with absolute perfection. This requires Holographic imaging, the next level beyond stereo. Holographic imaging not only allows the viewer to see all sides of a stage. he can go onstage and enter the scene and view it from a 360° sphere of vision.


----------



## NorthSky

Don said:


> But the latest software for conversion can create a 3D image that has no flaws of falling off to 2D flat. What neither can do is produce a 3D scene that can capture all sides and back from front to rear with absolute perfection. *This requires Holographic imaging, the next level beyond stereo. Holographic imaging not only allows the viewer to see all sides of a stage. he can go onstage and enter the scene and view it from a 360° sphere of vision.*


That, I wanna see/experience, before I die. ...Iron Man.


----------



## Barry C

NorthSky said:


> That, I wanna see/experience, before I die. ...Iron Man.


Me too☺
Take a look at this link. I don't suppose we'll be seeing this in Best Buy for the holidays! 

http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/07/interactive-holograms-leia-display-system/#continued


----------



## tomtastic

Don Landis said:


> tom, your observation of broadcast 3D being dead is odd. I don't believe it ever caught on for broadcast so death was not even in the cards.  .


True, not catching on is better put, since it never became a standard. I have to say, I watched it quite a bit when I first upgraded to my LG 3D TV, then I got lazy and got tired of grabbing the glasses for awhile for about a year or so. Then over the last year I got better about recording shows and then making time to watch them over on 3Net.

ESPN was the one I never figured out because everyone wanted sports in 3D more than anything for broadcast but then they never showed anything LIVE. Just never made sense to me. I think I watched one NC BB game LIVE the entire time it was on and then the 2012 Summer Olympics. (Which btw they used a lot of the Panasonic 3DP1/3DA1 models over there for that. Sure wish I had recorded more 3D stuff on DVR if I had known they were dropping the channels. But no way to transfer it off there, and space is limited.

They had a few movies that weren't available anywhere else in 3D. Granted, they were terrible movies. L5: First City in Space {1996} (this one is really bad), and T-Rex: Back to Cretaceous (1998). They had IMAX stuff so you could preview stuff before buying the Blu rays. I think they should have given it a chance. It didn't really have time to take off and add more original content. Now, even when 4k 3D gets here, might be harder for it to come back on broadcast at all.


----------



## Don Landis

There are a number of Holographic projection Kiosks using pyramid mirrors now being sold for front view advertising. CNN had a demo a couple years ago where they showed it on stage and one of their CNN news people walked around the image of a person he was speaking with. I believe there is some advanced research going into ionized air that lights up but all of these have one drawback- low resolution and translucency. Unfortunately, Holographic performances will require a whole new way of story production. Stereography and 2D flatworld are very similar, but Holography will be a radical departure in everything about it. I'm not so sure I am interested in it for story performance. 

http://www.chaindrugreview.com/fron...e-aid-to-deploy-3d-holographic-rewards-kiosks


----------



## Teremei

I always fear the "fad" ends. I quote that because I don't view it as a fad, more of a niche.

Studios are still making big budget movies in 3D. And as long as they keep releasing them on blu ray 3D, I will always have a lot of content to keep me satisfied with my 3D TV. Disney being stupid aside. There are still big studios releasing 3D movies. There are still like 3 more 3D movies coming out on Blu Ray this year. I don't feel it's ticked down too much from years past.

As long as Marvel keeps doing it, they might help to keep it alive. Avatar 2 should help some too. To be honest with you, even if only Marvel and Dreamworks kept making 3D movies, I'd still be happy. At least I'd have a few 3D movies to look forward to watching each year.


----------



## aaronwt

Barry C said:


> Me too☺
> Take a look at this link. I don't suppose we'll be seeing this in Best Buy for the holidays!
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/07/interactive-holograms-leia-display-system/#continued


So it's just a rear projector displaying an image on a mist like surface. In the videos the light from the projector was very obvious and I would think would be very annoying for me to see in person.


----------



## NorthSky

Me believes that true 4D holography should be created from down below; the floor. ...Where no laser lights are visible.


----------



## Barry C

I didn't mean to imply in my earlier post that it's home theater ready at this stage, only that it's very interesting. In 10 years, or so, who knows.


----------



## NorthSky

...100 years.

♦ Your previous link is cool, real cool man.  ...Thx a bunch.


----------



## NickTheGreat

Everyone knows that the fourth dimension is time


----------



## Don Landis

NickTheGreat said:


> Everyone knows that the fourth dimension is time


Correct, but in theatrical presentation- 4D represents a presentation that includes feeling, touch, and smell. For example, a 4D theater that Disney defines uses water spray in your face, blasts of air, and odors. Lots of these in use at Disney World. For home theater we have D-Box hydraulics and electromagnetic shake seating.


----------



## NickTheGreat

Don Landis said:


> Correct, but in theatrical presentation- 4D represents a presentation that includes feeling, touch, and smell. For example, a 4D theater that Disney defines uses water spray in your face, blasts of air, and odors. Lots of these in use at Disney World. For home theater we have D-Box hydraulics and electromagnetic shake seating.


And ask my wife, every time we go on one of those rides at Disney, I say the same thing. 

She loves it!


----------



## Rudy1

Barry C said:


> Me too☺
> Take a look at this link. I don't suppose we'll be seeing this in Best Buy for the holidays!
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/07/interactive-holograms-leia-display-system/#continued


I'd say we have a ways to go. I recall as a child reading a Magnus Robot Fighter comic in which the villain projected holograms above the city sky, and everyone was amazed that he was able to do this without some sort of focusing screen...and this was supposedly taking place in the year 4000!


----------



## AllenA07

I recently moved to a 3D projector as my primary display, and I've been much more impressed then I was with my 3DTV. There is something to be said about having the large image. I never got into 3D on my 50in, but I have a lot of how for it on the projector.


----------



## SFMike

*"The Great 3D Fiasco" from Forbes*

Here is an excellent article from Forbes that sums the current situation up well. 
The Great 3D Fiasco


----------



## tgm1024

SFMike said:


> Here is an excellent article from Forbes that sums the current situation up well.
> The Great 3D Fiasco


The Cameron prediction of "roaring back" is I think more correct than incorrect.

I believe that the progression of 3D films followed this chronological course (in general, with of course one particular specific):



Decades of 3D for 3D sake
Avatar
Ill-conceived attempted resurgence of 3D for 3D sake
American public quickly losing interesting in 3D for 3D sake. ("Been there, done that" + yawn)
3D used properly in a way to pull you into the story line. This slowly increases.


----------



## cinema13

SFMike said:


> Here is an excellent article from Forbes that sums the current situation up well.
> The Great 3D Fiasco



Another case of "selective" reporting.

"just 2% of Lego Movie Blu-ray sales were of the 3D version"

Yeah, because it wasn't actually a "3D Version." It was only included as part of a set with stuff like figurines, cards, etc with a MSRP of around $60.00! There was NO seperate 3D or Combo edition for buyers to purchase! So all that means is that consumers didn't want to pay so much for a bunch of toys and junk...and has next-to-nothing to do with 3D. It would have been more telling to state how much, say, GRAVITY sold. But then, that might deflate the argument.


----------



## aaronwt

I'm curious how 3D does look and feel with the UHD TVs. I know with the passive 1080P sets, it's more likely to give me headaches, eystrain and have crosstalk. While 3D from my RP DLP set, with active 3D glasses, doesn't give me headaches or eyestarin. And I've never seen any cross talk on it. Plus there is no 6' minimum distance like with the passive 3D 1080P sets. I can get up close to the DLP screen and still see 3D without issues.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> I'm curious how 3D does look and feel with the UHD TVs. I know with the passive 1080P sets, it's more likely to give me headaches, eystrain and have crosstalk. While 3D from my RP DLP set, with active 3D glasses, doesn't give me headaches or eyestarin. And I've never seen any cross talk on it. Plus there is no 6' minimum distance like with the passive 3D 1080P sets. I can get up close to the DLP screen and still see 3D without issues.


Well I thought that the XBR-65X900A's rendering of 1080p passive was really nice.


----------



## johnny905

aaronwt said:


> I'm curious how 3D does look and feel with the UHD TVs. I know with the passive 1080P sets, it's more likely to give me headaches, eystrain and have crosstalk. While 3D from my RP DLP set, with active 3D glasses, doesn't give me headaches or eyestarin. And I've never seen any cross talk on it. Plus there is no 6' minimum distance like with the passive 3D 1080P sets. I can get up close to the DLP screen and still see 3D without issues.



Here's a great article that touches on your question:
--------------------------------------
*3D Can Be Brilliant - When Hollywood & Your TV Don't Ruin It *

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...e-av-industry-slaughtered-their-own-cash-cow/


----------



## NorthSky

For me now 3D is like Rock n' Roll; it will never die. ...But even more so, it'll get better, and worse too. 
It's just life, it's only rockn'roll.

* Great post just above, Johnny.


----------



## Rudy1

_*EXPERTS PROPOSE A QUALITY STANDARD FOR 3D:*_

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/vi...y-standard-for-3d-say-leading-experts-1272892


----------



## Don Landis

I don't like the idea of a couple of self proclaimed experts declaring what I like and what I don't. Let the public decide what is a great 3D experience. The measurement will not be binary, as in you either got the seal of approval or you didn't. It will be a range of score called profit. If the movie is really bad, it will fail. If it is really good, it will generate profits from box office to disk sales. 

However, I don't mind technical reviews that put a measuring stick on a part of the movie such as a measure of contrast ratio and brightness. Or the range of depth, both positive and negative parallax. Another controversial factor too for 3D is the aspect ratio. I prefer 3D in 16x9 but maybe the "experts" decide movies must be 2.35 AR to rate best in their binary opinion. For 2D I don't mind 2.35 AR. Based on many posts here in the 3D section, I think this is a controversial opinion and many prefer what I do while many others insist on the wider screen for all movies. 

We already have too many movie reviewers in the business. Most of these I can't stand and generally disagree with their personal opinions. Then there are some I enjoy and respect, they are thorough, such as Lee Weber and Ralph Potts. I usually find my assessment after watching matches their evaluation. I can't recall when I thought they miss judged a movie.


----------



## tomtastic

Rudy1 said:


> _*EXPERTS PROPOSE A QUALITY STANDARD FOR 3D:*_
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/us/news/vi...y-standard-for-3d-say-leading-experts-1272892


Always 3D is to blame. People watch Clash of the Titans and that's it for them, 3D is a joke.

I'm in favor of some basic principles of good 3D. No post conversions should be a given, brightness and correct streams for each eye, not switched, the last two more on the theater's end. This could easily be taken too far into the creative realm. Some will say no pop outs, others want it, some don't like extreme parallax, others don't mind it. Right now, most just go for comfortable 3D viewing. It doesn't overwhelm you, it doesn't impress you greatly either, but it'd there.


----------



## tgm1024

I also suspect that if more people had _passive_ 3D that they'd have a better time.

It's an unofficial stat of course, but for all the people I know personally who "can't stand 3D", they've all seen it on an active system only.


----------



## cinema13

Don Landis said:


> If the movie is really bad, it will fail. If it is really good, it will generate profits from box office to disk sales.
> 
> However, I don't mind technical reviews that put a measuring stick on a part of the movie such as a measure of contrast ratio and brightness. Or the range of depth, both positive and negative parallax. Another controversial factor too for 3D is the aspect ratio. I prefer 3D in 16x9 but maybe the "experts" decide movies must be 2.35 AR to rate best in their binary opinion. For 2D I don't mind 2.35 AR. Based on many posts here in the 3D section, I think this is a controversial opinion and many prefer what I do while many others insist on the wider screen for all movies.


16X9 is fine IF the movie is shot that way. But cropping picture information from a widescreen movie just because some people
won't move closer to the screen...yes, some of us are against that. As good a conversion as TITANIC was, losing part of the image during the climactic sinking scenes compromised the experience for me.

And, oh for a world where good movies are always profitable and bad movies are not.


----------



## Barry C

cinema13 said:


> 16X9 is fine IF the movie is shot that way. But cropping picture information from a widescreen movie just because some people
> won't move closer to the screen...yes, some of us are against that. As good a conversion as TITANIC was, losing part of the image during the climactic sinking scenes compromised the experience for me.
> 
> And, oh for a world where good movies are always profitable and bad movies are not.


16X9 for 3D, I'm with Don on that one. However, it should be native at 16X9 and not cropped. That being said, I regularly set my projector to overscan 4 on 2.35 movies and always on 2.40, even though my screen is quite large. Unfortunately, the projector won't allow overscan on 3D only 2D. Sure would have liked that feature for 3D.


----------



## Don Landis

Yes, I should clarify, if the movie was shot with a clear frame of 16x9 and then cropped to 2.35, just to be scope. I don't agree with that at all for 3D. But so many directors shoot and not care to keep the full frame of 16x9 free from mics and lights, that makes the opened matte not possible without cropping the sides and I agree we don't want that.


----------



## NorthSky

3D is certainly not dead; I just recently watched *'How to Train your Dragon 2'* in 3D (2.35:1 aspect ratio), and it was awesome!


----------



## aaronwt

tgm1024 said:


> I also suspect that if more people had _passive_ 3D that they'd have a better time.
> 
> It's an unofficial stat of course, but for all the people I know personally who "can't stand 3D", they've all seen it on an active system only.


I dislike passive 3D at home. It gives me eyestrain and also seems more prone to crosstalk. With active 3D I don't have eyestrain and have never seen cross talk on my DLP set.


----------



## tomtastic

aaronwt said:


> I dislike passive 3D at home. It gives me eyestrain and also seems more prone to crosstalk. With active 3D I don't have eyestrain and have never seen cross talk on my DLP set.


This is why 3D will die, too many differing opinions on how 3D should be done and delivered. 2D simplifies the entertainment industry and it doesn't cause many of the problems that 3D does. It has and will continue to be the main delivery method of motion pictures and television.

3D adds perspective and realism that 2D can't, but it raises the fail rate to another level. Everyone reacts differently to 3D, so naturally many different views on how it should be done. Since there won't ever be common ground on 3D, interest will likely dry up again until there's another tech hurdle reached. Until then we'll each have to enjoy it in the best way we can and hope the producers of 3D share our take on it. For the most part "comfortable" is the trend for 3D.


----------



## NickTheGreat

aaronwt said:


> I dislike passive 3D at home. It gives me eyestrain and also seems more prone to crosstalk. With active 3D I don't have eyestrain and have never seen cross talk on my DLP set.


Agreed. My anecdotal experience is that more people would like 3D if it were active. I've been way more impressed with my 2 active 3D's than the 2 or 3 passive's I seen (not owned).


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> I dislike passive 3D at home. It gives me eyestrain and also seems more prone to crosstalk. With active 3D I don't have eyestrain and have never seen cross talk on my DLP set.


DLP is indeed different...I keep you guys in an entirely different category (lol). I look forward to seeing 3D on one someday (in a home setting), but I haven't yet.


----------



## tomtastic

Passive actually isn't prone to crosstalk where active is, not sure on DLP though.


----------



## eaamon

any death of 3D might be from a lack of good movies to view and I prefer 
the active over passive.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> Passive actually isn't prone to crosstalk


Of course it is. The circular polarizer doesn't remove all reversely polarized light, just most of it. This yields L information leaking through the R lens, and vice versa.

Particularly tough for high contrast situations. Bright white on black, etc.

It's less prone to crosstalk than active LCD, or at least this seems to be the typical consensus.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> Passive actually isn't prone to crosstalk where active is, not sure on DLP though.


??? yes it is. I've seen it on multiple LCD sets with passive glasses. And most importantly on the 47" 3D LCD set I own. I never even knew what it looked like until I got an LCD set. I've never seen it on my DLP set.


----------



## tomtastic

The general consensus around the web is this:

"Crosstalk occurs because of the very precise way in which active 3D TVs work. The TV needs to be perfectly synchronized to the glasses and together they must coordinate at least 60 shutter flickerings each second. With an allowed margin of error this small, it’s easy to see how mistakes can happen, causing crosstalk to occur. Because the technology of passive 3D doesn’t need to be nearly as precise, passive 3D TVs produce far fewer instances of crosstalk."

Then again, I've seen postings where passive is indicated as being more prone to crosstalk. So which is it?

Here's another link that explains it:

http://hifi-writer.com/wpblog/?p=3451

I've actually never seen crosstalk on my passive LCD or at least I haven't had any reason to complain about it.

This article would agree that DLP is far superior than active or passive LCD, because of timing, but no way I'm returning to DLP.


----------



## cinema13

aaronwt said:


> ??? yes it is. I've seen it on multiple LCD sets with passive glasses. And most importantly on the 47" 3D LCD set I own. I never even knew what it looked like until I got an LCD set. I've never seen it on my DLP set.



I have a similar set (LG) and I've yet to see any, except for one title. (DRIVE ANGRY)


----------



## NorthSky

eaamon said:


> any death of 3D might be from a lack of good movies to view and I prefer
> the active over passive.


I'd say mainly money. ...The 3D technology is 'sounds', and only gets better with time; but the masses don't embrace it (buying software). ...The 3D Blu-rays (new releases) are generally expensive, and many people hate wearing 3D sunglasses.


----------



## NorthSky

cinema13 said:


> I have a similar set (LG) and I've yet to see any, except for one title. (*DRIVE ANGRY*)


That's a wild 3D flick.


----------



## cinema13

NorthSky said:


> I'd say mainly money. ...The 3D technology is 'sounds', and only gets better with time; but the masses don't embrace it (buying software). ...The 3D Blu-rays (new releases) are generally expensive, and many people hate wearing 3D sunglasses.


Yet many seem to love wearing sunglasses everywhere else...even in the dark!


----------



## NorthSky

cinema13 said:


> Yet many seem to love wearing sunglasses everywhere else...even in the dark!


That's the "big trouble in little China".  

Nah, it's mainly about money, and downloads. 
That's too bad, because Disney already gave up on us here in North America.  ...Money, it's always about money.


----------



## cakefoo

tomtastic said:


> The general consensus around the web is this:
> 
> "Crosstalk occurs because of the very precise way in which active 3D TVs work. The TV needs to be perfectly synchronized to the glasses and together they must coordinate at least 60 shutter flickerings each second. With an allowed margin of error this small, it’s easy to see how mistakes can happen, causing crosstalk to occur. Because the technology of passive 3D doesn’t need to be nearly as precise, passive 3D TVs produce far fewer instances of crosstalk."
> 
> Then again, I've seen postings where passive is indicated as being more prone to crosstalk. So which is it?
> 
> Here's another link that explains it:
> 
> http://hifi-writer.com/wpblog/?p=3451
> 
> I've actually never seen crosstalk on my passive LCD or at least I haven't had any reason to complain about it.
> 
> This article would agree that DLP is far superior than active or passive LCD, because of timing, but no way I'm returning to DLP.


Passive is ok at eliminating crosstalk, but only on Hollywood movies. If you start getting into IMAX movies with stronger depth and higher contrast, then ghosting is going to get ugly and sad.


----------



## tgm1024

cinema13 said:


> I have a similar set (LG) and I've yet to see any, except for one title. (DRIVE ANGRY)


Guys, crosstalk exists on passive. This is rudimentary stuff.

If you haven't seen it, then you're either absurdly lucky in what you're paying attention to, or you ended up with crazy 100% extinction in your polarized glasses (which isn't possible).


----------



## AllenA07

This weekend I watched How to Train Your Dragon 2. This is our second 3D movie since transition to projection and it really is a night and day difference over the screen. My wife absolutely hated 3D on my TV, the glasses were uncomfortable, the screen was too small, and she seemed to have a lot of problems with cross talk. Since moving to projection I've been very impressed and even my reluctant wife agrees that the 3D experience is vastly improved. The problem, of course, is that if 3D is a product that struggled on TV, I think there are even fewer people who are willing to go to a projection setup.

Long term I see 3D as being a very niche. Most people don't want to invest the money on having 3D in the home, and I think for those reasons it may very well be dead to some degree in the home video market. The movies are still however popular in theaters and I imagine those continue to be produced over the coming years. The big question is going to be if studios continue to put out the 3D Blu-rays to the people who are still buying them. If it doesn't raise costs and it's profitable, I imagine that studios will keep putting the 3D movies out there for us to buy.


----------



## tomtastic

cakefoo said:


> Passive is ok at eliminating crosstalk, but only on Hollywood movies. If you start getting into IMAX movies with stronger depth and higher contrast, then ghosting is going to get ugly and sad.


I wouldn't say that IMAX movies have stronger depth, it depends on camera placement and distance to subject. IMAX films use fixed lenses so in some cases lens placement would be further away if the camera cannot be placed closer to subject and would yield less parallax because of closer lenses. In cases like that IMAX would be less depth than a mirror rig or adjustable parallel rig.

It was suggested that active sets produce less crosstalk than passive, but I just don't see that from what I'm reading, aside from DLP which is better than both.


----------



## jvh4

I often experience cross talk if I go to a RealD 3D theater, and that is passive 3D. On the other hand I can't see any crosstalk on my active DLP projector. My point is, its not as simple as cross talk is a problem of active 3D and not passive 3D.


----------



## Barry C

jvh4 said:


> I often experience cross talk if I go to a RealD 3D theater, and that is passive 3D. On the other hand I can't see any crosstalk on my active DLP projector. My point is, its not as simple as cross talk is a problem of active 3D and not passive 3D.


Agreed. I have constant crosstalk, while editing my own content, on my Asus 27" editing monitor running Nvidia Active 3D Vision & using their glasses. I've learned to ignore this however, in that when watching the same content on my Epson 5020 projector- lcd by the way, I get no crosstalk at all.


----------



## cakefoo

tomtastic said:


> It was suggested that active sets produce less crosstalk than passive, but I just don't see that from what I'm reading, aside from DLP which is better than both.


All anyone said was that passive sets ARE "prone to crosstalk" despite your claims.

And that "general consensus" you posted earlier, google tells me it's from an ebay article?

http://www.ebay.com/gds/What-s-the-...-and-Passive-3D-TVs-/10000000177628064/g.html

You and that eBay writer shouldn't be teaching people about passive vs active until you can get your facts straight.


----------



## NSX1992

I have owned Mitsubishi DLP 72",82" and 92" sets which had no crosstalk. However my current LG 84" 4K passive is the best by far. The 4K eliminates the vertical cut in half vertical resolution problem, is much brighter, no crosstalk and the glasses are light and don't require batteries. 4K is the savior of 3D.


----------



## tomtastic

aaronwt said:


> I dislike passive 3D at home. It gives me eyestrain and also seems more prone to crosstalk. With active 3D I don't have eyestrain and have never seen cross talk on my DLP set.


This is what I was referring to, which according to general consensus around the web and tests, the opposite is true. It's the general nature of active sets to be more prone to crosstalk. Of course this post was comparing DLP, but active LCD vs passive LCD, passive is better with crosstalk.


----------



## tomtastic

cakefoo said:


> All anyone said was that passive sets ARE "prone to crosstalk" despite your claims.
> 
> And that "general consensus" you posted earlier, google tells me it's from an ebay article?
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/gds/What-s-the-...-and-Passive-3D-TVs-/10000000177628064/g.html
> 
> You and that eBay writer shouldn't be teaching people about passive vs active until you can get your facts straight.


Then what are the facts? You seem to know them, so let's hear it. I don't know for a fact which is true, I'm not educating anyone. I just hear a lot of passive is better or active is better. But when I do the research I find that passive LCD is better with crosstalk. Yes, even ebay tells buyers of 3D displays passive is better with crosstalk. So where's the facts that supports active LCD's are better? I've yet to come across any tests that show otherwise, and since I bought a passive display a couple years ago, I've only heard that passive was better with crosstalk, not active, until now that is. I did read that active on plasmas is as good as passive with crosstalk, not LCD though, but that makes sense with refresh time just like DLP.


----------



## ferl

Don Landis said:


> Troll warning!


1 year, 650 posts later and you nailed it.


----------



## NorthSky

I'll be watching this later on (late tonight), in 3D (Blu-ray) :::










♦ Actively.


----------



## cakefoo

ferl said:


> 1 year, 650 posts later and you nailed it.


Do you get the impression that 3D is doing great?


----------



## NorthSky

Don said:


> Troll warning!





ferl said:


> 1 year, 650 posts later and you nailed it.





cakefoo said:


> Do you get the impression that 3D is doing great?


♦ Excellent question.


----------



## ferl

cakefoo said:


> Do you get the impression that 3D is doing great?


Sorry. My post and comment was I'll-conceived. The OP was not trolling. I think I was. I looked at the thread, because I wanted to see what the latest opinions were, and sorted through page after page of unrelated posts. I shouldn't attempt to police topics, but it would be nice to see posts related to the topic. If I was wanting to investigate eye strain or passive vs active, I would never think to look at the "Is 3D dead" topic. I think the topics get muddy with useless posts that only value is to increase ones post count. What someone had for dinner last night or the " I agree" posts, just waste space. Again, my apologies for a post that didn't contribute anything of value to the thread.

That being said, I don't think 3D is near dead, but it's not doing great. I do think there are quite a few movies being done in 3D with this latest attempt to revive the format. What can we or this thread do to help things along. I suppose we could see movies in the theater and buy them when they come out on BluRay. I'm not helping much in that respect. I prefer my home environment for movies and rarely see 3D movies in the theater. I find that I rent more than I buy and that probably doesn't help the cause either. 
For what it's worth, I think it will be around for quite some time. I can't throw around any production numbers or anything that substantiates my opinions, so my post is of little value. It does however add 1 more to my quest for huge post count


----------



## cakefoo

ferl said:


> Sorry. My post and comment was I'll-conceived. The OP was not trolling. I think I was. I looked at the thread, because I wanted to see what the latest opinions were, and sorted through page after page of unrelated posts. I shouldn't attempt to police topics, but it would be nice to see posts related to the topic. If I was wanting to investigate eye strain or passive vs active, I would never think to look at the "Is 3D dead" topic. I think the topics get muddy with useless posts that only value is to increase ones post count. What someone had for dinner last night or the " I agree" posts, just waste space. Again, my apologies for a post that didn't contribute anything of value to the thread.


Discussing crosstalk and eyestrain have more to do with dying 3D than last night's dinner does.



> That being said, I don't think 3D is near dead, but it's not doing great. I do think there are quite a few movies being done in 3D with this latest attempt to revive the format. What can we or this thread do to help things along. I suppose we could see movies in the theater and buy them when they come out on BluRay. I'm not helping much in that respect. I prefer my home environment for movies and rarely see 3D movies in the theater. I find that I rent more than I buy and that probably doesn't help the cause either.


Don't worry, 3D isn't dying because of you or me, it's dying because it requires too much effort to produce, so subpar conversions aren't worth the money to see, and people got sick of the unpredictable quality, sick of the discomfort and image degradation, and sick of the expensive Blu-rays and half-resolution downloadable rentals.


----------



## grubadub

NorthSky said:


> I'll be watching this later on (late tonight), in 3D (Blu-ray) :::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Actively.


let us know what you think


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> I'll be watching this later on (late tonight), in 3D (Blu-ray) :::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Actively.


I can't wait to passively see it. 

BTW, it seems that BB is claiming they have an exclusive on the 3DBD in the states. Is that true?


----------



## cakefoo

tgm1024 said:


> I can't wait to passively see it.
> 
> BTW, it seems that BB is claiming they have an exclusive on the 3DBD in the states. Is that true?


No. Maybe there's something else about BB's edition that's unique, but it's not the 3D.



> Via Anchor Bay, Miramax has given 'Sin City: A Dame to Kill For' a single standard Blu-ray release for both the 3D and 2D versions. *It's impossible to purchase one version without getting the other. *This three-disc combo pack include the bare-bones 3D Blu-ray (BD-50), a 2D Blu-ray (BD-50) with special features, a DVD copy and a code for an Ultraviolet copy. The Blu-ray discs are Region A locked come stacked atop one another on the right inside panel of this eco-Lite Elite keepcase. The DVD copy is housed on the left inside panel. If you purchase this set early on, you'll get a nice glossy embossed and reflective cardboard slip cover along with it. Aside from unskippable Anchor Bay and Weinstein vanity reels, nothing plays before the animated and music-filled main menu.
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/13577/sincityadametokillfor.html


Sure enough, I checked Amazon and even though the don't list the 3D version, a customer image confirms it's included with the 2D Blu-ray.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Sin City: A Dame to Kill For' ... On Blu-ray, and in 3D, of course.*



grubadub said:


> let us know what you think


It was awesome! ...3D wise (10/10), artistic picture quality wise (10/10), and sound mix (audio) quality wise (10/10). 

I was so enthralled that after the "active" 3D show I watched the first one, in 3D (2D-to-3D conversion). 

Story wise? ...What story, it's in 3D man! ...And excellently done. ...Get those 3D sunglasses out, and enjoy the 3D show, even in passive mode.


----------



## tgm1024

cakefoo said:


> No. Maybe there's something else about BB's edition that's unique, but it's not the 3D.


I checked Germany (amazon.fazzerland) and googled around, and looked on blu-ray.com, and AFAICT BB is the only one with the classic full gamut of disks and the hokey UVDC crap.

This one:

   

*New! Frank Miller's Sin City: A Dame To Kill For Steelbook (Blu-ray+DVD+ UV Digital Copy) (Only @ Best Buy) (Blu-ray 3D) (Only @ Best Buy)*

It's at a fairly decent price too!


[MODS: Please allow this link. I kept the price out of it, and it's only to show what may be an exclusive set of discs, as per the discussion].


----------



## NorthSky

ferl said:


> Sorry. My post and comment was I'll-conceived. The OP was not trolling. I think I was. I looked at the thread, because I wanted to see what the latest opinions were, and sorted through page after page of unrelated posts. I shouldn't attempt to police topics, but it would be nice to see posts related to the topic. If I was wanting to investigate eye strain or passive vs active, I would never think to look at the "Is 3D dead" topic. I think the topics get muddy with useless posts that only value is to increase ones post count. What someone had for dinner last night or the " I agree" posts, just waste space. Again, my apologies for a post that didn't contribute anything of value to the thread.
> 
> That being said, I don't think 3D is near dead, but it's not doing great. I do think there are quite a few movies being done in 3D with this latest attempt to revive the format. What can we or this thread do to help things along. I suppose we could see movies in the theater and buy them when they come out on BluRay. I'm not helping much in that respect. I prefer my home environment for movies and rarely see 3D movies in the theater. I find that I rent more than I buy and that probably doesn't help the cause either.
> For what it's worth, I think it will be around for quite some time. I can't throw around any production numbers or anything that substantiates my opinions, so my post is of little value. It does however add 1 more to my quest for huge post count


It don't matter @ all; your question was still 100% appropriate and dead on "3D" topic (telescopic). 

* Did you have a "3D" question?


----------



## NorthSky

tgm1024 said:


> I can't wait to passively see it.
> 
> BTW, it seems that BB is claiming they have an exclusive on the 3DBD in the states. Is that true?


Dunno, from 3D igloo country, me.


----------



## NorthSky

Just get it; it'll show you that 3D is still very alive and well.


----------



## cinema13

tgm1024 said:


> I can't wait to passively see it.
> 
> BTW, it seems that BB is claiming they have an exclusive on the 3DBD in the states. Is that true?


Yes, and so do Target and Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart's is basically DAME 3D packaged with the first film, Best Buy's is a Steelbook, and don't yet know what Target's offering until I pick it up for $18.99!)


----------



## CARTmen

Do you guys usually use 2D to 3D converters? Which is the best in your opinion? 
I know that they are not very good but some of them are good enough for people who really like 3D.


----------



## tgm1024

CARTmen said:


> Do you guys usually use 2D to 3D converters? Which is the best in your opinion?
> I know that they are not very good but some of them are good enough for people who really like 3D.


Speaking for my mid-range $1400 Sony 60R550A, my kids _love_ it. I almost always avoid it, but I have been fascinated at how much it actually does correctly.


----------



## tgm1024

cinema13 said:


> Yes, and so do Target and Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart's is basically DAME 3D packaged with the first film, Best Buy's is a Steelbook, and don't yet know what Target's offering until I pick it up for $18.99!)





cinema13 said:


> Yes, and so do Target and Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart's is basically DAME 3D packaged with the first film, Best Buy's is a Steelbook, and don't yet know what Target's offering until I pick it up for $18.99!)


Wow. Deja-vu.


----------



## NorthSky

CARTmen said:


> Do you guys usually use 2D to 3D converters? Which is the best in your opinion?
> I know that they are not very good but some of them are good enough for people who really like 3D.


For some flicks the 2D -> 3D conversion works pretty good. ...Or from your 3D BD player or from your 3D HDTV or front projector.
Sure, it's not like the real "3D" thing, but still better than those blue & red cardboard glasses from the fifties. 

* I rarely use it myself, but I do occasionally, when I think that a certain 2D Blu-ray film would be interesting to check in 3D conversion.
Some big 3D fans use it much more frequently, like Don Landis I believe. ...I like Don; I learned some good stuff from him, and he is also an inspiration.
...In 3D. 

And Tom (tomtastic) might be into it as well.


----------



## Deja Vu

CARTmen said:


> Do you guys usually use 2D to 3D converters? Which is the best in your opinion?
> I know that they are not very good but some of them are good enough for people who really like 3D.


From best to, well, you know -- not so good.

a) Teranex outboard 3D processor (currently $4,000, was $90,000) -- currently state-of-the -art (amazing on-the-fly conversion -- hard to believe it can be this good -- one of my treasured possessions!);
b) Mits projector (HC7900 and HC8000) built-in (extremely good, especially considering it comes with the projector);
c) PowerDVD 13/14 -- pretty good,but has some issues handling certain types of scenes;
d) 3D Bee (good with some 2D movies, but too many scenes not handled properly;
e) Epson 6020 projector -- built-in (not very good);
f) Epson 6010 (worse than the 6020);
g) Samsung T.V. -- best for the T.V.s I've seen (I've heard that LG has pretty good 2D to 3D conversion);
h) Sony and Panasonic T.V.'s (I haven't seen a recent model so the 2D to 3D conversion may have improved).


----------



## NorthSky

WoW! ...a) Teranex


----------



## tgm1024

Deja Vu said:


> From best to, well, you know -- not so good.
> 
> a) Teranex outboard 3D processor (currently $4,000, was $90,000) -- currently state-of-the -art (amazing on-the-fly conversion -- hard to believe it can be this good -- one of my treasured possessions!);
> b) Mits projector (HC7900 and HC8000) built-in (extremely good, especially considering it comes with the projector);
> c) PowerDVD 13/14 -- pretty good,but has some issues handling certain types of scenes;
> d) 3D Bee (good with some 2D movies, but too many scenes not handled properly;
> e) Epson 6020 projector -- built-in (not very good);
> f) Epson 6010 (worse than the 6020);
> g) Samsung T.V. -- best for the T.V.s I've seen (I've heard that LG has pretty good 2D to 3D conversion);
> h) Sony and Panasonic T.V.'s (I haven't seen a recent model so the 2D to 3D conversion may have improved).


Interesting. You've apparently seen a lot. In your estimation the Sony and Pana TVs are comparable? What visual benchmarks did you use for testing?


----------



## aaronwt

CARTmen said:


> Do you guys usually use 2D to 3D converters? Which is the best in your opinion?
> I know that they are not very good but some of them are good enough for people who really like 3D.


I've done this once for an entire movie. World War Z. And that was only because I was pissed that the extended version was only in 2D. I had only purchased it for the extended version and 3D. But only the theatrical was in 3D. After doing that I swore I would never watch a home converted 3D movie again. It did look fine but nowhere near as good as the actual theatrical presentation in 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

/// And *'World War Z'* in 3D (the real Blu in 3D) is not the best 3D Blu-ray around, and that's for sure (technically 3D picture wise).


----------



## Chere

I have a different perspective about this. My opinion is that the lack of pop outs in the majority of 3D movies has seriously hurt the medium. I don't understand when they started being considered as just a gimmick but because of this no serious filmmaker or director will seriously consider them as part of the 3D experience anymore. I consider myself as much a videophile as anyone here but as soon as I put those glasses on which IS the real gimmick here anyways- I expect to be razzled dazzled. Unfortunately depth just doesn't do it by itself. Good pop outs done the correct way are essential to complete the experience but that is hardly seen anymore.

Sammy's Adventure 1 which is considered by many as one of the finest 3D movies ever is a great example of this and I dare anyone who's seen it to say otherwise  Other than the overly sentimental story line that is. Every person I've shown it to has always been amazed by the 3D quality and are always asking me if there are other movies just like it. There aren't many and even Sammy's 1 is extremely hard to acquire State side. 

Maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in on this cause I for one am at a loss every time my small niece asks if Sammy's 3 is out yet. I wish more directors (other than the very underrated Ben Stassen) would take more chances and push the envelope. I bet they'd be very surprised with the outcome. As it is most consumers today are underwhelmed with 3D and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future...


----------



## NorthSky

What do you think of Sammy's 2 in 3D?


----------



## cakefoo

Chere said:


> I have a different perspective about this. My opinion is that the lack of pop outs in the majority of 3D movies has seriously hurt the medium. I don't understand when they started being considered as just a gimmick but because of this no serious filmmaker or director will seriously consider them as part of the 3D experience anymore.





> I expect to be razzled dazzled. Unfortunately depth just doesn't do it by itself. Good pop outs done the correct way are essential to complete the experience but that is hardly seen anymore.


Avatar
Hugo
Life of Pi
Great Gatsby
Gravity

These are movies that helped remind consumers that 3D can be a fine tool for filmmakers. If we had just 5 or 10 of these per year, 3D would be rocking steady.

But instead we get 30 boob job comic book/action movies.


----------



## Chere

@ Northsky:

Very good overall. Better story line but not as good 3D visuals including the pop outs as Sammy's 1. It's right up there with it though


----------



## Chere

I feel so strongly about this topic that I went ahead and created a separate thread for it. Check it out:

3D Movies With the Most/ Best "Pop Out" Effects


----------



## NorthSky

If only Disney would release more Blu-ray 3D titles here in North America .... Ratatouille, Maleficent, Need For Speed, Frozen, ... and in time with the rest of the 3D world we live in.


----------



## Deja Vu

NorthSky said:


> If only Disney would release more Blu-ray 3D titles here in North America .... Ratatouille, Maleficent, Need For Speed, Frozen, ... and in time with the rest of the 3D world we live in.


What's ironic is that Disney made big push, on behalf of 3D, only a few short years ago. Disney used to advertise all their big 3D releases at the beginning of their blu-Rau movies -- and no doubt persuaded a number of people tho buy in, only to now leave those consumers high and dry. Wait-a-go Disney!


----------



## NickTheGreat

NorthSky said:


> If only Disney would release more Blu-ray 3D titles here in North America .... Ratatouille, Maleficent, Need For Speed, Frozen, ... and in time with the rest of the 3D world we live in.


THIS


----------



## 3DBob

www.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com has most of them for rent or buy. I'm assuming if you buy, it stays in your media inbox forever. You can stream these through any PS4 or Sony bluray player.


----------



## cinema13

3DBob said:


> www.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com has most of them for rent or buy. I'm assuming if you buy, it stays in your media inbox forever. You can stream these through any PS4 or Sony bluray player.


Except that is not ownership. And, as I (and others) have occasionally shared, things can "disappear" at the whim of a corporate change. Some people don't want to pay high prices for a compromised (especially audio) version of a movie they like that may be just temporary storage.


----------



## NorthSky

Deja Vu said:


> What's ironic is that Disney made big push, on behalf of 3D, only a few short years ago. Disney used to advertise all their big 3D releases at the beginning of their blu-Rau movies -- and no doubt persuaded a number of people tho buy in, only to now leave those consumers high and dry. Wait-a-go Disney!


Exactemente; that is totally correct what you just mentioned above.


----------



## aaronwt

Chere said:


> I have a different perspective about this. My opinion is that the lack of pop outs in the majority of 3D movies has seriously hurt the medium. I don't understand when they started being considered as just a gimmick but because of this no serious filmmaker or director will seriously consider them as part of the 3D experience anymore. I consider myself as much a videophile as anyone here but as soon as I put those glasses on which IS the real gimmick here anyways- I expect to be razzled dazzled. Unfortunately depth just doesn't do it by itself. Good pop outs done the correct way are essential to complete the experience but that is hardly seen anymore.
> 
> Sammy's Adventure 1 which is considered by many as one of the finest 3D movies ever is a great example of this and I dare anyone who's seen it to say otherwise  Other than the overly sentimental story line that is. Every person I've shown it to has always been amazed by the 3D quality and are always asking me if there are other movies just like it. There aren't many and even Sammy's 1 is extremely hard to acquire State side.
> 
> Maybe someone with more knowledge can chime in on this cause I for one am at a loss every time my small niece asks if Sammy's 3 is out yet. I wish more directors (other than the very underrated Ben Stassen) would take more chances and push the envelope. I bet they'd be very surprised with the outcome. As it is most consumers today are underwhelmed with 3D and will probably continue to be for the foreseeable future...


I'm not a fan of a bunch of "pop out" in a 3D movie. maybe a little here and there but not a bunch. For me just having the added depth is what I really like about the 3D. And even when there is "pop out" I can't say I've ever felt like I needed to duck or it was coming way out of the screen. This is at the theater and and home.


----------



## NorthSky

I consider myself as a person of taste, artistic flair, and in that regard I agree with what the poster above me just said.


----------



## Chere

aaronwt said:


> I'm not a fan of a bunch of "pop out" in a 3D movie. maybe a little here and there but not a bunch. For me just having the added depth is what I really like about the 3D. And even when there is "pop out" I can't say I've ever felt like I needed to duck or it was coming way out of the screen. This is at the theater and and home.



I understand but done correctly it can improve the experience. Have you seen Sammy's Adventure's 1? That movie is a perfect example of using pop outs which leads to a fantastic overall 3D movie experience. A combination of pop outs + depth = true immersion in my opinion but I understand many others feel differently which is fine. Obviously those people are winning 

I can't tell you the number of times I've been at movie theaters and heard people say: "Well that sucked. Maybe my glasses weren't working cause nothing floated/ came out of the screen" and so forth.....


----------



## Don Landis

aaronwt said:


> I'm not a fan of a bunch of "pop out" in a 3D movie. maybe a little here and there but not a bunch. For me just having the added depth is what I really like about the 3D. And even when there is "pop out" I can't say I've ever felt like I needed to duck or it was coming way out of the screen. This is at the theater and and home.


3D means an added z axis of dimension to the scene. If the scene limits to only scenery behind the screen plane then it is missing half of what the real world offers when you see in 3D. It would be like seeing color but with no reds. 

I give any movie a thumbs up if it has a good balance of both ranges of depth in front of the screen plane and behind the screen plane. What I consider in poor taste, is when we get that poke you in the face with a spear scene that is obviously done as a gimmick for the sake of demonstrating, Look ma, this is in 3D!

Hercules 3D had a very nice distribution of full range 3D and it also had a few of those gimmick scenes too. To those who actually saw the movie and felt it was flat, maybe you need to see what's wrong with your 3D monitor or get an eye exam.


----------



## Don Landis

NorthSky said:


> *I consider myself as a person of taste, artistic flair*, and in that regard I agree with what the poster above me just said.


Interesting, with that said, I would consider that statement of narcissism.


----------



## Barry C

The screen, in my humble opinion, should not be some sort of artificial sacred barrier where content should be restricted to only the back side. I agree with the above poster that most of the general public likes, and expects, to see 3D in this manner and are disappointed if they don't. Negative parallax- or pop outs if you will- should be done tastefully, but it should be done and not shunned.  In my own content, I strive to do it this way whenever possible.


----------



## NorthSky

Don Landis said:


> Interesting, with that said, I would consider that statement of narcissism.


Erotic interest in real life women, yes that's 3D me.


----------



## cakefoo

Chere said:


> I understand but done correctly it can improve the experience. Have you seen Sammy's Adventure's 1? That movie is a perfect example of using pop outs which leads to a fantastic overall 3D movie experience. A combination of pop outs + depth = true immersion in my opinion but I understand many others feel differently which is fine. Obviously those people are winning
> 
> I can't tell you the number of times I've been at movie theaters and heard people say: "Well that sucked. Maybe my glasses weren't working cause nothing floated/ came out of the screen" and so forth.....


Popout is not the end all, be all.

Avatar was the first movie to make people re-think their hatred for 3D. Then Hugo, Life of Pi, and Gravity.

Consumers want phenomenal art direction and camera work that swallows them up in both the story and visuals, seamlessly.

These are the only kinds of movies capable of maintaining a positive public perception of 3D in a dignified way.


----------



## NODES

cakefoo said:


> Popout is not the end all, be all.
> 
> Avatar was the first movie to make people re-think their hatred for 3D. Then Hugo, Life of Pi, and Gravity.
> 
> Consumers want phenomenal art direction and camera work that swallows them up in both the story and visuals, seamlessly.
> 
> These are the only kinds of movies capable of maintaining a positive public perception of 3D in a dignified way.



You mean I have to watch Life of Pi?


----------



## cakefoo

NODES said:


> You mean I have to watch Life of Pi?


No, what ever gave you that idea


----------



## NODES

cakefoo said:


> No, what ever gave you that idea



I am all for good looking 3D...if it is on par with gravity and Avatar then it is a MUST!


----------



## Barry C

cakefoo said:


> Popout is not the end all, be all.
> 
> 
> Consumers want phenomenal art direction and camera work that swallows them up in both the story and visuals, seamlessly.


I agree, but would add that they want to see all of the above on the front side of the screen as well as behind it.


----------



## cakefoo

NODES said:


> I am all for good looking 3D...if it is on par with gravity and Avatar then it is a MUST!


I don't recall anyone ever hating on Life of Pi's 3D, but there are some people who didn't like the story itself. I don't think I could ever recommend anyone see a movie they don't want to see, just because the 3D's good. But if you like 3D for 3D's sake, then by all means, see it-- you will not be disappointed


----------



## cakefoo

Barry C said:


> I agree, but would add that they want to see all of the above on the front side of the screen as well as behind it.


There has never been to my knowledge a movie that confirms that claim.


----------



## Toe

Chere said:


> I understand but done correctly it can improve the experience. Have you seen Sammy's Adventure's 1? That movie is a perfect example of using pop outs which leads to a fantastic overall 3D movie experience. A combination of pop outs + depth = true immersion in my opinion but I understand many others feel differently which is fine. Obviously those people are winning
> 
> I can't tell you the number of times I've been at movie theaters and heard people say: "Well that sucked. Maybe my glasses weren't working cause nothing floated/ came out of the screen" and so forth.....


Agreed. Nothing worse than conservative 3d where you feel like you might not even need the glasses. What many call natural, I would call conservative and there is a fine line between the two. Conservative 3d IMO is what has hurt the general public perspective on 3d.


----------



## Don Landis

cakefoo said:


> There has never been to my knowledge a movie that confirms that claim.


I agree with Barry but I do believe this would not be a movie but rather a survey of viewers. I'm pretty sure most people ( not this group of enthusiasts) still need a lot of 3D surprise impressions or they will feel cheated. Personally, I prefer all my 3D movies make good use of the entire volume of viewing space in a tasteful way. Something like Shark Boy and Lavagirl is expected to have goofy popout because it is a goofy movie. Life of Pi, was a good story for me and it had good 3D. But it was not a movie I place on top of my list of demo material. This past year, most of the 3D movies I saw were quite good. Easier to list the bad ones, most recent bad 3D movie was Nurse. Technical aspects of the 3D was OK but the story was just awful. 

I saw Big Hero 6 last week and when that one is out, you all will enjoy it. I wasn't sure I would like it but right away, I got into the story and the 3D was not disappointing.


----------



## tgm1024

Don Landis said:


> 3D means an added z axis of dimension to the scene. If the scene limits to only scenery behind the screen plane then it is missing half of what the real world offers when you see in 3D.


Not half, no. I sit ~12 feet back from my TV. More than half my world is 12 feet further away.

And it's more about what's distracting and comfortable for the eyes. I really do believe that pop-out yields far more keystone distortion, and for whatever other reason is much less comfortable for me to watch.

AND it pulls the story visually _out into my living room_ which is not where I want the story to be, because then suddenly I'm aware of the 3D.

I like some pop-out, but only when a lack of it would become more distracting. The floating seeds in Avatar are a perfect example of this. Had that remained behind the facing plane, the positive parallax would not have appeared as natural because there just isn't enough Z between it and the characters to allow for that sceen. It would have seemed oddly compressed.

But "half" isn't the term to use here. I want far _more_ than half of the screen 3D world in positive.


----------



## tgm1024

Toe said:


> Agreed. Nothing worse than conservative 3d where you feel like you might not even need the glasses. What many call natural, I would call conservative and there is a fine line between the two. Conservative 3d IMO is what has hurt the general public perspective on 3d.


_Completely _the opposite. 3D became of interest again because Cameron presented it in a way that didn't make the audience wince. (Outside of my sister in law who spend 25 minutes in the bathroom puking).

But we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because you and I are fairly entrenched on this.


----------



## tgm1024

Don Landis said:


> I saw Big Hero 6 last week and when that one is out, you all will enjoy it. I wasn't sure I would like it but right away, I got into the story and the 3D was not disappointing.


I absolutely adored that movie. A perfect blend of the best of Manga and pixar-style movie making, and remained squarely "safe" for kids. And adults.

And my impressions are from the 2D I saw. I am glad to hear that the 3D is good too. I can't wait to buy it.


----------



## Barry C

What we need here is for Gallup to stop doing mundane stuff like politics and get busy on this one.


----------



## cinema13

tgm1024 said:


> I absolutely adored that movie. A perfect blend of the best of Manga and pixar-style movie making, and remained squarely "safe" for kids. And adults.
> 
> And my impressions are from the 2D I saw. I am glad to hear that the 3D is good too. I can't wait to buy it.


Well, as you know, you won't be permitted to buy it on 3D disc in the U.S. You may not even be allowed to import it as Disney has started region-locking (as they've done with RATATOUILLE). You would then either have to buy a Region-Free player or purchase a digital version if you wish to see it in 3D.


----------



## Toe

tgm1024 said:


> _Completely _the opposite. 3D became of interest again because Cameron presented it in a way that didn't make the audience wince. (Outside of my sister in law who spend 25 minutes in the bathroom puking).
> 
> But we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because you and I are fairly entrenched on this.



We already established a while back that you and I don't agree on 3d in general, so not sure why you are trying to pick an argument.  Needless to say, I don't agree with you.


----------



## tgm1024

You make a statement to everyone, and I show the opposing view. That's what a forum is all about. There's more involved here than you and me.


----------



## tgm1024

cinema13 said:


> Well, as you know, you won't be permitted to buy it on 3D disc in the U.S. You may not even be allowed to import it as Disney has started region-locking (as they've done with RATATOUILLE). You would then either have to buy a Region-Free player or purchase a digital version if you wish to see it in 3D.


Yep, I assumed as much, but I've had great luck so far buying overseas. I just am so disheartened at the pricing!


----------



## Toe

tgm1024 said:


> You make a statement to everyone, and I show the opposing view. That's what a forum is all about. There's more involved here than you and me.


BS.  You were just looking to stir the pot between us. You could have stated your opinion just fine without quoting me in light of our history. At least have the decency to call it like it is. Whatever


----------



## dudae

The problem is not enough sports was in 3d. ESPN had a token amount of games on but they needed the networks to do the NFL in 3d.


----------



## NorthSky

All the news and sports on TV, should be in 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

cinema13 said:


> Well, as you know, you won't be permitted to buy it on 3D disc in the U.S. You may not even be allowed to import it as Disney has started region-locking (as they've done with RATATOUILLE). You would then either have to buy a Region-Free player or purchase a digital version if you wish to see it in 3D.


I play my 3D Ratatouille from my server on my media player. If this movie is the same way and region locked I'll purchase it from Amazon UK, like Ratatouille, and rip it to an ISO on my servers, to watch it in 3D from my media players.


----------



## aaronwt

dudae said:


> The problem is not enough sports was in 3d. ESPN had a token amount of games on but they needed the networks to do the NFL in 3d.


It wouldn't have made any difference. The vast majority of people don't like wearing the glasses for 3D. For me, I don't mind wearing the glasses for a movie here and there. But I wouldn't want to wear them all the time to watch content.


----------



## Don Landis

tgm1024 said:


> Not half, no. I sit ~12 feet back from my TV. More than half my world is 12 feet further away.
> 
> *From a linear measurement perspective, I agree and stand corrected. *
> 
> And it's more about what's distracting and _comfortable_ for the eyes. I really do believe that pop-out yields far more keystone distortion, and for whatever other reason is much less comfortable for me to watch.
> 
> *I have no problem with the 3D comfort zone of negative parallax. You just may not be as comfortable watching 3D with your present monitor. Your monitor and your vision may not be a good match. *
> 
> 
> AND it pulls the story visually _out into my living room_ which is not where I want the story to be, because then suddenly I'm aware of the 3D.
> 
> *Again, I believe this is a symptom of an improper 3D stereographic environment, your monitor, viewing room and your vision may all be a cause of this problem.**
> 
> I like some pop-out, but only when a lack of it would become more distracting. The floating seeds in Avatar are a perfect example of this. Had that remained behind the facing plane, the positive parallax would not have appeared as natural because there just isn't enough Z between it and the characters to allow for that sceen. It would have seemed oddly compressed.
> 
> But "half" isn't the term to use here. I want far _more_ than half of the screen 3D world in positive.
> 
> *Again, we agree when considering the linear measurement of distance on the Z axis. However, in a good stereographic 3D theater, you should not be aware of a screen plane at all. *



* Let me offer some suggestions to help you figure out what the problem is here. In the most ideal stereographic viewing environment you want the monitor to be invisible. The scene should begin from just in front of your eyes to infinity well beyond your room depth. BUT if the viewing is ideal you will not see the room at all. You may even eliminate edge violations although this is the most challenging task in viewing perfection. I can set this up in my HT by doing the following:

I use my front seating which has one sweet spot located at the apex of an equilateral triangle where the base of the triangle is the width of my screen. The screen is then masked with flat black to the edges of the 2D picture. At this point my vision is nearly filled with the movie scene, looking at the screen center. The room is completely dark. The floor in front of the screen is a flat black carpet for full screen light absorbency. Essentially the only light I see is the image from the movie. The screen just disappears and I have a natural full volume of story in front of me. 

In my edit room I have a small LCD screen and it is not masked for perfect stereo viewing, but as an editor, I'm more concerned with technical aspects of the story in 3D such as occlusion, ghosting, horizontal disparity, vertical left right alignment, and many additional 2D aspects. When I get that all right, I take the movie to my home theater with the projector and view it for a final screening and make notes. 

Most people I know who have 3D tv's have it set up and watch as a simple 2D TV set in a room. 



So, do I always watch with all these setup's for a near perfect environment? Heck no! It takes a lot of work. I have most of it available if I want to go to the trouble. I last did it for Hercules 3D since my first viewing was like looking at a TV set. I saw some really good composition, so I stopped the movie a third of the way and calibrated the theater for a better stereographic environment. Then cranked up the sound and watched from the beginning. It was like being there! I lost the idea I was watching a movie in 3D. Even when the spear was thrust in my face it seemed like it was really there, in front of my face. But most of my viewing is from 18 ft away and like a TV set. If, I'm surfing around screening 3D stuff, like on Netflix of the 2 minute VUDU previews, I will view it like a 3D TV set. I watch very few movies with the special setup. before Hercules, I recall Maleficent was done this way, before that Godzilla and transformers 4.


----------



## Don Landis

aaronwt said:


> I play my 3D Ratatouille from my server on my media player. If this movie is the same way and region locked I'll purchase it from Amazon UK, like Ratatouille, and rip it to an ISO on my servers, to watch it in 3D from my media players.


I haven't tested this but from what I've read, I could buy a B region restricted copy of a 3D movie and then rip it using DVD Fab, strip the region code and have an iso that could be burned to a BD-R. Now my copy of DVD Fab is quite old and I got a news mail last Spring informing me that they can no longer sell encrytion decoding software in the US due to copyright ruling. Even still, if it was still available, it would seem to me to be far more expensive than adding the chip to many of the players to make them region free than buying the ripping software and burning a disk. The iso file only cuts the BD-R cost. 

I render all my own productions to iso using an old copy of DVD-FAB and play on a protected OPPO player that plays 3D iso files. Even this is no longer available. 

I would be curious as to what media player you have that does 3D iso playback. BTW- I also have a HiMedia player here in the edit suite and it works but only for the main movie. It does not play a complete menu driven iso disk rip. I cannot review my menu driven content unless I haul the iso file down to the OPPO in the Theater.


----------



## soupcxan

The sooner 3D dies, the better. Good riddance.


----------



## Don Landis

soupcxan said:


> The sooner 3D dies, the better. Good riddance.


If you're looking for someone to poke one of your eyes out, you've come to the right place.


----------



## jayteez

why all the 3d hate?


----------



## aaronwt

Don Landis said:


> I haven't tested this but from what I've read, I could buy a B region restricted copy of a 3D movie and then rip it using DVD Fab, strip the region code and have an iso that could be burned to a BD-R. Now my copy of DVD Fab is quite old and I got a news mail last Spring informing me that they can no longer sell encrytion decoding software in the US due to copyright ruling. Even still, if it was still available, it would seem to me to be far more expensive than adding the chip to many of the players to make them region free than buying the ripping software and burning a disk. The iso file only cuts the BD-R cost.
> 
> I render all my own productions to iso using an old copy of DVD-FAB and play on a protected OPPO player that plays 3D iso files. Even this is no longer available.
> 
> I would be curious as to what media player you have that does 3D iso playback. BTW- I also have a HiMedia player here in the edit suite and it works but only for the main movie. It does not play a complete menu driven iso disk rip. I cannot review my menu driven content unless I haul the iso file down to the OPPO in the Theater.


I have a couple of the Popcorn Hour A400 media players for BD ISO 2D and 3D playback. I've been using them for a couple of years now. For BD ISO 2D playback with full menus I use a PCH C200 I've been using for around five years now.


----------



## tgm1024

Toe said:


> BS.  You were just looking to stir the pot between us. You could have stated your opinion just fine without quoting me in light of our history. At least have the decency to call it like it is. Whatever


Decency? That's a joke, right? I was merely adressing what you said. You don't want to be quoted? *Then don't post anything. * I wasn't insulting you in that post. YOU were (and are) throwing insults and being otherwise cantankerous. Get that straight first, and _then_ report back.


----------



## soupcxan

jayteez said:


> why all the 3d hate?


It's just a gimmick I don't want to pay for since I'm not going to use it. I also think plasmas are super-overrated here so maybe I just don't like sacred cows.


----------



## jayteez

soupcxan said:


> It's just a gimmick I don't want to pay for since I'm not going to use it. I also think plasmas are super-overrated here so maybe I just don't like sacred cows.


3d is a gimmick..oh ok... got ya.


----------



## soupcxan

jayteez said:


> 3d is a gimmick..oh ok... got ya.


Check the history of 3D going back to the cinemas in the 1960s...it has always been a gimmick, first to sell tickets and then to sell new TV sets...


----------



## jayteez

soupcxan said:


> Check the history of 3D going back to the cinemas in the 1960s...it has always been a gimmick, first to sell tickets and then to sell new TV sets...


hold on, let me write this down.. 

cinemas
1960's
tickets..

ok, got ya.


----------



## tgm1024

Lol!


----------



## Toe

tgm1024 said:


> Decency? That's a joke, right? I was merely adressing what you said. You don't want to be quoted? *Then don't post anything. * I wasn't insulting you in that post. YOU were (and are) throwing insults and being otherwise cantankerous. Get that straight first, and _then_ report back.


LMAO......you are a piece of work.  You knew exactly what you were doing and what would happen. Like I said, whatever. Thumbs up.


----------



## tgm1024

Toe said:


> LMAO......you are a piece of work.  You knew exactly what you were doing and what would happen. Like I said, whatever. Thumbs up.



Uh huh. You going ballistic was all my doing. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.


----------



## NorthSky

soupcxan said:


> The sooner 3D dies, the better. Good riddance.





Don Landis said:


> If you're looking for someone to poke one of your eyes out, you've come to the right place.


Best one today.


----------



## shiftline

My new tv supports dual play (in a game each person only sees one eye and gets a full screen) best use for 3d yet!


----------



## Don Landis

aaronwt said:


> I have a couple of the Popcorn Hour A400 media players for BD ISO 2D and 3D playback. I've been using them for a couple of years now. For BD ISO 2D playback with full menus I use a PCH C200 I've been using for around five years now.


When I went shopping for a media player, Popcorn Hour didn't do 3D. I got the only one at the time that did which was the Himedia HD900B. Later there was one other device but it offered about the same feature set with different appearance.

To my understanding the licensing was a problem and no chip maker for these devices had a license to play the 3D content from an iso file of the disk structure. So what they did to get around that was to make their own chip embedded menu to offer limited navigation of the main movie file but ignore the disk menu and features. The only box that actually did the entire BD 3D structure was the OPPO BD93, but OPPO got an order to undo the feature with a firmware update sent to all Players. I found out about this as did many others and pulled my OPPO BD93 off line. It still can play full featured iso files with any menu I build for my content. If I ever plugged the Oppo into the internet again, that feature would be erased. 

Thanks for the info on the A400. I'll have to update my knowledge base on the features of that model. While I doubt PCH got a license to do what my OPPO does, if they have somehow worked around that, it would be nice to get one here to replace my HiMedia box in the edit suite.


----------



## NorthSky

I've read somewhere before that some HDTVs allow you to have some viewers watch a flick in 3D while other viewers watch it in 2D; the same flick @ the same time! 

Wow, now everybody's happy.


----------



## Don Landis

shiftline said:


> My new tv supports dual play (in a game each person only sees one eye and gets a full screen) best use for 3d yet!


That's not 3D. That's "split vision" and Samsung demoed a prototype TV last year at CES that did the same thing, allowing two people to watch two different shows on one TV in the same room with their split program 4K TV. Each program was only 2K resolution. The special glasses had the sound transmitted to ear phones that fit in your ears like glasses with hearing aids. Buttons on the glasses allowed for channel switching as well as channel swapping, sound volume, and mute.


----------



## Don Landis

NorthSky said:


> I've read somewhere before that some HDTVs allow you to have some viewers watch a flick in 3D while other viewers watch it in 2D; the same flick @ the same time!
> 
> Wow, now everybody's happy.


That's easy to do with any 3DTV now. Just cover one eye while wearing the glasses. You didn't know that?


----------



## shiftline

Lg calls it dual play. But yes it's half the screen scales to fit the full screen. Still a cool feature for a multi player game


----------



## NorthSky

Don Landis said:


> That's easy to do with any 3DTV now. Just cover one eye while wearing the glasses. You didn't know that?





shiftline said:


> Lg calls it dual play. But yes it's half the screen scales to fit the full screen. Still a cool feature for a multi player game


Don, this guy just above (shiftline) seems to know what I'm talkin' 'bout.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> I've read somewhere before that some HDTVs allow you to have some viewers watch a flick in 3D while other viewers watch it in 2D; the same flick @ the same time!
> 
> Wow, now everybody's happy.


I doubt anyone would be happy they have to wear glasses to watch 2D...


Don Landis said:


> That's easy to do with any 3DTV now. Just cover one eye while wearing the glasses. You didn't know that?


You don't actually believe that's a good idea, do you?


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> I doubt anyone would be happy they have to wear glasses to watch 2D...


No, only the people who love 3D wear 3D glasses; the 2D lovers don't have to wear glasses @ all. 
That is the real beauty of it; and all together in the same room watching the same film @ the same time.



> You don't actually believe that's a good idea, do you?


Don was only kidding.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> No, only the people who love 3D wear 3D glasses; the 2D lovers don't have to wear glasses @ all.


Except you don't know what you're talking about. And I don't think Don was kidding.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> Except you don't know what you're talking about. And I don't think Don was kidding.


Maybe you're right, maybe I have read it wrong, and 2D people have to wear glasses too.

And if Don wasn't kidding, then ....

* Let me find that link for you, and Don can take care of the rest ....


----------



## NorthSky

♦ www.extremetech.com/extreme/161311-...ts-watchable-without-glasses-without-ghosting

♦ http://gizmodo.com/this-screen-can-display-2d-and-3d-images-at-the-same-ti-1469626806


----------



## Toe

NorthSky said:


> No, only the people who love 3D wear 3D glasses; the 2D lovers don't have to wear glasses @ all.
> That is the real beauty of it; and all together in the same room watching the same film @ the same time.
> 
> 
> 
> Don was only kidding.


Everyone has to wear glasses in that case. The people who want to watch in 2d just make an adjustment on the glasses which will give you the 2d.


----------



## Don Landis

I wasn't kidding! Nobody can see 3D with only one eye. Try it! If you have a 3D program on your screen the image will appear like double superimposed without glasses. If you wear 3D glasses and cover one eye, you will just see the one image and 2D only. 

For example- let's say I decide to show a 3D movie for a bunch of friends and one of them hates 3D, claims it makes him sick. So I go to my drawer where I keep my extra 3D glasses and pull out an eye patch for him to wear while also wearing the 3D glasses. Now everyone is happy! OK in this paragraph I am indeed kidding! First of all I don't have any friends who hate 3D.  Second, if one of my friends told me they hated 3D, they would not be invited to my house ever again. 




> *only the people who love 3D wear 3D glasses; the 2D lovers don't have to wear glasses @ all*.
> That is the real beauty of it; and all together in the same room watching the same film @ the same time.


*I can't imagine how this can work, from a technical perspective.* 3D program is either split screen, such as T/B or SBS; or, it is two images superimposed. Unless you wear glasses for the double image you will see both. In the split screen, the TV must convert the split image to a double full screen image for the glasses to work. This is the same whether active or passive. This is really basic 3D IQ guys!

Note, a less popular form of 3D is Line interleave ( or Line alternate) which allows a 3D passive to auto switch between 2D and 3D without the need to manually switch. But this requires the source to output this format and when the source is 3D it still will display the double image. I use this Line interleave format in the edit suite so I don't need to be constantly manually switching my screen from SBS to 2D repeatedly.


----------



## Don Landis

NorthSky said:


> ♦ www.extremetech.com/extreme/161311-...ts-watchable-without-glasses-without-ghosting
> 
> ♦ http://gizmodo.com/this-screen-can-display-2d-and-3d-images-at-the-same-ti-1469626806


OK- I see what they are doing. Good example of how bad the 2D image is without glasses. It's a proof of concept, technically, but it appears this 2013 technology ran up against a wall because positive-negative image cancellation can only achieve so much and the quality loss is really dramatic. Many people now claim 3D reduces brightness and contrast too much from a high quality 2D. Here the 3D looks to be almost as good as a normal 3D passive, but the right eye contrast has to be reduced by 50%. Then those not wearing glasses will see the 2D image at nearly 95% reduction in brightness and contrast. 

Some ideas are at best a proof of concept, and then they run into a technological wall that limits the development further. Their experimental prototype compared the most contrasting images, black and white. Can you imaging how muddy the image would get with 33 million colors on the screen? You might only see a vague outline of shadow on a brown screen. 

Another issue I see is the wall they run into is one of simple color physics:

Their Black White experiment can be the best case because it is two primary shades of gray that can cancel with mathematical precision. ( assuming the viewer's eyes are of equal receptivity) But in the case of color, the primaries are not binary. The primary colors are 3, red, blue, and green. Therefore to produce a cancellation of one primary color, you need to counter that with a secondary color made up of two primaries. This primary cancelled by two secondary colors can escalate geometrically as we approach the millions of colors needing cancellation in that third channel the article describes. This will produce an imperfect cancellation, due to odd order color harmonics resulting in my wall that can't be breached. Project over!


Thank's Northstar for the reference it was a fascinating read. Too bad the idea is like perpetual motion and suffers basic physics limitations.


----------



## marcuslaw

Not dead for me. 156 BR 3D titles and counting. My family loves it.


----------



## marcuslaw

BTW. I don't know if it's been discussed in this thread before, but Dr. Raymond M. Soneira's 3D TV Display Technology Shoot-Out came down pretty hard on active shutter tech.


----------



## dhvsfan

marcuslaw said:


> Not dead for me. 156 BR 3D titles and counting. My family loves it.


Me neither. 55 3D Movies and 4 PS3 Games. 3D is dead on PS3 games though


----------



## EVERRET

marcuslaw said:


> BTW. I don't know if it's been discussed in this thread before, but Dr. Raymond M. Soneira's 3D TV Display Technology Shoot-Out came down pretty hard on active shutter tech.


He used Lower quality TV sets :

It was noted in TV forums back in 2011-2012 that some of the lower level TV sets were not even showing true HD3D 

*The 3D TV Models*
Samsung UN46D7000L $1900 – Active Glasses not included – $250 extra for 2 pairs.
LED Backlight with 240 Hz Refresh Rate.
Additional Samsung glasses range from $50 to $150 per pair. We selected the two top models.
Total price for the Samsung TV and 4 pairs of 3D Glasses is $2150.
Note that Samsung sometimes runs a promotion that includes 2 free pairs of their $50 glasses.

Sony KDL-46HX729 $1650 – Active Glasses not included – $140 extra for 2 pairs.
LED Backlight with 240 Hz Refresh Rate.
Additional Sony glasses are $70 per pair or $140 for 2 pairs.
Total price for the Sony TV and 4 pairs of 3D Glasses is $1930.

LG 47LW6500 $1710 – FPR Passive Glasses included – 4 pairs with TV.
LED Backlight with 240 Hz Refresh Rate.
Additional LG glasses are $25 for 2 pairs.
Clip-On Passive Lenses for prescription glasses are $20 per pair.
Glasses are interchangeable with Vizio FPR and Real D movie glasses.
Total price for the LG TV and 4 pairs of 3D Glasses is $1710.

Vizio E3D470VX $898 – FPR Passive Glasses included – 2 pairs with TV.
CCFL Fluorescent Backlight with 120 Hz Refresh Rate.
Additional Vizio glasses are $26 per pair or $45 for 2 pairs.
Glasses are interchangeable with LG FPR and Real D movie glasses.
Total price for the Vizio TV and 4 pairs of 3D Glasses is $943.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> Not dead for me. 156 BR 3D titles and counting. My family loves it.


Did you buy all those (vs. downloading pirated data)? If you bought that many, then man oh MAN did you spend a lot of money!


----------



## marcuslaw

tgm1024 said:


> Did you buy all those (vs. downloading pirated data)? If you bought that many, then man oh MAN did you spend a lot of money!


I bought each and every one and have been collecting them for years; heck, almost as soon as they first came on the market. Generally I aim for the $19.99 to $24.99 price range though I will make exceptions for OOP films like Beauty and the Beast or if means paying a few dollars more in order to get a copy with a lenticular cover. It's possible to really expand your 3D library without breaking the bank by buying through eBay, amazon market place sellers (though less frequently), and just watching deals pop up on blu-ray.com (3D Blu-ray Deals page).


----------



## Potatogod93

I didn't even think there was that many 3d blu's out.


----------



## cinema13

Potatogod93 said:


> I didn't even think there was that many 3d blu's out.


There are hundreds! (And that's not even counting titles that are released on 3D Blu overseas, such as NOAH, BEOWULF, RATATOUILLE, and Joe Dante's THE HOLE.) Wanna guess how many 4K UHD discs there are? None. Yet those TV sets are what the industry is pushing this years...even though there is nothing in 4K to watch on them! (Yet I bet most consumers won't even notice the difference.)

I personally own about 60 3D discs, but I also rent discs from 3D Blu-Ray Rental. Not everything is worth a purchase!


----------



## Don Landis

I have over 90 3D BD and Vudu titles now but I've rented many titles too as I couldn't justify the purchase. Probably about 6 I rented and wanted to watch again so I just bought. I have to admit, though, buying for a one time watch is about the same out of pocket as going to the theater. The one thing I don't do, is buy 2D disks. I'll rent from Red Box or just not watch it.


----------



## aaronwt

Don Landis said:


> When I went shopping for a media player, Popcorn Hour didn't do 3D. I got the only one at the time that did which was the Himedia HD900B. Later there was one other device but it offered about the same feature set with different appearance.
> 
> To my understanding the licensing was a problem and no chip maker for these devices had a license to play the 3D content from an iso file of the disk structure. So what they did to get around that was to make their own chip embedded menu to offer limited navigation of the main movie file but ignore the disk menu and features. The only box that actually did the entire BD 3D structure was the OPPO BD93, but OPPO got an order to undo the feature with a firmware update sent to all Players. I found out about this as did many others and pulled my OPPO BD93 off line. It still can play full featured iso files with any menu I build for my content. If I ever plugged the Oppo into the internet again, that feature would be erased.
> 
> Thanks for the info on the A400. I'll have to update my knowledge base on the features of that model. While I doubt PCH got a license to do what my OPPO does, if they have somehow worked around that, it would be nice to get one here to replace my HiMedia box in the edit suite.


No media players have full BD menus anymore. To do that they would be required to use the Cinavia copy protection to get a BD license. Which would defeat the purpose of having the media player. With the 3D ISOs there is typically only one tile to play. I select the title on my tablet from the cover art and I can initiate playback on the A400 I select.

I rarely use full menu playback even when I use my C200. I typically use it for TV show discs or discs that have dozens of titles to choose from.


----------



## cakefoo

Before Avatar, I used to only go to movies a few times a year. After Avatar, I averaged about one a month- ALL 3D. I was really floored by 3D. Anyone who invited me to see a movie in theaters, I'd ask them if we could see the 3D version, and I always got my way.

Over time my tastes have developed and I've become more of a 3D snob. I liked Great Gatsby and Life of Pi and Hugo and Gravity in 3D. I could tell the filmmakers were truly passionate about it, which is an ingredient that is pretty rare now. I feel more like the 3D in most movies these days is like CG in the Star Wars Special Editions.

I wish TS Spivet would come to the states in 3D. I wish Ang Lee's boxing movie would have gotten made. I wish there were more dramas in 3D, I wish more master cinematographers and directors would do 3D.

I'm perfectly content watching 2D movies if they have great writing, acting, directing and cinematography, because even though the visuals are 2D, the films themselves have depth. And depth in those core areas is what a lot of 3D action movies these days lack.


----------



## beepaj

"Is 3D about dead?" I hope not. Just bought a new _Samsung_ PN60F8500AFXZA. Waiting for delivery..................


----------



## aaronwt

I think plasma is deader than 3D now isn't it? Aren't they down to one maker of Plasma sets now?


----------



## 3DBob

I will watch anything in 3D--my bad... 

However, a friend of mine made an interesting comment about 3D. He hated anything in 3D that was like watching ordinary life--it was just too soap-opera-like for him. 3D movies should be futuristic and sci fi, otherwise they fall into the too-real category and we know that movies are not real...HUH?

I asked him--what about documentaries such as IMAX stuff--that was okay since it wasn't about ordinary TV shows. 

I had to think about that, but in many ways, I know what he means. I do enjoy 3D more if it's about something I can't almost relate to personally. My Panny 3D1 or Fuji W3 gives that reality, but movies have to give me more--make the unreal seem real--or make the real, which I can't see(under the sea, space station, hubble stuff)--real.
Hmm--now back to Guardians and Planet of the Apes....please carry on...


----------



## NorthSky

Potatogod93 said:


> I didn't even think there was that many 3d blu's out.


Four hundred plus. ...More if you expand over the coffin of our own continent.


----------



## NorthSky

I truly hope that we'll see more and greater 3D Blu-ray flicks from now on and forever. 
...The same with 3D Dolby Atmos, and 3D 4K moving pictures, on Blu.

I am big on Blu (2D & 3D), and I am big on 3D (with over 200 3D Blu-ray titles in my personal collection, going 300 fast, real fast, and soon I'll be eclipsing). ...Money is all relative, depth of field counts, big 3D time. 

♦ You're in all the way (me), you're in most of the way (most people), you're in a little of the way (little people ), or you're mainly out (main people).


----------



## dhvsfan

NorthSky said:


> Four hundred plus. ...More if you expand over the coffin of our own continent.


Where did you get that 400+ number ??


----------



## NorthSky

This thread is great, the people in it are great, the discussion is truly 3D friendly, ...and we learn some' too, along this 3D way.  

P.S. Don, if I want to see 2D with a 3D flick, yes I can only use one of my two eyes, but I'd rather put the 2D disc in the disc drawer of my Blu-ray player.  

And as for the link that I provided; I have read it a long time ago. I wasn't dreaming (not knowing what I was talkin' 'bout), and I knew that it wasn't perfected, just yet. 
But I first mentioned that technology mainly as humor; to satisfy both sides (2D & 3D). ...Without any seriousness to it @ all, but well aware of what I'be read in the past, and that to be true. 

What the other member mentioned regarding gamers in 2D and in 3D playing the same game on that LG display; was different, but he brought up a very good point nonetheless.
=> https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## bargervais

NorthSky said:


> I truly hope that we'll see more and greater 3D Blu-ray flicks from now on and forever.
> ...The same with 3D Dolby Atmos, and 3D 4K moving pictures, on Blu.
> 
> I am big on Blu (2D & 3D), and I am big on 3D (with over 200 3D Blu-ray titles in my personal collection, going 300 fast, real fast, and soon I'll be eclipsing). ...Money is all relative, depth of field counts, big 3D time.
> 
> ♦ You're in all the way (me), you're in most of the way (most people), you're in a little of the way (little people ), or you're mainly out (main people).


Whenever I buy a blu-ray I always try to get the 3D multi packs as it's only mostly five dollars more when when 3D is included plus I always try to get and look on the discounted shelves either at BB Or Amazon. let's hope 3D is not dead I have three three D TV's. But I tell you truthfully I mostly watch in 2D I'm very into the Audio at the moment atmos with 3D would be the complete package..


----------



## mo949

tgm1024 said:


> Did you buy all those (vs. downloading pirated data)? If you bought that many, then man oh MAN did you spend a lot of money!


It sure seems that way. OTOH (rationalization warning ) it doesn't feel like that much when you treat your home system experience like an outting to the theater. For me it costs about 35$ for two people to go see the movie; with snacks/drinks or 3D thrown into the mix, it quickly exceeds 50$


----------



## EscapeVelocity

*Is 3D Dead?*

Please God, let it be so!


----------



## ultraflexed

No it is not, 3d is great, especially on my 65inch sony 4k.


----------



## raif71

It's alive!! It's alive!! It's still alive


----------



## Don Landis

> P.S. Don, if I want to see 2D with a 3D flick, yes I can only use one of my two eyes, but I'd rather put the 2D disc in the disc drawer of my Blu-ray player.


Yep same here although I do give those 2D BD to my daughter since she doesn't have a 3D monitor. I think the point is, not that we want to wear glasses with one eye blocked for 2D, we want to give that one person who is in our 3D presentation theater the choice to see the movie and not vomit on the carpet if his claims that 3D makes him sick is true.  the rest of us can watch in 3D and enjoy.


----------



## kinglm




----------



## CJayB

EscapeVelocity said:


> Please God, let it be so!


Why would anyone want 3D to be dead? If you don't like it, it's extremely easy to ignore. I suspect in one form or another there will always be 3D. It might even thrive once they find way to get rid of those stupid glasses. And there are even a few films out there that demand to be shown in 3D as much as there are films that demand to be seen widescreen or in color.


----------



## NorthSky

Toe said:


> Everyone has to wear glasses in that case. The people who want to watch in 2d just make an adjustment on the glasses which will give you the 2d.


♦ I guess I didn't read the article correctly; without my glasses on. 



Don Landis said:


> Yep same here although I do give those 2D BD to my daughter since she doesn't have a 3D monitor. I think the point is, not that we want to wear glasses with one eye blocked for 2D, we want to give that one person who is in our 3D presentation theater the choice to see the movie and not vomit on the carpet if his claims that 3D makes him sick is true.  the rest of us can watch in 3D and enjoy.


♦ When you first mentioned 'closing one eye' I was certain you were humorous.
And when you asked me if I knew that I was even more certain that you were humorous. 

I am sorry that I didn't take you seriously; please forgive me.


----------



## bargervais

Don Landis said:


> Yep same here although I do give those 2D BD to my daughter since she doesn't have a 3D monitor. I think the point is, not that we want to wear glasses with one eye blocked for 2D, we want to give that one person who is in our 3D presentation theater the choice to see the movie and not vomit on the carpet if his claims that 3D makes him sick is true.  the rest of us can watch in 3D and enjoy.


When I first got my 3D gear I was a little set back as my eyes and brain wasn't use to it, but I never felt sick. I have about 60 3D blu-rays if you look at it like that's alot of money compare that to like your coffee intake like say you buy one coffee a day at two dollars each day that adds up to $$$. My love of movies 2D 3D I'm always scouring the shelves for discounted blu-rays. Anyway I always choose the 3D multi packs as it's only like five dollars more then just getting the 2D version it's only 2D and 3D blu-rays for me they could make more money if they would ditch the DVD that's in those multi packs.


----------



## tgm1024

EscapeVelocity said:


> Please God, let it be so!





CJayB said:


> Why would anyone want 3D to be dead? If you don't like it, it's extremely easy to ignore.



I'd like an answer to this as well. @EscapeVelocity , why on earth does the existence of 3D bother you? You make it sound like a 3DBD on _my _shelf ruins _your _day.


----------



## jvh4

What blows my mind are all the people I hear who tell me they don't like 3D, or don't need 3D, and when asked what's the last 3D movie the saw, respond that they don't remember, or that they've never seen one. It's like people are pre programmed to dismiss 3D for no reason.

I know there are bad 3D movies out there - there are far more bad 2D movies out there, and that's not killing the 2D movie experience. 

People also complain that if the 3D is average or too subtle, they are less likely to watch other 3D movies . . .what? A 2d scifi movie has an average story, so you're not going to sit through another scifi movie - even it its from another director or another studio?

If you're going to go through the effort of putting glasses on . . . What? Were you born with Type I osteogenesis imperfecta? Your wrist will snap from lifting the glasses to your head? Do you have Michael Jackson's nose and glasses wont stay on? Do you have the worlds smallest ears and they can bear the weight of 6 oz glasses? Then be excited for glasses free 3D, don't be excited for the death of 3D. 

Where 3D is losing is in the media and in the minds of people who are finding excuses to bash 3D. It's like petty 12 year old who have an xbox, and hope that all PS3 games suck. 

Take this post as my request that this thread not continue to degrade into uninformed bashing of 3D countered by defense of 3D. 

This thread could be useful to people if it actually talked about trends in the 3D industry. There was actually cool information in here, long since burried, about trends in movie theater revenue split between 3D and 2D, the ratio of 2D/3D showings at local theaters, next's years blockbuster and if its slated for 3D or not - shot native or conversion, etc.

/End Rant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteogenesis_imperfecta


----------



## 3DBob

Perhaps this has been discussed before, but fixing the 3D/2D issue for those who can't stand 3D while watching when others do is possible. Here are a couple of solutions/examples:


http://www.2d-glasses.com/ This is great for passive theater 3D, and I think every parent should have at least one pair when going to the cinema with their kids just in case they can't handle the 3D.


http://3dvision-blog.com/3139-modifying-the-3d-vision-glasses-to-show-2d-left-or-right-frame-only/ This person has modified shutter glasses so they are both in sync to one eye channel. Not for your average enthusiast, but can be done. Note by the comments on that page that others have discovered that some Optoma glasses can be cycled into 2D, and there are others as well.


----------



## Toe

3DBob said:


> Perhaps this has been discussed before, but fixing the 3D/2D issue for those who can't stand 3D while watching when others do is possible. Here are a couple of solutions/examples:
> 
> 
> http://www.2d-glasses.com/ This is great for passive theater 3D, and I think every parent should have at least one pair when going to the cinema with their kids just in case they can't handle the 3D.
> 
> 
> http://3dvision-blog.com/3139-modifying-the-3d-vision-glasses-to-show-2d-left-or-right-frame-only/ This person has modified shutter glasses so they are both in sync to one eye channel. Not for your average enthusiast, but can be done. Note by the comments on that page that others have discovered that some Optoma glasses can be cycled into 2D, and there are others as well.


I think the Optoma's (or Sony might have some as well) are the ones I read about. A forum friend had some for a few of his guests that were not into 3d and said they worked great. Nice option to have!


----------



## EscapeVelocity

tgm1024 said:


> I'd like an answer to this as well. @EscapeVelocity , why on earth does the existence of 3D bother you? You make it sound like a 3DBD on _my _shelf ruins _your _day.


It negatively impacts film making with gee wizzery that gets in the way of the actual film. Only very rarely does it actually improve the film.


----------



## tgm1024

EscapeVelocity said:


> It negatively impacts film making with gee wizzery that gets in the way of the actual film. Only very rarely does it actually improve the film.



The 2D is adversely affected? Name some examples. For instance, in the following 3D movies (off the top of my head):

Avatar
Oz: The Great and Powerful
Maleficent
Gravity
Tangled
​How is the *2D *version of all of those above adversely affected by having the movie viewable in 3D? Was there anything hokey added to those movies that shouldn't be there?


----------



## 3DBob

EscapeVelocity said:


> It negatively impacts film making with gee wizzery that gets in the way of the actual film. Only very rarely does it actually improve the film.



Interesting...I actually like the gee-wizzery...makes it more immersive and real. My best example is Titanic. When it first came out, it bored me silly. When I saw it in 3D, I could not get enough of it and have watched it 3 times. If I had my druthers all movies would be in 3D. Do all my friends like 3D--nope, some hate it--heck my wife can't stand to watch anything in 3D. She thinks it's stupid. I'm still keeping her though


----------



## aaronwt

3DBob said:


> Perhaps this has been discussed before, but fixing the 3D/2D issue for those who can't stand 3D while watching when others do is possible. Here are a couple of solutions/examples:
> 
> 
> http://www.2d-glasses.com/ This is great for passive theater 3D, and I think every parent should have at least one pair when going to the cinema with their kids just in case they can't handle the 3D.
> 
> ............


So you pay extra to see a 3D movie in the theater, only to wear glasses to make it 2D? Wouldn't you just take the family to the 2D showing instead of wasting extra money? I don't get it.

I don't think anyone I know would ever do that. First they wouldn't want to wear glasses to watch something in 2D. Then they wouldn't want to pay extra on top of that. They would just take the family to the 2D showing. I like watching 3D movies but I would not want to pay extra and wear glasses to watch it in 2D.


----------



## loudgonzo

For me the biggest disappointment and turnoff when it comes to 3D is the glasses. They are very uncomfortable to wear, period. I'm surprised there is not more choices when it comes to glasses.

My 70" Sharp Aquos came with 2 AN-3DG40 glasses and these just plain suck to wear. I understand glasses have to be made for the masses, but even the aftermarkets are limited.

The glasses are heavy and especially where they sit on the bridge of nose, they make for a miserable experience. 

When I buy blu rays, I buy the 3d version if its not much more expensive, and will watch the movie in 3d, but I believe 3d would be more successful, especially at home if glasses were more comfortable.

lg


----------



## 3DBob

aaronwt said:


> So you pay extra to see a 3D movie in the theater, only to wear glasses to make it 2D? Wouldn't you just take the family to the 2D showing instead of wasting extra money? I don't get it.
> 
> I don't think anyone I know would ever do that. First they wouldn't want to wear glasses to watch something in 2D. Then they wouldn't want to pay extra on top of that. They would just take the family to the 2D showing. I like watching 3D movies but I would not want to pay extra and wear glasses to watch it in 2D.



I have been to several 3D movies so far that had families where the adults were wearing the glasses and the kids were not after a while. In one, the child pleaded to his father that he take him out, but the father was determined to see the movie in 3D and ignored the kid. I thought, wow, this could easily be avoided with a set of 2D glasses for the kids. 


I seriously think that adults go for the 3D and the kids just come along for the ride. All my nieces and nephews could care less whether a movie is in 3D or not. For most, it gives them nightmares if in 3D. If anyone is killing 3D it isn't the parents, it's the kids. I just had a niece (13) and nephew (10) over for thanksgiving and their father and I wanted to watch a couple of 3D movies. The kids sat through about 10 minutes of each movie and then disappeared. They wanted to see something without the glasses.


----------



## tgm1024

loudgonzo said:


> For me the biggest disappointment and turnoff when it comes to 3D is the glasses. They are very uncomfortable to wear, period.


Not "period". Try passive 3D if you haven't yet. The glasses are super light, and super comfortable. Even people who have to put them _over_ existing eyeglasses say that they're comfortable.


----------



## cinema13

tgm1024 said:


> Not "period". Try passive 3D if you haven't yet. The glasses are super light, and super comfortable. Even people who have to put them _over_ existing eyeglasses say that they're comfortable.


They also make 3D lenses that clip-on to eyeglasses.


----------



## cakefoo

EscapeVelocity said:


> It negatively impacts film making with gee wizzery that gets in the way of the actual film. Only very rarely does it actually improve the film.


I can't say I've ever seen anything blatantly 3D during a 2D screening. Remember also that, something flying towards the camera is a technique that's been used in 2D films for decades, so you might just be imagining things.

How many of those ruined films were otherwise Oscar-worthy? Cuz I'm trying to think of movies that drastically utilize 3D techniques, and I can only think of tacky 3D techniques being paired with tacky movies overall.


----------



## cakefoo

3DBob said:


> Interesting...I actually like the gee-wizzery...makes it more immersive and real. My best example is Titanic.


It's ironic that you say Titanic was your "Best example," considering the 3D version didn't even exist when the movie came out.


----------



## cakefoo

aaronwt said:


> So you pay extra to see a 3D movie in the theater, only to wear glasses to make it 2D? Wouldn't you just take the family to the 2D showing instead of wasting extra money? I don't get it.
> 
> I don't think anyone I know would ever do that. First they wouldn't want to wear glasses to watch something in 2D. Then they wouldn't want to pay extra on top of that. They would just take the family to the 2D showing. I like watching 3D movies but I would not want to pay extra and wear glasses to watch it in 2D.


There are pros and cons and sacrifices being made regardless what screening the group sees. The advantage of the 3D screening is that with the proper conversion eyewear everyone can see it in the format they want, but the downside is they have to pay extra to see it and they have to wear glasses. If that person objects, it would be polite to offer to pay for their ticket or popcorn or something.

The advantage of the 2D screening is everyone saves money, but then all those people who wanted to see the 3D version will have missed out, and it's possible they'll be spending more money in the future to see the 3D version because they didn't get the full experience the first time around.


----------



## 3DBob

cakefoo said:


> It's ironic that you say Titanic was your "Best example," considering the 3D version didn't even exist when the movie came out.



Maybe you missed my point. When the Titanic was released in 2D it was a real yawner to me. There was little in the movie that kept me wanting to see more and more about the ship. With the conversion (one of the best), I suddenly woke up to a new world. I was on that boat, in the engine room and floating on the water in the end. I loved it. I used this as an example of how 3D can make a okay movie into a super movie--at least for me. Granted, I have a 159" 16x9 projection screen in my cave and a 16x9 ratio movie takes up the whole wall. The immersion is as good as watching miniMAX at the theater. That said, I also watched part of it on my neighbor's 50" 3D TV and the depth was outstanding.


----------



## NickTheGreat

cakefoo said:


> It's ironic that you say Titanic was your "Best example," considering the 3D version didn't even exist when the movie came out.


It is a really well done conversion, though. Not as much in the pop-out department, though


----------



## cakefoo

3DBob said:


> Maybe you missed my point. When the Titanic was released in 2D it was a real yawner to me. There was little in the movie that kept me wanting to see more and more about the ship. With the conversion (one of the best), I suddenly woke up to a new world. I was on that boat, in the engine room and floating on the water in the end. I loved it. I used this as an example of how 3D can make a okay movie into a super movie--at least for me. Granted, I have a 159" 16x9 projection screen in my cave and a 16x9 ratio movie takes up the whole wall. The immersion is as good as watching miniMAX at the theater. That said, I also watched part of it on my neighbor's 50" 3D TV and the depth was outstanding.


But you fail to even address EscapeVelocity's point in your response to him, so it's pointless to quote him.


----------



## bargervais

You have to realize that when 3D first came out there was a gimmick factor but 3D is more then gimmicky effects the key is depth and dimension. I always go for the 3D version first just like I just bought dawn of the planet of the apes 2D was $17.98 3D version multi pack $19.98 no brainer


----------



## NorthSky

I have *'The Wizard of Oz'* on 3D Blu-ray.  ...That's how I look when watching it: => 

♦♦♦ 3D is for cool people, and cool people will never go out of .


----------



## EscapeVelocity

cakefoo said:


> I can't say I've ever seen anything blatantly 3D during a 2D screening. Remember also that, something flying towards the camera is a technique that's been used in 2D films for decades, so you might just be imagining things.
> 
> How many of those ruined films were otherwise Oscar-worthy? Cuz I'm trying to think of movies that drastically utilize 3D techniques, and I can only think of tacky 3D techniques being paired with tacky movies overall.


I think Hugo was maybe the best example of 3D that improved the filmaking. Perhaps Tron, but that whole movie sucked and the 3D was mostly about gee wizzery though effective for what it was intended for. Maybe a few others. 

My first and last 3D movie in theatres was The Polar Express which had repeated unnecessary 3D gimmicks and an extended out of control train sequence that was all about the 3D and not really about the film.

Meh. It cant die fast enough, IMO.


----------



## NorthSky

About *'Coraline'* in 3D?

* I wish all the wars in the world, all the greed, all the corruption, all the control for power would simply die all together, vanish for eternity.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

The only use for 3D that I can see being useful is perhaps with remote control of drones/robots.


----------



## ebo

cakefoo said:


> I can't say I've ever seen anything blatantly 3D during a 2D screening. Remember also that, something flying towards the camera is a technique that's been used in 2D films for decades, so you might just be imagining things.
> 
> How many of those ruined films were otherwise Oscar-worthy? Cuz I'm trying to think of movies that drastically utilize 3D techniques, and I can only think of tacky 3D techniques being paired with tacky movies overall.


I've seen a number of shots in movies of various qualities that clearly were there just for the 3D effect. Cave of Forgotten Dreams was improved by the use of 3D in the cave but it also had an unnecessary javelin-throwing demonstration. House of Wax (1953) famously had a guy playing with a paddleball outside a theater, often bouncing the ball toward the audience. Some forgettable movie had a guy gargle and spit in a sink; the view was looking up at him from the sink.

Speaking of forgotten movies, The Bubble (1966) had both the best and worst examples of 3D. Two people flying a light plane are trapped inside an invisible bubble along with the town they're flying over (no, they land without crashing into it). They find everyone in town is mindlessly repeating whatever they normally do. I've never met anyone else who saw this film but I suspect Stephen King might have (Under the Dome).

• Typical, OK 3D: We see the plane from the side with the wing sticking out toward us.
• Best, subtle 3D: The two walk up to the bubble to examine it. There's a shot of them from outside the bubble. We can't see the bubble but we can see a thin film of dust that has fallen on it. I doubt it would even be noticed in 2D.
• Worst, just-there-for-the-effect 3D: One of the townspeople is mindlessly pasting a large sheet of paper to a store window with a long-handled broom. Then we see it from inside the store. No paper, just the guy pushing the broom in the audience's face.


----------



## cakefoo

EscapeVelocity said:


> I think Hugo was maybe the best example of 3D that improved the filmaking. Perhaps Tron, but that whole movie sucked and the 3D was mostly about gee wizzery though effective for what it was intended for. Maybe a few others.
> 
> My first and last 3D movie in theatres was The Polar Express which had repeated unnecessary 3D gimmicks and an extended out of control train sequence that was all about the 3D and not really about the film.
> 
> Meh. It cant die fast enough, IMO.


You've seen 1 3D movie in theaters 10 years ago, pre-Avatar. What movies other than Tron and Hugo have you seen at home in 3D?

Also, I want you to go in depth on what you originally said--- that movies in 2D are suffering because of the "gee-wizzary." Go ahead and name some examples of movies... movies made post-Avatar, preferably... Movies you actually saw in 2D that blatantly made you aware that a shot was designed for 3D, and felt awkward in 2D. I've probably seen more 3D movies than you have, and the only example I can think of where I rolled my eyes was in Tintin when the villain waves his cane towards the camera...


----------



## cakefoo

ebo said:


> I've seen a number of shots in movies of various qualities that clearly were there just for the 3D effect. Cave of Forgotten Dreams was improved by the use of 3D in the cave but it also had an unnecessary javelin-throwing demonstration. House of Wax (1953) famously had a guy playing with a paddleball outside a theater, often bouncing the ball toward the audience. Some forgettable movie had a guy gargle and spit in a sink; the view was looking up at him from the sink.
> 
> Speaking of forgotten movies, The Bubble (1966) had both the best and worst examples of 3D. Two people flying a light plane are trapped inside an invisible bubble along with the town they're flying over (no, they land without crashing into it). They find everyone in town is mindlessly repeating whatever they normally do. I've never met anyone else who saw this film but I suspect Stephen King might have (Under the Dome).
> 
> • Typical, OK 3D: We see the plane from the side with the wing sticking out toward us.
> • Best, subtle 3D: The two walk up to the bubble to examine it. There's a shot of them from outside the bubble. We can't see the bubble but we can see a thin film of dust that has fallen on it. I doubt it would even be noticed in 2D.
> • Worst, just-there-for-the-effect 3D: One of the townspeople is mindlessly pasting a large sheet of paper to a store window with a long-handled broom. Then we see it from inside the store. No paper, just the guy pushing the broom in the audience's face.


But... we're in 2014. How does the continued future existence of the 3D filmmaking trend negatively impact tomorrow's films? I want recent examples where a movie being in 3D ruined your life. You have no response to that. The only thing you could say is that it is legitimately difficult to find 2D IMAX screenings of 3D movies. That's the only point I can sympathize with 3D detractors over. Other than that issue, there's really nothing intrusive about 3D these days. Sure, you could cherrypick one or two shots here or there, and say, "That wouldn't have been shot that way if it wasn't for 3D." But I'm not gonna lose any sleep knowing that you took a moment to critique a movie's creative choices, because 2D movies have flaws that take you out of the story too. It's silly to get worked up about it and wish the death of something.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

Name one.

Well OK, name another one.

Yeah, but that's just two, name another one.

continue ad naseum.

...............

No thanks.


----------



## tgm1024

EscapeVelocity said:


> Name one.
> 
> Well OK, name another one.
> 
> Yeah, but that's just two, name another one.
> 
> continue ad naseum.
> 
> ...............
> 
> No thanks.



{facepalm}. Well long before nauseam ensues it'd be nice to get a sense that you had a serious list of 2D movies apparently hurt by being filmed with their 3D counterpart in mind.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

I didnt come down here to piss on the 3D afficianados. I posted this elsewhere. Not really that interested in pursuing this conversation. You wouldnt change my mind, and I wont yours...anyways. 

I hope I havent disturbed you all too much.


----------



## ScottLux

IMHO, 3D is not going to be viable until the accomodation-vergence problem can be solved (i.e., 3D moveis that are out there are on the market are not actually aware of the focal point of the eye -- 3D will only be viable in personal VR situations which are aware of the accomodation/focal length of the eye of the user that adjust the parallax of the recording cameras accordingly.


----------



## cakefoo

EscapeVelocity said:


> Name one.
> 
> Well OK, name another one.
> 
> Yeah, but that's just two, name another one.
> 
> continue ad naseum.
> 
> ...............
> 
> No thanks.


For one thing, you're the one changing the conditions-- you said that adding 3D disrupts your experience with 2D versions of films. But you then named Hugo and Tron, which you did NOT cover if you saw in 2D, so you didn't go into any detail on how the 2D suffered. Then you named Polar Express 3D, which again you did not disclose if you even saw it in 2D, or if it ruined your 2D viewing, therefore you still have not backed your claim. 

Besides, it should be noted that Polar Express 3D outsold the 2D version 14:1, meaning the 3D was a huge part of why the movie was hyped. Also, it came out 6 years before Avatar. So don't be surprised if a movie from 10 years ago had a lot of gimmicks. The vast majority of movies released since Avatar don't have much, if any, silly distracting popout moments. There's no reason to hate 3D for something that's no longer an issue with current and upcoming films.


----------



## sterlingjewel

cakefoo said:


> I don't recall anyone ever hating on Life of Pi's 3D, but there are some people who didn't like the story itself. I don't think I could ever recommend anyone see a movie they don't want to see, just because the 3D's good. But if you like 3D for 3D's sake, then by all means, see it-- you will not be disappointed


What about those who don't like the contrived storyline of Avatar? That pendulum swings both ways. Life of Pi is no less plausible than the preachy mess that is Avatar. Sorry for the soapbox.


----------



## cakefoo

EscapeVelocity said:


> I didnt come down here to piss on the 3D afficianados. I posted this elsewhere. Not really that interested in pursuing this conversation. You wouldnt change my mind, and I wont yours...anyways.
> 
> I hope I havent disturbed you all too much.


What did you come in here to do then? Clearly you're not here to have a mature conversation. You came here to make a drive-by post and now you're upset because you didn't come prepared with examples to back yourself up. It seems you're relying on ebo to say what you wanted, but he listed two movies from the 50's (LOL) and ONE moment in a recent documentary. You can't even match THAT. Come on... 



ScottLux said:


> IMHO, 3D is not going to be viable until the accomodation-vergence problem can be solved (i.e., 3D moveis that are out there are on the market are not actually aware of the focal point of the eye -- 3D will only be viable in personal VR situations which are aware of the accomodation/focal length of the eye of the user that adjust the parallax of the recording cameras accordingly.


There's this one article written a few years ago by that one dinosaur who claimed 3D doesn't work because your eyes want to focus on one distance while converging on another--- in my experience my eyes see everything from 7 feet to infinity clearly without having to refocus. Now if it's only 3 feet away, yes, I do have to refocus. But since most people watch 3D screens from 7 feet or more, and since most 3D content plays at the screen plane or deeper, and there isn't much popout coming more than a foot or two out of the screen for any significant amount of time, there's really no big deal.


----------



## cakefoo

sterlingjewel said:


> What about those who don't like the contrived storyline of Avatar? That pendulum swings both ways. Life of Pi is no less plausible than the preachy mess that is Avatar. Sorry for the soapbox.


Weird... I don't recall telling someone to see Avatar in 3D who wasn't interested in the other aspects of it. So I see a strawman on the end of this pendulum you refer to. If I was given the chance to speak, which apparently I wasn't- I would say that, even though Avatar is a defining moment in 3D history, it's 5 years old and there are quite a few other great 3D films you could check out.


----------



## jvh4

EscapeVelocity said:


> I think Hugo was maybe the best example of 3D that improved the filmaking. Perhaps Tron, but that whole movie sucked and the 3D was mostly about gee wizzery though effective for what it was intended for. Maybe a few others.
> 
> My first and last 3D movie in theatres was The Polar Express which had repeated unnecessary 3D gimmicks and an extended out of control train sequence that was all about the 3D and not really about the film.
> 
> Meh. It cant die fast enough, IMO.


So you want 3D to die because of a children's movie that came out 10 years ago?


----------



## tgm1024

sterlingjewel said:


> What about those who don't like the contrived storyline of Avatar? That pendulum swings both ways. Life of Pi is no less plausible than the preachy mess that is Avatar. Sorry for the soapbox.


There are certainly some folks who don't like Avatar, but the problem at the moment doesn't have to do with whether or not Avatar had a contrived storyline. The problem had to do with EscapeVelocity making a statement about 3D that indicated that the mere presence of the 3D variant screwed up the 2D film. Speaking for myself, I wanted to know what he was talking about, because I don't think even the "3D haters" have generally said anything like that.

He was unable to explain it, and decided to switch premises midstream, and further, pretend that he's produced example after example and further pretend that he's not being listened to.

Well, that might work if he simply did what I and others asked in the first place and explain with examples what he was talking about. I don't doubt he's sincerely and honestly annoyed with 3D, that much is evident. What I doubt is that he has a lot of examples ready to show how 3D screwed up 2D to the point where it makes sense to say silly things like 3D "can't die fast enough".


----------



## jvh4

tgm1024 said:


> There are certainly some folks who don't like Avatar, but the problem at the moment doesn't have to do with whether or not Avatar had a contrived storyline. The problem had to do with EscapeVelocity making a statement about 3D that indicated that the mere presence of the 3D variant screwed up the 2D film. Speaking for myself, I wanted to know what he was talking about, because I don't think even the "3D haters" have generally said anything like that.
> 
> He was unable to explain it, and decided to switch premises midstream, and further, pretend that he's produced example after example and further pretend that he's not being listened to.
> 
> Well, that might work if he simply did what I and others asked in the first place and explain with examples what he was talking about. I don't doubt he's sincerely and honestly annoyed with 3D, that much is evident. What I doubt is that he has a lot of examples ready to show how 3D screwed up 2D to the point where it makes sense to say silly things like 3D "can't die fast enough".


It feels like typical trolling, and we both fell for it


----------



## Toe

EscapeVelocity said:


> I think Hugo was maybe the best example of 3D that improved the filmaking. Perhaps Tron, but that whole movie sucked and the 3D was mostly about gee wizzery though effective for what it was intended for. Maybe a few others.
> 
> My first and last 3D movie in theatres was The Polar Express which had repeated unnecessary 3D gimmicks and an extended out of control train sequence that was all about the 3D and not really about the film.
> 
> Meh. It cant die fast enough, IMO.


Interesting. I would argue that the 3d in PE was very appropriate in light of the nature and message of the film which emphasizes the magic of Christmas. The 3d in that train sequence only drove the magic nature of the film home. PE is one of my favorite 3d blu rays and I don't find any of the 3d out of place or gimmicky in light of the nature of the movie.


----------



## tgm1024

jvh4 said:


> It feels like typical trolling, and we both fell for it


I don't think I'd use the T word in this case. I think he just overspoke is all (we all do sooner or later), but then didn't back down from it as he probably should have given what little he did say.


----------



## jvh4

tgm1024 said:


> I don't think I'd use the T word in this case. I think he just overspoke is all (we all do sooner or later), but then didn't back down from it as he probably should have given what little he did say.


I used a lowercase "t" 

I guess you're right. I just can't relate to that "I hope it dies" mentality. I think Xbox kinect, and playstation move are gimmicky, and i don't enjoy gaming that way. I'm not praying for all of those games to fail miserably and for the technology to die. 

As a matter of fact I recently got big buck hunter and pump action shotgun for my playstation, and love it. I'm not about to jump into that tech, but I'm glad I kept an open mind to it.


----------



## cakefoo

tgm1024 said:


> He was unable to explain it, and decided to switch premises midstream, and further, pretend that he's produced example after example and further pretend that he's not being listened to.
> 
> What I doubt is that he has a lot of examples ready to show how 3D screwed up 2D to the point where it makes sense to say silly things like 3D "can't die fast enough".


Right, and specifically he said 2D versions of movies still have distracting 3D moments. He named a few titles, but he only made clear that the format he saw them in was 3D- not 2D- therefore he can't actually say he was taken out of the story when viewing the 2D version. Viewing the 3D version all the way through is going to cause you to be more conscious of the 3D than if you watched the whole thing in 2D. Movies with lots of visual 3D gags like Polar Express or Beowulf or Harold and Kumar are exceptions, not the rule.

Without EscapeVelocity here elaborating on his initial statements, I have to have these little debates in my imagination based on previous conversations with 3D detractors. They're all the same- plug their ears and run away. Can't teach old dogs new tricks, they're stuck in the 50's.


----------



## tgm1024

jvh4 said:


> I used a lowercase "t"
> 
> I guess you're right. I just can't relate to that "I hope it dies" mentality.


Me neither. The folks willing to bash 3D came out of the woodwork when Vizio announced they were no longer going to offer the tech. * Seriously guys, who moved the @#$%ing rock???? *Sure you're welcome to state whether or not 3D is something that you particularly like, but where's the win for these people in THAT kind of technology bashing? Some kind of "ha ha you fool" moment that makes no sense?

I'll never understand it. My wife was the biggest skeptic regarding 3D, but since we've gotten the Sony passive 3D TV, she's been the biggest proponent of our 3D movie nights with the kids. And both sets of grandparents love it as well. It's really great. Particularly fun moments are when I have my family room packed with neighborhood kids all with glasses on....so great.


----------



## jvh4

tgm1024 said:


> My wife was the biggest skeptic regarding 3D, but since we've gotten the Sony passive 3D TV, she's been the biggest proponent of our 3D movie nights with the kids.


Same here. When planning our system and budget, she didn't want me to get 3D if it cost more, and the 1st few movies we watched in 3D I had to drag her too.

Last weekend we were looking for a movie to watch and she wanted to watch megamind because it was the only movie out of our options that was 3D. She's officially a convert.


----------



## tgm1024

jvh4 said:


> Same here. When planning our system and budget, she didn't want me to get 3D if it cost more, and the 1st few movies we watched in 3D I had to drag her too.
> 
> Last weekend we were looking for a movie to watch and she wanted to watch megamind because it was the only movie out of our options that was 3D. She's officially a convert.


I think I must have heard nearly exactly this same story at least 10 times.


----------



## grubadub

i think the title of this thread invites negative comments


----------



## EscapeVelocity

cakefoo said:


> What did you come in here to do then? Clearly you're not here to have a mature conversation. You came here to make a drive-by post and now you're upset because you didn't come prepared with examples to back yourself up. It seems you're relying on ebo to say what you wanted, but he listed two movies from the 50's (LOL) and ONE moment in a recent documentary. You can't even match THAT. Come on...
> 
> There's this one article written a few years ago by that one dinosaur who claimed 3D doesn't work because your eyes want to focus on one distance while converging on another--- in my experience my eyes see everything from 7 feet to infinity clearly without having to refocus. Now if it's only 3 feet away, yes, I do have to refocus. But since most people watch 3D screens from 7 feet or more, and since most 3D content plays at the screen plane or deeper, and there isn't much popout coming more than a foot or two out of the screen for any significant amount of time, there's really no big deal.


My post was moved down here from elsewhere. I didnt even know that there was a 3d section. I wanted to express my desire for the 3D fad to end. And I have.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

tgm1024 said:


> Me neither. The folks willing to bash 3D came out of the woodwork when Vizio announced they were no longer going to offer the tech. * Seriously guys, who moved the @#$%ing rock???? *Sure you're welcome to state whether or not 3D is something that you particularly like, but where's the win for these people in THAT kind of technology bashing? Some kind of "ha ha you fool" moment that makes no sense?
> 
> I'll never understand it. My wife was the biggest skeptic regarding 3D, but since we've gotten the Sony passive 3D TV, she's been the biggest proponent of our 3D movie nights with the kids. And both sets of grandparents love it as well. It's really great. Particularly fun moments are when I have my family room packed with neighborhood kids all with glasses on....so great.


As I stated. 3D negatively impacts films. Else I wouldnt give 2 ****s about it.


----------



## aaronwt

Man this thread has blown up over the last few weeks. It's hard to keep up with it now.


----------



## sterlingjewel

cakefoo said:


> Weird... I don't recall telling someone to see Avatar in 3D who wasn't interested in the other aspects of it. So I see a strawman on the end of this pendulum you refer to. If I was given the chance to speak, which apparently I wasn't- I would say that, even though Avatar is a defining moment in 3D history, it's 5 years old and there are quite a few other great 3D films you could check out.


That was not a straw man nor an attack on 3D but an aside on the artistic value of Avatar beyond its engrossing 3D experience. It was only meant as a response to the ridicule Life of Pi was receiving as if Avatar is a cinematic masterpiece that no one could deny.  (I would choose to watch Life of Pi 3D 9/10 times over Avatar). The defense can rest.


----------



## sterlingjewel

tgm1024 said:


> There are certainly some folks who don't like Avatar, *but the problem at the moment doesn't have to do with whether or not Avatar had a contrived storyline. *


I'll go ahead and stop you right there because if you look at the post to which I responded, it had nothing to do with EscapeVelocity's "invasion" of this thread.  That he happened to like my post is merely an ancillary coincidence.


----------



## xvfx

sterlingjewel said:


> That was not a straw man nor an attack on 3D but an aside on the artistic value of Avatar beyond its engrossing 3D experience. It was only meant as a response to the ridicule Life of Pi was receiving as if Avatar is a cinematic masterpiece that no one could deny.  (I would choose to watch *Life of Pi 3D* 9/10 times over Avatar). The defense can rest.


First time I've ever seen any movie have a part of the film come out over the black bars.


----------



## sterlingjewel

I haven't seen it in a while but I do remember being taken by some of the pop-out. I haven't bothered with 3D lately due to my screen size reduction, the curvature of the screen, and the associated heavy crosstalk unless one's seating position is centrally located in the cone at the appropriate distance.


----------



## jvh4

xvfx said:


> First time I've ever seen any movie have a part of the film come out over the black bars.


People may not agree with whether they liked or disliked this effect, but I think its good that some movie makers are trying to push the envelop with 3D and the immersion of the effect. For me 3D helps with immersion and that what I'm looking for. It's the same reason why I wanted a projector and a large screen. For me 3D helps this cause far more often than its hurts it.

In this example, I think you could say this effect accentuates the presence of the bars and can distract from the immersion of the film. Some call that gimmicky. In this case it did take me out of the story, but was an "oh cool" moment, so I didn't mind so much.


----------



## oleus

jvh4 said:


> People may not agree with whether they liked or disliked this effect, but I think its good that some movie makers are trying to push the envelop with 3D and the immersion of the effect. For me 3D helps with immersion and that what I'm looking for. It's the same reason why I wanted a projector and a large screen. For me 3D helps this cause far more often than its hurts it.
> 
> In this example, I think you could say this effect accentuates the presence of the bars and can distract from the immersion of the film. Some call that gimmicky. In this case it did take me out of the story, but was an "oh cool" moment, so I didn't mind so much.


^^^EXACTLY!!!

Overall I thought Life of Pi had really good 3d, but that part where the fish came out over the black bars completely ruined the 3d effects on my screen!! In fact that whole sequence seems to have none of the intended 3d impact, at least on my projector and screen.


----------



## cakefoo

EscapeVelocity said:


> My post was moved down here from elsewhere. I didnt even know that there was a 3d section. I wanted to express my desire for the 3D fad to end. And I have.





EscapeVelocity said:


> As I stated. 3D negatively impacts films. Else I wouldnt give 2 ****s about it.


Where's the logic in returning to this thread again and again just to repeat your shallow bashing, but you refuse to have any sort of educated intelligent discussion whatsoever about it? You're just a close-minded, cynical, simplistic, generalizing 3D hater like the rest of them. It's hilarious how people become experts on things they don't partake in!!!


----------



## andy sullivan

I decided to buy the new Planet of the Apes movie in 3D this morning. Best Buy had it advertsied for under $20. I stopped at Wal-Mart and Target and neither store had the 3D version. Strange. This thread is asking if 3D is dead. Not for me it's not but when major retailers choose not to even offer the 3D version it certainly begs the question.


----------



## tgm1024

sterlingjewel said:


> I'll go ahead and stop you right there because if you look at the post to which I responded, it had nothing to do with EscapeVelocity's "invasion" of this thread.  That he happened to like my post is merely an ancillary coincidence.


Gotcha


----------



## jvh4

andy sullivan said:


> I decided to buy the new Planet of the Apes movie in 3D this morning. Best Buy had it advertsied for under $20. I stopped at Wal-Mart and Target and neither store had the 3D version. Strange. This thread is asking if 3D is dead. Not for me it's not but when major retailers choose not to even offer the 3D version it certainly begs the question.


I can't speak for walmart, but I have also observed that Target is very hit or miss with 3D blu-rays. When picking up HTTYD2 I noticed a huge display at Target in the front of the store. Plenty of 2D Blu-ray and DVD, but no spot for 3D. If you go back into the acually media section, there are various 3D movies there, but they have many movies that are available in 3D that they seem to only carry the 2D version.

I agree that this is disturbing.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

3D fanboys are worse than Plasma fanboys. 

LOL!


----------



## ekaaaans

EscapeVelocity said:


> 3D fanboys are worse than Plasma fanboys.
> 
> LOL!


Are there _anti-plasma_ trolls dropping into plasma tv forums too?


----------



## superleo

EscapeVelocity said:


> 3D fanboys are worse than Plasma fanboys.
> 
> LOL!


Count me in for both camps!!!


And proud of it. Have me my Plasma TV that does marvelous 3D.  Whos LOL NOW?!


----------



## cinema13

andy sullivan said:


> I decided to buy the new Planet of the Apes movie in 3D this morning. Best Buy had it advertsied for under $20. I stopped at Wal-Mart and Target and neither store had the 3D version. Strange. This thread is asking if 3D is dead. Not for me it's not but when major retailers choose not to even offer the 3D version it certainly begs the question.


The Targets in my area had both HERCULES and MR PEABODY in stock opening week. (Even had TWO slots for HERC 3D!) 
Both titles sold out...and they just didn't restock or re-order.
It is odd that when titles sell well, they don't bother to re-order (especially during the gift-buying season). See, everything I've seen (including some sales numbers) shows that 3D sells. (And it sells with no advertising!) But for some reason, some retailers and the electronics industry seem hell-bent on trying to eliminate it. (And even one studio is trying as well...Hi Disney.)

Add in the ignorant (like EscapeVelocity, who should be watching VHS) and you can see the landscape things are in.


----------



## cakefoo

EscapeVelocity said:


> 3D fanboys are worse than Plasma fanboys.
> 
> LOL!


3D haters are the worst, citing cartoons from 10 years ago as if they're in any way representative of 3D films being made today.

Beat it kiddo! It's clear you were never a match for our logic.

P.S. I'm such a "fanboy" lol! that the last 3D movie I saw was 14 months ago! If anything 3D movies aren't ahot differently enough from 2D movies, that's why I've been so down on 3D movies lately: gotta look good and non-distracting and non-gimmicky for the 2D viewers.

I'm betting the reason you didn't go any further than Hugo, Tron and Polar Express bashing is because those are the only 3D movies you've seen...


----------



## andy sullivan

Amazon is quite happy with the way most retailers handle 3D.


----------



## johnny905

tgm1024 said:


> I'll never understand it. My wife was the biggest skeptic regarding 3D, but since we've gotten the Sony passive 3D TV, she's been the biggest proponent of our 3D movie nights with the kids. And both sets of grandparents love it as well. It's really great. Particularly fun moments are when I have my family room packed with neighborhood kids all with glasses on....so great.


My wife is not a big fan of our 3DTV, and my kids are 50/50 on it, but I'm firmly convinced
it's because it's an older Sony active 55" 3DTV where the glasses are heavier, the 3D image not always great, and you can't tilt your head to the side at all without ruining the 3D effect. 

I'm also convinced that once I get a passive 3DTV the family will be asking for 3D movie night every weekend. Plus its a great excuse to get an even bigger TV. The big question is whether to drop the cash for the 4K this time around or not. I'm leaning toward yes to get the full HD passive 3D picture.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

LOL! The hideousnous done to The Hobbit films for 3D. Ugggh. You can easily see the 3D layers which look like the classic cheap/old/poorly done green screen effect of cutouts on a backround. Or the ridiculous (again extended) rollercoaster Goblin chase scene. The unnecessary fast pans on mountain tops to be showy of the 3D again with the obvious layer cuts.

As I said... 

3D cant die fast enough. It sucks.


----------



## superleo

^^^

Bad source, bad equipment usually equates to bad experience; then you add ... Never mind...

Reference material, reference equipment and knowledgable, objective peple equates to looking forward to that next disc that we have to watch and own. But one has to know what this rally mean to understand.


----------



## HJW in Hawaii

andy sullivan said:


> I decided to buy the new Planet of the Apes movie in 3D this morning. Best Buy had it advertsied for under $20. I stopped at Wal-Mart and Target and neither store had the 3D version. Strange. This thread is asking if 3D is dead. Not for me it's not but when major retailers choose not to even offer the 3D version it certainly begs the question.


I greatly enjoy, and strongly prefer, movies in 3D. I think it really adds to the experience. I have a good friend who thinks the exact opposite. It seems like the best we can do as consumers is vote with our wallets/purses.


----------



## ekaaaans

EscapeVelocity said:


> *LOL! The hideousnous done to The Hobbit films for 3D. Ugggh. You can easily see the 3D layers which look like the classic cheap/old/poorly done green screen effect of cutouts on a backround. Or the ridiculous (again extended) rollercoaster Goblin chase scene. The unnecessary fast pans on mountain tops to be showy of the 3D again with the obvious layer cuts.
> 
> As I said...
> 
> 3D cant die fast enough. It sucks.*


_More attention for EscapeVelocity._ 

There. Now that that's out of the way...


> *Bad source, bad equipment usually equates to bad experience; then you add ... Never mind...
> 
> Reference material, reference equipment and knowledgable, objective peple equates to looking forward to that next disc that we have to watch and own. But one has to know what this rally mean to understand.*


I completely agree. My parents are buying a 60 inch LG passive 3D set, and I'm making it my business to bring over some high quality 3D discs to introduce them to what's possible. First impressions are critical. I shudder to think how substandard 3D fare might deter them from using the feature in the future.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

I know you want to believe that I have little knowledge and experience...so as to dismiss me. 

But that just isnt the case. 3D has a lifespan because studios can remake old films and cash in. The electronics makers also got a second wind off of selling 3D sets as premium upgrades and convincing previous HDTV purchasers to upgrade to a 3D set, earlier than they would have upgraded before. The whole thing was a cash cow. The occassional 3D movie is OK, unfortunately we got a lot of poor fadish content which diminished many projects...much more so than the few it shined in.


----------



## alyssanick

3D hate still being spewed? Surprise... Instead of simply not watching, and letting 3D fans enjoy it, they gotta give their opinion as if its gospel - and spouting industry knowledge, cherry picking stats, and the "agenda" behind 3D.

Couldn't been driven by James Cameron, and hollywood, in an attempt to give viewers an alternative experience/make cinema relevant, in an age where internet downloads are almost indoctrinated into culture; it's got to be instead those pesky capitalists and their "cash cows". Yup..

Don't get me wrong, an internet forum *is* the place to voice opinions and in general bring it on, but seriously at this point the arguments are tireder than star wars prequel threads. That line from the dark knight is rampant when viewing the 3D debate. "Some people just wanna watch the world burn". The bottom line is 3D is a choice at the cinema and at home. And basically always has been. It's merely an alternative. You can easily avoid it. But you insist it is a plague on your house, your moral system and whatever else? Please..

3D won't die, and it won't be a fad. It will merely slot into its rightful place as a niche for some movies (animation etc), and some directors intent for a specific movie. 50 odd titles were released on blu-ray 3D this year. That could be down on past years but it's still an impressive addition to the already hundreds of titles available for 3D fans. At a rate of 50 per year for enthusiasts, they will have plenty to enjoy that won't make the format feel dead.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

I cant avoid 3D, it affects 2D versions of movies negatively, both in the physical film image quality and interfering with the film itself.

That is the problem with 3D. And it will continue to be the problem with 3D.


----------



## EVERRET

3D does not hurt image quality & 3D is not a problem....... it's the future. 

I used to avoid movies , especially 3d movies .... but movies like Avatar changed everything for me, now I embrace 3D movies & look forward to seeing what the future of 3D movies will bring. 

If you notice..... The anti-3D crowd gets a little smaller each time a good 3D movie is released.


----------



## jvh4

EscapeVelocity said:


> I know you want to believe that I have little knowledge and experience...so as to dismiss me.
> 
> But that just isnt the case. 3D has a lifespan because studios can remake old films and cash in. The electronics makers also got a second wind off of selling 3D sets as premium upgrades and convincing previous HDTV purchasers to upgrade to a 3D set, earlier than they would have upgraded before. The whole thing was a cash cow. The occasional 3D movie is OK, unfortunately we got a lot of poor fadish content which diminished many projects...much more so than the few it shined in.


I will give you that some movies will include scenes that are meant for 3D that may be otherwise necessary for the story. If that bothers you, it's a legitimate gripe. I don't see it as a rampant problem right now though. I do see the potential for it to impact you if down the road if 3D gains massive popularity and studio want to cash in. I still think 3D is moving away from gimmicky stuff like that - at least for the blockbuster and well done movies (i.e. the movie you will want to see). 

I do not however see how this is any different than when Michael Bay or others include excessive special effects into 2D movies. That can often take away from the movie too. I can't wait for CGI to die. I can't wait for explosions in movies to die.

I will not give any credence to your claim that image quality suffers. You think the CGI was rendered in 2D for the LOTR movies since it was a 2D movie and rendered in 3D for the Hobbit as a 3D movie? I watch a lot of movies and read a lot of movie reviews, and i have seen no evidence that there is a widespread problem of movies intended for 3D are suffering picture degradation or compromise when viewed in 2D. 

Most 3D movies right now are actually made for 2D and post converted into 3D. Are you at least ok with these movies being in 3D? They exist as 2D movies and were shot as 2D movies and can't possibly hurt you.


----------



## superleo

EscapeVelocity said:


> I cant avoid 3D, it affects 2D versions of movies negatively, both in the physical film image quality and interfering with the film itself.
> 
> That is the problem with 3D. And it will continue to be the problem with 3D.



This statement is absolutely NOT true. 2D and 3D video are contained on separate files; 2D video is usually contained in a m2ts file while 3D video is contained in a MVC type file. Although both files need to be present for 3D these are independent of each other and the dependencies between 2D and 3D will actually be skipped if the player/screen do not have the correct signatures. 


With enough computer power, the correct software and time, any video can be converted to 3D with out affecting the original 2D. If the original 2D was good to begin with the 3D will most likely will be good. On the other hand ... 


I can see how a director may try to take advantage of 3D and not be successful, however this has nothing to do with the actual image quality or anything else related to the video production of it. 


If video is, in any way is bad, IT IS NOT because was also available in 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

EVERRET said:


> 3D does not hurt image quality & 3D is not a problem....... it's the future.
> 
> I used to avoid movies , especially 3d movies .... but movies like Avatar changed everything for me, now I embrace 3D movies & look forward to seeing what the future of 3D movies will bring.
> 
> If you notice..... The anti-3D crowd gets a little smaller each time a good 3D movie is released.


Maybe. But the percentage of money coming from 3D screenings also has been getting smaller too. WHich means less people are choosing to see 3D in the theater.

For me, if a movie is available in 3D at the theater, then that is usually the format I will see it in.


----------



## tgm1024

johnny905 said:


> My wife is not a big fan of our 3DTV, and my kids are 50/50 on it, but I'm firmly convinced
> it's because it's an older Sony active 55" 3DTV where the glasses are heavier, the 3D image not always great, and you can't tilt your head to the side at all without ruining the 3D effect.
> 
> I'm also convinced that once I get a passive 3DTV the family will be asking for 3D movie night every weekend. Plus its a great excuse to get an even bigger TV. The big question is whether to drop the cash for the 4K this time around or not. I'm leaning toward yes to get the full HD passive 3D picture.


ABSOLUTELY go 4K, and especially so if you're getting a large TV. Not going to fully open that 4K can of worms here, so I'll keep it restricted to 3D, but yes, you'll get full 1080p (3D) that way. One of the things I'd watch for though is to have people verify that the FPR is set up properly for the model you're looking at. Sony pissed off the world when they quietly (and in my opinion, deceitfully) made their 55" version of the X900A a 540 variant. Their 65" version was 1080p 3D.


----------



## superleo

aaronwt said:


> Maybe. But the percentage of money coming from 3D screenings also has been getting smaller too. WHich means less people are choosing to see 3D in the theater.
> 
> For me, if a movie is available in 3D at the theater, then that is usually the format I will see it in.


The reason that 3D revenues at movie theaters are getting smaller is price not anything else. Same with BD sales. By including a DVD and a portable file they justify the higher price. Most people are sensitive to price, if they would lower the price there would be very few movies in 2D -- my 2 cents.


Remember a 3D disc still has the 2D portion of it. So adding a 3D only disc is ridiculous and done only with profit motive. As long a people are willing to pay for it.


----------



## biotron2000

andy sullivan said:


> I decided to buy the new Planet of the Apes movie in 3D this morning. Best Buy had it advertsied for under $20. I stopped at Wal-Mart and Target and neither store had the 3D version. Strange. This thread is asking if 3D is dead. Not for me it's not but when major retailers choose not to even offer the 3D version it certainly begs the question.


Same thing for me at Target. The 3D version was nowhere to be found on the big display at the front of the store. I found an associate who called to the electronics department and was told they didn't have it at all. I was saying my goodbyes to the associate when the department person called back to say they did have it after all. Heck, they even matched Amazon's $19.99 price!

I hope it's not so hard to find Guardians Of The Galaxy in 3D next week!


----------



## jsmiddleton4

Hope not. I like 3D.


----------



## andy sullivan

biotron2000 said:


> Same thing for me at Target. The 3D version was nowhere to be found on the big display at the front of the store. I found an associate who called to the electronics department and was told they didn't have it at all. I was saying my goodbyes to the associate when the department person called back to say they did have it after all. Heck, they even matched Amazon's $19.99 price!
> 
> I hope it's not so hard to find Guardians Of The Galaxy in 3D next week!


It will be interesting to see what kind of price they advertise GOG at. One reason Planet is selling is the $19.99 price. I am surprised that the case for Planet is so nice and yet they omitted the SD version but included the BR version. Most families I know have one 3D BR player and several SD players in bedrooms for the kids. From marketing standpoint it seems that including the SD version and eliminating the BR version would sell more packages and increase profit on a per package basis.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

So what are the Top 10 3D movies of the last decade?

Avatar
Tron
Hugo
Gravity

?


----------



## alyssanick

EscapeVelocity said:


> So what are the Top 10 3D movies of the last decade?
> 
> Avatar
> Tron
> Hugo
> Gravity
> 
> ?


We all see what you are trying to do....

It doesn't matter subjectively what people consider top 3D films is perhaps a low figure. The *majority* have value for a 3D fan. Ranging from Great to Excellent. Reference is a bonus really.

Like in sound mixing. Only a handful of the entire catalog of films can be labelled reference, it doesn't mean "The Sandlot" is a horrible sound mix that is tainting sound mixes on blu-ray, because it isn't in the upper echelon. It has VALUE for people who love it, or the genre. Say comedy movies.

Impressing haters standards is not the purview of 3D.

=====

But for sheets and googles....

Avatar
Tron
Hugo
Gravity
Coraline
Ice Age 3D
Toy Story trilogy
Titanic
Top Gun
Jurassic Park
Lion King
Beauty and the Beast
Kung Fu Panda 2
Prometheus
Up
The Wizard of Oz
Transformers DOTM
Brave
Finding Nemo
Monsters Inc
Pacific Rim
Hobbit movies
Lego movie
Transformers AOE
Edge of Tomorrow
Underworld Awakening
..list goes on..
Man of Steel
Wreck it Ralph
300: Rise of an Empire
Amazing spiderman 2
Ironman 3
Godzilla
Sin City 2
Resident Evil: Retribution
Ice Age: Continental Drift
The Avengers
Harry Potter Deathly Hallows pt1 & 2
Dredd
Life of Pi
Xmen: Days of Future Past
POTC :On Stranger Tides
..I've excluded plenty of pixar and disney animation too..


----------



## Don Landis

Well sheeeet! My productions didn't even make your list! :crying:

I guess since my stuff only has 170,000 views on YT it doesn't make the grade. Maybe I don't charge enough to watch.


----------



## NorthSky

From that list just above, I would exclude:

* Harry Potter: Deathly Allows Part 1 and 2.
* Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill for.
* POTC: On Stranger Tides.
* Godzilla.
* Resident Evil: Retribution.
* Iron Man 3.
* Amazing Spider Man 2.
* Titanic.
* Top Gun.
* Jurassic Park.
* The Wizard of Oz.
* Edge of Tomorrow.
* Man of Steel.
* Underworld: Awakening.
* Predator.

And also 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes'.


----------



## oleus

NorthSky said:


> From that list just above, I would exclude:
> 
> * Harry Potter: Deathly Allows Part 1 and 2.
> * Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill for.
> * POTC: On Stranger Tides.
> * Godzilla.
> * Resident Evil: Retribution.
> * Iron Man 3.
> * Amazing Spider Man 2.
> * Titanic.
> * Top Gun.
> * Jurassic Park.
> * The Wizard of Oz.
> * Edge of Tomorrow.
> * Man of Steel.
> * Underworld: Awakening.
> * Predator.
> 
> And also 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes'.


Northsky - judging by this list and previous comments i remember from other threads, i think we have very similar 3d eyes!!!!


----------



## 3DBob

3D might not be dead, but this thread is...


----------



## cinema13

NorthSky said:


> From that list just above, I would exclude:
> 
> * Harry Potter: Deathly Allows Part 1 and 2.
> * Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill for.
> * POTC: On Stranger Tides.
> * Godzilla.
> * Resident Evil: Retribution.
> * Iron Man 3.
> * Amazing Spider Man 2.
> * Titanic.
> * Top Gun.
> * Jurassic Park.
> * The Wizard of Oz.
> * Edge of Tomorrow.
> * Man of Steel.
> * Underworld: Awakening.
> * Predator.
> 
> And also 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes'.


Hey! I liked Oz in 3D! No pop-outs, but in addition to depth, I thought the color and detail was superior to the 2D version included with it. The 3D gave new life to this oft-seen film, IMHO.

I also thought the 3D in ASM2 was better than the 3D in the first. Which is odd since the second movie was a conversion and the first was native

PREDATOR was ok...not great but better than other Fox conversions like I, ROBOT.

I also enjoyed the 3D in UNDERWORLD and SIN CITY. Those aside, I agree with the rest of your list. (But haven't seen APES or TITANIC yet.) I have NOAH 3D coming from 3DBlu-Ray rental, so I'll be looking forward to seeing how that turned out.


----------



## NorthSky

oleus said:


> Northsky - judging by this list and previous comments i remember from other threads, i think we have very similar 3d eyes!!!!


On some days yes, on other days perhaps. :nerd:


----------



## andy sullivan

If you want to throw in a sleeper I was impressed with "Upside Down". I think it's less than 12 bucks at Amazon.


----------



## cinema13

andy sullivan said:


> If you want to throw in a sleeper I was impressed with "Upside Down". I think it's less than 12 bucks at Amazon.


Liked its visual style...creative and nice to have in 3D.


----------



## alyssanick

Don Landis said:


> Well sheeeet! My productions didn't even make your list! :crying:
> 
> I guess since my stuff only has 170,000 views on YT it doesn't make the grade. Maybe I don't charge enough to watch.


Nothing meant by it! Two things. I don't know your productions. And they aren't BD which was kinda my criteria for inclusion/judgment.

As to the general exclusionary views.. such matters are greatly subjective aren't they. For mine, I was using review sources combined with my own experience to determine quality 3D implementation. As opposed to saying wether popouts and such are good or whatever.


----------



## EVERRET

The Top 10 3D Movies of the last decade ? 

We have plenty of threads in the 3D forum about that topic , which is Very subjective. It's just like asking asking what is the top 10 2D films in the past decade.

(There are more than 350 3D movies in the last 10 years & at least 250 of those 3D movies were in the last 5 years.) 

For 3D movies.......... I see no slowdown anytime soon .

I'm more interested in the future of 3D and the constant improvement of filming 3D and the improvements in displaying 3D in theaters and at home in the next decade. Before I came to this thread i was reading a article on Lazer projection systems that can double the lumens (brightness) in theaters . When i read stuff like that it reminds me that the future looks really good for 3D and it is moving forward.


----------



## NorthSky

Only 250 3D movies in the last five years! /// No wonder this thread's title. ...That's only one per week. ...Only here in Canada.


----------



## EscapeVelocity

Bring out your dead!


----------



## Brian Hampton

I just bought a 3D BD yesterday and have a few more coming in the mail.

I'm loving it. I thought the latest 300 and Sin City sequels were very fun 3D.

I suppose I have about 120 3D BD now.... It may die or just fade away but I'm glad I got it when they had it so that I could get it.

edit - I personally love it. My kids however, request the 2D copy every time. 


-Brian


----------



## tgm1024

Brian Hampton said:


> My kids however, request the 2D copy every time.


Curious. Active or passive? And what's the display type?


----------



## Brian Hampton

tgm1024 said:


> Curious. Active or passive? And what's the display type?


I have a projector (Sony HW30ES) so it's active.

(Upstairs I have a 42" Sammy 3D Plasma also active... but I don't really watch using that. Mostly other people in my family use that set for TV shows and stuff)

I really like the passive sets I've seen. I have a neighbor with a passive set (Panasonic, ... I think... even though they used to only do active.) She never uses it for 3D though... I was un-able to get her interested.

-Brian


----------



## tomtastic

You can look throughout history and see that 3D had a lot of technical issues, some 3d films were never even shown in 3D just 2D because of complications. In recent years those same issues have been worked out and as it turns out 3D has had its best resurgence yet with no end in sight. A lot of the bad press with 3D was due to technical complications but for the most part that can't be used as an excuse now. Sorry to say for some that wish 3D dead but it's just not going to happen. Granted I think what needed to be in 3D was over hyped, but maybe when glasses free 3D finally gets here more demand will be needed.

Well I'm off to film some Victorian Christmas in 3D. Happy Holidays!


----------



## mherman701

Who show beinsport in 3D?


----------



## NorthSky

Happy 3D Christmas holidays!  

♦♦♦ The next Olympic Games (Summer, Winter), in 3D mister


----------



## MLXXX

Brian Hampton said:


> I have a projector (Sony HW30ES) so it's active.


Active glasses home projectors when operating in 3D mode for a 24fps source typically use only a 120Hz alternation rate for Left and Right, and I cannot see a review of your model projector suggesting otherwise. A 120Hz alternation rate may be too slow for your kids (leading to a mirage-like blurring of the 3D when there is movement).

RealD in public cinemas operates at an alternation rate of 144Hz. Have your kids seen 3D at a public cinema? Did they like it?


----------



## jvh4

MLXXX said:


> Active glasses home projectors when operating in 3D mode for a 24fps source typically use only a 120Hz alternation rate for Left and Right, and I cannot see a review of your model projector suggesting otherwise. A 120Hz alternation rate may be too slow for your kids (leading to a mirage-like blurring of the 3D when there is movement).
> 
> RealD in public cinemas operates at an alternation rate of 144Hz. Have your kids seen 3D at a public cinema? Did they like it?


Yeah, we have light controlled HT and if my wife is watching 3D we have to bring all the lights down or she can see flickering. Funny thing is I can't see the flickering. I have perfect vision and she has terrible vision. I would consider going passive in the future for that reason.


----------



## kimg1453

jvh4 said:


> Yeah, we have light controlled HT and if my wife is watching 3D we have to bring all the lights down or she can see flickering. Funny thing is I can't see the flickering. I have perfect vision and she has terrible vision. I would consider going passive in the future for that reason.


Having active or passive is not the issue, it's the refresh rate. Sim2's top models use 144Hz triple flash refresh and the 3D it produces in my opinion is the best available and matched the best Cinema 3D.


----------



## jvh4

kimg1453 said:


> Having active or passive is not the issue, it's the refresh rate. Sim2's top models use 144Hz triple flash refresh and the 3D it produces in my opinion is the best available and matched the best Cinema 3D.


How is it not an active/passive issue? Isn't the flickering caused by the glasses alternating eyes? Passive does not do this. Therefore no introduction of flickering?


----------



## kimg1453

jvh4 said:


> How is it not an active/passive issue? Isn't the flickering caused by the glasses alternating eyes? Passive does not do this. Therefore no introduction of flickering?


My apologizes for not being clear in the statement. Most certainly the flicker is an issue, but only when the refresh rates are too low or the processing for a particular projector is not up to snuff.

When you have proper processing, as the upper tier Sim2 projectors do, then there is no difference between the passive and active approach. Some do prefer one over the other but it's usually due to individual preferences.

Hope that clarifies it some. Take care.


----------



## jvh4

kimg1453 said:


> My apologizes for not being clear in the statement. Most certainly the flicker is an issue, but only when the refresh rates are too low or the processing for a particular projector is not up to snuff.
> 
> When you have proper processing, as the upper tier Sim2 projectors do, then there is no difference between the passive and active approach. Some do prefer one over the other but it's usually due to individual preferences.
> 
> Hope that clarifies it some. Take care.


Gotcha. I agree that flickering is an active problem, but now understand you meant that moving to passive isn't needed to eliminate the problem.


----------



## tomtastic

Here's an interesting read:

*Why 3D Will Dominate Cinema In The Future*
http://bsandrew.blogspot.com/

A positive look at 3D with this article by Mark Hughes and a Q and A with Barry Sandrew, founder of Legend3D. Discussions about the success of 3D films and where 3D is heading with HFR, HDR, 4K and 2D to 3D conversion.

It's also frustrating because they keep releasing this new technology just far enough apart that you have to buy new equipment every few years (surely this is planned to keep the market alive). I'd like to wait for a 4k passive OLED HDR display but I don't know if I can.


----------



## cakefoo

tomtastic said:


> Here's an interesting read:
> 
> *Why 3D Will Dominate Cinema In The Future*
> http://bsandrew.blogspot.com/
> 
> A positive look at 3D with this article by Mark Hughes and a Q and A with Barry Sandrew, founder of Legend3D. Discussions about the success of 3D films and where 3D is heading with HFR, HDR, 4K and 2D to 3D conversion.
> 
> It's also frustrating because they keep releasing this new technology just far enough apart that you have to buy new equipment every few years (surely this is planned to keep the market alive). I'd like to wait for a 4k passive OLED HDR display but I don't know if I can.


It's a long interview and I don't have time to read it right now, but I imagine Barry Sandrew isn't going to say his business is struggling.

Does he cover anything that might convince an objective reader?


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> Here's an interesting read:
> 
> *Why 3D Will Dominate Cinema In The Future*
> http://bsandrew.blogspot.com/
> 
> A positive look at 3D with this article by Mark Hughes and a Q and A with Barry Sandrew, founder of Legend3D. Discussions about the success of 3D films and where 3D is heading with HFR, HDR, 4K and 2D to 3D conversion.
> 
> It's also frustrating because they keep releasing this new technology just far enough apart that you have to buy new equipment every few years (surely this is planned to keep the market alive). I'd like to wait for a 4k passive OLED HDR display but I don't know if I can.


Thx for that link; indeed great read.


----------



## EVERRET

Barry B Sandrew Phd :

Be sure to check out the other posts on that page, http://bsandrew.blogspot.com/

One cool one is the 48 year old woman who learns to see stereo vision. Sue Barry, she explains the difference in the way her eyes saw things and processed them. 





http://bsandrew.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-hugo-gave-one-neuroscientist-gift_630.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/22/opinion/oe-barry22


> Combined with feelings of joy at my new view of 3-D movies were feelings of anger. Why hadn't anyone told me when I was a child that I lacked stereovision? Why had all my problems in school been blamed on my supposed lack of intelligence and not on my vision? Why hadn't my parents been told about optometric vision therapy? Why do these issues persist today?
> Perhaps 3-D movies have more to offer than pure entertainment. With the growing number of 3-D films for children, more parents may spot visual deficits in their kids. Detecting these problems early and then seeking proper treatment can improve a child's vision and transform a child's life.


----------



## aaronwt

jvh4 said:


> Yeah, we have light controlled HT and if my wife is watching 3D we have to bring all the lights down or she can see flickering. Funny thing is I can't see the flickering. I have perfect vision and she has terrible vision. I would consider going passive in the future for that reason.


Does it make a difference with LED lighting? In my setup my backlighting is LED which doesn't cause an issue but when I used CFL bulbs in the lighting fixtures, I had to make sure those lights were off or I would see flickering. Since I switched all my CFL bulbs out to LED bulbs, I don't see the flickering any more if those lights are on.


----------



## jvh4

aaronwt said:


> Does it make a difference with LED lighting? In my setup my backlighting is LED which doesn't cause an issue but when I used CFL bulbs in the lighting fixtures, I had to make sure those lights were off or I would see flickering. Since I switched all my CFL bulbs out to LED bulbs, I don't see the flickering any more if those lights are on.


Interesting. I haven't tried it with LED. Our HT lighting is predominantly CFL recessed on a CFL/LED dimmer. The 4 cans in the main seating area and closest to the screen are incandescent since they dim much lower and are IR controlled. Since I can't see the flicker, I won't offer my wife's services to experiment with different bulb styles  But, the 1st time she noticed the flicker was actually when we had the projector temporaily upsatairs in the living room during our HT reno, and those lights were a mix of incandescent and standard florescent.


----------



## Frank714

tomtastic said:


> *Why 3D Will Dominate Cinema In The Future*
> http://bsandrew.blogspot.com/
> 
> A positive look at 3D with this article by Mark Hughes and a Q and A with Barry Sandrew, founder of Legend3D. Discussions about the success of 3D films and where 3D is heading with HFR, HDR, 4K and 2D to 3D conversion.


Seriously, you didn't expect the CEO of a company specializing in 2D to 3D conversion to be anything but optimistic about the outlook of 3D?

As for traditional theaters, the 3D bonus ensures additional revenue, so that's probably going to stay _because of the extra price they can charge_. One of my friends constantly complains that he can hardly anymore watch a movie in 2D in a traditional theater, but a) has to wear 3D glasses and b) pay an extra for it.


----------



## jvh4

Are there people out there who love 3D, but won't watch it because of glasses, or is it just an excuse people use to bash 3D? It is the number 1 reason I hear why people don't like 3D, but find it hard to believe it's wearing glasses that are turning people off. The disposable passive glasses they hand out at theaters are pretty unobtrusive . . .


----------



## andy sullivan

jvh4 said:


> Are there people out there who love 3D, but won't watch it because of glasses, or is it just an excuse people use to bash 3D? It is the number 1 reason I hear why people don't like 3D, but find it hard to believe it's wearing glasses that are turning people off. The disposable passive glasses they hand out at theaters are pretty unobtrusive . . .


But what about the active glasses? I love 3d and own over 20 movies. I wear glasses so I must put the active 3d glasses over my regular glasses. They are heavy enough to start hurting my nose within 15 minutes. It won't stop me from watching 3d movies but I can see where it would be a serious turn off for some.


----------



## jvh4

andy sullivan said:


> But what about the active glasses? I love 3d and own over 20 movies. I wear glasses so I must put the active 3d glasses over my regular glasses. They are heavy enough to start hurting my nose within 15 minutes. It won't stop me from watching 3d movies but I can see where it would be a serious turn off for some.


That's a slightly different story, and a legitimate point, but most people throwing hate here don't have 3D at home, so they're experience is mostly based on theaters or friend's systems (or completely made up). 

Many active glasses options out there are terrible. If you're going active IMHO, you really have to do your homework on glasses and they are most noticeable enhancement or detractor from the 3D experience. I can speak from experience as I have a mitsubishi 3D projector which can only use the proprietary mitsu glasses, which are the most uncomfortable ever made. and the viewing lenses are so small you see the frame 

I actually had to have forum member help me make a custom cable to use an RF emitter, compatible with a variety of glasses. I now use Estar 3D glasses which to me are as comfortable as many passive glasses, and once set up (a little tricky) perform very well. If interested, I can post a link of the glasses I have.


----------



## andy sullivan

Most will just use what comes with the TV. If they do go elsewhere the run into some discouraging high prices. I went from a 70" Passive TV to a 70" Active TV (same brand) and the 3d experience has taken a major hit. I really do not see any difference in the 3d quality.


----------



## Armand07

kimg1453 said:


> Having active or passive is not the issue, it's the refresh rate. Sim2's top models use 144Hz triple flash refresh and the 3D it produces in my opinion is the best available and matched the best Cinema 3D.


Also the new Nero 3 LED has triple flash. I have the Superlumis and watching 3D is stunning with this projector.


----------



## jvh4

andy sullivan said:


> Most will just use what comes with the TV. If they do go elsewhere the run into some discouraging high prices. I went from a 70" Passive TV to a 70" Active TV (same brand) and the 3d experience has taken a major hit. I really do not see any difference in the 3d quality.


You are probably right, but the TV industry pushed 3D on consumers with very little forethought, and are getting skewered for it.


----------



## genesim

jvh4 said:


> You are probably right, but the TV industry pushed 3D on consumers with very little forethought, and are getting skewered for it.


I just posted something like this on the Step Up thread. 

I for the life of me cannot understand the backlash to bluray or 3D. It is like young kids just want to steal everything and would rather look at a tiny little screen. 

So different than when I grew up. It was all about bigger and better. 3D would have been a dream. I guess things have a comeback and right now TV series and Iphones are what is "it". I don't get it. I love film and quality and that is where I will always stand.


----------



## NorthSky

Passive 3D is more relaxing for the eyes.

Active 3D is more 'activating', and consequently more demanding and fatiguing. ...And for some people its just a no no. 

Test: Watch six hours non-stop of 3D passive viewing. Then the next day do the same with active 3D glasses. ...'See' how both your eyes feel after each extensive session. 

The day that we'll have no more 3D glasses to wear when watching a 3D flick that'll be the day! ...And in 4K.


----------



## NorthSky

jvh4 said:


> You are probably right, but the TV industry pushed 3D on consumers with very little forethought, and are getting skewered for it.


..The same thing with the tobacco industry yesterday. ...And the same with the oil industry. ...And the same with the cell phone industry. 

...All kind of 'waves' we put in our lives; inside and outside all around. ...Like transmission wave signals/impulses for telepathy and telecommunication and transportation and internal cancerous cells of relaxation. ...Like any other addictive/destructive drug. 

We are a society of consumption, from all our senses. ...Financial gain (money) is priority number one. Health is part of the vice (devise), by paying doctors for prescription pills (pharmaceutical industry/surgery of the brain). It is a social disease, an incurable virus that eats us all from the inside out.

We have fun @ making life more miserable for ourselves by paying the infectonator world dominators, and by making them richer while we're getting sicker.


----------



## tomtastic

Frank714 said:


> Seriously, you didn't expect the CEO of a company specializing in 2D to 3D conversion to be anything but optimistic about the outlook of 3D?
> 
> As for traditional theaters, the 3D bonus ensures additional revenue, so that's probably going to stay _because of the extra price they can charge_. One of my friends constantly complains that he can hardly anymore watch a movie in 2D in a traditional theater, but a) has to wear 3D glasses and b) pay an extra for it.


I didn't make any claim that it wouldn't be.


----------



## jvh4

NorthSky said:


> ..The same thing with the tobacco industry yesterday. ...And the same with the oil industry. ...And the same with the cell phone industry.
> 
> ...All kind of 'waves' we put in our lives; inside and outside all around. ...Like transmission wave signals/impulses for telepathy and telecommunication and transportation and internal cancerous cells of relaxation. ...Like any other addictive/destructive drug.
> 
> We are a society of consumption, from all our senses. ...Financial gain (money) is priority number one. Health is part of the vice (devise), by paying doctors for prescription pills (pharmaceutical industry/surgery of the brain). It is a social disease, an incurable virus that eats us all from the inside out.
> 
> We have fun @ making life more miserable for ourselves by paying the infectonator world dominators, and by making them richer while we're getting sicker.


Yes, but they sacrificed long term success for a quick cash grab. Instead of developing a mainstream market and the volume of sales that it could offer, they rushed 3D TV tech and pushed it on early adopters. The main stream has rejected 3D tech in its original and underdeveloped form. They poisoned the well, so to speak, and it will forever be an uphill battle to convince the main stream that the 3D tech has caught up and it is worth another shot. 

This is where the uninformed haters come in. Many do not follow and keep up with the latest tech. If you do your homework, there are great quality components creating great quality 3D, with fewer and fewer issues - including better and cheaper glasses. There is still work to be done.

I am still clinging to the hope that the emergence of glasses free TV will break the cycle and make the media, and haters rethink 3D and give it a shot. 

I firmly believe that if hollywood and TV manufacturers committed to producing quality products, and the media embraced 3D, the end result would be widespread acceptance of 3D and a 3D resurgence. 80% of media would benefit from well done 3D on quality 3D devices. Lots of ifs though . . .


----------



## NorthSky

We are already in 3D heavens, and 3D glasses come in all shapes and colors and style and they are extremely inexpensive too (my last pair of active one cost less than $10, battery included). ...And rechargeable ones you can get now for only $20. 

Oh yeah, you can save with passive 3D glasses for only $5 for two pairs. 

Today is the best time of our lives; we have 3D moving pictures on Blu, and we have Dolby Surround up-mixing (3D spatial surround). 

Of course tomorrow we'll have Dolby Atmos software, and Auro-3D software, and DTS-MDA software, and 4K software. ...All on Blu. 
But today is the time we live on now, and 3D Blu-ray movies are with us (about 1,000+ titles worldwide). ...And several of them are simply astounding! 
...Kind of like installing a new dimensional wall in your living room (getting rid of all of them more precisely); the fifth element, the four overhead speakers, the voice of god above. 

We live in a real 3D world, outside in real life, and also inside on our screens of our living rooms and home theater rooms.
...Visually, and auditory. ...Heck, even our emotions are getting closer to 3D!


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> We are already in 3D heavens, and 3D glasses come in all shapes and colors and style and they are extremely inexpensive too (my last pair of active one cost less than $10, battery included). ...And rechargeable ones you can get now for only $20.


The problem is that even most comfortable experience possible today isn't good enough for people. The issue is that the glasses darken the image and the room, the polarization screws with portable devices like phones and laptops, and over a 2 hour period it can become uncomfortable having something on your face.

3D will only experience a resurgence if autostereoscopic TV's can reach affordable pricing and have comfortable viewing angles.


----------



## ferl

cakefoo said:


> the polarization screws with portable devices like phones and laptops,.


I've not heard that one. Would you explain that for me?


----------



## cakefoo

ferl said:


> I've not heard that one. Would you explain that for me?


For instance, the left lens adds a dark brown tint on my iPhone in portrait mode, dark blue in landscape. The right lens has no effect in either orientation other than a little light loss.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> The problem is that even most comfortable experience possible today isn't good enough for people. The issue is that the glasses darken the image and the room, the polarization screws with portable devices like phones and laptops, and over a 2 hour period it can become uncomfortable having something on your face.
> 
> 3D will only experience a resurgence if autostereoscopic TV's can reach affordable pricing and have comfortable viewing angles.


I knew that you were going to exactly say that. 

As we speak right now we are working in ways to improve 3D moving pictures for all people; not only to 3D lovers, but also to 3D haters. 
It's a tough challenge, but we love challenges because they make us stronger, better, and more advanced all together. 

Stay tuned, in 3D; it's just the beginning of much better things to come. 

* Let me asking you this, and please answer it honestly: Right now, today, what do you prefer best; 2D, or 3D?
-> say @ home; from a larger screen, like by a front projector or on a flat panel HDTV or Ultra HD TV. ...And not from your iPhone's screen.


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> Passive 3D is more relaxing for the eyes.
> 
> Active 3D is more 'activating', and consequently more demanding and fatiguing. ...And for some people its just a no no.
> 
> Test: Watch six hours non-stop of 3D passive viewing. Then the next day do the same with active 3D glasses. ...'See' how both your eyes feel after each extensive session.
> 
> The day that we'll have no more 3D glasses to wear when watching a 3D flick that'll be the day! ...And in 4K.


It's just the opposite for me. At least with home setups. Passive 3D has been more fatiguing on my eyes with all the sets I've watched. While active 3D has been much less fatiguing on the sets I've watched. I am not a fan at all of passive 3D at home. Although I haven't had the opportunity to view 3D on a UHD set yet. I don't know anyone that has picked one up yet. Although if prices keep dropping I might pick one up for my secondary setup.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> It's just the opposite for me. At least with home setups. Passive 3D has been more fatiguing on my eyes with all the sets I've watched. While active 3D has been much less fatiguing on the sets I've watched.


That, is very interesting. And I would love to explore further, and with more member's commentaries. 

* What exactly would make passive 3D viewing more fatiguing for the eyes? ...And 3D active less?

Not the passive 3D glasses; then the 3D display itself? ...Or certain viewer's own eyes? ...In better adapting with 3D active.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> Let me asking you this, and please answer it honestly: Right now, today, what do you prefer best; 2D, or 3D?
> -> say @ home; from a larger screen, like by a front projector or on a flat panel HDTV or Ultra HD TV. ...And not from your iPhone's screen.


What do you mean? I don't simply prefer 2D or 3D like I do chocolate vs sardines.

What determines if a 2D movie or 3D movie plays before my eyes depends on my interest in the movie and my interest in the 3D, if it's even available in 3D. Since there are far more 2D films in existence, I have dozens on my watch list that are only in 2D, and I would rather watch those movies with their deep, often Oscar-worthy filmmaking than the average dude-bro action popcorn movies that 3D has shamelessly associated itself with for the past 4 years.

The kind of movies that I _have_ seen and loved in 3D are Hugo, Gravity, Great Gatsby, and Life of Pi, and I'm anticipating TS Spivet (if it ever releases in the US) and The Walk.


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> That, is very interesting. And I would love to explore further, and with more member's commentaries.
> 
> * What exactly would make passive 3D viewing more fatiguing for the eyes? ...And 3D active less?
> 
> Not the passive 3D glasses; then the 3D display itself? ...Or certain viewer's own eyes? ...In better adapting with 3D active.


The passive 3D sets I've viewed are half resolution and I think that is the issue. I have no problem with passive in the movie theater. And it was why I mentioned that I have not tried 3D on a UHD set. Those with passive 3D have a 1920x1080 video for each eye unlike the passive 1080p sets


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> What do you mean? I don't simply prefer 2D or 3D like I do chocolate vs sardines.
> 
> What determines if a 2D movie or 3D movie plays before my eyes depends on my interest in the movie and my interest in the 3D, if it's even available in 3D. Since there are far more 2D films in existence, I have dozens on my watch list that are only in 2D, and I would rather watch those movies with their deep, often Oscar-worthy filmmaking than the average dude-bro action popcorn movies that 3D has shamelessly associated itself with for the past 4 years.
> 
> The kind of movies that I _have_ seen and loved in 3D are Hugo, Gravity, Great Gatsby, and Life of Pi, and I'm anticipating TS Spivet (if it ever releases in the US) and The Walk.


♦ That's what I meant; the same great movie, properly done in 3D; which version you prefer most, the 2D version or the 3D one?
You just answered it very efficiently; thank you.



aaronwt said:


> The passive 3D sets I've viewed are half resolution and I think that is the issue. I have no problem with passive in the movie theater. And it was why I mentioned that I have not tried 3D on a UHD set. Those with passive 3D have a 1920x1080 video for each eye unlike the passive 1080p sets


♦ I see. I just didn't realize that it was fatiguing to have less resolution; I would have thought the opposite to be true. ...To a certain extent.


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> The passive 3D sets I've viewed are half resolution and I think that is the issue. I have no problem with passive in the movie theater. And it was why I mentioned that I have not tried 3D on a UHD set. Those with passive 3D have a 1920x1080 video for each eye unlike the passive 1080p sets


It was tried recently by Steve Withers of avforums on one 4K UHD TV, the forthcoming Panasonic AX902, with resounding success. He wrote:



> The AX902 uses passive 3D and, thanks to the higher resolution of its Ultra HD 4K panel, that means it can deliver a full 1080p image to each eye. The result is some very impressive 3D, with plenty of detail and no flicker or crosstalk. The AX902 was capable of delivering extremely accurate 3D images, whilst the motion handling remained effective and free of distracting judder. The panel's inherent brightness also came into play and when combined with the local dimming, the resulting 3D had real depth and plenty of pop. Recent 3D Blu-rays like Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and Sin City: A Dame to Kill For looked very impressive on the AX902 although, as always with passive 3D, the vertical viewing angles were limited; so make sure the Panasonic isn't placed too high.


----------



## jvh4

I will pick a 3D blu-ray over a 2d blu-ray 95% of the time. 

I would pick 3D Vudu or Comcast On-Demand over the 2D version 90% of the time. 

I would pick 2D Netflix over 3D netflix 90% of the time. I would also take a 2D blu-ray in 2D over converting it to 3D for most, but not all cases. I pick 2D TV over conversion to 3D 100% of the time,.

Edit: I have a Mitsu HC7800 which actually does a decent job of converting as a point of reference.


----------



## NSX1992

aaronwt said:


> It's just the opposite for me. At least with home setups. Passive 3D has been more fatiguing on my eyes with all the sets I've watched. While active 3D has been much less fatiguing on the sets I've watched. I am not a fan at all of passive 3D at home. Although I haven't had the opportunity to view 3D on a UHD set yet. I don't know anyone that has picked one up yet. Although if prices keep dropping I might pick one up for my secondary setup.


Let me assure you that passive 3D on a 4K set is the best possible, no flicker ,bright, and 1080p for each eye. I am an early adaptor having paid $13,000 for my 84" LG 4K set. I watch 3D all the time without any fatigue.


----------



## NorthSky

About 3D on an active 4K display? ...4K (2160p) picture for each eye?


----------



## tomtastic

NorthSky said:


> About 3D on an active 4K display? ...4K (2160p) picture for each eye?


Doesn't exist. Still 1080p per eye on active 4k.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> Doesn't exist. Still 1080p per eye on active 4k.


Thank you mister Tom.


----------



## WheelHoss1

tomtastic said:


> Doesn't exist. Still 1080p per eye on active 4k.


Doesn't exist, *yet.*

When 4K blu-ray comes out next year, and 4K 3D blu-rays start surfacing, all these people saying passive for 4K is better will be eating crow (as I pop in The Hobbit 4K 3D for the 200th time).


----------



## MLXXX

WheelHoss1 said:


> Doesn't exist, *yet.*
> When 4K blu-ray comes out next year, and 4K 3D blu-rays start surfacing, all these people saying passive for 4K is better will be eating crow (as I pop in The Hobbit 4K 3D for the 200th time).


But _The Hobbit_ movies were mastered at 48fps for projection in 3D with high frame rate RealD cinema projectors. Would an improved Blu-ray or other distribution medium support that frame rate? And will OLED displays support it?

At the cinema, RealD has a Left Right alteration rate of 144Hz for a 24fps 3D movie. For the 48fps of _The Hobbit_ 3D movies I seem to recall they were shown in the cinema in RealD at a higher rate, 192Hz (from memory), but I think that was generally only in 2K. 

I find 144Hz marginal for a 24fps movie. I have very occasionally seen mirage like effects because of the slight mistiming between presentation of left and right. I am not surprised a higher alternation rate was used for an underlying 48fps frame rate.

It is possible we will see 48fps 3D earlier in a new generation of passive OLED 4k displays, than we see true 4k 48fps 3D in active OLED 4k displays, but to date I have seen no reference to 48fps 3D capability with any OLED display.


----------



## tomtastic

WheelHoss1 said:


> Doesn't exist, *yet.*
> 
> When 4K blu-ray comes out next year, and 4K 3D blu-rays start surfacing, all these people saying passive for 4K is better will be eating crow (as I pop in The Hobbit 4K 3D for the 200th time).


And then passive manufactures will release an 8k display and that will be 2160p per eye and 8k per eye active will lag behind for many more years. It's an even playing field now with passive and active with the advantage going to passive because the glasses are less intrusive. Most likely it will be "years" before we see 4k 3D on Blu ray. They'll likely market 2D 4k stuff awhile and see how that goes.


----------



## NorthSky

But 3D active is better than 3D passive. ...?


----------



## Don Landis

Even 4K 3D will require a whole new set of electronics in the HT to accommodate the bandwidth of the systems. While a few may get into it, at some point we will be losing so many home theater enthusiasts that there will be no market for this stuff. Plus, the prior library of content won't be up to speed and therefore can't contribute to the justification of all new systems. It's why we don't see too many movies from the 40's, 50's, and 60's being remastered to BluRay. Can you imagine a market for 4K? much less 8K? I won't say it will never happen but it will be many years away before the cost comes down due to average J6P getting on board with 4K. TV's are now beginning to sell, but the content is mostly up-converts. People like my cousin who bought a 4K panel think they are watching 4K because they bought a 4K TV. He mostly watches DirecTV or DVD's on it. Doesn't even have a BluRay player! He can afford the cost of that TV but doesn't have or take the time to enjoy or even know what he has. I showed him how to watch 3D Netflix and some 3D You Tube from my channel on it and it looked nice.


----------



## tomtastic

I gave my older LCD panel to my folks so they could have a 1080p screen, upgraded their DVR to HD with Directv and also lowered their bill by 30 dollars and also upgraded them to HD on their DVR, they had only ever had SD on it. I was expecting to hear how much improvement their was in quality for them when watching 1080i stuff and 1080p stuff I had recorded for playback via Plex which I set up for them also. But I never heard one word from them how much better the quality was. I think they were fine with good old SD. If I mentioned 3D or 4k to them I think they'd probably just tell me no thanks. You're right, many really could care less about 1080p, 3D, 4k. Heck, I think there was a VCR still hooked up with tapes nearby. But I've also met younger folks who don't own or watch TV. Whatever makes you happy.


----------



## NorthSky

But 3D active is still better than 3D passive? ...All else being equal, and 3D not dead but alive and well. 

@ the theaters, and @ home.


----------



## Worf

To be honest, I wear glasses and hate the 3D glasses you get for IMAX, never mind he ones with TVs. Glasses are individual and it's impossible to have a one size fits all that's even remotely comfortable.

However, what has got me excited is glasses-free 3D - if you can, check out a demo for Ultra-D (not Ultra HD) technology. I came out quite impressed - a nice bright picture, no glasses (great if you're one of the 50% multitask ears who do something else like second screen), and looks amazing. This ain't no Nintendo 3DS gimmick, it works, and it's quite possibly the one big thing 3D needs to take off.

(Full disclosure - I have ready access to an Ultra D display, and have bought way more 3D content for it than when I just have my regular 3DTV)


----------



## tomtastic

Yes, we've all been watching Ultra D quite closely since Mark Henninger demoed it earlier this year. I think it's promising but it may be a longer wait on that tech, plus more time to develop it better. I'm not sure I want to wait that long. I think I'll end up just getting a passive 4k. I've never been bothered by brightness either with my current display. I know some go on and on about it but after a few seconds I don't notice the difference.


----------



## MLXXX

NorthSky said:


> But 3D active is still better than 3D passive? ...All else being equal, and 3D not dead but alive and well.
> 
> @ the theaters, and @ home.


Northsky, that would be a broad subject for discusssion. (If there isn't already a thread on that topic, perhaps you could start one!)

I will briefly comment on OLED technology as regards active vs passive.

One thing that is not clear to me at this stage is whether active will be a better performing technology with OLED displays. I suspect it might turn out to be because OLED pixels can shut off very quickly, unlike plasma pixels which have a significant afterglow (phosphor persistence). If active glasses for OLED displays can alternate rapidly enough (at 192Hz plus) and cleanly enough (quick transition from transmitting light to blocking light) then they might provide a better crosstalk performance than passive glasses; at a wider range of vertical viewing angles. And the alternation rate should be sufficient to avoid mirage-like effects for viewers sensitive to a phase lag between presentation of Left and Right content.


----------



## cinema13

Worf said:


> To be honest, I wear glasses and hate the 3D glasses you get for IMAX, never mind he ones with TVs. Glasses are individual and it's impossible to have a one size fits all that's even remotely comfortable.


Why not use the clip-on 3D lenses that fit over a pair of glasses?


----------



## NorthSky

MLXXX said:


> Northsky, that would be a broad subject for discussion. (If there isn't already a thread on that topic, perhaps you could start one!)


I was asking here because in this thread all the members are very smart. Their feedback is highly respected. 
- Like anyone else I have read multiple debates on active 3D vs passive 3D.



> I will briefly comment on OLED technology as regards active vs passive.
> 
> One thing that is not clear to me at this stage is whether active will be a better performing technology with OLED displays. I suspect it might turn out to be because OLED pixels can shut off very quickly, unlike plasma pixels which have a significant afterglow (phosphor persistence). If active glasses for OLED displays can alternate rapidly enough (at 192Hz plus) and cleanly enough (quick transition from transmitting light to blocking light) then they might provide a better crosstalk performance than passive glasses; at a wider range of vertical viewing angles. And the alternation rate should be sufficient to avoid mirage-like effects for viewers sensitive to a phase lag between presentation of Left and Right content.


I am very happy that you brought this very important 3D point going forward in the 3D evolution with our newer displays. ...OLED and 4K.
....Because Plasma is no more a continuing developing technology, so 3D active with plasma is going the way of the dodo.

The phosphor cell's ability to turn on/off very fast seems to have a direct relation with 3D efficiency, and with which technology it is (active or passive).

Digital 4K/3D front projectors with laser lights (no more bulbs) are also the new picture's reproducers going forward for the videophiles.
So it is still good to know which 3D technology is better performing with them, between active and passive.

* My question was/is still clearly defined and in 100% touch with 3D from the past, present and future 3D displays. 
It is in my opinion a very valid question to ask today because today is no more what was yesterday. ...And particularly in this very own thread here, regarding the death or survival of 3D. ...The 3D glasses are an important element, active vs passive 3D even more so, and going forward towards tomorrow they take even larger _ampleur_ (scope).

Also, to me, what I find quite interesting is the newest 3D films with several screen's aspect ratios. ...How are they going to fit with our new adaptable visions (routines)? I love IMAX 3D, but IMAX is not the big money maker. 
I can write a book or two on my 3D preferences from several aspect ratios chosen by our film directors/cameramen, but I won't.
The business aspect works in tandem with 3D latest technologies, and as we all know the best technology is not always the winning one (VHS vs Beta, HD DVD vs Blu-ray, Plasma vs LCD LED, tube vs solid state, analog vs digital, ...). 

Anyway, we're exploring the future (survival/evolution) of 3D, and here we have very capable and knowledgeable members on the 3D technology itself (implementation and techniques used), and also on its financial aspect (penetration) as well in the market (human factor in sociology/acceptance). 

It's like hi-res audio; it is the best and latest technology but its survival is only in the hands of true aficionados (audiophilia non-realistic musicianship niche market with high pedigree and high heeled shoes in an addicted world of ego and snobbism). The general masses (poor people, in general) are not buying into it, and for obvious reason; money. ...And convenience, plus they don't see (hear) the true higher performance either. ...But this for another thread...
And audio quality performance wise we all know who is the true real winner: Analog Open Reel tapes. ...Followed by analog vinyls (LPs and 45s). 

3D is unique; you cannot compare it to old yesterday with those blue/red cardboard glasses, and you cannot compare it with music either.
...Only with today's 2D.


----------



## NorthSky

cinema13 said:


> Why not use the clip-on 3D lenses that fit over a pair of glasses?


Best post so far today.


----------



## MLXXX

NorthSky said:


> - Like anyone else I have read multiple debates on active 3D vs passive 3D.


That is why I tried to restrict my comments above to one relatively new aspect [OLED and 3D].



NorthSky said:


> It's like hi-res audio; it is the best and latest technology but its survival is only in the hands of true aficionados (audiophilia non-realistic musicianship niche market with high pedigree and high heeled shoes in an addicted world of ego and snobbism). The general masses (poor people, in general) are not buying into it, and for obvious reason; money. ...And convenience, plus they don't see (hear) the true higher performance either. ...But this for another thread...
> And audio quality performance wise we all know who is the true real winner: Analog Open Reel tapes. ...Followed by analog vinyls (LPs and 45s).


 As NorthSky and most of us would know, magnetic tape is actually a superseded technology, abandoned long ago by the professional recording studios for recording, and no longer used as a consumer distribution medium. However, as NorthSky says, an audio discussion would be for another thread!


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> But 3D active is better than 3D passive. ...?





NorthSky said:


> But 3D active is still better than 3D passive?


Better at sharpness, sure. But despite halving the resolution on a 1080p set, I prefer the passive image because it doesn't flicker. At 4K the resolution drop will be even less noticeable because to appreciate 4K one has to sit closer or invest in a significantly larger screen.


----------



## NorthSky

With 3D passive (2K); do you have to sit eye-level (horizontally and vertically) with the display, and also not too close to the screen as to not see the artifacts? ...Vertical banding (black vertical moving bars), or whatever it is called.

And like you already mentioned, sharpness (@ half the resolution per eye).


----------



## MLXXX

NorthSky said:


> With 3D passive (2K); do you have to sit eye-level (horizontally and vertically) with the display, and also not too close to the screen as to not see the artifacts? ...Vertical banding (black vertical moving bars), or whatever it is called.


Passive 3D at a public cinema uses different technology that does not produce the artefacts produced by Film-type Patterned Retarder passive home displays.

Passive 3D on a home display if the display is only Full HD will involve a Film-type Patterned Retarder (FPR) that halves the number of vertical pixels that are visible for each eye. At reasonably close viewing distances you perceive a fine pattern of black horizontal lines, like Venetian blinds; and there are aliasing effects, e.g. a diagonal line can appear to have small jagged steps. I find that even at a greater viewing distance I perceive aliasing even if I can no longer see the individual black horizontal lines. If you are a reasonably non-critical viewer, 3D with a passive Full HD is not too bad. It is bright, and it doesn't flicker. Some people report finding it less tiring to watch than 120Hz active glasses technology.

The vertical viewing angle is _very_ critical. You get minimal ghosting if you are at the correct vertical viewing angle and horrible ghosting if you stray too much from that angle. The horizontal angle is not particularly important as regards ghosting but may affect the picture quality in other ways (LCD displays). Passive can be a particular benefit in Europe and Australia with a 50Hz television frame rate as active glasses usually operate at only 100Hz with a 50Hz picture, which can lead to noticeable miraging for a certain percentage of viewers (such as me!). 

A 4k passive panel is currently a very good solution* for viewing Full HD 3D if viewers are prepared to view at the optimum vertical viewing angle. With my 65" Sony 4k LCD TV I do not notice aliasing or black lines unless I get extremely close to the screen. Ghosting is low (though not as good as with DLP projectors and active glasses), and there is no timing discrepancy between displaying the Left and Right views.

_________

* I am assuming the passive 4K TV uses a fine pitch for the film-type patterned retarder resulting in 1080 horizontal lines for Left and interspersed 1080 horizontal lines for Right. (An exception is the 2013 model 55" Sony 4K set which uses a coarser FPR pitch.)


----------



## tezster

NorthSky said:


> With 3D passive (2K); do you have to sit eye-level (horizontally and vertically) with the display, and also not too close to the screen as to not see the artifacts? ...Vertical banding (black vertical moving bars), or whatever it is called.
> 
> And like you already mentioned, sharpness (@ half the resolution per eye).


Passive 3D sets are quite sensitive to vertical viewing angles, so you definitely don't want to be mounting one above a fireplace if you intend on watching 3D movies. I can readily see a difference seated vs. standing up on my particular set, for example (8.5' viewing distance from 70" display). Horizontal viewing angles are a little more forgiving. As for the vertical scan lines, I can't directly see them from my viewing distance, but I notice the effects of the halved resolution i.e. jagged lines, and some fine detail is lost. It's really not that bad, and is only readily apparent in certain scenes. Despite the limitations, I absolutely love watching 3D content at home. If the advancement of the technology and drop in price continues, I expect my next TV will be a 4k, passive 3D OLED set in the 70-80" range.


----------



## cajieboy

andy sullivan said:


> But what about the active glasses? I love 3d and own over 20 movies. I wear glasses so I must put the active 3d glasses over my regular glasses. They are heavy enough to start hurting my nose within 15 minutes. It won't stop me from watching 3d movies but I can see where it would be a serious turn off for some.


My situation is similar to yours with the exception that my active Panasonic glasses don't bother me at all. Here in Florida, it quite common to have those larger sunglasses that fit right over your regular glasses, especially if you're frequently going from inside lighting to bright outdoor sun. It's just convenience. 

My take on the over-amplified dislike of 3D is that some folks find the realism & experience just too different from what they've always known. Freaks'em out.


----------



## uberanalyst

cinema13 said:


> Why not use the clip-on 3D lenses that fit over a pair of glasses?





NorthSky said:


> Best post so far today.


This already exists: Our new LG OLED TV (which supports passive 3D) came with 2 pair of regular 3D glasses and 2 pair of "clip-ons." They work great.


----------



## andy sullivan

uberanalyst said:


> This already exists: Our new LG OLED TV (which supports passive 3D) came with 2 pair of regular 3D glasses and 2 pair of "clip-ons." They work great.


That would certainly do the trick. Now if I can find them for active.


----------



## tgm1024

andy sullivan said:


> That would certainly do the trick. Now if I can find them for active.



http://www.sainsonic.com/sainsonic-...ses-for-panasonic-sony-samsung-sharp-tvs.html


----------



## NorthSky

tgm1024 said:


> http://www.sainsonic.com/sainsonic-...ses-for-panasonic-sony-samsung-sharp-tvs.html


Your close friends; what they call you?


----------



## andy sullivan

tgm1024 said:


> http://www.sainsonic.com/sainsonic-...ses-for-panasonic-sony-samsung-sharp-tvs.html


Thanks. A little expensive but I'll order some when they are back in stock.


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> Your close friends; what they call you?


Muad'Dib, the techno-God.




andy sullivan said:


> Thanks. A little expensive but I'll order some when they are back in stock.


At $23.99? That's inline with regular ones, no? When I did a search, it seems like the average pair of actives these days (bypassing the nutty expensive ones) was ~$20.


----------



## NorthSky

That's right; the lower priced active 3D glasses (Samsung) are approximately $18/pair. ...Muad'Dib.


----------



## cajieboy

uberanalyst said:


> This already exists: Our new LG OLED TV (which supports passive 3D) came with 2 pair of regular 3D glasses and 2 pair of "clip-ons." They work great.


Great idea...except, I did not see any Panasonic 60 Series on the compatibility list. Is there a more updated list available or was that it?


----------



## johnny905

tezster said:


> If the advancement of the technology and drop in price continues, I expect my next TV will be a 4k, passive 3D OLED set in the 70-80" range.


Ditto. I am actively looking for something to upgrade my first gen 55" Sony 3DTV, but prices are still a touch too rich for me. But soon...


----------



## RichJH

johnny905 said:


> Ditto. I am actively looking for something to upgrade my first gen 55" Sony 3DTV, but prices are still a touch too rich for me. But soon...


I bought my LG 55LA9650 4K TV around March of 2014 on sale at Best Buy for $2250.00. 4K content is still a little slim but it's starting to slowly hit the market. I have heard that Amazon Prime has started streaming 4K content. I am waiting for a tech to upgrade my early TV to HDMI 2.0. Right now I watch 4K shorts through a flash connected to my USB port.

On a versuprizing note I have fallen head over heal for 3D. It is spectacular on my LG 4K TV. It comes with 6 passive glasses and I now have put together quite the library of titles. 

I was one who thought 3D was a gimmic and never cared much for it in theaters. My wife says it gives her headaches and prefers 2D titles.


----------



## genesim

Boy 3D is sure dead. Lets see we got Goodbye to Language that may potentially get a best picture nod now. After Toy Story 3...Life of Pi...Gravity....


----------



## NorthSky

If 3D is dead then 2D is dead too.

* Do you like Charlie Chaplin's flicks?

? And these:








---------


----------



## genesim

NorthSky said:


> If 3D is dead then 2D is dead too.
> 
> * Do you like Charlie Chaplin's flicks?
> 
> ? And these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------


Or Hugo which is like both.

I think having some of the old stage acted panel silent movies would greatly benefit from 3D done well. The absolute intention was to have a pop-up effect. Idiots that proclaim 3D dead are not looking at the fact that it has never ever died. It is more popular than ever (aside from the initial push that was all hype induced).


----------



## Hagenstein

genesim said:


> ...It is more popular than ever (aside from the initial push that was all hype induced).


Not to beat an almost dead horse or reopen sore wounds, but I wish Disney would recognize this. And this is not meant as Disney bashing; If I didn't like the films they put out (not my daughter/rest if family as well), then perhaps I wouldn't care. And I don't mean to imply they are no longer supporting 3D at all. I recognize most Marvel properties and perhaps some others, plus streaming options are being provided, but streaming 3D is neither preferred not practical for me per lack of bandwidth. And my pockets are not so deep as to be able to finance an area wide internet infrastructure overhaul to increase speed and bandwidth to sufficient levels, nor am I willing to uproot my family sell my home and move simply to gain faster internet. Simply, I would like Disney to follow through on what they had made big pushes for the past 3-4 years and continue to release 3D films in the 3D Blu Ray format. I do not think the cost of manufactureing 3D Blu Rays and putting them on store shelves, or even mail-order / online-only, is so significant that they would not still make substantial profits. Even if they still wind up releasing Frozen 3D Blu Ray in North America, the window of opportunity for largest profits (in North America) has likely passed; most people that really wanted it have already imported by now. I could be wrong.
Same for Big Hero 6. A sufficiently high demand for this title has already been demonstrated across mutiple forums. To not release it is to throw money down the drain imho. Hoping they will though. We'll see I guess.
Mini-Rant mode off.


----------



## NorthSky

I love 3D, I love Disney movies, I love PIXAR 3D animation films, I love 3D Disney Blu-rays, ...I will only talk Disney 3D Blu-rays here in North America with _Don Landis._
...And nobody else. :nerd:


----------



## SFMike

Gizmondo gets todays 3D Hater Award with this posting:
http://gizmodo.com/3...next-1677633906

And From TNW "From what I can tell, there are effectively no major TV makers working on 3D products for 2015."
http://thenextweb.co...urved-displays/

They end with: "*Let’s call it: 3D is dead.* Will curved TVs be next?"

We need to add Extreme Tech to the list of obituaries "3D TV is dead":
http://www.extremete...8-3d-tv-is-dead

It's interesting how gleeful most of these writers are about the lack of 3D at CES. It has been clear for awhile that tech writers have almost always been at the front of the 3D Haters Parade, with Roger Ebert leading the band. This is very disturbing as with no new TVs in production to take advantage of 3D in 4K they might be right that the current 3D TV era is over. I hope in the future we will be able to import sets from Asia when we want to upgrade.

Just In: Some good news from Digital Trends " all of LG’s new EF, EG, and UF series TVs are 3D capable, if you’re still interested in that."
http://www.digitaltr...es-oled-lineup/

They couldn't resist the "if you're still interested in THAT" comment.


----------



## NorthSky

Hey, thx for sharing that.


----------



## tomtastic

SFMike said:


> It's interesting how gleeful most of these writers are about the lack of 3D at CES. It has been clear for awhile that tech writers have almost always been at the front of the 3D Haters Parade, with Roger Ebert leading the band. This is very disturbing as with no new TVs in production to take advantage of 3D in 4K they might be right that the current 3D TV era is over. I hope in the future we will be able to import sets from Asia when we want to upgrade.


I don't know about 3D, but I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert _is_ dead. I think someone just posted on here most of the manufacturers are leaving the 3D feature included on the TVs, so there's no reason to fret about it.


----------



## icelt

SFMike said:


> Gizmondo gets todays 3D Hater Award with this posting:
> http://gizmodo.com/3...next-1677633906
> 
> And From TNW "From what I can tell, there are effectively no major TV makers working on 3D products for 2015."
> http://thenextweb.co...urved-displays/
> 
> They end with: "*Let’s call it: 3D is dead.* Will curved TVs be next?"
> 
> We need to add Extreme Tech to the list of obituaries "3D TV is dead":
> http://www.extremete...8-3d-tv-is-dead
> 
> It's interesting how gleeful most of these writers are about the lack of 3D at CES. It has been clear for awhile that tech writers have almost always been at the front of the 3D Haters Parade, with Roger Ebert leading the band. This is very disturbing as with no new TVs in production to take advantage of 3D in 4K they might be right that the current 3D TV era is over. I hope in the future we will be able to import sets from Asia when we want to upgrade.
> 
> Just In: Some good news from Digital Trends " all of LG’s new EF, EG, and UF series TVs are 3D capable, if you’re still interested in that."
> http://www.digitaltr...es-oled-lineup/
> 
> They couldn't resist the "if you're still interested in THAT" comment.


I love 3D in the cinema and at home and will continue to support the format with my wallet. Well at least those titles I deem worthy. That's all I can do, the remaining pieces will fall where they may.


----------



## aaronwt

Well that sucks if most of the UHD sets for 2015 are not 3D capable.


----------



## DRaven72

Yep there is going to be a slow down or near stop in 3D. That is till Cameron's next big thing, you know, Avatar 2 with new 3D bells and whistles thrown at you, hits the home market in 2017. Then comes Avatar 3, and 4 behind it. Don't care what people say, that IS going to push 3d back in the home. Then Disney will jump back on with Frozen 2 in 3d, and probably Star Wars Episode 8/9.(Of course they will redo 7 in software 3d and rerelease.)

3D will take a break, but will be back in full force with proper glass less and passive.


----------



## SFMike

*A "3D-like effect"*



tomtastic said:


> I don't know about 3D, but I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert _is_ dead. I think someone just posted on here most of the manufacturers are leaving the 3D feature included on the TVs, so there's no reason to fret about it.


Yes Roger Ebert has gone to his 3Dless reward. It seems the 3D feature is only being retained on the high end TVs. However, all the model information isn't in on the 2015 models. 

I'm not sure about Samsung entire line yet but here is what they are touting as a feature in their flagship model Ultra HD TV

"3D without the glasses
Although most viewers these days are very familiar with 3D entertainment, Samsung’s newest UHD TV brings an innovation that’s sure to be a surprise. The new Auto Depth Enhancer feature adds a feeling of depth to the picture and means you can actually enjoy a 3D-like effect without needing to wear 3D glasses."

No 3D feature but now we have a "3D-like effect" if that's not a sign they are thinking of ditching 3D support I don't know what is.


----------



## SFMike

DRaven72 said:


> Yep there is going to be a slow down or near stop in 3D. That is till Cameron's next big thing, you know, Avatar 2 with new 3D bells and whistles thrown at you, hits the home market in 2017. Then comes Avatar 3, and 4 behind it. Don't care what people say, that IS going to push 3d back in the home. Then Disney will jump back on with Frozen 2 in 3d, and probably Star Wars Episode 8/9.(Of course they will redo 7 in software 3d and rerelease.)
> 
> 3D will take a break, but will be back in full force with proper glass less and passive.


I sure hope you are right. Avatar 2 & 3 better be popular to make this scenario work and let's hope that if the TV makers jump in again Cameron won't make them exclusive to one manufactuer for two years. I really think the Panasonic deal he had with Avatar really hurt the sales of 3D sets in the beginning when there was a lack of software. As far a Disney Home Video goes maybe there will be a management change there which would solve our Disney problem. Since the release of blu-ray 3D discs are denied in this one department of a coproration with a global reach, I'm convinced it's one bad department head sticking to a lousy decision to save a few bucks, in his or her opinion, by shutting down 3D releases in Region A. Something Disney Marvel and Disney Worldwide doesn't seem to have a problem with.


----------



## tgm1024

SFMike said:


> And From TNW "From what I can tell, there are effectively no major TV makers working on 3D products for 2015."
> http://thenextweb.co...urved-displays/


I'm sorry, but what a jerk that writer is. "This year, 3D TVs are completely, utterly missing. And it’s great."

For what sick reason does this make some people so very happy?


----------



## tomtastic

As far as Disney is concerned, I enjoy some of their movies, mainly Pixar stuff. But mostly it's for the kids and they watch it on the iPad or iPhone anyways. If Planes 2 doesn't ever come to 3D BD, I could really care less. I would be more upset if Hobbit 3 didn't make it or documentary stuff.

I'm sure there's more than enough 3D capable displays rolling out this year to keep everyone happy that wants 3D. 3D is a niche market, no reason it should be marketed with the same exposure as 4k. 3D needed its market exposure back in 2011-12 to get manufactures to feature it and now 4k is needing that same push. If people want 3D, they'll ask for it. If not, they won't include it.


----------



## EVERRET

SFMike said:


> We need to add Extreme Tech to the list of obituaries "3D TV is dead":
> http://www.extremete...8-3d-tv-is-dead
> 
> It's interesting how gleeful most of these writers are about the lack of 3D at CES. It has been clear for awhile that tech writers have almost always been at the front of the 3D Haters Parade, with Roger Ebert leading the band. This is very disturbing as with no new TVs in production to take advantage of 3D in 4K they might be right that the current 3D TV era is over. I hope in the future we will be able to import sets from Asia when we want to upgrade.


Edit out the extreme Tech Article ..... it is 2 years old (kind of ironic though..... lol)


----------



## tgm1024

tgm1024 said:


> I'm sorry, but what a jerk that writer is. "This year, 3D TVs are completely, utterly missing. And it’s great."
> 
> For what sick reason does this make some people so very happy?


(quoting myself, lol)

Actually, the writer is just talking out of his @$$. The LG site shows "smart 3D" in the title of their 2015 models.

http://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-tvs

Take nothing this guy says as serious.

Note on the LG site: there's a bug in the selection filter: you have to click on both UHD and 3D to get the full range.


----------



## aaronwt

tgm1024 said:


> (quoting myself, lol)
> 
> Actually, the writer is just talking out of his @$$. The LG site shows "smart 3D" in the title of their 2015 models.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-tvs
> 
> Take nothing this guy says as serious.
> 
> Note on the LG site: there's a bug in the selection filter: you have to click on both UHD and 3D to get the full range.


 $20K for an 84", $25K for a curved 77" and  $100K for a curved 105"?


----------



## SFMike

EVERRET said:


> Edit out the extreme Tech Article ..... it is 2 years old (kind of ironic though..... lol)


 
OMG! You are right! I didn't notice that but it just goes to prove the point that it seems a majority of tech writers has had it out for 3D from the beginning.


----------



## tgm1024

SFMike said:


> OMG! You are right! I didn't notice that but it just goes to prove the point that it seems a majority of tech writers has had it out for 3D from the beginning.


They just want to sound like they're more intelligent than the industry is, and that it was something they knew would happen. "See how smart I am, 3D is silly, haha!", or some other equally brain dead @#$%.


----------



## marcuslaw

Fortunately, Panasonic's new flagship for 2015, the CX850U, will feature 3D (active). It's predecessor, the AX900, featured passive 3D.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> Fortunately, Panasonic's new flagship for 2015, the CX850U, will feature 3D (active). It's predecessor, the AX900, featured passive 3D.


I really believe that the more passive 3D that shows up, the more people will be turned onto 3D TV.


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> I really believe that the more passive 3D that shows up, the more people will be turned onto 3D TV.


Agreed. Syncing, charging glasses, flickering, it likely did more harm than good to get casual 3D viewers on board with 3D. But at that time, everyone was trying to cash in on 3D and getting the tech perfect wasn't possible. They saw the money potential with it with Avatar and thought it would just explode everywhere. The tech, while much better than what was available before, still had its drawbacks. Most don't want to wear glasses, and I remember saying that too, it's going to be tough to convince people to wear glasses, but you have to.

But imagine a world without the glasses? Now that really opens up the possibilities what 3D could do. We're still a ways off from that. Glasses free will take much longer to get perfected. Really, what needs to happen is glasses free needs to take off for casual 3D, people who don't know or care about 3D. Make it so that it's just an included feature that you can turn on or off. That's probably 5-10 years away though.

If 3D were dead you wouldn't see 3D at all in displays, nor the glasses free displays emerging. The market for 3D will always be niche for 3D, but you really have to look at what content is available. There's quite a few big directors pushing 3D. Plus IMAX which has done 3D for at least 20 years.

This recent resurgence of 3D was the best ever with the best content ever. Before, at least with movies, most of them were gimmicky, hokey or just low key movies. 3D has evolved into an art form and tool, if it wasn't already.

Hard to say what 3D will be ten years from now. We'll likely have the same tech drawbacks. Most of us will still be wearing glasses. But 3D has endured worse times and survived. It isn't going away after it just had its best outing to date.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> But imagine a world without the glasses? Now that really opens up the possibilities what 3D could do. We're still a ways off from that. Glasses free will take much longer to get perfected.


I envision an era where regular TV broadcasts might have specific objects (or extents---computer graphics term for rectangular regions) as 3D within a 2D broadcast. Imagine watching the news, and having a small amount of critical data off to the right indented carefully in positive parallax.

Admittedly a crummy example, but I think it's possible. 2D TVs could easily strip that out.

Regarding passive: Some of us have speculated for some time that one of single failings of 3D TV is that active appeared first. Had that not happened, then a significant albatross (you know the complaints) might never have manifested itself so strongly.

It's hung around the 3D neck like burn-in did around plasma's, even when people didn't realize how far it's come to avoid that these days. (VT60/ZT60 excepted....oye).


----------



## andy sullivan

In the February/March issue of Sound & Vision Magazine there are two letters to editor Rob Sabin complaining about how some of their writers have started bashing 3D and that many of us like 3D very much. In Robs respose to these two letters he says, " 3D was driven into the market my manufactures because they were looking to cash in on the 3D craze in movie theaters and did not understand that it wouldn't carry over, on a mass market scale, into the home". Regarding his staffers bashing 3D in their reviews he stated " It's not our fault that more people aren't using 3D, nor can I fault or sensor members of our staff who don't care about 3D or openly disdain it just because it might upset some readers. To each his own". First of all I find this a rather strage position to take for a Vidoe enthusiasts magazine. When readers read a review they are usually looking for professional information regarding performance. When reviewing a TV they should report on the TV's ability to render 3D not insert their personal opinions on the technology itself. These reviewers have an impact on potential buyers choices. I would like to see a few letters written to Rob from a some of our knowledgeable members here and express their thoughts.


----------



## MLXXX

SFMike said:


> Gizmondo gets todays 3D Hater Award with this posting:
> http://gizmodo.com/3...next-1677633906
> 
> And From TNW "From what I can tell, there are effectively no major TV makers working on 3D products for 2015."
> http://thenextweb.co...urved-displays/
> 
> They end with: "*Let’s call it: 3D is dead.* Will curved TVs be next?"
> 
> We need to add Extreme Tech to the list of obituaries "3D TV is dead":
> http://www.extremete...8-3d-tv-is-dead
> 
> It's interesting how gleeful most of these writers are about the lack of 3D at CES. It has been clear for awhile that tech writers have almost always been at the front of the 3D Haters Parade, with Roger Ebert leading the band. This is very disturbing as with no new TVs in production to take advantage of 3D in 4K they might be right that the current 3D TV era is over. I hope in the future we will be able to import sets from Asia when we want to upgrade.
> 
> Just In: Some good news from Digital Trends " all of LG’s new EF, EG, and UF series TVs are 3D capable, if you’re still interested in that."
> http://www.digitaltr...es-oled-lineup/
> 
> They couldn't resist the "if you're still interested in THAT" comment.


I find the first two articles SFMike has drawn our attention to above quite perplexing in their ignorance. Is it that 3D having become such a standard feature and tending not to be emphasised these days in promotional material, that writers of [hate] articles have simply applied wishful thinking and _assumed_ there is no 3D capability in the 2015 range of UHD TVs? Their rejoicing over the alleged death of 3D in television displays is highly premature. The third article is much more accurate, though still in my opinion unduly pessimistic and critical of 3D.

If you actually look at what manufacturers are offering for 2015 in their UHD range, 3D is in fact to be found all over the place! :-

LG:


tgm1024 said:


> (quoting myself, lol)
> 
> Actually, the writer is just talking out of his @$$. The LG site shows "smart 3D" in the title of their 2015 models.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-tvs
> 
> Take nothing this guy says as serious.
> 
> Note on the LG site: there's a bug in the selection filter: you have to click on both UHD and 3D to get the full range.


PANASONIC:


marcuslaw said:


> Fortunately, Panasonic's new flagship for 2015, the CX850U, will feature 3D (active). It's predecessor, the AX900, featured passive 3D.


SAMSUNG UHD 2015 K-model TVs: http://future.wikia.com/wiki/Samsung_2015_Television_Lineup

SONY:
I haven't been able to find anything specific so far, but I'd be very surprised if Sony didn't offer 3D capable UHD displays in their 2015 product range.


----------



## NorthSky

We need all new LED and OLED UHD TVs (4K) to be 3D compatible; be it 3D passive, be it 3D active, or be it 3D glasses free.
...In order for 3D to grow in grandeur/splendor. 
...All across the universe.


----------



## SFMike

andy sullivan said:


> First of all I find this a rather strage position to take for a Vidoe enthusiasts magazine. When readers read a review they are usually looking for professional information regarding performance. When reviewing a TV they should report on the TV's ability to render 3D not insert their personal opinions on the technology itself. These reviewers have an impact on potential buyers choices. I would like to see a few letters written to Rob from a some of our knowledgeable members here and express their thoughts.


 
I've noticed this in reviews too Andy and also find it very unprofessional. What if I think stereo sound is just overkill in a home TV set and in my review of a model just address the sound quality as "OK for those who care about that". This to me would be a very unprofessional review of a sets ability to those who are interested in the audio output of a new set. I have recently seen this exact kind of "review" given to the 3D feature on a reviewed TV. I still find it odd how so many AV media reviewers have had it out for 3D from the start. If they are not interested in a feature than no one should be is a common opinion. Very early on many writers went way out of their way to spread the opinion that 3D, in general, was not cool and those in the know should treat it as a jokey gimmick that should just go away....those geeky glasses....OMG.....uncool. The uncool campaign worked well and added to the lack of on going 3D promotion has led us to this point. Why would a reviewer for a AV magazine want to bother with an uncool feature they feel doesn't rate even addressing, even if it is THEIR JOB.


----------



## EVERRET

andy sullivan said:


> In the February/March issue of Sound & Vision Magazine....... In Robs response to two letters he says, "It's not our fault that more people aren't using 3D, nor can I fault or senior members of our staff who don't care about 3D or openly disdain it just because it might upset some readers*.* To each his own".
> First of all I find this a rather strange position to take for a Video enthusiasts magazine.


He assumes more people are not using 3D ? 

How hard was it for the Media & Magazines to ignore all the 3D at CES this last week , it was everywhere. Even though no one reported it the best thing to happen to 3D was..... 4K TV's

The Media, Magazines & manufacturers don't seem to realize there is a strong 3D fan base building up and it's getting stronger with every new 3D blockbuster that is released. Up till now 3D has suffered with very little content , but now with over 250+ 3D titles and no end in sight , I cannot see how 3D would ever slow down now. 

NOTE: He at least felt the need to respond to the negative feedback about his anti-3D senior staff members , so maybe that's a step in the right direction.


----------



## mars5l

From my perspective I wouldnt put it all on hardware for growth, there really needs to be some better content that arent kids movies. Some movies that were intended to be 3d like Avatar was. Once I saw Avatar I was ruined for anything else and once 3d tvs came out with movies I was set on getting one just for that reason. Maybe Avatar 2 will help push things along again


----------



## andy sullivan

He pointed out the fact that Vizio has dropped 3D from all of their TV's as an acceptable reason for professional reviewers to slam 3D and consider it irrelevant. If that's how they feel about the technology that's fine. I'm cool with that. For each his own is exactly what it says, for each his own, regarding the technology. But I don't think it's acceptable to interject your personal opininion when your job is to report the TV's performace. I don't care if you like 3D, I care about how the 3D capabilities present themselves. Clouding issues? Ghosting issues? Cross talk issues? That's performance oriented. This doesn't even touch the issue of, why the hell would a video enthusiasts magazine even want reviewers on staff that would be so dismissive of a feature like 3D. I hope some here read this magazine and chime in.


----------



## bluescreen

I've never understood the hate for 3D, particularly from enthusiasts. If you don't like the 3D don't use it, but why hate on it. I don't want a "smart" TV but I don't hate it .. I simply don't use the feature.

Some talk as if 3D was the bane of the industry and somehow it detracted from innovations to picture quality. How so? Slim TVs requiring edgelit design hurt picture quality. Hate on those. 4K putting the nail in the coffin on plasma hurt picture quality. Hate on that.

In recent years Full array LED and OLED have been the only real hope for delivering truly improved picture quality and 3D never stunted their development - they have just been cost prohibitive.

That said it will take affordable, high quality glasses free to revive 3D at home.


----------



## andy sullivan

Glasses free would be nice but not essential. Just make the glasses inexpensive and comfortable. Fashionable wouldn't hurt either. Passive vs Active? Are you kidding me. Remember VHS vs Beta? Remember Blu-Ray vs HDDVD? Why would anybody want to go down that same road with two competing 3D technologies? Especially within the same brand. If you look at the thread here at AVS for the Sony x850b series you'll notice that all four screen sizes are lumped under one heading. The majority of posters refer to their set as x850 when asking questions, sharing settings, and commenting on 3D performance. But, I say but, the 49" the 55" and the 65" all use IPS panels with Passive 3D while the 70" uses a AV panel with Active 3D. So why why why do panel makers continue to manufacture both Active and Passive panels? Why did Sony use a Passive panel in the 70r550a then switch to an Active panel the next year for the 70w850b then continue with Active the next year with the 70x850 4K panel (only the 70x, not the 49", 55" and 65")? It would be so much more palatable for the poor consumer to not be forced to contemplate another variable in the buying choice. Why make things more complicated than they need to be? 4K should be 100% Passive. Why? Because Active offers no advantage over Passive at the 4K level.


----------



## bluescreen

I also expected the advent of 4K would consolidate all manufacturers to passive. Maybe it is cheaper adding a bluetooth chip instead of a polarizing filter? Maybe they're counting on cross-selling additonal active glasses?


----------



## wigglywaffles

bluescreen said:


> I also expected the advent of 4K would consolidate all manufacturers to passive. Maybe it is cheaper adding a bluetooth chip instead of a polarizing filter? Maybe they're counting on cross-selling additonal active glasses?


Maybe they actually care about visual quality instead of trying to cater to the lowest common denominator who would rather cut the resolution of all their content in half than put up with slightly heavier glasses?

What is the purpose of buying a 4K TV just to watch all your 3D content at the same resolution of an active 3D 1080p TV? That's utterly ridiculous.

I didn't buy a 4K TV with 3D just so I could keep watching content at the same resolution of my 1080p TV with active 3D.

They've stuck with active 3D on 4K sets because they want to deliver 3D _and_ 4K, not one or the other. A 4K TV with passive 3D is useless; you might as well have just bought a 1080p TV with active 3D.



WheelHoss1 said:


> Doesn't exist, *yet.*
> 
> When 4K blu-ray comes out next year, and 4K 3D blu-rays start surfacing, all these people saying passive for 4K is better will be eating crow (as I pop in The Hobbit 4K 3D for the 200th time).


Actually, it does exist.

I've been PC gaming @ 4K resolution / 60 Hz using TriDef for the past few months on my Samsung 2014 series active 3D 4K TV.

I can use TriDef to drive games in stereoscopic side-by-side 3D at 4K resolution (which is 1920x2160 per eye, or ~4 million pixels; similar to the PC monitor resolution of 2560x1600). This is twice the resolution of 1080p, and it looks great. So the resolution is only half of 4K on an active 4K set when you use 4K SBS. On a passive 4K display, the video would be cut in half again so it would only be a quarter the resolution of 4K, or in other words, 1080p. So the maximum 3D experience you can get on a passive 3D 4K TV at the moment is 1080p; but on an active 3D 4K TV the maximum 3D experience you can get is twice the resolution of 1080p (1920x1080 = ~2 million pixels; 1920x2160 = ~4 million pixels)

Of course, frame-packed 3D at 4K resolution, which would deliver a full 3840x2160 per eye, is still to come. However, due to the bandwidth limitations of the garbage HDMI 2.0 standard, it will top out at 30 Hz, just like 1080p 3D topped out at 30 Hz over HDMI 1.4. So you may be able to get The Hobbit in full 4K 3D resolution on the Blu-ray 4K format, you won't also be able to get the high framerate version at the same time, and you have the awful HDMI 2.0 standard that television manufacturers hold us hostage to to thank for that. Once again, HDMI is holding back 3D from its full potential. You can't even begin to imagine how much I despise the HDMI Forum. PC gaming is also going to be held back once again thanks to this crappy standard as we won't be able to drive our PC games at a full 60 Hz at 4K resolution in 3D on a 3D 4K TV unless the manufacturer includes a DisplayPort 1.3 port.

If 4K TV manufacturers included a DisplayPort 1.3 input on their sets, however, we could get a full 3840x2160 in 3D @ 60 Hz because DisplayPort 1.3 takes a hearty dump all over HDMI 2.0 when it comes to having the most amount of bandwidth. DisplayPort 1.3 has 70% more bandwidth than HDMI 2.0 does. In a perfect world manufacturers would've just skipped HDMI entirely and only used DisplayPort as not only is it technically superior to HDMI, it is royalty-free so it is actually cheaper to put a DisplayPort on devices than it is to include HDMI ports due to the licensing fees that must be paid to the HDMI mafia for the "privilege" of using their inferior standard. History is repeating itself once again, because DisplayPort 1.2, which came out in 2009, was the only input that could drive full 1920x1080 frame-packed 3D @ 60 Hz until HDMI 2.0 was *finally* released and caught up to DisplayPort FOUR years later. DisplayPort 1.3 has immediately leap-frogged HDMI again, however, so it looks like DisplayPort 1.3 will be the only input with sufficient bandwidth to deliver everything at once until the HDMI Forum finally catches up to DisplayPort again in a few years and comes up with HDMI 3.0 or something. But of course by the time they do that I'm sure DisplayPort will hand their asses to them again for a third time.


----------



## tomtastic

That's not 4k3D, that's SbS half-width 4k, same as what you would get on YouTube. 4k 3D is 4096x2160x2 for theater as it was filmed, which doesn't exist yet for any format that I know of for HT. It isn't ridiculous if there's no content for it and no new news of 4k3D on the horizon.


----------



## cakefoo

DRaven72 said:


> Yep there is going to be a slow down or near stop in 3D. That is till Cameron's next big thing, you know, Avatar 2 with new 3D bells and whistles thrown at you, hits the home market in 2017. Then comes Avatar 3, and 4 behind it. Don't care what people say, that IS going to push 3d back in the home. Then Disney will jump back on with Frozen 2 in 3d, and probably Star Wars Episode 8/9.(Of course they will redo 7 in software 3d and rerelease.)
> 
> 3D will take a break, but will be back in full force with proper glass less and passive.


I have good news: Episodes 2 and 3 were converted to 3D and will be shown this year at fan conventions.

Also, Episode 7 will be released in 3D- they just shot in 2D because they wanted to shoot on film.


----------



## aaronwt

SO if they spent the millions to convert Episodes 2 and 3 to 3D, do they plan to release it on BD or at the theater? Otherwise what was the point?

I also saw an article somewhere that mentioned a glassless 8K, 3D monitor(100+ inches) that was shown at CES.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ www.soundandvision.com/content/samsung-and-others-show-glasses-free-tv

♦ www.soundandvision.com/content/samsung's-8k-res-glasses-less-3d-tv => Website's error (not mine)

_________


----------



## bluescreen

wigglywaffles said:


> What is the purpose of buying a 4K TV just to watch all your 3D content at the same resolution of an active 3D 1080p TV? That's utterly ridiculous.
> 
> I didn't buy a 4K TV with 3D just so I could keep watching content at the same resolution of my 1080p TV with active 3D.
> 
> They've stuck with active 3D on 4K sets because they want to deliver 3D _and_ 4K, not one or the other. A 4K TV with passive 3D is useless; you might as well have just bought a 1080p TV with active 3D.


Remember Passive 3D with 4K would actually display *double* the resolution of 1080p. As for 4K 3D content... let me know when it's available. But 2x1080P should be more than enough based on most television sizes anyways.


----------



## wigglywaffles

bluescreen said:


> Remember Passive 3D with 4K would actually display *double* the resolution of 1080p. As for 4K 3D content... let me know when it's available. But 2x1080P should be more than enough based on most television sizes anyways.


That is only with frame-packed 3D at 4K resolution which doesn't exist yet and probably won't until Blu-ray 4K so I bet every passive 4K TV made so far won't support it properly.

With side-by-side 3D at 4K resolution, the only 4K 3D that does currently exist, you get 1080p resolution on a passive 3D 4K TV. You get double the resolution of 1080p only on an active 3D 4K TV with side-by-side 3D at 4K resolution.

Movies aren't even the primary purpose to have 3D anyway as the selection of video content in 3D is still rather limited and is on the decline; there's only enough supply to watch a few hours worth of video in 3D a week. The primary purpose of 3D is PC video games, as the 3D makes an even bigger difference contributing to the immersion to an interactive medium than it does with a passive experience like a film. And there are far, far more hours of 3D content when it comes to video games than there are video.

So most of your time on your 4K TV will be spent playing PC games in 3D, which means you will need to be able to run at 60 Hz, and as stated only 4K side-by-side 3D can do that as HDMI 2.0 does not have enough bandwidth to drive frame-packed 4K 3D at 60 Hz.

So on a passive 3D 4K TV, you will be stuck at 1080p resolution in 3D most of the time while active 3D 4K TV people will get to enjoy being at twice-1080p resolution in 3D most of the time.

It is only with the rare occasional Blu-ray 4K 3D video that is still a year or two away, that a passive 3D 4K TV user will get to enjoy content at the same resolution an active 3D 4K TV user can experience right this very minute via PC games. And of course, that active 3D 4K TV user will get the full 3D experience at 4K when they pop in a Blu-ray 4K 3D video, the experience a passive 3D 4K TV user will never get to experience.


----------



## tezster

wigglywaffles said:


> Movies aren't even the primary purpose to have 3D anyway as the selection of video content in 3D is still rather limited and is on the decline.


Obviously, it's implied that you're speaking for yourself, since this is your post, as there are those like myself who utilize 3D to watch movies 99% of the time, and not for gaming. I also overwhelmingly prefer passive 3D, even accounting for the loss in resolution.


----------



## andy sullivan

tezster said:


> Obviously, it's implied that you're speaking for yourself, since this is your post, as there are those like myself who utilize 3D to watch movies 99% of the time, and not for gaming. I also overwhelmingly prefer passive 3D, even accounting for the loss in resolution.


I've had a 70" Sony with 1080p passive 3D and I now have a 70" Sony 4K with active 3D. In my opinion and the dozen or so people that have watched 3D on both sets, there is no noticeable difference in 3D quality.


----------



## bluescreen

wigglywaffles said:


> Movies aren't even the primary purpose to have 3D anyway as the selection of video content in 3D is still rather limited and is on the decline; there's only enough supply to watch a few hours worth of video in 3D a week. The primary purpose of 3D is PC video games, as the 3D makes an even bigger difference contributing to the immersion to an interactive medium than it does with a passive experience like a film.
> 
> And of course, that active 3D 4K TV user will get the full 3D experience at 4K when they pop in a Blu-ray 4K 3D video, the experience a passive 3D 4K TV user will never get to experience.


Okay, so were going to have to agree to totally disagree on this. I will never hook a PC up to my TV to play video games. I'm only concerned with 3D Blu-ray and streamed movies. I also don't believe that an increase in resolution over and above 3840X1080 will provide any notable benefit.
Given your penchant for playing video games alone, wouldn't the Oculus Rift be the superior solution to the immersive experience you seek?


----------



## tomtastic

I don't believe there's many on here that use 3D for gaming. As I recall the limitations right now were lower resolution and frame rate, 1080p24 or 720p60 for 3D, unless I'm mistaken. I could really care less about gaming for 3D. I tried it on PS3 a few times, it looked like a botched conversion job. 2D looked way better for that. I'm pretty certain I wouldn't use the same display that I watch movies for gaming either. 3D for me is for movies, documentaries and my own filmed content, I would say gaming is absolute zero on the list.

True 4k3D, will not be happening soon or ever, market pending. The new Ultra BD discs were only 2D, hard to say when/if they'll release anything for 3D. Probably not tell 2017 earliest.


----------



## aaronwt

wigglywaffles said:


> ........
> Movies aren't even the primary purpose to have 3D anyway as the selection of video content in 3D is still rather limited and is on the decline; there's only enough supply to watch a few hours worth of video in 3D a week. The primary purpose of 3D is PC video games, as the 3D makes an even bigger difference contributing to the immersion to an interactive medium than it does with a passive experience like a film................


Movies are the primary purpose for me. I stopped PC gaming ten years ago and have zero desire to go back to it. Just like I stopped using HTPCs many years ago too.


----------



## RolandL

aaronwt said:


> Movies are the primary purpose for me. I stopped PC gaming ten years ago and have zero desire to go back to it. Just like I stopped using HTPCs many years ago too.


P.C. Richard & Son weekly ad has two pages of Sony 4k TV's, all with 3D.

http://www.pcrichard.com/content/weekly_ad#6

http://www.pcrichard.com/content/weekly_ad#7


----------



## aaronwt

I forgot about all the big TV sales leading up to the Superbowl.


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## aaronwt

that would be sweet!!!


----------



## EVERRET

*4k 3d tv*

At the very beginning of this video , someone from the media finally say's something positive about the obvious...........


----------



## RichJH

Anyone know of any NZB 3D sites?
Rich


----------



## RichJH

I am in the market for a new 3D TV. It seems like 3D is falling out of favor with 2014/13 models being the ones available. At least I do seem to be able to buy a few models. LK, Sony and Samsung are a few sets that I have been looking at. Thoughts on what TV to buy. I am looking at 42 inch to 49 inch. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I will be buying within the week.
Rich


----------



## NorthSky

Samsung is a good place to start. ...By the way, there are roughly over 500+ Blu-ray 3D titles so far, from all over.


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> Samsung is a good place to start. ...By the way, there are roughly over 500+ Blu-ray 3D titles so far, from all over.


It's popular overseas, and theatrical releases aren't likely to stop anyway, so thankfully there's still a reason to put it into TVs.

I'd _strongly_ suggest a passive system.


----------



## aaronwt

tgm1024 said:


> It's popular overseas, and theatrical releases aren't likely to stop anyway, so thankfully there's still a reason to put it into TVs.
> 
> I'd _strongly_ suggest a passive system.


I would test both out to see which one you like best. Personally I prefer active 3D over passive.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> I would test both out to see which one you like best. Personally I prefer active 3D over passive.


^^^Good idea, however keep in mind that IME, your guests are not as likely to get headaches from passive. YMMV on this of course, but I've never had a negative feedback from this. Even an 89 year old loved it. (Sony KDL-60R550A).

That, and the glasses are very inexpensive and never need charging. I have a dozen and have the neighborhood kids over from time to time. So cute to watch them reaching out in mid-air.


----------



## EVERRET

RichJH said:


> I am in the market for a new 3D TV. It seems like 3D is falling out of favor with 2014/13 models being the ones available. At least I do seem to be able to buy a few models. LK, Sony and Samsung are a few sets that I have been looking at. Thoughts on what TV to buy. I am looking at 42 inch to 49 inch. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I will be buying within the week.
> Rich


2015 models are just starting to come out now 

What is the most $ you can spend & why is 49" your limit. 

Their is....... Passive (LG) vs Active (Samsung) ,....... 1080p vs 4K .............. Smart ? (connect to internet important ?)

Looks like you have a Frys close by ? so you can start here .... http://www.frys.com/search?query_search=&cat=-68520&zipCodeFound=true&pType=pDisplay&fq=100370%203D&sort=price%20asc&start=0&cat=-68520&from=0&to=24

Also , if you want to see 3D movies like Frozen , Ratatouille , Maleficent , Planes Fire & Rescue , Insurgent , Big Hero 6 , Need for speed , Step Up 5 & many others to come ..... without having to worry about the "out of Country" Region Coding , Start off with a *Region Free 3D* BluRay player. 
You can find them on Amazon & Ebay


----------



## aaronwt

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Good idea, however keep in mind that IME, your guests are not as likely to get headaches from active. YMMV on this of course, but I've never had a negative feedback from this. Even an 89 year old loved it. (Sony KDL-60R550A).
> 
> That, and the glasses are very inexpensive and never need charging. I have a dozen and have the neighborhood kids over from time to time. So cute to watch them reaching out in mid-air.


I've definitely has issues from passive. I'm much more likely to get a headache from home passive 3D than Active. I haven't had issues with theatrical 3D though.

I can wear the active glasses for my DLP set for many hours without a problem. But with my passive set my eyes feel very fatigued after an hour or two.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> I've definitely has issues from passive. I'm much more likely to get a headache from home passive 3D than Active. I haven't had issues with theatrical 3D though.
> 
> I can wear the active glasses for my DLP set for many hours without a problem. But with my passive set my eyes feel very fatigued after an hour or two.


^^^Very unusual. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the reverse.

There is no left right alternating flicker with passive. It's much easier on the neuro-optics. Plus, you don't see the ambient light strobed from around the TV.


----------



## aaronwt

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Very unusual. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the reverse.
> 
> There is no left right alternating flicker with passive. It's much easier on the neuro-optics. Plus, you don't see the ambient light strobed from around the TV.


The only light on when watching 3D on my DLP TV is from the 6500K backlights which is LED based. I get no flickering from those LED lights. If I had any flickering then I would never watch any 3D in that room. That would just be too annoying.


----------



## EVERRET

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Very unusual. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the reverse.
> 
> There is no left right alternating flicker with passive. It's much easier on the neuro-optics. Plus, you don't see the ambient light strobed from around the TV.





aaronwt said:


> I've definitely has issues from passive. I'm much more likely to get a headache from home passive 3D than Active. I haven't had issues with theatrical 3D though.
> 
> I can wear the active glasses for my DLP set for many hours without a problem. But with my passive set my eyes feel very fatigued after an hour or two.


Bottom Line , Each person is different...... I see a rainbow effect with lines when i watch with passive 3D glasses , Yet my own Brother does Not see them . He does see the Flicker in Active glasses people mention , but yet I don't see the flicker unless i look directly at a separate bright light. 

(Note: I have not tried passive 4K yet )
So each person needs to try both out to see what works or them , I am just happy they still have both.


----------



## NorthSky

I think the OP should check for himself; with his own set of eyes, between 3D Active and 3D Passive. 

Because what I might recommend might be the total opposite from his own eye's registration. Only him has to observe/experiment for himself.


----------



## tomtastic

I was having issues just awhile ago while watching content I filmed and played back on the BenQ 1070. I viewed first on LG passive upstairs and then again downstairs on the PJ. My eyes got a little fatigued with the PJ, actually causing my eyes to twitch. Up till now I haven't noticed it that much, my wife said it bothered her a little since we've had the PJ up. Never happens with passive. Hopefully it won't be too bad, I really like the PJ setup. 140" right in your face. Gravity was spectacular on it. Godzilla was definitely better this viewing. I'd say most 3D viewing going forward will be better downstairs. Also I'm able to sit dead center where the LG I had to sit back 11 feet on a 65" because of fireplace mounting. The 140" screen fills my entire vision at about the same distance. Leaping effects as well as depth are much better. Color and contrast much better of course on LCD panel. I don't notice any improvement with detail, that is with 1080p per eye, appears to be about the same.

I haven't been feeling the 3D love lately. Doesn't appear to be any movies I'm looking forward to. I've got a pretty good stock of movies already, so just rewatching some right now. Maybe Mad Max and Star Wars EP 7.


----------



## NorthSky

140" 3D screen's size; I envy you, I think. ...I do, for sure.


----------



## tgm1024

EVERRET said:


> Bottom Line , Each person is different...... I see a rainbow effect with lines when i watch with passive 3D glasses ,



A....................."rainbow effect". That's a new one! Does it change when you tilt your head or move subtly up and down, and what model TV do you have? I have to wonder if the FPR is misaligned.


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> I think the OP should check for himself; with his own set of eyes, between 3D Active and 3D Passive.
> 
> Because what I might recommend might be the total opposite from his own eye's registration. Only him has to observe/experiment for himself.


By doing what though, buying a TV and then returning it just to try another model? You can't test drive this stuff well in the store....many times active won't bother people until after watching for a while (half hour or hour into a movie or so perhaps?). Sometimes active will trigger discomfort immediately. If there's discomfort with passive, then I suspect that there's discomfort with all manner of 3D. The "false" stereopsis isn't perfect (and never could be) and some folks just cannot cope.

During Avatar in the theater, my sister in-law said that she was puking in the bathroom and she wasn't alone. LOL. My brother didn't see any guys in the bathroom that way, so perhaps there's a gender weighting to this.

Too bad for those few too, because when a 3D movie is spot on it can be jaw dropping beautiful.


----------



## NorthSky

@ least @ the stores he can have a "3D feel" for. ...This is serious shopping when it involves your eyes; time is required.


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Good idea, however keep in mind that IME, your guests are not as likely to get headaches from active. YMMV on this of course, but I've never had a negative feedback from this. Even an 89 year old loved it. (Sony KDL-60R550A).
> 
> That, and the glasses are very inexpensive and never need charging. I have a dozen and have the neighborhood kids over from time to time. So cute to watch them reaching out in mid-air.


I'm sure that's a typo. Tgm must have meant to write passive. [The Sony KDL-60R550A is a passive 3D set.]




aaronwt said:


> I've definitely has issues from passive. I'm much more likely to get a headache from home passive 3D than Active. I haven't had issues with theatrical 3D though.
> 
> I can wear the active glasses for my DLP set for many hours without a problem. But with my passive set my eyes feel very fatigued after an hour or two.


With an LED display that uses a film-type patterned retarder (to provide the Left and Right views on alternate lines for people wearing passive glasses) it is important to have the display screen at a compatible height (and angle, if the display is tilted) for the intended viewing position, so as to minimize ghosting. If that is done then the passive 3D should be calm and soothing compared with 120Hz active glasses 3D from a plasma or LED display. *That is the usual, reported, experience.* 4k passive sets provide an even better 3D experience than Full HD passive sets as the horizontal lines are so dense that the pattern of black horizontal lines that can be visible at closer viewing distances with a full HD 3D passive set when wearing 3D glasses, becomes invisible or negligible.

Active glasses DLP is a different technology to plasma or LED active 3D and can provide extremely low ghosting, potentially reducing viewer discomfort. However with most home DLP projectors the alternation rate for Blu-ray 24fps 3D material has been at only 120Hz, potentially a fatiguing alternation rate for a viewer, and not as smooth to watch as the 144Hz alternation rate used at a RealD public cinema (or by 144Hz 3D DLP projectors such as the BenQ W1070). Another factor coming into play is that projectors are usually watched in a dark room, and project low light levels, tending to reduce eye fatigue from alternation between the Left and Right views, all other things being equal. On the other hand, the large image size of a projector can exacerbate how noticeable the out of phase effect between presentation of the Left and Right views is for a 120Hz alternation rate.


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> I'm sure that's a typo. Tgm must have meant to write passive. [The Sony KDL-60R550A is a passive 3D set.]


Indeed, *thanks*! Fixed.

I'm borderline exhausted. Original sentence was akin to "more headaches from active"----I meant to reverse the logic in both halves of the sentence and neglected the 2nd half. Oops.


----------



## jvh4

I would just advise you to do significant research before deciding on active vs passive. There are pros and cons to both. IMHO the application matters a lot. For my light controlled theater, my active system is perfect for us. My wife is sensitive to flicker, so active would not likely be an option for us in a living room. There is a lot of bias in this debate, but the folks here do a good job of providing objective, unbiased information.


----------



## CheyenneWay

I just got into 3D this year with an acer H6510bd and primarly wanted it for use with my PC. Gaming on this thing is amazeballs and can't believe this type of setup isnt promoted more. The only problem I'm having is that the content is too big for my screen so I either need to bring the screen closer or buy some blackout fabric and make the displayed content fit on a 108"w X 72"h area. I love this stuff now!


----------



## DoDaLeCa

I don't know about Active 3D from personal experience but I've found that for my 65" LG 4K passive 3D FALD LCD TV that the ghosting is pretty darn terrible if the viewer's eye level is much below the center of the screen.

On the main HT couch my eldest daughter didn't want to watch 3D anymore with me as she complained it was too blurry and bothered her, my youngest sat through it without complaint. I was worried a bit about my eldest daughter's vision and she may be needing glasses (like both her parents!).

However, I then noticed that if I slouch or recline slightly in the couch that the ghosting suddenly appears or becomes instantly worse.

So I got my girls to bring the firm cushions down from another couch to stack up on the HT room couch with the approximate 4" increase in sitting height making them extremely happy and willing to watch 3D movies now. Their eye level would now be similar to mine and almost on the TV's vertical midpoint. 

So on my TV it is very important to have your eye level at the screen midpoint to prevent ghosting and/or blurry 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

Isn't that true with any 1080P passive set? No idea about UHD 3D sets.


----------



## mars5l

mines active UHD, but I only ever watch mine from straight on. Even up close though it still looks good


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> Isn't that true with any 1080P passive set? No idea about UHD 3D sets.


4K passive has a much tighter vertical viewing angle.


----------



## tezster

Ghosting outside the extremely narrow on-axis vertical field of view is passive 3D's biggest weakness, IMO. It doesn't help that larger screens and/or closer seating distance (which is what you want for better immersion) makes the problem worse, since the viewing angle to the corners of the display are even more pronounced.


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> 4K passive has a much tighter vertical viewing angle.


Tgm, do you have a link to an info source for that? I'm not saying you're wrong but I have never seen that claim made before.


Anecdotally, a cheap 42" Full HD passive 3D set I have (Soniq brand) has a very critical vertical viewing angle. Without taking measurements I'd estimate its vertical viewing angle range for minimal ghosting is quite similar to the limited vertical angle range that works for my 65" Sony 4k set (a 2013 model). 


Another factor that comes into play is that the bigger the screen and the closer the viewing distance the more of an issue getting the vertical position right becomes, as the top of the screen makes a different angle to the bottom of the screen. The usable viewing angle range diminishes. In fact you can only get so close to a film-type patterned retarder screen before it is impossible to avoid seeing ghosting. At such a distance the horizontal dark lines of a Full HD passive set, viewed with 3D glasses, have already become quite visible.


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> Tgm, do you have a link to an info source for that? I'm not saying you're wrong but I have never seen that claim made before.
> 
> Anecdotally, a cheap 42" Full HD passive 3D set I have (Soniq brand) has a very critical vertical viewing angle. Without taking measurements I'd estimate its vertical viewing angle range for minimal ghosting is quite similar to the limited vertical angle range that works for my 65" Sony 4k set (a 2013 model).


I tested personally the 2013 65X900A, and it's vertical viewing angle was precisely half that of the 65" 2K LG's and roughly half of my own 60" 2K sony passive. It's a pretty common observation, you should try looking again....I don't think you were testing it properly. And this is pretty old news.

In the 900A thread, there was some complaints as to why Sony made their 55" a 540 passive instead of a 1080. It outraged a lot of folks when it hit the press. A sony engineer discussing this 3rd hand pointed out that the vertical viewing angle was too tight once the screen got that small. The problem has to do with the fact that only 2 of the screen axes are reduced and the FPR height off of it is not.

Remember, if you lay the screen flat, the FPR hovers above the grid at the same height _regardless_ of how far apart the pixels (and scanlines) are. They don't make the screen itself thinner, they make the pixels tighter. If you chart this out, it means that you have a tighter viewing angle for screens of the same technology base and size, and if you sit on a couch, you'll notice that you'll start to have crosstalk (L/R leak) effects as you move your head up and down much more readily than if you do this with a 2K device.

Test it again, but this time against two screens of the same size.


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> Remember, if you lay the screen flat, the FPR hovers above the grid at the same height _regardless_ of how far apart the pixels (and scanlines) are. They don't make the screen itself thinner, they make the pixels tighter. If you chart this out, it means that you have a tighter viewing angle for screens of the same technology base and size, and if you sit on a couch, you'll notice that you'll start to have crosstalk (L/R leak) effects as you move your head up and down much more readily than if you do this with a 2K device.


I wasn't aware the FPR was kept at the same distance from the pixel grid of a 4k screen as for a 2k screen. If the FPR rows are twice as fine in order to filter pixel rows half as high [and assuming a 4k FPR is of similar depth to a 2k FPR) it makes sense to me that the viewing angle for low ghosting would be significantly reduced.

I have now found a few relevant anecdotal comments in the 900A thread (which thread currently contains 12,996 posts!), but nothing anywhere else. It surprises me that something as fundamental as this hasn't been more widely reported, especially in articles that point out advantages of UHD passive 3D screens over Full HD passive screens. IMHO it is a serious omission.



> Test it again, but this time against two screens of the same size.


Well the next time I'm in a showrooom with 2k and 4k passive 3d sets on display I will indeed do a comparison! A ratio of 2:1 in viewing angle shouldn't be too hard for me to spot. Cheers


----------



## Mike-90

Well here in the UK Sky have now decided to ditch their dedicated 3d channel which you could argue is yet another nail in the coffin at least in terms of 3d at home, hopefully the existence of 3d bluray ensures that it doesn't become completely redundent though even if it's just for a while.


----------



## tgm1024

Mike-90 said:


> Well here in the UK Sky are shutting down their dedicated 3d channel which isn't exactly an indication that it's here stay at least at home, hopefully the existence of 3d bluray ensures that it doesn't become completely redundent though even if it's just for a while.


Don't fall for that common mistake in logic. The non-viability of dedicated 3D channels says nothing at all about the viability of 3D as a whole. It was a broken concept to start with.


----------



## mars5l

Sure is a lot of movies coming out this spring and summer that are 3d.


----------



## aaronwt

mars5l said:


> Sure is a lot of movies coming out this spring and summer that are 3d.


Almost half of what was released last year during the May to August time frame.


----------



## johnny905

tgm1024 said:


> Don't fall for that common mistake in logic. The non-viability of dedicated 3D channels says nothing at all about the viability of 3D as a whole. It was a broken concept to start with.


+1

I have no interest watching poorly conceived 3D channels, but my 3D bluray movie collection continues to grow, as does my time streaming 3D movies on 3DGO.


----------



## marcuslaw

johnny905 said:


> tgm1024 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't fall for that common mistake in logic. The non-viability of dedicated 3D channels says nothing at all about the viability of 3D as a whole. It was a broken concept to start with.
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> I have no interest watching poorly conceived 3D channels, but my 3D bluray movie collection continues to grow, as does my time streaming 3D movies on 3DGO.
Click to expand...

+2. 201 3-D BD and counting. Long live the extra dimension.


----------



## tomtastic

Sky and 3Net weren't poorly conceived. They had good content, they just didn't have enough new content to keep things fresh. I would say that broadcast 3D failed because most just don't want to wear glasses also cost is considerably more. When it comes right down to it, people just want to turn something on and watch.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> Sky and 3Net weren't poorly conceived. They had good content, they just didn't have enough new content to keep things fresh. I would say that broadcast 3D failed because most just don't want to wear glasses also cost is considerably more. When it comes right down to it, people just want to turn something on and watch.


............Good Content
but.........not enough new to keep things fresh
and.........(your listed reasons regarding daily watching)
**MEANS**​"poorly conceived".


----------



## tomtastic

No, if there had been more viewers, it would bring demand for new content. The fact that 3D is not as easy to watch, straining to some viewers, ideal seating position, and whatever other drawbacks had more to do with it than broadcast vs 3D Blu ray. The only local place I know of to buy 3D Blu ray's now is Best Buy, other than a few new releases at Target and Wal Mart. Does that mean 3D Blu ray was "poorly conceived"? No, it just means there has been a decline in demand so they've removed the content. 

The only reason it could be poorly conceived would mean they way over estimated the popularity of 3D after the success of Avatar. Meaning the general public didn't care about 3D as much as they'd originally thought, there's just not enough demand for it. If they had known there'd be as much decline by now they'd likely have never released any broadcast 3D or 3D Blu ray spec or consumer 3D cameras. Broadcast 3D failed for many reasons, mostly decline in viewership, 3D Blu ray might be next.

If you're saying broadcast 3D was poorly conceived you're saying 3D is poorly conceived, I can't argue that. It's a personal choice.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> No, if there had been more viewers, it would bring demand for new content. The fact that 3D is not as easy to watch, straining to some viewers, ideal seating position, and whatever other drawbacks had more to do with it than broadcast vs 3D Blu ray. The only local place I know of to buy 3D Blu ray's now is Best Buy, other than a few new releases at Target and Wal Mart. Does that mean 3D Blu ray was "poorly conceived"? No, it just means there has been a decline in demand so they've removed the content.


The issue was with dedicated 3D channels.




tomtastic said:


> The only reason it could be poorly conceived would mean they way over estimated the popularity of 3D after the success of Avatar. Meaning the general public didn't care about 3D as much as they'd originally thought, there's just not enough demand for it. If they had known there'd be as much decline by now they'd likely have never released any broadcast 3D or 3D Blu ray spec or consumer 3D cameras. Broadcast 3D failed for many reasons, mostly decline in viewership, 3D Blu ray might be next.
> 
> If you're saying broadcast 3D was poorly conceived you're saying 3D is poorly conceived, I can't argue that. It's a personal choice.


Nonsense; you're connecting the two concepts laterally when in reality one is a superset of the other. Besides, be clear on what you mean by "broadcast". Does that include on-demand? Better not, because it's the notion of *dedicated 3D channels* that is poorly conceived not on-demand. And 3D as a whole is not poorly conceived of at all.


----------



## old corps

mars5l said:


> Sure is a lot of movies coming out this spring and summer that are 3d.


Sure hope some (most?) of them make it to Bluray.


Ed


----------



## tgm1024

old corps said:


> Sure hope some (most?) of them make it to Bluray.
> 
> 
> Ed


I'm pretty sure that all the major ones are available region free overseas sooner or later.

I've had good luck getting titles unavailable in the US from amazon.de & amazon.co.uk


----------



## EVERRET

aaronwt said:


> Almost half of what was released last year during the May to August time frame.


2014 : 15
Spiderman 2 - Godzilla - X-Men - Maleficent
Edge of Tomorrow - How to train your Dragon 2 - Transformers 
Planet of the Apes - Planes Fire & Rescue - Hercules 
Guardians of the Galaxy - Ninja Turtles - Step Up 5 - Sin City 
Boxtrolls 

2015 : 15
Avengers 2 - Mad Max - Poltergeist - San Andreas
Jurassic World - Inside Out
Terminator Genisys - Minions - Ant Man - Pixels
El Americano - Fantastic 4 
Maze Runner - Everest - Hotel Transylvania 2

Summer release comparison


----------



## mars5l

old corps said:


> Sure hope some (most?) of them make it to Bluray.
> 
> 
> Ed


Every 3d movie ive seen in theaters came out on bluray except Jackass 3d, well it came out in the 3d, just not the current tech 3d. Which I still will never understand, it was done in 3d it was huge in 3d in theaters, there is still a big market for 3d movies, why not give us the correct version.

I am super hyped to Mad Max Fury Road in 3d, I bet thats going to be one of the better ones this years for just pure depth and eye candy. Plus the biggest movie of the year will be in 3d as well, Star Wars.


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> The issue was with dedicated 3D channels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense; you're connecting the two concepts laterally when in reality one is a superset of the other. Besides, be clear on what you mean by "broadcast". Does that include on-demand? Better not, because it's the notion of *dedicated 3D channels* that is poorly conceived not on-demand. And 3D as a whole is not poorly conceived of at all.


Not talking about on demand, just the dedicated 3D channels. As I said, not poorly conceived. More like poorly received. Not enough interest in 3D. Not sure how else I can put it.


----------



## NorthSky

mars5l said:


> I am super hyped to *Mad Max: Fury Road - 3D* in 3d, I bet that's going to be one of the better ones this years for just pure depth and eye candy. Plus the biggest movie of the year will be in 3d as well, *Star Wars: Episode VII - 3D*.


Those two flicks alone tells us that 3D is still alive and kicking a$$ big time.  

♥ 3D will never die, just like Rock'nRoll. ...And Disney will be back, here on the North American continent; PIXAR, Marvel, Star Wars & all.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> Not talking about on demand, just the dedicated 3D channels. As I said, not poorly conceived. More like poorly received. Not enough interest in 3D. Not sure how else I can put it.


Put it however you like, you're still connecting two notion in a way that isn't correct. 3D could have been a drop-dead favorite among every movie watching fan in the universe and _*still be a bad fit for dedicated channels.*_


----------



## aaronwt

EVERRET said:


> 2014 : 15
> Spiderman 2 - Godzilla - X-Men - Maleficent
> Edge of Tomorrow - How to train your Dragon 2 - Transformers
> Planet of the Apes - Planes Fire & Rescue - Hercules
> Guardians of the Galaxy - Ninja Turtles - Step Up 5 - Sin City
> Boxtrolls
> 
> 2015 : 15
> Avengers 2 - Mad Max - Poltergeist - San Andreas
> Jurassic World - Inside Out
> Terminator Genisys - Minions - Ant Man - Pixels
> El Americano - Fantastic 4
> Maze Runner - Everest - Hotel Transylvania 2
> 
> Summer release comparison


The list I looked at was May to August TIme frame. Not through September. SInce the movie SUmmer season really doesn't go through the end of September. It listed something like 22 3D movies in 2014 and 12 3D movies in 2015.

And I included movies from other countries. Like the movie Lucy from last SUmmer was in 3D in China but was from France I think.(Must be France with Luc Besson writing and Directing Lucy)

There were several releases in 3D last year that were only available in China. For some reason the US doesn't warrant the release of 3D for movies like Lucy.


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> Those two flicks alone tells us that 3D is still alive and kicking a$$ big time.
> 
> ♥ 3D will never die, just like Rock'nRoll. ...And Disney will be back, here on the North American continent; PIXAR, Marvel, Star Wars & all.


Still not real 3D though. Very few movies are filmed in 3D. Most are post converted from 2D to 3D. Including Mad Max and Star Wars.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> Still not real 3D though. Very few movies are filmed in 3D. Most are post converted from 2D to 3D. Including Mad Max and Star Wars.


That's too bad then. ...Star wars is Disney.


----------



## kimg1453

Don't write off 3D conversions, as some are really outstanding in my opinion. Jurassic Park and Titanic are two examples.


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> Put it however you like, you're still connecting two notion in a way that isn't correct. 3D could have been a drop-dead favorite among every movie watching fan in the universe and _*still be a bad fit for dedicated channels.*_


That's fine, but the disagreement was that broadcast was "poorly conceived". You've not stated any factual basis to that. Do you have any? I've stated my reasons why it wasn't poorly conceived already which are the main reasons why broadcast failed to take off. They could not have better prepared it at the time in any meaningful way that broadcast 3D would still be around. Main reason: lack of interest. If you've got some facts to throw around fine. But saying it's poorly conceived doesn't back your claim.

-With the exception of ESPN 3D. That, I agree, poorly conceived. Sports is a live entertainment, which they had very few live broadcasts in 3D.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> That's fine, but the disagreement was that broadcast was "poorly conceived".


There are times when I think you're not reading a thing. I'll try one more time, and then give up, because frankly, you're not making any sense.




tomtastic said:


> You've not stated any factual basis to that. Do you have any? I've stated my reasons


You've stated opinions, not factual basis. Opinions, just like mine.




tomtastic said:


> why it wasn't poorly conceived already which are the main reasons why broadcast failed to take off. They could not have better prepared it at the time in any meaningful way that broadcast 3D would still be around. Main reason: lack of interest. If you've got some facts to throw around fine. But saying it's poorly conceived doesn't back your claim.
> 
> -With the exception of ESPN 3D. That, I agree, poorly conceived. Sports is a live entertainment, which they had very few live broadcasts in 3D.



^^^I'm sorry, but what is all this? It wasn't lack of interest in 3D broadcast but oh, jeez, yes, it was lack of interest in ONE 3D channel?

Ok, let's be clear here so we're not going in circles: YES, it's lack of interest, but you've framed it as lack of interest in 3D as a whole. There *is *a less-than-desireable amount of interest in 3D in the US, but what killed _dedicated channel 3D _was a lack of interest in _dedicated channel 3D_.

You're performing an unwarranted extrapolation by connecting the _*subset*_ called "3D channels" to the *superset* called "3D viewing".

Here, I'll spell it out for you:

*3D VIEWING AS A WHOLE*

 3D TVs are still being made in the world.
 3D movies are still being made theatrically and with that......
 3D blu-ray movies (home viewing) are still being sold (and even in the US).
*
DEDICATED 3D CHANNELS*

A briefly lived experiment that failed and as such are almost gone, if not completely so already.


----------



## tomtastic

3D Channels, 3D viewing, call it whatever you want. It's lack of interest. They put the content out, no one watched it. Does that clear it up? These are facts not opinions. You can read the articles why 3Net, N3D and Sky have pulled their content off the air as easily as I. It's not my opinion at all. They all say the same thing, decline in viewership. Lack of interest. I've yet to read anything in your posts that would convince me that 3D broadcast was poorly conceived.



> 3D VIEWING AS A WHOLE
> 3D TVs are still being made in the world.
> 3D movies are still being made theatrically and with that......
> 3D blu-ray movies (home viewing) are still being sold (and even in the US).


Less TVs in 2015
Less 3D movies in 2015
Less market for 3D Blu rays

All pointing towards a decline in 3D.



> DEDICATED 3D CHANNELS
> A briefly lived experiment that failed and as such are almost gone, if not completely so already.


Yes, I don't think that was the argument though. The only reason 3D Blu ray has survived is there are still movies being made in 3D. But fewer and fewer and many don't even make it to home release. Yes, it is a lack of 3D interest as a whole, not in a dedicated 3D channel. Does that clear it up? If there was a market for it, those channels would still be around. No one was watching them, so they pulled them.


----------



## tgm1024




----------



## NorthSky

Lol :grin:


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


>


My thoughts exactly! That's what happens when you don't back up your claim. You've given no facts or reasons to support 3D broadcast was ill conceived. Just that you don't agree.

Windows 8 -was ill conceived.

Broadcast 3D resulted from lack of interest in 3D. People don't want to bother with it. If you don't understand that, well as you put it:



tgm1024 said:


>


----------



## coolhand

tomtastic said:


> Not talking about on demand, just the dedicated 3D channels. As I said, not poorly conceived. More like poorly received. Not enough interest in 3D. Not sure how else I can put it.


Almost no distribution on any platform and almost no content.

You can put it any way you want. I was willing to change my carrier but none of the carriers in my footprint offered the channel until ~30 days before it was dropped. 

And the abject lack of content was laughable.


----------



## HockeyoAJB

tgm1024 said:


>


Haha. I think the point you are trying to make might be more easily grasped if you asked Tomtastic to explain why 3D in the theaters and on Blu-Ray isn't dead yet, while dedicated 3D broadcast channels are. This would force him to focus on the differences between broadcast and theatrical/physical distribution of 3D content, rather than the similarities.


----------



## tomtastic

And can I get at least one reason why broadcast 3D was ill conceived? I've pretty much said my piece on it. Again, aside from ESPN, that one I'll agree was ill conceived from the start but I had no problems with 3Net, they had IMAX content as well as original content and they were getting more and more original content right up until they gave it the ax.

BD and broadcast two different distribution markets, but both suffer from the same cause. Lack of interest. There used to be several places in town I could go to get local 3D Blu rays. Now, it's Best Buy or online. Disney's clearly ran the numbers, they see it as a lost cause. There are a few director holdouts, if they give up, that's pretty much it for 3D right now. 3D is niche, it had it's short resurgence and now it's on to 4k.

Again, only way I see broadcast 3D as ill conceived was they over estimated the demand for 3D in general. There just wasn't a market for it like they predicted. For most people 3D is too much to go through with little return. Hate to break it to you but 3D is dying a slow death. It needs something, glasses free maybe, I don't know.


----------



## film113

tomtastic said:


> 3D Channels, 3D viewing, call it whatever you want. It's lack of interest. They put the content out, no one watched it. Does that clear it up? These are facts not opinions.


Uh...no. The facts are that, yes they put out content, but if that content never changes and/or new content is not added, then viewing wanes. Just as any lessening of 3D disc sales comes from no advertising or promotion. People don't buy what they don't know even exists.

You want to know what's not selling right now? The highly-hyped 4K UHD televisions which you mentioned. This year, it was reported that UHD shipments (and that's shipments. not even sales) was 11% worldwide!! While there's obviously a price difference, the 3D GUARDIANS PF THE GALAXY sold approx. 30% of all BDs/DVDs _combined_! And that's just domestic.

The following is a report from last year:
_Worldwide sales of 3D TVs jumped 72 percent last year despite an industry-wide slump in the global TV market, data showed Monday.
3D TV shipments totaled 41.45 million units last year, compared with 24.14 million units in 2012, according to the data by DisplaySearch. The figure marks a nearly 18-fold growth from 2.26 million units in 2011,_

Also:

_Futuresource Consulting, which tracks sales quarterly, says the market is on track to achieve 157.7 million 3D TV sales in 2017, up from a forecast of 59.3 million for 2013.

"In 2017, 3DTVs will account for 58% of all TVs sold across the globe, rising from 18% last year," said Sam Leech, a research analyst for Futuresource Consulting, in September 2013. "Growth in the delivery of 3D content to the home is less apparent"
_
That last sentence is telling. The only thing 3D needs is for the industry to mention that 3D discs are available, and to cultivatw that growing market...*not* hide it or block it, as they are currently doing.


----------



## tgm1024

HockeyoAJB said:


> Haha. I think the point you are trying to make might be more easily grasped if you asked Tomtastic to explain why 3D in the theaters and on Blu-Ray isn't dead yet, while dedicated 3D broadcast channels are. This would force him to focus on the differences between broadcast and theatrical/physical distribution of 3D content, rather than the similarities.


I was trying. Good grief, I even listed the items out as differences _as a list._ Movies are there, blu-ray is there, 3D dedicated channels are not.

LOL, _you _give it a shot and see if he'll get it.


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> I was trying. Good grief, I even listed the items out as differences _as a list._ Movies are there, blu-ray is there, 3D dedicated channels are not.
> 
> LOL, _you _give it a shot and see if he'll get it.


Yes, it's funny, your list proves nothing of why you claim broadcast 3D was ill conceived. What exactly could content providers have done differently that would have made broadcast 3D a success instead of a failure? 

Nothing. They did everything they could at the time. It failed because you have a large percentage that hate 3D, another chunk that doesn't want to go through all the hassles (wearing the glasses, seating position, eye strain on and on) and then a small percentage that can't see 3D due to vision issues plus the extra cost of 3D. All those issues that are only associated with 3D content. These same issues exist for the Blu ray market too.

The simple fact is that broadcast is entirely different in it's market scheme. The costs are setup differently. The original content has to compete not only with different channels with similar content but also with 2D content. It felt the effects of the decline first. 3D Blu ray hasn't disappeared because studios can see a return and only manufacture a set number of releases for that market, accept Disney. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Directv removes their 3D on demand channel next which is the only thing left for me for on Directv, yes not broadcast content but the only 3D left.

They had content for broadcast 3D. The had a number of original shows on 3Net plus renewing content each week plus IMAX stuff. If you watch a particular channel on cable in 2D, after about a week, you've seen everything. That's expected. I would watch 3Net for one day, then check back the next week for new shows. Considering it was a new channel they had a lot of content right up till they canceled, not to mention it costs more to produce 3D content.

I think my issue is trying to explain this here, 3D lovers aren't going to accept the truth. I like 3D too, but I'm not blind to the fact that 3D is niche and in a decline.

3D Blu ray is around but it's felt the effects of the decline too. If things continue, its next. There's a certain threshold where studios won't spend the extra money to manufacture and ship 3D discs. Disney aside it hasn't happened yet, but Disney is pretty huge in the entertainment business. Frozen not coming to 3D in the US? Huge setback for 3D. There had to be a marketing decision there. If they knew they could sell x number of million copies of it here I'm sure they would have. They likely looked at the cost compared that to what previous titles were selling and gave it the ax. There's the streaming market too, maybe that will help. I doubt it.

4k content isn't really here yet, it's still a few years away and prices are high so the numbers of 4k sets sold are appropriate for the content that's available. I'm waiting it out. I'm perfectly happy with 1080p and 3D and don't feel the extra cost is worth it for the extra resolution.


----------



## coolhand

tomtastic said:


> And can I get at least one reason why broadcast 3D was ill conceived? I've pretty much said my piece on it. Again, aside from ESPN, that one I'll agree was ill conceived from the start but I had no problems with 3Net, they had IMAX content as well as original content and they were getting more and more original content right up until they gave it the ax.
> 
> BD and broadcast two different distribution markets, but both suffer from the same cause. Lack of interest. There used to be several places in town I could go to get local 3D Blu rays. Now, it's Best Buy or online. Disney's clearly ran the numbers, they see it as a lost cause. There are a few director holdouts, if they give up, that's pretty much it for 3D right now. 3D is niche, it had it's short resurgence and now it's on to 4k.
> 
> Again, only way I see broadcast 3D as ill conceived was they over estimated the demand for 3D in general. There just wasn't a market for it like they predicted. For most people 3D is too much to go through with little return. Hate to break it to you but 3D is dying a slow death. It needs something, glasses free maybe, I don't know.


You are being intellectually dishonest and seem to be stubbornly omitting a great number of facts. The truth is there was never any 3D channel that reached 10% of the households in the country. I doubt it ever got to 2%. So saying a channel that was available in almost no homes was an abject failure is akin to saying FXX2 is a failure. Its not big enough to fail.

Best Buy, et al have completely reshaped their floor plans to remove 70% of the DVD area. The truth is media doesn't sell at volumes worth dedicating so much real estate to it. That you would ascribe this rapidly changing market segment as a failure of 3D is comical. This is all media. CDs. Blu-ray, TV, ALL OF IT. And 3D is as available on Amazon, etc as Blu-ray. So outside of missing some releases here in the states we aren't missing out on much.


----------



## tomtastic

coolhand said:


> You are being intellectually dishonest and seem to be stubbornly omitting a great number of facts. The truth is there was never any 3D channel that reached 10% of the households in the country. I doubt it ever got to 2%. So saying a channel that was available in almost no homes was an abject failure is akin to saying FXX2 is a failure. Its not big enough to fail.
> 
> Best Buy, et al have completely reshaped their floor plans to remove 70% of the DVD area. The truth is media doesn't sell at volumes worth dedicating so much real estate to it. That you would ascribe this rapidly changing market segment as a failure of 3D is comical. This is all media. CDs. Blu-ray, TV, ALL OF IT. And 3D is as available on Amazon, etc as Blu-ray. So outside of missing some releases here in the states we aren't missing out on much.


True 3D channels weren't available to everyone, so if they had, 3D Broadcast would still be around? I think you can look at the areas that did have it as a test market if nothing else.

As for Best Buy, they still have a dedicated 3D section, I stated that I used to have other locations to buy them locally. And yes, that could also be a shift to streaming at work too. But I did ask the manager at one store and he said they just weren't selling the 3D movies, so they took them out entirely.


----------



## andy sullivan

Broadcast 3D would be readily accpted if enough content was available at a reasonable price. We'll never know because that scenario never happened and never will. Vizio stopped making 3D TV's which hurt their flexibility in the market place but also hurt the reputation of 3D in the home. Active vs Passive also hurt 3D badily. I've had both and Passive is much easier to live with. Wearing glasses is, for the most part, just an excuse to hate 3D. How many people refuse to wear sun glasses because they are uncomfortable? Very few.


----------



## NorthSky

film113 said:


> Uh...no. The facts are that, yes they put out content, but if that content never changes and/or new content is not added, then viewing wanes. Just as any lessening of 3D disc sales comes from no advertising or promotion. People don't buy what they don't know even exists.
> You want to know what's not selling right now? The highly-hyped 4K UHD televisions which you mentioned. This year, it was reported that UHD shipments (and that's shipments. not even sales) was 11% worldwide!! While there's obviously a price difference, the 3D GUARDIANS PF THE GALAXY sold approx. 30% of all BDs/DVDs _combined_! And that's just domestic.
> The following is a report from last year:
> _Worldwide sales of 3D TVs jumped 72 percent last year despite an industry-wide slump in the global TV market, data showed Monday.
> 3D TV shipments totaled 41.45 million units last year, compared with 24.14 million units in 2012, according to data by DisplaySearch. The figure marks a nearly 18-fold growth from 2.26 million units in 2011,_
> Also:
> _Futuresource Consulting, which tracks sales quarterly, says the market is on track to achieve 157.7 million 3D TV sales in 2017, up from a forecast of 59.3 million for 2013.
> "In 2017, 3DTVs will account for 58% of all TVs sold across the globe, rising from 18% last year," said Sam Leech, a research analyst for Futuresource Consulting, in September 2013. "Growth in the delivery of 3D content to the home is less apparent"_
> That last sentence is telling. The only thing 3D needs is for the industry to mention that 3D discs are available, and to cultivatw that growing market...*not* hide it or block it, as they are currently doing.


All those stats are alarming, and the 3D content is even more extra alarming. ...Worldwide. ...Including _'Guardians of the Galaxy' 3D_ on Blu.


----------



## aaronwt

But are those stats even still valid? The largest TV seller, Vizio, doesn't sell 3D sets any more. That alone should create a drop in 3D sets or at least a drop in the estimates. And more makers are following suit. Either giving up on selling 3D sets or making fewer sets with 3D capability.


----------



## film113

aaronwt said:


> But are those stats even still valid? The largest TV seller, Vizio, doesn't sell 3D sets any more. That alone should create a drop in 3D sets or at least a drop in the estimates. And more makers are following suit. Either giving up on selling 3D sets or making fewer sets with 3D capability.


Even though I haven't seen recent numbers yet, you are probably right. But it shows how well they sold when consumers were allowed any awareness of it...and that it has a strong installed base. Ignoring that is their loss. But with UHD selling so poorly for now, one would think the industry would tout all their features on various sets, rather than trying to bury one.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> Yes, it's funny, your list proves nothing of why you claim broadcast 3D was ill conceived. What exactly could content providers have done differently that would have made broadcast 3D a success instead of a failure?
> 
> Nothing. They did everything they could at the time. It failed because you have a large percentage that hate 3D, another chunk that doesn't want to go through all the hassles (wearing the glasses, seating position, eye strain on and on) and then a small percentage that can't see 3D due to vision issues plus the extra cost of 3D. All those issues that are only associated with 3D content. These same issues exist for the Blu ray market too.


Ok, I read the rest of your post, but let's stop right here and let's see if we can get to the bottom of this. With *short *replies.

You said: "These same issues exist for the Blu ray market too." Let's say that's true for now. Now answer this, *and only this*, without a page full of fluff: _*Did the 3D blu-ray market die off yet?*_

Don't ask again about what was ill-conceived about 3D channels, because that could be an endless argument of nuance and minutiae and is a detail that does not matter. The fundamental issue is that it died off quickly, which frankly, is the bottom line. So just answer the above question in bold, and then we'll go on from there.


----------



## peschiNL

this thread reminds me of the argument sketch from Monty Python.


----------



## tgm1024

peschiNL said:


> this thread reminds me of the argument sketch from Monty Python.


Me too!


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> Ok, I read the rest of your post, but let's stop right here and let's see if we can get to the bottom of this. With *short *replies.
> 
> You said: "These same issues exist for the Blu ray market too." Let's say that's true for now. Now answer this, *and only this*, without a page full of fluff: _*Did the 3D blu-ray market die off yet?*_
> 
> Don't ask again about what was ill-conceived about 3D channels, because that could be an endless argument of nuance and minutiae and is a detail that does not matter. The fundamental issue is that it died off quickly, which frankly, is the bottom line. So just answer the above question in bold, and then we'll go on from there.


I think I already answered that. It hasn't died off yet, but it hasn't been unscathed either. There's signs it's felt the effects of a decline in interest in 3D as a whole. Lack of available titles locally only distributed to ROW, especially Disney among other releases not getting BD. True 3D BD has to compete with streaming and on demand that soak off some of that. But other indications also indicate a decline in 3D that can't be ignored. Fewer 3D films that in previous years, fewer 3D display manufacturers. Next to no consumer grade recording equipment. Real D is struggling looking for a buyer, a huge player in 3D conversions.

The debate about lack of content just baffles me. Did any of you watch the 3D channels when they were on? I turn on other 2D channels now and literally after a week, I've seen it all. They start re airing everything. I can't speak for Sky 3D, but 3Net had a lot of diverse content. It wasn't a specific interest channel, but a consortium of everything. Yes, if you watched nothing but 3Net for a week, you'd eventually see everything, but that's no different than most channels. 3D channels were new and uncharted, you can't expect them to have an endless catalog of unseen content.

Speaking of 3Net specifically, Directv was their largest distributor which is something like 20 million subscribers in the US. 3Net was included on their tier 2 plan and up if I remember correctly. So not everyone in that 20 million had it, plus 3Net was available in select cable markets across the country. Really, the available base of customers was pretty vast.

I'm still asking about why anyone would claim 3D broadcast was ill conceived because I really don't understand that standpoint. What could they have done differently? I think they way over estimated the interest in 3D, riding on that wave in 2009-2010 that the notion that everything had to be in 3D because one movie did so great and 3D hit an all time high, so naturally we needed broadcast 3D. But all it really was, was a lack of interest in 3D itself and all of the hassles of 3D that don't exist in 2D and for little return in entertainment value and on top of that: extra cost. Based on the reports from all the 3D channels closures they site the same reason: a "lack of interest".

Yes, 3D BD is still around, the market is different, the costs aren't all on one entity for distribution but directly from the content sources. The biggest sources of 3D BD's come from theater releases. Near as I can tell there's around 15 fewer titles than last year, and next year what if there's even fewer? And then the next? 3D BD can hang on until the very end, not a case and point that broadcast couldn't so broadcast was ill conceived. It's merely felt the decline in interest first, or didn't live up to the "perceived audience expectations" they intended. I'll concede the later as a merit for ill conceived, because I think it's true to a large degree.

Broadcast and networks don't always make the right decisions. But all 3D channels? It was clear 3D didn't interest enough to justify the cost. Obviously different markets. 3D BD's are still around and streaming and will continue to even if there's only a few movies each year. It can manage that.

Maybe they should stop charging more, maybe ultra D will bring in more viewers. I think it's too late at this point. Even if they offered ultra D as an included feature that didn't raise the price of your screen to 10k, it's too late. They've already turned people off on 3D.

Sorry, rambling on a bit. But clearly the 3D craze is over, it had it's time once again and now it's fading. Manufacturers see it, broadcast was the first, it's not the last. Oh well, I can't look at what's down the road and see a bright future for 3D. The big question is whether or not it can continue in a niche market and whether interest will return.


----------



## marcuslaw

tomtastic said:


> Oh well, I can't look at what's down the road and see a bright future for 3D. The big question is whether or not it can continue in a niche market and whether interest will return.


For those who lost it, "interest will return" when Avatar 2, 3 and 4 and Star Wars The Force Awakens, its sequels and spin offs come to home video.

P.S. I'm quite certain the Avatar sequels will have theatrical releases in 3-D but am unsure about Star Wars.


----------



## Nodscene

I'm far from being an expert so take what I say with a grain of salt but I'm coming at this from a consumers perspective. While I may not have a lot of money to spend compared to a lot of people, I've also spent a lot more than the majority if you look at things percentage wise. My problem with 3D comes down to one thing and that's cost. It's the only reason it wasn't implemented in my house. It's not even the cost of the TV's that was the issue but the content itself. The costs of 3D blu rays are in the $50+ range...seriously, how are you going to get market penetration at that price. Even on sale at Amazon.ca...Penguins of Madagascar is $34.99, Guardian's Of The Galaxy is $31.99, LEGO Movie is $31.03. I'm sure you see my point. You are never going to have mass market adoption at those prices, simple as that. And this is coming from someone who literally has hundreds of cd's, lp's, dvd's, and blu ray's, so I don't have a problem spending money on entertainment media. But greed will get you every time and this is no different. You can have every household in NA owning a 3D tv but that isn't going to make any difference when no one can or is willing to, or can afford to pay those kinds of prices.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> I think I already answered that. It hasn't died off yet, but it hasn't been unscathed either.


Ok, good. Now: Do you suppose there's a reason that 3DBD are here and channels aren't?


----------



## Frank714

^^ Interesting perspective and true, IMHO. In addition to the higher price, audiences have to put on 3D glasses and usually get a darker picture which most will probably notice either on a conscious or unconscious level.

And how much depth perception does the average Joe get with his flat screen "acquarium" from an average viewing distance compared to the home theater enthusiast with a projection screen?


----------



## marcuslaw

Nodscene said:


> It's not even the cost of the TV's that was the issue but the content itself. The costs of 3D blu rays are in the $50+ range...seriously, how are you going to get market penetration at that price. Even on sale at Amazon.ca...Penguins of Madagascar is $34.99, Guardian's Of The Galaxy is $31.99, LEGO Movie is $31.03. I'm sure you see my point. You are never going to have mass market adoption at those prices, simple as that. And this is coming from someone who literally has hundreds of cd's, lp's, dvd's, and blu ray's, so I don't have a problem spending money on entertainment media. But greed will get you every time and this is no different. You can have every household in NA owning a 3D tv but that isn't going to make any difference when no one can or is willing to, or can afford to pay those kinds of prices.


Do you shop for BDs only at brick and mortars like Target?!?!  I own over 200 3-D Blu-rays (with a few on order) and have paid more than $30 for less than a dozen of them.


----------



## HockeyoAJB

tomtastic said:


> True 3D channels weren't available to everyone, so if they had, 3D Broadcast would still be around? I think you can look at the areas that did have it as a test market if nothing else.


To understand the why the idea of a 3D channel doesn't work, consider the following...

For what type of content does 3D tend to work? Answer: Action, sci-fi, fantasy, space/ocean documentaries, and animated kid's movies. Examples: Avatar, Pacific Rim, Gravity, World War Z, Jurassic Park, IMAX Hubble, IMAX Under the Sea, Toy Story 1-3, etc.

For what type of content does 3D not work? Answer: Dramas, Comedies, Period pieces, Live Sports, Talk Shows, Cooking Shows, Home Improvement Shows, and the News. 3D seems gimmicky in this type of content. Who thinks it would be a good idea to convert Grey's Anatomy, Law & Order, Modern Family, Gone With the Wind, Schindler's List, The View, Rachael Ray, Property Brothers, 60 Minutes, or NBC Nightly News to 3D? While intriguing for a moment, the idea of watching all of my sports in 3D doesn't sound very appealing. It becomes distracting as 3D only really works for a limited portion of the image, which is typically predetermined by the director...a fact that doesn't tend to mesh with unpredictable live action.

So, we've established that the content on a successful 3D channel would have to consist primarily of action/sci-fi series and feature length films, space and ocean documentaries, and/or animated kid's films. This means the intended audience for the channel would have to be primarily teenage boys and men 18-45 or kids. Note: a single channel can't really mix the two as they'll have a hard time retaining viewers if they jump from Monster's University to Edge of Tomorrow to some 3D ocean documentary and back again. Perhaps, with a regimented block schedule, they could do it. Kids movies and tv shows from 9am-5pm. Documentaries from 5pm to 8pm. Sci-fi series from 8pm-midnight with one night a week reserved for blockbuster 3D movies. With enough money to get the right content, this might have worked 5 years ago, had adoption of the 3D format been as high back then as it is today.

Now, let's consider the viewing habits of the demographic to which our channel must appeal. How many men from ages 18-45 still sit down to watch a sci-fi series or movie at a predetermined time every day/week? Of all of the possible demographics, this seems to be the one making the transition to On Demand and streaming the fastest. To most, even the idea of using a DVR to record a show and watch it later seems archaic when given the option to find the same content online. How many commercials do you think members of this demographic typically watch? How could a network hope to make money off of a channel like this, unless they charged a significant premium to obtain it? Without that money, how do they pay for the rights to air blockbuster 3D films (most of which are less than 5 years old)? Without seriously advertising such a channel, inexpensive yet good original content is unlikely to draw enough viewers by itself. You need something big to catch their attention and get them tuning in, so that they can discover these cheap original series you have created. Something along the lines of a Star Trek television series reboot would certainly do it. But that would be ridiculously expensive to pull off and no network appears to be willing to take that risk when the ROI is so small.

To summarize, it's not that the content providers did anything wrong that lead to the failure of broadcast 3D channels. Nor is is simply a matter of there being a "lack of interest" in 3D content, as a whole. While that may be a contributing factor, it is not _the_ reason that broadcast 3D channels havn't worked. Ultimately, it's a number of factors that make 3D content and the traditional broadcast television model a poor fit.


----------



## Nodscene

Well, we don't have Target in Canada and Amazon.ca is usually the cheapest option for buying new blu-rays. So that's a no, I would only occasionally buy from brick and mortar stores. Things are usually a lot more expensive north of the border. I've even bought from Amazon.com and .uk when I wanted a specific title on blu so I have never been adverse to spending money when needed but everyone has a line they won't cross, and regularly spending $30+ for 3D is that line.


----------



## tomtastic

marcuslaw said:


> For those who lost it, "interest will return" when Avatar 2, 3 and 4 and Star Wars The Force Awakens, its sequels and spin offs come to home video.
> 
> P.S. I'm quite certain the Avatar sequels will have theatrical releases in 3-D but am unsure about Star Wars.


Yeah, but I really couldn't stand the first Avatar and this is supposed to save 3D? The 3D in the film was fine, it was great, the movie wasn't for me.


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> Ok, good. Now: Do you suppose there's a reason that 3DBD are here and channels aren't?


Well, keep reading my long post, I answered that too. As I said, not a case and point for broadcast being ill conceived. There has been a steady decline in number of 3D movies released since 2012 and the 3D take of those films. 2015 looks to continue that decline.


----------



## tomtastic

HockeyoAJB said:


> To understand the why the idea of a 3D channel doesn't work, consider the following...
> 
> -Content removed to save space.


I agree with this, with the exception of live sports. I was looking forward to it, but it mostly wasn't live. They had parallel 3D systems that gave decent depth.

As I mentioned before channels like 3Net were not only competing with other 2D channels with similar content but also competing with 2D viewing. There was even a competing 3D channel for awhile N3D, it was pulled first. But even then 3Net couldn't stand on it's own among Directv subscribers. The type of content, while not the money maker that's drawn from Blockbusters, is still highly in demand. But as it turned out less so for 3D. Whether or not people didn't value that entertainment as well in 3D, perhaps. I thought it worked well. They had documentaries which I think work for 3D well, action sports great for 3D, they also had IMAX content great for 3D, the reality shows, ok maybe not so great for 3D there. 

Perhaps 3D broadcast would have worked better in a pay per view model like HBO, I doubt many would pay more than 5.00/month for it. It was basically thrown in free. I probably wouldn't have at the time, but now I would. I think 3Net would have worked, I was surprised Directv pulled it. They were getting new content all the time. Too bad they didn't offer their content on demand, I hear Sky 3D is going to do that.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> Well, keep reading my long post, I answered that too. As I said, not a case and point for broadcast being ill conceived. There has been a steady decline in number of 3D movies released since 2012 and the 3D take of those films. 2015 looks to continue that decline.


I did read the entire post, and please just follow the questions. You didn't answer that question, you fluffed over it.

Since you don't want to answer that, then I'll rephrase it: *IF it was 3D as a whole that people had trouble with, then why isn't 3D as a whole as dead as Dedicated 3D channels are?*

Can you answer that one? Again, just that question please, no extra foot of text, and no "3D Blu-Rays are next".

And if you STILL don't want to answer that question, then take to heart what HockeyoAJB had to say, because he spelled it out as well.

I suspect that sooner or later you're going to figure out that there's something about a dedicated 3D channel that makes it dramatically less interesting to people than 3D movies. I, for example, LOVE 3D movies, but can't ever imagine making use of a dedicated 3D channel.


----------



## javanpohl

tomtastic said:


> Again, only way I see broadcast 3D as ill conceived was they over estimated the demand for 3D in general. There just wasn't a market for it like they predicted.


Why it was "ill conceived" is that they filmed and broadcast sporting events where there is no foreground--the players and they field/court they play on were both 100 feet away from the camera. All that can do in 3D is give you a sense of depth. No one wants to put on glasses just so it can look like the game is even further away.... Yeah, I'd call that "ill conceived".


----------



## coolhand

Nodscene said:


> I'm far from being an expert so take what I say with a grain of salt but I'm coming at this from a consumers perspective. While I may not have a lot of money to spend compared to a lot of people, I've also spent a lot more than the majority if you look at things percentage wise. My problem with 3D comes down to one thing and that's cost. It's the only reason it wasn't implemented in my house. It's not even the cost of the TV's that was the issue but the content itself. The costs of 3D blu rays are in the $50+ range...seriously, how are you going to get market penetration at that price. Even on sale at Amazon.ca...Penguins of Madagascar is $34.99, Guardian's Of The Galaxy is $31.99, LEGO Movie is $31.03. I'm sure you see my point. You are never going to have mass market adoption at those prices, simple as that. And this is coming from someone who literally has hundreds of cd's, lp's, dvd's, and blu ray's, so I don't have a problem spending money on entertainment media. But greed will get you every time and this is no different. You can have every household in NA owning a 3D tv but that isn't going to make any difference when no one can or is willing to, or can afford to pay those kinds of prices.


I paid $50 for all three of those (though the Lego 3D was prev viewed and didn't come with anything else).

I do believe that the greed everyone saw around 3D is going to bite the industry pretty badly. Slap on a terrible conversion for a few mill and charge absurd added costs (make no mistake about it, there is not any higher cost of film, digital, etc). The glasses you use at almost all theaters are borderline disposable and cost ~.83 depending on volumes. These are reused god knows how many times and somehow they still think they can charge up to 50% more for something that costs them pennies. The reason I think it is going to cost them is that 3D brought a viable alternative to theaters that wasn't widely available in homes as the home theater began cannibilizing box office receipts. Instead, they took the quick and easy money and that cannibilization is accelerating.

The conversation is re: death of 3D. I think >half the box office audience would prefer 3D if done properly and cost ~$1 more (more than enough to recoup any add'l costs). Thats a far cry from death.


----------



## RichJH

tgm1024 said:


> (quoting myself, lol)
> 
> Actually, the writer is just talking out of his @$$. The LG site shows "smart 3D" in the title of their 2015 models.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-tvs
> 
> Take nothing this guy says as serious.
> 
> Note on the LG site: there's a bug in the selection filter: you have to click on both UHD and 3D to get the full range.


That is not true. My 2015 Samsung ju7500 is 3D. I was looking for a 3D 4K display and found it in this one. The only bummer is it only comes with 1 pair active glasses.
Rich


----------



## tgm1024

tgm1024 said:


> (quoting myself, lol)
> 
> Actually, the writer is just talking out of his @$$. The LG site shows "smart 3D" in the title of their 2015 models.
> 
> http://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-tvs
> 
> Take nothing this guy says as serious.
> 
> Note on the LG site: there's a bug in the selection filter: you have to click on both UHD and 3D to get the full range.





RichJH said:


> That is not true. My 2015 Samsung ju7500 is 3D. I was looking for a 3D 4K display and found it in this one. The only bummer is it only comes with 1 pair active glasses.
> Rich



What does this have to do with my post? I was talking about LG's.


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> I did read the entire post, and please just follow the questions. You didn't answer that question, you fluffed over it.
> 
> Since you don't want to answer that, then I'll rephrase it: *IF it was 3D as a whole that people had trouble with, then why isn't 3D as a whole as dead as Dedicated 3D channels are?*
> 
> Can you answer that one? Again, just that question please, no extra foot of text, and no "3D Blu-Rays are next".
> 
> And if you STILL don't want to answer that question, then take to heart what HockeyoAJB had to say, because he spelled it out as well.
> 
> I suspect that sooner or later you're going to figure out that there's something about a dedicated 3D channel that makes it dramatically less interesting to people than 3D movies. I, for example, LOVE 3D movies, but can't ever imagine making use of a dedicated 3D channel.



This article pretty much sums it up. So as I said before, 3D was way over hyped after Avatar and they wanted to make everything 3D. Maybe 3D is better suited to a dedicated viewing experience than TV, but like it or not 3D BD is on the decline too, because 3D films are in a decline. 3D is in a decline. The numbers don't lie. So when we're down to less than 5 3D movies a year are we going to deny that the lack of interest in 3D had nothing to do with broadcast 3D failing? To some degree, it would have to. I can see the content and viewing experience, theater vs. living room debate, but how do explain since 2012 there's been fewer 3D movies released each year and a smaller take of 3D sales compared to the 2D release? There's a measurable lack of interest in 3D as a whole, viewers are turned off by it.



> *Why 3D TV is such a turn-off*
> 
> September 25 2014 at 06:00pm
> 
> By GUY WALTERSLondon - The next big thing in home entertainment, they called it. After going colour, then high-definition, it seemed inevitable that television would move into the third dimension.
> 
> And so, since around 2010, set manufacturers such as Sony, Samsung and LG have been insisting that we should all be watching programmes in 3D.
> 
> Broadcasters, including the BBC, Sky and sports network ESPN, were in on the act as well. To much fanfare, they created whole new departments at the cost of millions to take advantage of this supposedly must-have technology.
> 
> For a while, people seemed convinced. Some 1.5 million 3D TV sets — costing roughly 25 per cent more than a traditional TV — have been sold in the UK over the past four years. It was estimated that around half of those households donned their 3D glasses to watch the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics.
> 
> And then, without warning, 3D TV fell very flat indeed.
> 
> Like Betamax — the video tape format that never triumphed over its rival VHS — 3D TV now appears destined for the landfill, alongside all those other technologies that were supposed to revolutionise our viewing habits.
> 
> Last week, Sky all but admitted that it would no longer be broadcasting Premier League football matches in 3D.
> 
> The broadcaster said that it would be “more selective” with its coverage, which many understand to be shorthand for winding it down.
> 
> Sky’s lack of commitment follows that of the BBC, which halted all its 3D production last November. The then head of the Corporation’s 3D department was brutally honest in her assessment.
> 
> “I have never seen a very big appetite for 3D television in the UK,” said Kim Shillinglaw, who is now controller of BBC2 and BBC4.
> 
> That waning appetite has been mirrored across the Atlantic.
> 
> At the end of last year, ESPN pulled the plug on its 3D channel, because of — in its own words — “limited viewer adoption of 3D services to the home”. So what happened? Why has 3D TV all but died a death?
> 
> *The simple answer is this — viewers hate 3D, especially in their living rooms.*
> 
> Unlike watching normal TV, watching 3D TV is a hassle. Special spectacles have to be worn, and as any glasses wearer will tell you, scrabbling around for your specs before a programme starts is annoying.
> 
> And, even if you do find your 3D glasses, they have their own issues.
> 
> Many 3D TVs require you to wear “passive” glasses — the lightweight plastic type you’d be given at a 3D cinema.
> 
> But the problem with these is that they make the screen appear dim, and also halve its resolution — the amount of detail shown on screen. So, although you may be watching a programme in 3D, you are also watching footage of vastly reduced quality.
> 
> To get around this, some manufacturers have produced “active” glasses. These electronic devices employ a “shutter” system — alternately blocking each lens at rapid speed — that produces a 3D effect when used to watch the screen.
> 
> However, these are expensive, costing around £50 per pair, and require batteries.
> 
> Worse still, despite their expense, your Sony “active” glasses will not work when you watch a 3D film on, say, a friend’s Panasonic TV — and vice versa — meaning your active glasses can only be used with a television made by the same manufacturer. The niggles do not end there.
> 
> Many viewers find that watching 3D television gives them eye strain, headaches and even migraines.
> 
> The reason for this is because the brain finds a simulated three-dimensional image utterly confusing.
> 
> In the real three-dimensional world, when we focus on a specific object, everything else goes out of focus. It is that process which gives what photographers call “depth of field”, by which we perceive distance.
> 
> However, with 3D television, every object on the screen remains in focus — for they only appear to exist in three dimensions.
> 
> And it is that artificiality that causes problems, as our brains attempt to make sense of it all.
> 
> “We are still only focusing on a 2D surface, which is very unnatural for the human brain,” says Paul O’Donovan, an analyst at IT research and technology company Gartner. As a result, many viewers start to feel side-effects.
> 
> In a test carried out at Eindhoven University in Holland, researchers asked 39 people to read some text on a 3D screen placed 10ft away. Of these, seven started to feel sickness, eye strain and double vision.
> 
> It is not surprising, then, that many eye experts have cautioned against children below the age of eight wearing 3D glasses, amid fears that they can damage developing eye muscles.
> 
> But, even if you are lucky and you can watch 3D TV without feeling sick, there is also the issue that might be called the “David Attenborough problem”.
> 
> A few years ago, when 3D was being heralded, Sir David suspected that it would never catch on.
> 
> Many of us, the veteran broadcaster maintained, use television as “wallpaper” — on in the background while we are doing other things such as knitting, cooking, or browsing the internet on a tablet device. Watching television is rarely an immersive experience, unlike the cinema.
> 
> “I don’t think 3D TV can be used as wallpaper,” said Sir David, “particularly because you need the glasses and when you put them on it’s very isolating. You become very unaware of the person next to you.”
> 
> Even though some of his own documentaries were made in 3D — such as Flying Monsters, a programme about winged dinosaurs — Sir David’s words were prophetic.
> 
> Although we may be happy to wear 3D glasses at a cinema — a place we visit purely to view something on a screen — when we watch TV, we simply don’t want to be so involved.
> 
> The other big problem is the lack of 3D programming on offer.
> 
> After James Cameron’s fantastically successful 3D movie Avatar came out in 2009, there was an assumption that many more film and TV companies would follow suit.
> 
> But making 3D TV and movies is an expensive business. Special cameras have to be used, as well as dedicated editing suites.
> 
> Most programme makers see 3D as a gimmick, and would rather spend their budgets on improving the sets, or paying for bigger-name actors. Walter Murch, an American film editor, and the winner of three Oscars for his work on films such as The English Patient and Apocalypse Now, spoke for many movie makers when he dismissed 3D.
> 
> The technology, he wrote in 2011, is “dark, small, stroby, headache-inducing, alienating. And expensive. The question is: how long will it take people to realise and get fed up?”
> 
> No wonder film studios and broadcasters are unwilling to spend vast amounts of money on a format that nobody really likes.
> 
> But if 3D is dead, what then is the future? What new technology will TV manufacturers be trying to flog us over the next few years?
> 
> The answer is Ultra HD, or also known as 4K.
> 
> Whereas a normal high-definition TV has 1080 lines of vertical resolution — the individual elements that up make the picture on screen — 4K has nearly 4 000.
> 
> This results in an incredibly rich and detailed picture. And, better still, watching it doesn’t make you feel sick.
> 
> It remains to be seen whether 4K will take off. That will require the televisions to be affordable, and for plenty of programmes to be broadcast in the format.
> 
> Once again, it’s a case of chicken and egg. People won’t buy the sets unless the programmes appear, and people won’t commission the programmes if people don’t buy the sets.
> 
> But you can be sure of one thing: 3D is a turkey — and a dead one at that. - Daily Mail


----------



## NorthSky

Good point about _James Cameron_ ... with *Avatar 2, 3, & 4* all in *3D*. ...The 'resurrector', the 'ressusciter', the holographic 'lifeform'. ...The 3D savior.
...Tomorrow's world of the future.


----------



## RichJH

tgm1024 said:


> What does this have to do with my post? I was talking about LG's.


Got a bit carried away. Thats what I get for speed reading.
Rich


----------



## tgm1024

The reason that 3D channels fail as a concept is that it presupposes a demand for 3D irrespective of content.

A dedicated 3D channel is about providing 3D anytime of the day. It feeds the needs of someone with the following modus operandi:*
Desire: *"I would like to watch 3D"
*Action: *"Go to my 3D channel and watch whatever's there".​Instead of what 3D fans are likely to follow:*
Desire: *"I want to see that specific movie"
*Action: *"I will see if it's available in 3D, because it might be a good fit for it."​Two entirely different phenomena. All this obfuscation involving ever longer and longer posts by someone intent on tap-dancing is just a red herring side show. 3D dedicated channels as a concept is ill-conceived for the above reasons. 3D movie watching as a whole has a fan base, even if in the US it's waning. And as others have also said, of course folks who hate 3D are not going to want 3D channels. But that doesn't change the MO's above.


----------



## Frank714

tomtastic said:


> Maybe 3D is better suited to a dedicated viewing experience than TV, but like it or not 3D BD is on the decline too, because 3D films are in a decline. 3D is in a decline. The numbers don't lie. So when we're down to less than 5 3D movies a year are we going to deny that the lack of interest in 3D had nothing to do with broadcast 3D failing?


I'm afraid you are right. I started to buy less 3D Blu-ray content in early 2012 and just recently visited the international Amazon websites to see if any further IMAX films had been released as 3D Blu-rays. I was a bit disappointed, I would have expected a title like _Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon_ in 3D to have been released by now (especially since the film somewhat satisfies both "camps" if you catch my drift ).

I also noted that notorious adult titles in 3D have been "discontinued". Looks to me like the entire back catalogue of 3D titles has come to a sort of standstill, and that's not a good or positive thing, IMHO. 

I now stock up on good 3D program content, as I'm getting anxious that some titles might go out of print. And it will get my youngest son _Planes 2_ in 3D from Mexico, better than to hear him criticize me later for not having done that...


----------



## MLXXX

I suspect that many people imagined television 3D video coverage would gradually expand from sport, to electronic news gathering video cameras in the field, to pop music video clips, to advertising, and could include sitcoms and drama.

So having a dedicated 3D channel able to showcase some of this development could have appeared a good idea, at the time. Of course as matters transpired, use for sport contracted, and about all we are left with currently being produced in 3D is what ends up being shown in 3D at cinemas, such as anime computer rendered in 3D, real world feature films shot natively in 3D, or real world feature films shot in 2D and painstakingly converted to 3D. 

Going to the cinema is a special occasion requiring the patron to sit quietly in the one position for a couple of hours in a dimly lit theatre. Wearing 3D glasses is probably considered a relatively minor additional constraint! 3D seems firmly entrenched in the cinema, for a significant percentage of films, and their subsequently released Blu-rays. Most high end TVs offer 3D functionality, even though the 3D functionality of a UHD set may be restricted to Full HD.


----------



## tgm1024

I wonder how many of the anti-3D crowd, formed their initial experience from something On-Demand, or from a TV with poor motion handling. I also suspect active-3D as a culprit, but that's for another topic.

Note, I'm not asking for all the anti-3D pundits to show up screaming how they hate it and the 150 reasons why they're "unbiased" or whatever. I'm just wondering about the overall reactions _taken as an aggregate._

I started wondering this when I discovered that an otherwise wonderful movie "Edge of Tomorrow" was very difficult to watch in 3D on demand for me. Even on the slow moving scenes, it was almost as if the edge formation (always under the thumb of oppression of your TVs motion handling) was broken from L to R, making it harder to snap to convergence. Yes, on-demand 3D is SBS or OU, but I've seen _many_ 3D films on demand that were smooth as silk.

Someone chimed in that they had problems with Maleficent on demand, but not the blu-ray, so I may end up buying the 3DBD just to see.


----------



## Frank714

MLXXX said:


> Going to the cinema is a special occasion requiring the patron to sit quietly in the one position for a couple of hours in a dimly lit theatre. Wearing 3D glasses is probably considered a relatively minor additional constraint!


For all I know there might even be a sociological aspect that needs consideration: Everybody in there has no issues whatsoever of putting on 3D glasses, no one looks weird because_ everybody_ in there does it, too.

Our parents did it,










we are doing it now, especially when we take our children with us.

None of my guests ever had second thoughts when I handed them 3D glasses to put on in the "dark room" which is my home theater, dedicated to such programs, but doing so in a normal, average living room possibly has a smack of weirdness, most people have not yet gotten really accustomed to.

I'd speculate that this would only change if people were able to enjoy 3D programs on their flat screens and in their living rooms - _without the need of being asked first to put on 3D glasses._


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> I wonder how many of the anti-3D crowd, formed their initial experience from something On-Demand, or from a TV with poor motion handling. I also suspect active-3D as a culprit, but that's for another topic.


I think that active 3D with its out of phase presentation of left and right at 120Hz or even 100Hz (in Europe and Australia for television) is highly suspect.

I note James Cameron's reported statement from 2011 (see http://www.hdtvexpert.com/james-cameron-says-passive-3d-is-‘good-enough’-for-the-home/ ):After Cameron correctly identified side-by-side and top+bottom as being the only practical systems right now for broadcast, he then went on to say, _“…full HD 3D would require a doubling of bandwidth, but it’s not necessary right now…you only need full HD for each eye for cinema-sized displays. You don’t need it for home displays. That’s my opinion right now.”_​However, for my eyes I have found half-width side by side 1920x1080 less than satisfying a lot of the time. I find myself straining to find the 3D detail needed to pin down the 3D depth. I also find encoding artefacts from use of a low bit rate much more distracting than with 2D material. (I note that James Cameron is a highly respected director, well versed in 3D matters. He believes that use of 3D is inevitable in the long run. I would respectfully agree.)


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> I think that active 3D with its out of phase presentation of left and right at 120Hz or even 100Hz (in Europe and Australia for television) is highly suspect.
> 
> I note James Cameron's reported statement from 2011 (see http://www.hdtvexpert.com/james-cameron-says-passive-3d-is-‘good-enough’-for-the-home/ ):After Cameron correctly identified side-by-side and top+bottom as being the only practical systems right now for broadcast, he then went on to say, _“…full HD 3D would require a doubling of bandwidth, but it’s not necessary right now…you only need full HD for each eye for cinema-sized displays. You don’t need it for home displays. That’s my opinion right now.”_​However, for my eyes I have found half-width side by side 1920x1080 less than satisfying a lot of the time. I find myself straining to find the 3D detail needed to pin down the 3D depth. I also find encoding artefacts from use of a low bit rate much more distracting than with 2D material. (I note that James Cameron is a highly respected director, well versed in 3D matters. He believes that use of 3D is inevitable in the long run. I would respectfully agree.)


I have to say, the terrible quality of the On-Demand version of Edge of Tomorrow really took me by surprise. I very rarely have difficulty watching something.

In the past I have been fairly lucky, because I'm usually "happy enough" with the 3D quality of on-demand, though by far most of what we watch is 3DBD. But this thing was painful.


----------



## andy sullivan

It was asked earlier about the added cost to manufacture a 3D TV (not much). But how about the cost to manufacture a 3D BR. From a marketing point is it more profitable to offer a stand alone 3D version, package it with BR version, or package it with a BR version and the SD version? If it's not terribly more expensive to offer a 3D version or include a 3D version why are so many movies released in 3D theatrically but not in BR 3D?


----------



## NorthSky

I think the gamers have a large say in the future evolution of 3D.


----------



## Frank714

NorthSky said:


> I think the gamers have a large say in the future evolution of 3D.


Well, to me they rather sound very silent. Is there any game available in 3D for the XBox 360 or the PS3?


----------



## Toe

NorthSky said:


> I think the gamers have a large say in the future evolution of 3D.


If that were true, which I don't agree it is, then 3d is dead. 3d never took off on PS3/360 as evidenced by the lack of 3d game support on the new consoles. 

3d has firmly settled into its niche market and has peaked long ago at this point. I don't think it will fully die, but it is far from strong and certainly did not catch on as much as was hoped. I don't know ANY normal folk (non AVSers) who even watch 3d at home!


----------



## coolhand

tgm1024 said:


> I wonder how many of the anti-3D crowd, formed their initial experience from something On-Demand, or from a TV with poor motion handling. I also suspect active-3D as a culprit, but that's for another topic.


I blame passive. 

I have had plenty of bad 3D experiences too. 6 years ago the Imax in my area paid their projectionists ~15/hr. They had a union and everything. Then a national player came in and bought it out and the HSers making min wage were put in charge. Quality took an enormous hit. And its like that everywhere. So if you don't have a properly calibrated 3D system there is a good chance people are leaving with headaches, etc. And with Hollywood slapping a cheap (and lousy) conversions on a ton of stuff, its no wonder people have lost confidence. 

I'll add that people are in AWE of my relatively minuscule 3D home theater


----------



## NorthSky

> Well, to me they rather sound very silent. Is there any game available in 3D for the XBox 360 or the PS3?





> If that were true, which I don't agree it is, then 3d is dead. 3d never took off on PS3/360 as evidenced by the lack of 3d game support on the new consoles.
> 
> 3d has firmly settled into its niche market and has peaked long ago at this point. I don't think it will fully die, but it is far from strong and certainly did not catch on as much as was hoped. I don't know ANY normal folk (non AVSers) who even watch 3d at home!


I can check with some Microsoft people. ...See what's happening on this 3D front. ...But today you have those holographic glasses from Microsoft, I believe.
There is a dedicated thread on this subject with a hint of the future direction (we are already in it), and it is quite amazing. 
...You become part of your virtual environment and you can move freely in it; it is vertigo exhilarating. ...And I kid you not.

* I thought that the PS3 had some 3D games? ...And kids love it, and with Dolby Atmos. 

I'm just sharing my ideas, and what I think 3D is aimed for/to. ...Or should/could. ...Would.
It's not a question of agreeing or not; it's a simple discussion about the future of 3D. 
And if I was a gamer I would want it bad, real bad. ...With 3D sound too.

What I like and no,t it don't matter; what does is what the masses like and not. ...And that's where the money is; the investment, the resources, the creativity, the art of 3D rendering by the true 3D artists, the push, the energy, the motivation, the results, the efficiency of the world we live in today. ...It's not about lack of water, or pollution, but about consumption, 'till extinction. 
...Not my idea, but reality. ...3D reality. ...It starts @ the very beginning, all along the way, and ends up where it first began with all the attention/motivation or not. 

Some people hate 3D with an extremely deep passion, others (like me for example) love 3D, with moderation.


----------



## Toe

PS3/360 had a number of 3d games, I am just saying it never really took off and gained much popularity from what I have gathered. I was super excited to game in 3d and it was fun at first, but the novelty wore off pretty quick due to the resolution being crippled and it just wasn't quite as exciting as I expected it to be. If they could prevent the resolution from taking a hit vs 2d, 3d gaming would have been much more attractive, but the consoles are not powerful enough for that when you optimize the 2d aspect. 

Bottom line is 3d gaming is more exciting in theory vs practice IMO from what I experienced of it. Some other people feel differently though I am sure and have a more favorable perspective on it. Then again the fact that PS4/Xbox One are not showing any interest in the 3d gaming aspect (last I read which maybe that has changed?) sure seems to speak for itself.


----------



## NorthSky

NorthSky said:


> I can check with some Microsoft people. ...See what's happening on this 3D front. ...But today you have those holographic glasses from Microsoft, I believe. There is a dedicated thread on this subject with a hint of the future direction (we are already in it), and it is quite amazing.
> ...You become part of your virtual environment and you can move freely in it; it is vertigo exhilarating.


This is the thread I was referring to: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## MLXXX

andy sullivan said:


> It was asked earlier about the added cost to manufacture a 3D TV (not much). But how about the cost to manufacture a 3D BR. From a marketing point is it more profitable to offer a stand alone 3D version, package it with BR version, or package it with a BR version and the SD version? If it's not terribly more expensive to offer a 3D version or include a 3D version why are so many movies released in 3D theatrically but not in BR 3D?


As no one has responded, I'll do so briefly.

It is the norm for any theatrical 3D release to be followed by a 3D Blu-ray release.

A notable exception is Disney who decided not to release certain titles in 3D in the US but did release them in 3D elsewhere, e.g. in the UK. If a US citizen is very keen on obtaining one of the affected titles in 3D they may be able to obtain it in a region free version by mail order. As to why Disney chose to adopt the practice, some people have suggested it was because of expected low sales in the US. Here is a thread on the Blu-ray forum: Why is Disney not releasing 3D blu rays?


----------



## NSX1992

I am a 3D nut and have built up my 3D collection in the event 3D dies. My first 3D experience was Avatar The Game on Xbox 360 and Mitsubishi DLP. It was fantastic. I bought a few more 3D games for Xbox and PS3.


Currently I use an 84" 4K LG passive set which has better quality than the theaters. Blu-ray 3D movies look great. I also have a PC with 2 Titan video cards. So my choice for gaming is 1080p 3D or 4K. Sad to say I prefer the 4K resolution as Grand Theft Auto V looks stunning.


As I have stated before 4K is the answer for 3D. Too bad 4K was not available yet when 3D came out.


----------



## tgm1024

NSX1992 said:


> I am a 3D nut and have built up my 3D collection in the event 3D dies. My first 3D experience was Avatar The Game on Xbox 360 and Mitsubishi DLP. It was fantastic. I bought a few more 3D games for Xbox and PS3.
> 
> 
> Currently I use an 84" 4K LG passive set which has better quality than the theaters. Blu-ray 3D movies look great. I also have a PC with 2 Titan video cards. So my choice for gaming is 1080p 3D or 4K. Sad to say I prefer the 4K resolution as Grand Theft Auto V looks stunning.
> 
> 
> As I have stated before 4K is the answer for 3D. Too bad 4K was not available yet when 3D came out.


Yes. Further, it's too bad that passive wasn't first.


----------



## andy sullivan

tgm1024 said:


> Yes. Further, it's too bad that passive wasn't first.


I wonder if there is a manufacturing cost difference between Active and Passive panels. I mean Sony has used a 70" Passive panel (R550a) and a 70" Active panel (70w850b, 65w850a, 70x850b, 75x850c). Since Sony buys their panels did they get a better deal on Active or possibly switch panel manufactures to one that only offers Active. It certainly doesn't help promote 3D technology when the buyer has to consider two different delivery systems.


----------



## film113

andy sullivan said:


> It certainly doesn't help promote 3D technology when the buyer has to consider two different delivery systems.


Not to mention that one of them requires consumers to have yet another item (active glasses) that needs to be plugged in and charged.


----------



## andy sullivan

film113 said:


> Not to mention that one of them requires consumers to have yet another item (active glasses) that needs to be plugged in and charged.


Yeah. I've had Passive and I now have Active. They both look fine. I've had a dozen people watch both and nobody cared one way or another regarding PQ. But Passive is so much more comfortable and less of a PITA to use. I believe over the years the verdict is in and certainly Passive is the favorite, especially as we move towards 4K. Like the newly released Sony 75x850c. Why Active? Why why why? Maybe nobody makes a Passive 3D panel.


----------



## scarabaeus

tgm1024 said:


> Further, it's too bad that passive wasn't first.


Actually, XPol-branded TVs that accepted a strange form of field sequential 3D (1080i, with the left view in one field, and the right view in the other) were around way before HDMI 1.4 came out. They were basically 1080p LCD screens with an additional polarizer filter, and a simple weave-deinterlacer for 1080i. They worked with regular RealD cinema glasses, just like today's passive 3D TVs. No special signaling was needed, and 3D content could be simply encoded as 1080i. Of course that 3D content was not compatible with any other TVs. The TV was working as a normal 1080p TV, when you took off the glasses.

I do not know why the first HDMI 1.4 3D TVs used shutter glasses instead. I think there might have been patents with costly licensing, either by RealD or by XPol. And, yes, that was a big mistake, which turned off a lot of people with regards to 3D in general.


----------



## andy sullivan

scarabaeus said:


> Actually, XPol-branded TVs that accepted a strange form of field sequential 3D (1080i, with the left view in one field, and the right view in the other) were around way before HDMI 1.3 came out. They were basically 1080p LCD screens with an additional polarizer filter, and a simple bob-deinterlacer for 1080i. No special signaling was needed, and 3D content could be simply encoded as 1080i. Of course that 3D content was not compatible with any other TVs.
> 
> I do not know why the first HDMI 1.3 3D TVs used shutter glasses instead. I think there might have been patents with costly licensing, either by RealD or by XPol. And, yes, that was a big mistake, which turned off a lot of people with regards to 3D in general.


It's scary that you know that. Just kidding. Knowledge is everything.


----------



## scarabaeus

scarabaeus said:


> ... and a simple bob-deinterlacer ...


Weave! I meant weave, of course. Ugh. Friday evening, brain is getting cloudy.


----------



## NorthSky

And yet Passive 3D has its own set of issues. 

♦ 4K should be the real Passive 3D savior, but unfortunately 3D is not part of the new UHD Blu-ray standards. ...We live in a stuck 2D world without any 3D future with our upcoming 4K picture high definition/resolution...OLED and LED UHD TVs and 4K Blu-ray movies. ...4K/3D laser front projectors without 4K - 3D content, but only 2K/3D content that is disappearing faster and faster. 

PIXAR, IMAX, Marvel, Disney, FOX, Universal, Dreamworks, Sony, WB, Paramount, LG, ...they all lead the pack. ...3D or not, and more likely not. 
I think we are way behind technologically wise; our next future generations (grandchildren) might have the opportunity, not us.


----------



## scarabaeus

NorthSky said:


> ♦ 4K should be the real Passive 3D savior, but unfortunately 3D is not part of the new UHD Blu-ray standards.


UHD (2160p) TVs allow for 3D 1080p content to be displayed without lost lines, so UHD is a savior for HD 3D. *Passive UHD TVs are the best TVs for your 3D 1080p Blu-rays!* UHD 3D would still face the line halving.

And, it's only UHD Blu-ray that does not currently allow for UHD 3D. The HDMI interface supports it (HDMI 2.0 plus CEA 861-F). There is no reason for streaming services not to support it, other than bandwidth to the TV. To do 2160p 3D at 24 Hz over HDMI, either a 600 MHz pixel clock has to be supported (18 GBit/s), or 4:2:0 color encoding has to be used, but that is not specified for 24 Hz content, only for 50 and 60 Hz.


----------



## NorthSky

scarabaeus said:


> UHD (2160p) TVs allow for 3D 1080p content to be displayed without lost lines, so UHD is a savior for HD 3D. *Passive UHD TVs are the best TVs for your 3D 1080p Blu-rays!* UHD 3D would still face the line halving.
> 
> And, it's only UHD Blu-ray that does not currently allow for UHD 3D. The HDMI interface supports it (HDMI 2.0 plus CEA 861-F). There is no reason for streaming services not to support it, other than bandwidth to the TV. To do 2160p 3D at 24 Hz over HDMI, either a 600 MHz pixel clock has to be supported (18 GBit/s), or 4:2:0 color encoding has to be used, but that is not specified for 24 Hz content, only for 50 and 60 Hz.


Yes, exactly what I said about UHD Blu-ray. ...I don't stream, I don't download...movies and music...ever. I only buy Blu-rays and CD/SACDs. 
People like me are an extinct species. I'll keep buying regular Blu-rays (2K) with 3D picture. ...1080p for each eye (Active 3D display and glasses). 
And five years from now, we "might" see UHD Blu-ray with 3D picture in them, "maybe" on a brand new UHD Blu-ray standard with 500GB or 1TB capacity.


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> Yes, exactly what I said about UHD Blu-ray. ...I don't stream, I don't download...movies and music...ever. I only buy Blu-rays and CD/SACDs.
> People like me are an extinct species. I'll keep buying regular Blu-rays (2K) with 3D picture. ...1080p for each eye (Active 3D display and glasses).
> And five years from now, we "might" see UHD Blu-ray with 3D picture in them, "maybe" on a brand new UHD Blu-ray standard with 500GB or 1TB capacity.


I think Scarabeaus was pointing out that when you said this:

"♦ 4K should be the real Passive 3D savior, but unfortunately 3D is not part of the new UHD Blu-ray standards."

....that 4K is the passive 3D savior even if 4K3D is not part of the new blu-ray standards. You made it sound as if there is no advantage, or possibly not possible. There will be 2K 3D passive at full 1920x1080 (actually upscaled 1920->3840x1080 perhaps) on UHD 3D BDP's. Why not?


----------



## TomFord

tomtastic said:


> I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years. That being said, can 3D survive? It seems like there's just been too much post converted 3D, or lack of content to begin with. Haven't seen much released on Blu ray that's been decent 3D in awhile, all seems to just be post converted or just lame depth only stuff. If they don't make 3D standard on TV's I just don't see it continuing much longer.
> 
> I was really excited about a year ago, now I'm thinking about getting a 3D camcorder but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. Is 3D once again, just another passing fad? I really hope not because there is a lot of potential with movies like Gravity and documentaries just doesn't seem to be gaining steam now. If you look at TV content it will probably disappear altogether in the next year. There's what, 2 channels left? ESPN's gone, which I never understood why that was 3D anyway if they weren't going to show live content, there's nothing new on 3D TV.
> 
> So are manufactures backing off 3D? Or is it still going forward like it was a few years ago? I noticed there's not much in the way of 3D camcorders.


It feels like it's nearly dead. The biggest aspect of it that applied in my decision to buy 1 was how much better the regular screen looked from the displays that were 3D capable. The difference was night and day in quality. 

On good photography in quality format the regular screen brings a 3D effect. One recently was a slow flyover just above tall trees that bordered a winding highway. It was if you could reach and brush your hand against the leaves. 

The glasses are a nuisance. 

Also the quality of 3D footage. If there was more footage near the quality of "Under the Sea" shot in 2009 I believe I would watch it a lot more. On that film the objects jump 6-8 feet from the screen. Truly amazing, highly recommend if you haven't had the opportunity


----------



## kingchobo

I wear glasses constantly. I need me some 3d scuba goggles to be able to do 3d


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NorthSky

Do you now understand what I meant? ...Natively speaking, not upscaling. 

Sure, Passive 3D has great potential, but when will it be fully exploited in Blu-ray physical discs?

* In reply to post number 1113


----------



## Bill Fitzmaurice

TomFord said:


> It feels like it's nearly dead.


It will be around in DVD format because so many movies are made in 3D, but it will never be a major player until broadcast TV adopts it. That will happen eventually, but it's not even on the horizon right now.


----------



## cakefoo

tomtastic said:


> 3D films are in a decline. 3D is in a decline. The numbers don't lie.
> 
> How do explain since 2012 there's been fewer 3D movies released each year and a smaller take of 3D sales compared to the 2D release? There's a measurable lack of interest in 3D as a whole, viewers are turned off by it.


Do you have any data showing marketshare declines still happening year over year? From what I've seen, it seems like the decline has slowed tremendously, or even stabilized.



> Last week, Sky all but admitted that it would no longer be broadcasting Premier League football matches in 3D.
> 
> The broadcaster said that it would be “more selective” with its coverage, which many understand to be shorthand for winding it down.
> 
> Sky’s lack of commitment follows that of the BBC, which halted all its 3D production last November. The then head of the Corporation’s 3D department was brutally honest in her assessment.
> 
> “I have never seen a very big appetite for 3D television in the UK,” said Kim Shillinglaw, who is now controller of BBC2 and BBC4.
> 
> That waning appetite has been mirrored across the Atlantic.
> 
> At the end of last year, ESPN pulled the plug on its 3D channel, because of — in its own words — “limited viewer adoption of 3D services to the home”.


The content sucks and always will.

Good 3D documentaries with mass appeal virtually do not exist. There's only one IMAX 3D movie in the last 10 years that has done more than $25M at the box office: Deep Sea 3D. If IMAX can't even reach a very broad audience, then the little production companies producing stuff for a 3DTV channel have no hope, except to take advantage of the niche super-enthusiast who will watch something just because it's 3D.

Then there's 3D sports. A really good 3D movie director will keep the camera less than 10 feet from the subject, to more closely replicate our natural depth perception. 3D sports, however, have subpar 3D because the broadcast cameras have to be stationed 1-200 feet away from the action, and use telephoto lenses that compress people into cardboard cutouts. Sports are aesthetically boring to watch as it is. Their appeal has more to do with the competitive/strategy element, not their visuals. 3D is almost completely pointless in sports.


----------



## mars5l

kingchobo said:


> I wear glasses constantly. I need me some 3d scuba goggles to be able to do 3d
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wish I could find prescription 3d glasses for my active samsung tv, or at least some passive ones to use in theateres


----------



## NorthSky

mars5l said:


> I wish I could find prescription 3d glasses for my active samsung tv, or at least some passive ones to use in theateres


You are like me; we cannot wear contact lenses. * I had a work injury years ago, and one of my irises is scratched for life; lasers can't do nothing. 
The solution is large 3D glasses over our prescription glasses; I have the first Samsung models...they do the job. ...And they enclose my vision properly.
{The sides don't let the light through.}

Another solution is to shop for 3D glasses @ a 3D glasses optometrist...physical neighborhood store...and try the several models till finding the right one.
Unfortunately not enough resources are developed on that 3D front. ....Then it's amazon from pictures on our screen, and 3D video forums talking with other 3D movie members, like right here. 
Some 3D Panasonic glasses (about $150/pair or less) are supposedly very good for a perfect fit. ...And some Samsung models too. 

Some people have their own Passive 3D glasses (or Active) when they go to the 3D movie theaters...IMAX and others.

* Headphones and glasses are a private matter; nobody else should wear that gear but you only.


----------



## Don Landis

mars5l said:


> I wish I could find prescription 3d glasses for my active samsung tv, or at least some passive ones to use in theateres


I've posted this before but if really motivated, you can get some lenses and mount them inside a pair of 3D glasses. We did that here and it works well. Just a bit heavier but much better than wearing two pair.

For the theater, we carry some clipon passive you can buy from Amazon for a couple bucks. They work well for Real D theaters. 

http://www.amazon.com/JK-Passive-Ci...=1431178173&sr=8-1&keywords=3D+clipon+passive


----------



## tgm1024

kingchobo said:


> I wear glasses constantly. I need me some 3d scuba goggles to be able to do 3d


I'm coming in late to this sub-converation: Active or Passive 3D?

My wife, my father in law, and my mother in law all wear glasses, and the Sony passive glasses fit perfectly comfortably over them. They also sell snap-on circularly polarized flip-downs if it's really a problem, which it never is.


----------



## aaronwt

scarabaeus said:


> Actually, XPol-branded TVs that accepted a strange form of field sequential 3D (1080i, with the left view in one field, and the right view in the other) were around way before HDMI 1.4 came out. They were basically 1080p LCD screens with an additional polarizer filter, and a simple weave-deinterlacer for 1080i. They worked with regular RealD cinema glasses, just like today's passive 3D TVs. No special signaling was needed, and 3D content could be simply encoded as 1080i. Of course that 3D content was not compatible with any other TVs. The TV was working as a normal 1080p TV, when you took off the glasses.
> 
> I do not know why the first HDMI 1.4 3D TVs used shutter glasses instead. I think there might have been patents with costly licensing, either by RealD or by XPol. And, yes, that was a big mistake, which turned off a lot of people with regards to 3D in general.


The people that I know that dislike 3D, they dislike it strictly because of having to wear glasses. They don't care whether it's passive or active. The issue is the glasses. They hate wearing the glasses and refuse to see 3D even in a theater.


----------



## aaronwt

scarabaeus said:


> UHD (2160p) TVs allow for 3D 1080p content to be displayed without lost lines, so UHD is a savior for HD 3D. *Passive UHD TVs are the best TVs for your 3D 1080p Blu-rays!* UHD 3D would still face the line halving.
> 
> And, it's only UHD Blu-ray that does not currently allow for UHD 3D. The HDMI interface supports it (HDMI 2.0 plus CEA 861-F). There is no reason for streaming services not to support it, other than bandwidth to the TV. To do 2160p 3D at 24 Hz over HDMI, either a 600 MHz pixel clock has to be supported (18 GBit/s), or 4:2:0 color encoding has to be used, but that is not specified for 24 Hz content, only for 50 and 60 Hz.


Having they even ratified the format for UHD BD yet? The last I heard it wouldn't be ratified until the Summer. And until it's ratified the format doesn't even exist.


----------



## MLXXX

aaronwt said:


> The people that I know that dislike 3D, they dislike it strictly because of having to wear glasses. They don't care whether it's passive or active. The issue is the glasses. They hate wearing the glasses and refuse to see 3D even in a theater.


In Australia young kids when playing squash are required by squash association rules to wear goggles on the court, to protect their eyes from an errant squash ball. I guess there will be a small percentage of the kids who will refuse to play under such "inconvenient" conditions.

I'd have thought at a public cinema that the potential of the added enjoyment of 3D would outweigh the slight inconvenience of having to put on a pair of glasses. It's not all that different to putting on a pair of sunglasses. If people object to wearing 3D glasses in a public theatre, I'd have to query whether they are genuinely interested in 3D.* 

_________________

* I would exclude from this comment the small percentage of people who have found that their prescription frames are too large for 3D glasses to fit over.


----------



## andy sullivan

I'm sure that some people have a problem with feeling glasses on their face but come on, that is such a lame excuse. Millions of people wear glasses and millions more wear non prescription sun glasses. Some wear sunglasses for protection and many wear them to look cool. When you're wearing 3D glasses either no one can see them or everybody is wearing the same thing. How uncomfortable can they be for 2 stinking hours. Now if you just don't like 3D that's fine but for 98% of the glasses haters , come up with something better. For the other 2%, I feel for ya.


----------



## aaronwt

andy sullivan said:


> I'm sure that some people have a problem with feeling glasses on their face but come on, that is such a lame excuse. Millions of people wear glasses and millions more wear non prescription sun glasses. Some wear sunglasses for protection and many wear them to look cool. When you're wearing 3D glasses either no one can see them or everybody is wearing the same thing. How uncomfortable can they be for 2 stinking hours. Now if you just don't like 3D that's fine but for 98% of the glasses haters , come up with something better. For the other 2%, I feel for ya.


These people I know also hate wearing Sunglasses. They hate wearing any type of glasses. The issue with them is truly the glasses.


----------



## andy sullivan

And there in lie that 2%. I'm sure plenty of people don't like wearing glasses in general but I can only go off of my experience. I'm retired living in a golf community so I play golf every week and am around lots of male and female golfers. They all wear sun glasses at least part of the time. I personally don't know of one single person that would refuse to watch a 3D movie, in a theater or in my home, because of the glasses. Glasses is just an easy excuse that is just lame. They hurt my face, they make me look stupid. That's it. The only two reasons I can think of for some body not to wear glasses. It's two hours. They can't hurt that much and if you look stupid so does everybody else so suck it up. If 3d makes you dizzy or gives you a headache then that's on the technology not the glasses.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> These people I know also hate wearing Sunglasses. They hate wearing any type of glasses. The issue with them is truly the glasses.


Too bad, they miss all the good 3D stuff.


----------



## kingchobo

tgm1024 said:


> I'm coming in late to this sub-converation: Active or Passive 3D?
> 
> My wife, my father in law, and my mother in law all wear glasses, and the Sony passive glasses fit perfectly comfortably over them. They also sell snap-on circularly polarized flip-downs if it's really a problem, which it never is.



This was passive glasses at the cinema. They didn't comfortably sit on my nose and they didn't fit over my frames. Because they were not sitting comfortably I was getting a nose ache every 30m or so and I had to take them off for 5m until it settled down.
I'm sure some big active glasses would be ok, but I'm not really willing to throw money at something that i would occasionally use 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> I wonder how many of the anti-3D crowd, formed their initial experience from something On-Demand, or from a TV with poor motion handling. I also suspect active-3D as a culprit, but that's for another topic.
> 
> Note, I'm not asking for all the anti-3D pundits to show up screaming how they hate it and the 150 reasons why they're "unbiased" or whatever. I'm just wondering about the overall reactions _taken as an aggregate._
> 
> I started wondering this when I discovered that an otherwise wonderful movie "Edge of Tomorrow" was very difficult to watch in 3D on demand for me. Even on the slow moving scenes, it was almost as if the edge formation (always under the thumb of oppression of your TVs motion handling) was broken from L to R, making it harder to snap to convergence. Yes, on-demand 3D is SBS or OU, but I've seen _many_ 3D films on demand that were smooth as silk.
> 
> Someone chimed in that they had problems with Maleficent on demand, but not the blu-ray, so I may end up buying the 3DBD just to see.


Is your on demand set up for 24p or is it 60i? If it's 60i I can only imagine it would be quite awful for 3D films.


----------



## andrzejek

I hope its nope dead ... 3D movies are epic for me, its shi*ty cause there will not be 4K 3D blu ray movies ;/


----------



## Ungermann

3D at home will always suck unless you have a TV the size of a wall. Whenever I test-watch a 3D movie in a store, the illusion works until something that is "close" reaches the edge of the TV screen, then it suddenly disappears - heck, the TV is smaller than my angle of view! - ruining the experience for me.

3D is for movie theaters.


----------



## 3DBob

Ungermann said:


> 3D at home will always suck unless you have a TV the size of a wall.



Yup, my 159" screen is IMAX like in 3D .


----------



## wse

andy sullivan said:


> I'm sure that some people have a problem with feeling glasses on their face but come on, that is such a lame excuse. Millions of people wear glasses and millions more wear non prescription sun glasses. Some wear sunglasses for protection and many wear them to look cool. When you're wearing 3D glasses either no one can see them or everybody is wearing the same thing. How uncomfortable can they be for 2 stinking hours. Now if you just don't like 3D that's fine but for 98% of the glasses haters , come up with something better. For the other 2%, I feel for ya.


For me it's not glasses that are the problem it is:

Adverse health effects, such as oculomotor symptoms, motor disorientation, and visual fatigue which is the result from the mismatch between the visual, the proprioceptive and the vestibular stimuli.

In addition I get headaches, and get nauseated so no thanks I will take 4K 2D


----------



## Toe

Ungermann said:


> 3D at home will always suck unless you have a TV the size of a wall. Whenever I test-watch a 3D movie in a store, the illusion works until something that is "close" reaches the edge of the TV screen, then it suddenly disappears - heck, the TV is smaller than my angle of view! - ruining the experience for me.
> 
> 3D is for movie theaters.


I don't feel quite as strongly as you, but I agree that when it comes to 3d, size matters which is one reason 3d never took off since most are watching on small flat panels which just doesn't give the full experience.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> Is your on demand set up for 24p or is it 60i? If it's 60i I can only imagine it would be quite awful for 3D films.


Again, it's not a common occurrence. For instance, with the same exact settings we just watched Guardians of the Galaxy in 3D (on demand) and it was nearly flawless.


----------



## tgm1024

Ungermann said:


> 3D at home will always suck unless you have a TV the size of a wall. Whenever I test-watch a 3D movie in a store, the illusion works until something that is "close" reaches the edge of the TV screen, then it suddenly disappears - heck, the TV is smaller than my angle of view! - ruining the experience for me.
> 
> 3D is for movie theaters.


Nonsense. 3D at my home on a 60" [passive] screen is an enjoyable as can be.


----------



## andy sullivan

wse said:


> For me it's not glasses that are the problem it is:
> 
> Adverse health effects, such as oculomotor symptoms, motor disorientation, and visual fatigue which is the result from the mismatch between the visual, the proprioceptive and the vestibular stimuli.
> 
> In addition I get headaches, and get nauseated so no thanks I will take 4K 2D


It's a shame that some, like you, fall in the 2% range. I have a friend that is color blind so he can only imagine what he's missing. I'd sure rather be you than him. If I never saw 3D again it wouldn't be a big deal but it does deliver a unique entertainment spiff. For most it's a unique and cool experience. Wow factor.


----------



## tomtastic

cakefoo said:


> Do you have any data showing marketshare declines still happening year over year? From what I've seen, it seems like the decline has slowed tremendously, or even stabilized.


Here's a few graphs:

Sources:
Morgan Stanley, MPAA


----------



## Frank714

cakefoo said:


> Good 3D documentaries with mass appeal virtually do not exist. There's only one IMAX 3D movie in the last 10 years that has done more than $25M at the box office: Deep Sea 3D. If IMAX can't even reach a very broad audience, then the little production companies producing stuff for a 3DTV channel have no hope, except to take advantage of the niche super-enthusiast who will watch something just because it's 3D.


Interestingly, one of my favorite IMAX films _that wasn't originally recorded in 3D_ got converted into 3D: _Fighter Pilot - Operation Red Flag_. 



I ordered mine today, they probably couldn't get the IMAX 3D camera into the jet fighter's cockpit so I'm very happy there is at least a conversion than no 3D at all. 

Considering they went through the hazzle of converting (rather than just to pick an original 3D title) and considering that this is a rather recent release of the German IMAX 3D Blu-ray Distributor (other titles are currrently being sold for less than 10$) I'm somewhat astonished. Looks like 3D isn't dead, yet. 

(But the German Blu-ray is probably Region Code B locked...)

UPDATE: It says Region Code B only but also plays in Region Code A players. 

Great conversion. It has a few conversion glitches (most noticably in the opening sequence), but otherwise I found these rather negligible and not distracting. Gives you the feeling you are actually up there along with the real fighter pilots.


----------



## billqs

I love 3D, but I really worry about its viability as a consumer format. I think it's here to stay in cinemas, but the consumer rollout was bungled, unecessarily complex, and the cost of 3DBlu-rays unnecessarily expensive. 

The article posted above from UK has many incorrect facts as of it's 2014 publication date. Since 2012 there has been an active 3D Glasses Protocol which all major players have adopted. This is true of both the IR glasses and the more recent RF glasses. As a matter of fact, I use Samsung glasses with my Sony projector because they are much less expensive.

My take on this is that setting up a working dependable 3d system is much tougher for the average viewer than it is for us, who are enthusiasts, so they are much less likely to try. All the electronic stars have to be in alignment. You have to have a 3d blu-ray, a 3d blu-ray player, a receiver that will pass the 3D signal, a 3D Display and the right kind of 3D glasses. Loss of any one of these and you get no 3D joy.

Personally, I also question how great of a 3D experience a regular viewer is going to get sitting 10+ feet away from a 50" television. I use 3D on my projector, but didn't even consider it when we replaced our den flatscreen with a 55" Samsung. 

I desperately want consumer 3D to survive, but I think the best bet is to see if consumer 3D can stabilize around a niche market. Like most niche markets it will most likely mean paying more $$ for the material, but I am willing to do that rather than lose the ability to have 3D movies all together.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> Here's a few graphs:
> 
> Sources:
> Morgan Stanley, MPAA


USA/Canada...would be nice for WORLD. ...Europe, India, China, Japan, ...the full world.


----------



## NorthSky

tom_o said:


> Wait until Avatar 2 comes out... We will see again a "push" for this nonsense.


*Avatar 2* in 3D will be the final nail hammered on the 2D coffin, for good.


----------



## wse

NorthSky said:


> *Avatar 2* in 3D will be the final nail hammered on the 2D coffin, for good.


Sure! I think not 4D it will be! Remember these: 

_"Smell-O-Vision" by Todd, 

On October 17, 1959, The New York Times reported that Walter Reade Jr. was rushing to release Behind the Great Wall, a travelogue through China made by Italian director Carlo Lizzani, accompanied by a process called "AromaRama" to send scents through the air-conditioning system of a theater.[7] The particular process was invented by Charles Weiss[8] who stated in a 1959 appearance on CBS's popular television programme To Tell the Truth:_

John Waters _movie_, and it opened with _scratch and sniff_ cards. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082926/


The guy sitting next to me at the theater while watching Avenger in ATMOS wanted to share that new scent after eating his bean nachos covered with beans! We had extra bass as well


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Hi all,

Though I've only had a 3D set for a month I had been following the subject since it was first marketed for home theater use. My curiosity was due to socio-economic factors that I saw ran completely opposite the "scientific" marketing research put out by the industry which had projections of it being the next big consumer electronics product that by 2014 would be embraced by a major portion of American households. The questions posed to obtain that data were obviously geared to illicit a certain favorable response to lend credibility for the rosy predicted future to begin with, however, I felt it was going to be more limited to a narrower, special segment of enthusiasts which it seems it has for many a reason:

- HD sets were being seen as a commodity like PCs and people were going to "upgrade" rather than keep their newly purchased sets till they broke down.
- What goes for entertainment in a theater is quite different in the home.
- So many multi-task at home watching TV.
- Interest in television viewing had been dropping
- Many of the films produced in 3D were going to be great films as far as plot, script, imagination, etc. 
- It was too expensive to produce programming in 3D and for cable stations to convert to 3D without seeing first if it was going to catch on. And how could it catch on before the entertainment and cable industries took the expensive risks first? 

But that was then. This is now. Many are starting to replace their older sets (like I am) because they are starting to wear out. 3D is now an add-on to mid priced models and so it is a matter of the average consumer feeling a need to spend a few hundred dollars more for a picture the same size. I elected to go with a middle priced model because I have an extensive collection of DVD-R's recorded off of TCM, HBO, etc. knowing an inexpensive set wouldn't do the incoming, upgraded signal justice, considering the limitations of the original source (saw the difference comparing the picture on my Sony KD34XBR960 from that of a low end Samsung LCD). Fortunately, my Sony KDL50W800B does these discs fine.

So, I did not purchase it for the 3D but didn't mind having it as an extra feature. Tried out the simulated, enjoyed it and it got me interested in possibly purchasing a 3D ready blu ray player until I saw the cost of the newer 3D titles. But with the free on-demand services from HBO, etc. having 3D titles available in their library, I'm slowly becoming a 3D junkie myself. Again, the costs of the discs preclude me from both buying new titles, replacing titles I already own and, as was the case with "The Legend of Hercules" which we saw last night, if it wasn't for the 3D itself, the movie would not have been worth watching.

So I think 3D will grow slowly and will find it's niche in the home. Nothing like was predicted and still limited in scope for the time being but it will probably be used more as a lark as more like me get into it - the next generation. But it would spur a big financial boom industry wise. Like DVDs and television viewing in general, it seems tablets and other devices have slowly etched a bit out from the television viewing population in general.


----------



## wse

3D is dead long live 4K 

*"At CES 2013, 3D televisions appear to be a thing of the past, while TV manufacturers focus on OLED and 4K." Forbes

" There's something about 2013's Consumer Electronics Show that's different from every other iteration this decade. You might not realize it immediately, for it's marked by the absence rather than the arrival of a new technology, but it's there and we're all sensing it on a deep, subconscious level. And it feels good.: 3D is gone." The VERGE

"At the Consumer Electronic Show, TV giant Vizio made the announcement that they would not be releasing any 3D televisions in 2014, marking the first manufacturer to abandon the format and sending ripples through the industry." Vizio

"The era of blood splatter on the screen and obnoxious cartoon characters throwing lollipops at your face may be over before as the TV industry's fascination with 3-D seems to finally be coming to an end." The WIRE


**"Writing in TV trade publication Broadcast, Harrison says "everyone has finally accepted that 3D TV is dead," with the glasses being reserved for gaming and the cinema. So what'll take its place? 4K, aka Ultra HD, Harrison reckons." TechRadar*


----------



## tgm1024

wse said:


> 3D is dead long live 4K
> 
> *"At CES 2013, 3D televisions appear to be a thing of the past, while TV manufacturers focus on OLED and 4K." Forbes
> 
> " There's something about 2013's Consumer Electronics Show that's different from every other iteration this decade. You might not realize it immediately, for it's marked by the absence rather than the arrival of a new technology, but it's there and we're all sensing it on a deep, subconscious level. And it feels good.: 3D is gone." The VERGE*


And all of those observations above were referring to was that 3D was no longer trumpeted on the front burner of marketing, not that the TVs themselves were without it. They were irresponsible quotes. The mid to high end Sonys in 2013? 3D. The mid to high end LG's? 3D. The mid to high end Panas? 3D. Etc., etc., etc. 3D wasn't "gone" as the [lame] Verge said. The big lit-up CES signs for it were.


----------



## kimg1453

tom_o said:


> Wait until Avatar 2 comes out... We will see again a "push" for this nonsense.


tom_o
Just because you have a dislike for 3D does not mean everyone holds your view. It's a choice and many people, myself included, enjoy 3D and find it far from nonsense. Just stating feelings from the other side.


----------



## mars5l

Im doing my support for 3d, went from 0 movies to almost 70 in 5 months


----------



## marcuslaw

kimg1453 said:


> tom_o
> Just because you have a dislike for 3D does not mean everyone holds your view. It's a choice and many people, myself included, enjoy 3D and find it far from nonsense. Just stating feelings from the other side.


+freak'n 1!


----------



## aaronwt

And that's the best type of 3D movie. I don't want it in my face. The best ones for me just enhance the experience, but I wouldn't really be aware of the difference unless I took my glasses off.


----------



## kucharsk

Essentially 3D on TVs is now an accepted feature rather than a differentiator.

Most anyone purchasing a high end TV now expects 3D support to just be there rather than it to be something they look for.

The "look at me!" features are now 4K and HDR.


----------



## tomtastic

NorthSky said:


> USA/Canada...would be nice for WORLD. ...Europe, India, China, Japan, ...the full world.


ROW doesn't really matter if you can't see a 3D movie here in US. Unless they can get airfare down to where it's cheaper to step across the ocean.


----------



## NorthSky

...Or order the Disney ones from amazon.uk or other world regions.

* Post number *1153* just above made me laugh. :grin:


----------



## wuther

wse said:


> The guy sitting next to me at the theater while watching Avenger in ATMOS wanted to share that new scent after eating his bean nachos covered with beans! We had extra bass as well


I had earplugs in, it was bliss... but the cramped seats blowed...



NorthSky said:


> USA/Canada...would be nice for WORLD. ...Europe, India, China, Japan, ...the full world.


You know that's commie talk dont you?


----------



## MLXXX

tom_o said:


> ...
> and something more serious:
> ...
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ay-exactly-emotional-response-2D-footage.html


"Researchers monitored palm sweat, breathing and cardiovascular responses such as heart rate in a bid to see if 3D was worth the extra cash."

I wonder by how much the measured responses would have changed if using mono sound instead of surround, or black and white instead of colour? It could be that the film content would be the dominant factor in causing sweating and a heightened heart rate...


----------



## wuther

MLXXX said:


> I wonder by how much the measured responses would have changed if using mono sound instead of surround, or black and white instead of colour? It could be that the film content would be the dominant factor in causing sweating and a heightened heart rate...


The article states same film clips of the same movie, meaning a stereo-vision shown to one group and a mono version of the same clip to another group. Nice try though...


----------



## EVERRET

MLXXX said:


> "Researchers monitored palm sweat, breathing and cardiovascular responses such as heart rate in a bid to see if 3D was worth the extra cash."
> 
> I wonder by how much the measured responses would have changed if using mono sound instead of surround, or black and white instead of colour? It could be that the film content would be the dominant factor in causing sweating and a heightened heart rate...


Did you read the opening Title closely ? "Tom Hanks film the polar express was found to cause a difference."

The only difference was seen during a thrilling scene from 'The Polar Express' in 3-D.The researchers believe that could be because the 3-D content of the film is of especially high quality, with more and a larger variety of 3-D effects than the others.
Common sense tells you The 3D "content" does make a big difference. 
​


I agree with David Letterman , every movie should be in 3D ... 















​


----------



## wse

tom_o said:


> "Most people know the drill by now: you go to a 3D movie, pay a little extra, chuckle at how stupid everyone looks wearing those glasses, and the film starts. For the first two minutes, it's impressive. Stuff pops out of the screen and it's pretty neat. For the remaining 118 minutes, however, you either forget you're watching a 3D movie simply stop giving a ****. ."


I love it


----------



## MLXXX

EVERRET said:


> Did you read the opening Title closely ? "Tom Hanks film the polar express was found to cause a difference."


Yep, saw that. That's why I posted, "It could be that the film content would be the dominant factor in causing sweating and a heightened heart rate..."[underlining added].



> The only difference was seen during a thrilling scene from 'The Polar Express' in 3-D.The researchers believe that could be because the 3-D content of the film is of especially high quality, with more and a larger variety of 3-D effects than the others.
> Common sense tells you The 3D "content" does make a big difference.​



It certainly adds significantly to the viewing pleasure for me; whether or not it actually makes me sweat, or increases my heart rate!​


----------



## fxrh

Speaking of a heightened heart rate... has anybody noticed that the 2D version of THE WIZARD OF OZ is rated G but the 3D version is rated PG? I'm not joking.


----------



## blastermaster

> Stuff pops out of the screen and it's pretty neat. For the remaining 118 minutes, however, you either forget you're watching a 3D movie simply stop giving a ****. ."


I notice the text on foreign films for about three minutes, then I get used to it and my brain assimilates it as part of the experience and the text "disappears". Good 3D enhances the experience and although you may get used to it after a few minutes you'd certainly notice when it's gone. I can't imagine watching the Hobbit trilogy in 2D - there really is an additive feature to the 3D in those films, especially on a big screen, that 2D just can't match. The depth that 3D can bring to a motion picture adds to the immersion, I just don't see how people can discount it as a gimmick. If it's not working for people on their TV, perhaps they're sitting too far away? As for me, 3D looks phenomenal on my projection setup and I'll miss it if 3D goes the way of the Dodo.


----------



## Frank714

NorthSky said:


> *Avatar 2* in 3D will be the final nail hammered on the 2D coffin, for good.


LOL - that's a good one. A lot of people went to the first one because it was fresh, but personally I wouldn't expect a major shift on behalf of 3D this time. 

I couldn't help but to descend into my archives and revisit _Starlog's_ photo guidebook _Fantastic 3-D_ from 1982, major contributions from David Hutchison.

_"The two great flurries of 3-D popularity - the early 1920s and early 1950s - which predate the current upsurgence in interest in the early 1980s seem to demonstrate that 3-D imaging is a dream that won't be put aside."_

I thought "Wow". If you do the math it almost seems that every 30 years or so, there is a cumulation of 3D interest before it fades away and then gets "reborn" in the next generation. 

_"The 3-D film has always been marketed as a novelty - for fad consumption only. After the public tired of whatever 3-D process was in vogue, there elapsed a time of waiting until further refinements or new systems were developed."_

This photo guidebook was really trying to explain and create awareness, especially for United Artists' "StereoSpace" and Mr. Butterfield's 3-D Video Corp. attempts to propagate 3D TV viewing. 

In the review section of _Inferno_ (1953) I found this annotation interesting which re-appears later and reveals that one particular criticism is still as valid today as it had been then:

_"Great desert 3-D photography. One reviewer remarked that if this 3-D film (the ninth to appear) had been the first, 3-D films might be in a better state. *As it was, by August of 1953, 3-D was becoming synonymous with cheap, poorly made films*."_ 

A great book, tries to compile all 3D programs on film available by 1982, including 25 X-rated movies shot between 1962 and 1978, partially in "DeepVision"


----------



## film113

wse said:


> 3D is dead long live 4K
> 
> *"At CES 2013, 3D televisions appear to be a thing of the past, while TV manufacturers focus on OLED and 4K." Forbes
> 
> **"Writing in TV trade publication Broadcast, Harrison says "everyone has finally accepted that 3D TV is dead," with the glasses being reserved for gaming and the cinema. So what'll take its place? 4K, aka Ultra HD, Harrison reckons." TechRadar*


Of course, UHD sets are not selling as well as hoped/hyped. As of 3/2015, only 11% of shipped (that's shipped...not even consumer sales!) sets were UHD this qtr. Hardly taking the retail world by storm.


----------



## NorthSky

fxrh said:


> Speaking of a heightened heart rate... has anybody noticed that the 2D version of THE WIZARD OF OZ is rated G but the 3D version is rated PG?
> I'm not joking.


Lol, very true; good "3D" eye.


----------



## cakefoo

Frank714 said:


> LOL - that's a good one. A lot of people went to the first one because it was fresh, but personally I wouldn't expect a major shift on behalf of 3D this time.


Just knowing that the Avatar sequels are coming I think has been a shot in the arm for the studios. As long as Cameron is pumping out sequels, theaters have a reason to keep the 3D projectors in commission, therefore studios have a reason to keep making 3D movies.



> _*As it was, by August of 1953, 3-D was becoming synonymous with cheap, poorly made films*."_


At least 3D is now being associated with *expensive well-made films *(ignoring the fact that the 3D itself can be hit or miss). Post-conversions are getting quite good, the only thing that they struggle with is reflections on transparent objects where two layers are blended together. Gravity solved this problem by rendering the glass in the space suit helmets in CG. That minor issue aside, the next step is to get filmmakers to make better creative decisions to justify the premium ticket prices, and getting theater chains to upgrade to brighter laser projectors asap. And maybe 3D movies should be shot at 48fps or higher.

3D at home is the only thing that seems to really be slipping, but I think the glasses are the main culprit. The glasses-free sets at consumer electronics shows the past couple years have been getting rave reviews, but the tech just isn't quite ready/affordable for group/family viewing yet.


----------



## NorthSky

Good thread, good people, good reads, good 3D discussions... 

♦ 3D is like the Terminator: _"I'll be back"._ ...It's solid, more dimensional, more fun @ the movies; it enhances the sexperience. ...It looks more real, more "you are there".
It's like music, like surround sound, more enveloping, more immersing. 

Thanks to guys like _James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese, Wim Wenders, Brad Bird, Michael Bay, ..._
They are the true innovators of the next dimension in films. ...The evolution in cinema. ...The front runners of the new visual entertainment world.

3D Sound and Picture; and with higher definition and resolution, for more immersion all around us...in the 360° real world we all live in, the 3D real dimension.
Music is the most accurate reproduction that we can get to the real live event; that's the goal. ...With movies it's the same. ...We have two eyes and two ears, and we hear from all around; in front, on the sides, behind, above, and below...and we feel vibrations resonating in all the bones and veins and brain of our body and soul.
When in real life we look @ a beautiful woman moving all around us, we want the same experience @ the movies...we like to see her reaching and touching us. 3D is the Door to that reality. 

We don't need a Master degree to appreciate the 3D superior experience from flicks like *'Avatar', 'Gravity', 'Up', 'Pina', 'Pacific Rim', 'The Hobbit' trilogy, 'Prometheus', 'Dredd', 'Tron: Legacy', 'Transformers 3 & 4', 'X-Men: Days of Future Past', 'Hugo', 'Life of Pi', Zero Dark Thirty', 'Live - Die - Repeat', 'Exodus: Gods and Kings', 'Toy Story' trilogy, 'Oz: The Great and Powerful', 'Frozen', 'Ratatouille', 'Big Hero 6', 'The Art of Flight'*, ...and so many other great 3D flicks.

So, Disney, get back to business and give us all PIXAR animation flicks in 3D here in North America...'The Incredibles'. ...Animation flicks are the best in 3D. 
...*'Kung Fu Panda 1 & 2 & 3', 'How to Train your Dragon 1 & 2 & 3', 'Madagascar 1 & 2 & 3 & 4', 'Cars 1 & 2', Monsters Inc. 1 & 2', 'Finding Nemo', *, ...and many more.

Life is short, and 3D is living more intensively than 2D. ...We work hard, and we like to play hard too. ...The money we make is in 3D, and the money we like to spend is also in 3D.


----------



## markmathers

NorthSky said:


> Good thread, good people, good reads, good 3D discussions...
> 
> ♦ 3D is like the Terminator: _"I'll be back"._ ...It's solid, more dimensional, more fun @ the movies; it enhances the sexperience. ...It looks more real, more "you are there".
> It's like music, like surround sound, more enveloping, more immersing.
> 
> Thanks to guys like _James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Alfonso Cuaron, Guillermo del Toro, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese, Wim Wenders, Brad Bird, Michael Bay, ..._
> They are the true innovators of the next dimension in films. ...The evolution in cinema. ...The front runners of the new visual entertainment world.
> 
> 3D Sound and Picture; and with higher definition and resolution, for more immersion all around us...in the 360° real world we all live in, the 3D real dimension.
> Music is the most accurate reproduction that we can get to the real live event; that's the goal. ...With movies it's the same. ...We have two eyes and two ears, and we hear from all around; in front, on the sides, behind, above, and below...and we feel vibrations resonating in all the bones and veins and brain of our body and soul.
> When in real life we look @ a beautiful woman moving all around us, we want the same experience @ the movies...we like to see her reaching and touching us. 3D is the Door to that reality.
> 
> We don't need a Master degree to appreciate the 3D superior experience from flicks like *'Avatar', 'Gravity', 'Up', 'Pina', 'Pacific Rim', 'The Hobbit' trilogy, 'Prometheus', 'Dredd', 'Tron: Legacy', 'Transformers 3 & 4', 'X-Men: Days of Future Past', 'Hugo', 'Life of Pi', Zero Dark Thirty', 'Live - Die - Repeat', 'Exodus: Gods and Kings', 'Toy Story' trilogy, 'Oz: The Great and Powerful', 'Frozen', 'Ratatouille', 'Big Hero 6', 'The Art of Flight'*, ...and so many other great 3D flicks.
> 
> So, Disney, get back to business and give us all PIXAR animation flicks in 3D here in North America...'The Incredibles'. ...Animation flicks are the best in 3D.
> ...*'Kung Fu Panda 1 & 2 & 3', 'How to Train your Dragon 1 & 2 & 3', 'Madagascar 1 & 2 & 3 & 4', 'Cars 1 & 2', Monsters Inc. 1 & 2', 'Finding Nemo', *, ...and many more.
> 
> Life is short, and 3D is living more intensively than 2D. ...We work hard, and we like to play hard too. ...The money we make is in 3D, and the money we like to spend is also in 3D.




Zero Dark Thirty was a 3D flick??


----------



## NorthSky

markmathers said:


> Zero Dark Thirty was a 3D flick??


No but it should have been.  ...More realism.


----------



## tgm1024

markmathers said:


> Zero Dark Thirty was a 3D flick??





NorthSky said:


> No but it should have been.  ...More realism.


And so I rush off to google and find this oddball:

http://www.zerodarkthirty3d.com/

Go figure. It's not a movie.

EDIT: And thennnnnnn I find this thing:

http://www.flipkart.com/zero-dark-thirty-3d/p/itmdmkjkyepwfhsh










1. Wazzit?
2. Does a large segment of the world use the term "DVD" for Blu-Ray?


----------



## aaronwt

tgm1024 said:


> .................
> 2. Does a large segment of the world use the term "DVD" for Blu-Ray?


Unfortunately many people refer to Blu-ray Discs as DVDs. At least in my area. But most people seem to have no clue about Blu-ray Discs anyway.


----------



## NorthSky

That picture cover above ('Zero Dark Thirty' in 3D); is definitely a 2-disc DVD set.

* The video enlarged:






By the way, of all the 3D Blu-ray titles that I mentioned in my prior post, *'Zero Dark Thirty'* was the only one in *2D*.
It was a simple mistake. In all my 3D excitement it does happen sometimes. Please forgive me.

______________

♣ 3D model of Night Vision Goggles for Zero Dark Thirty (*00:30*) :::


----------



## Frank714

NorthSky said:


> So, Disney, get back to business and give us all PIXAR animation flicks in 3D here in North America...'The Incredibles'. ...Animation flicks are the best in 3D.


Don't be so selfish, _Wall-E_ isn't equally available elsewhere in the world, but definitely crying for a 3D version once you notice all these "great for 3D" effects in the 2D version. 

If at least Disney / Pixar would consider a theatrical re-release in 3D of some of their blockbusters for anniversaries, we'd be a step closer to see a subsequent release on 3D BD.


----------



## markmathers

NorthSky said:


> No but it should have been.  ...More realism.


Agreed!


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> That picture cover above ('Zero Dark Thirty' in 3D); is definitely a 2-disc DVD set.


Yes it says that. Now what does that mean exactly? Red/Cyan anaglyph, the way a few titles used to do on DVD?


----------



## film113

cakefoo said:


> 3D at home is the only thing that seems to really be slipping, but I think the glasses are the main culprit. The glasses-free sets at consumer electronics shows the past couple years have been getting rave reviews, but the tech just isn't quite ready/affordable for group/family viewing yet.


I've seen an UltraD demo and personally, the "rave reviews" are undeserved. Depth is okay, but "pop-outs" are not as good or effective as they are with glasses.


----------



## cakefoo

film113 said:


> I've seen an UltraD demo and personally, the "rave reviews" are undeserved. Depth is okay, but "pop-outs" are not as good or effective as they are with glasses.


Doesn't UltraD attempt to render fake perspectives in-between the optimal (native, true to source) autostereoscopic viewing positions? I would suspect that those would indeed look inaccurate.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Zero Dark Thirty' | DVD 3D*



tgm1024 said:


> Yes it says that. Now what does that mean exactly? Red/Cyan anaglyph, the way a few titles used to do on DVD?


Yes. ...And it comes with few pairs of those "3D" plastic/cardboard glasses inside the DVD plastic case (usually four pairs).


----------



## NorthSky

Frank714 said:


> Don't be so selfish, _Wall-E_ isn't equally available elsewhere in the world, but definitely crying for a 3D version once you notice all these "great for 3D" effects in the 2D version.
> 
> If at least Disney / Pixar would consider a theatrical re-release in 3D of some of their blockbusters for anniversaries, we'd be a step closer to see a subsequent release on 3D BD.


♦ *Wall•E* ... excellent Blu-ray title for a new 3D "reconstruction".  ...I totally agree with all you just said. 



markmathers said:


> Agreed!


♦ Missed opportunity? ...*Zero Dark Thirty* in 3D (Blu-ray). ...I think so too. ...And it would also be cool in 3D Sound (Dolby Atmos).


----------



## film113

cakefoo said:


> Doesn't UltraD attempt to render fake perspectives in-between the optimal (native, true to source) autostereoscopic viewing positions? I would suspect that those would indeed look inaccurate.


To be honest, I can't speak to the tech aspects of what they do. Only the end results. UltraD is certainly the best one I've seen but it's still not as good as it is with glasses. Of course, most people won't care. They'll happily accept it if it's glasses-free and not give a dang if it's not as good. As with streaming, "good enough" is better than great, even if they have to pay more for a lesser presentation.


----------



## RichJH

I recently bought a Samsung ju7500 just for the 3D and I wasn't disappointed. The 3D just pops and looks absolutely stunning. I have been using passive glasses on my LG 55LA9650 and the ju7500 uses active glasses. They only give you one pair with the Samsung while the LG gave me 6 pairs of 3D glasses.
Rich


----------



## Worf

film113 said:


> To be honest, I can't speak to the tech aspects of what they do. Only the end results. UltraD is certainly the best one I've seen but it's still not as good as it is with glasses. Of course, most people won't care. They'll happily accept it if it's glasses-free and not give a dang if it's not as good. As with streaming, "good enough" is better than great, even if they have to pay more for a lesser presentation.


Did you just look at it or did you adjust the settings (depth factor and offset)?

I know when I give demos I crank both up, but only for demo purposes because you will get a headache and nauseous after a few minutes, but it does impress the crowd in that mode. Otherwise I leave it at the default less impressive, but you can watch it 24/7 without getting sick mode.

Of course, the other claim to fame is the 120 degree viewing angle in 3d, so you do lose a bit of pop out in favor of being in a huge sweet spot that everyone can share. (It degrades to 2d outside the viewing area so it is still watchable. It doesn't become a mess.)


----------



## The Banshee

NorthSky said:


> Yes, exactly what I said about UHD Blu-ray. ...I don't stream, I don't download...movies and music...ever. I only buy Blu-rays and CD/SACDs.
> People like me are an extinct species. I'll keep buying regular Blu-rays (2K) with 3D picture. ...1080p for each eye (Active 3D display and glasses).
> And five years from now, we "might" see UHD Blu-ray with 3D picture in them, "maybe" on a brand new UHD Blu-ray standard with 500GB or 1TB capacity.




Wow, you're just like me. I'm only a hard copy guy - no compromises. I do not believe in downloads, streams etc, this is just me. It's all about the quality and physically owning something on my shelf as oppose to harddisk or cloud, you'll never know when it'll (disk or cloud server) just one day go 'oomph', bye bye collection.

You're not the only extinct species, there are a few.....The last of us.


Well to be honest I think the percentage is more than we imagine I know tons of people that only do physical discs and the proof is out there just by judging the resale market.


----------



## The Banshee

By the way I watch all my 3D Blu ray movies on the Sony HMZ T-3.

It's the best experience - nothing else comes close.

Both for native 3d content and upconverted 3d.

But native 3D movies tops everything and the quality is uncompromised.

Even Avatar in 3D was more jaw dropping than the RealD performance I saw on a gigantic screen, same goes for The Hobbit movies.


My main concern would be the resale value of our 3D collection should we ever get 4k 3D Blu rays. But would you be willing to lose all that money well spent just to replace it with 4k ones then?

Or would you and me settle in with up scaled 4k instead, almost identical or sub-near quality yet this way get to keep your 1080p collection?

Something to consider I suppose.

I'm looking at my collection right now and pondering....well I don't really want to.

Because now I have 1080p Blu rays, then I sold some off to get the 3D Bluray when they came out. Now I'll have to sell my 1080p Blu rays to buy the 4K ones. Thereafter I'll have to sell the 4k ones to get the 4k 3D ones.

So I'd suppose I'll settle with upscaled 4k 1080p 3D bluray then (via the TV or player).

I really don't know. At the end of the day we're still getting better overall quality with our TV setups then compared to most cinemas.


----------



## NorthSky

You worry/think too much, I think. Live one day @ a time, one 3D Blu-ray movie watching after another one, without thinking about tomorrow, because tomorrow never comes.

* It's not what you have, it's who you are.


----------



## The Banshee

NorthSky said:


> You worry/think too much, I think. Live one day @ a time, one 3D Blu-ray movie watching after another one, without thinking about tomorrow, because tomorrow never comes.
> 
> * It's not what you have, it's who you are.



Yes boss.

By the way too many 3D haters in this thread, not so very nice is it precious, 'cough' 'Golum Golum'.


----------



## The Banshee

Just a little bit of what I posted on the Sony 3D HMZ T3 thread:



The Banshee said:


> Now I have excellent vision once my glasses are on and I can perceive things really well. Can tell the difference between resolution difference between a 50" 4k tv vs 50" 1080p tv from 25 feet away. Yes that is true.


That was for the 4K haters lol, but it is honestly true.




The Banshee said:


> The HMZ is all about 3d depth not too much about pop out as pop out distorts and blurs backround images terribly. Whereas depth puts you inside the actual movie.
> 
> I can confirm that the Avatar 3d and The Hobbit 3d depths obliterate the pop out 3d quality of blu rays such as Jean-Michel Costeau's IMAX Ocean Wonderland 3D and his IMAX Sharks 3D blu rays. Because his camera use of extreme use of of pop out severely affects the background focus making background image quite blurry.


I think this has something to do with extreme negative/positive parallex.
This can detoriate the image quality if not used well. Or maybe I was being harsh because it was filmed under water?

However I don't think that pop out 3D can contend with 3D depth, therefore I decided to sell off the Jean-Michael Costeau's IMAX 3D blu rays - sorry about that pal.

When watching the IMAX documentaries it was like "I'd suppose I could touch it, but both the foreground image and the backgrounds too blurry, oh well".

Whereas Avatar and The Hobbit, I was like "oh yeah I'm actually inside the movie and this is going to be one hell of an adventure" it was like being there then opposed to watching something from afar and the image quality was just sharp and top notch.


----------



## The Banshee

'Sky shutting down 3D TV channel'.

Also read online that Sky 3D is closing on June 7th.

It's only going to be available as on demand only.

Not that I care. Don't use Sky, but I'm sorry for the public viewers.

Besides the whole world is going to be upside down again or downside up once Cameron releases his Avatar 3D sequels 2,3,4 maybe even 5??!!

Then Imax will be fully booked for months, all the cinemas will be packed, Everyone's gonna go 3D TV crazy, people will be climbing up trees, jumping off cliffs, people will be flying Banshees, China will go crazy, The west will start a 'save the rainforests' campaign, the east will start a 'save the oceans campaign', Japan will launch a satellite signal out to Pandora, Sony to launch 4K 3D Blu ray - will be the next step, Unobtamium will be mined in Africa, The military will stand down and become human rights activists, then after 5 years Cameron will finally release Avatar 1 Extended Edtion 3D Blu ray and so on and so forth.

And then the Prime Minister of India will rise and say "I am now going to promote and offer 'you' the public, the worlds first 8k Glasses Free 3D TV" and then he'll get shot.

Are you ready and prepared, I know I am!


----------



## MLXXX

The Banshee said:


> By the way I watch all my 3D Blu ray movies on the Sony HMZ T-3.
> 
> It's the best experience - nothing else comes close.
> 
> Both for native 3d content and upconverted 3d.
> 
> But native 3D movies tops everything and the quality is uncompromised.


However, the resolution per eye of the Sony HMZ-T3 is only 720p, not 1080p. I look forward to trying high quality 3D goggles offering Full HD resolution per eye, though I'm sure they'll be very expensive.


----------



## Hagenstein

MLXXX said:


> However, the resolution per eye of the Sony HMZ-T3 is only 720p, not 1080p. I look forward to trying high quality 3D goggles offering Full HD resolution per eye, though I'm sure they'll be very expensive.


A version of the Oculus/Samsung GearVR that supports the Samsung Note 5 is expected to be available not long after the Note 5's release. And the Note 5 is expected to have a 4K screen (at least by the same standards we call current "4K"/faux K displays 4K). With that rez it should be approaching or exceeding the 720p rez in Sony's discontinued HMZ-T3 and provide a far superior experience to boot. I think a lot of folks are going to be surprised by this tech, esp. the first time they experience sitting in a full scale virtual cinema with binaural Dolby Atmos headphone surround sound. From their easy chair.


----------



## The Banshee

MLXXX said:


> However, the resolution per eye of the Sony HMZ-T3 is only 720p, not 1080p. I look forward to trying high quality 3D goggles offering Full HD resolution per eye, though I'm sure they'll be very expensive.



Then I'm afraid you may be left disappointed because the HMZ are now an abandoned project. And as for Sony Morpheus, well it may be 1080p but no mention of 3D, inferior LCD screen with limited range of colours etc.

The HMZ T3 despite being 720p in each eye, the image quality is better than a single 1080p TV panel.

It has dual OLED panels and mine has the Triluminous display with wider range of colours.

Example would be using two IMAX projectors to display a movie both for 2D and 3D performances.

And because of two separate lenses, fully adjustable, gives amazing picture quality both for jaw dropping 3D and 2D performance.

That unfortunately can not be achieved via a single panel TV.

I watch it by selecting the 100" screen and the picture quality is sharper than many of the 1080p projectors shown in many of my local cinemas with the exception of the 4K Vue cinema screens.

Other members have confirmed that the 3D performance surpasses IMAX 3D.

Just takes a while to get all the settings right.

I use the PS3 for playback, but I also have the Flagship Samsung BD-H5600 3D Bluray player which is razor sharp and upscales to 4k if you have a 4K TV (well I mean UHD to be correct).

You have to see it to believe it, at first I was upset about the 720p panels but after rigorous testing for 4 months now and testing all the settings it's here to stay until 4k blu ray starts rolling out. Though I'll still keep it because I have a 100" virtual cinema with colours that pop yet natural, bright in 3D and undefeatable black levels.

Though I will buy a 65" 4k tv in the future for the living room.


----------



## The Banshee

Hagenstein said:


> A version of the Oculus/Samsung GearVR that supports the Samsung Note 5 is expected to be available not long after the Note 5's release. And the Note 5 is expected to have a 4K screen (at least by the same standards we call current "4K"/faux K displays 4K). With that rez it should be approaching or exceeding the 720p rez in Sony's discontinued HMZ-T3 and provide a far superior experience to boot. I think a lot of folks are going to be surprised by this tech, esp. the first time they experience sitting in a full scale virtual cinema with binaural Dolby Atmos headphone surround sound. From their easy chair.



I honestly don't think the Samsung Gear VR can compete and will be able to provide a superior experience to boot. It's a VR device meant for VR to use with the Galaxy phone for a VR experience but in terms of 3D movie experience and quality I don't think it can perform well. It's still one single UHD panel overall.

Though I'd be interested in its 4k (UHD) 2d performance and see how that puts up. But I'm reserved for now.

Question is will it be compatible for 4k bluray playback via HDMI?

I know the HMZ will be 4K bluray playback compatible with downscaling it.

The processor on the HMZ T3 outputs 3D surround sound with my Sony ma900 headphones.


----------



## Hagenstein

The Banshee said:


> ...as for Sony Morpheus, well it may be 1080p but no mention of 3D, inferior LCD screen with limited range of colours etc.


Among the various soon-to-released VR HMD's, Sony's Morpheus is going to be one of the lowest spec'd. Having said, it absolutely is full stereoscopic 3D. It will likely provide a variety of compelling experiencies but I agree it would not be the first choice to replace the HMZ for movie viewing. Its PC based competitors however, namely the Valve/HTC Vive and Oculus Rift, both use OLED (sadly with the pentile subpixel arrangement it seems). They are however now using twin panels - 1 dedicated panel per eye - as opposed to a single panel split down the middle for each eye. And the Note 5 based GearVR will most likely have a 4K OLED panel (1/2 screen rez per eye). So perhaps not immediately out of the gate, but I don't think we're going to have too long of a wait before VR based cinema becomes a compelling alternative for some, and a more than worthy successor to non-VR hmd's like the HMZ. They will not however surpass a good home 4K (maybe even 2K) projector based theater for quite some time yet imho. But eventually who knows. I remember when it was said digital would never be able to replace film, and while I don't personally feel that digital *has* fully surpassed the capability of film in all respects, we all know which way the wind blew for that. And with HDR coming, which future HMD's will support, the future of HMD-based VR cinema is bright indeed. And as far as the social aspect of film viewing goes... That's coming in VR as well. I'm pretty excited by the possibilities myself.


----------



## MrEmoto

peschiNL said:


> this thread reminds me of the argument sketch from Monty Python.


No, no, this is getting hit on the head lessons! Argument is down the hall...


----------



## MrEmoto

tgm1024 said:


> I wonder how many of the anti-3D crowd, formed their initial experience from something On-Demand, or from a TV with poor motion handling. I also suspect active-3D as a culprit, but that's for another topic.
> 
> Note, I'm not asking for all the anti-3D pundits to show up screaming how they hate it and the 150 reasons why they're "unbiased" or whatever. I'm just wondering about the overall reactions _taken as an aggregate._
> 
> I started wondering this when I discovered that an otherwise wonderful movie *"Edge of Tomorrow" was very difficult to watch in 3D on demand for me. Even on the slow moving scenes, it was almost as if the edge formation (always under the thumb of oppression of your TVs motion handling) was broken from L to R, *making it harder to snap to convergence. Yes, on-demand 3D is SBS or OU, but I've seen _many_ 3D films on demand that were smooth as silk.
> 
> Someone chimed in that they had problems with Maleficent on demand, but not the blu-ray, so I may end up buying the 3DBD just to see.


I recently had a chance to watch Edge of Tomorrow 3D off of a blu-ray disc and can assure you that it looked very good on disc. I really enjoyed it. If you like the film, i guess disc is the best way to go.


----------



## The Banshee

Hagenstein said:


> the future of HMD-based VR cinema is bright indeed. And as far as the social aspect of film viewing goes... That's coming in VR as well. I'm pretty excited by the possibilities myself.



Film viewing in VR? Eeeeeh??

'Baffled'.

But Hollywood and film producers and Blu rays are not going down that route.


----------



## Hagenstein

The Banshee said:


> I honestly don't think the Samsung Gear VR can compete and will be able to provide a superior experience to boot...


I harbour a healthy amount of skepticism myself also, despite being excited by the possibilities of the tech as a whole. Whether it winds up being superior or not... Guess we won't have too long to find out. Should be out 4th Qtr 2015. Sadly I can't justify a Note 5 purchase for just that purpose given I already have a current gen cellphone. I definitely plan to get one or both of the PC based HMD's though so we'll see how those fare.

You have a good point on playing Blu Rays also, both 4K and 2K. Samsung has dissapontingly removed SD card slots on all their newest devices, leaving only streaming as an option. And I am NOT a fan of streaming-only with no other options.


----------



## cakefoo

film113 said:


> To be honest, I can't speak to the tech aspects of what they do. Only the end results. UltraD is certainly the best one I've seen but it's still not as good as it is with glasses.


So... 

Were they fueling the set with a native 3D signal?
Was it content you had personally seen on some other 3DTV(s)?


----------



## Hagenstein

The Banshee said:


> Film viewing in VR? Eeeeeh??
> 
> 'Baffled'.
> 
> But Hollywood and film producers and Blu rays are not going down that route.


You are probably going to be surprised. Just ask director Eli Roth and most others in Hollywood who have tried the tech.

https://instagram.com/p/2oiDhgC9m6/?taken-by=realeliroth

Or New Deal Studios:

http://uploadvr.com/new-deal-studios-vr-shift/?hvid=2GW99s

A VR cinema can present an IMAX sized screen and it actually appears life-size. It obviously won't have other IMAX attributes such as resolution, but for many the sheer scale of the screens in VR cinemas and OLED blacks will be enough.

But yes, film viewing in VR is not only going to be a "thing", many believe it will be one of VR's killer apps. I'm skeptical too but with so many positive comments already out there I'm compelled to take a don't knock it 'till I try it stance for the moment.


----------



## film113

cakefoo said:


> So...
> 
> Were they fueling the set with a native 3D signal?
> Was it content you had personally seen on some other 3DTV(s)?


I _assume_ it was native. Primarily clips...sports, TRANSFORMERS EXTINCTION are two I remember. Didn't notice any improvement on depth...seemed the same as with glasses. Viewing angles were fine from side to side (altho more like 2D the further the angle). But not so much when viewing from a higher or lower angle...that got a bit blurry. I noticed that a couple aspects seemed more out-of-focus than glasses-3D as well but nothing too major. Based just on what I saw (this was a year ago), I'll personally stick with glasses for 3D


----------



## cakefoo

film113 said:


> I _assume_ it was native. Primarily clips...sports, TRANSFORMERS EXTINCTION are two I remember. Didn't notice any improvement on depth...seemed the same as with glasses. Viewing angles were fine from side to side (altho more like 2D the further the angle). But not so much when viewing from a higher or lower angle...that got a bit blurry. I noticed that a couple aspects seemed more out-of-focus than glasses-3D as well but nothing too major. Based just on what I saw (this was a year ago), I'll personally stick with glasses for 3D


Popout rarely happens in that kind of content anyway, so I'm not too discouraged by your impressions. What do you mean by out of focus?

Thanks for replying so quickly btw.


----------



## film113

Worf said:


> Did you just look at it or did you adjust the settings (depth factor and offset)?
> 
> I know when I give demos I crank both up, but only for demo purposes because you will get a headache and nauseous after a few minutes, but it does impress the crowd in that mode. Otherwise I leave it at the default less impressive, but you can watch it 24/7 without getting sick mode.
> 
> Of course, the other claim to fame is the 120 degree viewing angle in 3d, so you do lose a bit of pop out in favor of being in a huge sweet spot that everyone can share. (It degrades to 2d outside the viewing area so it is still watchable. It doesn't become a mess.)


No, I just watched it and didn't ask the speaker to adjust anything. You are correct in that the image seemed more 2D from side angles.


----------



## film113

cakefoo said:


> Popout rarely happens in that kind of content anyway, so I'm not too discouraged by your impressions. What do you mean by out of focus?
> 
> Thanks for replying so quickly btw.


At the time, I recall thinking that TF had better extensions than I saw at the demo. re: out-of-focus, some objects showed a mild blurriness occasionally in the foreground.


----------



## The Banshee

Hagenstein said:


> You have a good point on playing Blu Rays also, both 4K and 2K. Samsung has dissapontingly removed SD card slots on all their newest devices, leaving only streaming as an option. And I am NOT a fan of streaming-only with no other options.



But won't their phones support a HDMI or all in one connection port to output video unless that's done via the Gear VR. But then what about input video signal for bluray he he.

Oh my God can you imagine ripping transferring (time wasted) movies etc on SD card, no thanks, whenever I'd want to watch a blu ray I just pop in the disc to my player like a normal videophile.

You see that is why the HMZ is a unique thing like no other for videophiles. I am so gutted that Sony have dropped the ball. When they do something right, they do it well but when they lose the plot, then they really do lose the plot. Just why I appreciate my HMZ so much more as its the last of its kind.

However 'IF' (the sterioscopic 3D) Morpheus comes out on top and shows its the superior performer (which i dont) then I may want it for my movies provided it can connect to any other 3D blu ray player or else I'll have to fork out on a PS4.

But that's a big if.




Hagenstein said:


> I'm compelled to take a don't knock it 'till I try it stance for the moment.


That is so true.


----------



## NorthSky

I have never tried those; I need to...those 3D googles seem to be the ultimate 3D experience. :nerd:
Unfortunately all the Sony stores are now closed down in my area. 
And when you try headphones/googles combination they have to be professionally/medically disinfected/sanitized each time after usage for the next customer to wear.
...It's a very personal piece of 3D hardware, a personal health issue, ...only you can wear them...nobody else...or unless they purchase their own pair. 

But for real 3D lovers I believe that each one of us should own a pair, and when you buy a 3D/4K OLED UHD TV (curved, or flat) those googles should come with it; included in the full package, in addition to four pairs of 3D glasses (active, rechargeable), or eight pairs (passive).

If 3D is going to be supported by the electronics manufacturers in the year 2015 (UHD TVs, UHD Blu-ray players, UHD Netfix, Vudu, Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, ...), and by the Hollywood movie studios; they need to create incentives/motivations/support by releasing 3D Blu-ray movies in both UHD (4K) and in 3D (4K). ...And quality 3D glasses should always be provided with your new 3D/4K OLED/LED/Laser TV and front projector. ...And with OLED and Laser in particular those 3D googles headsets with incorporated headphones should be included with the purchase, @ no extra cost (that's what true real 3D support is all about). ...Just one pair, as a 3D bonus. 

Last; @ roughly 1K for a pair, they need to be much more sturdy with connectors that you can freely plug and unplug, as in this video here:

____________






____________

♦ That is just my opinion. ...As a 3D BR movie lover and a soon 3D surround sound owner/explorer (DTS:X - Dolby Atmos & Auro-3D).
Simply put I want the full 3D (((affair))) with full support from not only _James Cameron & Peter Jackson_, but also from all Hollywood movie studios, ...Disney included. 
- Without 3D content we are swimming into an empty 0D ocean (zero depth, dimensionless).


----------



## Rudy1

_*APPARENTLY, 3D IS GOOD FOR YOU:*_

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/world-of-tech/perhaps-we-were-wrong-about-3d-films-after-all-1294523


----------



## Frank714

Here is the actual full article (link from the parallel thread).

Hopefully a lot of AV enthusiasts take notice and shop for more 3D Blu-rays. 

Otherwise, I might get the very uneasy fealing that I might not be able to purchase a physical 3D Blu-ray of the upcoming made-for-IMAX film I had previously only dreamt of: _Seapower_.


----------



## MLXXX

Frank714 said:


> Here is the actual full article (link from the parallel thread).


 I see this is not a detailed paper, just a quick summary. For example, it states:
It showed a 23% jump in cognitive processing and an 11% increase in reaction time among those who watched the 3D version of the movie. ​ I'm pretty sure the writer meant an _increase_ in reaction _speed,_ and a corresponding _decrease_ in reaction _time_!

I did a quick google search and found the following article, which provides more detail about the research and its implications, but is still not a detailed paper: http://www.tvbeurope.com/watching-3d-films-can-help-improve-iq-brain-power/


----------



## The Banshee

Is there anyone brave out there.......

Brave enough to tell me how upscaled to UHD 3D looks like and if anyone can see a significant amount of difference compared to a 1080p 3D panel?
Whether it is a jaw dropping 'wow' difference? Only talking about the 3D picture quality here.

Whether passive or active, but more precisely active.

The Sony and Samsung flagship store closed down last year and PC World Currys are useless here in London so can't check for myself, what a shame.

How can you expect to sell 3D to consumers when their marketing is absolute rubbish and hopeless. 
But maybe stores are possibly afraid of mass destruction of glasses caused by little naughty children whose parents teach them "go play with those 3D glasses and break them while you're at it".

So stores will end up with missing (stolen) passive glasses and broken/damaged/shattered active glasses.

Could be the reason.


----------



## The Banshee

Reason I'm asking is because the new blu ray spec does not include 3d. So I have to choose between (1080p blu ray) upscaled UHD 3D or native UHD 2D blu rays.

Will native UHD really triumph upscaled UHD both in 3D and 2D from 1080p source blu ray.

But then again next year TVs will have Higher Dynamic Range, will we really be able to see more colour difference on the new panels from the new UHD blu rays?

Does that mean modern day Triluminous was just a gimmick?
My HMZ T3 is Triluminous as are the Sony x900a/b series and they are the best most natural panels I've ever seen especially the x900a series.


----------



## tgm1024

The Banshee said:


> Is there anyone brave out there.......
> 
> Brave enough to tell me how upscaled to UHD 3D looks like and if anyone can see a significant amount of difference compared to a 1080p 3D panel?


I am a HUGE fan of the results (at least from Sony) of 2D2K -> 2D4K upscale.

But while I am not sure, the more I think of it the more I wouldn't be surprised if the TVs aren't actually upscaling when taking in 3D 2K source. The reason I think this is that it would invariably produce Left/Right inconsistencies: A L scene upscaled might have an line with a modified edge that the R scene wouldn't have modified the same way (for that same edge).

In order to pull this off cleanly, I see a lot of hairy code trying to keep track of both eye frames simultaneously.

The flip side of this is that there are differences between L&R anyway, but I just can't imagine they'd be as significant as what would happen with two perspectives being upscaled.

Caveat: I don't _know _this to be true; it's primarily my gut reaction.


----------



## mo949

Your guess is better than mine on that front clearly 

I'm just dying to see 3D the way it was always meant to be seen. Full HD, without compromised black levels, and not dim.


----------



## Don Landis

> I have never tried those; I need to...those 3D googles seem to be the ultimate 3D experience.


I thought so too until I tried them. Sucks! Pixelated screens, can't focus if you need reading glasses, heavy, and gives me a headache and back of neck pain after about 5 minutes of using them. Standing, I lost my balance a few times during most active action. 

The experience is totally different. But, the one really great thing is for gamers. That was a fun experience for a few minutes. But given a choice, I prefer my XBOX Kinect first for gaming, Sony PS Move controllers for shooting gallery games, and basic 3D glasses for movies. The only advantage I saw was turning your head and the visual follows. Movies won't do that, only games.


----------



## mars5l

The Banshee said:


> Reason I'm asking is because the new blu ray spec does not include 3d. So I have to choose between (1080p blu ray) upscaled UHD 3D or native UHD 2D blu rays.
> 
> Will native UHD really triumph upscaled UHD both in 3D and 2D from 1080p source blu ray.
> 
> But then again next year TVs will have Higher Dynamic Range, will we really be able to see more colour difference on the new panels from the new UHD blu rays?
> 
> Does that mean modern day Triluminous was just a gimmick?
> My HMZ T3 is Triluminous as are the Sony x900a/b series and they are the best most natural panels I've ever seen especially the x900a series.


Never really owned a 1080p tv, I made the jump from a CRT to a 4k 3d tv. But most of the good quality 3d bluray looks amazing upscaled to 4k 3d. I have an active Samsung setup. I still think the black and white look of Sin City 2 looks the best on a 4k tv even being upscaled.


----------



## NSX1992

Yes 3D looks fantastic upscaled to 4K as in a passive set the vertical loss from passive is restored by upscaling so you have full 1080p in each eye. I have a 84" 4K LG and I can't imagine how 3D could be any better. Two nights ago I visited Magnolia (BB) and insisted in seeing 3D on the Samsung 85" 4K active set as I had never seen 3D 4K active. After much searching and trying numerous batteries they finally succeeded with one pair. I had to admit Avatar looked as good as on my passive set. The salesman thought he could see flicker which I could not. He was also amazed at the quality and promised he would demonstrate 3D if anyone was interested as I had forced him to find the glasses.


The moral of my story is that the often non working and poor quality 3D demonstration displays that Best Buy had in the past contributed to the lessening of 3D. The new larger 4K sets if 3D was properly displayed could renew interest in 3D.


----------



## tgm1024

NSX1992 said:


> Yes 3D looks fantastic upscaled to 4K as in a passive set the vertical loss from passive is restored by upscaling so you have full 1080p in each eye.


That's not what we were talking about, ...that effect is *not* an upscale. It's just being able to see the 1080 vertical instead of 540. That's a big deal, (and I've been talking about 4K passive TVs since before they came out), but we were talking about the *upscale*.




NSX1992 said:


> I have a 84" 4K LG and I can't imagine how 3D could be any better. Two nights ago I visited Magnolia (BB) and insisted in seeing 3D on the Samsung 85" 4K active set as I had never seen 3D 4K active. After much searching and trying numerous batteries they finally succeeded with one pair. I had to admit Avatar looked as good as on my passive set.


Again, you're mischaracterizing the issue. What you saw was a 2K 3D movie (there are _no 4K 3DBD specifications at all_). It will look as good in terms of spatial resolution because they are both showing 1920x1080 to each eye. This does not mean that they were employing a 2K->4K upscale. In fact, I'm more and more suspecting they won't ever, but cannot be sure.


----------



## tgm1024

mo949 said:


> Your guess is better than mine on that front clearly
> 
> I'm just dying to see 3D the way it was always meant to be seen. Full HD, without compromised black levels, and not dim.


I saw it on the XBR-65X900A when it first came out, and its 1920x1080 passive 3D was jaw-dropping.

Something like half the vertical viewing angle, so you had to be a little more careful how you sit, but just as smooth as silk.


----------



## The Banshee

Many thanks everyone for all your generous input, very much appreciated. I think this keeps the thread alive and interesting as we're all 3D lovers.




tgm1024 said:


> That's not what we were talking about, ...that effect is *not* an upscale. It's just being able to see the 1080 vertical instead of 540. That's a big deal, (and I've been talking about 4K passive TVs since before they came out), but we were talking about the *upscale*.


Partial upscale via a passive panel is maybe what's happening here.
Or maybe none at all? (Which would be worse considering its a UHD/4k tv.





tgm1024 said:


> Again, you're mischaracterizing the issue. What you saw was a 2K 3D movie (there are _no 4K 3DBD specifications at all_). It will look as good in terms of spatial resolution because they are both showing 1920x1080 to each eye. This does not mean that they were employing a 2K->4K upscale. In fact, I'm more and more suspecting they won't ever, but cannot be sure.


I think he meant he's never seen 2k 3d upscaled on a Active UHD/4k TV set until he went to Magnolia BB.

Passive will never be able to resolve the loss in resolution.

Whereas Active will display 2k 3D bluray upscaled to UHD/4K.
However I haven't seen 3D demonstrations of either tech.

For example 'IF' ever in this century 8K tv became the norm, then active would upscale to that in 3D. (8k each eye)

Whereas passive would only do upscale to 4k 3D on a 8K tv. (4k each eye).

I believe I may be correct here.


----------



## The Banshee

However my experience last time with a Active 1080p 3D viewing of Avatar was a major let down. It was a Samsung 65" D8000/ES8000 model.

I immediately noticed that instead of the 3D looking natural, it actually looked like glass/cardboard (more like glass cutouts to be honest as it had a very glassy shine look to it) of the navi characters in the foreground.

This I did not experience with RealD which uses passive.

Also not with my HMZ T3.
Which actually brings so much depth that its awesome.

(Native)
Avatar 3D - awesome depth - reference 3D. The best.
The Hobbit - great depth - very nice 3D quality. Some loss of detail in further shots.
300 Rise of an Empire 3D - good 3D depth, lots of pop out effects, fun, ok- resolution loss in several shots, so not the best quality.


(Converted)
Guardians of the Galaxy - very good depth, amazing 3D - some loss of detail/focus.
Thor The Dark World 3D - good depth, good 3D - some loss of detail/focus.


I heard Tintin 3D (native) is awesome so will have to get that, I currently have the 2D bluray.

Also heard Tansformers Age of Extinction is awesome too in 3D (native/variabe) so will have to get that, I currently have the 2D bluray.

Waiting for Avengers Age of Ultron 3D (converted) bluray release.



3D movies should be done native with increased resolution and maybe a higher frame rate (just a little, 30-60 fps).


----------



## tomtastic

The Banshee said:


> Many thanks everyone for all your generous input, very much appreciated. I think this keeps the thread alive and interesting as we're all 3D lovers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Partial upscale via a passive panel is maybe what's happening here.
> Or maybe none at all? (Which would be worse considering its a UHD/4k tv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he meant he's never seen 2k 3d upscaled on a Active UHD/4k TV set until he went to Magnolia BB.
> 
> Passive will never be able to resolve the loss in resolution.
> 
> Whereas Active will display 2k 3D bluray upscaled to UHD/4K.
> However I haven't seen 3D demonstrations of either tech.
> 
> For example 'IF' ever in this century 8K tv became the norm, then active would upscale to that in 3D. (8k each eye)
> 
> Whereas passive would only do upscale to 4k 3D on a 8K tv. (4k each eye).
> 
> I believe I may be correct here.


Not if passive screens were 16k, 8k/eye. But really, by this point the tech will evolve to something else. We'll be jacking in. Wait? Are we already jacked in?


----------



## tgm1024

The Banshee said:


> Many thanks everyone for all your generous input, very much appreciated. I think this keeps the thread alive and interesting as we're all 3D lovers.
> 
> Partial upscale via a passive panel is maybe what's happening here.
> Or maybe none at all? (Which would be worse considering its a UHD/4k tv.
> 
> I think he meant he's never seen 2k 3d upscaled on a Active UHD/4k TV set until he went to Magnolia BB.


Even there I don't think he did. I'm increasingly of the belief that no upscaling is done at all even in the active 4k case (except for Nearest Neighbor replication).




The Banshee said:


> Passive will never be able to resolve the loss in resolution.


Of course. That's not the issue. I'm talking far beyond this.




The Banshee said:


> Whereas Active will display 2k 3D bluray upscaled to UHD/4K.
> However I haven't seen 3D demonstrations of either tech.
> 
> For example 'IF' ever in this century 8K tv became the norm, then active would upscale to that in 3D. (8k each eye)
> 
> Whereas passive would only do upscale to 4k 3D on a 8K tv. (4k each eye).
> 
> I believe I may be correct here.


No, no, the question isn't whether or not the vertical resolution halving is happening, the question is whether or not it's attempting an upscale. On a 4K passive TV, this might produce an pseudo 3840x1080 (upscaled horizontally, but not vertically because it can only display the original 1080 anyway.

And in the 4K active case, yes, they _might_ be upscaling each eye, though I'm increasingly doubting it.

What I was talking about originally was _why _they might not _want_ an upscale in the first place. I dont think they want to modify the edges that were likely carefully crafted by the film company....it might mess up the ability to easily converge the two images. The more the left and right differ from each other, the tougher it is for the brain to combine them.

But I think we're done here, because I can only currently guess at this based on the algorithms I've experimented with. All I was trying to do in the recent posts was clarify what the argument _wasn't_ because what I was saying was getting confused with different arguments.


----------



## Slattery

So the new UHD Bluray standard won't support 3D?
Does that mean the movie companies will no longer support 3d at all?


----------



## The Banshee

tgm1024 said:


> I'm increasingly of the belief that no upscaling is done at all even in the active 4k case (except for Nearest Neighbor replication).


 Please tell me this is not true because I am going to cry so much.


----------



## The Banshee

tgm1024 said:


> What I was talking about originally was _why _they might not _want_ an upscale in the first place. I dont think they want to modify the edges that were likely carefully crafted by the film company....it might mess up the ability to easily converge the two images. The more the left and right differ from each other, the tougher it is for the brain to combine them.
> 
> But I think we're done here, because I can only currently guess at this based on the algorithms I've experimented with. All I was trying to do in the recent posts was clarify what the argument _wasn't_ because what I was saying was getting confused with different arguments.



Thank you, I understand you clearly. If that really is the case, I could see why an upscale here would be a very bad move indeed.

I see why each eye displaying different resolutions could cause a 3D malfunction.

But hopefully there are some here with the latest Sony and Samsungs that could verify this or negate this after thorough testing.

Or maybe they wouldn't test it because they are enjoying what they are seeing in terms of 3D performance and resolution quality - and so if they're happy then that's all that matters. Because the last thing for them is to find a fault and then unable to undo or 'un-see' what has already been seen. And then they'd wish they were never pointed out that particular flaw.


----------



## The Banshee

Slattery said:


> So the new UHD Bluray standard won't support 3D?
> Does that mean the movie companies will no longer support 3d at all?


The movie companies will carry on doing 3D like usual.

No, UHD bluray will not support 3D - maybe after several or 5-6 years. But I think the BDA and the film studios will probably release a UHD 2D bluray with a 3D combo pack for 3D movies. The 3D bluray version will be 1080p with a possible higher dynamic range, expanded colour range. (and maybe a higher frame rate?).


----------



## andy sullivan

FYI. Yesterday at Fry's Electronics I picked up these two 3d+blu-ray+dvd for $9. Star Trek Into Darkness and World War Z. There were several others that they were out of already.


----------



## NSX1992

I was trying to compare passive from a 1080p set to a 4K set. I was always a DLP active proponent until I saw passive on my 4K set. The "upscaling" in 4K passive does work as the picture is fantastic. I never claimed that 4K would upscale passive past 1080p but it does upscale the vertical resolution. Passive has the other advantages of much less dimming and no batteries. I also don't claim that regular material is upscaled even "mastered 4K" blu-rays. Netflix 4K material looks like good 1080p video. My only true 4K viewing is 3840x2160 resolution in new PC games.


----------



## tgm1024

NSX1992 said:


> I was trying to compare passive from a 1080p set to a 4K set. I was always a DLP active proponent until I saw passive on my 4K set. The "upscaling" in 4K passive does work as the picture is fantastic. I never claimed that 4K would upscale passive past 1080p but it does upscale the vertical resolution. Passive has the other advantages of much less dimming and no batteries. I also don't claim that regular material is upscaled even "mastered 4K" blu-rays. Netflix 4K material looks like good 1080p video. My only true 4K viewing is 3840x2160 resolution in new PC games.


Ok, gotcha; a collision in terminology.

Here are my observations of the XBR-65X900A, the first 4K offering from Sony. Note, by the way, be careful of user feedback on this particular model: there's a bit of historical confusion about this model because the 55" version (XBR-55X900A) actually had the FPR set for 540 vertical. This caused a lot of bad press when it was discovered, but it also resulted in people assuming that 4K passive wasn't all that big a difference. The two sizes of this same model are using different vertical resolutions for 3D: the FPR on the 65" is indeed 1080 vertical.

On the 65x900A:

1. The 3D is phenomenal. I would regard it as "smooth as silk" and very enjoyable to watch. The resolution is indeed the same exact thing as active 3D on 2K, but without the flicker, etc.

2. The vertical viewing _*angle *_is approximately half that of a 2K set (I was using mine as a comparison). So it's not as forgiving as 2K passives are in terms of vertical head positioning. This is unlikely to cause a problem IMO except for people sitting on the floor vs. people sitting on the couch, though there was a user here that did have a young daughter complain about it. I don't know what the make/model was however, only that it was 4k, so it might have just been a thinner FPR, or scanline spacing, or something else I cannot guess at.

The bottom line is that I absolutely would not hesitate to get a 4K passive 3D set.


----------



## The Banshee

tgm1024 said:


> Ok, gotcha; a collision in terminology.
> 
> Here are my observations of the XBR-65X900A, the first 4K offering from Sony. Note, by the way, be careful of user feedback on this particular model: there's a bit of historical confusion about this model because the 55" version (XBR-55X900A) actually had the FPR set for 540 vertical. This caused a lot of bad press when it was discovered, but it also resulted in people assuming that 4K passive wasn't all that big a difference. The two sizes of this same model are using different vertical resolutions for 3D: the FPR on the 65" is indeed 1080 vertical.



That is correct, I was about to make the mistake of buying the 55x900a last year and then I came across this subject discussed by member GeoffD on here.

But still the 2d image was so damn gorgeous. I've been thinking really hard about buying the 65" model. Though the x900b series are active panels, I still prefer the 2D image on the x900a series.

One side of me says forget all this new HDR, expanded colour, UHD spec and just get this TV and be in love with it for many (10) years to come because at the end of the day it does not mean that every film studio for certain will remaster (again) their UHD bluray release in HDR and expanded colour etc.

For example look how long it even took to get Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, LOTR Extended Edition to all come out on bluray! How many years have passed by and still we don't have Avatar Extended Edition in 3D on bluray.



tgm1024 said:


> On the 65x900A:
> 
> 1. The 3D is phenomenal. I would regard it as "smooth as silk" and very enjoyable to watch. The resolution is indeed the same exact thing as active 3D on 2K, but without the flicker, etc.


That is strange. I'll have to find out from other threads if active does indeed upscale to 4k in 3d or wether there is a big resolution difference. I would hate to compromise between watching a 2D bluray upscaled to UHD or watching a 1080p 3D performance.

Our new seating arrangement is 6 feet away from the tv, so pretty close that's why this is important to me now, whereas before it wasn't because the old seating arrangement was 17 feet from the tv screen!

The 65"x900a will be the number 1 choice. It's just that Samsung are always so strong with their damn powerful dynamic contrast that makes 2D images look so 3D on their hu8500/9000 models and such. But overall picture quality is more natural and real on the Sony's.

But I don't think or know if the Sony has a compatible HDMI for the UHD 60fpr bluray spec. Looks like the best thing is just to wait everything out till next year. Maybe the the BDA should implement phase 2 sooner.


----------



## SFMike

Hagenstein said:


> But yes, film viewing in VR is not only going to be a "thing", many believe it will be one of VR's killer apps. I'm skeptical too but with so many positive comments already out there I'm compelled to take a don't knock it 'till I try it stance for the moment.


I have been enjoying watching my blu-ray 3D collection on the original GearVR, which uses the Note 4, for a couple months and really believe VR will be the future of 3D now that the TV manufactures have given up on 3D.
I feel that even though the image lacks the sharpness of an HD TV and has a slight screen door effect due to the magnification of the pixels, watching a film on the big screen of your own private virtual theater makes up for the limitations. Since the L/R images are completely seperated there is no cross talk what so ever making for the best 3D home image since the DLP TV days. Also pop-out is great as images come off the screen over the seats in front of you making the effect more realistic. Watching "The Bubble" or the "Get A Horse" cartoon that came with the release of "Frozen" is a real treat. 

Yes you have to transfer a file to your phone memory but to me it has been worth it. Even with its limitations I feel the image quality of of the GearVR is better than that of the Sony HMZ due to the bigger size of the phone display. If the upcoming Note 5 has a 4K display the image in the virtual theater should be even better than now. If your local Best Buy is doing demos of the GearVR be sure to check it out.

*MY GEARVR HOME THEATER*


----------



## CARTmen

SFMike said:


> I have been enjoying watching my blu-ray 3D collection on the original GearVR, which uses the Note 4, for a couple months and really believe VR will be the future of 3D now that the TV manufactures have given up on 3D.
> I feel that even though the image lacks the sharpness of an HD TV and has a slight screen door effect due to the magnification of the pixels, watching a film on the big screen of your own private virtual theater makes up for the limitations. Since the L/R images are completely seperated there is no cross talk what so ever making for the best 3D home image since the DLP TV days. Also pop-out is great as images come off the screen over the seats in front of you making the effect more realistic. Watching "The Bubble" or the "Get A Horse" cartoon that came with the release of "Frozen" is a real treat.
> 
> Yes you have to transfer a file to your phone memory but to me it has been worth it. Even with its limitations I feel the image quality of of the GearVR is better than that of the Sony HMZ due to the bigger size of the phone display. If the upcoming Note 5 has a 4K display the image in the virtual theater should be even better than now. If your local Best Buy is doing demos of the GearVR be sure to check it out.


I share your vision of a future with giant VR screens, or even better, a future with giant AR screens with amazing resolution.


----------



## Hagenstein

SFMike said:


> ...If the upcoming Note 5 has a 4K display the image in the virtual theater should be even better than now.


My peers and family I suspect are a bit weary of my VR evangelizing lol. It truly is difficult to get it across to people that this is sooo much more than having a screen pressed against one's face.

But re. the Note 5... The popular consensus is that it will indeed have a 4K OLED screen. Besides resolution, I am just as interested in whether the refresh rate will be 90hz, or if it will be capable of something called global refresh. The forthcoming Valve/HTC Vive and Oculus Rift both support those. One of the discoveries surrounding these is that a threshold is crossed when those two techs are combined with sub-millimeter accurate tracking of micro-head movements. This combination allows a single pixel (or sub-pixel array) to visually act as a greater number of pixels, and in fact can be perceived as such by the eyes/brain. It's not truly equivalent to higher resolution; think of it as being akin to the faux 4K eshift tech JVC uses in many of their projectors. Except in this case, the HMD displays are not oscillated at a set frequency. Rather, it is our own head that does the oscillating via constant micro movements that we are always making (we simply do not keep our heads Perfectly still - not at the sub-millimeter level at least). Combined with persistence of vision, these phenomena and tech combine to produce higher perceived resolution. Again not a substitute for true higher res, but better than the panel specs themselves would indicate.

So yeah I agree that VR may very well re-spark interest in 3D in the home. Of course I Also think that could happen with PROPER marketing and demonstration of 4K passive (or even quality active) 3D. My 84" LG is phenomenal when it comes to 3D; visitors are routinely blown away and it quickly becomes clear (pun intended) that it's the first time they've seen 3D of that quality. With Star Wars VII coming in 3D and the next wave of Avatar films + the occasional well-reviewed-in-3D film such as Mad Max Fury Road, I keep hoping against hope we'll see 3D grow in popularity again. But if not, we certainly have some great immersive 3D experiences in VR to look forward to eh? In my many years of working in IT, graphics, playing videogames, photography, and related disciplines, I have never been as excited for a new technology as I am for VR. It really is going to change the world in ways people can't imagine.


----------



## SFMike

Hagenstein said:


> So yeah I agree that VR may very well re-spark interest in 3D in the home. Of course I Also think that could happen with PROPER marketing and demonstration of 4K passive (or even quality active) 3D. My 84" LG is phenomenal when it comes to 3D; visitors are routinely blown away and it quickly becomes clear (pun intended) that it's the first time they've seen 3D of that quality. With Star Wars VII coming in 3D and the next wave of Avatar films + the occasional well-reviewed-in-3D film such as Mad Max Fury Road, I keep hoping against hope we'll see 3D grow in popularity again. But if not, we certainly have some great immersive 3D experiences in VR to look forward to eh?


I think the fit between VR and 3D is so tight that the two can't really be seperated so it will continue to evolve. Also, unlike the majority of disinterested lazy film directors of 3D films both native and converted, it seems that those working in VR actually see depth as part of the experience and work to maximize its effect. With the economy doing so poorly for the 99% I do not forsee 3D TV ever being promoted again as they are having trouble selling sets as it is. The manufaturers did a really poor job with their promotions and add to that the media backlash against 3D in general I think 3DTV is dead in the USA except as an unsupported niche enjoyed by people on this and other home video online boards. The studios haphazardly release blu-ray 3D discs without any real promotion on high profile films except, of course, Disney who can not even be bothered. The industry is even losing interest in blu-ray. Also my local theater chain shows new 3D releases at inconvenient times and has told me they would stop if the studios didn't require it. 

The experience of 3D in VR far excedes that in the theater and I'm sure people will love it when it is unleashed on the masses. However, I'm hoping that this current wave of VR doesn't crest and fall like the past periods of interest in 3D films. If 3D movies are unliked because you have to wear those darn glasses, as we've hear over and OVER from 3D haters, how are these same people going to deal with messing up their hair with a bulky headset? One study has already shown women tend not to like VR because the headset makes them look "stupid". So as much as I'm as big and excited supporter of VR as you are I'm trying to keep my expectations in check as I think we are seeing the media hype machine going wild for a new technology that will peak and decline quickly. I see the 3D TV/Movie media and investment hype happening all over again. When the dust settles we will have another niche market that I anticipate to be larger and more sucessful than 3DTV but not as ubicqitous as the media is reporting now. The VR haters have not even come out yet and a lot of investors still have a lot of money to lose. I still love 3DTV and have two 3D camcorders but I feel I'm dealing with a hobby as "discontinued" as my camcorders and other 3D cameras. VR holds our 3D promise only if Hollywood and the manufacturers can show BIG profits very quickly and they are very hard to make happy.


----------



## tomtastic

If you have to put on something larger than glasses it will never even have the success that 3D did. Unless you can get the size and weight down and it would have to be something as good as 4K. People complain about glasses when they wear sunglasses. Putting on a helmet: Not going to happen. Directors aren't going to make content for something that no one will buy. 3D they can invest in because of conversion and a 2D version that doesn't require filming in two different formats. For now at least they've been selling tickets.

It will be interesting to see how 3D sales hold up in 2015, with a slow decline since 2012. The two biggest movies Avengers and Star Wars, I doubt will help much. If anything it will hurt 3D, studios will look at those even though they're not native 3D, as evidence of a decline. Most will see Star Wars in 2D. Not many native 3D movies this year that interest me. I think calling 3D dead isn't exactly the case. It's declining and will most likely go dormant the way it has before. But 3D's never really been dead. Only 'dead', as in it's not popular as when it was touted as the next big thing.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> If you have to put on something larger than glasses it will never even have the success that 3D did. Unless you can get the size and weight down and it would have to be something as good as 4K. People complain about glasses when they wear sunglasses. Putting on a helmet: Not going to happen. Directors aren't going to make content for something that no one will buy. 3D they can invest in because of conversion and a 2D version that doesn't require filming in two different formats. For now at least they've been selling tickets.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how 3D sales hold up in 2015, with a slow decline since 2012. The two biggest movies Avengers and Star Wars, I doubt will help much. If anything it will hurt 3D, studios will look at those even though they're not native 3D, as evidence of a decline. Most will see Star Wars in 2D. Not many native 3D movies this year that interest me. I think calling 3D dead isn't exactly the case. It's declining and will most likely go dormant the way it has before. But 3D's never really been dead. Only 'dead', as in it's not popular as when it was touted as the next big thing.


Avatar was *THE* reason that people started thinking in 3D terms again, after decades of schlock film after schlock film.

Perhaps Avatar 2 will do the same.


----------



## film113

tgm1024 said:


> Avatar was *THE* reason that people started thinking in 3D terms again, after decades of schlock film after schlock film.
> 
> Perhaps Avatar 2 will do the same.


Or STAR WARS. (The 3D trailer on YouTube looks promising.)


----------



## tomtastic

Personally, I didn't think of Avatar at all back then. From what I remember of Avatar, having only saw it on a DVD rental, was a poorly written script/plot that didn't impress. What impressed me was the new level 3D had taken, to HD, a major step up from anaglyph when visiting my local electronics store. Instead of red/blue you had full color HD. Clearly it was the driving force commercially with HDTV's and broadcast 3D. I know some think 3D can survive or even take over after Avatar 2, but we've been there, it didn't happen before, it's not going to happen when the sequels roll out. People may see it in the theater in 3D, but likely less than the original. It isn't new like it was in 2009.

The biggest question I think its what will happen with the Avatar 3D home releases? Especially if he shoots in 60 fps which doesn't exist on BD, save for 720p or converting from 60p to 24p. Or will they just release in 2D 2k/4k60p and forego the 3D release? Releasing another 3DBD standard with new players for a niche market, I don't see happening.


----------



## mars5l

Avatar was the reason I wanted a 3d tv when they said they are going to finally have affordable consumer 3d tvs. That movie ruined me for any cinematic experience ive had sense, I saw it in theaters 3x times in 3d, 2 of those were in IMAX. Only time I was ever awed by just how a movie looked and immersed you into the enviroment. Wasnt a special story but it kept you entertained. I hope we get some other movies that are truly made for 3D and not converted with a few pop out effects.


----------



## CARTmen

There are more movies that have no story and were a big success because of 3D. I know some will disagree, but Gravity without 3D it's awful. The movie have no story, but the 3D experience makes it a very interesting experience.


----------



## NorthSky

Also, *'Exodus: Gods and Kings'* without 3D is bland...but with 3D it is totally "elevated" to a newer dimension with great perspective/depth.
...Love it in 3D, big time; a great example of what 3D can do...and that 3D ain't dead.

* *'Avatar 2, 3 & 4'* will be in 3D, and so is the new *'Star Wars: Episode VII'* and *'Jurassic World'*.

(((3D))) is alive, and big time. ...The best is yet to come. ...And it's in 3D. ...*'Jupiter Ascending'* 3D sound (Dolby Atmos) and picture (June 2nd, on Blu).


----------



## tgm1024

mars5l said:


> Avatar was the reason I wanted a 3d tv when they said they are going to finally have affordable consumer 3d tvs. That movie ruined me for any cinematic experience ive had sense, I saw it in theaters 3x times in 3d, 2 of those were in IMAX. Only time I was ever awed by just how a movie looked and immersed you into the enviroment. Wasnt a special story but it kept you entertained. I hope we get some other movies that are truly made for 3D and not converted with a few pop out effects.


Avatar was also _the_ reason that 3D TVs first became interesting to me. And you and I are far from alone in this regard. This revisionist history of "Avatar wasn't all that great" is a lesson in selective memory loss. Some folks have *completely *forgotten just how stunned and blown away people were when they left the 3D theater. It was just about the only movie talked about for months and months by my friends and family.

And once I discovered in person how beautiful passive 3D TVs can look, it sealed the deal for me further. And on nearly every movie, I'm so thankful I waited for Sony to finally release a passive TV before buying. My 80/90 y.o. parents in law were blown away by it and asking if there was anything they could do to their current TV to make it 3D. My wife was skeptical at first and quickly converted over to a major fan. And filling my family room with my young kids' neighborhood friends, each with a pair of glasses on their heads, is priceless.


----------



## drriddhish

My daughter (9 years old) and I prefer 3D each and every time, while my wife does not because of "clunky" glasses. I have watched new movies in 2D and unless it is done well, I can barely watch them. 3D is natural and VR will solidify it in coming years.


----------



## tgm1024

drriddhish said:


> My daughter (9 years old) and I prefer 3D each and every time, while my wife does not because of "clunky" glasses. I have watched new movies in 2D and unless it is done well, I can barely watch them. 3D is natural and VR will solidify it in coming years.


My wife says that the passive glasses from Sony fit comfortably right over her glasses without her even noticing. My parents in law said the same thing, and one of them had large glasses. They are very light and quickly vanish from your awareness.


----------



## tezster

Sony's passive 3D glasses is by far the most well-designed product to have come out of that company in the past 10 years. I even prefer them (by a slight margin) to clip-on 3D glasses I had purchased.


----------



## Nodscene

I've said this before and I'll say it again, 3D is dead unless the prices come down on movies. Simple as that. I know prices are a bit better in the US and probably other countries but even a new release is frequently in the $30-$50 range. Yes you will have people who will buy it but it's not enough to keep the industry alive. Once 4K 3D disc's start coming out what are they going to charge then....$50-$75 or more? How do you think that's going to go over with the general public. Hell, I've skipped 3D as it was too expensive to get into and I'm definitely not shy when it comes to buying media. Not to mention that Vizio has dropped it from all their tv's as it's not a feature that people really want. It won't be long until other manufacturers do the same.


----------



## film113

Nodscene said:


> I've said this before and I'll say it again, 3D is dead unless the prices come down on movies. Simple as that. I know prices are a bit better in the US and probably other countries but even a new release is frequently in the $30-$50 range. Yes you will have people who will buy it but it's not enough to keep the industry alive. Once 4K 3D disc's start coming out what are they going to charge then....$50-$75 or more? How do you think that's going to go over with the general public. Hell, I've skipped 3D as it was too expensive to get into and I'm definitely not shy when it comes to buying media. Not to mention that Vizio has dropped it from all their tv's as it's not a feature that people really want. It won't be long until other manufacturers do the same.


That's NOT the reason Vizio dropped 3D. The changed panel mfgrs. As for pricing, I'm sure its high in Canada. But here...not so bad. EXODUS 3D SE was $16.99 (with hours if extras NOT on the 2D BD), MR PEABODY I got a Best Buy for $17.99. PREDATOR was $7.99. PROMETHEUS has been low-priced for a while now. DREDD is below $10.00 Heck, right now Universal has re-released JURASSIC PARK 3D with a pass for the new movie included. Since some retailers have it around $17.49, if you subtract the movie-money, that's less than $10.00. Yes, some Disney catalog titles are ridiculously high...but Disney is a scummy company and I don't buy their products anyway.


----------



## tomtastic

I think that will be the turning point. If/when manufactures leave it off displays completely, 3DBD will pretty much die off. Visio was the first, likely not the last. Then you'll just have digital, but I don't think any studios will bother at that point. Unless interest can pick up, but I don't see it for 3D, especially with something new like 4k which is much easier to utilize. But 3D always comes back, so maybe in the next decade it will return with new interest.


----------



## Swolephile

I hope it dies. I view it as a cheap gimmick which can be used to increase the price of tv/projectors for more profit.


----------



## tomtastic

film113 said:


> That's NOT the reason Vizio dropped 3D. The changed panel mfgrs. As for pricing, I'm sure its high in Canada. But here...not so bad. EXODUS 3D SE was $16.99 (with hours if extras NOT on the 2D BD), MR PEABODY I got a Best Buy for $17.99. PREDATOR was $7.99. PROMETHEUS has been low-priced for a while now. DREDD is below $10.00 Heck, right now Universal has re-released JURASSIC PARK 3D with a pass for the new movie included. Since some retailers have it around $17.49, if you subtract the movie-money, that's less than $10.00. Yes, some Disney catalog titles are ridiculously high...but Disney is a scummy company and I don't buy their products anyway.


Amazon has all of those listed for higher. BB with some releases will have a first week special (sometimes), but usually the retail is much higher. And only some titles. Amazon has Exodus for 29.99, MR. Peabody right now for 29. 99, Predator is 12.99, for instance, of course you can get it used too for cheaper. 

Usually on new releases I'll get them at BB since they're the same as Amazon. If you go to BB right now online and check the prices are right back up to full retail, MR. Peabody is 34.99. So you can't go by those special prices as they're very hard to catch at the specific time they have them. They may not even have them listed that low everywhere. I never saw Exodus listed that low here, only full retail. Sorry, but 3D BD is down right expensive. They even hold their retail used. There's one local place that sells them used that I know of and they're on to it too. They have them all priced around 20.00 which is about what a 2D new disc would go for. Amazon is about as cheap as is it gets if you don't mind used.


----------



## film113

Swolephile said:


> I hope it dies. I view it as a cheap gimmick which can be used to increase the price of tv/projectors for more profit.



It's not a gimmick. Many of us appreciate the depth and naturalism (and greater viewing involvement) that 3D provides. No mfgr aside from Vizio is dropping 3D. It is now just another feature on TVs and, contrary to what tomtastic has stated, does not significantly increase the price of TVs. 4K UHD is what is doing that (and many of those sets have 3D as well). Sony, in fact, seems to be expanding it somewhat. Their sets have been active 3D but now they have just started offering passive 3D on some models (and, I assume, some PJs). One wonders if Samsung will follow suit!

A 1080p HD set with 3D does not really cost more...maybe it did 4-5 years ago when it was new, but not today. Even a 3D BD player can be had for under $100


----------



## CARTmen

Swolephile said:


> I hope it dies. I view it as a cheap gimmick which can be used to increase the price of tv/projectors for more profit.


Well, comments like yours are useless. I don't like to talk like this but I'm a bit tired of reading comments of this type. If you don't like 3D you can turn it off, but the other way around it's not possible.


----------



## film113

tomtastic said:


> Amazon has all of those listed for higher. BB with some releases will have a first week special (sometimes), but usually the retail is much higher. And only some titles. Amazon has Exodus for 29.99, MR. Peabody right now for 29. 99, Predator is 12.99, for instance, of course you can get it used too for cheaper.
> 
> Usually on new releases I'll get them at BB since they're the same as Amazon. If you go to BB right now online and check the prices are right back up to full retail, MR. Peabody is 34.99. So you can't go by those special prices as they're very hard to catch at the specific time they have them. They may not even have them listed that low everywhere. I never saw Exodus listed that low here, only full retail. Sorry, but 3D BD is down right expensive. They even hold their retail used. There's one local place that sells them used that I know of and they're on to it too. They have them all priced around 20.00 which is about what a 2D new disc would go for. Amazon is about as cheap as is it gets if you don't mind used.


You are correct about first-week prices, but EXODUS was $16.99 for a month ar BB! PREDATOR was $7.99 for a month as well. MR PEABODY only went back up this week. Yes, eventually they revert to costs that are closer to MSRP. Lately, Amazon has been offering its 3D sale items to Prime members only! (not enough stock to supply everyone). SIN CITY 2, for example. But other titles (DAWN OF PLANET OF APES $19.99) are offered to all at low prices. But then there's GRAVITY, which sold so well that Amazon only lists it from a 3rd party...and even that place has only 1 left. Given its current scarcity, that price is higher, as would be expected.

As of right now, the following movies are below $20.00 (many below $10.00} either in-store, on-line, or both via BB.

AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2
HARRY POTTER DEATHLY PT 2 ($7.99!)
I, FRANKENSTEIN
ICE AGE XMAS
TEXAS CHAINSAW
KISS ME KATE
MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS
STEP-UP REVOLUTION
SPY KIDS DOUBLE-FEATURE
CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS...and others

Below $25.00
SHREK I, II, and III
ICE AGE; DAWN
AVENGERS
DESPICABLE ME I AND II
SPONGE-BOB
OZ: TGAP
MEGAMIND
CORALINE
MONSTER VS ALIENS
RESIDENT EVIL; RETRIBUTION and AFTERLIFE
Jean-Michel Cousteau 3d Film Trilogy
DR WHO
LORAX
ONE DIRECTION
PROTECTOR 2
MEN IN BLACK 3
ABE LINCOLN VAMPIRE HUNTER
PRIEST
UNDERWORLD AWAKENING
KUNG FU PANDA 1 andII
SMURFS I and II

...and many more that I don't have time to list at that price point.

Point is, one does not have to spend a fortune on 3D discs. If if a price is too high, there's always Ebay! And if cost is still an issue, you can always rent from the very dependable 3D-Blurayrental.com. As well as 3D offerings from HBO and STARZ OnDemand. (The latter is where I watch the prohibited Disney selections)


----------



## tomtastic

By now the price of 3D tech has leveled out for consumers. I purchased a PJ in 2008 for 900.00 which was just 1080i/720p 2D. The BenQ 1070 which is full 1080p and 3D for less than 700 new. For flat panels it doesn't add much in cost. The real cost is for the content at the theater and home release which they really need to stop charging more for it at this point. I think if they stopped charging more, they would get more interest in 3D.


----------



## tomtastic

film113 said:


> You are correct about first-week prices, but EXODUS was $16.99 for a month ar BB! PREDATOR was $7.99 for a month as well. MR PEABODY only went back up this week. Yes, eventually they revert to costs that are closer to MSRP. Lately, Amazon has been offering its 3D sale items to Prime members only! (not enough stock to supply everyone). SIN CITY 2, for example. But other titles (DAWN OF PLANET OF APES $19.99) are offered to all at low prices
> 
> 
> As of right now, the following movies are below $20.00 (many below $10.00} either in-store, on-line, or both via BB.
> 
> AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2
> HARRY POTTER DEATHLY PT 2 ($7.99!)
> I, FRANKENSTEIN
> ICE AGE XMAS
> TEXAS CHAINSAW
> KISS ME KATE
> MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS
> STEP-UP REVOLUTION
> SPY KIDS DOUBLE-FEATURE
> CAVE OF FORGOTTEN DREAMS...and others
> 
> Below $25.00
> SHREK I, II, and III
> ICE AGE; DAWN
> AVENGERS
> DESPICABLE ME I AND II
> SPONGE-BOB
> OZ: TGAP
> MEGAMIND
> CORALINE
> MONSTER VS ALIENS
> RESIDENT EVIL; RETRIBUTION and AFTERLIFE
> Jean-Michel Cousteau 3d Film Trilogy
> DR WHO
> LORAX
> ONE DIRECTION
> PROTECTOR 2
> MEN IN BLACK 3
> ABE LINCOLN VAMPIRE HUNTER
> PRIEST
> UNDERWORLD AWAKENING
> KUNG FU PANDA 1 andII
> SMURFS I and II
> 
> ...and many more that I don't have time to list at that price point.
> 
> Point is, one does not have to spend a fortune on 3D discs. If if a price is too high, there's always Ebay! And if cost is still an issue, you can always rent from the very dependable 3D-Blurayrental.com.


Right, but average consumers don't hunt for titles, they judge prices by what they see on the shelf or on Amazon. By now a lot of these titles you can find in the bargain bins at bb 2d versions for under 10.00 now when you can't even find a used copy that cheap for the 3D. A few like Spider-man are still higher of course. But there's a measurable markup for 3D titles that keep many from purchasing. If it wasn't for Amazon, I probably never would have any 3D titles, I usually wait for used copies. I've never seen these titles that cheap at BB.

Usually it's the same cost as Amazon, MSRP on week 1 releases. On rare occasion I see one cheaper that's been discounted. Maybe it's just my store, idk. But the discounted prices I don't see much at BB anymore. Once, it wasn't a 3D title, they had it marked down on the shelf which was the reason I purchased it. Got to the counter and it was back up to full MSRP, after their week deal. They would not give it to me for the price on the shelf which I even took them over there to show them where they had it marked, so I returned it. Of course I had to go over to the return section and wait, they couldn't just reverse it at the checkout counter.


----------



## film113

tomtastic said:


> Right, but average consumers don't hunt for titles, they judge prices by what they see on the shelf or on Amazon. By now a lot of these titles you can find in the bargain bins at bb 2d versions for under 10.00 now when you can't even find a used copy that cheap for the 3D. A few like Spider-man are still higher of course. But there's a measurable markup for 3D titles that keep many from purchasing. If it wasn't for Amazon, I probably never would have any 3D titles, I usually wait for used copies. I've never seen these titles that cheap at BB.


Well, you have now, since they are the prices as of today! You are correct in that most consumers go by what they see real-time. But, by the same token, many consumers don't even know 3D BDs exist! The majority are not scouring sites like AVS for info or pricing. I've spoken to numerous people who have 3D sets and, with one exception, they had no idea these movies were available on 3D disc! (Probably one reason some say "I have a 3D set but rarely use it for 3D.") Of course, this is because there is absolutely no advertising that a movie is available in 3D...not on print ads, not TV ads...nowhere. Th4 fact that 3D sells AT ALL is a small miracle considering that it is, for the most part, kept hidden from the consumer base.


----------



## JMCurtis

The biggest thing hurting BD 3D is that Blu-ray adds on TV very rarely mention that a movie is also available in 3D too!! How can anyone know it exists in 3D if it isn't told that it is? People do need to be informed properly! Maybe we need to blame the advertisers!


----------



## tgm1024

JMCurtis said:


> The biggest thing hurting BD 3D is that Blu-ray adds on TV very rarely mention that a movie is also available in 3D too!! How can anyone know it exists in 3D if it isn't told that it is? People do need to be informed properly! Maybe we need to blame the advertisers!


Folks walking into BB have to hunt for the 3D section.

However, when you search for a movie on Amazon (which I'm guessing is where most BD's are sold, but don't know for sure), you get the 3D version right away in the results if it's available.


----------



## The Banshee

3D is here to stay thank you very much. I just hope that 3D quality won't be compromised on the new TV sets with HDR and so on. 3D should perform better in that regard actually.

The choice I have to make is wether I'll watch blurays in 4k.

Or watch in 1080p 3D if 3D doesn't upscale. It is something I'll have to see and test for myself in the near future.

Even if the Samsung Gear with 4k phone proves promising I really cannot transfer files to a mobile to watch a movie, I am so not doing that. No thanks.

I'm strictly a hard copy bluray pupil only.

That is why I'm waiting on news for the Morpheus. The projector setup route has no place in my home unfortunately.


----------



## Phrehdd

Alas, I am one of the few who will never get to like or dislike 3D movies since I don't have stereoscopic vision. 

If I had the ability to watch 3D movies and enjoy what it might offer, I am not sure I would be overly excited. Meanwhile, I have friends that love 3D movies and give the entire experience nothing but praise.

For me, it comes down to this - certain types of movies and movie making will lend themselves to the 3D experience. Movies that exploit distances with space and movement would perhaps be the most easy to engage and of course certain action type of films. I honestly don't think that a typical "love story" really gets the viewer any more involved than a well crafted 2D movies. (just an opinion here)

Hopefully, in the future there will be other technologies to bring about a high quality 3D effect so that those that enjoy them can watch in theaters as well as create their own 3D experiences in their home. I honestly believe what we see today in technology is just a beginning and will be full of quirks in technology and not yet truly experienced cinematographers that understand the best of what it can offer. Let's recall that lighting for black and white films was not the same for many films in colour as there were differences not only in film but in perception by the viewer. Similar might be said between going from 2D to 3D where the latter one has to make far more judgements on how to portray depth as well as camera movement and action being recorded.

For those that enjoy 3D, hope you find more that come your way that is done well and for the rest of us, we'll continue to watch 2D and have a different set of complaints and wish lists for the future.


----------



## tomtastic

The prices I don't see are the new release discounts like Exodus. I've only ever seen it for retail, even first week at BB. I picked it up, but it was 29.99. I put it back and told myself I'd just wait for a used copy on Amazon. I haven't ordered it yet, maybe later this year, it's not a movie I have been waiting for. But after a time, I expect prices to fall or I can get them used so the prices don't really bother me personally, even when they cost more at release, at some point, they'll drop. But in general for record of sales on consumer reports, you'd look in the first few months. With most titles in the 29.99 MSRP range it's a tough sell to consumers. Looking at Exodus there's a 5.00 markup for the 3D version. Imagine if the prices were the same. Consumers might pick up the 3D version even if they didn't have a 3DTV, they might get one in the future. But with a cost difference, now they don't really need it. The 2D works fine and they can save 5.00. And what about just making all 3D releases the same? Include the 3 version in every release for the same cost. For some movies they have already.

For advertising, I have been seeing TV Spots for 3D Blu ray releases, you know they just mention it real quick but it's there. 

At the checkout aisle at BB, the girl asked if I liked 3D. I think I had picked up The Hobbit part 3, (full retail on day 1 release, no discount), of course I said yes. She said it gave her a headache. I wouldn't say it's really hidden, but it's not on everyone's list of must haves given all the issues and devices that one must overcome and acquire. Generally on day 1 releases they have the 3D release right up front with the 2D version at BB. Now of course this is going to happen again with 4k releases. They'll have to charge more, because they have to charge more.

Someone I know personally said 3D was a niche within a niche. Well, I think that's not quite right. It's niche for sure, but not a niche within a niche. But maybe it is, if you consider those who purchase movies niche. Many will just see it in theater and many just view it on demand. Those that purchase a film either on disc or digital, are fewer. So considering movie collectors as niche, I can see that statement working.


----------



## Hagenstein

Swolephile said:


> I hope it dies. I view it as a cheap gimmick which can be used to increase the price of tv/projectors for more profit.


Because you don't like the red crayon, Crayola should just take it out of the box because, you know, it's just an attention-grabbing gimmick to increase the price of crayons for more profit, and if you don't like it no one else should be allowed to use it either? Because Crayoloa is spending sooo much time and money on R&D of better red crayons that the quality of the other more important colors is suffering? Because the red crayon adds soooo much to the cost of crayon manufacturing that good people everywhere are forced to pay more for their crayons, since getting a box of crayons that does _not_ contain the color red is not an option?

Perhaps I just took the troll-bait but I too have grown weary of such posts.


----------



## Nodscene

That's funny as all reports of the reason Vizio is dropping 3D is that no-one really watches it...

"But Vizio is confident that consumers won't miss it; in fact, the decision was made because Vizio's current customers simply aren't viewing content in 3D often."

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/6/5279150/vizio-announces-first-consumer-4k-tvs-kills-3d-support

"In the span of three years, Vizio has become the most important company in television. And this year, with zero fanfare, it got rid of 3D TVs across its current product line. 
Vizio’s decision appears to be a unique one; 3D is still found in a large share of 2013’s most popular televisions, and will be present in many of 2014’s models, too. But it makes explicit what TV manufacturers have been gradually coming to terms with over the last two product cycles, as evident in their increasingly subtle marketing of 3D televisions: 3D wasn’t just a failure — it has become a liability. 
Panasonic, which admitted a year ago that its massive 3D push “hasn’t really worked,” has largely disappeared the feature from its new lineup. About 90% of Panasonic’s 2013 range had some sort of 3D feature. Its 2014 lineup, announced today, has either substantially dropped 3D support or made it a secret: of its 14 new TVs, just three is branded as 3D."


http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/ces-2014-is-turning-into-a-funeral-for-3d#.vp3lE1KG8


There are lots more examples of this comment and even coming from a CES video from Vizio explicitly stating as much. Just the fact that they changed panel mfgrs doesn't mean anything as they could have changed due to the fact that they didn't want 3D anymore so was able to go with someone else. 



I can pick a lot of 3D movies that aren't priced too bad either, it would also help if you picked 3D movies people wanted to watch  Don't forget to factor in shipping and taxes as well. For more recent movies or even just some popular ones....Amazing Spider Man 2 is $29.24, Jurassic Park is $19.96 (with a regular price of $42.99), Maleficent is $38.99, Spongebob is $33.96, Avatar is $29.96 with a retail price of $49.99. Yes there are cheaper ones, Gravity is $19.96, Wolverine is $23.84 (retail of $47.99), Premetheus is $30.24, Despicable Me is $17.99 (regular price is $36.99). The list goes on. So while it may be cheaper in the US, they've essentially killed it in Canada due to their greed. 


Come to look at it your prices aren't too **** hot either. Jupiter Ascending is $27.99, Star Trek Into Darkness is $24.74, Frozen $22.49, Guardians Of The Galazy is $26.99, all the Hobbits are around $30. Once again most people aren't going to pony up that kind of cash for a movie. Yes it can be cheaper than going to the theater but people aren't exactly flocking to them in droves either. 


http://qz.com/53388/american-movie-...t-not-because-more-people-went-to-the-movies/ 




film113 said:


> That's NOT the reason Vizio dropped 3D. The changed panel mfgrs. As for pricing, I'm sure its high in Canada. But here...not so bad. EXODUS 3D SE was $16.99 (with hours if extras NOT on the 2D BD), MR PEABODY I got a Best Buy for $17.99. PREDATOR was $7.99. PROMETHEUS has been low-priced for a while now. DREDD is below $10.00 Heck, right now Universal has re-released JURASSIC PARK 3D with a pass for the new movie included. Since some retailers have it around $17.49, if you subtract the movie-money, that's less than $10.00. Yes, some Disney catalog titles are ridiculously high...but Disney is a scummy company and I don't buy their products anyway.


----------



## NorthSky

Good *^* post; and very valid points.

*'The Avengers' - 3D* is over $60 ($55.96 + 12% tax) @ my local Walmart* store!  ...Are they out of this orbit!

* Walmart Canada, across the country.


----------



## NickTheGreat

I don't understand why 3D discs are so pricey. I mean if the studios aren't selling enough to justify it, Econ 101 says to lower the cost!

Sure the physical media probably costs more, but they already made it in 3D. That cost is already sunk


----------



## film113

NorthSky said:


> Good *^* post; and very valid points.
> 
> *'The Avengers' - 3D* is over $60 ($55.96 + 12% tax) @ my local Walmart* store!  ...Are they out of this orbit!
> 
> * Walmart Canada, across the country.


Well, the multi-disc 3D combo (with bonus disc as well) cost me $19.99 at the time. Oh, by the way, AVENGERS 3D just re-appeared in the top 5 best selling 3D BDs...even at that price. (Which is waaay to high, I agree.)


----------



## film113

Nodscene said:


> That's funny as all reports of the reason Vizio is dropping 3D is that no-one really watches it...
> 
> "But Vizio is confident that consumers won't miss it; in fact, the decision was made because Vizio's current customers simply aren't viewing content in 3D often."
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/6/5279150/vizio-announces-first-consumer-4k-tvs-kills-3d-support
> 
> [/URL]


That's bull. What, was there a secret chip monitoring whether or not people were using 3D in their sets.
Or just some card people filled out at a Wal-Mart? (Vizio's primary customers.) I know three households with Vizio sets and they were never asked anything about their viewing habits by Vizio. So no...that was their corporate smoke & mirrot excuse. (Anyone who has ever worked in the corporate world can recognize it immediately.) 

Oh yes...if they truly believe that no one was watching, then why are they spending so much money on the next-gen 3D sets if they feel customers aren't interested?

From SOUND/VISION 2014: "Vizio was paying LG for the use of their Passive "Cinema 3D" technology, which Vizio renamed and rebranded as "Theater 3D".. Vizio was simply looking for a way to keep the cost down on their next gen TV's with FALD panels.. It was a manufacturing cost decision.. And nothing more.. To meet a certain price criteria Vizio decided something had to go and they chose 3D."


----------



## aaronwt

film113 said:


> That's NOT the reason Vizio dropped 3D. The changed panel mfgrs. As for pricing, I'm sure its high in Canada. But here...not so bad. EXODUS 3D SE was $16.99 (with hours if extras NOT on the 2D BD), MR PEABODY I got a Best Buy for $17.99. PREDATOR was $7.99. PROMETHEUS has been low-priced for a while now. DREDD is below $10.00 Heck, right now Universal has re-released JURASSIC PARK 3D with a pass for the new movie included. Since some retailers have it around $17.49, if you subtract the movie-money, that's less than $10.00. Yes, some Disney catalog titles are ridiculously high...but Disney is a scummy company and I don't buy their products anyway.


It doesn't really matter the reason that Vizio dropped 3D, just the fact that they did. When the number one selling TV manufacturer stops selling 3D TVs, that is a big deal. And doesn't bode well for the future.


----------



## MLXXX

film113 said:


> Oh, by the way, AVENGERS 3D just re-appeared in the top 5 best selling 3D BDs...even at that price. (Which is waaay to high, I agree.)


If a person is very keen on 3D, and they really like the particular movie, they will be prepared to pay a premium price for the 3D version.


I don't think the retail price for a 3D Blu-ray bears a strong correlation to the cost of manufacture. The price point seems to be dictated by what the market is prepared to pay.


(I recall that there was a delay in releasing the 3D version of _Avatar_ on Blu-ray. Initially you could only get it through buying a Panasonic 3D TV. So what did some people do? They bought a Panasonic 3D TV over another brand, just so they could see _Avatar_ at home in 3D as soon as possible!)


There is a hard core of 3D lovers. This will ensure the continued availability of 3D TVs, although it must be conceded that 4k is what the TV manufacturers such as Panasonic are currently promoting. (3D is only available for some Panasonic models, and is not being promoted in Panasonic marketing.)


Interestingly, it could be argued that 4k makes a less noticeable impact on the viewing experience than 3D. Faced with a choice of a 2D version of a movie in 4k, or a 3D version in Full HD, I'd probably opt for the 3D version in "only" Full HD!


----------



## Nodscene

Wow, a whole 3 households! Then it must be all lies.

So at the risk of losing tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of tv sales (maybe even more if 3D is as popular as you state) they are going to stop making 3D tv's just to avoid licensing costs. Yeah, that makes more sense. How much do you think they are actually paying per tv to license it haha. Plus we are talking about the current 3D market and not some future market that isn't realized yet. When they bring out a different/better technology (sans glasses, higher resolutions, etc) then there is a good chance that it will reach more households and may finally hang around forever. This current iteration of 3D is failing, simple as that. 





film113 said:


> That's bull. What, was there a secret chip monitoring whether or not people were using 3D in their sets.
> Or just some card people filled out at a Wal-Mart. I know rhree households with Vizio sets and they were never asked anything about their viewing habits by Vizio. So no...that was their corporate smoke & mirrot excuse. (Anyone who has ever worked in the corporate world can recognize it immediately.)
> Oh yes...if they truly believe that no one was watching, then why are they spending so much money on the next-gen 3D sets if they feel customers aren't interested?
> 
> From SOUND/VISION 2014: "Vizio was paying LG for the use of their Passive "Cinema 3D" technology, which Vizio renamed and rebranded as "Theater 3D".. Vizio was simply looking for a way to keep the cost down on their next gen TV's with FALD panels.. It was a manufacturing cost decision.. And nothing more.. To meet a certain price criteria Vizio decided something had to go and they chose 3D."


----------



## film113

aaronwt said:


> It doesn't really matter the reason that Vizio dropped 3D, just the fact that they did. When the number one selling TV manufacturer stops selling 3D TVs, that is a big deal. And doesn't bode well for the future.


Cheap goods for Wal-Mart/Costco shoppers. No one looking for a quality set goes Vizio. And no one is saying that 3D is mainstream. The average housewife/student/whatever won't care if the set they watch daytime TV or "Duck Dynasty" on has 3D. That's for for those looking to set-up home-theater (on any scale). And again, why then are they working on what they feel is next-gen 3D sets? Which, from what I've seen so far, will be a step-down in quality. But most Vizio buyers won't care about that.


----------



## film113

Nodscene said:


> Wow, a whole 3 households! Then it must be all lies.
> 
> So at the risk of losing tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of tv sales (maybe even more if 3D is as popular as you state) they are going to stop making 3D tv's just to avoid licensing costs. Yeah, that makes more sense. How much do you think they are actually paying per tv to license it haha. Plus we are talking about the current 3D market and not some future market that isn't realized yet. When they bring out a different/better technology (sans glasses, higher resolutions, etc) then there is a good chance that it will reach more households and may finally hang around forever. This current iteration of 3D is failing, simple as that.


Yeah, 3 households aint a lot...it was just an anecdotal indication that puts the lie to Vizio saying "Our buyers don't like it." The industry comment about their panel is more accurate and truthful. Of course, your mind is made up and will not be swayed by facts or BD sales figures, so I'll leave you to it.


----------



## film113

tomtastic said:


> The prices I don't see are the new release discounts like Exodus. I've only ever seen it for retail, even first week at BB. I picked it up, but it was 29.99. I put it back and told myself I'd just wait for a used copy on Amazon.me.
> 
> For advertising, I have been seeing TV Spots for 3D Blu ray releases, you know they just mention it real quick but it's there.


All I can say for certain is that I got my copy of EXODUS at BB for $16.99...and that was during either the first or second week. And it was at that price for a few weeks after that. It sold quite well...#2 on the 3D sales charts (behind GUARDIANS). 

When there's a TV ad for a movie I know is on 3D disc, I always look to see if there is even a non-verbal mention. I have yet to see one. Perhaps JUPITER ASCENDING or SPONGE BOB will have a mention in a commercial. Be cool to see, but I doubt it.


----------



## Nodscene

I'm just using logic. There are only 4 3D movies in the top 40 in blu-ray sales, or 6 in the top 60....8 in the top 80, and 9 in the top 100. 

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/top.php

How's this for stats...

"For starters, this year will likely see just 28 major films released in 3D, versus 34 in 2013 and 39 in 2011. Market analyst Morgan Stanley MS +0.28% estimates that by the time 2014’s movie-going numbers are in, 3D versions of films will have accounted for just 39% of their total take, versus 53% in 2012. Where 3D Blu-rays are concerned, sales stats show that the 3D versions of films available in both 3D and 2D make up just a fraction of overall disc sales. For instance, recent weekly figures show that just 2% of Lego Movie Blu-ray sales were of the 3D version, while even an action blockbuster like The Amazing Spider Man 2 could only manage 10% of its overall Blu-ray sales in 3D."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...e-av-industry-slaughtered-their-own-cash-cow/


Sorry, I'm the only one posting facts and sales figures along with links to every one of my arguments. And posting what sales figures are like now with no reference to what they did a year ago (or longer) is just a straw man argument and holds no merit. Numbers (or statements for that matter) in a vacuum mean nothing. And so far everything is pointing to the wane in interest in 3D.....aside of course from your anecdotes of course. 





film113 said:


> Yeah, 3 households aint a lot...it was just an anecdotal indication that puts the lie to Vizio saying "Our buyers don't like it." The industry comment about their panel is more accurate and truthful. Of course, your mind is made up and will not be swayed by facts or BD sales figures, so I'll leave you to it.


----------



## tomtastic

film113 said:


> That's bull. What, was there a secret chip monitoring whether or not people were using 3D in their sets.
> Or just some card people filled out at a Wal-Mart? (Vizio's primary customers.) I know three households with Vizio sets and they were never asked anything about their viewing habits by Vizio. So no...that was their corporate smoke & mirrot excuse. (Anyone who has ever worked in the corporate world can recognize it immediately.)
> 
> Oh yes...if they truly believe that no one was watching, then why are they spending so much money on the next-gen 3D sets if they feel customers aren't interested?
> 
> From SOUND/VISION 2014: "Vizio was paying LG for the use of their Passive "Cinema 3D" technology, which Vizio renamed and rebranded as "Theater 3D".. Vizio was simply looking for a way to keep the cost down on their next gen TV's with FALD panels.. It was a manufacturing cost decision.. And nothing more.. To meet a certain price criteria Vizio decided something had to go and they chose 3D."


Lol! Interesting. I've often wondered how Visio or any manufacturer could make this claim, because I had read the previous article with Visio making the claim "viewers won't miss it because they don't view 3D often" too. So it makes sense to save cost to stop licensing it from LG. Most likely they looked at broadcast 3D results and the cost of licensing it and decided it wasn't worth it to get the cost down and competitive. Actual 3D viewing time and habits would be impossible to know.


----------



## film113

Nodscene said:


> I'm just using logic. There are only 4 3D movies in the top 40 in blu-ray sales, or 6 in the top 60....8 in the top 80, and 9 in the top 100.
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/top.php
> 
> How's this for stats...
> 
> "For starters, this year will likely see just 28 major films released in 3D, versus 34 in 2013 and 39 in 2011. Market analyst Morgan Stanley MS +0.28% estimates that by the time 2014’s movie-going numbers are in, 3D versions of films will have accounted for just 39% of their total take, versus 53% in 2012. Where 3D Blu-rays are concerned, sales stats show that the 3D versions of films available in both 3D and 2D make up just a fraction of overall disc sales. For instance, recent weekly figures show that just 2% of Lego Movie Blu-ray sales were of the 3D version, while even an action blockbuster like The Amazing Spider Man 2 could only manage 10% of its overall Blu-ray sales in 3D."
> 
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarc...e-av-industry-slaughtered-their-own-cash-cow/
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm the only one posting facts and sales figures along with links to every one of my arguments. And posting what sales figures are like now with no reference to what they did a year ago (or longer) is just a straw man argument and holds no merit. Numbers (or statements for that matter) in a vacuum mean nothing. And so far everything is pointing to the wane in interest in 3D.....aside of course from your anecdotes of course.


What will be in the top ten depends on the film more than the format. Right now, you have "Jupiter Ascending" which bombed, as you know. The general public isn't salivating for it. Call me back when films like FURY ROAD, JURASSIC WORLD, and STAR WARS hit the shelves.

Regarding the fewer amount of films...that's a good thing. Too many films were being released in 3D that shouldn't have been. CLASH OF THE TITANS, LAST AIRBENDER, etc were horrible. Not all movies should be in 3D and I'm sure most here don't want all movies to be in 3D. The lousy conversions had less to do with making the film more effective and more to do with the fact that they were genre movies. So if we get fewer bad/unnecessary conversions...fine with that!

As for ASM2, most consider it a poor movie, less well-received than GUARDIANS or GRAVITY and the sales ratio reflects that. However, it sold more than 10%...closer to 20% actually. (Not the first time Forbes has been wrong. But since I only see hard copies, I have no link to share so I won't dispute them...much. But my "anecdotes" come from Nielsen) With LEGO MOVIE, you neglect to take ibto account that it was NOT available as a 3D stand-alone. You could only get it as part of a higher-priced package (MSRP $60.00) with cards, figurines, and other junk. 

In the end, it's the movie, not the format. Other factors incur renewed interest...as of May 8th, CAPT AMERICA 2 and AVENGERS reappeared in the top 5 3D BD sales, with CAP accounting for 13% of the combined BD/DVD sales for the week. (AVENGERS a bit lower at the 10% range.) Not new releases but still selling. That's probably due to more people getting their first 3D-enabled set, or just discovering 3D discs exist, or maybe just trying out 3D for the first time in a set that they didn't even know had it. Whatever the reason, sales keep rolling along...not gargantuan but steady. 3D is something that grows as more people get it. How fast that is or how much depends on the industry acknowledging its existence.


----------



## tomtastic

I've probably said this a hundred times already, oh well. I have to say I'm not at all looking forward to 4k the way I was when I first purchased my 3DTV. I remember really looking forward to it, getting it hooked up, putting on one of the 3 or 4 3D channels that existed back in early 2012 or a 3D BD. I've seen the 4k sets, yeah the resolution is higher, if you sit close enough. But I'm just not wowed by it the way 3D does. 3D gives that extra dimension, it puts you into the movie or show as if you were there. 4k, yawn. I don't know, I probably won't be interested in it unless there's 4k3D, in whatever decade that happens. If not I think I'll just enjoy 3D for now.

Anyone else feel this way? Maybe it's just me. I just remember a lot more anticipation for 3D a few years ago and enjoyment since then. 4k, I feel like it's a little too soon, like I could wait another 5 years and not miss anything. Only reason to upgrade displays I think would be for a 4k passive screen for 3D. I almost did it this year but went cheap with a Benq 1070, quite impressed with it. Not ready to pay 2k plus again this soon.


----------



## tgm1024

film113 said:


> That's bull.


Close. It's TheVerge, which is bull@#$%. Quoting something from them is a joke.

It's not the first nor the last time we'll see them employing pseudo-journalism. Guys, TheVerge is an online tabloid, always has been. For instance, right now, their home page has articles titled:

"The 12 most important announcements from Google I/O 2015"
"Bring back the Nexus 5"
"Now on tap is the coolest Android feature in a long time"​I have similar reactions to buzzfeed as well generally.


----------



## aaronwt

I hope 3D survives but the trend is going in the opposite direction. No question that 3D sales is waning. Both in TV sales and disc sales.


----------



## Swolephile

CARTmen said:


> Well, comments like yours are useless. I don't like to talk like this but I'm a bit tired of reading comments of this type. If you don't like 3D you can turn it off, but the other way around it's not possible.


If you want to pay extra for that garbage then that is your choice. If they offer non 3d models I am happy to purchase one. However when certain models force you to go with slow apps and gimmicky 3d to gain access to other features, it becomes a pain.


----------



## film113

tomtastic said:


> I've probably said this a hundred times already, oh well. I have to say I'm not at all looking forward to 4k the way I was when I first purchased my 3DTV. I remember really looking forward to it, getting it hooked up, putting on one of the 3 or 4 3D channels that existed back in early 2012 or a 3D BD. I've seen the 4k sets, yeah the resolution is higher, if you sit close enough. But I'm just not wowed by it the way 3D does. 3D gives that extra dimension, it puts you into the movie or show as if you were there. 4k, yawn. I don't know, I probably won't be interested in it unless there's 4k3D, in whatever decade that happens. If not I think I'll just enjoy 3D for now.
> 
> Anyone else feel this way? Maybe it's just me. I just remember a lot more anticipation for 3D a few years ago and enjoyment since then. 4k, I feel like it's a little too soon, like I could wait another 5 years and not miss anything. Only reason to upgrade displays I think would be for a 4k passive screen for 3D. I almost did it this year but went cheap with a Benq 1070, quite impressed with it. Not ready to pay 2k plus again this soon.


It's not just you. I've seen 4K sets. To my eyes, it's better suited for larger displays, on sets below 65", not so much. The content I've seen have all just been demo material (clips of nature, films-AFTER EARTH). The difference is not large...nothing like the difference between BD and DVD, or 3D, as you mentioned. And barely noticeable on smaller sets. With next-to-no content available, I have little interest in it for now...especially since 8K is being worked on. Waiting a few years is a smart move, I expect the first 4K BD players to be a bit buggy too...probably will be an expensive work-in-progress Going for a PJ would make a bigger difference in viewing than 4K at a fraction of the cost. Been curious about the BenQ. How does it hold up with sharpness, detail, and black levels, comparitively speaking?


----------



## tgm1024

Swolephile said:


> If you want to pay extra for that garbage then that is your choice. If they offer non 3d models I am happy to purchase one. However when certain models force you to go with slow apps and gimmicky 3d to gain access to other features, it becomes a pain.


When are you forced to use "slow apps and gimmicky 3d to gain access to other features"?????????????????????

Seriously, you 3D haters need to de-foam your mouths and get a grip.


----------



## Swolephile

tgm1024 said:


> When are you forced to use "slow apps and gimmicky 3d to gain access to other features"?????????????????????
> 
> Seriously, you 3D haters need to de-foam your mouths and get a grip.


You 3D lovers need to calm down and realize this is just a message board. Opinions expressed here have no bearing on how you choose to enjoy your equipment.


----------



## tgm1024

Swolephile said:


> You 3D lovers need to calm down and realize this is just a message board.


So me calling you out on your absurd statement shouldn't bother you at all then.


----------



## Swolephile

tgm1024 said:


> So me calling you out on your absurd statement shouldn't bother you at all then.


I don't care one way or another. Also I don't "call anyone out" on a message board. That is childish talk. As I stated before this is a messageboard. It's full of people I will never meet in person. And for good reason.


----------



## tgm1024

Swolephile said:


> I don't care one way or another. Also I don't "call anyone out" on a message board.


How grown up of you.




Swolephile said:


> That is childish talk.


.......oops! Did you just call me out?


----------



## tomtastic

film113 said:


> It's not just you. I've seen 4K sets. To my eyes, it's better suited for larger displays, on sets below 65", not so much. The content I've seen have all just been demo material (clips of nature, films-AFTER EARTH). The difference is not large...nothing like the difference between BD and DVD, or 3D, as you mentioned. And barely noticeable on smaller sets. With next-to-no content available, I have little interest in it for now...especially since 8K is being worked on. Waiting a few years is a smart move, I expect the first 4K BD players to be a bit buggy too...probably will be an expensive work-in-progress Going for a PJ would make a bigger difference in viewing than 4K at a fraction of the cost. Been curious about the BenQ. How does it hold up with sharpness, detail, and black levels, comparitively speaking?


Well, it's nothing like a flat panel. You loose some color, sharpness, contrast and black level, all take a noticeable hit. I've made some tweaks to the settings for 3D. During a movie, I think it looks pretty darn good, like theater quality but better because you're always in a good seat. I kind of forget about the drop after awhile anyway. I have this down in basement. Room is about 11x24 but a low ceiling. The screen is about 140", nearly floor to wall to ceiling about 5 inches clearance top/bottom.

I can't compare it to other PJ's, my only other PJ is from 2008, pretty old now, I think in this price range from what I've read, it really can't be beat. I feel like maybe I stole it, for the enjoyment I get out of it for what I paid. Between a 700.00 purchase for something that fills my entire vision and does 3D or paying over 2k for something in the 60 inch range, I'm glad I went with the cheaper option right now. I've always wanted a dedicated theater room besides the living room, and a pj theater setup was the way to go.


----------



## MLXXX

Yes the Benq W1070 provides a lot for the price. Being a DLP projector, the 3D crosstalk is very low. The black level is not particularly good, but neither is the black level you typically get at a public cinema.

Something the W1070 does offer is a 144Hz left right alternation rate for 24fps 3D, the same alternation rate as at a RealD theatre, and superior to the 120Hz alternation rate of most domestic 3D projectors, or domestic active displays displaying 24p (or 60i) content. For me this makes a big difference, though many people don't seem to be bothered by out of phase left and right. (I find it creates a watery, miragelike effect for my vision, especially a 100Hz 3D alternation rate from 50i content.) Passive 3D panels are even better in this regard, as the left and right views are presented to the eyes _simultaneously_.


----------



## rural scribe

tomtastic said:


> I've probably said this a hundred times already, oh well. I have to say I'm not at all looking forward to 4k the way I was when I first purchased my 3DTV. I remember really looking forward to it, getting it hooked up, putting on one of the 3 or 4 3D channels that existed back in early 2012 or a 3D BD. I've seen the 4k sets, yeah the resolution is higher, if you sit close enough. But I'm just not wowed by it the way 3D does. 3D gives that extra dimension, it puts you into the movie or show as if you were there. 4k, yawn. I don't know, I probably won't be interested in it unless there's 4k3D, in whatever decade that happens. If not I think I'll just enjoy 3D for now.
> 
> Anyone else feel this way? Maybe it's just me. I just remember a lot more anticipation for 3D a few years ago and enjoyment since then. 4k, I feel like it's a little too soon, like I could wait another 5 years and not miss anything. Only reason to upgrade displays I think would be for a 4k passive screen for 3D. I almost did it this year but went cheap with a Benq 1070, quite impressed with it. Not ready to pay 2k plus again this soon.


I saw a 4K TV in a showroom and I was surprised that I could see a difference between it and my HD Vizio, but yes, I agree with you that it doesn't represent the quantum leap in viewing experience that 3D does.

To me, the bigger the screen, the better 3D looks, so a projector or a monster screen TV is the way to go. I think virtual reality headsets could be an interesting alternative for some.

As for price, 3D players and projectors can be gotten for reasonable prices. As with most electronics, the longer you wait, the lower the price is for a given model (until the model you want becomes rare and out of production). 3D bluray disks can be rented or bought for reasonable costs, but you do have to shop very carefully. The most I've paid is $25 for Beauty and the Beast 3D and the cheapest was $4.21 for Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away 3D, that's including shipping, from Ebay. And there are ways to get those costs even lower.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> I've probably said this a hundred times already, oh well. I have to say I'm not at all looking forward to 4k the way I was when I first purchased my 3DTV. I remember really looking forward to it, getting it hooked up, putting on one of the 3 or 4 3D channels that existed back in early 2012 or a 3D BD. I've seen the 4k sets, yeah the resolution is higher, if you sit close enough. But I'm just not wowed by it the way 3D does. 3D gives that extra dimension, it puts you into the movie or show as if you were there. 4k, yawn. I don't know, I probably won't be interested in it unless there's 4k3D, in whatever decade that happens. If not I think I'll just enjoy 3D for now.
> 
> Anyone else feel this way? Maybe it's just me. I just remember a lot more anticipation for 3D a few years ago and enjoyment since then. 4k, I feel like it's a little too soon, like I could wait another 5 years and not miss anything. Only reason to upgrade displays I think would be for a 4k passive screen for 3D. I almost did it this year but went cheap with a Benq 1070, quite impressed with it. Not ready to pay 2k plus again this soon.


I would have love to see UHD 3D. ...That, would have been the highest plateau of them all. 

* I remember the first time that I say 3D on a plasma TV...*'Avatar'* on Blu-ray. ...Within five minutes I bought that same TV. 
And now my 3D blu-ray movie collection is just over 400 titles. ...There is no stop; it's the ultimate movie experience from the best 3D titles. 

Very sad that 4K doesn't include 3D. ...And very sad that Disney studios are backing off. ...It's like the best things in life don't last, or are the first to go.
I've seen that with people too; the best people get always fired, or banned, or killed. ...Very very often. ...Take that guy who they crucified on a cross way back then for example. ...And Nelson (Mandela), and ...

Yeah, 3D is better than 2D, and Blu-ray is better than DVD, but the worst are selling more...it's just life...and people's taste...or lack of it.
And what I find still amazing is the price of the new DVD releases. ...Here where I live, in the great northern country, they are $20-25 and even more for special editions with a digital download code. 

Living in Hollywood, and working in that movie industry, if you have the right connections, is the dream of all stars of the sky. 
Some can get excellent salaries...Peter Jackson, Michael Bay, James Cameron, and all the top actors and actresses. 
They make in one film what an entire village doesn't even make in a lifetime of its existence. 

I saw UHD pictures @ my local video stores, and it look great, but not as revolutionary and truly impacting as a 3D immersive picture with depth. 

Yeah, I feel this way too just like you Tom.


----------



## EVERRET

*Vizio*

I saw this Chart and thought i should post it..... a global tv market with a link...... 

Global market share held by LCD TV manufacturers from 2008 to 2014 

http://www.statista.com/statistics/267095/global-market-share-of-lcd-tv-manufacturers/


1- Samsung 
2- LG
3- TCL
4- Sony
5- Hisense 
6- Skyworth 
7- Toshiba
8- AOC Vision
9- Panasonic
10- Vizio
11- Others


----------



## film113

EVERRET said:


> I saw this Chart and thought i should post it..... a global tv market with a link......
> 
> Global market share held by LCD TV manufacturers from 2008 to 2014
> 
> http://www.statista.com/statistics/267095/global-market-share-of-lcd-tv-manufacturers/
> 
> 
> 1- Samsung
> 2- LG
> 3- TCL
> 4- Sony
> 5- Hisense
> 6- Skyworth
> 7- Toshiba
> 8- AOC Vision
> 9- Panasonic
> 10- Vizio
> 11- Others


Thanks for posting this. I knew that the cheapie Vizio was far from #1 (aside from Wal-Mart/Costco shoppers) and seemed to recall that Samsung was indeed the top brand, but couldn't find anything statistical to back it up.


----------



## film113

MLXXX said:


> Yes the Benq W1070 provides a lot for the price. Being a DLP projector, the 3D crosstalk is very low. The black level is not particularly good, but neither is the black level you typically get at a public cinema.
> 
> Something the W1070 does offer is a 144Hz left right alternation rate for 24fps 3D, the same alternation rate as at a RealD theatre, and superior to the 120Hz alternation rate of most domestic 3D projectors, or domestic active displays displaying 24p (or 60i) content. For me this makes a big difference, though many people don't seem to be bothered by out of phase left and right. (I find it creates a watery, miragelike effect for my vision, especially a 100Hz 3D alternation rate from 50i content.) Passive 3D panels are even better in this regard, as the left and right views are presented to the eyes _simultaneously_.


My thanks to you and tomtastic for your feed back. Reading buyer reviews on sites like Amazon or BB aren't helpful ("It's great. We love it!") Even scouring the category on sites like AVS is daunting. Sadly, there are almost no PJ demos at most stores. And if a store even has a PJ set-up, it's usually just ONE 2D unit (always an Epson, it seems). I'm often torn between the BenQ 1070 or just waiting for the next gen model. One reason is that, being used to the passive format on my LG panel, switching to active with the clunkier glasses is a minor drawback. Of course, I don't know if there are any passive units on a par (both quality/price) with the BenQ. Researching these things is very time-consuming. I sometimes wish I were one of the "Gimme a cheapo Vizio and I'm happy" people!


----------



## tomvinelli

NSX1992 said:


> I was trying to compare passive from a 1080p set to a 4K set. I was always a DLP active proponent until I saw passive on my 4K set. The "upscaling" in 4K passive does work as the picture is fantastic. I never claimed that 4K would upscale passive past 1080p but it does upscale the vertical resolution. Passive has the other advantages of much less dimming and no batteries. I also don't claim that regular material is upscaled even "mastered 4K" blu-rays. Netflix 4K material looks like good 1080p video. My only true 4K viewing is 3840x2160 resolution in new PC games.


But for 2015 I'm seeing less passive 3DTV's. Samsung's SUHD are active as well as UHD.
Is passive going away??


----------



## NorthSky

Maybe people are starting to see the advantages of 3D Active? ...Full resolution (1080p) per each eye, and less artifacts caused by 3D passive.


----------



## MLXXX

tomvinelli said:


> But for 2015 I'm seeing less passive 3DTV's. Samsung's SUHD are active as well as UHD.
> Is passive going away??


The manufacturers face a dilemma: active 3D with potential flicker and crosstalk issues, or passive 3D with a limited viewing angle, and a halved vertical resolution (much more of an issue with Full HD than UHD screens).


If the panel can be made to alternate fast enough and the pixels to turn off quickly enough then active may give a satisfying picture for most viewers; i.e. adequate brightness, reasonably low flicker, and reasonably low crosstalk.


At this stage I have opted for a 4K passive panel as there is no indication we are going to see 4k 3D material being released in the near future, and in the meantime a 4K passive panel gives flicker-free, completely in-phase left and right views, at good brightness. The only real drawback I think is the need to be sitting on a chair rather than lying on the floor, or standing up, in order for your eyes to be in the correct viewing zone for the film-type patterned retarder fitted to the screen.


We may well find that OLED screens can be made to alternate fast enough and cleanly enough (a very fast transition time between on and off) to give active glasses the edge for such screens, and to make passive glasses uncompetitive for that screen type. However, at this point _for screens using ordinary LEDS,_ there should still be a market for viewers who want their 3D bright, flicker-free, and with no noticeable* artefacts from a timing mismatch [phase difference] between presenting the left and right views.


________


* It is an individual thing whether a phase difference is noticeable. What for some people is a phase difference hard to watch, may for others appear quite ok. I have come across very little published on this topic, but I do know anecdotally that many people find a 120Hz alternation rate, for a home cinema 3D projector, not particularly satisfying with a 24p 3D Blu-ray source. The 3D looks "better" at a public cinema using the 144Hz alternation rate of RealD.


----------



## mars5l

I have active and I never see flicker from the tv. The only time I see a flicker if I leave the room and go walk around the house for a second.


----------



## The Banshee

Active and passive are both here to stay because people can not live without neither.

There are so many people on this forum, on avforums (uk) and on other forums and generally people around the world that both own a passive and a active set in different rooms in their homes.

I may not be one of those people but pulling away either tech from the industry would upset and hurt a lot of people who care about their 3D.

And frankly it's a little too late to pull out on passive sets because people have already got used (and loved) to their passive 3D. You can't introduce a varied 3D tech/display, make people fall in love with what they see and then take it way from them, and then force everyone to accept Active.

Different people prefer different forms of 3D - whichever one works best for them

Some people go to IMAX and see 3D and say its the best. And then they go to a RealD 3D cinema and say it was rubbish.

Some people go to a RealD cinema and say that's how 3D should be shown, and they love it. And then they go to IMAX and then say well the 3D was just gimmicky and looked silly.

There may be a time when there will be a unified 3D tech that the industry will agree on - but that will/should be a time when one particular 3D tech has been perfected, thoroughly tested and 'expertly' agreed upon by all. That time is not yet.

So lets keep both parties happy for now until the next advancement.


----------



## tgm1024

mars5l said:


> I have active and I never see flicker from the tv. The only time I see a flicker if I leave the room and go walk around the house for a second.


^^^Which means that you'll see flicker surrounding your set as you watch. That has a negative effect. @Chronoptimist was the first to mention this that I remember, and I've often wondered if it's the primary source of flicker complaints.


----------



## The Banshee

MLXXX said:


> The manufacturers face a dilemma: active 3D with potential flicker and crosstalk issues, or passive 3D with a limited viewing angle, and a halved vertical resolution (much more of an issue with Full HD than UHD screens).


Correct.




MLXXX said:


> At this stage I have opted for a 4K passive panel as there is no indication we are going to see 4k 3D material being released in the near future,


Good move but that also depends whether UHD active displays upscale 3D or not, which I'm awaiting to find out for certain.




MLXXX said:


> we may well find that OLED screens can be made to alternate fast enough and cleanly enough (a very fast transition time between on and off) to give active glasses the edge for such screens, and to make passive glasses uncompetitive for that screen type.


I wonder if OLED would /could actually do that so that makes active superior - but just because its OLED.....well can it actually do that?




MLXXX said:


> 3D looks "better" at a public cinema using the 144Hz alternation rate of RealD.


I like (love) RealD. I went completely nuts (maniacally happy!) when (a few years back) Samsung were going to do a partnership with RealD for their Zscreen tech. And when that partnership/deal broke away..... I went back crawling into my hiding hole.


----------



## MLXXX

The Banshee said:


> MLXXX said:
> 
> 
> 
> we may well find that OLED screens can be made to alternate fast enough and cleanly enough (a very fast transition time between on and off) to give active glasses the edge for such screens, and to make passive glasses uncompetitive for that screen type.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if OLED would /could actually do that so that makes active superior - but just because its OLED.....well can it actually do that?
Click to expand...

Plasma technology couldn't do it because the phosphors for the sub-pixels need to have a significant persistence time to average out the effect of the strobing pulses. (They continue to glow for a while after being stimulated.)

OLED technology has inherently smooth analogue gradations in brightness (rather than relying on an averaged brightness effect from on-off strobing). I have read that individual OLED sub-pixels can switch on or off very rapidly. See for example this paragraph currently on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Advantages :-


> *Response time*
> OLEDs also have a much faster response time than an LCD. Using response time compensation technologies, the fastest modern LCDs can reach as low as 1ms response times for their fastest color transition and are capable of refresh frequencies as high as 144 Hz. OLED response times are up to 1,000 times faster than LCD according to LG,[65] putting conservative estimates at under 10μs (0.01ms), which in theory could accommodate refresh frequencies approaching 100 kHz (100,000 Hz). Due to their extremely fast response time, OLED displays can also be easily designed to interpolate black frames, creating an effect similar to CRT flicker in order to avoid the sample-and-hold behavior used on both LCDs and some OLED displays that creates the perception of motion blur.


We know that 3D active glasses can currently be made that switch off pretty fast, because of the very low ghosting evident with DLP projectors. [For example, when I had a Benq W 1070, and the glasses alternated at 144Hz for a 24fps 3D Blu-ray, I found that the ghosting, although occasionally visible, was very low.]

Of course there may be greater challenges for showing 3D at home in the future because of "high frame rates", such as the 48fps of the completed _Hobbit_ trilogy, if and when the Blu-ray standards are extended to high frame rate, high resolution, 3D. Passive flat panel technology could do this relatively easily. Active might be stretched, at least initially. Active glasses would need to alternate at at least 192Hz (to match HFR 48fps 3D at a RealD cinema) and possibly at 240Hz for a 60fps 3D movie. Although active glasses are currently relatively cheap, for good performance _at high alternation rates_ in the future, we might see a new crop of expensive active glasses.


----------



## mars5l

tgm1024 said:


> ^^^Which means that you'll see flicker surrounding your set as you watch. That has a negative effect. @Chronoptimist was the first to mention this that I remember, and I've often wondered if it's the primary source of flicker complaints.


I never even see that. I would say the flicker is probably more caused from fluorescent lights. Ive used my laptop while watching 3d movies and never see the flicker. My only complaint with active is battery, cant find the 1620 size button batteries I use for the provided glasses that came with the tv. Then half the reviews on amazon for them, are receiving mostly dead batteries from various vendors. I have a pair of the rechargable samsungs, but they are $50 a pair


----------



## tgm1024

mars5l said:


> I never even see that. I would say the flicker is probably more caused from fluorescent lights.


Well, that will certainly do it. The beat frequency between the two must be horrific.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

mars5l said:


> I have active and I never see flicker from the tv. The only time I see a flicker if I leave the room and go walk around the house for a second.


Hi all,

I'm only a novice. Have active and on certain full screen material notice a thin white streak periodically appear on the very bottom of the screen in the center. I doubt this is associated with the flickering issue being discussed and I haven't noticed anything like that on my Sony 50w800b.

As far as crosstalk, the double imaging starts appearing with the dimension setting at plus two (the highest). at plus one I have to look to really notice anything unusual on the edges of objects.


----------



## The Banshee

MLXXX said:


> Plasma technology couldn't do it because the phosphors for the sub-pixels need to have a significant persistence time to average out the effect of the strobing pulses. (They continue to glow for a while after being stimulated.)
> 
> OLED technology has inherently smooth analogue gradations in brightness (rather than relying on an averaged brightness effect from on-off strobing). I have read that individual OLED sub-pixels can switch on or off very rapidly. See for example this paragraph currently on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Advantages :-
> 
> 
> We know that 3D active glasses can currently be made that switch off pretty fast, because of the very low ghosting evident with DLP projectors. [For example, when I had a Benq W 1070, and the glasses alternated at 144Hz for a 24fps 3D Blu-ray, I found that the ghosting, although occasionally visible, was very low.]
> 
> Of course there may be greater challenges for showing 3D at home in the future because of "high frame rates", such as the 48fps of the completed _Hobbit_ trilogy, if and when the Blu-ray standards are extended to high frame rate, high resolution, 3D. Passive flat panel technology could do this relatively easily. Active might be stretched, at least initially. Active glasses would need to alternate at at least 192Hz (to match HFR 48fps 3D at a RealD cinema) and possibly at 240Hz for a 60fps 3D movie. Although active glasses are currently relatively cheap, for good performance _at high alternation rates_ in the future, we might see a new crop of expensive active glasses.


Wow. Awesome post.

Good explanation of what challenges active glasses have to face in the coming near future.


----------



## NorthSky

Good posts above; all of them.

1. Flicker: Only if you look somewhere else than the movie you're watching, and if it is not dark, like a lamp for example.
2. Active vs Passive 3D: It depends, of each individual's own set of eyes...both have their attributes and deficiencies...best is what YOU like, and NOBODY else. ...Because ONLY YOU wear those eyes. ...And those 3D glasses. 

3D will never die. 3D is Rock-n-Roll...for all generations to come...The Rolling Stones...in 3D.


----------



## MLXXX

NorthSky said:


> 1. Flicker: Only if you look somewhere else than the movie you're watching, and if it is not dark, like a lamp for example.


There is also on some sets a flicker noticeable from the flat panel screen itself, when watching in 3D mode with active glasses. This is particularly the case with the typically slower 3D screen alternation for a 50Hz 3D source, such as the 2012 London Olympics as broadcast in 3D in the UK. (I also suspect that what some people call 3D "flicker" is actually the mismatch in left right timing when using active glasses. This can make the 3D picture look "busy" rather than "calm".) 

However flicker can bedevil _2D _viewing, for those sensitive to it. Plasma sets since around 2010 have tended to use shorter persistence phosphors in order to improve 3D crosstalk performance. Also, late model plasmas screens have tended to be brighter (to compete with LED panels). A particular case in point is the Samsung F8500, regarded by many as a high point of achievement in plasma technology. Unfortunately for my flicker-sensitive eyes, I find the F8500 reminiscent of a 100Hz CRT display in its level of flicker. Despite that, it scored very highly in assessments by videophile groups. Plasma vs LED shootouts do not include "flicker" in the assessment criteria. One reason for that omission could be that sensitivity to flicker varies such a great deal amongst individuals. I myself would definitely avoid the F8500, and yet many people regard it as delivering superb 2D picture quality.


----------



## NorthSky

I am no expert on "3D active flicker"...but it sounds right what you just said about each person's sensitivity (eyes). 

I have no "filcker" issue myself with my older Samsung 3D active plasma. ...I saw 3D passive by LG and some Sony 3D sets in the past and I just don't know if today they are the best (OLED, and 4K). ...But in the past they didn't catch my interest as much as the Samsung plasmas. ...Panasonic, @ that time; they were into the game of changing black level after a certain determined period (timer inside their plasma sets, and after a year or number of hours the black level wasn't good anymore). ...So Panasonic was dead for me, no redemption; too late, the fatal criminal mistake was made. 

Anyway, all good here with 3D active, and all good too away from Panasonic...for life. 

Samsung is still here in the now, and LG is carefully monitored (OLED), and Sony...maybe...just maybe...because them too have a not so pinky history with their quality and customer's respect. 

Electronics (TVs) are like people; some you can count in, with integrity; others, they live from illusions, dreams, making false moves, navigating blindly thinking they know better and that we don't know. ...Funny world this 3D world we live in; just like the people we love surrounding us. ...That love will never extinguish, and only the illusions will dissipate where they belong...in the darkness of the the never ending night. ...Like a nightmare that never stops. ...2D is almost like a nightmare; it's missing that extra dimensional vision, the clarity to truly see the depth on life and people. ...Moving pictures exhibiting on our displays while wearing dark shades, in a darker room.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

I've become addicted to 3D tv once I got my new set and my thoughts will be more from an average consumer with a modest home theater system than a videophile.

Did not purchase the Sony KD50w800b for 3D but since it was there, have taken advantage of the free on-demand titles that really have opened my eyes to the full spectrum of this type of entertainment. From what some have told me, not all providers carry free on-demand services to subscribers (HBO, etc.) or at least the 3-D offerings they provide. That might be the downfall for I don't see the average consumer buying a blu ray player and discs not first experiencing true 3D at home. There are other reasons too. I'm hesitant taking that further step as well because of the limited content and replacing more than adding anything to my extensive movie collection.

So I think more will be drawn into 3D as they replace their sets which are starting to break down if there is some sort of content they do not have to pay for. This will probably produce a further small following of those who purchase 3-D discs on blu ray. Otherwise they might remain happy with just the simulated effect like I was originally (though not eye popping like true 3-D it does provide a nice dimensional effect on it's own).

Unlike in the past, 3-D has now become a standard feature in mid-level sets rather than being a special feature one had to spend extra to get. With more of those sets in the home, perhaps in the near future there will be one or two dedicated 3-D stations on the air again, this time vying for a bigger audience. Could be a few dollars added to the monthly bill which would not be too much if the stations are good.

That's the only way I think 3-D can try to get more of an appeal to a more broader audience. The feature will be in more homes and so the industry has to make material available that does not create a need to buy a blu ray player and discs to first draw one into it. 

Again, trying to see it from the average household's perspective. With younger consumers there are so many other diversions for them other than television and with older ones 3-D is not exactly on their minds so making material accessible is the only way to get them to consider if this form of entertainment is for them. It worked on me.


----------



## marcuslaw

News of positive growth for the format for a change courtesy of thewhig.com. Sensio is bringing 3DGO! to Canada.


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> News of positive growth for the format for a change courtesy of thewhig.com. Sensio is bringing 3DGO! to Canada.


That article starts out by saying "If you’re planning on seeing a summer blockbuster like Mad Max: Fury Road, San Andreas or Jurassic World, chances are you’re going to see it in 3D...." Which is just the opposite of what really happens. Most of the tickets sold are for 2D showings, not 3D.


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> marcuslaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> News of positive growth for the format for a change courtesy of thewhig.com. Sensio is bringing 3DGO! to Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> That article starts out by saying "If you?re planning on seeing a summer blockbuster like Mad Max: Fury Road, San Andreas or Jurassic World, chances are you?re going to see it in 3D...." Which is just the opposite of what really happens. Most of the tickets sold are for 2D showings, not 3D.
Click to expand...

Actually, it had very good 3-D ticket sales particularly overseas. From my standpoint, I saw it in 3-D and the theater was packed. https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/mad-max-fury-road-off-062218514.html


----------



## MLXXX

aaronwt said:


> That article starts out by saying "If you’re planning on seeing a summer blockbuster like Mad Max: Fury Road, San Andreas or Jurassic World, chances are you’re going to see it in 3D...." Which is just the opposite of what really happens. Most of the tickets sold are for 2D showings, not 3D.


Yes, based on usual sale patterns, it's actually more likely a person going to one of those blockbusters will see it in 2D, either from their personal choice, the choice of people they're going with, or simply because there is no convenient 3D session time.

In my neck of the woods in Australia I see there are more 2D sessions than 3D sessions scheduled, for the above movies, which is consistent with the usual pattern of more 2D ticket sales than 3D ticket sales. (Actually, _Mad Max: Fury Road_ is being offered in 3D by very few cinemas, in Australia, at the moment. For Australia, it is practically a 2D release only.)


----------



## aaronwt

I saw Mad Max in 3D but I saw it by myself. With San Andreas I saw in only 2D. Because my GF didn't want to go to the 3D showing.

Plus they split up the IMAX showings with Tomorrow land so there were only two IMAX 3D showings a day for San Adreas. If they would have had one around 10AM like normal, I could have probably convinced her to see it in 3D. But the earliest showing was late in the day


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> Yes, based on usual sale patterns, it's actually more likely a person going to one of those blockbusters will see it in 2D, either from their personal choice, the choice of people they're going with, or simply because there is no convenient 3D session time.


The largest part of the "no convenient 3D session time" is that there aren't as many 3D capable theaters out there as there are 2D. This spreads the _opportunity_ to see a 3D movie rather thin in some places.


----------



## Deja Vu

I think the litmus test will be the second Avatar movie. If it is met with indifference then 3D will probably remain a niche within a niche. There needs to be a really big 3D blockbuster where the 3D makes it a must see -- in other words where the 3D not only enhances the movie but becomes an event all on its own. One of the studios needs to turn one of their blockbusters into a fun thrill ride and really get the audience involved.


----------



## tgm1024

Deja Vu said:


> I think the litmus test will be the second Avatar movie. If it is met with indifference then 3D will probably remain a niche within a niche. There needs to be a really big 3D blockbuster where the 3D makes it a must see -- in other words where the 3D not only enhances the movie but becomes an event all on its own. One of the studios needs to turn one of their blockbusters into a fun thrill ride and really get the audience involved.


Nah, there is no "test" left: if so, the litmus test was the *first *Avatar movie. It moved an nearly an entire industry _into_ 3D at home, despite how popular or unpopular the tech became later in North America.

The 2nd Avatar movie could flop badly with no ill effect: 3D is bigger than one movie now.

Keep in mind, the leap from No-Avatar to Avatar was HUGE. The corresponding leap from Avatar to Avatar2 is going to be less so unless Cameron can twice pull the same rabbit out of a hat. He might: his movies are often leaps forward in effort and technology.

What will likely happen IMO is that if Avatar2 is only "as good" as Avatar1, then people will be critical and pan it. What I also predict though is that people will errantly _try_ to use this as ammunition against 3D as a whole, and while that logic is absurd, it would also be consistent with some of the equally absurd negativity I read here and elsewhere.


----------



## film113

Deja Vu said:


> I think the litmus test will be the second Avatar movie. If it is met with indifference then 3D will probably remain a niche within a niche. There needs to be a really big 3D blockbuster where the 3D makes it a must see -- in other words where the 3D not only enhances the movie but becomes an event all on its own. One of the studios needs to turn one of their blockbusters into a fun thrill ride and really get the audience involved.


Well, there's a little movie coming out in 3D that I think more people are looking forward to more than Avatar. It's called Star Wars. The 3D trailer (on YouTube) looks promising


----------



## turls

film113 said:


> Point is, one does not have to spend a fortune on 3D discs. If if a price is too high, there's always Ebay! And if cost is still an issue, you can always rent from the very dependable 3D-Blurayrental.com. As well as 3D offerings from HBO and STARZ OnDemand. (The latter is where I watch the prohibited Disney selections)


I see this a lot on here, and it always bother me. It depends on your cable/sat company if you have access to 3D content from the likes of HBO and Starz. DirecTV subs don't. Any many with DirecTV don't have any other good options, so basically, they have no way to get HBO or Starz content in 3D.

It bothers me because it gives a free pass to DirecTV who basically bait-and-switched 3D lovers--they used to have all this 3D content, and now it is just PPV. And they haven't even bothered to up their game to give their subscribers options they should be getting to replace what is gone.


----------



## marcuslaw

A bit more good news for streamers. 3DGO!(TM) users to get access to 21 new titles including 8 upcoming new releases.


----------



## film113

turls said:


> I see this a lot on here, and it always bother me. It depends on your cable/sat company if you have access to 3D content from the likes of HBO and Starz. DirecTV subs don't. Any many with DirecTV don't have any other good options, so basically, they have no way to get HBO or Starz content in 3D.


Wonder if the same is true with DISH.


----------



## turls

film113 said:


> Wonder if the same is true with DISH.


Well, it really doesn't matter to me at this point because that would never be a deciding factor to switch to DISH, because if I did they would probably drop access to 3D the next month.


----------



## SFMike

tgm1024 said:


> What will likely happen IMO is that if Avatar2 is only "as good" as Avatar1, then people will be critical and pan it. What I also predict though is that people will errantly _try_ to use this as ammunition against 3D as a whole, and while that logic is absurd, it would also be consistent with some of the equally absurd negativity I read here and elsewhere.



I think you have a pretty good prediction there. It has been a long time between Avatar movies and there was a lot of critical complaining about the first one. This seems to always happen to popular successes as the "intelligentsia" finds popular films vulgar and adding that "gimmick" 3D on top of it really tees them off. Even with Disney World adding an Avatar section at their Animal Kingdom theme park I think Cameron has his work cut out for him making Avatar2 as big a success as the first. I also believe 3D and HFR will be used against this film just as it was with the Hobbit trilogy. My local theater chain did not even bother to show the final Hobbit film in 3D. As I have described in numerous prior posts my local theater chain only shows the 3D versions of films at inconvenient times, like 10:00AM and 4:30PM only and has told me they would not even bother with 3D if the studios didn't tell them they had to have showings because "the public doesn't want 3D". So rather than promote 3D they are proactive at making sure it shows up on the spreadsheet with failed numbers.


----------



## cakefoo

I'm confident Avatar 2 will be widely regarded as the new 3D benchmark, and it could lead to more films being made for 3D from the ground up. I'm talking about writing, directing and shooting every scene with a 3D focus, not just "Oh by the way our 3D conversion tests were pretty decent so we're going to tack that on to get more money."

Avatar convinced Hollywood that there was easy money in 3D. Avatar 2 could easily demonstrate to Hollywood that genuine passion and skill can result in critical and financial success. I just don't know if it's possible for Hollywood at large to actually develop those traits themselves- maybe they could clone a bunch of James Camerons.


----------



## mo949

The new star wars movie will be in 3D. They've redone the first 3 movies (the prequels) in 3D to celebrate the new 3D release as well.

http://www.starwars.com/news/revenge-of-the-sith-3d-coming-to-star-wars-celebration


----------



## MrEmoto

mo949 said:


> The new star wars movie will be in 3D. They've redone the first 3 movies (the prequels) in 3D to celebrate the new 3D release as well.
> 
> http://www.starwars.com/news/revenge-of-the-sith-3d-coming-to-star-wars-celebration


I sure hope the conversions are good!


----------



## marcuslaw

MrEmoto said:


> I sure hope the conversions are good!


The job was in good hands having been overseen by John Knoll and ILM.


----------



## cakefoo

marcuslaw said:


> The job was in good hands having been overseen by John Knoll and ILM.


All conversions these days are pretty good in terms of shapes. What matters is how it was shot. Simply tacking on an extra camera isn't enough.

I saw the 3D trailer and the scene with the gigantic crashed ship in the desert has way to much dimensionality. Things that are far away should look far away. If you crank up the depth on them, our brains tell us that we're looking at miniature models. It looks ridiculous, comical even.


----------



## tgm1024

cakefoo said:


> All conversions these days are pretty good in terms of shapes. What matters is how it was shot. Simply tacking on an extra camera isn't enough.
> 
> I saw the 3D trailer and the scene with the gigantic crashed ship in the desert has way to much dimensionality. Things that are far away should look far away. If you crank up the depth on them, our brains tell us that we're looking at miniature models. It looks ridiculous, comical even.


*Ugh!* Such a rookie mistake too. Let's hope that's just a trailer thing that gets fixed later.

Though it cracks me up when things are done right and it still works against them. I know people who thought that the shots of the Earth didn't look 3D enough in Gravity (it HAS to look flat, it's far away), and some thought that the scene where they were coming up to the space station looked too odd going from very small to up-close and large (in a vacuum, things look this way---you have no atmospheric haze cues).


----------



## NorthSky

mo949 said:


> The new star wars movie will be in 3D. They've redone the first 3 movies (the prequels) in 3D to celebrate the new 3D release as well.
> 
> http://www.starwars.com/news/revenge-of-the-sith-3d-coming-to-star-wars-celebration


That, is just one very small example (there is also 'Avatar 2, 3, and 4') that 3D is not dead and that it will never die. ...Only on few people's mind; the 3D haters.


----------



## SFMike

NorthSky said:


> That, is just one very small example (there is also 'Avatar 2, 3, and 4') that 3D is not dead and that it will never die. ...Only on few people's mind; the 3D haters.


 
We just have to hope 3D doesn't die in the minds of the studios so that we have new stuff coming out. (i.e. Disney Home Video) 3D won't die but 3D film production can be stopped due to the whim of studio suits that don't see enough monetary gain or just don't personally like 3D. Just look at the 3Net channel on DirecTV...Oh wait, it's gone. Lack of new content and zero promotion led to low viewer rates and then cancellation. 


In regards to the Star Wars Prequels, I hope we will see them on blu-ray before the end of the year. I and a lot of others were unimpressed with the conversion of Episode I but according to people who saw the 3D screening of the trilogy at the Star Wars Celebration in Anaheim each one got better. I would REALLY like to own these. Here is a link to a review of Episode II.
http://makingstarwars.net/2015/01/s...clones-3d-review-plus-see-iii-3d-celebration/


----------



## CatBus

3D is the Rory Pond of technology. It doesn't really matter if he dies this week or not, he'll be back next week.


----------



## NorthSky

I really really really really want 'Star Wars Episode I, II, & III on Blu-ray 3D. ...I already paid $100 for the full Saga; I will repurchase again, in 3D this time. 
And I am not even a big fan of 'Star Wars', but I do love 3D, and anything happening in space ('Interstellar') of the multiverse; I wannit in 3D.
...Even 'The Abyss' by _James Cameron_; anything under water, I wannit in 3D.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> That, is just one very small example (there is also 'Avatar 2, 3, and 4') that 3D is not dead and that it will never die. ...Only on few people's mind; the 3D haters.


I could see action blockbusters one day being the only surviving market for 3D, if Hollywood continues to treat it like just another CG effect for action movies. 3D is better than that. Scorsese was on the right track. Ang Lee was on the right track. But nowadays it's hard to find a director who's willing to give it a shot in a genre other than action.

I watch 50-100 movies each year, and if I recall correctly, the last 3D movie I saw was Gravity, back in theaters. Unless the director convincingly endorses it, it looks like I won't see another 3D movie for a while. I was really looking forward to Ang Lee's 3D boxing movie, but it got axed or put on the backburner.

Unless something else comes up, the next 3D movie I'll see is Avatar 2.


----------



## mo949

3D blockbusters (like the upcoming Jurassic World) are pretty much the only thing that can drag my wife and I to the cinema.



MrEmoto said:


> I sure hope the conversions are good!


Yeah, I've been wondering about this. So all the conversions I see these days are amazing, better than some of the native ones even. But then you start reading about the rare Phantom Menace 3D showings and how flat and terrible the 3D was done in it and it makes one wonder. They have to have made the 2nd 3rd and new one much better than that. They never did relase the phantom menace on 3D blu, so part of me hopes they redid that one. 

One things for sure, those first three movies would have been more interesting to sit through in 3D where you could just enjoy all the eye candy in lieu of the plot and acting


----------



## NorthSky

We live in wonderful 3D times. ...It's marvelous.  ...'Jurassic World'.


----------



## PrimeTime

I saw Mad Max: Fury Road at the TCL Chinese IMAX in Hollywood. The 6-primary projection is impressive -- the first 3-D commercial screening I've seen that was actually bright.

Fury Road's 3-D was just so-so. There were several 3-D trailers. The best-looking by far was Jurassic World. That's gonna be a 3-D demo keeper, for sure.


----------



## johnny905

NorthSky said:


> We live in wonderful 3D times. ...It's marvelous.  ...'Jurassic World'.


After seeing how great the original conversion was on blu ray, I can't wait to see Jurassic Park on the big screen!


----------



## mars5l

eh, it says they will be played in 3d, but who knows when or if they come to bluray


----------



## NorthSky

johnny905 said:


> After seeing how great the original conversion was on blu ray, I can't wait to see Jurassic Park on the big screen!


The original ('Jurassic Park'), in 3D Blu-ray, is not bad, one of the better 3D rework. 

But 'Jurassic World' in 3D should truly put some serious dent/tooth/depth in our 3D world. ...Hope to not die, eaten alive by 3D T-Rex.


----------



## marcuslaw

The folks at 3-D Film Archive have an answer for the question that is the subject of this thread and it is a resounding "no". According to a recent review by Ronald Epstein of Home Theater Forum, their film, 3-D Rarities, 



> is the absolute best 3D title currently available -- and it accomplishes that task without being Avatar.


The irony is, they've done it with footage that dates back to the 1920's.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> The irony is, they've done it with footage that dates back to the 1920's.


If by this you mean that post-con's can look spectacular, then absolutely! Sure, Gravity was primarily CGI anyway (which is by its nature much easier to re-render in two perspectives), but the scenes shot with Sandra Bullock in the various cabins were flawless. Truly impressive.


----------



## Frank714

cakefoo said:


> I saw the 3D trailer and the scene with the gigantic crashed ship in the desert has way to much dimensionality. Things that are far away should look far away.


 That's bad news. I had the opportunity to watch "dimensionalized" scenes (courtesy of In-Three Inc., then) of the beginning of _Star Wars (A New Hope)_ at the DLP booth at IFA Berlin several years ago.

The distant shot of the Star Destroyer chasing Princess Leia's Blockade Runner looked 3D and I couldn't help but giggle, it did look like a miniature model where I almost expected to see the strings (the guys at ILM had once stated that if the audience would have laughed during the opening scene during the original theatrical premiere back in 1977 it would have been disaster!).



cakefoo said:


> If you crank up the depth on them, our brains tell us that we're looking at miniature models. It looks ridiculous, comical even.


EXACTLY! It took me some time to understand why I giggled. Based on our learning experience and watching real "3D" every day our brain and/or subconsciousness can tell the difference between "real" and "fake" 3D.

I got in touch with In-Three Inc. and they explained to me that all they could do is to "teach" the directors, but ultimately it's the directors' decisions where and how to apply 3D.

Have distant objects show up in 3D (like planets in _Prometheus_ and others) and you can be assured that audiences - at least on a subconscious level - will have it registered as "fake". Perhaps some people cannot pinpoint why they don't like 3D, but the guys at Lucasfilm better instantly visit James Cameron _*as soon as possible*_ and learn some lessons how to do 3D "right".


----------



## cbcdesign

tgm1024 said:


> *Ugh!* Such a rookie mistake too. Let's hope that's just a trailer thing that gets fixed later.
> 
> Though it cracks me up when things are done right and it still works against them. I know people who thought that the shots of the Earth didn't look 3D enough in Gravity (it HAS to look flat, it's far away), and some thought that the scene where they were coming up to the space station looked too odd going from very small to up-close and large (in a vacuum, things look this way---you have no atmospheric haze cues).


I disagree! I can assure you if you look at the moon through a telescope from Earth using a dual eyepiece the moon looks very much 3D. In Gravity they were close to the earth so in fact it should look 3D, not flat.


----------



## tgm1024

cbcdesign said:


> I disagree! I can assure you if you look at the moon through a telescope from Earth using a dual eyepiece the moon looks very much 3D. In Gravity they were close to the earth so in fact it should look 3D, not flat.


And how is this different when compared to looking up at it using the parallax from my own eyes? It should be flat in both cases, unless each eye is artificially separated and connected to two telescopes far away.

There is no way, none, that the angular differences from the left eye to the right can amount to anything significant at that distance, even for a huge object like the moon. And you certainly won't even have focus cues to help.

Explain this dual eye piece. Do they both receive the same image from the main telescope, or do they connect to dual telescopes?


----------



## aaronwt

Are we talking about the same moon that circles our planet? When there is a full moon out and I look up, it most definitely does not look flat. And that is without the aid of a telescope or binoculars. With a telescope the spherical shape would look even more pronounced.


----------



## Bob Furmanek

Just to be very clear, none of the material in 3-D RARITIES is post-converted.

The 145 minutes of footage in the set was shot with dual-35mm camera rigs.

The one exception is the 2 minute Francis Ford Coppola 3-D segment from THE BELLBOY AND THE PLAYGIRLS. That was originally filmed with a dual-16mm 3-D rig and blown-up to over/under single-strip 35mm for theatrical release in 1962.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Jupiter Ascending' | 3D Blu-ray*

One very simple question for all the 3D lovers like me:

♦ *Did you see 'Jupiter Ascending' on Blu-ray 3D, and if you did what did you think of the 3D transfer/effeciveness?*

* Me I watched it recently, and I wasn't overly impressed by its 3D effectiveness, I found it sub-par overall; and that, surprised it me. 
But digging deeper into it, it has several scenes that are darker, and also several scenes that are action quite busy. ...Which is very challenging in 3D, but then, filmmakers like _Michael Bay_ are quite adroit @ it. ...Like in 'Transformers: Age of Extinction' - 3D (Blu-ray) for example.

But! 'Jupiter Ascending' - 3D (Blu-ray) also has many scenes that are well lit, smooth in their movements, and even one in slow-mo. 
And even them they failed to impress in their depth rendition, I found. ...Not that they were bad, but not as effective as say in 'Exodus: Gods and Kings' - 3D BR from _Ridley Scott._
...Or as in 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' - 3D Blu-ray. ...Or even as in 'Dredd' - 3D BR.

I can give you many examples where 'Jupiter Ascending' in 3D was not to the same level as the other examples I just mentioned above.
...Like @ the country house, with all the flowers and grass and old decapitated house and adjacent buildings and the bees. 
...Even in the futuristic city @ the beginning with those very futuristic looking buildings and all the decor sets surrounding and inside it. 

I was expecting much more honestly, but I guess that the people who worked on the 3D transfer, or the cameras used, or whatever else, it simply did not add much depth @ all overall.
Say that I would rate 'Avatar' or 'Gravity' or 'Life of Pi' or 'Hugo' or 'The Great Gatsby', etc., all in 3D Blu-ray, in the 90s (out of 100)...I would give less to 'Jupiter Ascending', like 80 or so.

I would be interested to hear your opinion on this one. ...To see if it coincides with mine, and also to discover newer angles from other members, that I might have missed.
And I only saw it once, only one viewing so far...but it was an attentive/discriminating viewing, with full concentration, visually and auditory.
I know that I will revisit it, in both 3D and also 2D. ...Analyzing it further to improve my critic accuracy. ...On all aspects.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> Are we talking about the same moon that circles our planet? When there is a full moon out and I look up, it most definitely does not look flat. And that is without the aid of a telescope or binoculars. With a telescope the spherical shape would look even more pronounced.


No, that's just not true. If you're using cognition to view it as a sphere, then so be it. But you cannot (repeat *CANNOT*) see it as a sphere. Period, end of story. It's too far away, and your eyes are only 2.5" or 3" apart (interocular separation).

However, during brief sections of a lunar eclipse you can get the _sense_ of a sphere, but it's a weird illusion, and not at all based upon 3D stereopsis. You can see an interesting discussion about that weird illusion here. But the moon is normally as flat as a pancake in appearance....it _has_ to be. If your eyes were several miles apart, it would look more like a sphere.


----------



## NorthSky

I totally agree; in real life the moon is flat, 2D (to our naked eyes). ...And even with a pair of binoculars, a scope, a telescope...but I never saw it from a very powerful telescope. 

And the stars? ...All in 2D, in real life. ...Flat.


----------



## tgm1024

For fun, you can see what the moon would look like if your eyes were very many miles apart (perhaps several thousand, I'm not sure).

Here: cross your eyes, and see the moon as a ball:









You are _*not*_ going to see that in the sky.

And before someone errantly chimes in with "Lambertian Reflectance", no, that is *not* why the moon appears flat.


----------



## NorthSky

No, not in the sky, but crossing my eyes and looking @ both moons from your picture, yes, she appears in 3D.


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> No, not in the sky, but crossing my eyes and looking @ both moons from your picture, yes, she appears in 3D.


Yep. It's from two dramatically different viewpoints. You can see the little dark spot on the lower left and close it is to the edge and how much further away it is in the other pic. If this was taken from earth, it's mimicking the effect of eyes very _very_ far apart.


----------



## tgm1024

Some might default to "looking through" the image instead of crossing the eyes. That's a hoot (reversing the eyes images to get the reverse stereopsis).....you see a "moon bowl"; a hollowed out hemisphere all moon pock marked. {chuckle}


----------



## cakefoo

Here's the Star Wars Force Awakens 3D trailer. The opening shot is the one with the excessive parallax.


----------



## tgm1024

cakefoo said:


> Here's the Star Wars Force Awakens 3D trailer. The opening shot is the one with the excessive parallax.


Hmmm....I'm not sure I see it. What I see is if anything overly flattened. Here, I captured the opening scene with the ship, and reversed the eyes so that you can use the cross-eye technique to view the 3D. The foreground scenery is fairly good 3D, but the ship seems printed on a sheet of paper behind the moving vehicle, no?

Isn't that indicative of something incredibly far away? Or is there an effect here I'm missing because of the motion? Are they moving 2D cutouts of sections of the background ship on 3D layered planes?


----------



## MLXXX

cakefoo said:


> Here's the Star Wars Force Awakens 3D trailer. The opening shot is the one with the excessive parallax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jruKwPpKIv0


Indeed, it looks like a sandpit a few metres away, instead of a distant landscape. This is a view as would be seen by a giant, not a human being.

I guess it's dramatic and leaves no doubt there is 3D, but personally I'd hope the theatrical version doesn't look so exaggerated.




tgm1024 said:


> Hmmm....I'm not sure I see it. What I see is if anything overly flattened. Here, I captured the opening scene with the ship, and reversed the eyes so that you can use the cross-eye technique to view the 3D. The foreground scenery is fairly good 3D, but the ship seems printed on a sheet of paper behind the moving vehicle, no?


Well the ship is so far away it probably ought to look entirely flat!

However there is a difference in the parallax as between the back corner of the ship, and the structure on top of the ship with various sloping "roofs". I can see this with my eyes when I play the video, albeit that the structure with the roofs is more sharply in focus and might tend for that reason alone to look closer. But if I freeze a video frame and remove my 3D glasses I can note that the left and right views are indeed at different horizontal separations for some parts of the vessel than for other parts.



> Isn't that indicative of something incredibly far away?


In real life I find I can can perceive 3D depth up to about 200 metres away.* Beyond that the difference in the left and right views is so slight, that most of the time my brain simply registers "far away". Human 3D vision is really only effective in real life for things immediately in front of us. The literature talks about quite small distances. I can remember reading figures like 6 metres as the limit of depth perception through binocular vision, though I think that an extremely conservative, and somewhat unrealistic, figure. Wikipedia currently states ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereopsis#Prevalence_and_impact_of_stereopsis_in_humans )



> Not everyone has the same ability to see using stereopsis. One study shows that 97.3% are able to distinguish depth at horizontal disparities of 2.3 minutes of arc or smaller, and at least 80% could distinguish depth at horizontal differences of 30 seconds of arc.


It seems to me that the limitations of average human binocular vision have been thrown out the window, if this trailer is any indication!

____

* Assuming a typical male interpupillary distance of 65mm, the angular difference at 200 metres is arctan (.065/200) = 0.0186 degrees, or 1.12 minutes of arc. In real life I can see some stereo effect at beyond 200 metres but it is only very slight, requires concentration, and is much less than the difference I can see in the trailer's rendering of the different parts of the gigantic crashed spacecraft, which spacecraft would surely be more than 200 metres away.


----------



## NorthSky

tgm1024 said:


> Yep. It's from two dramatically different viewpoints. You can see the little dark spot on the lower left and close it is to the edge and how much further away it is in the other pic. If this was taken from earth, it's mimicking the effect of eyes very _very_ far apart.


Everything is @ a different position in each moon; the bright left dot light, the main crater, ...everything. 

* By the way, that youtube video trailer of _Star Wars: The Force Awakens - "Hope"_ 3D; I tried passive 3D glasses, and 3D active glasses, but it didn't work, ...do I have to get my cardboard ones with a red and aquamarine lenses?


----------



## cakefoo

Much of the depth perception is lost when you use the crosseye viewing method, especially on images that are only a few inches wide.

Best way to demonstrate in the form of small 2D images is wiggle gifs.



















Based on how far the background is shifting relative to the top left tip of the X-wing wing, it's definitely hyperstereo and my guess is a roughly 2 foot interaxial. Then again it's probably a foot or two more than that, because I don't think 2 feet is enough to make the Star Destroyer look like that.


----------



## MLXXX

Cakefoo's wiggle gifs demonstrate the view differences nicely.



cakefoo said:


> Based on how far the background is shifting relative to the top left tip of the X-wing wing, it's definitely hyperstereo and my guess is a roughly 2 foot interaxial.


I suspect we might see the space battle scenes in the theatrical release with that order of hyperstereo. If so, it'll be exciting to watch, even though completely unrealistic.


----------



## Frank714

MLXXX said:


> In real life I find I can can perceive 3D depth up to about 200 metres away. Beyond that the difference in the left and right views is so slight, that most of the time my brain simply registers "far away". Human 3D vision is really only effective in real life for things immediately in front of us. The literature talks about quite small distances. I can remember reading figures like 6 metres as the limit of depth perception through binocular vision, though I think that an extremely conservative, and somewhat unrealistic, figure. Wikipedia currently states ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereopsis#Prevalence_and_impact_of_stereopsis_in_humans )
> 
> It seems to me that the limitations of average human binocular vision have been thrown out the window, if this trailer is any indication!


Great discussion, I think it's a serious issue that plays an important role on behalf or at the expense of 3D.

Several years ago (I have to lament the lack of easy-to-understand online literature) I did a field experiment with my cousin and 200 meters was the limit of my steroscopic Vision (which I believe to be average).

IIRC, for sports programs they somewhat changed the rules by spacing the 3D cameras further apart ("Giant's Vision"), but as a side effect players on the field started to look like miniatures. 

Our brains and/or subconsciousnesses can immediately tell whether it's real or "fake", but if things start to look "fake" then the public interest fades away, IMHO.

I can live with the occasional "Giant's Vision" here and there, but the excessive shrinking of stellar bodies (too big to actually visualize and comprehend in real life already) to basketball size remains the biggest offender.

P.S. Watched some BBC 3D dinosaur programs lately and positively noted that Earth was "flat" in the big and panoramic shots (come to think of it: Yes, the Earth is "flat" but only in accurate 3D programs - LOL).


----------



## tgm1024

cakefoo said:


> Much of the depth perception is lost when you use the crosseye viewing method, especially on images that are only a few inches wide.
> 
> Best way to demonstrate in the form of small 2D images is wiggle gifs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on how far the background is shifting relative to the top left tip of the X-wing wing, it's definitely hyperstereo and my guess is a roughly 2 foot interaxial. Then again it's probably a foot or two more than that, because I don't think 2 feet is enough to make the Star Destroyer look like that.


Love the wobble-3D. Perfect. But two feet is not going to produce that. But again, we're talking about screwed up perspective in the first place, so all bets are off.


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> Love the wobble-3D. Perfect. But two feet is not going to produce that. But again, we're talking about screwed up perspective in the first place, so all bets are off.


What, do you think the effective interaxial is less than 2 feet? More?

My guess is that it could be more than 2 feet, given the huge size of the spacecraft, and its considerable apparent distance from the camera position.

On the subject of non-human interaxial distances perhaps a convention will emerge of cinematographers using whatever they want and not being limited by human vision. Already we see camera positions that are non-human such as the start of The Great Gatsby 3D, where the camera appears to move at the speed of a plane, travelling a considerable distance with unerring accuracy, well beyond any real human experience. I think at least one of the Harry Potter movies starts in a similar way.


And of course even if the interaxial is arranged to be realistic for average adult vision, it will be much too wide for young children to be realistic for them.


P.S. I thought the start of Titanic 3D a marvel of conversion from 2D footage. An impression of an overwhelmingly large ship, and yet somehow still realistic as regards interaxial distance (for my eyes anyway).


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> I totally agree; in real life the moon is flat, 2D (to our naked eyes). ...And even with a pair of binoculars, a scope, a telescope...but I never saw it from a very powerful telescope.
> 
> And the stars? ...All in 2D, in real life. ...Flat.


To my naked eyes you can see it curve at the sides. That has always been the case when I've looked at the moon. You can see the craters etc. I don't recall ever looking at the moon and thinking it was flat. At least this is how I have always perceived it. EVen back in 1970.


----------



## Frank714

MLXXX said:


> My guess is that it could be more than 2 feet, given the huge size of the spacecraft, and its considerable apparent distance from the camera position.


The imperial Star Destroyer is approx. 1 mile long, the "radar" dome on the port conning tower (I had thought, according to _Return of the Jedi,_ these were spherical laserfusion reactors to power bridge deflector shields) has a diameter of approx. 100 feet (i.e. _Millenium Falcon_ main body).


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> What, do you think the effective interaxial is less than 2 feet? More?
> 
> My guess is that it could be more than 2 feet, given the huge size of the spacecraft, and its considerable apparent distance from the camera position.


I'm changing my mind back to "not sure", because I'm unsure what the wobble distance is, despite how the foreground looks.

It's still the case though that a static 3D shot can show perspective [non-]flattening problems. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.


----------



## tgm1024

Is there an online tool (or free one for windows) that can swap SBS youtube vids so I can look at it cross-eyed? They're too big to do the left-side-left-eye approach.


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> It's still the case though that a static 3D shot can show perspective [non-]flattening problems. I'm not sure why you believe otherwise.


I'm not sure where in this thread I said otherwise! 


I merely indicated that the spacecraft had been rendered with 3D depth, that varied for different parts of the spacecraft, whereas in my opinion the spacecraft should probably have looked flat, considering its size. I see that Frank714 has now given us some specifics:


Frank714 said:


> The imperial Star Destroyer is approx. 1 mile long, the "radar" dome on the port conning tower (I had thought, according to _Return of the Jedi,_ these were spherical laserfusion reactors to power bridge deflector shields) has a diameter of approx. 100 feet (i.e. _Millenium Falcon_ main body).



I am now more decidedly of the opinion that the Star Destroyer should have been rendered flat, to be a realistic portrayal for normal human binocular vision of such a large object, a considerable distance away. But that wouldn't make for entertaining viewing, I guess.


----------



## MLXXX

aaronwt said:


> To my naked eyes you can see it curve at the sides. That has always been the case when I've looked at the moon. You can see the craters etc. I don't recall ever looking at the moon and thinking it was flat. At least this is how I have always perceived it. EVen back in 1970.


With the greatest of respect, aaronwt, the 3D that you perceive is based on your mind's expectation, not on any actual stereoscopic difference between the image presented to the retina of your left eye, and the image presented to the retina of your right eye.


If you take a photograph of the moon in the night sky from one side of a street and another shot from the other side of the street, they will for all practical purposes look identical if you compare the two. The surface to surface distance from the earth to the moon varies during the moon's orbit from about 354,994 km to 397,586 km, or 220,583 to 247,048 miles. (Source: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070227193050AAjhANT ). The moon is far too distant for the separation between our eyes to make any difference.


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> Is there an online tool (or free one for windows) that can swap SBS youtube vids so I can look at it cross-eyed? They're too big to do the left-side-left-eye approach.


Swapping left and right is an option provided in Youtube itself. Select side by side viewing in the Youtube player and you should see the option displayed.


----------



## Frank714

MLXXX said:


> I am now more decidedly of the opinion that the Star Destroyer should have been rendered flat, to be a realistic portrayal for normal human binocular vision of such a large object, a considerable distance away. *But that wouldn't make for entertaining viewing, I guess*.


Quite the contrary, it will spoil the illusion of a crashed giant spaceship for the reasons I already illustrated in my earlier post as it now rather looks like a stranded container ship only 450 meters or less in length (compared to the 1,600 m of a Star Destroyer).

Will Death Star I (100 miles diameter) look like a basketball on a flat screen?

Some obviously incompetent people are obviously ignorant to the fact, that "dimensionalizing" objects - that _need_ to look "flat" to maintain the illusion of size - is absolutely counter-productive to movie magic and 3D as a whole. 

As much as I love 3D and _Star Wars_, I will give any _Star Wars_ film a wide berth that will take me out of the illusion of "being there" by dimensionalizing planets, Death Stars and Star Destroyers.

But since the SW 7 trailer suggests this is about to be happening (BTW, what about the new Star Destroyer in space....), I'm afraid the film is going to be another nail into the 3D coffin.


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> With the greatest of respect, aaronwt, the 3D that you perceive is based on your mind's expectation, not on any actual stereoscopic difference between the image presented to the retina of your left eye, and the image presented to the retina of your right eye.
> 
> 
> If you take a photograph of the moon in the night sky from one side of a street and another shot from the other side of the street, they will for all practical purposes look identical if you compare the two. The surface to surface distance from the earth to the moon varies during the moon's orbit from about 354,994 km to 397,586 km, or 220,583 to 247,048 miles. (Source: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070227193050AAjhANT ). The moon is far too distant for the separation between our eyes to make any difference.


Correct. This has been a struggle for me to explain to some folks at times, and it's precisely because part of what they "see" is the cognition involved in knowing that it's a spherical shape. That "expectation" you're talking about.

For the most stubborn of folks, I have to point out that if you see the same thing in each eye, you are by definition seeing something flat, _unless_ you have focus cues (not applicable at this distance), or atmospheric haze cues (not applicable to the moon in space), or motion cues (not applicable to an object that is visibly stable).

Once they accept that, then asking them to consider the difference in viewpoints from two eyes that are separated by a mere 3 inches, and they _usually_ get what is going on. But not always.

Perspective compression is not something that is easy for some folks to visually isolate.


----------



## MLXXX

Frank714 said:


> As much as I love 3D and _Star Wars_, I will give any _Star Wars_ film a wide berth that will take me out of the illusion of "being there" by dimensionalizing planets, Death Stars and Star Destroyers.
> 
> But since the SW 7 trailer suggests this is about to be happening (BTW, what about the new Star Destroyer in space....), I'm afraid the film is going to be another nail into the 3D coffin.


Well, I am prepared to be more tolerant of exaggerated interaxials. But if asked to choose I am decidely in the "realistic" camp. So I very much applaud the realistic 3D conversion of James Cameron's _Titanic (1997), _whereas I find the 3D conversion of Steven Spielberg's _Jurassic Park_ (1993) exaggerated, almost comically so at times [I remember a scene inside an aircraft that was vastly exaggerated], though still quite worthwhile seeing, for my vision. 

Interestingly for consumer 3D cameras it appears a quite small interaxial may be called for, because of the magnifying effect of typical lenses used, and perhaps because of the lack of "toe in" [the camera views are always parallel]. I find my Fujifilm FinePix REAL 3D W3 unusable at distances under about 2 metres, and not all that good at somewhat greater distances. People can look decidedly odd: broad backs, long noses! I find even my Sony TD 10 has too great a lens separation for completely realistic 3D at around 2 metres. I suspect a smaller interaxial would be a better compromise. 

Perhaps in the not too distant future an enterprising manufacturer will release a low priced consumer 3D camera than can not only zoom in the conventional manner, but vary its lens interaxial distance to some extent. 
*
*


----------



## Frank714

MLXXX said:


> Well, I am prepared to be more tolerant of exaggerated interaxials.


My best friend hates 3D because he feels that the pop-out moments punch him out of the make-believe movie experience, I, on the other hand, only have that effect with exaggerated depth and especially stellar bodies in 3D. I can stomach exaggerations up to 400 meters or so, but further than that it becomes inacceptable and hilarious to me, because the illusion of movie magic is suspended once I realize it's fake and unnatural (and maybe this applies to a considerable amount of moviegoers - while they can't consciously say what it is which disturbs them, their subconsciousness has already come to a verdict).

Simply put: Exaggerated and unnatural depth perception could be a contributing factor why people turn away from 3D. 



MLXXX said:


> But if asked to choose I am decidely in the "realistic" camp. So I very much applaud the realistic 3D conversion of James Cameron's _Titanic (1997), _whereas I find the 3D conversion of Steven Spielberg's _Jurassic Park_ (1993) exaggerated, almost comically so at times [I remember a scene inside an aircraft that was vastly exaggerated], though still quite worthwhile seeing, for my vision.


May I join the applause? I'm increasingly under the uncomfortable suspicion that James Cameron and the Cameron Pace Group are the only people in Hollywood that do understand what you need to do in order to create convincing, realistic 3D.

Unless they don't do that already they should offer educational workshops for all the studios and directors making 3D movies.

Just a quick glance at the films they helped to become 3D reveals that they have participated in the most acclaimed 3D productions of the latest years. Apparently, the Cameron Pace Group is for 3D what Industrial Light & Magic had been for VFX.

Oh, and a big thanks for the warning. I was tempted to get _Jurassic Park_ converted into 3D but your comments suggest it wouldn't exactly be my cup of tea.


----------



## tgm1024

Frank714 said:


> Oh, and a big thanks for the warning. I was tempted to get _Jurassic Park_ converted into 3D but your comments suggest it wouldn't exactly be my cup of tea.


Personally, I think that trusting James Cameron to produce a worthwhile 3D experience is a pretty safe bet, post-con or not.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> To my naked eyes you can see it curve at the sides. That has always been the case when I've looked at the moon. You can see the craters etc. I don't recall ever looking at the moon and thinking it was flat. At least this is how I have always perceived it. EVen back in 1970.


♦ I checked the moon in the sky last night with my naked eyes and couldn't see what you saw. I tried real hard to see it in 3D but she wouldn't oblige.
I even tried to think that what my eyes saw was not true, but no go.
Then I've read the post below here (next one in quote), and it all made perfect sense with what I saw; the theory/science is 'sound' to me...logical.



MLXXX said:


> With the greatest of respect, aaronwt, the 3D that you perceive is based on your mind's expectation, not on any actual stereoscopic difference between the image presented to the retina of your left eye, and the image presented to the retina of your right eye.
> 
> If you take a photograph of the moon in the night sky from one side of a street and another shot from the other side of the street, they will for all practical purposes look identical if you compare the two. The surface to surface distance from the earth to the moon varies during the moon's orbit from about 354,994 km to 397,586 km, or 220,583 to 247,048 miles. (Source: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070227193050AAjhANT ). The moon is far too distant for the separation between our eyes to make any difference.


♦ Sound totally right to me; agreed.



tgm1024 said:


> Is there an online tool (or free one for windows) that can swap SBS youtube vids so I can look at it cross-eyed? They're too big to do the left-side-left-eye approach.


♦ Good question.



MLXXX said:


> Swapping left and right is an option provided in Youtube itself. Select side by side viewing in the Youtube player and you should see the option displayed.


♦ Thank you; the answer I was also looking for.


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> ♦ I checked the moon in the sky last night with my naked eyes and couldn't see what you saw. I tried real hard to see it in 3D but she wouldn't oblige.
> I even tried to think that what my eyes saw was not true, but no go.
> Then I've read the post below here (next one in quote), and it all made perfect sense with what I saw; the theory/science is 'sound' to me...logical.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Sound totally right to me; agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Good question.
> 
> 
> 
> ♦ Thank you; the answer I was also looking for.


I don't see it.......I would like to swap this for non-3D displays (PC/Firefox, etc., etc.) so I can cross-eye my way through it.

There wouldn't be a way to select "SBS" if it thinks I'm on a 2D display, right? That's what I'm trying to get around.


----------



## aaronwt

No idea what I expected when I was four in 1970. But I remember then thinking it looked like a sphere. A you could even see where it gradually gets darker on the edges as it goes to the dark side of the moon. And it's even easier to see when there is a super moon out.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> No idea what I expected when I was four in 1970. But I remember then thinking it looked like a sphere. A you could even see where it gradually gets darker on the edges as it goes to the dark side of the moon. And it's even easier to see when there is a super moon out.


In a full moon, contributing to looking especially flat is how uniformly it reflects light back to earth (likely due to the dramatically irregular surface). Someone likened it to taking a picture of a smooth ball vs a ball with a white towel around it. But back to the perspective issue: I still would like if you consider what happens when both eyes see the identical image: It's a flat view, devoid of stereopsis, correct (like seeing with only one eye)?

And if you accept that ^^^^, can you accept that the differences in view of something exceedingly far away with eyes only 3 inches apart are going to be imperceptibly different?

Look at the cross-eye moon picture I posted. You see that as dramatically more sphere-like, no?


----------



## aaronwt

tgm1024 said:


> In a full moon, contributing to looking especially flat is how uniformly it reflects light back to earth (likely due to the dramatically irregular surface). Someone likened it to taking a picture of a smooth ball vs a ball with a white towel around it. But back to the perspective issue: I still would like if you consider what happens when both eyes see the identical image: It's a flat view, devoid of stereopsis, correct (like seeing with only one eye)?
> 
> And if you accept that ^^^^, can you accept that the differences in view of something exceedingly far away with eyes only 3 inches apart are going to be imperceptibly different?
> 
> Look at the cross-eye moon picture I posted. You see that as dramatically more sphere-like, no?


Live though the moon doesn't look like that. It seems at more of an angle. And at the edges you see where it starts to get dim. So there is a different amount of light at the edges. Maybe that is why it seems like a sphere to me? Because of the difference in light at the edges? No idea. I can only remember from four on up when we would go star gazing away from the lights and I never thought the moon looked flat. For whatever reason I never had that thought. So to even think otherwise now would seem kind of weird.


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> I don't see it.......I would like to swap this for non-3D displays (PC/Firefox, etc., etc.) so I can cross-eye my way through it.
> 
> There wouldn't be a way to select "SBS" if it thinks I'm on a 2D display, right? That's what I'm trying to get around.


The player doesn''t require you to have a 3D capable display.

If the source video was uploaded to Youtube specifically classified as side-by-side 3D, as the trailer we've been discussing must have been, then on a pc you click on the settings icon (a wheel at the bottom right of the Youtube player) and there you can turn 3D on, and then can see a wide range of 3D options: Red/Cyan, side by side, interleaved, etc. And at the top of the 3D settings you will see the option to swap left and right.

Actually this may only work with some browsers. It's not working for me at the moment with Firefox or Chrome, but is working with IE11. But then my pc is having issues at the moment...


----------



## MLXXX

Frank714 said:


> I was tempted to get _Jurassic Park_ converted into 3D but your comments suggest it wouldn't exactly be my cup of tea.


Well as I recall, the exaggeration I noticed was mostly to do with the foreground extent of 3D depth. It was just a bit too high, i.e. a somewhat wider than natural interaxial. If you can tolerate that, the simulation is not too bad. I can't recall any very distant objects erroneously being given a non-flat rendering.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> Live though the moon doesn't look like that. It seems at more of an angle.


Correct, it doesn't, because the image you're seeing in my SBS appears as a sphere.



aaronwt said:


> And at the edges you see where it starts to get dim. So there is a different amount of light at the edges. Maybe that is why it seems like a sphere to me? Because of the difference in light at the edges? No idea. I can only remember from four on up when we would go star gazing away from the lights and I never thought the moon looked flat. For whatever reason I never had that thought. So to even think otherwise now would seem kind of weird.


Cues are powerful things (on purpose), and tapered lighting like you describe is absolutely one of the cues that can help you determine that it's a 3D object up there and not some freaky 2100 mile circle of cardboard. But the effect you're talking about can be seen with one eye closed even on close-up objects; hence it's not the 3D that we're talking about (stereopsis).


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> The player doesn''t require you to have a 3D capable display.
> 
> If the source video was uploaded to Youtube specifically classified as side-by-side 3D, as the trailer we've been discussing must have been, then on a pc you click on the settings icon (a wheel at the bottom right of the Youtube player) and there you can turn 3D on, and then can see a wide range of 3D options: Red/Cyan, side by side, interleaved, etc. And at the top of the 3D settings you will see the option to swap left and right.
> 
> Actually this may only work with some browsers. It's not working for me at the moment with Firefox or Chrome, but is working with IE11. But then my pc is having issues at the moment...


I just looked at it via IE (thanks for the heads-up....I wouldn't have thought to try it), and I don't think I see it as anything but very flattened (still). Perhaps because the aspect ratio is off I'm being fooled by a compressed L/R?


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> I just looked at it via IE (thanks for the heads-up....I wouldn't have thought to try it), and I don't think I see it as anything but very flattened (still). Perhaps because the aspect ratio is off I'm being fooled by a compressed L/R?


Perhaps the half width _is_ making it more difficult to see depth. In any case, cross-eyed viewing of smallish images isn't going to be the most revealing for small degrees of 3D depth variation.


Below are anaglyph versions of a frame very close in the trailer to the images in tgm1024's post at #1356 in this thread. First as half width to match the images we've already seen, and next with the height reduced to 50% for correct aspect ratio:




















When wearing red cyan anaglyph glasses, I myself perceive distinct depth variation for the ship in both of these anaglyph versions. With glasses off, you can see some blue tinges in parts of the vessel if you look carefully.* Examine for example the top right hand corner of the image and compare it with the lack of tinge for the rearmost part of the vessel [at the top centre of the frame].

As previously discussed, for such a huge spacecraft, the viewing distance from the observation position to the craft would have to be large in order to be able to see the whole of it the way we do here (at least the part that isn't buried!). Several hundred metres at least, I'd estimate. The craft should actually be rendered as dead flat (or very close to dead flat) in a 3D simulation, to be realistic for human eyes, at that sort of distance. 

By giving it variations in 3D depth as has been done, there is an implication the observer must have the eyes of a giant, or alternatively that the craft must be a lot smaller than it is supposed to be.

____

* These versions are from frame 744 of the YouTube trailer. I made a horizontal adjustment of 8 pixels to ensure the left and right views converged in the background, at the rearmost tip of the crashed vessel, rather than in the foreground as per the original left and right. This should make the viewing a little more natural. In real life when we concentrate on something in the distance we automatically converge our eyes (swivel the eyes in their sockets) to match that distance, not a foreground distance.


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> Perhaps the half width _is_ making it more difficult to see depth. In any case, cross-eyed viewing of smallish images isn't going to be the most revealing for small degrees of 3D depth variation.
> 
> 
> Below are anaglyph versions of a frame very close in the trailer to the images in tgm1024's post at #1356 in this thread. First as half width to match the images we've already seen, and next with the height reduced to 50% for correct aspect ratio


Even though the aspect ratios are correct, I don't think that's precisely the same test as two images of the same height but one double the width. The angular differences are triggered by L/R offsets, which are then halved with what I'm saying, but they're the same with your example.

In the example you gave, given that both images are the same width, I'm not convinced that would be much different that two 3D images, but one with a ship of half world-coordinates height.

Am I wrong in this?


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> Am I wrong in this?


Not from a certain viewpoint. But is the amount of horizontal resolution inadequate in either of the versions I've just provided? 

Your original cross-eyed viewing images were a total of 850 pixels across, or roughly *425*pixels per view (actually left and right weren't quite equal). You probably kept the images relatively small to facilitate cross-eyed viewing. (I found them big enough to see 3D depth variation in the crashed vessel, myself.)

My anaglyph images are *952* pixels wide, roughly double the width of each cross-eyed view. In my opinion, that should be wide enough. It matches the resolution in the Full HD version of YouTube trailer, after my 8 pixel adjustment for convergence. I have no access to any higher resolution.

So if resolution is adequate, what remains is whether the incorrect shape (aspect ratio) interfered with perceiving the depth.


If you launch two browsers at once, you can probably adjust window sizes to make my two anaglyphs the same height as each other.


----------



## MLXXX

Actually it's not a bad idea to look at tgm1024's images below (from post #1356 ) at the same time as my anaglyphs just above and see what a difference putting on anaglyph glasses makes. For my eyes, anaglyph glasses make a distinct difference to the appearance of the tiered structures on top of the rear of the craft. 


tgm1024 said:


> Hmmm....I'm not sure I see it. What I see is if anything overly flattened. Here, I captured the opening scene with the ship, and reversed the eyes so that you can use the cross-eye technique to view the 3D. The foreground scenery is fairly good 3D, but the ship seems printed on a sheet of paper behind the moving vehicle, no? ...


----------



## MLXXX

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, here is a correct aspect ratio 3D wiggle version [with convergence optimised for the background]:


----------



## Frank714

I think we are looking at a horse that's alive and kicking.

The issue concerns fundamental issues like movie magic and the suspension of disbelief and the above example could just be as well the poster child that illustrates how inaccurate 3D conversion _works against movie magic and its suspension of disbelief (and - worse - probably contributes to the death of 3D) _

Please indulge me and revisit the original _Star Wars_ Trilogy in 2D.

The giant Star Destroyers and Death Stars were flat in "2D" like any landscape or objects in the distance. Although miniature models (I still don't get over the fact that the original Star Destroyer model in the opening scene of _Star Wars (ANH)_ was only 4' long, the underside shot in the opening sequence belongs to this dwarf!) the 2D projection _concealed_ their actual size, suffice to say that audiences understood these space vehicles were huge and big.

I have seen the 3D prototype conversion of the opening sequence several years ago in a projection both of Texas Instruments at an IFA Berlin exhibit, but because the Star Destroyer (whole ship watched from a distance) now showed up in 3D, _my brain and/or subconscious instantly calculated the visual information and arrived at the conclusion it must be a miniature model approx. 4' long!_

*That's exactly the undesired impression the VFX filmmakers at ILM tried to avoid at all cost, but now 3D dimensionalization of these distant objects not only conveys an ascertainable size of these objects but one that is totally wrong!*

I was under the impression In-Three Inc. (now a subsidiary of Digital Domain) was responsible for this conversion I witnessed, but considering that the TI DLP 3D presentations also featured Scenes from _Episode II _I think that Prime Focus may have been the company to do these conversions.

Here is an interesting link which tells you a lot about the _crème de la crème _companies doing 2D to 3D conversions.

According to this one Disney has relied in various previous productions on Prime Focus, so I have to assume that Prime Focus is also the company that will be doing the 2D to 3D conversion for _Episode VII._

*But does Prime Focus understand and acknowledge that anything exceeding the stereoscopic range of the human eyes (200-300 meters) inevitably has to look flat / "2D" in order to look and feel real?*

Here is a quote from their 3D conversion on _The Last Emperor_ from a parallel thread:



Frank714 said:


> And there seems to be a scene where you can tell whether you are looking at the Prime Focus conversion or not:
> 
> _"In fact, converting the movie to 3D brought out some unexpected details that had gone unnoticed in the original version. "In the coronation scene, as the emperor goes into the palace yard, you can see some modern buildings that became apparent in 3D," says Bristowe. "That was the only time we changed the original plates. We removed them and put hills in the background."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...another case of a conversion company that has yet to come to understand that there is nothing in 3D beyond the stereoscopic range (200-300 meters) of our eyes? (i.e. how can buildings in the far distance that inevitably have to look flat / 2D in either version, become suddenly "apparent in 3D" ?!?!?).


To paraphrase a pivotal scene from _Return of the Jedi_ and direct it at certain 2D conversion companies:

_LUKE: Search your feelings, studios. You can do accurate 2D conversions. I feel the conflict within you. Let go of fake 3D backgrounds. _
_VADER: It is too late for us. The Emperor will show you the true nature of 3D spectacle and razzle-dazzle. He is your master now. _
_LUKE: Then 3D is truly dead._


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> Actually it's not a bad idea to look at tgm1024's images below (from post #1356 ) at the same time as my anaglyphs just above and see what a difference putting on anaglyph glasses makes. For my eyes, anaglyph glasses make a distinct difference to the appearance of the tiered structures on top of the rear of the craft.


Actually, your anaglyph was perfect because you could readily see the separation issues. A cyan halo on the right indicates that something is closer to you than something with a thinner or nonexistent halo.

Take a look at this blow-up of your red/cyan anaglyph. Pay attention to the separation distances pointed to by the red arrows, versus the purple arrows. IMO the cyan halo is too large for the top. I believe it's showing that the top tiers of the ship are closer to us (by too much!) than the lower parts of the ship.










This may be the source of the confusion. I'm looking at the majority of the ship, and the part that doesn't have its perspective flattened enough is the top "bridge" part.

When I look at _my_ CE picture again, I think I can see the top part sticking out too much in negative parallax.


----------



## MLXXX

tgm1024 said:


> IMO the cyan halo is too large for the top. I believe it's showing that the top tiers of the ship are closer to us (by too much!) than the lower parts of the ship.


The very top part protrudes towards the viewer, like the tall mast of a listing sailing ship. So that part would indeed be closer. The question is, "Was the closeness overdone?" I myself had thought that that part of the ship was slightly exaggerated in its closeness, and I had noticed it revealed in the 3D wiggle image where part of the very top appears to twist a little too much. However in my opinion this is a relatively small error. I think the simulation is pretty good on the whole in identifying the relative depths of objects and parts of objects. That can be confirmed by looking at how smoothly the whole of the vessel turns in the wiggle 3D gif. In my wiggle gif version, the back tip moves hardly at all. Parts closer to us move more.

The major problem, as Frank 714 has reminded us again, is that the huge vessel is so far from the viewing position there should have been no depth variation for it, in order to be true to the limited capacity of human eyes. For me, the beginning of the trailer is almost comical, with the hills in the background reminding me of a nearby sandpit for children! Having noticed that, I then try to appreciate the 3D effect; despite it being devilishly overdone, and drawing me towards the dark side of the Force. ;-)


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> The very top part protrudes towards the viewer, like the tall mast of a listing sailing ship. So that part would indeed be closer. The question is, "Was the closeness overdone?" I myself had thought that that part of the ship was slightly exaggerated in its closeness, and I had noticed it revealed in the 3D wiggle image where part of the very top appears to twist a little too much.


Yeah, it's supposed to be closer, but not by quite that much IMO.

All of this said however, once in a while IRL I'll see something and not "believe it" because of how weird it looks. I can't think of anything more recent than seeing one particular set of foothills in the RedRock Canyon in Nevada about 10 years ago. I never took a picture of it, but I remember the perspective seeming all "wrong" somehow....and I was looking right at it. The following picture isn't the exact scene, but it's very similar to the weird off-putting feeling I had that something was "amiss". LOL. Of course it's real, but it was odd enough to throw me a little.

Actually, now that I think of it, more recently it was a series of clouds that looked absurdly well defined and too low for New England. So bizarre. Every looking at it said the same thing: "If we saw this in a painting, we'd think it was from a terrible artist". So I always weigh certain reactions against how weird real life can be once in a while.


----------



## Frank714

MLXXX said:


> For me, the beginning of the trailer is almost comical, with the hills in the background reminding me of a nearby sandpit for children! Having noticed that, I then try to appreciate the 3D effect; despite it being devilishly overdone, and drawing me towards the dark side of the Force. ;-)



Oh goodness! Actually, I believe this will be the opening scene of _The Force Awakens _for several reasons

Every one of the three original trilogy opening scenes began with a Star Destroyer
The pillaged wreckage suggests that events from the original trilogy happened a long time ago
IMHO this could be the proverbial "picture saying more than a thousand words" and would be a perfect opening scene, if it were not that "comical".

I don't appreciate the fake background 3D and - having established a contact with Prime Focus yesterday (because of the issues with _The Last Emperor_ 3D conversion in the parallel AVS thread) - got vocal about the issue.

I also sent a mail to Mr. Abrams' co-producer Bryan Burk to alert him to the issue.

When I revisit my favorite alternate universe in December 2015 in 3D I want to experience the feeling of being there and not to be taken out of this illusion by fake 3D backgrounds or miniaturized spaceships because of excessive dimensionalization.


----------



## Deja Vu

With respect to 3D dying -- here's a post I made in another thread.

It looks like the IMAX laser theatre is going to be a game changer for 3D. Peter Howell a film critic for the Toronto Star and a 3D hater just published an article in the Toronto Star entitled: *I've seen the future -- and its in 3D.* He went to a screening of Mad Max in 3D at the IMAX, which uses new laser projection (only four in North America) and he claims it was an incredible experience -- bright and extremely detailed image with massive depth and he loved it. He said: *"But seeing Mad Max in 3D on IMAX with laser simply blew me away. It was like viewing the film, which I love, for the first time. IMAX with laser makes me finally a believer in what 3D can do, well worth the not-inconsiderable $7 ticket surcharge."*

A bright 3D image without any ghosting or flicker makes a huge difference and now that critics and consumers alike are experiencing it they too are becoming converts.


----------



## tgm1024

Deja Vu said:


> With respect to 3D dying -- here's a post I made in another thread.
> 
> It looks like the IMAX laser theatre is going to be a game changer for 3D. Peter Howell a film critic for the Toronto Star and a 3D hater just published an article in the Toronto Star entitled: *I've seen the future -- and its in 3D.* He went to a screening of Mad Max in 3D at the IMAX, which uses new laser projection (only four in North America) and he claims it was an incredible experience -- bright and extremely detailed image with massive depth and he loved it. He said: *"But seeing Mad Max in 3D on IMAX with laser simply blew me away. It was like viewing the film, which I love, for the first time. IMAX with laser makes me finally a believer in what 3D can do, well worth the not-inconsiderable $7 ticket surcharge."*
> 
> A bright 3D image without any ghosting or flicker makes a huge difference and now that critics and consumers alike are experiencing it they too are becoming converts.


So long as you can find an IMAX theater that doesn't overly curve the screen. I've been to a couple of those, and the distortion was too much for me to enjoy the film.


----------



## Deja Vu

tgm1024 said:


> So long as you can find an IMAX theater that doesn't overly curve the screen. I've been to a couple of those, and the distortion was too much for me to enjoy the film.


There are only four laser IMAX theatres in North America. The sequential contrast of these projectors is supposedly much higher than anything preceding them. So, you end up with high light output, huge on/off C.R., no ghosting or flicker = a great 3D presentation. The next time I'm in Toronto I'm going to see for myself.


----------



## aaronwt

I saw JW this weekend in 3D IMax Lite. It seemed fine but nothing special. But I will purchase the 3DB BD if it is released in the US this Christmas.

Prices are getting crazy though at AmC. The tickets have been over $19 this year for IMax 3D at the several AMC IMax locations in my area.


----------



## johnny905

Deja Vu said:


> With respect to 3D dying -- here's a post I made in another thread.
> 
> It looks like the IMAX laser theatre is going to be a game changer for 3D. Peter Howell a film critic for the Toronto Star and a 3D hater just published an article in the Toronto Star entitled: *I've seen the future -- and its in 3D.* He went to a screening of Mad Max in 3D at the IMAX, which uses new laser projection (only four in North America) and he claims it was an incredible experience -- bright and extremely detailed image with massive depth and he loved it. He said: *"But seeing Mad Max in 3D on IMAX with laser simply blew me away. It was like viewing the film, which I love, for the first time. IMAX with laser makes me finally a believer in what 3D can do, well worth the not-inconsiderable $7 ticket surcharge."*
> 
> A bright 3D image without any ghosting or flicker makes a huge difference and now that critics and consumers alike are experiencing it they too are becoming converts.


DEFINITELY going to check that out in the near future. If they play Jurassic World on it I'm there!!


----------



## cakefoo

Laser projectors will definitely help.

Good 3D movies will definitely help.

But there are still three other major issues:

People don't like wearing glasses
People don't like paying the surcharge
People often find 3D adds little to the experience


----------



## domz777

The 3D in JW was an absolute joke! I am a HUGE 3D fan boy, but that movie was an complete waste of time and money! SO MAD! 

They could have made that movie absolutely EPIC so easily - and in so many ways, yet they utterly dropped the ball in nearly every way possible.

Cost me 25 bux to see it at the lincoln square imax in 3D - and there was practically no 3D in the stupid thing! NONE LIKE THERE SHOULD'VE BEEN, THAT'S FOR SURE!!

Still so mad. Well, disappointed is probably a better word, but there's still some anger in there too, there's definitely some anger.


----------



## aaronwt

domz777 said:


> The 3D in JW was an absolute joke! I am a HUGE 3D fan boy, but that movie was an complete waste of time and money! SO MAD!
> 
> They could have made that movie absolutely EPIC so easily - and in so many ways, yet they utterly dropped the ball in nearly every way possible.
> 
> Cost me 25 bux to see it at the lincoln square imax in 3D - and there was practically no 3D in the stupid thing! NONE LIKE THERE SHOULD'VE BEEN, THAT'S FOR SURE!!
> 
> Still so mad. Well, disappointed is probably a better word, but there's still some anger in there too, there's definitely some anger.


 $25?!?! Now I don't feel so bad for paying over $19 for 3D IMax showings at Amc around here.


----------



## domz777

Well, that's NYC for ya, New York, New York - the city so nice, they named it twice. 

What they don't tell ya, is you gotta pay for it twice too.


----------



## Bob Furmanek

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/341327-3-d-rarities-blu-ray-review-highly-recommended/



> Although the film footage in this collection was produced between 1922 and 1953, the 3-D effects in these short films surpass most modern 3-D efforts. Today's creators of 3-D productions would do well to study the camera angles, composition, and staging demonstrated in these short films. Foreground, background, and layers in between are used to excellent effect, in contrast with lesser 3-D efforts that often appear flat by comparison.


Maybe today's 3-D filmmakers need to go back to the future?


----------



## markmathers

I saw Jurassic World this weekend in IMAX 3D as well. I agree that the 3D was fairly disappointing but I was hoping it was due to sitting all the way to the side in the theater. If it's any consolation, the theater was packed and seemed to be all day which is good news as far as 3D revenue goes. Oh well. At least the movie itself was entertaining IMO.


----------



## aaronwt

markmathers said:


> I saw Jurassic World this weekend in IMAX 3D as well. I agree that the 3D was fairly disappointing but I was hoping it was due to sitting all the way to the side in the theater. If it's any consolation, the theater was packed and seemed to be all day which is good news as far as 3D revenue goes. Oh well. At least the movie itself was entertaining IMO.


 Yes that was the only good thing about the 3D. With the $19+ tickets the 4:15PM showing was almost sold out. And there was a line of over 70 people waiting when we got out to see the next imax 3D showing. It's rare to see a line like that nowadays. Especially for a showing that costs $19+ per ticket.

I was surprised. I would have never even gone to the showing if I had realized it was going to be so crowded. But at least I had no problem getting a great seat after showing up over fifteen minutes into the previews. Since I was by myself.

The movie would have been to violent for my GF. Even though she liked it when we saw the third one. Although that was mainly because William H. Macy was in it.


----------



## markmathers

aaronwt said:


> Yes that was the only good thing about the 3D. With the $19+ tickets the 4:15PM showing was almost sold out. And there was a line of over 70 people waiting when we got out to see the next imax 3D showing. It's rare to see a line like that nowadays. Especially for a showing that costs $19+ per ticket.
> 
> I was surprised. I would have never even gone to the showing if I had realized it was going to be so crowded. But at least I had no problem getting a great seat after showing up over fifteen minutes into the previews. Since I was by myself.
> 
> The movie would have been to violent for my GF. Even though she liked it when we saw the third one. Although that was mainly because William H. Macy was in it.



I agree. I noticed many young kids (like maybe 4 or 5 years old) in line waiting and thought they were a bit young to be watching the movie based on the previous films. Violence aside, I could see the dinosaurs' appearance and loud sounds causing many young kids to get scared.


----------



## rural scribe

domz777 said:


> The 3D in JW was an absolute joke! I am a HUGE 3D fan boy, but that movie was an complete waste of time and money! SO MAD!


I saw JW in 3D at my local theater. I thought the 3D looked good, and so was the acting and special effects, but the plot was thin, and weak. This same plot has been done to death since "Jaws."

It was one of many action films that haven't come close to being as good as "Mad Max: Fury Road."

It helps that I didn't pay a lot to see it, $9.


----------



## Frank714

Bob Furmanek said:


> Maybe today's 3-D filmmakers need to go back to the future?


If they wouldn't have these conversion tools they'd be forced to shoot with real 3D cameras - and couldn't make city scapes or distant horizons three-dimensional any longer.

I'd definitely love that.


----------



## marcuslaw

markmathers said:


> I agree. I noticed many young kids (like maybe 4 or 5 years old) in line waiting and thought they were a bit young to be watching the movie based on the previous films. Violence aside, I could see the dinosaurs' appearance and loud sounds causing many young kids to get scared.


That was the case with the first Jurassic Park film as well. I remember seeing one mother rush her kids out during the scene where the T-Rex is terrorizing Hammond's grand kids in the tour cars. 

I haven't decided whether to see this in theaters. I read some early reviews and they weren't that great. I've also had some friends and work colleagues who saw it tell me to skip it. I might just wait to see it on 3-D Blu-ray which has already come up for pre-order on amazon.


----------



## coolhand

Jurassic World was an abject failure. The plot was a joke, the thing with the raptors was DUMB. Even the 3D was terrible. I was quite disappointed.


----------



## aaronwt

coolhand said:


> Jurassic World was an abject failure. The plot was a joke, the thing with the raptors was DUMB. Even the 3D was terrible. I was quite disappointed.


I did enjoy it but not for the 3D.

It was a typical Summer popcorn movie, which was what I expected. I did enjoy it alot more than the Mad MAx movie. But that may have been partially to do with the crappy 3D video and audio in the theater I saw the Mad Max movie in. I'll probably enjoy Mad MAx in 3D and 9.1 at home much better than what my experience was in the theater.


----------



## aaronwt

> ..............3D also played a major role, according to RealD, who reported that 65% of all international sales were for 3D showings, equaling $205M of the $315.3 (Real D reports this number as $315.7). Universal states that 3D grosses were more like 50%. Included in the Real D report is the astonishing assertion that 95% of moviegoers in China saw *Jurassic World* in 3D, with the next top performing markets listed as Germany (89%), Brazil (78%) and Russia (74%) .................


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4069&p=.htm

So it sounds like 3D is more healthy overseas than here in the US.

Eitherway is sounds like a movie like Jurassic World that shatters National and International records doesn't hurt 3D.


----------



## marcuslaw

coolhand said:


> Jurassic World was an abject failure. The plot was a joke, the thing with the raptors was DUMB. Even the 3D was terrible. I was quite disappointed.


LOL. I think I'm going to wait for the BD. The price for the 3D release (with no date yet) has been dropping on amazon ever since it first appeared. It's now at $30.59. Perhaps stereoscopic depth, volume and dimensionality will look better on Blu-ray.


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> LOL. I think I'm going to wait for the BD. The price for the 3D release (with no date yet) has been dropping on amazon ever since it first appeared. It's now at $30.59. Perhaps stereoscopic depth, volume and dimensionality will look better on Blu-ray.


 Typically the more popular the movie the cheaper the 3D BD will cost. Hopefully th eprice goes below $25.


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> Typically the more popular the movie the cheaper the 3D BD will cost. Hopefully th eprice goes below $25.


I think that's generally the rule of thumb. Aside from those who really didn't like the movie like coolhand, most who have seen it theatrically in stereo probably aren't going to plunk down dough to buy the 3-D BD until it drops below $20 especially if they paid $18+ for a ticket.


----------



## mo949

So if I read that article right, 65% of the sales Worldwide were from the 3D showing. 

3D is history come alive then


----------



## NorthSky

If not for 3D 'Jurassic World' would look real bland. ...I think. I'll wait for it on Blu, just for curiosity; there is only one T-Rex, and it's 'Jurassic Park'...in 3D.


----------



## turls

Deja Vu said:


> With respect to 3D dying -- here's a post I made in another thread.
> 
> It looks like the IMAX laser theatre is going to be a game changer for 3D. Peter Howell a film critic for the Toronto Star and a 3D hater just published an article in the Toronto Star entitled: *I've seen the future -- and its in 3D.* He went to a screening of Mad Max in 3D at the IMAX, which uses new laser projection (only four in North America) and he claims it was an incredible experience -- bright and extremely detailed image with massive depth and he loved it. He said: *"But seeing Mad Max in 3D on IMAX with laser simply blew me away. It was like viewing the film, which I love, for the first time. IMAX with laser makes me finally a believer in what 3D can do, well worth the not-inconsiderable $7 ticket surcharge."*
> 
> A bright 3D image without any ghosting or flicker makes a huge difference and now that critics and consumers alike are experiencing it they too are becoming converts.


Agree with cakefoo basically here.

I have no idea what this guy's problem with 3D is/was before his epiphany, but I have no respect for anybody that--just because of a little bump in technology--considers 3D viable now. Its still glasses. Its still a sometimes unreasonable surcharge. He must have based his opinion before on a really poor setup or a movie with poor 3D because IMAX 3D isn't likely a night and day difference.

If 3D has friends like this, it really doesn't need enemies.


----------



## william06

Saw it Friday in iMax 3d typical popcorn movie good fun with the grand kids. The iMax 3d was great only way to see an action film today ax or iMax 3d all other screens are poor dull digital projection and too many lights to wash out picture regal worst. Our local iMax is quite decent already ordered in 3d.


----------



## PrimeTime

aaronwt said:


> http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4069&p=.htm
> 
> So it sounds like 3D is more healthy overseas than here in the US.
> 
> Eitherway is sounds like a movie like Jurassic World that shatters National and International records doesn't hurt 3D.


Looks like the theaters that ponied up for 3D can exhale now.

_Jurassic World_ will go down as the movie that reminds everyone in Home Theater that 3D is a more significant feature than 4K -- glasses notwithstanding.


----------



## domz777

rural scribe said:


> I saw JW in 3D at my local theater. I thought the 3D looked good, ........


OK, well, I guess I should qualify my statement, TO ME - a good 3d movie is 1 that for almost the whole movie, 1/2 the scene is _in _the screen and the other 1/2 is sticking out of the screen. As if the actual screen itself were the mid point of the whole thing that you were looking at.

JW -where I saw it, was 90% in and only had 1 or 2 memorable instances of fleeting pop out. I lifted my glasses like 100 times during the movie and over 1/2 of the time the screen wasn't even blurry at all. You know what that tells me? NO 3D


----------



## MLXXX

domz777 said:


> OK, well, I guess I should qualify my statement, TO ME - a good 3d movie is 1 that for almost the whole movie, 1/2 the scene is _in _the screen and the other 1/2 is sticking out of the screen. As if the actual screen itself were the mid point of the whole thing that you were looking at.


I don't think I've seen a 3D movie with that much "in your face" 3D, myself. Domz777, can you give us some examples of movies you've seen with powerful 3D like that?


----------



## mo949

Creature from the black lagoon is a good example


----------



## tomtastic

Texas Chainsaw, My Bloody Valentine seemed like half the movie on those.


----------



## mars5l

I saw San Andreas in 3d, wasnt that great either for the 3d


----------



## domz777

MLXXX said:


> I don't think I've seen a 3D movie with that much "in your face" 3D, myself. Domz777, can you give us some examples of movies you've seen with powerful 3D like that?


Right off the top of my head the 1's that pop into mind are drive angry, house of magic(the 1 with the cat), UP, IMAX Hubble, under the sea, and grand canyon adventure, Avatar was good too, and so was tron legacy. I do have to point out however that I watch my 3D movies on my wall using the nvida 3D system and it just simply blows everyone away, whenever they watch a movie here.

Scroll down to post # 32 in my thread, and starting with the 6th picture down, you can see the 3D separation on the images. The little green dot on the ceiling is the 3D emitter for the glasses.


----------



## Chase Payne

PrimeTime said:


> Looks like the theaters that ponied up for 3D can exhale now.
> 
> _Jurassic World_ will go down as the movie that reminds everyone in Home Theater that 3D is a more significant feature than 4K -- glasses notwithstanding.


Well, the mass majority of movie theaters are 4k already and have been for several years. I have a 3d TV myself and barely use it. It even has amazing 2-d to 3d conversion, to the point where pictures inside the 3d image do not get a 3d effect within the picture, not sure how it does it.

I think 3d is just a gimmick really, after about 10 minutes its not as noticeable anymore.


----------



## Deja Vu

You must be incredibly bored to come over to the 3D section of this forum to let us all know that you think that 3D is just a gimmick. You certainly have a right to an opinion but obviously this section is here for 3D enthusiasts. 

The interesting thing is that after five years we're still talking about whether or not it has any steam left. It's still here and the blockbusters are still being rolled out in 3D. I suspect as long as there's money to be made 3D will survive and now that a lot of theatres have put some money into it the industry has a vested interest in 3D and that should keep it going for awhile. It will be the consumer who ultimately decides and luckily there's enough of them that buy tickets for 3D -- at least for now.


----------



## tgm1024

Chase Payne said:


> Well, the mass majority of movie theaters are 4k already and have been for several years.


"mass majority", "several years" ?

IIRC Sony did a major 4K push ~2013 (two years ago), and AMC was one of the major sign-ons for it, but I didn't know that the vast majority of theaters were already 4K. The first digital push was 2K less than a few years before that. Where did you get "mass majority"(sic) and "several years" from?




Chase Payne said:


> I think 3d is just a gimmick really, after about 10 minutes its not as noticeable anymore.


Clarify: What do you mean by "not as noticeable anymore"? The best 3D films are films where the 3D is simply used as another tool to immerse you into the storyline itself, not simply visually immerse you into a scene. The best 3D films are where you completely forget that it's 3D at all and just "live" the experience and storyline of the movie better than ever before.

We (well, Americans anyway), are long past 3D-for-3D sake shlock films.


----------



## Frank714

Deja Vu said:


> It will be the consumer who ultimately decides and luckily there's enough of them that buy tickets for 3D -- at least for now.


My best friend would vehemently disagree. He constantly complains that he hardly finds a movie theater where he can watch a film he's interested in just in plain "2D".

Regarding the public movie theater it looks mostly like an instrument to enable theatre owners to charge an extra and people like my friend are coerced to either watch it in 3D or not at all.

The moment audiences actually do get the coice is in their own home video or home theater environment, and I'm afraid that here the future for 3D doesn't look that encouraging.

Of course it's a different thing watching a film in 3D on a big IMAX screen or on a flat screen, where it inevitably somewhat feels like looking into an aquarium or a doll house.


----------



## MLXXX

MLXXX said:


> tgm1024 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, if you lay the screen flat, the FPR hovers above the grid at the same height _regardless_ of how far apart the pixels (and scanlines) are. They don't make the screen itself thinner, they make the pixels tighter. If you chart this out, it means that you have a tighter viewing angle for screens of the same technology base and size, and if you sit on a couch, you'll notice that you'll start to have crosstalk (L/R leak) effects as you move your head up and down much more readily than if you do this with a 2K device.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware the FPR was kept at the same distance from the pixel grid of a 4k screen as for a 2k screen. If the FPR rows are twice as fine in order to filter pixel rows half as high [and assuming a 4k FPR is of similar depth to a 2k FPR) it makes sense to me that the viewing angle for low ghosting would be significantly reduced.
> 
> I have now found a few relevant anecdotal comments in the 900A thread (which thread currently contains 12,996 posts!), but nothing anywhere else. It surprises me that something as fundamental as this hasn't been more widely reported, especially in articles that point out advantages of UHD passive 3D screens over Full HD passive screens. IMHO it is a serious omission.
> 
> Well the next time I'm in a showrooom with 2k and 4k passive 3d sets on display I will indeed do a comparison! A ratio of 2:1 in viewing angle shouldn't be too hard for me to spot. Cheers
Click to expand...

The showrooms where I am in Australia have stopped putting any of their TVs into 3D mode for general display. Last weekend I asked a saleman whether there had been any problems with the 4k passive 3D sets as regards vertical viewing angle, compared with Full HD passive sets. He said he hadn't heard anything like that [mind you, he didn't seem all that much up to speed with 3D!]. 

The salesman showed me a 79" LG (with a curved screen, appears it would have been the 79UG880T). He put it into 3D simulation mode. The vertical angle was very generous. From crouching down to standing up, at about 2 metres from the set, I could see no obvious crosstalk. It's a different story entirely with my 2013 year 65" Sony 4k set, or my older cheap 42" Full HD set, both of which have _quite limited 3D vertical viewing angles_.

This was hardly a scientific test, but I can only assume film-type patterned retarder 3D technology has improved, at least for some passive 3D models, compared with the past. (Of course even with a set that has a very limited vertical viewing angle you should be able to watch 3D ok, provided your eyes are at a reasonable height, e.g. while sitting on a lounge chair.)


----------



## MLXXX

domz777 said:


> Right off the top of my head the 1's that pop into mind are drive angry, house of magic(the 1 with the cat), UP, IMAX Hubble, under the sea, and grand canyon adventure, Avatar was good too, and so was tron legacy. I do have to point out however that I watch my 3D movies on my wall using the nvida 3D system and it just simply blows everyone away, whenever they watch a movie here.


Well your Nvidia 3D system must be boosting the 3D effect somehow. When I play 3D Blu-rays of _Grand Canyon Adventure_ or _Avatar_ on my Blu-ray player and 65" 3D TV I get very little popout, with the exception of the opening credits of _Grand Canyon Adventure_ where there are some cleverly done computer graphics bubbles that pop out well beyond the screen.

I would have to say though that I am in the realistic/mild 3D camp, not the popout camp. I'm quite happy for the 3D to be an unobtrusive, everyday, normal part of the viewing experience, in the same way as we accept colour (rather than black and white), and stereo/surround (rather than mono).

So I'm sorry you were disappointed by mild 3D in _Jurassic World_ at a public cinema, but I suspect it'll suit me down to the ground, and I'll lap it up! (I hope to see it soon.)


----------



## marcuslaw

65% of movie goers saw Jurassic World in 3-D: http://marketsaw.blogspot.ca/2015/06/a-whopping-65-of-jurassic-worlds-record.html?m=1


----------



## MLXXX

Frank714 said:


> My best friend would vehemently disagree. He constantly complains that he hardly finds a movie theater where he can watch a film he's interested in just in plain "2D".


But is your friend being realistic? I don't know what part of the world he's in, but the more usual _current_ experience in many parts of the world -- for a movie that is actually produced in 3D and then released in 3D -- is that there are fewer 3D sessions than 2D sessions, or at some cinemas no 3D sessions of the movie at all. That is certainly the case in Australia at the moment.*

I recall that a couple of years ago there seemed to be more of a push to offer 3D sessions, particularly for the opening week.

* Including for _Jurassic World._


----------



## tgm1024

MLXXX said:


> The showrooms where I am in Australia have stopped putting any of their TVs into 3D mode for general display. Last weekend I asked a saleman whether there had been any problems with the 4k passive 3D sets as regards vertical viewing angle, compared with Full HD passive sets. He said he hadn't heard anything like that [mind you, he didn't seem all that much up to speed with 3D!].
> 
> The salesman showed me a 79" LG (with a curved screen, appears it would have been the 79UG880T). He put it into 3D simulation mode. The vertical angle was very generous. From crouching down to standing up, at about 2 metres from the set, I could see no obvious crosstalk. It's a different story entirely with my 2013 year 65" Sony 4k set, or my older cheap 42" Full HD set, both of which have _quite limited 3D vertical viewing angles_.
> 
> This was hardly a scientific test, but I can only assume film-type patterned retarder 3D technology has improved, at least for some passive 3D models, compared with the past. (Of course even with a set that has a very limited vertical viewing angle you should be able to watch 3D ok, provided your eyes are at a reasonable height, e.g. while sitting on a lounge chair.)


This is interesting, I'll have to verify myself. The vertical viewing angle on the 2013 65X900A was almost exactly half of my (2K)60R50A. I've also read elsewhere that it's a common complaint with other passive 4K screens.

There are a few things at play here that I can only speculate at:

1. The ratio of subpixel height to inter-row grid width. If there's a wider inter-row grid, the FPR can be made wider (taller actually) without visually stepping on neighboring scanlines as readily.

2. The Z height off of the lcd grid to the FPR. It could well be that later models have placed the FPR elsewhere, or have simply reduced this distance. Thinking back: I know that the original LG passives had a lot of speculation at the time that they were doing something expensive---they were utilizing "PR" (sans-Film) into the LCD filters themselves. This is really weird to me because LCD's themselves must operate with linear polarization to handle the variable light output (light gets twisted by the crystal). If true, that would mean that the LCD filters were both linear AND circularly polarized. Very odd, but I suppose no different than what an FPR does, just with fewer issues than FPR. Of course it means that they couldn't easily offer non-3D displays.

3. I have no idea _where_ on the OLED the FPR actually lives (do you?). There is no white paper explaining it. Nor do I know if any of LG's OLED's are non-3D.

So your findings are _*very*_ welcome information. I can't wait to see what's happened!


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> 65% of movie goers saw Jurassic World in 3-D: http://marketsaw.blogspot.ca/2015/06/a-whopping-65-of-jurassic-worlds-record.html?m=1


That's good worldwide, but it was supposedly a lower percentage in the US. Which I guess might be part of the reason more 3D BD titles seem to be offered overseas than domestically.


----------



## Frank714

MLXXX said:


> But is your friend being realistic? I don't know what part of the world he's in, but the more usual _current_ experience in many parts of the world -- for a movie that is actually produced in 3D and then released in 3D -- is that there are fewer 3D sessions than 2D sessions, or at some cinemas no 3D sessions of the movie at all. That is certainly the case in Australia at the moment.


Apparently then, Germany is the Mecca of theatrical 3D premieres. 

Here is something I meant to do for a long time. As a die-hard IMAX 3D fan I was curious to look at the releases of films (i.e. IMAX or made-for-IMAX) on 3D Blu-ray disc thus far and compiled their release dates (please feel free to mention those I may have missed):

02.11.10 GRAND CANYON ADVENTURE
02.11.10 DINOSAURS ALIVE
02.11.10 WILD OCEAN

01.03.11 ULTIMATE WAVE – TAHITI
01.03.11 GIANTS OF PATAGONIA
29.03.11 MUMMIES
29.03.11 ULTIMATE G’S
07.06.11 LEGENDS OF FLIGHT
06.12.11 ARABIA

06.11.12 RESCUE 3D

26.03.13 TO THE ARCTIC
09.04.13 HUBBLE
09.04.13 SPACE STATION
09.04.13 UNDER THE SEA
09.04.13 DEEP SEA
09.04.13 BORN TO THE WILD
17.09.13 SPACE JUNK

Why there was only release in 2012 I couldn't say, but in 2014 and 2015 there have been no new IMAX releases to my knowledge (with the exception of the German re-release of FIGHTER PILOT now converted to 3D), although there are still plenty of 3D titles in the IMAX film library that wait for a corresponding home video release (e.g. NASCAR 3D). 

One could argue that's an indication for a dwindling interest in IMAX 3D titles, but I think it's rather an indication that home video 3D isn't doing too well.


----------



## tomtastic

IMAX titles take longer to go home video, they're made for the giant screen market so they play them there for a lot longer than Hollywood stuff. Usually. Some titles arrive quicker than others, and some go to home video and still get played in theater. There's not a lot of consistency with it. There's numerous titles I'm waiting on from a few years ago that haven't arrived yet. Hard to say when they'll get released.

Two IMAX features that I'm waiting on are Flight of the Butterflies 3D 2012, and Titans of the Ice Age 3D, 2013. I saw "Titans" in 2D in a Dome theater, really would like to have it on 3D Blu ray.

Space Junk is out on BD but it still gets played here in theater. One of the oldest IMAX 3D titles Into the Deep was released in 1994. It was only released on the Samsung Presents disc, not as a stand alone feature. Same thing with Galapagos 2002 they're on the same disc. Glad I got my copy back when I did at 26.00, the cheapest one now is 86.00. Edit:, there's a few left for under 40.00 was looking at the new prices, get them quick before they run out, I'm sure this was a limited release. Only place you can find Into the Deep and Galapagos in 3D.


----------



## mo949

Tom, if you are into importing, you can get Galapagos as part of this set as well http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Atten...5953&creativeASIN=B00FEDUIAK&m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE


----------



## tomtastic

mo949 said:


> Tom, if you are into importing, you can get Galapagos as part of this set as well http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Atten...5953&creativeASIN=B00FEDUIAK&m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE


I have that one too, but it's not the same title. Galapagos was an IMAX 1999 feature. Attenborough's was a 3 part series that originally aired in 2013.


----------



## icelt

coolhand said:


> Jurassic World was an abject failure. The plot was a joke, the thing with the raptors was DUMB. Even the 3D was terrible. I was quite disappointed.


Indeed the plot IS a joke (intentionally, the director and presumably producers are regularly making fun of the plot IN the movie). 

The rest of the film was an abject JOY! Just a complete thrill ride from beginning to end, massive dino scenes and chaos all over the place, and the 3D did a fantastic job of being present but not overwhelming. So much so that my GF, who regularly pans Avatar as being "too much 3D", thoroughly enjoyed herself watching JW.

Maybe seeing it on an IMAX screen makes all the difference, regardless if anyone has a chance to see it on IMAX definitely go out of your way to do so. Most fun I've had at a theater in awhile and that includes Fury Road. To be fair I didn't see FR on IMAX though.


----------



## tomtastic

Frank714 said:


> Apparently then, Germany is the Mecca of theatrical 3D premieres.
> 
> Here is something I meant to do for a long time. As a die-hard IMAX 3D fan I was curious to look at the releases of films (i.e. IMAX or made-for-IMAX) on 3D Blu-ray disc thus far and compiled their release dates (please feel free to mention those I may have missed):
> 
> 02.11.10 GRAND CANYON ADVENTURE
> 02.11.10 DINOSAURS ALIVE
> 02.11.10 WILD OCEAN
> 
> 01.03.11 ULTIMATE WAVE – TAHITI
> 01.03.11 GIANTS OF PATAGONIA
> 29.03.11 MUMMIES
> 29.03.11 ULTIMATE G’S
> 07.06.11 LEGENDS OF FLIGHT
> 06.12.11 ARABIA
> 
> 06.11.12 RESCUE 3D
> 
> 26.03.13 TO THE ARCTIC
> 09.04.13 HUBBLE
> 09.04.13 SPACE STATION
> 09.04.13 UNDER THE SEA
> 09.04.13 DEEP SEA
> 09.04.13 BORN TO THE WILD
> 17.09.13 SPACE JUNK
> 
> Why there was only release in 2012 I couldn't say, but in 2014 and 2015 there have been no new IMAX releases to my knowledge (with the exception of the German re-release of FIGHTER PILOT now converted to 3D), although there are still plenty of 3D titles in the IMAX film library that wait for a corresponding home video release (e.g. NASCAR 3D).
> 
> One could argue that's an indication for a dwindling interest in IMAX 3D titles, but I think it's rather an indication that home video 3D isn't doing too well.


Added theses:
3D Sun 2008/2013 3D Blu ray release
Into the Deep 1994/2010 Exclusive Samsung Presents Disc
Galapagos 1999/2010 Exclusive Samsung Presents Disc

I went through and put just the 3D titles so it's a little easier to see. 3D Blu-ray releases in Blue.


List of IMAX 3D Titles:

We Are Born of Stars (3D) (1985)
Transitions (3D) (1986)
Echoes of the Sun (3D) (1990) (First IMAX DOME 3D film.)
The Last Buffalo (3D) (1990)
Imagine 3D (3D) (1993)
Into the Deep (3D) (1994) Exclusive Samsung Presents Disc
Wings of Courage (3D) (April 21, 1995)
Across the Sea of Time (3D) (October 20, 1995)
L5: First City in Space (3D) (October 11, 1996)
Paint Misbehavin' 3D (3D) (1997)
The Hidden Dimension (3D) (May 9, 1997)
The IMAX Nutcracker (3D) (November 27, 1997)
Mark Twain's America (3D) (July 2, 1998)
T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous (3D) (October 23, 1998)
The Country Bears Down Under: 25th Anniversary Edition Live! (3D) (December 13, 1998)
Encounter in the Third Dimension (3D) (March 31, 1999)
Alien Adventure (3D) (August 20, 1999)
Siegfried & Roy: The Magic Box (3D) (October 1, 1999)
Galapagos (3D) (October 27, 1999) Exclusive Samsung Presents Disc
Ultimate G's (3D) (February 17, 2000)
Cirque du Soleil: Journey of Man (3D) (May 5, 2000)
CyberWorld (3D) (October 6, 2000)
Haunted Castle (3D) (February 23, 2001)
Space Station 3D (3D) (April 19, 2002) (First documentary film in IMAX 3D.)
Santa vs. the Snowman 3D (3D) (November 1, 2002)
Ocean Wonderland (3D) (January 1, 2003)
SOS Planet (3D) (January 5, 2003)
Ghosts of the Abyss (3D) (March 31, 2003)
Falling in Love Again (3D) (May 15, 2003)
Bugs! A Rainforest Adventure (3D) (July 25, 2003)
Misadventures in 3D (3D) (November 11, 2003)
NASCAR 3D: The IMAX Experience (3D) (March 12, 2004)
Adventures in Animation 3D (3D) (May 18, 2004)
Sharks (3D) (December 15, 2004)
Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag Originally 2D (December 4, 2004) (Converted Release For German 3D Blu-ray)
Wild Safari 3D (3D) (April 8, 2005)
Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D (3D) (September 23, 2005)
Aliens of the Deep (3D) (December 28, 2005)
Deep Sea 3D (3D) (March 3, 2006)
Mummies 3D: Secrets of the Pharaohs (3D) (March 16, 2007)
Dinosaurs Alive! (3D) (March 30, 2007)
Dinosaurs: Giants of Patagonia (3D) (April 5, 2007)
Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure (3D) (October 5, 2007)
African Adventure: Safari in the Okavango (3D) (October 17, 2007)
U2 3D (3D) (January 23, 2008)
Dolphins and Whales 3D: Tribes of the Ocean (3D) (February 15, 2008)
3D Sun (3D) (March 1, 2008)
Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk (3D) (March 12, 2008)
Wild Ocean (3D) (March 18, 2008) (Only partially filmed in IMAX)
Fly Me to the Moon (3D) (August 8, 2008)
Under the Sea 3D (3D) (February 7, 2009)
Ultimate Wave Tahiti 3D (3D) (February 12, 2010)
Arabia (3D) (February 12, 2010)
Hubble (3D) (March 19, 2010)
Flying Monsters 3D (3D) (May 5, 2010)
Sea Rex: Journey to a Prehistoric World (3D) (May 14, 2010)
Legends of Flight (3D) (June 9, 2010)
Air Racers 3D (3D)
Born to Be Wild (3D) (April 8, 2011)
Rescue 3D (3D) (June 9, 2011)
Titans of the Ice Age 3D (3D) (2012)
The Last Reef: Cities Beneath the Sea (3D) (February 3, 2012)
To the Arctic 3D (3D) (April 20, 2012)
Flight of the Butterflies (3D) (September 24, 2012)
Dragons: Real Myths and Unreal Creatures (3D) (June 13, 2013)
Hidden Universe 3D (3D) (September 5, 2013)
Island of Lemurs: Madagascar (3D) (April 4, 2014)

L5: First City in Space (3D) (October 11, 1996), T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous (3D) (October 23, 1998) and NASCAR 3D: The IMAX Experience (3D) (March 12, 2004) aired on 3Net, I had them recorded at one time then deleted. Wish I had kept them for preservation. Ones I'd like to have the most:

Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D (3D) (September 23, 2005)
Titans of the Ice Age 3D (3D) (2012)
We Are Born of Stars (3D) (1985)

Of course all of them would be nice too.

This should probably have it's own thread, btw.


----------



## rural scribe

domz777 said:


> OK, well, I guess I should qualify my statement, TO ME - a good 3d movie is 1 that for almost the whole movie, 1/2 the scene is _in _the screen and the other 1/2 is sticking out of the screen. As if the actual screen itself were the mid point of the whole thing that you were looking at.


Well, that is a different 3D standard than mine.

By your standard I've never seen one good 3D movie presentation out of a hundred or more I've seen.

I need to find that holodeck you've been on. Sounds cool.


----------



## rural scribe

coolhand said:


> Jurassic World was an abject failure. The plot was a joke, the thing with the raptors was DUMB. Even the 3D was terrible. I was quite disappointed.


Well anyone can say they like it or don't like it. Doesn't really matter.

At rottentomatoes.com 86 percent of users like this film, but that doesn't really matter, either.

Here's what matters, this film made over half a billion dollars in its opening weekend. It broke records.

That is no subjective statement. That's a fact. It is the most important objective standard by which to judge this film, and it is quantifiable and verifiable.

That is the only thing that matters to corporations.

There is a reason they call this the film industry, and not "art".

Get ready for more Jurassic Park sequels.


----------



## SFMike

Frank714 said:


> My best friend would vehemently disagree. He constantly complains that he hardly finds a movie theater where he can watch a film he's interested in just in plain "2D".
> 
> Regarding the public movie theater it looks mostly like an instrument to enable theatre owners to charge an extra and people like my friend are coerced to either watch it in 3D or not at all.


 
It all varies to the area of country you are in and the management of the local theater chain. As I've complained about many times my local chain doesn't like 3D and told me they only show it because the studios say they have to have some showings. Currently with JW there are 9 flat and 3 3D showing a day. With San Andreas there was only one 3D showing a day. I have missed some films as the 3D showing were only at 4:00pm and 10:00 pm, not the best for people who work. Usually after the first week there are no 3D showing of a film. This kind of distribution certainly hurts 3D ticket sales in this area and promotes the illusion that the public doesn't want 3D, which of course, this theater chain is trying to prove to the studios.


----------



## domz777

rural scribe said:


> ...I need to find that holodeck you've been on. Sounds cool.


You can have 1 of your own, my friend, and it's super easy to do, too! Just connect an HTPC to your projector, put on your Nvidia 3D vision glasses, and simply run the 3D setup wizard which is built right into the video card's driver. Should take a total of about 20-30 seconds. Best 3D you've ever seen. It makes all your gaming 3D as well(_or not, it's up to you_) *AND *you can actually *control *the level of 3D-ness - _with a knob built right on the emitter_! Too much pop out? _Dial it down._ Not enough? _Dial it up._ *Completely user configurable*. 

Anyone interested, just PM me and I'll happily walk you thru setting up your own - from beginning to end. What you need, how to install it in your computer, how to tie in your computer to your HT if it isn't already - everything, the whole works. I got 4+years experience with this stuff, and I have added it to literally dozens of peoples theaters, that didn't have it originally, and it is the *ONLY thing I've ever installed for people that has gotten 100% positive response*. Any installer here will tell you that's unheard of. 

No one adds an upgrade they think they _won't _like, right? But, sometimes you get a guy that says, "I've done 100 years of research, I've talked to a million people, and have read-up on this so much my eyes exploded!! I ABSOLUTELY want this 'item x' added to my theater, when can you do it?" So, we do the dance, work out a schedule and get it installed. A few weeks later, I call to follow up, and hear this, "Ehhh, it's okayyyy, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I like it, but I was really expecting it was going to be _*much *_better than this. It's better than what I had, so that's good. I guess I was just expecting too much." 

That is the single most heartbreaking thing for any installer to hear(well, right behind, "_I'm sorry sir, the check didn't clear._" LOL)  but, THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED - NOT EVEN ONCE - WHEN I ADD 3D VISION TO SOMEONES HT! Because when it's set up PROPERLY (_that's the key_) it really is like being on a holodeck. And you don't even have to say "Arch" when you leave. I mean, _you could_, but...




rural scribe said:


> ...Get ready for more Jurassic Park sequels.


GREAT! Maybe they'll get it right, next time.

And don't forget, there's only 2 reasons it shattered all those opening day records 

1)There hasn't been a decent JP movie for like 20 years - so people wanted one. And...

2)IT'S NOT DECEMBER YET.



SFMike said:


> It all varies to the area of country you are in and the management of the local theater chain. As I've complained about many times my local chain doesn't like 3D and told me they only show it because the studios say they have to have some showings. Currently with JW there are 9 flat and 3 3D showing a day. With San Andreas there was only one 3D showing a day. I have missed some films as the 3D showing were only at 4:00pm and 10:00 pm, not the best for people who work. Usually after the first week there are no 3D showing of a film. This kind of distribution certainly hurts 3D ticket sales in this area and promotes the illusion that the public doesn't want 3D, which of course, this theater chain is trying to prove to the studios.


That theater chain is wrong, and will eventually go the way of the do-do if they don't wise up and get on board with what their customers want!


----------



## william06

I have found that our local theaters were doing that until recently but with San Andreas and especially jw the 3d showings have increased eve upped the i max showings a bit


----------



## Frank714

Great compilation list. I see you also added various films that probably showed up in an IMAX but aren't labelled specifically as IMAX. Given the amount of bad 3D productions, I've somewhat accepted that "IMAX" has become a sort of quality label like "THX" used to be.



tomtastic said:


> L5: First City in Space (3D) (October 11, 1996), T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous (3D) (October 23, 1998) and NASCAR 3D: The IMAX Experience (3D) (March 12, 2004) aired on 3Net, I had them recorded at one time then deleted. Wish I had kept them for preservation. Ones I'd like to have the most:
> 
> Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D (3D) (September 23, 2005)
> Titans of the Ice Age 3D (3D) (2012)
> We Are Born of Stars (3D) (1985)


I concur (but shouldn't NASCAR 3D be there, too?). I liked _First City in Space, _but seem to remember there was too much indoor activity. _T-Rex _was nice, but it felt they were luring audiences to watch it for only a few CGI 3D scenes (I admit I got spoiled by all the other dinosaur 3D programs)



tomtastic said:


> This should probably have it's own thread, btw.


Absolutely!


----------



## aaronwt

SFMike said:


> It all varies to the area of country you are in and the management of the local theater chain. As I've complained about many times my local chain doesn't like 3D and told me they only show it because the studios say they have to have some showings. Currently with JW there are 9 flat and 3 3D showing a day. With San Andreas there was only one 3D showing a day. I have missed some films as the 3D showing were only at 4:00pm and 10:00 pm, not the best for people who work. Usually after the first week there are no 3D showing of a film. This kind of distribution certainly hurts 3D ticket sales in this area and promotes the illusion that the public doesn't want 3D, which of course, this theater chain is trying to prove to the studios.


At the AMC complex a few minutes from me, they have eighteen 3D showings(4 IMAX 3D) and only seven 2D showings today for JW.
At the AMC complex my GF and I go to that is 20 minutes away from me they have seventeen 3D showings(5 Imax 3D) and eight 2D showings of JW.

San Andreas still has four 3D showings and five 2D showings at each theaters. 

I will say this, AMC has a bunch of theaters with 3D capability around here. There are half a dozen more 3D showings at each location split between Age of Ultron, Mad Max and Poltergeist.

There is another AMC complex that is twenty five minutes from me with similar 3D showings as the two I normally frequent. But that one has an IMAX screen and an ETX screen(the AMC large screen format)


----------



## SFMike

aaronwt said:


> At the AMC complex a few minutes from me, they have eighteen 3D showings(4 IMAX 3D) and only seven 2D showings today for JW.
> At the AMC complex my GF and I go to that is 20 minutes away from me they have seventeen 3D showings(5 Imax 3D) and eight 2D showings of JW.
> 
> San Andreas still has four 3D showings and five 2D showings at each theaters.
> 
> I will say this, AMC has a bunch of theaters with 3D capability around here. There are half a dozen more 3D showings at each location split between Age of Ultron, Mad Max and Poltergeist.
> 
> There is another AMC complex that is twenty five minutes from me with similar 3D showings as the two I normally frequent. But that one has an IMAX screen and an ETX screen(the AMC large screen format)



That's the kind of programming I expect, you are lucky AMC is supporting 3D. Have you personally heard a lot of complaining while at the theater or from friends that they are tired of the 3D presentations? My local theater manager said that they got so many complaints about 3D showings and the added surcharge that they don't want to support it.


----------



## aaronwt

SFMike said:


> That's the kind of programming I expect, you are lucky AMC is supporting 3D. Have you personally heard a lot of complaining while at the theater or from friends that they are tired of the 3D presentations? My local theater manager said that they got so many complaints about 3D showings and the added surcharge that they don't want to support it.


I've never heard any complaing at the theater, but I know some people that have complained. Not about the price so much as just 3D in general.

I'm usually seeing the IMAX 3D version. So the people there have specifically chosen to pay extra. If people don't want to pay the $19 for IMAX 3D, they can pay $17 for the Real3D showing or pay $13 for the 2D showing.

My compaint about the AMC IMAX theaters is that they aren't really an IMAX theater. The screen is nowhere near the size of a screen in a real IMAX theater. So people call the AMC version LieMAX or IMAX lite. So any complaint I have about price isn't because of 3D but because of the use of the IMAX name for the theater.


----------



## tomtastic

Frank714 said:


> Great compilation list. I see you also added various films that probably showed up in an IMAX but aren't labelled specifically as IMAX. Given the amount of bad 3D productions, I've somewhat accepted that "IMAX" has become a sort of quality label like "THX" used to be.
> 
> 
> 
> I concur (but shouldn't NASCAR 3D be there, too?). I liked _First City in Space, _but seem to remember there was too much indoor activity. _T-Rex _was nice, but it felt they were luring audiences to watch it for only a few CGI 3D scenes (I admit I got spoiled by all the other dinosaur 3D programs)
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!


I really didn't care for either of those movies, L5 was really awful, T-Rex was a little better but still a one time viewing for me. Only reason I would like them now is because they're 3D. If I'd still had them on DVR I would have saved them, but they got deleted off long before they shut down 3Net. Nascar I would like to have.

Some of these were shown in IMAX, like Attenborough's Flying Monsters, but not filmed by IMAX. We should probably make notes on those too. Fine tune the list. I think there's an error on the wiki page too, claiming that Space Station was the first IMAX 3D film, I think it should read: First IMAX 3D filmed in space. Not sure what else they could mean. I think they've used basically the same camera system for 3D long before Space Station.


----------



## mars5l

aaronwt said:


> I've never heard any complaing at the theater, but I know some people that have complained. Not about the price so much as just 3D in general.
> 
> I'm usually seeing the IMAX 3D version. So the people there have specifically chosen to pay extra. If people don't want to pay the $19 for IMAX 3D, they can pay $17 for the Real3D showing or pay $13 for the 2D showing.
> 
> My compaint about the AMC IMAX theaters is that they aren't really an IMAX theater. The screen is nowhere near the size of a screen in a real IMAX theater. So people call the AMC version LieMAX or IMAX lite. So any complaint I have about price isn't because of 3D but because of the use of the IMAX name for the theater.



I kinda prefer the IMAX lite at the closet AMC to me. Its still huge compared to most and the seatin setup is just awesome. Lots of room between you and the next row and the slope makes it hard for anyone to be in your way. We have an actual IMAX screen near to me and its rather almost too huge for a real movie. I watched interstellar that way and my next was hurting. Being almost all the way at the top row and I was still looking up most of the film. And the slope is damn near a straight drop, better not have a fear of heights or fall out of your seat.


----------



## The Banshee

tgm1024 said:


> The best 3D films are films where the 3D is simply used as another tool to immerse you into the storyline itself, not simply visually immerse you into a scene. The best 3D films are where you completely forget that it's 3D at all and just "live" the experience and storyline of the movie better than ever before.


That is correct.

For example watching native 3d movies such as The Hobbit trilogy you almost forget that you're watching a 3d movie but that is because you become so immersed into the movie - and that is how 'real' 3d should always be.

I understand that some like extreme pop outs for their 3D, but majority of time it does not work very well with movies (with the exception of cartoons/animations). Because if not done correctly by the cameraman, the background image becomes too blurry as well as the image that's popping right out from the screen. You will notice that it loses its focus throughout scenes compared to its 2d counterpart.

I have encountered this with many 3d blu ray tests. Especially the IMAX nature/ocean/sharks etc. documentaries on 3d bluray. Hence decided to sell part of my collection that suffer from this extreme negative/positive parallex focus issue and only keep those that focus on 3d depth.

Movies such as Avatar, The Hobbit trilogy and Tintin do pretty or very well without higher frame rates on 3d blu ray because it focuses mainly on depth and it doesn't really get affected by fast moving scenes.

BUT in the case of movies that have extremely aggressive negative/positive parallex for pop 3d, it does require a higher frame rate on blu ray as I have noticed this very clearly. The higher frame rate in this case will ease out or 'clean up' the out of focus/blurry issue.


----------



## The Banshee

By the way watched Jurassic World in 2d last week, I really enjoyed the movie and thought it was a breath of fresh air blown into this 'new revived' series. Hopefully the sequels should be good too. Only thing was that it was a little on the humour side, but then again this is a showing for all the family and young ages pretty much.

Did notice one mum leave the cinema with her little child after things got a little scary - but don't know if that was due to the kid getting fritghtened or needing to go to the toilet every time.

At least it wasn't that garbage known as Godzilla (2014). I mean that was truly utter garbage - no offence. The original (1998) was so much better story wise and everything. All this time after 16 years and they came out with that - no thanks. I mean who on earth designed those MUTO's. they might as well as of made Godzilla VS Gollum (Giant Gollum). Apologies to anyone who supposedly did enjoy that movie.

Jurassic World wasn't done natively in 3d, but may still get it in 3d when the blu ray gets released.


----------



## aaronwt

Well they are making a sequel to the Godzilla 2014 movie.

I read it's supposed to come out in 2018. After the Director(Gareth Edwards) finishes the 2016 Star Wars movie(Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One) he is supposed to start filming the Godzilla sequel.

And hopefully both of those movies will be released in 3D at the theater.


----------



## tgm1024

The Banshee said:


> Did notice one mum leave the cinema with her little child after things got a little scary - but don't know if that was due to the kid getting fritghtened or needing to go to the toilet every time.


Children these days are hard to get a read on. They see so very much already and they don't "connect" with scary scenes in ways we'd expect.

For instance, my kids saw Avatar when they were young and they laughed at the violence. That was a good guess on my part. Last night my younger son couldn't deal with the tension in Gravity; I stopped the film as a result---that was a bad guess on my part.




The Banshee said:


> At least it wasn't that garbage known as Godzilla (2014). I mean that was truly utter garbage - no offence. The original (1998) was so much better story wise and everything. All this time after 16 years and they came out with that - no thanks. I mean who on earth designed those MUTO's. they might as well as of made Godzilla VS Gollum (Giant Gollum). Apologies to anyone who supposedly did enjoy that movie.
> 
> Jurassic World wasn't done natively in 3d, but may still get it in 3d when the blu ray gets released.


I hated that they managed to @#$% up Godzilla. It's a weird thing really. A Japanese icon that became an even stronger American icon. Imagine that? And the potential for a heart warming story was so high too. I haven't seen the 2014 Godzilla, and I likely won't ever, because I knew ahead of time they would just @#$% it up like they did with the Mathew Broderick shlock.


----------



## aaronwt

Hey.... My GF and I liked the 1998 Godzilla movie.....along with Armageddon


----------



## film113

aaronwt said:


> Hey.... My GF and I liked the 1998 Godzilla movie.....along with Armageddon


Never expected to say it but I felt the 98 film was more entertaining...and there was plenty of screen time for the big guy as well, unlike the 2014 movie. ARMAGEDDON...uh, that's another story.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

"The original (1998) was so much better story wise and everything."

Hi Banshee,

The best was the original and complete Japanese version released by Honda in 1954, not the re-edited U.S. version many are familiar with that came out later with scenes starring Raymond Burr added to it. 

For those who never saw that original feature, they are literally two different films. The original as produced was intended as a protest against nuclear weapons. It's on DVD with English subtitles. 

Joe


----------



## MrEmoto

Joseph Dubin said:


> "The original (1998) was so much better story wise and everything."
> 
> Hi Banshee,
> 
> The best was the original and complete Japanese version released by Honda in 1954, not the re-edited U.S. version many are familiar with that came out later with scenes starring Raymond Burr added to it.
> 
> For those who never saw that original feature, they are literally two different films. The original as produced was intended as a protest against nuclear weapons. It's on DVD with English subtitles.
> 
> Joe


So, the original did not have Raymond Burr at all??? I never knew that. Will need to find a copy of the real original.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

MrEmoto said:


> So, the original did not have Raymond Burr at all??? I never knew that. Will need to find a copy of the real original.


HI MrEmoto,

The Raymond Burr edition did not have dialogue like this:

Daisuke Serizawa-hakase: If my device can serve a good purpose, i would announce it to everyone in the world! But in its current form, it's just a weapon of horrible destruction. Please understand, Ogata!
Hideto Ogata: I understand. But if we don't use your device against Godzilla, what are we going to do?
Daisuke Serizawa-hakase: Ogata, if the oxygen destroyer is used even once, politicians from around the world will see it. Of course, they'll want to use it as a weapon. Bombs versus bombs, missiles versus missiles, and now a new superweapon to throw upon us all! As a scientist - no, as a human being - I can't allow that to happen! Am I right?
Hideto Ogata: Then what do we do about the horror before us now? Should we just let it happen? If anyone can save us now, Serizawa, you're the only one! If... you use the device to defeat Godzilla, unless you reveal what you have done, who will know about it?
Daisuke Serizawa-hakase: Ogata, humans are weak animals. Even if I burn my notes, the secret will still be in my head. Until I die, how can I be sure I won't be forced by someone to make the device again?

You can see what I mean. I have the DVD - it's a two disc set containing both versions. Here is the info on IMDB and from Amazon on the DVD/Blu Ray releases. 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047034/

http://www.amazon.com/Godzilla-Crit...&qid=1434985602&sr=1-2&keywords=godzilla+1954


----------



## film113

THIS is the one to get. It includes both versions 

http://www.amazon.com/Godzilla-Crit...d=1434989787&sr=1-1&keywords=gojira+criterion


----------



## Joseph Dubin

film113 said:


> THIS is the one to get. It includes both versions
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Godzilla-Crit...89787&sr=1-1&keywords=gojira+hi gilmcriterion


Hi film,

I have the first set issued by classic media but after finding out about the much better quality criterion version, might get that one too. At least will have different special features and booklet.

Thanks for cuing me in.

Joe


----------



## tomtastic

Inside Out—Now in 3D!

Just saw a commercial for this. So it wasn't in 3D before or is this a new marketing scheme?


----------



## xvfx

aaronwt said:


> Hey.... My GF and I liked the 1998 Godzilla movie.....along with Armageddon





film113 said:


> Never expected to say it but I felt the 98 film was more entertaining...and there was plenty of screen time for the big guy as well, unlike the 2014 movie. ARMAGEDDON...uh, that's another story.


----------



## film113

tomtastic said:


> Inside Out—Now in 3D!
> 
> Just saw a commercial for this. So it wasn't in 3D before or is this a new marketing scheme?


Probably the latter, as reports from some who've seen it indicate that the 3D adds virtually nothing to the movie.


----------



## aaronwt

film113 said:


> Probably the latter, as reports from some who've seen it indicate that the 3D adds virtually nothing to the movie.


Inside Out was in 3D at the AMC theaters around here.

I also saw this...



> .....While Jurassic World is doing big business in 3D houses, Inside Out saw only 28 percent of its revenue come from 3D, a muted showing. Inside Out also skewed female (56 percent)........


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-inside-hits-record-804015


----------



## film113

aaronwt said:


> Inside Out was in 3D at the AMC theaters around here.
> 
> I also saw this...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-inside-hits-record-804015


No surprise. Theses CGI kid flicks usually don't do well in 3D both theatrically and on home video.
It is the live-action movies (MAD MAX, JW, etc) that fare much better. There might also be fewer 3D venues available for INSIDE OUT as JW is still taking up 3D space.


----------



## NickTheGreat

film113 said:


> No surprise. Theses CGI kid flicks usually don't do well in 3D both theatrically and on home video.
> It is the live-action movies (MAD MAX, JW, etc) that fare much better. There might also be fewer 3D venues available for INSIDE OUT as JW is still taking up 3D space.


I've probably got 20 or 25 3D movies, 75% of which are "kids movies"


----------



## film113

NickTheGreat said:


> I've probably got 20 or 25 3D movies, 75% of which are "kids movies"


Understood, and I'm sure others do as well. But in national sales figures, it seems the CGI selections never even hit 10% of the combined disc sales, while live-action films sell above that. For example, the new SpongeBob 3D disc sold between 3% - 4% (for the week of June 7th), while JUPITER ASCENDING (which came out around the same time in theaters and disc...and didn't do as well in theaters as BOB) sold around 12%. And GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, even though it's been out for many months, is over 18% (it's high was over 30%) So when I read that INSIDE OUT didn't do as well in 3D as JURASSIC WORLD or MAD MAX, it's par for the course.


----------



## cakefoo

With a few exceptions, CG animations typically do ~30%, while action movies do ~45%. This is not a recent trend, but one that has been ongoing for years.

I would venture to guess that animations have less 3D share because 1) 3D surcharges can get expensive when you have to pay for a group of 4 or more, 2) the choice between 2D and 3D can be overruled by just one vocal complainer, and 3) parents may be concerned about 3D harming their children's vision.


----------



## mars5l

I think CGI kids movies make some of the better 3d movies vs live action movies


----------



## The Banshee

Look at the naughty spoilt children watching movies at the cinema wearing 3D glasses.


----------



## Teremei

mars5l said:


> I think CGI kids movies make some of the better 3d movies vs live action movies


Which ones? I'm not saying the CGI movies are bad, there are some good 3D in those movies. But the best 3D I've seen has been from live action films like Jurassic Park, The House of Wax, and Avatar. It's not a limitation of CGI films it's just the film makers for those films don't tend to go for that extreme depth and gimmick shots that make 3D great.


----------



## film113

Even if the CGI kid-flicks draw less than live-action, it still isn't chump change. 

LOS ANGELES, Calif., June 21, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- RealD Inc. (NYSE: RLD) announced today that Universal Pictures and Amblin Entertainment's epic action-adventure, Jurassic World, continued to lure a strong number of summer moviegoers into 3D equipped theaters generating approximately 47% of its domestic second weekend gross on all 3D screens and platforms.
Holdover titles including San Andreas and Mad Max Fury Road, along with the new addition of Disney/Pixar's highly-acclaimed Inside Out contributed to another robust weekend for 3D overall, as the total market for 3D films on all platforms reached $207 million.
RealD's portion of the total 3D movie-going market this weekend is estimated at $59 million.
RealD 3D accounted for an estimated $33 million of the weekend's total box office on Jurassic World and an estimated $132 million to date on the film. RealD 3D equipped PLF auditoriums also continued to be in high demand, delivering $5 million of the weekend's total on Jurassic World.
The highly-acclaimed Inside Out debuted with 28% of its domestic opening weekend in 3D ticket sales. RealD equipped theaters accounted for $24 million of the estimated $91 million domestic gross.
"Whether it is Jurassic World or Inside Out or the other high performing 3D titles we have seen this year, moviegoers are turning out in droves for high quality, immersive 3D experiences and the best is still yet to come," said Anthony Marcoly, President of Worldwide Cinema at RealD.
Recent 3D successes worldwide have included San Andreas, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Avengers: Age of Ultron, among others. Upcoming this summer and through the end of the year, there is growing excitement for 3D motion pictures as diverse as Terminator: Genisys, Minions, The Walk, The Martian, Pixels, Pan, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens, among others.


----------



## cakefoo

That should fully fund RealD's dig for a further 3 years.


----------



## Teremei

I don't think 3D is dead. Even back in the 50s a very small % of movies were in 3D. As long as a small portion of 3D movies gets released, and then ported to 3D blu ray, 3D is alive and well. Disney might be stubborn about it. But you still have all those Marvel Releases, and other big releases will continue to come out with 3D like Mad Max, Star Wars, and more. Heck they are even doing 3D for the final Hunger Games movie. And we've got a new combatant 3dfilmarchive now giving us 50s 3D movie restorations on blu ray. 3D blu rays are in a good place right now. As a home 3D lover I am happy. I'd be happier if Disney releases were something I could look forward to again, but good riddance.


----------



## film113

Teremei said:


> I don't think 3D is dead. Even back in the 50s a very small % of movies were in 3D. As long as a small portion of 3D movies gets released, and then ported to 3D blu ray, 3D is alive and well. Disney might be stubborn about it. But you still have all those Marvel Releases, and other big releases will continue to come out with 3D like Mad Max, Star Wars, and more. Heck they are even doing 3D for the final Hunger Games movie. And we've got a new combatant 3dfilmarchive now giving us 50s 3D movie restorations on blu ray. 3D blu rays are in a good place right now. As a home 3D lover I am happy. I'd be happier if Disney releases were something I could look forward to again, but good riddance.


Wait till you see the new 3D RARITIES disc...it is THE 3D disc to own! And I'm with you on Disney. In a way, they did me a favor. If MALEFICENT had been released here in 3D, I would have bought it sight unseen. Instead, I watched it in 3D via Starz. Beautiful-looking movie...but the story! OMG!! Bullet avoided. Since recent Disney theatricals have been 2D, they don't have any 3D releases to miss or import, so good riddance indeed. The only concern now is STAR WARS on 3D disc and whether Lucasfilm can be autonomous of Disney (as Marvel is).


----------



## xvfx

The Banshee said:


> Look at the naughty spoilt children watching movies at the cinema wearing 3D glasses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


What was that old film that had all the men watching a film in some theatre? with all the white framed paper glasses all moving and drawing back from the action in sync. All of them in prison? This made me think of it. Rather strange amusing seeing everybody with 3D glasses on. At first I thought it was The Blues Brothers.


----------



## Teremei

film113 said:


> Wait till you see the new 3D RARITIES disc...it is THE 3D disc to own! And I'm with you on Disney. In a way, they did me a favor. If MALEFICENT had been released here in 3D, I would have bought it sight unseen. Instead, I watched it in 3D via Starz. Beautiful-looking movie...but the story! OMG!! Bullet avoided. Since recent Disney theatricals have been 2D, they don't have any 3D releases to miss or import, so good riddance indeed. The only concern now is STAR WARS on 3D disc and whether Lucasfilm can be autonomous of Disney (as Marvel is).


true it has saved me from buying some average movies. I think there's a good chance for star wars 3D. I hope Pixar's new movie makes it out on 3D as well. And as far as 3D-Rarities. I totally can't wait. I ordered it from flicker alley yesterday. I was just browsing new releases for that lupin the 3rd movie and some how stumbled on 3D-Rarities as well as The Bubble and some of those other movies I missed. Totally stoked to have about 4 3D classics on the way I didn't know were out there til today.

I'm curious about who put out the Creature from the Black Lagoon 3D though.


----------



## aaronwt

Teremei said:


> I don't think 3D is dead. Even back in the 50s a very small % of movies were in 3D. As long as a small portion of 3D movies gets released, and then ported to 3D blu ray, 3D is alive and well. Disney might be stubborn about it. But you still have all those Marvel Releases, and other big releases will continue to come out with 3D like Mad Max, Star Wars, and more. Heck they are even doing 3D for the final Hunger Games movie. And we've got a new combatant 3dfilmarchive now giving us 50s 3D movie restorations on blu ray. 3D blu rays are in a good place right now. As a home 3D lover I am happy. I'd be happier if Disney releases were something I could look forward to again, but good riddance.


The previous Hunger games movie was in 3D. But the one released last year wasn't. I know I was disappointed last year that _The Hunger Games: Mockingjay—Part 1_ wasn't in 3D. Especially after seeing the Hunger Games: Catching Fire in 3D at the theater.(or am I mis-remembering?)

EDIT: Although I just saw this article from June 10th. Is it still valid?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...ngjay-part-2-scraps-3d-for-american-theaters/



> Exclusive: 'Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2' Scraps 3D For American Theaters
> 
> Lions Gate Entertainment has made the call to release _The Hunger Games: Mockingjay part 2 _in America in 2D and IMAX 2D only. The studio announced back in February that it would release the fourth and final chapter of the Katniss and Friends saga in 3D and IMAX 3D along with the traditional 2D release. This coincided with the decision to release _Mockingjay part 1 _in 3D for the Chinese market earlier this year as well as the decision to release _Mockingjay _part 2 of 2 in 3D in overseas markets. Well, in short, that plan has been altered, Lionsgate confirms. The film will still go out in 3D in China and the rest of the world, but the _Hunger Games _finale will be released in American theaters on November 20 in old-school 2D................


----------



## Teremei

aaronwt said:


> The previous Hunger games movie was in 3D. But the one released last year wasn't.


Really I didn't think any of the previous ones were. Which one? Catching Fire? And was it a limited Theatrical release?


----------



## aaronwt

Teremei said:


> Really I didn't think any of the previous ones were. Which one? Catching Fire? And was it a limited Theatrical release?


The mor eI think about it the more I'm not sure. I might be thinking IMAX. The last one was not filmed in IMAX but the previous one I think was. And typically if I see a movie at the IMAX theater it's in 3D. Which is why I'm thinking I might just be mis-remembering.

Anyway I would rather see it in 3D at the theater than 2D.


----------



## Teremei

Yeah I don't think any of them have been in 3D and I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with them making the finale in 3D as long as it's well done 3D. I'm at the point where I only buy 3D movies if they are good movies as well as really well done 3D. Or if it's like a demo 3D movie with insane 3D. I'm over that initial 1+ year phase of buying anything and everything in 3D, just because. I keep some of the movies more out of Nostalgia. Like Journey to the Center of the Earth. The movie is "bleh" but it was the first 3D movie I saw in theaters and it had that sort of "demo" 3D about it.

Which tells me 3D is not dead because there is so much of it, I can now be picky about which ones I buy.


----------



## NorthSky

The kids don't lie; they love 3D. 

And Disney loves money. ...More than the kids?


----------



## film113

Teremei said:


> I'm curious about who put out the Creature from the Black Lagoon 3D though.


Universal. It was part of a box set, and then sold separately. After it sold out, they re-released it with different cover art.


----------



## mo949

aaronwt said:


> The previous Hunger games movie was in 3D. But the one released last year wasn't. I know I was disappointed last year that _The Hunger Games: Mockingjay—Part 1_ wasn't in 3D. Especially after seeing the Hunger Games: Catching Fire in 3D at the theater.(or am I mis-remembering?)
> 
> EDIT: Although I just saw this article from June 10th. Is it still valid?
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...ngjay-part-2-scraps-3d-for-american-theaters/


You know, I think you may be thinking of the Divergent Series sequel, as that one is in 3D. If so, its easy to forgive you for mixing up Hunger Games and Divergent - it felt like I was watching the same type of movie when I saw them both, although I liked the Divergent series more.


----------



## mars5l

Teremei said:


> Which ones? I'm not saying the CGI movies are bad, there are some good 3D in those movies. But the best 3D I've seen has been from live action films like Jurassic Park, The House of Wax, and Avatar. It's not a limitation of CGI films it's just the film makers for those films don't tend to go for that extreme depth and gimmick shots that make 3D great.


I would not qualify Avatar as live action, it was all CGI except for the actors live action capturing of their movements and Avatar was made in 3d. Jurassic park was ok, havent seen House of Wax. Top Gun wasnt all that great, saw San Andreas in theateres and wasnt wowed by its 3d, same for Mad Max. Avengers wasnt anything to be blown away about. On the CGI side, I just watched Despicable Me 2 a few days ago. It was done very well, great depth and pop out. Cars was converted and it was a better than all the ones I mentioned.

Now some movies work better at home. I know I remember seeing Prometheus in 3d in theaters and it being okay, but at home is a huge difference.


----------



## film113

Best animated CGI 3D I've seen in the past two years...MR PEABODY & SHERMAN. Surprised the hell out of me. I think I was more impressed by the black hole sequence than anything in the 2D "Interstellar"!i


----------



## Teremei

mars5l said:


> I would not qualify Avatar as live action, it was all CGI except for the actors live action capturing of their movements and Avatar was made in 3d. Jurassic park was ok, havent seen House of Wax. Top Gun wasnt all that great, saw San Andreas in theateres and wasnt wowed by its 3d, same for Mad Max. Avengers wasnt anything to be blown away about. On the CGI side, I just watched Despicable Me 2 a few days ago. It was done very well, great depth and pop out. Cars was converted and it was a better than all the ones I mentioned.
> 
> Now some movies work better at home. I know I remember seeing Prometheus in 3d in theaters and it being okay, but at home is a huge difference.


maybe that's why you haven't been impressed. Watch House of Wax, or any of those newer 50s restorations coming out. I hear the 3D in those is way more extreme compared to today. And if they are anything like House of Wax I think I can agree with that sentiment. It felt like one of those 3D thrill ride movies that would be on those special presentation screens I remember as a kid. The 3D was that good. Here's some of the live action 3D that was really, really good. I can just name more great 3D experiences with live action compared to animated. These are movies I'd recommend JUST based on the 3D experience. With *bolded* considered DEMO MATERIAL.

Men in Black 3
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Journey Mysterious Island
*The first Avengers ending sequence*
Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides
The Wizard of Oz
Oz the Great and Powerful
*House of Wax*
IMAX Hubble 3D
IMAX Under the Sea 3D
*Flying Swords of Dragon Gate* (this is like 3D cinematography art)

Animated
=======
Disney's a Christmas Carol
Tangled
The Lion King
The Little Mermaid

The 2D ones are more of a novelty. The look kinda neat in 3D.


----------



## Frank714

film113 said:


> The only concern now is STAR WARS on 3D disc and whether Lucasfilm can be autonomous of Disney (as Marvel is).


My major concern remains the quality of the converted 3D (as previously expressed in this thread).

I just hope it doesn't end in a difficult choice along the lines _Star Wars VII_ on UHD (2D) Blu-ray versus _Star Wars VII_ on 3D Blu-ray.


----------



## The Banshee

xvfx said:


> What was that old film that had all the men watching a film in some theatre? with all the white framed paper glasses all moving and drawing back from the action in sync. All of them in prison? This made me think of it. Rather strange amusing seeing everybody with 3D glasses on. At first I thought it was The Blues Brothers.


Lol! I really have no idea to be quite honest with you.


----------



## aaronwt

mo949 said:


> You know, I think you may be thinking of the Divergent Series sequel, as that one is in 3D. If so, its easy to forgive you for mixing up Hunger Games and Divergent - it felt like I was watching the same type of movie when I saw them both, although I liked the Divergent series more.


I like the DIvergent series but I have never seen them in the theater. I am looking forward to seeing the second one this summer in 3D on Blu-ray Disc.


----------



## evertec

domz777 said:


> You can have 1 of your own, my friend, and it's super easy to do, too! Just connect an HTPC to your projector, put on your Nvidia 3D vision glasses, and simply run the 3D setup wizard which is built right into the video card's driver. Should take a total of about 20-30 seconds. Best 3D you've ever seen. It makes all your gaming 3D as well(_or not, it's up to you_) *AND *you can actually *control *the level of 3D-ness - _with a knob built right on the emitter_! Too much pop out? _Dial it down._ Not enough? _Dial it up._ *Completely user configurable*.
> 
> Anyone interested, just PM me and I'll happily walk you thru setting up your own - from beginning to end. What you need, how to install it in your computer, how to tie in your computer to your HT if it isn't already - everything, the whole works. I got 4+years experience with this stuff, and I have added it to literally dozens of peoples theaters, that didn't have it originally, and it is the *ONLY thing I've ever installed for people that has gotten 100% positive response*. Any installer here will tell you that's unheard of.


I tried to PM you but I didn't have a high enough post count, so hopefully you see this. 

I have NVIDIA 3D vision setup and working in games with my passive 65" LG 3D TV, but when playing movies through PowerDVD I don't see any difference versus my XBOX One in 3D movies. I assume you are talking about changing the convergence to get more of a pop out effect, which I can do in games, but didn't see any option to do so in movies. You mentioned a dial on the emitter, but I don't have that since my TV is passive. Is there any way to do it in software or is the emitter box the only way? Thanks,


----------



## domz777

There's a little scroll wheel on the back of the 3d vision emitter. use it just like a scroll wheel on a mouse. you can also go into the nvidia control panel and set it in the stereoscopic 3d tab.


----------



## evertec

domz777 said:


> There's a little scroll wheel on the back of the 3d vision emitter. use it just like a scroll wheel on a mouse. you can also go into the nvidia control panel and set it in the stereoscopic 3d tab.


Like I said, I don't have a 3D vision emitter since my display is passive. I have the depth set in the nvidia control panel but it doesn't seem to change anything when playing movies, only games. What software do you use for movie playback and what settings do you have? Thanks,


----------



## NSX1992

Last night I went to see Jurasic World in 3D at my local Muvico theater. I was shocked at the $19.75 price for the ticket. I said I was a senior, no discount. The dinosaurs were impressive, good 3D, story not so good. On the positive side previews in 3D for Everest, The Walk(tightrope between twin towers) and Ant-Man shows 3D is far from dead.


----------



## aaronwt

NSX1992 said:


> Last night I went to see Jurasic World in 3D at my local Muvico theater. I was shocked at the $19.75 price for the ticket. I said I was a senior, no discount. The dinosaurs were impressive, good 3D, story not so good. On the positive side previews in 3D for Everest, The Walk(tightrope between twin towers) and Ant-Man shows 3D is far from dead.


At the AMC theaters around here, there is a Senior discount, but it is only $1. While a child discount is only $2.70.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> At the AMC theaters around here, there is a Senior discount, but it is only $1. While a child discount is only $2.70.


In our local multiplex (Regal), it's $16.25, with a $3 discount for kids and seniors. Woo freaking hoo.


----------



## domz777

evertec said:


> Like I said, I don't have a 3D vision emitter since my display is passive. I have the depth set in the nvidia control panel but it doesn't seem to change anything when playing movies, only games. What software do you use for movie playback and what settings do you have? Thanks,



The player I use is the nvidia 3d video player. It is just a wrapperized version of Stereoscopic Player, which is just a pretty generic version 3d player. From what I understand of the nvidia system, if your not using the emitter, than you must be using the 3dtv play software, right? Getting it to sync up properly w/ the nvidia driver's parallax settings can be a little tricky. 

Let'smove this to pm's as we don't want to derail this thread. I sent you a PM. Just make a few more posts in some other threads so you can respond.


----------



## domz777

cakefoo said:


> That should fully fund RealD's dig for a further 3 years.


Well, uh, ...where's the theater?
===========

You just can't beat the classics LOL


----------



## johnny905

film113 said:


> Probably the latter, as reports from some who've seen it indicate that the 3D adds virtually nothing to the movie.


I watched the Inside Out trailer on 3DGO the other day. The 3D looked decent. Didn't blow me away, but it also didn't look any worse than your typical CGI 3D. The story looks interesting.


----------



## Teremei

icelt said:


> Indeed the plot IS a joke (intentionally, the director and presumably producers are regularly making fun of the plot IN the movie).
> 
> The rest of the film was an abject JOY! Just a complete thrill ride from beginning to end, massive dino scenes and chaos all over the place, and the 3D did a fantastic job of being present but not overwhelming. So much so that my GF, who regularly pans Avatar as being "too much 3D", thoroughly enjoyed herself watching JW.
> 
> Maybe seeing it on an IMAX screen makes all the difference, regardless if anyone has a chance to see it on IMAX definitely go out of your way to do so. Most fun I've had at a theater in awhile and that includes Fury Road. To be fair I didn't see FR on IMAX though.


I've been going back reading some pages. I know this is not your opinion. But there is never EVER, Too much 3D. More films need to be at the level of depth differential as Avatar. Which is why I'm excited there is a new wave of 50's 3D movies coming to blu ray. Those movies in the 50s, Avatar, and VERY few other new hollywood releases, actually do 3D right. The way it was meant to be. In your face! I'm in a 12' room with a 70" TV. I want a movie like Avatar that makes me feel like the movie reaches 10 feet into the background and 5 feet into my room. With pop out effect that reach close to my face. THAT is what 3D should be. If every movie actually looked like Avatar, we'd have a wave of successful 3D movies because the majority of viewers would be so impressed, they would want to see more.


----------



## NorthSky

In true reality it is not 3D that is dead but 2D. ...2D is dead flat in the year 2015.

When you have experienced 3D, after a while it gets real boring to watch in 2D. 

It's the same with a good wine, a good woman, a gorgeous environment with big trees, eagles, whales, mountains, rivers, the ocean. ...That's 3D.
Go back to a cheap tasty wine, to a woman who yells @ you and who don't cook, and to a trailer campsite, and it's boring 2D. 

Go sailing on the ocean with style and class...that's 3D.
Go driving in New York city on a Friday night...that's 2D. 

Go see 'Jurassic World' and 'Mad Max: Fury Road' in 3D. ...Not in boring/dead 2D.


----------



## Jeremy W

NorthSky said:


> In true reality it is not 3D that is dead but 2D. ...2D is dead flat in the year 2015.
> 
> When you have experienced 3D, after a while it gets real boring to watch in 2D.


You know what doesn't get boring? Not having to put on 3D glasses to watch something.

3DTV is dead. 3D cinema probably has a few more years left in it, though.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy W said:


> You know what doesn't get boring? Not having to put on 3D glasses to watch something.
> 
> 3DTV is dead. 3D cinema probably has a few more years left in it, though.


What's the percentage of movie watchers who wear prescription glasses? 
...Of people wearing sunglasses @ the beach. boating on the ocean or outside in the city on a bright sunny day? ...Driving around the countryside on Harleys, sports cars, convertibles in beautiful summer sunny days?


----------



## adrummingdude

NorthSky said:


> What's the percentage of movie watchers who wear prescription glasses?




A lot higher than the percentage of 3D TV owners who use it for anything else than showing off to buddies.


----------



## Jeremy W

NorthSky said:


> What's the percentage of movie watchers who wear prescription glasses?


Don't know, but it's completely irrelevant. Besides, my prescription glasses are more comfortable than any pair of 3D glasses, active or passive, I've ever worn.


----------



## NorthSky

Jeremy W said:


> Don't know, but it's completely irrelevant. Besides, my prescription glasses are more comfortable than any pair of 3D glasses, active or passive, I've ever worn.


Ah, the theory of relativity.


----------



## Teremei

Jeremy W said:


> You know what doesn't get boring? Not having to put on 3D glasses to watch something.
> 
> 3DTV is dead. 3D cinema probably has a few more years left in it, though.


Really? Because Sony, LG, Samsung, and Panasonic all have 3D models in 2015.

And here's a list of 3D movies coming to home theater this year.
Jurassic World
Mad Max
San Andreas
The Mask
GoG
Ant Man
Avengers Age of Ultron

And there are likely more not even announced yet. 3D has never been more alive.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> In true reality it is not 3D that is dead but 2D. ...2D is dead flat in the year 2015.
> 
> When you have experienced 3D, after a while it gets real boring to watch in 2D.
> 
> It's the same with a good wine, a good woman, a gorgeous environment with big trees, eagles, whales, mountains, rivers, the ocean. ...That's 3D.
> Go back to a cheap tasty wine, to a woman who yells @ you and who don't cook, and to a trailer campsite, and it's boring 2D.
> 
> Go sailing on the ocean with style and class...that's 3D.
> Go driving in New York city on a Friday night...that's 2D.
> 
> Go see 'Jurassic World' and 'Mad Max: Fury Road' in 3D. ...Not in boring/dead 2D.


Since Gravity, I've seen ~150 movies, none of them in 3D. Lack of compelling artistic use of 3D, and lack of emotionally-engaging movies getting 3D versions. 95% of action movies are riding the Avengers/Transformers/X-Men formula. Yawn. But if a movie has good story, script, acting, music, cinematography, etc, I'm in. If it also has well-done 3D, that's a bonus. But I'm past the 3D-for-the-sake-of-3D phase. I'm a fan of movies as a whole.


----------



## aaronwt

Teremei said:


> Really? Because Sony, LG, Samsung, and Panasonic all have 3D models in 2015.
> 
> And here's a list of 3D movies coming to home theater this year.
> Jurassic World
> Mad Max
> San Andreas
> The Mask
> GoG
> Ant Man
> Avengers Age of Ultron
> 
> And there are likely more not even announced yet. 3D has never been more alive.


??? There are fewer 3D theatrical titles coming out this year than last. And last year had fewer 3D titles than the year before. So I would say yes, 3D has been more alive.


----------



## william06

Your right there seems to be less cheap poorly done bad movies that use 3d as a gimmick. The releases that have been released this year except for a few have been bigger better studio productions that have improved conversions, or filmed in 3d by directors that know how to use it. I agree it's not for everyone but nice to have if you choose. M


----------



## film113

Teremei said:


> Really? Because Sony, LG, Samsung, and Panasonic all have 3D models in 2015.
> 
> And here's a list of 3D movies coming to home theater this year.
> Jurassic World
> Mad Max
> San Andreas
> The Mask
> GoG
> Ant Man
> Avengers Age of Ultron
> 
> And there are likely more not even announced yet. 3D has never been more alive.


There are more than that: The Martian, The Walk (both filmed in 3D), The Good Dinosaur, Everest, Minions, Goosebumps, Point Break, Star Wars, and others that I can't recall. The fact that we aren't getting bad conversions like "The Last Airbender" isn't a negative thing.


----------



## Teremei

film113 said:


> There are more than that: The Martian, The Walk (both filmed in 3D), The Good Dinosaur, Everest, Minions, Goosebumps, Point Break, Star Wars, and others that I can't recall. The fact that we aren't getting bad conversions like "The Last Airbender" isn't a negative thing.


I was just trying to think of movies that would make it to 3D BD by the end of the year. Since the poster said 3D at home is dead. It's not. Disney abandons 3D but then a new contender enters the fold. With much superior 3D releases. And he/she's right. There are generally a bit less 3D releases. But those are bad movies with barely ok 3D. That's a good thing not a bad thing.


----------



## film113

Teremei said:


> I was just trying to think of movies that would make it to 3D BD by the end of the year. Since the poster said 3D at home is dead. It's not. Disney abandons 3D but then a new contender enters the fold. With much superior 3D releases. And he/she's right. There are generally a bit less 3D releases. But those are bad movies with barely ok 3D. That's a good thing not a bad thing.


The big surprise...3D RARITIES hit #67 on the Amazon BD best-seller chart. As good as the disc is, they only expected it to sell much more modestly and no one (especially the team that worked on it) really thought it would be on the best-seller list. And, while it's not GoTG sales, given the subject matter and an assumedly limited appeal, the better-than-expected sales were a pleasant surprise. (And fully deserved, if you've seen the disc...best 3D release of the year.)


----------



## Teremei

film113 said:


> The big surprise...3D RARITIES hit #67 on the Amazon BD best-seller chart. As good as the disc is, they only expected it to sell much more modestly and no one (especially the team that worked on it) really thought it would be on the best-seller list. And, while it's not GoTG sales, given the subject matter and an assumedly limited appeal, the better-than-expected sales were a pleasant surprise. (And fully deserved, if you've seen the disc...best 3D release of the year.)


Nice I knew it hit 87 but 67 is really nice to hear. I see new reviews every day. And I will review it once mine comes in. Given the reviews, the apparent success of the release. I think we can look forward to more releases from the studio. (and yes I know the mask and GoG are coming, both of which I will be buying). I think because the 3D is so amazing in that release that people are very impressed so the word is spreading.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> Since Gravity, I've seen ~150 movies, none of them in 3D. Lack of compelling artistic use of 3D, and lack of emotionally-engaging movies getting 3D versions. 95% of action movies are riding the Avengers/Transformers/X-Men formula. Yawn. But if a movie has good story, script, acting, music, cinematography, etc, I'm in. If it also has well-done 3D, that's a bonus. But I'm past the 3D-for-the-sake-of-3D phase. I'm a fan of movies as a whole.


Then you don't keep track with the best 3D representations out there. ...Since 'Gravity'; ...'Frozen', 'Big Hero 6', 'Maleficent', ...and many more. 

I admit; Disney is making it hard for us North Americans...it's a strategy...to find out @ which extremes we are going to get our best 3D Blu-ray movies. 

* Google all the 3D Blu-rays (movies, animations, music concerts, documentaries) that have been released since 'Gravity' in 3D; and if you cannot find a single one among them to your overall taste it's because one you didn't look hard enough and two you didn't have the chance to view some of them. 

It is very easy to criticize without knowing all the 3D angles. :smile: ...True 3D videophiles know some of those angles, and go one further, always ahead of the horde.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> Then you don't keep track with the best 3D representations out there. ...Since 'Gravity'; ...'Frozen', 'Big Hero 6', 'Maleficent', ...and many more.
> 
> * Google all the 3D Blu-rays (movies, music concerts, documentaries) that have been released since 'Gravity' in 3D; and if you cannot find a single one among them to your overall taste it's because one you didn't look hard enough and two you didn't have the chance to view some of them.
> 
> It is very easy to criticize without knowing all the 3D angles. :smile: ...True 3D videophiles know some of those angles, and go one further, always ahead of the horde.


I'm fully aware of every 3D release people are praising. Action movies with lots of explosions, car chases, superheroes, monsters, robots, magic spells, exosuits, etc. Many people find those elements exciting, but I rarely do.

Here are some of the recent movies I've enjoyed because of the dramatic fusion of story, dialog, acting, cinematography, direction, music, etc.

A Girl Walks Home at Night
Mr Turner
Inherent Vice
Ida
Whiplash
Frank
John Wick
Under the Skin
Calvary
Blue Ruin
Only Lovers Left Alive
Locke
Birdman
Gone Girl
Nightcrawler
Foxcatcher
'71
Interstellar

For what it's worth, the only 3D movie I'm interested in is Pan, because it looks like the offspring of Hugo and Life of Pi, 2 of my favorite 3D movies.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> Here are some of the recent movies I've enjoyed because of the dramatic fusion of *story, dialog, acting, cinematography, direction, music,* etc.
> 
> * A Girl Walks Home at Night
> Mr Turner
> Inherent Vice
> * Ida
> Whiplash
> * Frank
> John Wick
> Under the Skin
> Calvary
> * Blue Ruin
> Only Lovers Left Alive
> Locke
> Birdman
> Gone Girl
> Nightcrawler
> Foxcatcher
> * '71
> Interstellar
> 
> For what it's worth, the only 3D movie I'm interested in is *Pan*, because it looks like the offspring of *Hugo* and *Life of Pi*, 2 of my favorite 3D movies.


* I haven't seen them yet.
- It's good; we have some different set of evaluations for certain films. 
- I also like them both, in 3D.

And *'Pan'* in 3D is new to me, but now I am going to check it out.

______


----------



## TonyDP

I find it amusing that a thread about the _imminent_ death of 3D has been going on for over a year and a half and has made it to 51 pages and counting.


----------



## film113

cakefoo said:


> I'm fully aware of every 3D release people are praising. Action movies with lots of explosions, car chases, superheroes, monsters, robots, magic spells, exosuits, etc. Many people find those elements exciting, but I rarely do.
> 
> Here are some of the recent movies I've enjoyed because of the dramatic fusion of story, dialog, acting, cinematography, direction, music, etc.
> 
> A Girl Walks Home at Night
> Mr Turner
> Inherent Vice
> Ida
> Whiplash
> Frank
> John Wick
> Under the Skin
> Calvary
> Blue Ruin
> Only Lovers Left Alive
> Locke
> Birdman
> Gone Girl
> Nightcrawler
> Foxcatcher
> '71
> Interstellar
> 
> For what it's worth, the only 3D movie I'm interested in is Pan, because it looks like the offspring of Hugo and Life of Pi, 2 of my favorite 3D movies.


Except for 2 or 3 that I have yet to see, those are all excellent films (particularly Calvary). But that doesn't mean I can't also see the virtues of a MAD MAX: FURY ROAD in 3D. I agree that the film should come first...just wish more directors like Scorcese and Lee knew how to use the format when the project calls for it. Lets see how Scott's THE MARTIAN turn out.


----------



## R Harkness

NorthSky said:


> In true reality it is not 3D that is dead but 2D. ...2D is dead flat in the year 2015.
> 
> When you have experienced 3D, after a while it gets real boring to watch in 2D.


3D looks very good on my projection system, and I have quite a lot of 3D movies.

But it sure hasn't made 2D boring for me. 2D still feels the most easy and natural to watch, not to mention being richer looking without the glasses. I've maximized the dimensionality of my 2D image by essentially creating a "black box" environment around it, so the image can take on a window-like depth. So that may have something to do with it.


----------



## EVERRET

*3D*

I would watch more 2D movies but i have to take a few aspirin to see them because i always get headaches watching them if they are more than 60 mins long. . So i usually just wait and watch them at home in 3D to avoid the headaches.

I never even went to the movies at all before Avatar came out, it's nice checking out the older 2D movies i missed..... now in 3D.

I was never a fan of movies , but 3D has changed the the way i watch movies and play Video Games, now i am much more of a fan. I watched Interstellar and Maze Runner in 3D this month , that is 2 movies that i would have never watched at all 2D.


----------



## NorthSky

EVERRET said:


> I would watch more 2D movies but i have to take a few aspirin to see them because i always get headaches watching them if they are more than 60 mins long. . So i usually just wait and watch them at home in 3D to avoid the headaches.
> 
> I never even went to the movies at all before Avatar came out, now it's nice checking out the old 2D movies i missed in 3D.
> 
> I was never a fan of movies , but 3D has changed the the way i watch movies and play Video Games, now i am much more of a fan. I watched Interstellar and Maze Runner in 3D this month , that is 2 movies that i would have never watched at all 2D.


Hmmm...this is quite unusual. 

What day of the month is it this year.


----------



## CARTmen

EVERRET said:


> I would watch more 2D movies but i have to take a few aspirin to see them because i always get headaches watching them if they are more than 60 mins long. . So i usually just wait and watch them at home in 3D to avoid the headaches.
> 
> I never even went to the movies at all before Avatar came out, now it's nice checking out the old 2D movies i missed in 3D.
> 
> I was never a fan of movies , but 3D has changed the the way i watch movies and play Video Games, now i am much more of a fan. I watched Interstellar and Maze Runner in 3D this month , that is 2 movies that i would have never watched at all 2D.


Wasn't Interstellar and Maze Runner released only in 2D?


----------



## film113

CARTmen said:


> Wasn't Interstellar and Maze Runner released only in 2D?


Well, although the movie is in 2D, there is a short film by the director in 3D that is included on the MAZE RUNNER disc. But it's more likely that he uses the 2D>3D conversion feature.


----------



## EVERRET

film113 said:


> Well, although the movie is in 2D, there is a short film by the director in 3D that is included on the MAZE RUNNER disc. But it's more likely that he uses the 2D>3D conversion feature.


Ya , I have a couple of Video processors that convert 2D-3D nicely, and also my TV converter does fine on some of the Video games .


----------



## NorthSky

R Harkness said:


> 3D looks very good on my projection system, and I have quite a lot of 3D movies.
> 
> But it sure hasn't made 2D boring for me. 2D still feels the most easy and natural to watch, not to mention being richer looking without the glasses. I've maximized the dimensionality of my 2D image by essentially creating a "black box" environment around it, so the image can take on a window-like depth. So that may have something to do with it.


I admit; I overemphasized the boredom of 2D viewing. ...To make my point @ the beauty of 3D. 

Some 3D Blu-ray titles are just gorgeous, others not so much.
Some 2D Blu-ray titles are excellent, others look no better than DVDs. 

I watched way more 2D Blu-ray titles than 3D ones. ...It goes random, by periods.

* You have a great room setup.  ...The one for movies watching, and the one for music listening.


----------



## NorthSky

film113 said:


> Well, although the movie is in 2D, *there is a short film by the director in 3D that is included on the MAZE RUNNER disc*. But it's more likely that he uses the 2D>3D conversion feature.


*'Ruin'* is in 3D?


----------



## film113

NorthSky said:


> *'Ruin'* is in 3D?


Yes it is. You can select either 2D or 3D.


----------



## EVERRET

NorthSky said:


> *'Ruin'* is in 3D?


Ruin is a 7 minute 3D/2D animated short film in the extras...... it is "similar" to watching a short movie made for a top notch video game like uncharted.


----------



## tgm1024

I get confused about this every time. Are the Pixar shorts always available in 3D or not?


----------



## NorthSky

film113 said:


> Yes it is. You can select either 2D or 3D.


Yes indeed it is; I just watched it last night, that was cool. ...Nice bonus, I did not know*...just not enough time to watch the special features on Blu with so many films and not enough time. 

* And no mention either from the Blu's back cover, only 'Ruin' short film. 

More special features like that in 3D would also help promoting this superior viewing experience.


----------



## NorthSky

tgm1024 said:


> I get confused about this every time. Are the Pixar shorts always available in 3D or not?


That's a good question. ...So many movies so little time. 

* 3D people are better lovers.


----------



## The Banshee




----------



## tgm1024

Call 911. I think someone just had a stroke or something.


----------



## johnny905

3D Far From Dead! Great article... 
*3D Roars Back Thanks to Summer Hits ‘Jurassic World,’ ‘Mad Max,’ ‘San Andreas’*

http://www.thewrap.com/3d-roars-back-thanks-to-summer-hits-jurassic-world-mad-max-san-andreas/


The special effects-laden “Jurassic World” and its fearsome monster dinos were a natural for giant screens, of course, and the film’s staying power was just as impressive. Its second week, the film generated 47 percent of its grosses in 3D.
http://www.thewrap.com/universals-j...-another-studio-could-still-steal-2015-crown/
“That showed that consumers were going out of their way to see it, or see it a second time, in 3D,” Eric Wold, an analyst for B. Riley & Co., told TheWrap. “And that underscores a resurgence in underlying consumer demand for the format that we haven’t seen since ‘Gravity’ and ‘Life of Pi’ back in 2013.”


----------



## cakefoo

Opening weekend 3D marketshares

2015
Avengers: Age of Ultron: 45%
Jurassic World: 48%
Mad Max - 45%
San Andreas - 44%

2014
Guardians of the Galaxy: 45%
Captain America: 40%
The Hobbit: 45%

2013
Iron Man 3: 45%
Gravity: 80%

2012
Avengers - 52%
The Hobbit - 49%

2011
Pirates of the Caribbean - 46%
Thor - 60%
Harry Potter - 43%
Transformers - 60%

2010
Avatar - 71%


----------



## Teremei

So what I gather from that is. If Directors make actual damn good 3D movies the 3D version will do extremely well. The 2 movies that stand out happen to be 2 movies with extremely well done 3D. Gee how bout that.


----------



## tgm1024

Teremei said:


> So what I gather from that is. If Directors make actual damn good 3D movies the 3D version will do extremely well. The 2 movies that stand out happen to be 2 movies with extremely well done 3D. Gee how bout that.


The one that truly stands out is still Avatar. Remember, when Avatar came out, no one had taken 3D as a serious movie experience before....no one expected it to really be done so well. So for Avatar to reach 70something percent is really quite something.


----------



## william06

I am a big fan of 3d. Went to see the terminator reboot yesterday. Really was not too bad I have seen much worse. But this was one of those times I resented paying the premium for iMax 3d. Obviously a pale overblownup conversion with sound so loud it was totally distorted. This is to me a reason for the negatives about the 3d experience. This was on the same iMax scree I saw Jurassic world on. And felt this is what 3d is all about. But I am a strong supporter of 3d and purchase most 3d blue ray releases to watch on my small 65"ZT. I find s lot of them improved from the teeatrical presentation.


----------



## aaronwt

william06 said:


> I am a big fan of 3d. Went to see the terminator reboot yesterday. Really was not too bad I have seen much worse. But this was one of those times I resented paying the premium for iMax 3d. Obviously a pale overblownup conversion with sound so loud it was totally distorted. This is to me a reason for the negatives about the 3d experience. This was on the same iMax scree I saw Jurassic world on. And felt this is what 3d is all about. But I am a strong supporter of 3d and purchase most 3d blue ray releases to watch on my small 65"ZT. I find s lot of them improved from the teeatrical presentation.


So it as actually worse than Jurassic World on 3D? Because even though I liked JW, I didn't think 3D added much to the IMAX 3D shwoing I saw. I was planning on seeing Terminator 5 in IMAX 3D sometime this weekend.


----------



## william06

I thought JW was awesome in 3d iMax . So goes to show you eh. I liked terminator genesis but I thought the iMac looked like a reg presentation blown up and dulled and the 3D appeared fairly flat this was the same auditorium I saw JW just my 2c. The critics hated the new terminator


----------



## MrEmoto

william06 said:


> I thought JW was awesome in 3d iMax . So goes to show you eh. I liked terminator genesis but I thought the iMac looked like a reg presentation blown up and dulled and the 3D appeared fairly flat this was the same auditorium I saw JW just my 2c. The critics hated the new terminator


I wonder how much of this variation is due to operator skill or error? I know nothing about how these films are currently projected, but the old projectors took a bit of effort to do a good job.


----------



## Rudy1

*"3D Isn't As Dead As You Thought It Was"*

http://hometheaterreview.com/3d-isnt-as-dead-as-you-thought-it-was/


----------



## tgm1024

Rudy1 said:


> *"3D Isn't As Dead As You Thought It Was"*
> 
> http://hometheaterreview.com/3d-isnt-as-dead-as-you-thought-it-was/


Should be "3D isn't as dead as _*the idiots jumping on the 3D-is-dead bandwagon *_thought it was."


----------



## PrimeTime

Considering the dominance of comic-book spectaculars, and the substantial ROI for the 3-D versions, it is quite clear that 3-D will be around as long as the video-game-as-movie releases are with us. 

Which is, most likely, indefinitely. OK by me.


----------



## marcuslaw

News today that "Jurassic World 2" will be released in theaters on June 22, 2018 and in 3-D.


----------



## NickTheGreat

More dinosaurs!!!


----------



## golfster

Rudy1 said:


> *"3D Isn't As Dead As You Thought It Was"*
> 
> http://hometheaterreview.com/3d-isnt-as-dead-as-you-thought-it-was/


I read the article. There is a big difference in home 3D and theater 3D. Since the TV manufacturers and not pushing it, it will probably die for home use. If they perfect a glasses free system, that will likely change. Sitting in a theater for a couple hours with glasses is one thing but spending every evening at home wearing them is beyond what I am willing to do. Vizio and Sharp would not have dropped 3D from their new TVs if they thought that it was the future. 

In its current incarnation, 3D will likely not survive for home use but the immersive experience in a theater will live on.


----------



## marcuslaw

golfster said:


> I read the article. There is a big difference in home 3D and theater 3D. Since the TV manufacturers and not pushing it, it will probably die for home use. If they perfect a glasses free system, that will likely change. Sitting in a theater for a couple hours with glasses is one thing but spending every evening at home wearing them is beyond what I am willing to do. Vizio and Sharp would not have dropped 3D from their new TVs if they thought that it was the future.
> 
> In its current incarnation, 3D will likely not survive for home use but the immersive experience in a theater will live on.


Perhaps I am an exception to the average HT hobbyist and moviegoer, but with the possible exception of a true IMAX 3-D theater, I far prefer 3-D in my home than _anywhere else_. My Panny active shutter glasses are light weight and fit right over my prescription lenses and a 30 minute charge the night before offers more than enough (30 hours) viewing time. I never see ghosting, cross talk or other video noise that can plague 3-D. I only hear gasps and see jaws hanging around me. I watch as many as two 3-D videos a week. I've got a fantastic TV, a comfy couch and the kitchen and bathroom are a short distance in either direction. 3-D might die for some of you, but it will survive well into the future for me mostly because I was committed to getting the best 3-D experience at home that I can. Not to say it was the case for you, but for me, the extra dimension certainly was not an after thought. I salute Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung for continuing to offer 3-D in their televisions.


----------



## william06

marcuslaw said:


> Perhaps I am an exception to the average HT hobbyist and moviegoer, but with the possible exception of a true IMAX 3-D theater, I far prefer 3-D in my home than _anywhere else_. My Panny active shutter glasses are light weight and fit right over my prescription lenses and a 30 minute charge the night before offers more than enough (30 hours) viewing time. I never see ghosting, cross talk or other video noise that can plague 3-D. I only hear gasps and see jaws hanging around me. I watch as many as two 3-D videos a week. I've got a fantastic TV, a comfy couch and the kitchen and bathroom are a short distance in either direction. 3-D might die for some of you, but it will survive well into the future for me mostly because I was committed to getting the best 3-D experience at home that I can. Not to say it was the case for you, but for me, the extra dimension certainly was not an after thought. I salute Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung for continuing to offer 3-D in their televisions.


Big +1


----------



## golfster

I am not debating if 3D is enjoyable-it certainly can be. My most enjoyable 3D experience was the Terminator 3D attraction at Universal theme park. You felt like you could reach out and touch objects, when things exploded you got hit with blasts of hot air or droplets of water that felt like shrapnel-smoke engulfed you. Perhaps the next best thing will be 3D TVs that blasts air, throws water at you and fills the room with vapor. 

I have been an early adopter on many things like a Sound 8mm movie camera just before video recording became affordable and buying a 2 head VCR early on that would be equivalent to thousands of dollars in today's dollars. After these and other impulsive decisions, I have learned to wait for a little while until technology sorts out and standards get established,


----------



## Teremei

golfster said:


> I am not debating if 3D is enjoyable-it certainly can be. My most enjoyable 3D experience was the Terminator 3D attraction at Universal theme park. You felt like you could reach out and touch objects, when things exploded you got hit with blasts of hot air or droplets of water that felt like shrapnel-smoke engulfed you. Perhaps the next best thing will be 3D TVs that blasts air, throws water at you and fills the room with vapor.
> 
> I have been an early adopter on many things like a Sound 8mm movie camera just before video recording became affordable and buying a 2 head VCR early on that would be equivalent to thousands of dollars in today's dollars. After these and other impulsive decisions, I have learned to wait for a little while until technology sorts out and standards get established,


You're talking about spending an extra $300 on a TV for it's 3D capabilities. 3D is not dying in home theater which is the argument you were making. Just because 2 companies abandon it for the time being doesn't mean it's dead or dying. 3D is and always will be niche. Even when it boomed in the 50s, there were like what, 60 3D movies? We've already had well more than that released for home video in the last several years. And TV makers are still making 3D TVs, and studios are still releasing 3D blu rays. Where is the evidence home 3D is doomed?


----------



## marcuslaw

golfster said:


> I am not debating if 3D is enjoyable-it certainly can be. My most enjoyable 3D experience was the Terminator 3D attraction at Universal theme park. You felt like you could reach out and touch objects, when things exploded you got hit with blasts of hot air or droplets of water that felt like shrapnel-smoke engulfed you. Perhaps the next best thing will be 3D TVs that blasts air, throws water at you and fills the room with vapor.


It seems like you fall into the "at-home-3D-experience-isn't-enough" camp and that's fine. I don't want to put you on the spot, but I've found that many in that camp either don't actually own a 3-D capable TV (or a good performing one) and a 3-D capable BD player and 3-D glasses or they have only viewed one or two poor to moderate 3-D Blu-rays and gave up all together. An inconvenient truth is that equipment can greatly effect your in-home experience. So if that describes you, don't give up. Upgrade and add something special to your stay-at-home movie nights. Now, if you have good equipment and have sampled a fair amount of software but still felt underwhelmed, then perhaps you've set your expectations too high. 3-D isn't all about pop out gimmickry. It's about layering and perspective. I suggest you check out or buy a book entitled Exploring 3D by Adrian Pennington and Carolyn Giardina that you can pick up used in paperback on amazon for as low as $14. In all likelihood, you'll have a new appreciation for 3-D once you're done reading it. 



> I have been an early adopter on many things like a Sound 8mm movie camera just before video recording became affordable and buying a 2 head VCR early on that would be equivalent to thousands of dollars in today's dollars. After these and other impulsive decisions, I have learned to wait for a little while until technology sorts out and standards get established,


I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but the 3-D format is firmly established and we now know it isn't going to change with the forthcoming Ultra HD spec. Sony, Panasonic and Samsung still make TV's and BD players that support 3-D and with the Full HD 3D Initiative, many active shutter 3-D glasses are cross-compatible between manufacturers (I use Panny's TY-ER3D4MU when watching 3-D on a Sony 940C).


----------



## golfster

marcuslaw said:


> It seems like you fall into the "at-home-3D-experience-isn't-enough" camp and that's fine. I don't want to put you on the spot, but I've found that many in that camp either don't actually own a 3-D capable TV (or a good performing one) and a 3-D capable BD player and 3-D glasses or they have only viewed one or two poor to moderate 3-D Blu-rays and gave up all together.


That is very close to the truth. I do not own a 3D TV and have not been overly impressed with what I have seen. At this time, there is not enough content for me to justify the purchase. When the standards are firmly set and content increases, I will be on board.


----------



## marcuslaw

golfster said:


> At this time, there is not enough content for me to justify the purchase. When the standards are firmly set and content increases, I will be on board.


There are hundreds of Blu-ray 3-D titles (I own over 200) and even more internationally if you get a region free player. In addition, 3DGO! is a widely available app for smart TV's and while I have little need for and haven't yet used it, there does seem to be a variety of 3-D material to stream. Like I said before, the Blu-ray 3-D standard has been finalized. There will not be any UHD 4k Blu-ray titles. HD movies look terrific on most 4K TVs I've seen (including my own). There really is no need to wait it out.


----------



## tgm1024

golfster said:


> At this time, there is not enough content for me to justify the purchase. When the standards are firmly set and content increases, I will be on board.


This ^^^^ makes no sense to me. 1. What standards aren't set? 4K? and 2. You don't pass on a 3D TV because of the movies that aren't in 3D. You _go_ with a 3D TV because of the movies that are.


----------



## mo949

I think its just a basic misunderstanding/misconception that 3D is supposed to take over all of video, as color did to black and white movies. From that perspective a couple hundred titles seems small. What should be realized is that its niche and a filming technique with additional value and fun to be had, like IMAX. And like IMAX, they will continue to release a stream of these for the people that enjoy them.


----------



## golfster

tgm1024 said:


> You don't pass on a 3D TV because of the movies that aren't in 3D. You _go_ with a 3D TV because of the movies that are.


No disrespect towards anyone who owns and loves 3D TV, but content is still severely lacking. I do not play games on my TV and although I have dozens of DVDs, I more recently rent movies or stream them rather than buy them. I use Redbox but do not believe they rent any 3D titles. I have DishNetwork but they offer no 3D content. I have NetFlix and Amazon Prime and the sames goes for them. YouTube may have some home movies in 3D but they have little of interest to me. Until there is a monthly fee streaming service rather then pay per view I am not interested enough to take the leap.

Now, if I were to build a home theater dedicated almost entirely to movies, I would make sure it was 3D compatible if for nothing else, that WOW factor you can get from some movies. Sadly, for every movie like Avatar, there are a dozen Jaws 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

golfster said:


> At this time, there is not enough content for me to justify the purchase.


You are right ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blu-ray_3D_releases

- Mad Max: Fury Road
- Fast and Furious 7 --> That one ain't in 3D...it should have been though.
- Jurassic World
- Avengers: Age of Ultron
- Avatar 2, 3, 4

3D is not worth it for most people...look @ Disney...they don't make money with it in this country. 

Me, I like 3D...but that's me.  

* Is 3D dead? Look @ them few titles (5) that I just mentioned...does it look dead to us? ...Not to me, no it doesn't Mr. golfer. 
Sure, only 600+ Blu-ray titles in 3D is not like 6,000 but it's still worth almost two years non-stop watching one 3D Blu-ray flick every single day. 
And in two years from now that list won't diminish, and some of them 3D BR titles already released and viewed during that period will be cool to revisit with new acquaintances, family members, cousins, ants, uncles, co-workers, new girlfriends, wives, pets, ...


----------



## film113

golfster said:


> No disrespect towards anyone who owns and loves 3D TV, but content is still severely lacking. I do not play games on my TV and although I have dozens of DVDs, I more recently rent movies or stream them rather than buy them. I use Redbox but do not believe they rent any 3D titles. I have DishNetwork but they offer no 3D content. I have NetFlix and Amazon Prime and the sames goes for them. YouTube may have some home movies in 3D but they have little of interest to me. Until there is a monthly fee streaming service rather then pay per view I am not interested enough to take the leap.
> 
> Now, if I were to build a home theater dedicated almost entirely to movies, I would make sure it was 3D comparable if for nothing else, that WOW factor you can get from some movies. Sadly, for every movie like Avatar, there are a dozen Jaws 3D.


Uh...Netflix does have a some 3D titles for rent and streaming. Amazon has some too but I've heard the quality is poor. Most Smart TVs and BD players have 3D apps with even more content. YouTube has plenty of 3D on their 3D Channel as well. HBO and STARZ both have 3D films OnDemand (altho if you opt for DISH, they won't offer it). And, as others have noted, literally HUNDREDS of BD 3D discs ranging from early classics from the dawn of the 20th Century to the 1960s to more recent blockbusters, animation, documentaries...and yes, you can rent them. I mean really, how much 3D do you want? If you don't like 3D, that's fine and your prerogative. But you can't say it's due to lack of content. If you want to talk about little to no content, you'll have to look to 4K UHD. And whenever any content for that starts dribbling in, expect to pay through the nose to get it.


----------



## NorthSky

To me it looks like the two posts above are true proof that 3D content is there...just have to go and get it. ...Because it won't come @ you just like that magically. 
And, AVS Forum has some 3D threads where some members make their own 3D documentaries, nature, outdoors, wildlife, underwater, ...and they're there to view for your own 3D pleasure, free and uncensored and no advertising...youtube 3D videos...very very cool...from some very talented folks with sophisticated 3D video gear/cameras. 
* Just go in the 3D section of the forums, and look @ 3D content on youtube.


----------



## marcuslaw

golfster said:


> No disrespect towards anyone who owns and loves 3D TV, but content is still severely lacking. I do not play games on my TV and although I have dozens of DVDs, I more recently rent movies or stream them rather than buy them. I use Redbox but do not believe they rent any 3D titles. I have DishNetwork but they offer no 3D content. I have NetFlix and Amazon Prime and the sames goes for them. YouTube may have some home movies in 3D but they have little of interest to me. Until there is a monthly fee streaming service rather then pay per view I am not interested enough to take the leap.
> 
> Now, if I were to build a home theater dedicated almost entirely to movies, I would make sure it was 3D compatible if for nothing else, that WOW factor you can get from some movies. Sadly, for every movie like Avatar, there are a dozen Jaws 3D.


I think what you're saying is that there are not enough sources for 3-D at home. Personally, I haven't yet explored 3-D content on YouTube because I already have a sizable BD library and, as it is, limited time to view them. Now as for the "content" of available BD 3-D, it's actually wide ranging. There is everything from Opera/Classical (Carmen, Aida, Berliner Philharmoniker to name a few), to documentaries (IMAX Hubble, Space Station, etc.), to Horror (Creature from Black Lagoon, Underworld, etc.) and many genres in between. Check out the List of Blu-ray 3D releases page on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that list is exhaustive, or whether all of the titles listed are still available, or whether it includes foreign releases, but it sure is long.


----------



## tgm1024

golfster said:


> No disrespect towards anyone who owns and loves 3D TV, but content is still severely lacking.


Compared to what? 2D? I find that a dubious comparison. It's not that the statement is false on its face: Not one 3D fan here would say "Every movie I ever wanted to be in 3D I've found to be in 3D". It's more that you're stating it as if it is making its own point, and I don't believe it is.

Keep in mind: Even if only 2 quality 3D movies were released for TV per year (It's much higher), that small selection would still warrant having a 3D TV. Despite Vizio's nonsense, 3D is no real premium over non-3D in manufacture. And having it is worth its weight in gold to me.

Besides, it's not as if the 3D technology in a TV inherently impedes its ability to display 2D.

I guess I don't understand the premise you're starting with, but you seemed convinced of it, so {shrug} YMMV I guess.


----------



## marcuslaw

tgm1024 said:


> Besides, it's not as if the 3D technology in a TV inherently impedes its ability to display 2D.


Not at all. Though I'm not an engineer, I can't imagine how additional video processing and an increased refresh rate (240hz to provide a 120hz 3-D quality image) could negatively effect a 3-D HDTV's 2D performance.


----------



## 2ndvizio

I tend to agree with golfster about the lack of content. I've been purchasing 3d blurays not because they are great movies but just because they are in 3D and there isn't much out there. And even then, I've recently been buying from amazon.co.uk since some aren't available here. 3D seems to be more a niche market. I've bought enough 3D content to keep me going for a while but the problem is I've been enjoying tv series more lately and there isn't any 3D there at all. So those 3D blurays sit on the shelf unwatched.


----------



## golfster

marcuslaw said:


> Not at all. Though I'm not an engineer, I can't imagine how additional video processing and an increased refresh rate (240hz to provide a 120hz 3-D quality image) could negatively effect a 3-D HDTV's 2D performance.


On the contrary, before the advent of 4k TVs, 3D TVs had some of the best 2D pictures you could buy, albeit at a stiff premium. If you look at say a 55" 1080p set now, you will see little to no premium for 3D and a much higher premium for 4k. This simply indicates that the manufacturers feel that the future, or at least the profits, are in 4k rather than 3D. If you are interested in a 1080 TV, by all means get a 3D set as it will be a great TV for 2D viewing. Do not buy it expecting that broadcast and streaming content will increase as the opposite has been occurring. As long as there is a market, there will be 3D BDs although many are converted from 2D rather than shot in 3D. I suppose you can always watch 2D content in the converted 3D mode but I have not been impressed with what I have seen.


----------



## cakefoo

Personally, I only have 2 3D movies on my watch list this year. I can't justify a 3DTV purchase.


----------



## NickTheGreat

cakefoo said:


> Personally, I only have 2 3D movies on my watch list this year. I can't justify a 3DTV purchase.


Using that logic, I wouldn't have a TV at all. Between the garbage on cableTV and the dog crap out of Hollywood these days . . . Paul Blart? Any Melissa McCarthy movie besides Bridesmaids? Kids killing each other for gov't food? Fast and Furious 14?


----------



## cakefoo

NickTheGreat said:


> Using that logic, I wouldn't have a TV at all. Between the garbage on cableTV and the dog crap out of Hollywood these days . . . Paul Blart? Any Melissa McCarthy movie besides Bridesmaids? Kids killing each other for gov't food? Fast and Furious 14?


what?


----------



## cakefoo

Literally no other 3D content interests me than two upcoming movies. If someone felt the same way regarding TV in general, I wouldn't fault them for not owning a set .


----------



## JMCurtis

I just recently updated a computer animated short I originally made back in 2002 to be now in HD and in 3D. The 3 minute short was originally in 480p. I'm looking into the possibility of putting it up on Youtube or some other venue. VUDU? I'm not wanting to make any money on it, but simply want it to be seen by a wider audience. The short's title is "The Mermaid"

I love 3D and have about 80 titles in my collection. I do think that somehow there needs to be a regular program on TV in 3D. Maybe once people were given that, it would bring more acceptance and notice. I know for awhile there were cable sports offerings which did not fare well, but no real effort has been made to offer 3D for the average person - kids perhaps. Just a thought.


----------



## NorthSky

JMCurtis said:


> *I just recently updated a computer animated short I originally made back in 2002 to be now in HD and in 3D. The 3 minute short was originally in 480p. I'm looking into the possibility of putting it up on Youtube or some other venue.* VUDU? I'm not wanting to make any money on it, but simply want it to be seen by a wider audience. The short's title is "The Mermaid"
> 
> I love 3D and have about 80 titles in my collection. I do think that somehow there needs to be a regular program on TV in 3D. Maybe once people were given that, it would bring more acceptance and notice. I know for awhile there were cable sports offerings which did not fare well, but no real effort has been made to offer 3D for the average person - kids perhaps. Just a thought.


After you get it on youtube post it in this thread: https://www.avsforum.com/POSTs


----------



## johnny905

film113 said:


> Uh...Netflix does have a some 3D titles for rent and streaming. Amazon has some too but I've heard the quality is poor. Most Smart TVs and BD players have 3D apps with even more content. YouTube has plenty of 3D on their 3D Channel as well. HBO and STARZ both have 3D films OnDemand (altho if you opt for DISH, they won't offer it). And, as others have noted, literally HUNDREDS of BD 3D discs ranging from early classics from the dawn of the 20th Century to the 1960s to more recent blockbusters, animation, documentaries...and yes, you can rent them. I mean really, how much 3D do you want? If you don't like 3D, that's fine and your prerogative. But you can't say it's due to lack of content. If you want to talk about little to no content, you'll have to look to 4K UHD. And whenever any content for that starts dribbling in, expect to pay through the nose to get it.


+1 

Absolutely. I have around 20-25 3D BDs (much less than many on this board) but I now use the 3DGO app on my LG TV for almost all of my 3D viewing. If 3DGO doesn't have the 3D film I'm looking for I'll still consider buying it, but they now have over 100 titles so that rarely happens.


----------



## cakefoo

film113 said:


> Uh...Netflix does have a some 3D titles for rent and streaming. Amazon has some too but I've heard the quality is poor. Most Smart TVs and BD players have 3D apps with even more content. YouTube has plenty of 3D on their 3D Channel as well. HBO and STARZ both have 3D films OnDemand (altho if you opt for DISH, they won't offer it). And, as others have noted, literally HUNDREDS of BD 3D discs ranging from early classics from the dawn of the 20th Century to the 1960s to more recent blockbusters, animation, documentaries...and yes, you can rent them. I mean really, how much 3D do you want? If you don't like 3D, that's fine and your prerogative. But you can't say it's due to lack of content. If you want to talk about little to no content, you'll have to look to 4K UHD. And whenever any content for that starts dribbling in, expect to pay through the nose to get it.


I like 3D but it doesn't make up for mediocre content anymore. I'll take a really freaking good 2D movie over it any day of the week.



NorthSky said:


> AVS Forum has some 3D threads where some members make their own 3D documentaries, nature, outdoors, wildlife, underwater, ...and they're there to view for your own 3D pleasure, free and uncensored and no advertising...youtube 3D videos...very very cool...from some very talented folks with sophisticated 3D video gear/cameras.
> * Just go in the 3D section of the forums, and look @ 3D content on youtube.


I give amateurs a B for effort, but see what I just said to film113. All I do with Youtube 3D is check for new 3D trailers every so often, but even then I'm usually left disappointed at the lack of recent releases.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> I like 3D but it doesn't make up for mediocre content anymore. I'll take a really freaking good 2D movie over it any day of the week.
> 
> __________
> 
> I give amateurs a B for effort, but see what I just said to film113 *^* . All I do with Youtube 3D is check for new 3D trailers every so often, but even then I'm usually left disappointed at the lack of recent releases.


♦ *Mad Max: Fury Road* ... September 1st (3 weeks) ... *3D* ... and Dolby Atmos. 

That's all you need to know.


----------



## marcuslaw

For those lacking content, there's a sale of select Fox 3-D titles on amazon (Blu-ray.com post about the sale).


----------



## NickTheGreat

cakefoo said:


> what?


90% of 2D movies are really crappy too


----------



## cakefoo

NickTheGreat said:


> 90% of 2D movies are really crappy too


I don't even think 90% of 3D movies are "really crappy." They're typically decent, considering studios curate their 3D release slate by selecting films with the most action, highest production values, and biggest attendance projections.

The thing is, I find that "decent" movies are typically subpar compared to the best 2D action, dramas, thrillers, etc that more deeply explore emotional and intellectual themes.

In addition to weeding out decent movies, I also weed out decent 3D. After that, I'm only interested in a couple 3D movies per year.


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> For those lacking content, there's a sale of select Fox 3-D titles on amazon (Blu-ray.com post about the sale).


When they are truly on sale they are all between $12.99 and $14.99 ... The ones @ $12.99 are @ the right price (not necessarily the good titles though) ... many others are more money now than what they used to be when they were truly on sale...just mentioning. 
And I wish that Disney had sales for their 3D Blu-rays @ amazon in the $10-15 range.

Five years from now we should see some 3D Blu-ray titles for less than $12.99 ...maybe...and I'm not talking about 'Pompeii' here. 

But I'm ready to bet that five years from now new DVD releases will still be $19.99 and $24.99 (like they are in my neck of the woods now). 
Since 1997 DVD is still strong and movie studios are still making money with them...it was a good financial/rewarding invention...and still...for many many years to come...not an opinion...a fact of life with the people living it. ...The masses always win...and the best they fade away into the horizon's sundown.


----------



## longhornsk57

I posted this in another part of the forum talking about 3D but this thread actually seems more apt:


I own an HD141X and I have it going on a 145" screen, specifically a screen I built using the FlexiWhite material from Carl's Place. I have a pretty good light controlled room, and usually watch movies after dark.

I've got some pretty good DLP Link glasses (8 pairs) and I just got the Optoma BC300 RF emitter and some glasses. I have a surround sound consisting of a mix between some good 5.1 speakers which I added a Klipche Sub12 that hides right by the couch.

The first time I put on a 3D movie, I was blown away by how awesome it looked. It was actually A Turtle's Tale, when they had it on Netflix 3D. My girlfriend and I liked seeing 3D movies at the theater, and to us this looked just as good. Now as you guys might know, that movie is like the top of the line as far as 3D. On 145" screen, you are reaching out to touch the turtles, and jumping back when things come at the screen.

Since then I have been buying every movie that is either shot in 3D, or known to have good post production 3D. I own about 35 3D bluray movies They can be found cheap used on ebay (discs always play fine) or in pawn shops, or Amazon deals or various other deals. Here are some of the movies I have (do not remember them all)

1 - Avatar

2 - Titanic (amazing depth and 3D)

3 - The Wizard of Oz (amazing reproduction)

4 - Oz the Great and Powerful (amazing 3D shot in 3D)

5 - Prometheus (amazing 3D shot in 3D)

6 - Gravity

7 - Guardian's of the Galaxy (very very good post production)

8 - The little mermaid / The Lion King / Beauty and the Beast - amazing post reproductions (those were for the girlfriend, don't much care for the actual movies)

9 - lots of cartoon movies such Rio / Cloudy with chance... / all 4 Shrek movies etc etc

10 - Life of Pi

11 - Dredd 3D (amazing 3D)

12 - Tron Legacy

and more that I am not remembering.


No real ghosting or crosstalk (which doesn't seem to exist on DLP 3D) or rainbows, I have EQ'd the hell out of the PJ to reduce the reds on the HD141X and it comes out amazing. The movies are NOT too dark at all, they are totally fine in a very dark room, and they really pop. There is lots of depth, lots of color and I really really love the 3D on all of these movies. It adds so much. I specifically avoid the crappy post produced ones. You feel like you are in the movie when you are sitting 20 feet away from a 145" screen. 

My friends love coming to my house for "movie night" and the 3D is an awesome addition. I wish more and more movies were available in 3D and I plan to continue to find every good 3D movie in bluray to watch and show others. So the naysayers who don't like it or don't see the appeal, we all have our opinions, but I am at the other end of that one. I don't think 3D is dying at all, but it is kind of a niche thing for home buyers.

But I see lots of these movies getting sold fast and I know that lots of people enjoy them, and most people I know spring for the 3D ticket for movies at the theater. I am excited for more and more 3D movies to own. So I am a consumer who buys and will continue to buy 3D titles, and although I am not "most people" I feel I am a representation of a market that will keep 3D alive. Antman, Inside Out, the Avatar movies, any new pixar movie and such, I don't see how 3D can even remotely be considered "about dead"


----------



## tomtastic

20 feet away? I sit 10.5 ft at that size screen. Fills my vision. Working on theater room in basement this year just finished painting and installing new screen. Using audio transparent screen, no speakers visible in front or sides. Sound appears to come from screen itself. Using BenQ W1070. All Klipsch speakers. Sounds much better than my previous screen which wasn't audio transparent, it blocked a lot of sound. Haven't bought movie tickets at all this year. Probably won't. I'd rather watch at home.

Still have to work on lighting and floor. Also some sound absorbing material, it's a little too bright right now.


----------



## johnny905

longhornsk57 said:


> I posted this in another part of the forum talking about 3D but this thread actually seems more apt:
> 
> 
> I own an HD141X and I have it going on a 145" screen, specifically a screen I built using the FlexiWhite material from Carl's Place. I have a pretty good light controlled room, and usually watch movies after dark.
> 
> I've got some pretty good DLP Link glasses (8 pairs) and I just got the Optoma BC300 RF emitter and some glasses. I have a surround sound consisting of a mix between some good 5.1 speakers which I added a Klipche Sub12 that hides right by the couch.
> 
> The first time I put on a 3D movie, I was blown away by how awesome it looked. It was actually A Turtle's Tale, when they had it on Netflix 3D. My girlfriend and I liked seeing 3D movies at the theater, and to us this looked just as good. Now as you guys might know, that movie is like the top of the line as far as 3D. On 145" screen, you are reaching out to touch the turtles, and jumping back when things come at the screen.
> 
> Since then I have been buying every movie that is either shot in 3D, or known to have good post production 3D. I own about 35 3D bluray movies They can be found cheap used on ebay (discs always play fine) or in pawn shops, or Amazon deals or various other deals. Here are some of the movies I have (do not remember them all)
> 
> 1 - Avatar
> 
> 2 - Titanic (amazing depth and 3D)
> 
> 3 - The Wizard of Oz (amazing reproduction)
> 
> 4 - Oz the Great and Powerful (amazing 3D shot in 3D)
> 
> 5 - Prometheus (amazing 3D shot in 3D)
> 
> 6 - Gravity
> 
> 7 - Guardian's of the Galaxy (very very good post production)
> 
> 8 - The little mermaid / The Lion King / Beauty and the Beast - amazing post reproductions (those were for the girlfriend, don't much care for the actual movies)
> 
> 9 - lots of cartoon movies such Rio / Cloudy with chance... / all 4 Shrek movies etc etc
> 
> 10 - Life of Pi
> 
> 11 - Dredd 3D (amazing 3D)
> 
> 12 - Tron Legacy
> 
> and more that I am not remembering.



That reminds me, I bought Dredd 3D a few months ago for cheap and still haven't had a chance to watch it. I hope the 3D is as amazing as you say.


----------



## longhornsk57

johnny905 said:


> That reminds me, I bought Dredd 3D a few months ago for cheap and still haven't had a chance to watch it. I hope the 3D is as amazing as you say.


It is.

The slo-mo scenes are just incredible. I never expected the 3D to be that good but it really was.


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## longhornsk57

NorthSky said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgzzDtvXDRs


Yeah, now imagine that mist coming out of the screen lol..

Lots of scenes like that, (more violent with blood coming out of the screen) and that one is actually at the beginning of the movie.


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> Yeah, now imagine that mist coming out of the screen lol..
> 
> Lots of scenes like that, (more violent with blood coming out of the screen) and that one is actually at the beginning of the movie.


It's not real blood...it's colorant for strawberry cake.


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## cajieboy

cakefoo said:


> Personally, I only have 2 3D movies on my watch list this year. I can't justify a 3DTV purchase.


I would NOT buy a TV without the 3D feature! That's a deal breaker right off the bat. You know the old saying "ignorance is bliss". If you've never owned a 3D capable HDTV of decent quality PQ, and 3D capable player to use with it, then you really don't have any idea of what a great 3D viewing experience you're missing. 

Don't feel alone though because there are many that belong in that club. Not to mention that fact that AVS attracts a membership of people dedicated to superior viewing experiences in HT. Not boasting, just stating a fact.


----------



## cakefoo

cajieboy said:


> I would NOT buy a TV without the 3D feature! That's a deal breaker right off the bat. You know the old saying "ignorance is bliss". If you've never owned a 3D capable HDTV of decent quality PQ, and 3D capable player to use with it, then you really don't have any idea of what a great 3D viewing experience you're missing.
> 
> Don't feel alone though because there are many that belong in that club. Not to mention that fact that AVS attracts a membership of people dedicated to superior viewing experiences in HT. Not boasting, just stating a fact.


Like most people, I have two criteria for 3D movies: must have great 3D, and must be a thrilling movie overall. But what's great/thrilling to me may differ wildly from a lot of people reading this. I find crowd-pleaser superhero and fantasy action movies to be missable. And I'm not feeling the same sense of director passion/artistic effort towards 3D lately compared to Hugo, Life of Pi, Great Gatsby and Gravity to name a few. Pan is the first movie in a long time that looks to capture that same sense of awe, so we'll see.

My point is, the content I find appealing is slim, especially 3D-wise. I love the tech and wish we had 15 movies a year like Hugo, Life of Pi, Pan. I'd buy a 3D TV again, for sure, if that was the case.


----------



## mo949

That's a good point. I really crave Hugo like movies in 3D.

I never thought I'd use my '3d' feature on my 3dtv, but after a while all my components got upgraded and I realized one day that I could watch one if I wanted to and all I needed was a pair of the glasses. Of course then Avatar came in the mail with the glasses from amazon and it was all over, our house was in love. Still would not want to watch 3d the majority of the time, but oh what a treat it is when it is time.

btw, there's a special love for Kung Fu Panda at my house. Its the whole package, even though its converted.


----------



## Hagenstein

cakefoo said:


> Like most people, I have two criteria for 3D movies: must have great 3D, and must be a thrilling movie overall. But what's great/thrilling to me may differ wildly from a lot of people reading this. I find crowd-pleaser superhero and fantasy action movies to be missable. And I'm not feeling the same sense of director passion/artistic effort towards 3D lately compared to Hugo, Life of Pi, Great Gatsby and Gravity to name a few. Pan is the first movie in a long time that looks to capture that same sense of awe, so we'll see.
> 
> My point is, the content I find appealing is slim, especially 3D-wise. I love the tech and wish we had 15 movies a year like Hugo, Life of Pi, Pan. I'd buy a 3D TV again, for sure, if that was the case.


You might find "The Young And Prodigious T.S. Spivet" to your liking and it's available via import in 3D. 

Won't take your list up to 15 but quality film-making (subjectively I suppose) is always welcome eh? 3D quality has been compared to that in "Hugo". And if you like this director's other work your likely to like this too.

It's (finally) getting a limited theatrical run here in the States (nearly 2 years late!) but good luck finding 3D showing. This film deserved better.


----------



## therealdjnugz

I hope 3d isn't about dead! My wife and I absolutely love 3d. When I got my first projector about a year ago, which was an Epson 2030, I instantly was hooked. I've since upgraded to the Epson 5025 which made 3d even better. I've gone as far as upgrading everything in my blu ray collection to 3d if it was available. I guess I can understand why a lot of people don't like 3d, because they haven't experienced active 3d on a 100" screen at home! But even if I had a 50" passive set I have to imagine I'd still be a fan. Anyone who comes over and watches a clip says it's amazing. My younger sons birthday party is next week and I'm assuming the adults are gunna want to see it in action. Haha, that's what happened at my three year olds party last year. I guess what I'm saying is I hope they keep releasing 3d titles and if people experience 3d properly, a lot would be fans.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> Like most people, I have two criteria for 3D movies: must have great 3D, and must be a thrilling movie overall. But what's great/thrilling to me may differ wildly from a lot of people reading this. I find crowd-pleaser superhero and fantasy action movies to be missable. And I'm not feeling the same sense of director passion/artistic effort towards 3D lately compared to Hugo, Life of Pi, Great Gatsby and Gravity to name a few. Pan is the first movie in a long time that looks to capture that same sense of awe, so we'll see.
> 
> My point is, the content I find appealing is slim, especially 3D-wise. I love the tech and wish we had 15 movies a year like Hugo, Life of Pi, Pan. I'd buy a 3D TV again, for sure, if that was the case.


Don't forget *'The Hobbit'* trilogy in 3D.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> Don't forget *'The Hobbit'* trilogy in 3D.


Hmm. I found the first one's 3D didn't really shine as I felt they used the cinematography of the original LOTR as a template. One of those instances where tacking on nice tech doesn't necessarily make it more artistic. So I saw parts 2 and 3 in 2D.


----------



## marcuslaw

If you have region free capability, there's no excuse to not own T.S. Spivet. It features mind blowing 3-D and will be your demo disk for all eternity. Check out Ron Epstein's review over at HTF which includes this memorable quote:



> These days, its unimaginable to have a film exploit 3D so perfectly to the extent that you feel as if you have just witnessed something extraordinary.


----------



## NorthSky

*'The Hobbit' trilogy in 3D*



cakefoo said:


> Hmm. I found the first one's 3D didn't really shine as I felt they used the cinematography of the original LOTR as a template. One of those instances where tacking on nice tech doesn't necessarily make it more artistic. So I saw parts 2 and 3 in 2D.


It's been a while. But I highly recommend 2 and 3 in 3D ... no doubt about it. ...Much more immersing in 3D than in 2D, in my very humble and scientific opinion.


----------



## mo949

Marcus, thanks for that advertisement. Going to pick it up.


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> If you have region free capability, there's no excuse to not own T.S. Spivet. It features mind blowing 3-D and will be your demo disk for all eternity. Check out Ron Epstein's review over at HTF which includes this memorable quote:


This looks like a Must Have, thx!


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> It's been a while. But I highly recommend 2 and 3 in 3D ... no doubt about it. ...Much more immersing in 3D than in 2D, in my very humble and scientific opinion.


I respect your opinion, but I have no desire to re-watch the last 2 in 3D. The whole trilogy was shot in one go and maintained the same cinematography style throughout.


----------



## mo949

There are people that would actually re-watch any of the hobbits? 



Convert the LOTR into 3D and they'll take my money for the 4th time


----------



## NorthSky

I'm going to revisit the entire Hobbit trilogy in 3D. ...Very soon. ...Just thinking about it put me deeply in the fantasy mood, one of the very best 3D moods. 

* You guys like Moody Blues?


----------



## marcuslaw

mo949 said:


> There are people that would actually re-watch any of the hobbits?
> 
> 
> 
> Convert the LOTR into 3D and they'll take my money for the 4th time


The answer to your first questions is "absolutely yes". In fact, we're already planning back-to-back Tolkein weekends as soon as I get my hands on The Hobbit: BATFA Extended Ed. (3-D). The Hobbits will be followed by a LOTRs weekend. 

As for LOTRs post-converts, it's never going to happen. NEVER. I don't think the reason would be any reluctance on PJ's part, rather the cost. In order to do it right, it would cost New Line/Warner a substantial fortune. Each frame would have to be individually rotoscoped. I just can't imagine how many total man hours it would take. Add to that the apparent low interest by the American consumer (definitely not including me) for 3-D home video and thus the dim prospect for little recoupment of said massive expenses. As much as I would like to see that happen, it's not going to. Besides, as much as I love 3-D, I'm perfectly content seeing Samwise Gamgee in 2D and that's how we're always going to see him. Purists out there would agree given that PJ never intended that you see the Battle at Helms Deep in 3-D.


----------



## Defcon

I bought a 3d tv a little bit ago with very little expectation, the 3d part was really a bonus since the main goal was a larger tv. Since then I bought a few 3d discs and also tried out some from the library as well as my cable's on-demand section. And its been very fun! It definitely adds more to the experience even though I feel its more taxing on the eyes for those of us who wear glasses, and I feel the passive 3d in theatres isn't.

I will prefer buying the 3d version of movies if possible.


----------



## saf01

So reading this thread this morning is there a top ten or fifteen list of recommended Blu Ray's to watch in 3D?

We recently purchased the LG 79uB9800 and have a few 3D Blu Ray's that we have watched and it wasn't too bad. Our favorite was Guardians of the Galaxy which seemed to have a good quality overall. Prometheus wasn't too bad but I preferred the visual quality of the standard 2D version. We also picked up and watch Star Trek Into Darkness which I found to be a horrible 3D movie. Great in 2D but 3D, forget it. Maybe our TV but no one in the house enjoyed that version.

I personally didn't enjoy Avatar when I saw it at the theater but willing to give it another go. I've also heard Gravity was interesting but have not seen it yet so there are two on my list at least. I prefer to rent movies that we don't consider having a high "re-play" value but it seems Netflix or Redbox are not 3D viable. I'm thinking I can blow my Best Buy bucks on these for a cheap movie night...


----------



## marcuslaw

saf01 said:


> So reading this thread this morning is there a top ten or fifteen list of recommended Blu Ray's to watch in 3D?


I find Ron Epstein of Home Theater Forum's TOP 30 MUST OWN 3D TITLES (regularly updated) to be pretty spot on though I might add a few imports like the Lichtmond series (German - Region 2/B).


----------



## saf01

marcuslaw said:


> I find Home Theater Forum's TOP 30 MUST OWN 3D TITLES (regularly updated) to be pretty spot on though I might add a few imports like the Lichtmond series (German - Region 2/B).


I didn't see that forum list/thread, thank you. I actually just caught this one on the Active Topics side this AM  

Thank you, I'll check that out now.


----------



## mo949

marcuslaw said:


> The answer to your first questions is "absolutely yes". In fact, we're already planning back-to-back Tolkein weekends as soon as I get my hands on The Hobbit: BATFA Extended Ed. (3-D). The Hobbits will be followed by a LOTRs weekend.
> 
> As for LOTRs post-converts, it's never going to happen. NEVER. I don't think the reason would be any reluctance on PJ's part, rather the cost. In order to do it right, it would cost New Line/Warner a substantial fortune. Each frame would have to be individually rotoscoped. I just can't imagine how many total man hours it would take. Add to that the apparent low interest by the American consumer (definitely not including me) for 3-D home video and thus the dim prospect for little recoupment of said massive expenses. As much as I would like to see that happen, it's not going to. Besides, as much as I love 3-D, I'm perfectly content seeing Samwise Gamgee in 2D and that's how we're always going to see him. Purists out there would agree given that PJ never intended that you see the Battle at Helms Deep in 3-D.


Makes sense to me. My 3D purism bubble happened to get burst once I bought Titanic 3D with the new aspect ratio. Now I will never watch the original 2D version again.


----------



## redrovermiami

54 pages here

hate to ask a question thats been answered

I have a sony 3d LED tv.

How or where can I access 3D material off direct tv to check it out to see how it works?

Or even netflix or apple tv

Im just curious to test it and see how good or bad it is..

Here is the TV I have:

KDL60W850B Sony.

I also have it connected to the internet so I can access the apps. I also have apple tv

Thanks in advance


----------



## marcuslaw

redrovermiami said:


> How or where can I access 3D material off direct tv to check it out to see how it works?
> 
> I also have it connected to the internet so I can access the apps. I also have apple tv
> 
> Thanks in advance


Personally, I recommend you NOT use streaming media and instead use a 3-D Blu-ray. If the reason for your question is that you don't have a 3-D capable BD player, why not upgrade to one? They're relatively cheap. Otherwise, you might try some 3-D content from the 3DGO! app or YouTube though, again, a BD is likely going to give you a more accurate assessment of your Sony's 3-D performance.


----------



## redrovermiami

marcuslaw said:


> Personally, I recommend you NOT use streaming media and instead use a 3-D Blu-ray. If the reason for your question is that you don't have a 3-D capable BD player, why not upgrade to one? They're relatively cheap. Otherwise, you might try some 3-D content from the 3DGO! app or YouTube though, again, a BD is likely going to give you a more accurate assessment of your Sony's 3-D performance.


I have a
Sony BDP-S6500 3D Blu-ray DVD Player 



I was trying to avoid buying any media first to see how good the 3d was


----------



## mo949

As long as you enjoy the movies, you can safely buy Avatar or Titanic and expect your jaw to drop and hit the floor.


----------



## NorthSky

...Or *Up* or *Brave* (both PIXAR) or *Dredd* or *Tron: Legacy* or *Ratatouille* (PIXAR) or *The Book of Life* or *The Art of Flight* or...many others.


----------



## azz7686

D* tv took there 3d off the air netflix has a few to try out the 3d option will be there if what your using sees the tv as 3d capable!


----------



## longhornsk57

redrovermiami said:


> I have a
> Sony BDP-S6500 3D Blu-ray DVD Player
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying to avoid buying any media first to see how good the 3d was


You can get some really cheap used ones online, some pretty good ones at that!


----------



## NorthSky

Some 3D Blu-ray titles cost more than some 3D Blu-ray players. In some cases you can buy two 3D Blu-ray players for the price of a single 3D Blu-ray title. 

And on ePay you can buy a 3D front projector for less than some 3D Blu-ray titles (limited collector's edition - $3,000 ...in that range).


----------



## longhornsk57

Yeah but who buys those? The most I ever paid for a 3D blue ray was $20. I usually get them from $5 to $15 shipped...


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> Yeah but who buys those? The most I ever paid for a 3D blue ray was $20. I usually get them from $5 to $15 shipped...


I sure did...some of them $50 each (with the tax). ...Many @ between $30 and $40. 

* When I was buying DVDs back in 1997 I was paying $40 for some Criterion Collection ones. ...Regular DVDs; $25 and more sometimes.
In the days of VHS tapes I was paying $25 each.
On Laserdisc some of them were $80 and $100 each!

3D Blu-ray players: $30-40 on sale. ...$24.99 Boxing Day, Black Friday.

My friend bought a new CD player: $25,000 (2D only - stereo).
...And new speakers: $180,000/pair (stereo - 2D only).
...Some AC power cords: $15,000 (1D).


----------



## longhornsk57

Well I guess to each his own. If you can afford to roll like that then have at it.

My main point is that you can find 3D bluray for very inexpensive if you really look.


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> Well I guess to each his own. If you can afford to roll like that then have at it.
> 
> My main point is that you can find 3D bluray for very inexpensive if you really look.


Yes, months and years after they have been released...in the discount bins. 
I got a couple of those...just for the fun of it...$9.99 for 'I, Frankenstein'. ...A mistake, a big mistake.


----------



## redrovermiami

I think I need a blu ray 3d movie.

Unless Im missing something 3dgo app isnt on my sony tv or my sony bluray player

I went on to youtube saw some 3d stuff I searched for put on the glasses and wasnt 3d

I popped on vudu app on my tv and searched for gravity3d and it was side by side on my tv I hit the 3d button on my remote and it had a few options side by side top and bottom and a few others so I chose side by side which was what was being streamed and it wasnt in 3d

Suggestions?


----------



## skeeder

I recently watched Tron in 3D. While, I admit it was a ton of fun, I had to sit remarkably close to the TV to get the effect (I have a 51" Plasma, my normal viewing distance is about 12 feet away). That kind killed the sweet audio that it accompanied. Then I noticed that the picture had a high noise ratio...I thought it may be the bluray press since I just got it on bluray. So I put on the 2D bluray, and the picture became smooth as silk. I ended up watching it that way for the rest of the movie. 

Perhaps if I had another 15" of real estate it would be possible to enjoy it...but I couldn't get the 3D effects on my screen size until I was too close to enjoy the movie.

Chance are--this is what is killing 3D. You need a relatively large screen to get enjoyment out of it. Combine that with the price tag of 3D blurays...they are pricing that technology out of existence.


----------



## aaronwt

redrovermiami said:


> I have a
> Sony BDP-S6500 3D Blu-ray DVD Player
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying to avoid buying any media first to see how good the 3d was


You can always rent them from www.3d-blurayrental.com

You can rent individual titles and pay for each rental. Or you can get monthly subsriptions with one, two, or three titles out at a time.


----------



## marcuslaw

skeeder said:


> I recently watched Tron in 3D. While, I admit it was a ton of fun, I had to sit remarkably close to the TV to get the effect (I have a 51" Plasma, my normal viewing distance is about 12 feet away). That kind killed the sweet audio that it accompanied. Then I noticed that the picture had a high noise ratio...I thought it may be the bluray press since I just got it on bluray. So I put on the 2D bluray, and the picture became smooth as silk. I ended up watching it that way for the rest of the movie.
> 
> Perhaps if I had another 15" of real estate it would be possible to enjoy it...but I couldn't get the 3D effects on my screen size until I was too close to enjoy the movie.
> 
> Chance are--this is what is killing 3D. You need a relatively large screen to get enjoyment out of it. Combine that with the price tag of 3D blurays...they are pricing that technology out of existence.


Again, equipment, equipment, equipment. They are an integral part of the home 3-D experience. A 46" or 51" TV, while it might offer excellent PQ in 3-D mode, is not going to offer an immersive experience. But, blah, blah, blah. You already knew that. I haven't yet watched Tron Legacy in 3-D. I've started at the top of Epstein's Top 30 3-D list and am working my way down. I have noticed that Legacy isn't on it. On the other hand Martin Leibman of blu-ray.com seems to have nothing but praise for its 3-D performance. 



> Disney's 1080p Blu-ray 3D image is a stunner; neither the shifting aspect ratios nor sometimes-on, sometimes-off 3D visuals are cause for alarm, making Tron: Legacy a standout Blu-ray 3D release.


This leads me to suspect whether the noise you saw might be display related. Did you or your ISF pro calibrate your TV for 3-D as well? Are there 3-D settings you could play with that might improve its PQ? Even if there's nothing you could change on your existing equipment to improve a 3-D image, I wouldn't give up on it.


----------



## therealdjnugz

skeeder said:


> I recently watched Tron in 3D. While, I admit it was a ton of fun, I had to sit remarkably close to the TV to get the effect (I have a 51" Plasma, my normal viewing distance is about 12 feet away). That kind killed the sweet audio that it accompanied. Then I noticed that the picture had a high noise ratio...I thought it may be the bluray press since I just got it on bluray. So I put on the 2D bluray, and the picture became smooth as silk. I ended up watching it that way for the rest of the movie.
> 
> Perhaps if I had another 15" of real estate it would be possible to enjoy it...but I couldn't get the 3D effects on my screen size until I was too close to enjoy the movie.
> 
> Chance are--this is what is killing 3D. You need a relatively large screen to get enjoyment out of it. Combine that with the price tag of 3D blurays...they are pricing that technology out of existence.


Are you sure your glasses were on? You should of been able to see the 3d effects.


----------



## coolhand

I'm always floored at how many of my guests think its 3D when the glasses aren't even on. If there is "noise" you probably have the wrong glasses/they don't work. 3D should have no noise.


----------



## therealdjnugz

coolhand said:


> I'm always floored at how many of my guests think its 3D when the glasses aren't even on. If there is "noise" you probably have the wrong glasses/they don't work. 3D should have no noise.


Yup, exactly my point. The display may show some crosstalk, but nothing too serious.


----------



## RolandL

azz7686 said:


> D* tv took there 3d off the air netflix has a few to try out the 3d option will be there if what your using sees the tv as 3d capable!



Here is the complete list of titles that used to be on Netflix in 3D. The titles in bold are still on in 3D.

*A Turtles Tale : Sammys Adventures*
African Wild
*Angelo Rules 3D
Animals United
Animen: The Galactic Battle*
Arabia IMAX
*Art of Flight
Beowolf*
Chaplin & Co.
Dangerous Ishhq
*Dino King*
Dinosaurs Alive! IMAX
Dinosaurs Giants of Patagonia IMAX
*Don 2*
Feeding Time
*Flying Swords of Dragon Gate*
Freddy Frogface
I Heart Shakey
Legends of Flight IMAX
*Legends of Valhalla : Thor
Little Brother Big Trouble*
Live Fire
Mummies: Secrets of the Phararohs IMAX
Nitro Circus The Movie
*Oscar’s Oasis 3D
Pina*
*Plankton Invasion 3D*
Red Bull Rampage The Evolution 2010
Red Bull Way Back Home
*Sadako
Saving Santa*
Scary Tales
Skeleton Inc.
Sky Soldier
Space Dogs
*The Hole*
The Little Prince
The Shock Labyrinth
The Ultimate Wave Tahiti IMAX
*Tormented*
Ultimate G's
Wild Ocean IMAX


----------



## golfster

RolandL said:


> Here is the complete list of titles that used to be on Netflix in 3D. The titles in bold are still on in 3D.
> 
> *A Turtles Tale : Sammys Adventures*
> African Wild
> *Angelo Rules 3D
> Animals United
> Animen: The Galactic Battle*
> Arabia IMAX
> *Art of Flight
> Beowolf*
> Chaplin & Co.
> Dangerous Ishhq
> *Dino King*
> Dinosaurs Alive! IMAX
> Dinosaurs Giants of Patagonia IMAX
> *Don 2*
> Feeding Time
> *Flying Swords of Dragon Gate*
> Freddy Frogface
> I Heart Shakey
> Legends of Flight IMAX
> *Legends of Valhalla : Thor
> Little Brother Big Trouble*
> Live Fire
> Mummies: Secrets of the Phararohs IMAX
> Nitro Circus The Movie
> *Oscar’s Oasis 3D
> Pina*
> *Plankton Invasion 3D*
> Red Bull Rampage The Evolution 2010
> Red Bull Way Back Home
> *Sadako
> Saving Santa*
> Scary Tales
> Skeleton Inc.
> Sky Soldier
> Space Dogs
> *The Hole*
> The Little Prince
> The Shock Labyrinth
> The Ultimate Wave Tahiti IMAX
> *Tormented*
> Ultimate G's
> Wild Ocean IMAX


When I look at that list, I can not help thinking not why they made them in 3D, but why they made most of those movies at all.

I feel that if the TV you want has a 3D feature at little to no extra cost, go for it. Enjoy it as a good 2D TV and watch the occasional good 3D movie as they become available.


----------



## azz7686

Also D*tv has one pay per view 3D channel forgot about that one cause u never have watched anything in it

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## redrovermiami

Are the 3d movies on netflix or Dtv any good? not content wise but 3d quality wise?


----------



## Joseph Dubin

redrovermiami said:


> I think I need a blu ray 3d movie.
> 
> Unless Im missing something 3dgo app isnt on my sony tv or my sony bluray player
> 
> I went on to youtube saw some 3d stuff I searched for put on the glasses and wasnt 3d
> 
> I popped on vudu app on my tv and searched for gravity3d and it was side by side on my tv I hit the 3d button on my remote and it had a few options side by side top and bottom and a few others so I chose side by side which was what was being streamed and it wasnt in 3d
> 
> Suggestions?


Hi Red,

Gravity is one of the 3D titles available on our free on demand services with HBO and Showtime. It was also side by side. 

There is a feature we can set to automstic which will detect the type of 3d signal fed into our kd50w800b. Isn't there a setting on your Sony that will do the same? It worked with one of the built in apps that was showing some shorts in 3d.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

redrovermiami said:


> Are the 3d movies on netflix or Dtv any good? not content wise but 3d quality wise?


Do you get any 3d with free on demand from HBO, etc? We do and think the 3d is great, however, not owning a blu ray player we do not have anything to compare the quality to.

Have a Sony 800b fifty invpch which uses active glasses.


----------



## redrovermiami

I checked my HBO on demand it wasnt offered in 3d


----------



## steelers1

marcuslaw said:


> If you have region free capability, there's no excuse to not own T.S. Spivet. It features mind blowing 3-D and will be your demo disk for all eternity. Check out Ron Epstein's review over at HTF which includes this memorable quote:


 marcus thanks for pointing this out to us. I am Shure glad I have a region free player in 3d. just ordered it.


----------



## skeeder

marcuslaw said:


> Again, equipment, equipment, equipment. They are an integral part of the home 3-D experience. A 46" or 51" TV, while it might offer excellent PQ in 3-D mode, is not going to offer an immersive experience. But, blah, blah, blah. You already knew that. I haven't yet watched Tron Legacy in 3-D. I've started at the top of Epstein's Top 30 3-D list and am working my way down. I have noticed that Legacy isn't on it. On the other hand Martin Leibman of blu-ray.com seems to have nothing but praise for its 3-D performance.
> 
> This leads me to suspect whether the noise you saw might be display related. Did you or your ISF pro calibrate your TV for 3-D as well? Are there 3-D settings you could play with that might improve its PQ? Even if there's nothing you could change on your existing equipment to improve a 3-D image, I wouldn't give up on it.


Could be, and since my equipment (and most high end tv's) support 3D I will probably try it again with Avatar. But my initial impressions are...its not worth the extra $15.



therealdjnugz said:


> Are you sure your glasses were on? You should of been able to see the 3d effects.


Yes, glasses were on. Yes, they were turned on. Yes, the TV synced to them.

And no. Overwhelming underwhelmed with 3D. It provided some depth to the film, but nothing amazing. marcus's comments indicate this may not of been the best pilot.


----------



## redrovermiami

Where is a good source to get 3d blu rays inexpensive?


----------



## marcuslaw

redrovermiami said:


> Where is a good source to get 3d blu rays inexpensive?


red, it shouldnt come as a surprise to you but the best place (and I wish it weren't) is amazon and if you have region free playback, amazon.uk, and amazon.de. eBay would be my second recommendation although I find that there are market place sellers on amazon who often sell new and used copies that are often cheaper than sellers on eBay. Check blu-ray.com, deals then click 3-D or just click here for the best deals on amazon.


----------



## longhornsk57

I get mine on eBay, Amazon, and half.com - we should set up a Forum here for selling to each other or trading maybe...


----------



## johnny905

redrovermiami said:


> I think I need a blu ray 3d movie.
> 
> Unless Im missing something 3dgo app isnt on my sony tv or my sony bluray player


You are correct. 3DGO is currently only available on LG, Vizio, Panasonic and (next month) Samsung 3DTVs. So you are out of luck with your Sony at the moment.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> red, it shouldnt come as a surprise to you but the best place (and I wish it weren't) is amazon and if you have region free playback, amazon.uk, and amazon.de. eBay would be my second recommendation although I find that there are market place sellers on amazon who often sell new and used copies that are often cheaper than sellers on eBay. Check blu-ray.com, deals then click 3-D or just click here for the best deals on amazon.


Two things of huge use and one minor note regarding Amazon.

1. Look for region free stuff overseas. Here is a portal link to other Amazons. *NOTE!* Don't bother using their "Amazon International Around the World" searching from that page. AFAICT, they *still* block out most of the out-of-region releases except for the absurdly priced 3rd party stuff. *Go straight to the Amazon for the country.* I use England's and Germany's. Germany for instance was the only place I could get Maleficent 3D.

2. Download the browser extension "S3.Google Translator" (stupid name). It will allow you to auto-translate specific pages (or translate them on demand) without leaving the page in question. This is pretty important for the German site.

Minor Note: When you're using an over-seas amazon, your American login works fine. I don't know about what happens if you originally signed up for Amazon elsewhere.


----------



## film113

johnny905 said:


> You are correct. 3DGO is currently only available on LG, Vizio, Panasonic and (next month) Samsung 3DTVs.


And not even all models of those!


----------



## kwok lau

3D viewing is not new stuff. Our great grand parents had 3D movies and video in decays. But it died.
Watching 3D Movie is fun. However, I believe it will die again sooner or later. 
In my opinion, the reasons are (1) need 3d TV or projector, 3d glasses, high speed HDMI cable and 3d player. These 3d equipment are expensive for home viewing. Many buyer hesitate to upgrade their existing 2D gears to watch 3d. They rather go to watch 3d movie in public theater. Ticket is cheap comparing to investment on new 3d gears. (2) Many people feel un-comfortable to watch movie with 3d glasses, especially those who wear prescribed glasses. (3) Dizziness if watch 3d movie over 1 hour to most people. (4) Lack of public cinema to watch 3D movie. (5) Movie producer will reduce 3d production due to limited consumer to buy 3d movies on disc or go to 3D cinema. 
As for me, I got 3D equipment about a month and 21 x 3D Blue ray. I could only watch about an hour before getting tired with 3D glasses in front of my prescribed eye glasses.. My wife get dizzy about half an hour. We can view 2D for whole afternoon without any dizziness. I hesitate to buy more 3D disc now. This is a common experience I heard. 
This is why I think 3D will die sooner or later. Sorry about this. 

t


----------



## NorthSky

None to be sorry about...if one has to feel sorry it's Disney USA/Canada.


----------



## mo949

Most people stumble into 3d when all of their upgrades align to a point where they start to realize that all they need to experience 3D at home for their first time is a 3D bluray. That's how it happened for me at least. I never once thought about 3D during my upgrades. Ironically, going forward I'll have to ensure everything stays 3D compliant to maintain a good portion of my video library. Ce la vie...


----------



## tgm1024

mo949 said:


> Most people stumble into 3d when all of their upgrades align to a point where they start to realize that all they need to experience 3D at home for their first time is a 3D bluray. That's how it happened for me at least. I never once thought about 3D during my upgrades. Ironically, going forward I'll have to ensure everything stays 3D compliant to maintain a good portion of my video library. Ce la vie...


I won't buy a non-3D tv. No way no how.


----------



## mars5l

As long as hollywood keeps doing movies in 3D I think we will be fine. Though I think we are doing for an amazing native shot 3d hollywood blockbuster not a converted one.

As far as good deals, I have a best buy within 5 minutes of me, I go there weekly to see what movies are on sale. But sadly its not almost to the point I have almost every 3d movie they sell, but they have a small section. The Best Buys with a Magnolia have a much larger section but even then I have over half the movies they sell. As ive said in some other thread I think, check to see if you have a used cd/record store that sells movies as well in your area. I stop by in every paycheck and check my local one out and usually get lucky. Past few times ive paid $9-$10 for "used" movies. But when I pulled the slipcase off, they will still factory wrapped. I picked up Rio 2, Ice Age:CD, The Croods, and Wreckit Ralph tha way. Though sadly, yet again, Ive bough almost everything they have.


----------



## jrm21

mars5l said:


> I picked up Rio 2, Ice Age:CD, The Croods, and Wreckit Ralph tha way. Though sadly, yet again, Ive bough almost everything they have.



Question - not necessarily specific to the quoted post.

Do most of you collect 3D titles simply because they are in 3D? Or are they movies you really want to own?

I enjoy 3D. When a movie is available in 3D, I will make sure to get the 3D version. However, if it is a movie I am not that interested in, I will not get it at all.

I look at the above titles... Rio, Ice Age, etc. I'm not knocking these - if you like them, enjoy! I just wonder if any/many people grab them simply for the 3D factor. It is a little frustrating to me that so many 3D titles are movies I have absolutely no interest in watching.


----------



## mars5l

I wouldnt mind watching them, I have not seen either honestly. For $9 second hand but still unused its worth it to get it for me. There is very few movies that I dont like and none of them are 3d movies. But part me will build up my 3d collection to just to build it up.


----------



## NorthSky

All for the love...of 3D. ...Rio, Rio 2, Ice Age, Continental Drift, Up, Ratatouille, Dredd, ...you name it.


----------



## mars5l

I wouldnt mind watching them, I have not seen either honestly. For $9 second hand but still unused its worth it to get it for me. There is very few movies that I dont like and none of them are 3d movies. But part me will build up my 3d collection to just to build it up.


----------



## johnny905

film113 said:


> And not even all models of those!


I can't speak for Vizio or Panasonic or Samsung, but I'm pretty sure all LG 3DTVs since at least 2013 support 3DGO. 

I only know that since my most recent TV is a LG 3DTV. I wanted a passive 3DTV and did a lot of research on what LG 3DTV to buy (I eventually got the 65UB9500). 3DGO has been getting a lot of use at my house over the last few months.


----------



## 1000

I only opt to purchase 3D films when it's a film I really enjoy. I therefore have a very, very small collection but they are all great films, and most notably:

Gravity
Predator
World War Z
DREDD (Best 3D film ever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

I'll get Terminator: Genesis when it comes out, not because it's a good film (it's lousy) but I want to see if the 3D actually makes it ay more bearable.. and I'm a Terminator completist.

1000


----------



## markmathers

I used to grab everything I could when 3D was new about 5 years ago just because there was so little content available. I look at my collection now and think "what the hell was I thinking buying that?" Since then I've gotten quite a bit more selective with the stuff I buy. Somehow I've accumulated close to 80 3D movies over the years, and I'd say close to half are ones that I regret buying.


----------



## MrEmoto

tgm1024 said:


> I won't buy a non-3D tv. No way no how.


Same here.


----------



## mo949

jrm21 said:


> Question - not necessarily specific to the quoted post.
> 
> Do most of you collect 3D titles simply because they are in 3D? Or are they movies you really want to own?
> 
> I enjoy 3D. When a movie is available in 3D, I will make sure to get the 3D version. However, if it is a movie I am not that interested in, I will not get it at all.
> 
> I look at the above titles... Rio, Ice Age, etc. I'm not knocking these - if you like them, enjoy! I just wonder if any/many people grab them simply for the 3D factor. It is a little frustrating to me that so many 3D titles are movies I have absolutely no interest in watching.


Love Rio. Great Jessie Eisenberg comedy. Didn't buy ice age since I'm not a big fan. I wish there were more serious 3D titles as well.


----------



## JuliusCaesar

1000 said:


> I only opt to purchase 3D films when it's a film I really enjoy. I therefore have a very, very small collection but they are all great films, and most notably:
> 
> Gravity
> Predator
> World War Z
> DREDD (Best 3D film ever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
> 
> I'll get Terminator: Genesis when it comes out, not because it's a good film (it's lousy) but I want to see if the 3D actually makes it ay more bearable.. and I'm a Terminator completist.
> 
> 1000


You should definitely buy Pacific Rim 3D (Best 3D film I've seen!!! 😀
Highly recommended.


----------



## JuliusCaesar

markmathers said:


> I used to grab everything I could when 3D was new about 5 years ago just because there was so little content available. I look at my collection now and think "what the hell was I thinking buying that?" Since then I've gotten quite a bit more selective with the stuff I buy. Somehow I've accumulated close to 80 3D movies over the years, and I'd say close to half are ones that I regret buying.


Same thing here. I've had so many Blurays that I regretted later buying. I sold a lot of them on eBay, and now I just buy the movies that I really want for my "exclusive" collection. At least I have all excellent 3D Bluray movies.


----------



## marcuslaw

jrm21 said:


> Question - not necessarily specific to the quoted post.
> 
> Do most of you collect 3D titles simply because they are in 3D? Or are they movies you really want to own?


It's no secret that I am a huge fan and advocate for the format. I own over 215 3-D BD. To be candid, there are some I bought simply because they're in 3-D (Clash of the Titans and Deathly Hallows Pt 1 come to mind), but the real reason is that I simply wanted options. I am not a fan of streaming movies and so naturally that means having an abundance of movies to chose from makes sense. I didn't go out there and buy them all at once either. I've always been a BD collector and average about 500 titles at a time. Yet, years ago, long before I even owned a 3-D compatible TV, I started opting for the 3-D version or package containing the 3-D version with 2D knowing that would someday change. Fast forward to 2015, we now routinely watch 3-D BD and are loving all the options pretty much for whichever genre strikes our mood.


----------



## jrm21

mo949 said:


> Love Rio. Great Jessie Eisenberg comedy. Didn't buy ice age since I'm not a big fan. I wish there were more serious 3D titles as well.


While my preferences are different, that's the guide I use. I only buy a movie if it is something I really like and plan to watch. I don't see the point of owning a movie (no matter how inexpensive) if I find it a chore to watch.



JuliusCaesar said:


> Same thing here. I've had so many Blurays that I regretted later buying. I sold a lot of them on eBay, and now I just buy the movies that I really want for my "exclusive" collection. At least I have all excellent 3D Bluray movies.


Exactly the situation I was thinking of. I have one or two discs that are "what was I thinking" titles. With the dearth of 3D titles, it is sometimes easy to fall into the the trap of buying things because the price is right. Heck - I feel that way about "Frozen." Bought it because it was supposed to be great and I found a 3D version. Had I seen it before I bought the disc I would have saved my money. Visually nice, but the story is boring. (No offense to those who like it. I happen to love "Tangled" and many disagree with me on that one).


----------



## jbernardi

markmathers said:


> I used to grab everything I could when 3D was new about 5 years ago just because there was so little content available. I look at my collection now and think "what the hell was I thinking buying that?" Since then I've gotten quite a bit more selective with the stuff I buy. Somehow I've accumulated close to 80 3D movies over the years, and I'd say close to half are ones that I regret buying.


I also accumulated a lot of 3D movies, just for the 3D.

I traded many of them to 3D-blurayrental for credit.


----------



## marcuslaw

jrm21 said:


> With the dearth of 3D titles, it is sometimes easy to fall into the the trap of buying things because the price is right. Heck - I feel that way about "Frozen." Bought it because it was supposed to be great and I found a 3D version. Had I seen it before I bought the disc I would have saved my money. Visually nice, but the story is boring. (No offense to those who like it. I happen to love "Tangled" and many disagree with me on that one).


I realize 3-D is the focus of this thread, but isn't the act of buying just for the sake of buying something many do with Blu-rays in general? I for one own Steve McQueen's _Bullitt_ and have yet to watch it. 

Incidentally, I like Tangled better than Frozen too though haven't gotten around to seeing the former in 3-D yet.


----------



## mo949

jrm21 said:


> While my preferences are different, that's the guide I use. I only buy a movie if it is something I really like and plan to watch. I don't see the point of owning a movie (no matter how inexpensive) if I find it a chore to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the situation I was thinking of. I have one or two discs that are "what was I thinking" titles. With the dearth of 3D titles, it is sometimes easy to fall into the the trap of buying things because the price is right. Heck - I feel that way about "Frozen." Bought it because it was supposed to be great and I found a 3D version. Had I seen it before I bought the disc I would have saved my money. Visually nice, but the story is boring. (No offense to those who like it. I happen to love "Tangled" and many disagree with me on that one).


Think we are all on the same page when it comes to having had some awful 3D movie purchases. Almost all of my 3D purchases are blind buys since renting them is a PITA. Basically when I know a movie is coming out in theaters as 3D and I have any interest at all in seeing it at the theater, I instead just pre-order the 3D version since its much cheaper and I enjoy 3D at home more than in theater. Of course some bargains pop up for titles that I didn't know if I'd be interested in (Stalingrad comes to mind here) and then 9$ for a 'matinee' movie for my family is also a bargain. But yea, some are pretty much disposable after I'm done 

btw we just rewatched Tangled this past weekend. We really like it and feel the 3D adds a good bit of immersion to the experience.


----------



## jrm21

marcuslaw said:


> I realize 3-D is the focus of this thread, but isn't the act of buying just for the sake of buying something many do with Blu-rays in general? I for one own Steve McQueen's _Bullitt_ and have yet to watch it.
> 
> Incidentally, I like Tangled better than Frozen too though haven't gotten around to seeing the former in 3-D yet.


I'm sure it happens with 2D BR titles as well. It just seems more noticeable to me with 3D titles. I just see people buying and recommending titles based on the "3D" aspect rather than the "this is a great movie" aspect. At least that's my impression, which is why I asked the question.

Ironic you mentor Bullitt. I have that as part of the "Steve McQueen Collection" box set. Got a real good deal on it a while back. I also haven't watched Bullitt or Cincinnati Kid yet... I love McQueen and love those movies - just haven't found the time. So many movies, so little time.




mo949 said:


> Think we are all on the same page when it comes to having had some awful 3D movie purchases. Almost all of my 3D purchases are blind buys since renting them is a PITA. Basically when I know a movie is coming out in theaters as 3D and I have any interest at all in seeing it at the theater, I instead just pre-order the 3D version since its much cheaper and I enjoy 3D at home more than in theater. Of course some bargains pop up for titles that I didn't know if I'd be interested in (Stalingrad comes to mind here) and then 9$ for a 'matinee' movie for my family is also a bargain. But yea, some are pretty much disposable after I'm done
> 
> btw we just rewatched Tangled this past weekend. We really like it and feel the 3D adds a good bit of immersion to the experience.



I do it the same way. Buying the 3D version is cheaper than my wife and I going to the movie theater. Plus, my seats are more comfortable, my room is quieter and the food is better.  Because of that, I am more likely to end up buying a movie that may not be a "keeper." Of course, I tend to wait until the price comes down a bit, so get to preview some titles on cable before buying. If it a movie I am not sure of, I will always wait until cable before buying the disc.


----------



## JuliusCaesar

BTW guys, I have a question for you since this thread is about 3D.
I currently have a Samsung with active 3D from 2011 and right now I'm debating buying the LG ec9300 which uses passive 3D and is OLED, now, I tried a passive 3D Tv at a friend's house a couple of times and I really liked. Here is my impression, we tested Exodus Gods & Kings ( BTW, great 3D) and on his passive set I could see the black lines but only sitting closer that 6 feet approximately, on the other side, the 3D felt more immersive, and It was definitely easier on my eyes. Do you guys think that this could be better, I ask all this because 3D is important in my buying decision. Thanks.


----------



## tomtastic

I spent a lot of time dwelling on it, I was ready to buy a new 3D TV. Had decided to go with a 4k passive so that it was somewhat future ready too. What I really wanted was OLED and 4k, but they're just too expensive right now. Finally decided to go with a $700 projector that was 3D, the BenQ W1070 and finally finish up basement for theater room. I have to say, I'm loving it more than any other TV purchase so far. It's finally the closest I've been able to get to theater experience without buying tickets. Still have a little ways to go, lighting, flooring and some sound dampening but nearly there. 

I'll probably upgrade to a 4k projector at some point, but I'm really not concerned about it now. I also have a passive LG from 2011 which works fine, but of course each eye only gets 960x540, that's really the main difference between active and passive. If you're going to sit close, I wouldn't go passive. Beyond that, I can't tell the difference. The picture looks great. However, my LG is above fireplace so you have to sit back farther and overall, it's just not great for 3D with it's location.

If it were me, I would just wait. There isn't much reason to upgrade to 4k yet. But if you do, active or passive you'll get 1080p per eye. But OLED is so nice...

I would take this over to the display section, you'd probably get more responses.


----------



## JuliusCaesar

tomtastic said:


> I spent a lot of time dwelling on it, I was ready to buy a new 3D TV. Had decided to go with a 4k passive so that it was somewhat future ready too. What I really wanted was OLED and 4k, but they're just too expensive right now. Finally decided to go with a $700 projector that was 3D, the BenQ W1070 and finally finish up basement for theater room. I have to say, I'm loving it more than any other TV purchase so far. It's finally the closest I've been able to get to theater experience without buying tickets. Still have a little ways to go, lighting, flooring and some sound dampening but nearly there.
> 
> I'll probably upgrade to a 4k projector at some point, but I'm really not concerned about it now. I also have a passive LG from 2011 which works fine, but of course each eye only gets 960x540, that's really the main difference between active and passive. If you're going to sit close, I wouldn't go passive. Beyond that, I can't tell the difference. The picture looks great. However, my LG is above fireplace so you have to sit back farther and overall, it's just not great for 3D with it's location.
> 
> If it were me, I would just wait. There isn't much reason to upgrade to 4k yet. But if you do, active or passive you'll get 1080p per eye. But OLED is so nice...
> 
> I would take this over to the display section, you'd probably get more responses.


Thanks for the response, I'll try the display section.


----------



## Class A

marcuslaw said:


> I realize 3-D is the focus of this thread, but isn't the act of buying just for the sake of buying something many do with Blu-rays in general? I for one own Steve McQueen's _Bullitt_ and have yet to watch it.
> 
> Incidentally, I like Tangled better than Frozen too though haven't gotten around to seeing the former in 3-D yet.


When you watch Bullitt count during the famous car chase scene how many times they pass the same VW.


----------



## coolhand

markmathers said:


> I used to grab everything I could when 3D was new about 5 years ago just because there was so little content available. I look at my collection now and think "what the hell was I thinking buying that?" Since then I've gotten quite a bit more selective with the stuff I buy. Somehow I've accumulated close to 80 3D movies over the years, and I'd say close to half are ones that I regret buying.


So sell 'em. Its still a pretty robust secondary market.


----------



## golfster

1000 said:


> I only opt to purchase 3D films when it's a film I really enjoy. I therefore have a very, very small collection but they are all great films, and most notably:
> 
> Gravity
> Predator
> World War Z
> DREDD (Best 3D film ever !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)


World War Z is only a good movie if you HAVE NOT read the book. Worst adaptation ever-only thing in common was the title. Perhaps the 3D effects make it worth owning, but not for the story.


----------



## NorthSky

'World War Z' in 3D? ...Nope, nothing special there...the audio fares much better.


----------



## MrEmoto

golfster said:


> World War Z is only a good movie if you HAVE NOT read the book. Worst adaptation ever-only thing in common was the title. Perhaps the 3D effects make it worth owning, but not for the story.


I liked WWZ 3D. Fun! I did also read the book, which I thoroughly enjoyed. It was so episodic that I didn't really expect any film of it to follow much.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

JuliusCaesar said:


> Same thing here. I've had so many Blurays that I regretted later buying. I sold a lot of them on eBay, and now I just buy the movies that I really want for my "exclusive" collection. At least I have all excellent 3D Bluray movies.


Think that's the same experience many of us shared with the advent of DVD and 5.1 Dolby. Bought so many titles based on picture and audio quality, especially when high definition came into the game.

Must have several hundreds I don't even remember the plot is about anymore.

Almost five months ago got my first 3D the Sony 50w800b and do love it but to purchase a 3D blu ray player just for the few 3D discs I would be bound to purchase, well, I'm not going to spend that much again for one time viewings.

We have free on demand from HBO and Showtime which includes 3d so we are keeping it to that and simulation.


----------



## marcuslaw

AVS Forum's review of Mad Max: Fury Road 3D (Blu-ray) is up. Not surprisingly, it received a nearly perfect score.


----------



## redrovermiami

So

Im trying to play 3d via netflix though the smart part of my tv and youtube...

Turn the glasses on...and they dont stay on...

I have a Sony KDL60W850B

They are synced I popped in a bluray 3d they work fine for that.

Is there something Im missing?

I also have tried this with my directv receiver. I searched for a 3d movie. put the glasses on and nothing they dont stay on.

The light keeps flashing. then glasses are off.

Thanks


----------



## william06

redrovermiami said:


> So
> 
> Im trying to play 3d via netflix though the smart part of my tv and youtube...
> 
> Turn the glasses on...and they dont stay on...
> 
> I have a Sony KDL60W850B
> 
> They are synced I popped in a bluray 3d they work fine for that.
> 
> Is there something Im missing?
> 
> I also have tried this with my directv receiver. I searched for a 3d movie. put the glasses on and nothing they dont stay on.
> 
> The light keeps flashing. then glasses are off.
> 
> Thanks


Just a quick thought, battery going or if rechargeable needs recharge. Just quick thought.


----------



## tomtastic

Yeah, sounds like you need to recharge the battery. Directv, I notice the preview isn't in 3D though until you purchase. Not sure on Netflix. Does the screen look like it's 3D? Or is it still 2D?


----------



## redrovermiami

The glasses are brand new...

I just took the plastic protector off the battery 

the tv was in 3d on netflix it was blurry


----------



## NorthSky

When you play a 3D Blu-ray disc does it work properly? 

On my own 3D setup:
1. The TV adjust itself automatically: 3D mode.
2. I turn my active 3D glasses on: by pushing the small button...green light.
3. 3D movie magic.  

* With Netflix I know nothing: I don't have Netflix. 

But! I can watch 3D youtube videos, with those cardboard 3D glasses...blue and red plastic lenses.  ...Not the real 3D thing but still fun nonetheless.

__________

♦ 3D is not about to die yet...how could it be...Mad Max: Fury Road 3D.  ...3D is just going to expand more and more...till 2D is dead for good. ;-)


----------



## redrovermiami

Yeah 3d on my Blu ray works perfectly.


----------



## NorthSky

redrovermiami said:


> Yeah 3d on my Blu ray works perfectly.


Then 3D Netflix is not playing nice with your TV. ...My best guess. ...Look for the 3D settings from your TV...there should be three options...blurry picture is the one to select. Explore around with the 3D settings, and from your 3D TV and from your 3D source (3D BR player perhaps). 

Also, I'm not sure @ all for that; but wherever your 3D source for Netflix...look @ the 3D setup menu...BR player, laptop, whatever. 

* When things are in good sync, your 3D glasses should remain on, after you push the small button (green light, and then it goes away, but they remain on 3D mode). 

The people who watch Netflix with 3D flicks are the ones who can help you best.

Question: Which source are you using to stream 3D Netflix?


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> When you play a 3D Blu-ray disc does it work properly?
> 
> On my own 3D setup:
> 1. The TV adjust itself automatically: 3D mode.
> 2. I turn my active 3D glasses on: by pushing the small button...green light.
> 3. 3D movie magic.
> 
> * With Netflix I know nothing: I don't have Netflix.
> 
> But! I can watch 3D youtube videos, with those cardboard 3D glasses...blue and red plastic lenses.  ...Not the real 3D thing but still fun nonetheless.
> 
> __________
> 
> ♦ 3D is not about to die yet...how could it be...Mad Max: Fury Road 3D.  ...3D is just going to expand more and more...till 2D is dead for good. ;-)


A button on my glasses? Dang, mine don't have any. 

Sky, I'm beginning to just back away from most of the silly "3D is a marketing gimmick" and "3D is dead" crap and just [try] to be content knowing that I'm enjoying something that they apparently either 1. can't, or 2. won't even give a real try.

The only time that I really start to get enraged is when newcomers read lame @#$% like that and start to decide that somehow 3D is a mistake to get. I wish everyone could see 3D on a competent passive TV, I really do.

My parents read some article and called to tell me sadly that 3D was a gonner after I bought my TV; they were all worried. They thought that my TV couldn't do 2D. Further, they thought I had spent a ton of money for the 3D part of it.


----------



## NorthSky

Your 3D passive glasses don't have any button...good...but the guy to who I responded, do...have a "power" button on its active 3D glasses.


----------



## redrovermiami

NorthSky said:


> Then 3D Netflix is not playing nice with your TV. ...My best guess. ...Look for the 3D settings from your TV...there should be three options...blurry picture is the one to select. Explore around with the 3D settings, and from your 3D TV and from your 3D source (3D BR player perhaps).
> 
> Also, I'm not sure @ all for that; but wherever your 3D source for Netflix...look @ the 3D setup menu...BR player, laptop, whatever.
> 
> * When things are in good sync, your 3D glasses should remain on, after you push the small button (green light, and then it goes away, but they remain on 3D mode).
> 
> The people who watch Netflix with 3D flicks are the ones who can help you best.
> 
> Question: Which source are you using to stream 3D Netflix?


IDK I pressed the 3d button on my remote...set up what you said to..didnt do anything. I tried a few things nothing.

The 3d source Im using is from the smart feature of my smart tv. I press the netflix button search for the movie I want and it comes on. The glasses I power on...then nothing no 3d 

I also have netflix app on my sony blu ray player I tried to play netflix through that same thing happened 

its just blurry...


----------



## NorthSky

redrovermiami said:


> IDK I pressed the 3d button on my remote...set up what you said to..didnt do anything. I tried a few things nothing.
> 
> The 3d source Im using is from the smart feature of my smart tv. I press the netflix button search for the movie I want and it comes on. The glasses I power on...then nothing no 3d
> 
> I also have netflix app on my sony blu ray player I tried to play netflix through that same thing happened
> 
> its just blurry...


I've been looking around to find a solution...not very easy because the support for 3D Netflix movies is very very low.
There are many threads @ AVS that I looked @, but I did not get the solution. 

Then I looked somewhere else, googling over the entire internet. ...Even there I had great difficulty to find support. 
I truly don't know what to suggest @ this point. 

What I did find though is this: From wherever you get Netflix (TV, BR player, etc.), your TV, your Blu-ray player has to support 3D from Netflix...most don't. I also found this link; I'm not sure if it can help: 
♦ www.phliks.com/does-netflix-have-3d-movies/ --> Read carefully the few important requirements.


----------



## redrovermiami

Sorry wrong thread


----------



## NorthSky

3D HDTVs from different manufacturers use some 3D glasses models that will work with them; other 3D glasses models won't. 
So it's best to make sure of that too...active 3D glasses I'm speaking of here. Simply put, not all 3D active glasses will sync with all 3D HDTVs.


----------



## marcuslaw

NorthSky said:


> 3D HDTVs from different manufacturers use some 3D glasses models that will work with them; other 3D glasses models won't.
> So it's best to make sure of that too...active 3D glasses I'm speaking of here. Simply put, not all 3D active glasses will sync with all 3D HDTVs.


For active 3-D televisions, look to see if the manufacturer is a member of the Full HD 3D Initiative. For those who are, Bluetooth enabled glasses should be cross compatible. For example, I use Pany TY-ER3D4MU with my Sony XBR-75X940C and they work wonderfully.


----------



## tomtastic

Picked up Season 5 of Walking Dead. This lenticular cover really has me wanting for 3D on this series. The cover looks amazing, would've been awesome in 3D.


----------



## old corps

marcuslaw said:


> For active 3-D televisions, look to see if the manufacturer is a member of the Full HD 3D Initiative. For those who are, Bluetooth enabled glasses should be cross compatible. For example, I use Pany TY-ER3D4MU with my Sony XBR-75X940C and they work wonderfully.



Those panny glasses work great with my Epson 5030 as well. Very lightweight & comfortable to wear. Got 'em when Best Buy was clearing 'em out for $19.99--a STEAL.


Ed


----------



## SFMike

*The Latest Obituary*











Here is the latest 3DTV obituary to add to the collection. You can check it out at http://www.cnet.com/news/poll-is-3d-dead-do-you-care/ and you can see by the poll the readers are not encouraging. I have to admit I'm fresh out of optimism and only hope I will be able to replace my current 3DTV when I'm ready for an upgrade. RIP


----------



## chefswg

SFMike, don't drink the coolaid. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you've only watched 3d at the theaters I can tell you there is a better experience to be had at home with the right display setup. I'm watching 3d from a projector on a 135" screen at home and have been amazed at the results. A large screen and the right seating location seems to help with the visual effects of 3d. I find glasses to be less than ideal but overall I enjoy a 3d movie even with the glasses. I had many opinions before experiencing in home 3d, I've since changed those opinions. Give it a shot sometime, certainly the guy from cnet had a negative opinion when writing the article. He didn't even mention having watched any 3d content...


----------



## tomtastic

I've said it before: they need to stop charging more and just make it the same cost as 2D, ticket sales, 3D Blu rays. The higher cost is not helping a fading niche market. People are not flocking to see movies in 3D anymore. It's not a new experience. If they make it the same cost, then when they decide on 3D or 2D, if it's the same price, then why not?

That article states your current 3D BD's will likely work in 4K BD players. I doubt that will be true, unless they've released this info already.

3D was overhyped like it was a must have feature. That has never been the case with 3D. It's not for everyone. It's like an IMAX experience, something you experience once and awhile but only for some. Really, it's more about accepting that 3D isn't going to take over 2D. This article makes it sound like 3D had to come out swinging and take over the airwaves by storm and be an included feature in every TV. That was a lot to expect and was never going to happen. 4k is going to take a long time to be as successful as 3D was from 2010- present. From 4k BD's to streaming to broadcast, it has a steep uphill battle. Cost and bandwidth are going to take it a long time to overtake 1080p/i/720p. It will happen, just not right away. When the 3D feature rolled out on HD TV's, they had broadcast channels, theaters and displays all with 3D. 4k has House of Cards. Ok, maybe a few other things. It will be on 4k BD, but 3D had BD too. Any 4k broadcasts announced for 2016, besides on demand?


----------



## mo949

The author mentions how 3D ruins the picture quality. Most 3D TV's out there had terrible 3D picture quality compared to the same displays capabilities in 2D. 

If only 3D had been released during the OLED era where that's no longer the case.


----------



## NorthSky

It's always the best stuff that dies first...HD DVD, Plasma, OLED, UHD, Auro-3D, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, 3D, Ashley Madison, ...and the worst that remains...CD, streaming, downloading, cable TV, satellite TV, DVD, vinyl, Netflix, youtube, apple, microsoft, Dow Jones, Nasdaq, curved TVs, Donald Trump, ... 

Pretty soon everything's gong to be for sale...in exchange for water and ice cubes and rain.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> 3D was overhyped like it was a must have feature. That has never been the case with 3D.


(?) That makes no sense. _*Everything*_ is marketed with "must have" emphasis sooner or later. UHD, HDR, faster car engines and hair gel all have advertisements behind them trying to make them seem like great items. Nothing unusual there.


----------



## tomtastic

True, but the very premise that 3D would be touted as the next big thing was wrong for them to market it as such. The very idea that everyone in a household would sit down and watch hours and hours of 3D with glasses is just ludicrous. 4k is the next thing, because it's an extension of HD in the traditional 2D form so they can market it that way, as the next big thing. It WILL happen. It's going to take a long time, but it will happen. 3D will never take over 2D. Glasses free 3D is too late now, people have moved on. 4k won't have the quick success that 3D had and not in the theater either, it's more of a home theater market. There's a market for fast cars, whether you drive fast or not. 3D is a niche market that only a small few enjoy.

Real 3D is already dead. Looking at this years titles, the only important ones are converted movies that look just as impressive in 2D. The only movie I'm looking forward to for 3D might be Prometheus 2 which starts filming next year. Maybe a few others.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> True, but the very premise that 3D would be touted as the next big thing was wrong for them to market it as such.


It was the next big thing at the time. I'm _very *very* _thankful it came to be in my lifetime as well as it has.



tomtastic said:


> The very idea that everyone in a household would sit down and watch hours and hours of 3D with glasses is just ludicrous.


We've seen dozens of 3D movies on our TV. Does that amount to hours and hours of 3D? I'd think so.

And _*no one*_ billed it as a thing that everyone would watch everything on always. That idea exists *purely* in your head. We're far from when 3D would be the defacto "everything", and no one attempted to establish it as such. It'll likely happen sometime though when the technology is good enough to make it seamless and clean.



tomtastic said:


> Real 3D is already dead. Looking at this years titles, the only important ones are converted movies that look just as impressive in 2D. The only movie I'm looking forward to for 3D might be Prometheus 2 which starts filming next year. Maybe a few others.


As long as there's ONE MOVIE you want to see in 3D, then there's a reason for 3D at home, which BTW likely cost you next to nothing over the life of your TV.


----------



## NorthSky

redrovermiami said:


> IDK I pressed the 3d button on my remote...set up what you said to..didnt do anything. I tried a few things nothing.
> The 3d source Im using is from the smart feature of my smart tv. I press the netflix button search for the movie I want and it comes on. The glasses I power on...then nothing no 3d
> I also have netflix app on my sony blu ray player I tried to play netflix through that same thing happened
> its just blurry...





redrovermiami said:


> Sorry wrong thread





NorthSky said:


> 3D HDTVs from different manufacturers use some 3D glasses models that will work with them; other 3D glasses models won't.
> So it's best to make sure of that too...active 3D glasses I'm speaking of here. Simply put, not all 3D active glasses will sync with all 3D HDTVs.





marcuslaw said:


> For active 3-D televisions, look to see if the manufacturer is a member of the Full HD 3D Initiative. For those who are, Bluetooth enabled glasses should be cross compatible. For example, I use Pany TY-ER3D4MU with my Sony XBR-75X940C and they work wonderfully.


Good informative post *marcus*. I would really like to know why *redrover* cannot make it work...the exact reason.


----------



## NorthSky

Two things are for sure about 3D:

1. The love many of us have for it.

2. If it fades away (and it does according to reality checks); it's because of money. Everything that fades away in the technological world of electronics (audio and visual) is always because of low revenues. ...If not enough people are interested (by voting with their wallets), even if the product is sound and solid, then it cannot subsist indefinitely without all the support needed in this world of capitalism we live in. 

We adapt to our own system, we cope with it the best we can...not more we can do. And I'm sure that 3D is more popular, and profitable in other parts of our globe.

But it ain't just over yet...Mad Max, Jurassic World, The Martian, Star Wars (3 more episodes), Avatar (3 more episodes), ...

@ the threshold of UHD, it remains in the domain of the stars (future projections) regarding 3D sound and picture. ...All about revenues, again and always. 

It's a beautiful world the one we live in in many parts of our planet, and it's a very tough one too in other parts. ...C'est la vie...and it's up to all of us to equalize it. 
For now many of us here, and over there too, we'll keep supporting this great visual technology that 3D provides...a deeper/immersive movie experience. ...Without a doubt.


----------



## marcuslaw

tomtastic said:


> True, but the very premise that 3D would be touted as the next big thing was wrong for them to market it as such. The very idea that everyone in a household would sit down and watch hours and hours of 3D with glasses is just ludicrous.


Why was it wrong to be heavily marketed? The tech had finally reached a point with Blu-ray where the viewer could enjoy a sharp 3-D image without color filtering (red/blue paper lenses, ugh). Take a look at the attached cap from the Blu-ray Disc Assoc. What is so wrong with what's written? As far as being ludicrous, to each his own I suppose. I regularly sit down and watch hours of 3-D with my family. Of course, we don't wear heavy glasses that entered the Blu-ray 3-D market early on. Like I've said before, equipment, equipment, equipment. 



> 4k is the next thing, because it's an extension of HD in the traditional 2D form so they can market it that way, as the next big thing. It WILL happen. It's going to take a long time, but it will happen.


It better hurry, they're already working on 8K broadcast in Japan. 



> 3D will never take over 2D.


3-D was never intended to take over 2D only augment it.



> Glasses free 3D is too late now, people have moved on.


Autostereoscopic tech isn't anywhere close on the horizon. With good equipment, Blu-ray 3-D works just fine. 



> 3D is a niche market that only a small few enjoy.


That might be true in the HT, but not in theaters where ticket sales continue to be high. 



> Real 3D is already dead. Looking at this years titles, the only important ones are converted movies that look just as impressive in 2D. The only movie I'm looking forward to for 3D might be Prometheus 2 which starts filming next year. Maybe a few others.


According to Real or Fake 3-D, there are 13 films filmed/created in native 3-D in 2015 compared to 18 post-converted. The importance of the these films is of course a subjective categorization. I should add that while I too place greater emphasis on films shot natively in stereo, conversion technology has evolved far better today than it was just a few years ago. When given sufficient time and resources, a 3-D conversion house can add sufficient depth, layering and sometimes even pop to a mono film to render it more immersive and draw in a viewer like never before.


----------



## marcuslaw

NorthSky said:


> It's always the best stuff that dies first...HD DVD, Plasma, OLED, UHD, Auro-3D, Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, 3D, Ashley Madison, ...and the worst that remains...CD, streaming, downloading, cable TV, satellite TV, DVD, vinyl, Netflix, youtube, apple, microsoft, Dow Jones, Nasdaq, curved TVs, Donald Trump, ...
> 
> Pretty soon everything's gong to be for sale...in exchange for water and ice cubes and rain.


Ashley Madison? LOL. Come on now. I would replace that from your list with SACD and DVD-A (though thank goodness for Blu-ray Audio). As for Auro-3D, Dolby Atmos, and DTS:X. I generally agree. They're going to have a tough uphill battle to gain wider adoption. Sorry for going a bit off topic.


----------



## tomtastic

> And _*no one*_ billed it as a thing that everyone would watch everything on always. That idea exists *purely* in your head. We're far from when 3D would be the defacto "everything", and no one attempted to establish it as such. It'll likely happen sometime though when the technology is good enough to make it seamless and clean.


Hardly, it was marketed that way whether you want to accept it or not. They milked 3D for all it was worth. Hollywood wanted everything in 3D looking to cash in. Certain directors could case less about 3D (like J.J. Abrams), they converted their films anyway. Broadcast tried it too. They did try to establish it as the next big thing. You're denying history if you think otherwise.

There's a reason why articles like this one exist, to a large extent they're right, they tried 3D and it failed to take off but only because their expectations were too high to begin with and they didn't always do it the right way (think converted 3D movies). 3D movies are in a decline, there's fewer movies in theater every year since 2012. I posted statistics to that several pages back. 

And there are far fewer real 3D movies this year than ever before. All the big movies this year are converted. Converted movies: Ant Man, Avengers, Jurassic World, Mad Max, Star Wars, Terminator. That's over a couple billion in sales that might as well be on the 2D camp. Real 3D? The Martian. Ridley Scott, well thank God for him. A few animated movies. TV manufactures are already winding back 3D enabled displays. If something doesn't change, there won't be any new ones coming out and they won't bother releasing to 3D Blu ray. Then again, if they're just converted movies, I could care less anyway.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> Hardly, it was marketed that way whether you want to accept it or not. They milked 3D for all it was worth. Hollywood wanted everything in 3D looking to cash in. Certain directors could case less about 3D (like J.J. Abrams), they converted their films anyway. Broadcast tried it too. They did try to establish it as the next big thing. You're denying history if you think otherwise.


Nonsense. You are *inventing* history with your confusion over what happened, and what it means.

The "next big thing" is only your phrasing for something new being marketed strongly, and strong marketing for new products is hardly something new. You're confusing things.

"Milking it for all it was worth" --- so what?

"Hollywood wanted everything in 3D to cash in" --- horrendous overstatement. "Everything"? You're being myopic here.

And yes, 3D channels were showing up. But this doesn't mean that everyone was supposed to sit around all day and watch everything in 3D. What it means is that there would be a place to go for 3D conent (sports was the biggest push) when people wanted. They botched this concept. Just as you're botching what it all meant.

Please stop overstating things.


----------



## golfster

SFMike said:


> Here is the latest 3DTV obituary to add to the collection. You can check it out at http://www.cnet.com/news/poll-is-3d-dead-do-you-care/ and you can see by the poll the readers are not encouraging. I have to admit I'm fresh out of optimism and only hope I will be able to replace my current 3DTV when I'm ready for an upgrade. RIP


I think that article pretty much sums it up. If you love 3D and are thinking about a new TV, you better buy one soon while they are still available. Right now the manufacturers are pushing 4k and HDR to separate you from your money. They have pretty much saturated the market to people who want 3D and need to seek other "must haves" to sell TVs.


----------



## longhornsk57

Actually most 4K TVs I see also have 3D...


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> Ashley Madison? LOL. Come on now. I would replace that from your list with SACD and DVD-A (though thank goodness for Blu-ray Audio). As for Auro-3D, Dolby Atmos, and DTS:X. I generally agree. They're going to have a tough uphill battle to gain wider adoption. Sorry for going a bit off topic.


My post was humorous. 

Besides, Ashley Madison's website is a club mainly for men, who love other men. ...And that, is what most people didn't know.


----------



## dudae

Another technology the industry was able to talk users into buying that they never used. Content was always a problem. Humm, sound like 4k? Curved screens? FALD? 

Mark my words 8k will be the next push once the 4k and FALD prices come down and the margins disappear.


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> Actually most 4K TVs I see also have 3D...


That is also what I remarked when visiting my local audio/video stores. 

And the young staff, they know more about 3D picture than about 3D sound (Dolby Atmos). 
They like gaming from their PS3 and front projectors, and they like OLED TVs. 

Life is beautiful, in 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

dudae said:


> Another technology the industry was able to talk users into buying that they never used. Content was always a problem. Humm, sound like 4k? Curved screens? FALD?
> 
> Mark my words 8k will be the next push once the 4k and FALD prices come down and the margins disappear.


Japan is ahead of us...on all things technology visual related.


----------



## cctvtech

dudae said:


> Another technology the industry was able to talk users into buying that they never used. Content was always a problem. Humm, sound like 4k? Curved screens? FALD?
> 
> Mark my words 8k will be the next push once the 4k and FALD prices come down and the margins disappear.


Nope. Wall-sized, total-immersion TVs will change how you watch your favorite shows


----------



## film113

dudae said:


> Mark my words 8k will be the next push once the 4k and FALD prices come down and the margins disappear.


8K prototype displays have already been shown so...yeah. In a few years.


----------



## marcuslaw

longhornsk57 said:


> Actually most 4K TVs I see also have 3D...


It's a shame that Vizio and LG owners will not have the privilege to see Blu-ray 3-D in Full HD on a 4K TV. I've lifted my jaw from the floor many times since mid-July when I acquired my Sony.


----------



## marcuslaw

dudae said:


> Another technology the industry was able to talk users into buying that they never used. Content was always a problem. Humm, sound like 4k? Curved screens? FALD?
> 
> Mark my words 8k will be the next push once the 4k and FALD prices come down and the margins disappear.


Are you saying that 4K, curved screens, and FALD are somehow tech that lacked lacked sufficient content to fully take advantage of?  While I've never been a fan of curved screens, I can say that when effectively implemented, FALD has vastly improved PQ in LCD now with even fewer dimming zones. It's not quite "plasma-like" as Panasonic has woefully used to describe one of its more recent TV's, but it's awfully darn close.


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> Nonsense. You are *inventing* history with your confusion over what happened, and what it means.
> 
> The "next big thing" is only your phrasing for something new being marketed strongly, and strong marketing for new products is hardly something new. You're confusing things.
> 
> "Milking it for all it was worth" --- so what?
> 
> "Hollywood wanted everything in 3D to cash in" --- horrendous overstatement. "Everything"? You're being myopic here.
> 
> And yes, 3D channels were showing up. But this doesn't mean that everyone was supposed to sit around all day and watch everything in 3D. What it means is that there would be a place to go for 3D conent (sports was the biggest push) when people wanted. They botched this concept. Just as you're botching what it all meant.
> 
> Please stop overstating things.


I'm not "inventing" anything, you're trying to see the past differently than what it was. I could post 20 articles here and they'll all same the same thing as the one that was just linked: "3D is out and 4k is the next *big thing*." That's a fact, not an opinion. They made 3D the big thing back in 2010. That's a fact. They pushed it to be more than what it could accomplish and that's why there's so much talk about the failure of 3D now. 

We shouldn't even be talking about the failure to take off because it really wasn't fair to expect that in the first place. And manufacturers, content providers, content developers, they all were riding the wave. That wave has dissipated. The new wave is 4k, no reason to deny it. I don't mean every single movie had to be 3D, but certainly there were a lot of movies that got pushed into 3D because they were trying to ride the wave too. Unfortunately, not all can surf.

I can see we're not going to agree on it, that's fine. Every time there's an article like this one, you have to ask yourself why are they so worried about the death of 3D in the first place? If they hadn't had such high expectations to begin with they would never be discussing it.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> I'm not "inventing" anything, you're trying to see the past differently than what it was. I could post 20 articles here and they'll all same the same thing as the one that was just linked: "3D is out and 4k is the next *big thing*." That's a fact, not an opinion. They made 3D the big thing back in 2010. That's a fact. They pushed it to be more than what it could accomplish and that's why there's so much talk about the failure of 3D now.
> 
> We shouldn't even be talking about the failure to take off because it really wasn't fair to expect that in the first place. And manufacturers, content providers, content developers, they all were riding the wave. That wave has dissipated. The new wave is 4k, no reason to deny it. I don't mean every single movie had to be 3D, but certainly there were a lot of movies that got pushed into 3D because they were trying to ride the wave too. Unfortunately, not all can surf.
> 
> I can see we're not going to agree on it, that's fine. Every time there's an article like this one, you have to ask yourself why are they so worried about the death of 3D in the first place? If they hadn't had such high expectations to begin with they would never be discussing it.


I'm sorry, this logic is too twisted for me. "Why am I worried about the death of 3D in the first place?" (Not bothering with that one). And you think somehow that high expectations of 3D are the reason that I and others enjoy it so much? That's nonsense. We like 3D because we like 3D. We'd be discussing the decrease of 3D TV manufacture no matter _how_ 3D was or was not promoted in the beginning.


----------



## film113

marcuslaw said:


> It's a shame that Vizio and LG owners will not have the privilege to see Blu-ray 3-D in Full HD on a 4K TV. I've lifted my jaw from the floor many times since mid-July when I acquired my Sony.


Just Vizio. LG has 4K 3D sets ranging from 49" to 79"


----------



## SteveCaron

film113 said:


> Just Vizio. LG has 4K 3D sets ranging from 49" to 79"


 
....and to chime in I have the LG 65UB9500 and the passive 3D quality is stunning. 


I don't need to see everything in 3d though I am a purist where cinema is concerned so if a movie was shot and intended to be seen that way (especially older catalog titles) I've always felt I was missing something without it. I would love to see some of my earliest 3D experiences from the 80s hit blu ray like Comin' at Ya, Treasure of the Four Crowns, Space Hunter and probably the worst of the bunch Jaws 3D.


----------



## NSX1992

marcuslaw said:


> It's a shame that Vizio and LG owners will not have the privilege to see Blu-ray 3-D in Full HD on a 4K TV. I've lifted my jaw from the floor many times since mid-July when I acquired my Sony.


I have been watching full Blu-ray HD 3D on my 84" 4K LG for two years now. The 3D is better than the theater.


----------



## dudae

marcuslaw said:


> Are you saying that 4K, curved screens, and FALD are somehow tech that lacked lacked sufficient content to fully take advantage of?  While I've never been a fan of curved screens, I can say that when effectively implemented, FALD has vastly improved PQ in LCD now with even fewer dimming zones. It's not quite "plasma-like" as Panasonic has woefully used to describe one of its more recent TV's, but it's awfully darn close.


I think 4k will suffer from not enough content. You also have bandwidth constraints and the compression needed with all its problems are huge hurdles to get a 4k streamed to your living room with a true 4k picture without artifacts. I also don't see the cable/satellite companies broadcasting mainstream programing in 4k. Heck they don't even give us 1080p yet. 

Curved screens are a gimmick to charge more. 

FALD while nice, tends to be combined with mirror finished screens. As a result, on dark scenes the blacks are better, but you can see a nice reflection of your living room at the same time. Give me a semi matte screen so I don't see myself watching TV.

These new technologies are just the most recent attempt to extract more money out of the consumer at questionable benefits.


----------



## golfster

One of the most telling signs are the displays. A year or so ago, you walked into Costco and there were 2 or 3 displays of 3D TVs with glasses for viewing. At Best Buy, you would find 2 or 3 viewing areas with leather chairs and surround sound to view 3D. Walk in today and you do not find these. Today you find 4k sets displaying very highly detailed demo loops that have a 3D feel to them, especially on those curved screens. The Samsung demos are excellent and would make any TV look good. The 3D market has been pretty saturated and now they are trying something else to get our money. 3D is still a feature on some TVs but it is no longer the main selling point.


----------



## coolhand

dudae said:


> I think 4k will suffer from not enough content. You also have bandwidth constraints and the compression needed with all its problems are huge hurdles to get a 4k streamed to your living room with a true 4k picture without artifacts. I also don't see the cable/satellite companies broadcasting mainstream programing in 4k. Heck they don't even give us 1080p yet.


This is exactly my frustration. Why is everyone excited abuot 4k when we aren't even CLOSE to getting 1080p for any TV without massive codec loss? The only place I can get real 1080 video is Bluray. You want me to drop another 3k for a new PJ so I can watch... what exactly?


----------



## MrEmoto

coolhand said:


> This is exactly my frustration. Why is everyone excited abuot 4k when we aren't even CLOSE to getting 1080p for any TV without massive codec loss? The only place I can get real 1080 video is Bluray. You want me to drop another 3k for a new PJ so I can watch... what exactly?


Plus, it may not support 3D, so to heck with it.


----------



## soutthpaw

It's interesting to see a dramatic increase in 3D releases in theater the last few years,, yet a decline in home 3D entertainment. Seems the current crop of gaming consoles have also abandoned 3D


----------



## dhvsfan

SteveCaron said:


> .
> 
> I would love to see some of my earliest 3D experiences from the 80s hit blu ray like Comin' at Ya, Treasure of the Four Crowns, Space Hunter and probably the worst of the bunch Jaws 3D.


Sign me up for "SpaceHunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone" in 3D Blu-Ray 

The others would probably be good too.


----------



## MrEmoto

dhvsfan said:


> Sign me up for "SpaceHunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone" in 3D Blu-Ray
> 
> The others would probably be good too.


There is a 3D print of that floating around according to google.


----------



## dhvsfan

MrEmoto said:


> There is a 3D print of that floating around according to google.


IRC, those are from a poor quality VHD. I'd want something restored from the original 3D prints to Blu-Ray. Stuff like http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/ is doing to rare movies.


----------



## dudae

One of my friends told me that watching golf on the ESPN 3d channel was awesome. When ESPN shut down the 3d channel I knew it was over.

Now if they ever got football in 3d, that would be awesome.


----------



## andy sullivan

It's interesting to note that this thread is two months short of being two years old. So I guess that after two years good old 3D ain't dead yet.
As far as 3D being the next great thing, you can blame the movie "Avatar" for that. I remember telling a 67 year old friend that he and his wife should check it out in 3D. A few days later I received an e-mail from him thanking me and saying that he and his wife enjoyed the best movie experience in many years. I told him to check out "Hugo" and "Titanic" in blu-ray 3D.
Shortly after "Avatar" took the movie world by storm we began to hear about the push to 3D by the major broadcast studios (CBS,NBS, FOX, ABC and their many connected channels like TNT ,USA ,ESPN, etc. ESPN tried to make the initial splash but ended up deciding not to spend the money for enough new programming and equipment (cameras etc ) to go beyond the initial flush. Cable box and sat box upgrades were costly and 3D was deemed a poor return on investment. This same reasoning is why we will unlikely see major network 4K broadcasts. 8K? Never happen in the US. When 90% of the viewers are happy with the status quo the fat cats have no incentive to upgrade the product.
I agree 100% with an earlier comment saying that 3D movies and 3D blu-ray movies should be priced the same as their 2D siblings. Here's looking forward to another two years of this thread.


----------



## SteveCaron

dhvsfan said:


> Sign me up for "SpaceHunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone" in 3D Blu-Ray
> 
> The others would probably be good too.



Being a Columbia Pictures release I had hoped Twilight Time / Screen Archives would have released it. They have taken up other 80s Columbia releases.


----------



## turls

dudae said:


> One of my friends told me that watching golf on the ESPN 3d channel was awesome. When ESPN shut down the 3d channel I knew it was over.
> 
> Now if they ever got football in 3d, that would be awesome.


They did have football in 3D. The BCS National Championship was just in 3D in 2013.

Take a look at Twitter handle ESPN3D for a walk down memory lane.


----------



## johnny905

marcuslaw said:


> It's a shame that Vizio and LG owners will not have the privilege to see Blu-ray 3-D in Full HD on a 4K TV. I've lifted my jaw from the floor many times since mid-July when I acquired my Sony.


I understand why you mention Vizio, but why mention LG? I own a Lg 4K 3DTV and am loving full HD 3D on it.


----------



## BDUB619

Can't wait to watch Mad Max in 3D, this Tuesday 9/1!


----------



## therealdjnugz

BDUB619 said:


> Can't wait to watch Mad Max in 3D, this Tuesday 9/1!


Me too sir!


----------



## marcuslaw

film113 said:


> Just Vizio. LG has 4K 3D sets ranging from 49" to 79"


I happily stand corrected.


----------



## marcuslaw

dudae said:


> One of my friends told me that watching golf on the ESPN 3d channel was awesome. When ESPN shut down the 3d channel I knew it was over.
> 
> Now if they ever got football in 3d, that would be awesome.


I hope you and Disney are wrong.  Long live Blu-ray 3-D.


----------



## marcuslaw

BDUB619 said:


> Can't wait to watch Mad Max in 3D, this Tuesday 9/1!


I can't wait for it to hit $24.99.


----------



## Worf

Funny enough, that's probably the price of the 3D version in Canada... $30 Canadian, or under $23 US.


----------



## NorthSky

Worf said:


> Funny enough, that's probably the price of the 3D version in Canada... $30 Canadian, or under $23 US.


$29.96 (+ 12% tax) here in Canada...Mad Max: Fury Road 3D. ...Total: *$33.55* Canadian.


----------



## BDUB619

marcuslaw said:


> BDUB619 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait to watch Mad Max in 3D, this Tuesday 9/1!
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait for it to hit $24.99.
Click to expand...

Its currently $27.99 for the 3D version on Amazon Prime. So only $3 more lol


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> I'm sorry, this logic is too twisted for me. "Why am I worried about the death of 3D in the first place?" (Not bothering with that one). And you think somehow that high expectations of 3D are the reason that I and others enjoy it so much? That's nonsense. We like 3D because we like 3D. We'd be discussing the decrease of 3D TV manufacture no matter _how_ 3D was or was not promoted in the beginning.


Yes, exactly on your last point, your previous points I wasn't claiming anyone was worried or why anyone likes 3D, they like it or hate it for their own personal reasons. My point was articles like this one exist because they know as well as I that 3D was pushed as a new feature that was expected to take off (not take over). That's why they're saying it's dead. I'm saying it's a bit unfair in the beginning to expect 3D to do that. It never did it before, why would we expect it now? Yes, there's probably no other way they could have marketed 3D then with lower expectations, if it had been less emphasized the wave may have lasted only a year or less and then where would we be? I read articles like this one and I just shake my head, depending how you look at, glass half full or empty: it was doomed from the start or maybe it had it's be run ever.


----------



## aaronwt

golfster said:


> World War Z is only a good movie if you HAVE NOT read the book. Worst adaptation ever-only thing in common was the title. Perhaps the 3D effects make it worth owning, but not for the story.


The only problem is that the 3D version is the theatrical version. The only version worth watching is the extended edition. That puts all the stuff back in that would make it an R movie instead of the PG-13 theatrical. I was pissed when I bought this on 3D because I wanted to see the extended version in 3D. But when I purchased it I didn't realize the extended version was only in 2D. It still makes me mad when I think about it.

So this was the first title I watched entirely using the fake 3D that a TV or BD player creates with a 2D source. It worked but I wouldn't do it again.


----------



## therealdjnugz

aaronwt said:


> The only problem is that the 3D version is the theatrical version. The only version worth watching is the extended edition. That puts all the stuff back in that would make it an R movie instead of the PG-13 theatrical. I was pissed when I bought this on 3D because I wanted to see the extended version in 3D. But when I purchased it I didn't realize the extended version was only in 2D. It still makes me mad when I think about it.
> 
> So this was the first title I watched entirely using the fake 3D that a TV or BD player creates with a 2D source. It worked but I wouldn't do it again.


Haha yea, I don't blame you. I've tried converting LOTR into 3d using my Epson 5025 and the results were pure garbage.


----------



## NorthSky

Anyway 'World War Z' in 3D is nothing spectacular, less than marvelous, nothing to sweat over, below average, "mediocre" ...to use a word directly from 'Mad Max: Fury Road'.


----------



## Worf

NorthSky said:


> $29.96 (+ 12% tax) here in Canada...Mad Max: Fury Road 3D. ...Total: *$33.55* Canadian.


Yeah, but when you ask for something at a certain price, like say this movie at $25, it's generally meant as the price before tax. Granted, there are some tax avoidance shenanigans when you buy online, but that's usually not relevant.

Now, it gets tricky when comparing prices to those of Europe or Australia, because their taxation builds the tax into the price of the item, and since consumer laws are as they are, often include the price of an extended warranty as well, which often diffuses the whole ripoff argument.


----------



## NorthSky

*The State of 3D*



Worf said:


> Yeah, but when you ask for something at a certain price, like say this movie at $25, it's generally meant as the price before tax. Granted, there are some tax avoidance shenanigans when you buy online, but that's usually not relevant.
> 
> Now, it gets tricky when comparing prices to those of Europe or Australia, because their taxation builds the tax into the price of the item, and since consumer laws are as they are, often include the price of an extended warranty as well, which often diffuses the whole ripoff argument.


Prices are important...from everywhere in the world...it's part of all the various world's economies...and they reflect trends, strategies, stocks, people's various classes...jobs, etc. And taxes too; some places you pay no tax, other places you pay outrageous taxes, extra fees, all that jazz...reflecting again each country's own economic system/infrastructure. 

So, because I am a Canadian living in Canada myself, I posted the exact price with tax. If I was living in the USA or part of Europe like France or Germany or UK...I would be in a different economic climate. ...It is all relative to each country where we live...and not only for 3D Blu-rays but also for everything else...audio/video gear, cars, housing, women, girlfriends, wives, children, ... ;-) ...Very true. 

We can relate best to each other when we live in the same country and have a similar annual salary and living in similar circumstances with family and friends surrounding us, generally. ...But our life's priorities and personal passions/hobbies...they vary more or less. Our financial and spiritual values are unique to each one of us. America is a system based on capital, China is based on something else, India, Russia, Korea, Iran, Japan, Europe, Australia...

The mega-metropolis of 3D Blu-ray movies is from Hollywood, California, of the United States of America. ...And from there it spreads everywhere. 

The 3D world's situation right now is largely influenced by Hollywood. [email protected] the movie theaters, on Blu-ray and in streaming and downloading. 
If 3D survives in Hollywood it has great chances of surviving across other world's region, and if movie studios like Disney is backing off with certain 3D Blu-ray releases here in North America, then they are expanding outside of their own confinement. ...They go where the MONEY is. 

Anyway, that is one aspect of my perspective, regarding 3D. ...Not just here, but globally. ...Can't wait for 'Mad Max: Fury Road' on 3D Blu in less than 48 hours...and later on...'Avatar 2' in 3D HD (not in UHD).


----------



## johnny905

I'm not that much into romcoms, but in 3D maybe I'll give it a shot? 

The first 3D RomCom: 

http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmont...the-romantic-comedy-to-another-dimension.html


----------



## obveron

It seems that the game developers have given up on 3D for the latest gen consoles. It probably didn't help that AVS forum mods would not sticky the 3D console games thread as requested numerous times.


----------



## aaronwt

I have no desire to play any of the games in 3D. Plus the typically drop to 720P don't they?


----------



## NickTheGreat

johnny905 said:


> I'm not that much into romcoms, but in 3D maybe I'll give it a shot?
> 
> The first 3D RomCom:
> 
> http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmont...the-romantic-comedy-to-another-dimension.html


A 3D romcom has to be better than a 2D romcom . . . right?


----------



## aaronwt

NickTheGreat said:


> A 3D romcom has to be better than a 2D romcom . . . right?


Of course

Just like a 1080P RomCom is better than a 480P RomCom.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

aaronwt said:


> Of course
> 
> Just like a 1080P RomCom is better than a 480P RomCom.


Actually, The Great Gatsby filmed in 3D added tremendously to the enjoyment of the story because it made the oppulance of the time appear even more gigantic in scale. Thoroughly enjoyed the 3D version and it enhanced emersing one into the story, a beautiful balance of production and screenplay where action was not necessary to show how great 3D can be if more, good material was available.


----------



## jbernardi

Joseph Dubin said:


> Actually, The Great Gatsby filmed in 3D added tremendously to the enjoyment of the story because it made the oppulance of the time appear even more gigantic in scale. Thoroughly enjoyed the 3D version and it enhanced emersing one into the story, a beautiful balance of production and screenplay where action was not necessary to show how great 3D can be if more, good material was available.


I agree completely. Even my wife, who has no interest in 3D, agreed that The Great Gatsby looked a lot better with the depth of 3D than in 2D.


----------



## tgm1024

Joseph Dubin said:


> Thoroughly enjoyed the 3D version and it enhanced emersing one into the story,


This phrasing ^^^^ is critically important to understand; It honestly cannot be stated enough. It enhanced the immersion into the _story_, not merely a scene or even into all the scenes taken as a whole.

The magic of 3D done well is how fully part of the movie you feel such that you completely forget that it's even 3D at all.


----------



## marcuslaw

Each time I revisit this thread, it motivates me to dip into my 3-D library. Today, we chose _Inferno_ which we all enjoyed immensely. I strongly recommend this bit of American film noir from the 3-D format's golden era. It truly goes to show that there is a wealth of 3-D BD to choose from at a time when many declare its demise.


----------



## NorthSky

I watched 'Mad Max: Fury Road' on 3D BR last Tuesday night...and it's a great entertainment no doubt, and a feast for the senses. 

Ok, you guys are good in 3D, and I would like your opinion on Max in 3D, for people who saw it...on Blu.
Me I found the 3D picture very ordinary, overall. Sure, the telescope scene was nice...lasted few seconds...and the rifle blast (woman holding it), plus few more guns sticking like that...
But the overall picture...with the vistas...cars...trucks...actors and actresses...the eternal chase across the desert and into the sandstorm and after and the nighttime scene and the finale...brief the overall film in 3D was nothing impressive...nothing consistent depth wise...actually more 2D than 3D. And it's not a native 3D shot film but up-converted...and even if some are good looking, Mad Max, to my 3D eyes, was not from high caliber in the ensemble. It wasn't bad, and it wasn't great...it was fine...that was my general view. ...That's the reception from my impression...my 3D periphery. 
So, I'd like to know yours. 

And if this can help; from a rating score of between 0 and 10 .... for the 3D picture quality: *7.9*
...Which is still pretty good, but not that good. 

Your opinion on that is highly valuable to me because you guys have discerning eyes when it comes to 3D rendition/perception/perspective.

And last; this is not an easy film for 3D perspective...because of the vast desert land...without buildings...without geometrical structures. 
The main game here is with the props (cars and trucks), and the characters (people). ...Mostly, in general...some CGI shots.


----------



## therealdjnugz

I'd pretty much agree with you. I thought it was good, but not spectacular. I'd still pick the 3d over the 2D disc. Now the bass on the other hand...The bass is what really impressed me.


----------



## aaronwt

I watched half of the MAd MAx 3 Movie last night. That looked and sounded excellent. It was a night and day difference for both Audio and Video than when I saw it in the theater. That was easily the worst 3D experience I've had in the theater. As well as one of the worst for audio.


----------



## NSX1992

Watching it on my 84" 4K LG I thought the 3D was excellent, but most of the movies do look good. The sound was especially good as it rocked my living room. I can't wait for Jurrasic World which I saw in the theater.


----------



## mars5l

Watching it for the 3rd time now. In 3d of course


----------



## kwok lau

I agree that the 3D of Mad Max is good but not very good. Most of the scene are Brown in whole movie, but I assume this is the desert color the movie director expected, 
In my opinion, Avator is still the best 3D movie so far I have seen from my collection. The third dimension of Avator is NOT like "paper" layers on screen, which appears in some bad 3D movie. Most of the Imax 3D blue ray discs which I ownl are good and worth to keep too.


----------



## Hagenstein

NSX1992 said:


> Watching it on my 84" 4K LG I thought the 3D was excellent, but most of the movies do look good. The sound was especially good as it rocked my living room. I can't wait for Jurrasic World which I saw in the theater.


Pretty sure we have the same set (84UB9800). Feel like I have mine pretty dialed in at this point; agree that 3D is exceptional on it. Often, even films that receive mixed reviews for 3D have more than acceptable depth (Star Trek Into Darkness for example looks fantastic depite others ranking its 3D as just ok).

Anyhow, watched this Friday night and thought it looked excellent with high-medium and occasionally strong 3D throughout. Out of the 130+ 3D Blu Rays in my current inventory I'd say this ranks within the top 20 for 3D.
Definitely the preferred way to see it, and the film itself is quite visceral. It's not as monochromatic as some have implied either, though the emphasis is on orange, tans, and blues - a popular palette these days it seems but used to good effect in this film.
A no-brainer purchase for fans of post-apocalyptic action films and 3D IMHO. Highly recommended.


----------



## NorthSky

That LG 4K 84" seems to have a superior attribute for Mad Max in 3D. I can see that.


----------



## marcuslaw

I'm still waiting for the inevitable price drops down to at least $24.99 for MM:FR and Jurassic World 3-D BD's. In the meantime, we watched Pacific Rim 3-D last night which looked and sounded absolutely spectacular.


----------



## mars5l

marcuslaw said:


> I'm still waiting for the inevitable price drops down to at least $24.99 for MM:FR and Jurassic World 3-D BD's. In the meantime, we watched Pacific Rim 3-D last night which looked and sounded absolutely spectacular.


Mm was $27.99 when it released, doubt you will $24.99 for awhile.


----------



## aaronwt

There should be some sales around Thanksgiving on 3D titles. Well at least I hope there are.


----------



## cakefoo

Wim Wenders on embracing 3D as film language, not just an effect



> His upcoming drama,"Every Thing Will Be Fine," starring James Franco and Rachel McAdams, is attempting to change the conversation and reception of 3D filmmaking, something Wenders is a strong advocate of. "I have to talk so much about convincing people it will be worth it because it’s in their mind that 3D is not for them, especially in the art house," Wenders told The Huffington Post.





> "I’m a big defender of 3D cinema and I’m shocked and sad about what is actually being done with this fantastic medium, and how much is going to the dogs because there’s not enough good stuff produced with it. A lot of people are now turned off and think a 3D movie by definition must be garbage. I just shot the first intimate drama in 3D in “Everything Will Be Fine.” [...] There’s this huge prejudice against one of the greatest inventions in the history of cinema. Now the industry is either ruining it or not accepting it as language. They just use it as effect and that drives me crazy. I really, really hope it still has a chance to catch on and be used by documentary filmmakers, authors and independent filmmakers. I don’t know why everybody is shying away from it. Everybody thinks it can only be used for effect."





> "I was convinced it is a medium that gets you much closer to people. It’s a medium that you can use for very intimate purposes. Acting in front of a 3D camera is a whole new territory. In most 3D films you see, almost all of them, there is no real serious acting happening. Most actors in 3D movies are caricatures. Even somebody as great as Johnny Depp as a pirate is just caricature. But 3D acting is really unbelievable because they see so much more and see so precisely. They see every tiny moment of over-acting, they see every mistake. They’re almost like x-rays, you see through to people’s souls. That is a propensity that is not really being discovered in cinema."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wim-wenders-retrospective-3d_55e0d0abe4b0b7a963391adf


----------



## cakefoo

We need more directors like him, directors who have a clear passion for 3D as an artistic tool.

Unfortunately the only movies making an impact on 3D mindshare are the big-budget mass-market action blockbusters, and it's attaching a negative stigma.


----------



## Stereodude

marcuslaw said:


> I'm still waiting for the inevitable price drops down to at least $24.99 for MM:FR and Jurassic World 3-D BD's. In the meantime, we watched Pacific Rim 3-D last night which looked and sounded absolutely spectacular.


You can get the JP trilogy (2D) + JP 3D sealed / new for under $30 shipped on ebay. example link

Perhaps under $25 if you play your cards right and get a little lucky. example link


----------



## coolhand

mars5l said:


> Mm was $27.99 when it released, doubt you will $24.99 for awhile.


I bet there is a price drop to sub $20 by Black Friday.


----------



## coolhand

Stereodude said:


> You can get the JP trilogy (2D) + JP 3D sealed / new for under $30 shipped on ebay. example link
> 
> Perhaps under $25 if you play your cards right and get a little lucky. example link


I got JP1 3D from amazon.co.uk for $11 a few months ago. 2 and 3 are horrible movies and without the distraction of 3D are all but unwatchable IMO.

Also, this obv doesn't include Jurassic Park World.


----------



## turls

aaronwt said:


> There should be some sales around Thanksgiving on 3D titles. Well at least I hope there are.





coolhand said:


> I bet there is a price drop to sub $20 by Black Friday.


You can't count on Black Friday sales of current 3D titles. Might happen, but historically its the older titles that get down to the $15 mark or so. There are always exceptions (some cheaper than that, some newer titles).


----------



## NSX1992

I watched all 3 Jurassic Park movies again before I went to the theater to see Jurassic World in 3D. I enjoyed all 4 especially number 1 in 3D. Jurassic World is number 3 in the all time list of grossing movies and I can't wait for the 3D Blu-ray release.


----------



## blu-dog-avs

NorthSky said:


> Anyway 'World War Z' in 3D is nothing spectacular, less than marvelous, nothing to sweat over, below average, "mediocre" ...to use a word directly from 'Mad Max: Fury Road'.



Whoa. I agree 100%, but I thought _I _was out of line for bringing it up. 


When I say stuff like that, I usually wind up with my skull looking like the letter U. How do you get away with it?


----------



## blu-dog-avs

NickTheGreat said:


> A 3D romcom has to be better than a 2D romcom . . . right?



Yeah, if you smoke enough rope, and bogart the m-f


----------



## mars5l

Best buy has a few $5 titles right now. Dredd, darkest hour and gamer


----------



## coolhand

mars5l said:


> Best buy has a few $5 titles right now. Dredd, darkest hour and gamer


???

Got a link? Showing $9.99 for me.


----------



## R Harkness

> Wim Wenders on embracing 3D as film language, not just an effect
> 
> Quote:
> _His upcoming drama,"Every Thing Will Be Fine," starring James Franco and Rachel McAdams, is attempting to change the conversation and reception of 3D filmmaking, something Wenders is a strong advocate of. "I have to talk so much about convincing people it will be worth it because it’s in their mind that 3D is not for them, especially in the art house," Wenders told The Huffington Post._


Ok, but will James Franco or Rachel McAdams be poking anything toward me when they talk, so it's coming at me out of the screen? If not, I'm not interested. I want my 3D effects worth my money.



Just joking. I wouldn't see anything with James Franco in it.


----------



## ElvisIncognito

I haven't read the whole thread but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents. Let me clearly state up front that I've never been a big fan of 3D. I find active glasses to be very distracting, shattering the immersion effect for me. Passive 3D on a 4K TV is nice, but my vision is 20/20 at best, and I'm not going to spend megabucks on an 80" TV then rearrange my living room to sit 4.7 feet away. (Besides, a 64 degree field of view is overwhelming and just not comfortable for me or my wife.) Not to mention my strong preference for a 2.4:1 constant image height setup. All that said...

Avatar in 3D at an IMAX theater was the best cinematic experience of my life (so far).

Dolby Atmos and 3D is a match made in heaven; I believe Atmos will breathe new life into 3D. So much more immersive with 3D audio to match what's on screen.

The very best 3D I've seen in a _home theater_ was a passive setup using 2 projectors with polarized lenses and a DIY purpose-built silver screen. Very close to my Avatar experience - especially given the budget price. I hope to do this (along with Atmos) in my own home theater soon.


----------



## tgm1024

ElvisIncognito said:


> I haven't read the whole thread but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents. Let me clearly state up front that I've never been a big fan of 3D. I find active glasses to be very distracting, shattering the immersion effect for me. Passive 3D on a 4K TV is nice, but my vision is 20/20 at best, and I'm not going to spend megabucks on an 80" TV then rearrange my living room to sit 4.7 feet away. (Besides, a 64 degree field of view is overwhelming and just not comfortable for me or my wife.)


I don't understand. When did this become a requirement?

I sit at the same distance as I do for 2D (12-14' away for a 60" TV) and it's perfect most of the time. A scant few times the perspective is elongated, so moving inward brings it back into balance. But only rarely.


----------



## marcuslaw

ElvisIncognito said:


> I haven't read the whole thread but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents. Let me clearly state up front that I've never been a big fan of 3D.


Thanks for your candor. Let me say upfront that I respect your opinions and do not intend anything below to be critical in nature.



> I find active glasses to be very distracting, shattering the immersion effect for me.


What brands have you tried and under what viewing conditions? For those who have read my earlier post, please forgive my repetitiveness. Equipment, equipment, equipment. The Panasonic TY-ER3D4MU active shutter glasses are lightweight and fit right over most prescription lenses. They're in compliance with the Full HD 3D initiative and so are cross compatible on different manufactures TVs. Aside from an occasional fingerprint, I find them to be completely unobtrusive and not at all distracting. I do not see flicker and only rarely ghosting which is almost always related to the source material.



> Passive 3D on a 4K TV is nice, but my vision is 20/20 at best, and I'm not going to spend megabucks on an 80" TV then rearrange my living room to sit 4.7 feet away. (Besides, a 64 degree field of view is overwhelming and just not comfortable for me or my wife.) Not to mention my strong preference for a 2.4:1 constant image height setup. All that said...


I get 1080p right and left 3D images on my Sony and while I did spend a lot for it, the degree of immersion with 3-D from my seated position about 8 feet away is unrivaled by any LCD TV on the market today. I don't live in a particularly large house and only had to remove the hutch from a credenza with recessed shelving to accommodate the 940C. I realize that not everyone can afford this TV, and my point is not to brag, but to point out that there is home video equipment available that can deliver a stunning 3-D image. 



> Avatar in 3D at an IMAX theater was the best cinematic experience of my life (so far).


You should see it on the Sony 940C. I just watched it with my son last weekend and although I saw it theatrically in RealD 3D, not IMAX, I far prefer it at home (particularly when you factor in convenience and not having to fear getting shot and killed at your local AMC). 



> Dolby Atmos and 3D is a match made in heaven; I believe Atmos will breathe new life into 3D. So much more immersive with 3D audio to match what's on screen.


3-D ticket sales continue to rake in money for studios. A spark in home disk sales is where it's needed most. In that vein, we're not likely to see a 3-D UHD Blu-ray disk encoded with Atmos for quite some time . . . if ever. 



> The very best 3D I've seen in a _home theater_ was a passive setup using 2 projectors with polarized lenses and a DIY purpose-built silver screen. Very close to my Avatar experience - especially given the budget price. I hope to do this (along with Atmos) in my own home theater soon.


Try to find a 940C at your local dealer or BB Magnolia (Design Center) and bring along a copy of IMAX: Hubble (3-D). For years I tested many different panels, both active and passive, searching for the best 3-D image. My search ended with the Sony.


----------



## ElvisIncognito

tgm1024 said:


> I don't understand. When did this become a requirement?
> 
> I sit at the same distance as I do for 2D (12-14' away for a 60" TV) and it's perfect most of the time. A scant few times the perspective is elongated, so moving inward brings it back into balance. But only rarely.


It's not a requirement of 3D (in fact, it's not a requirement at all - the resolution police aren't going to storm your castle and arrest you for this) - it's a 4K thing. Using the median distance you gave, from 13 feet away, if you have 20/20 (or corrected 20/20) vision, your eye can fully resolve 642 lines of resolution (so 642 I/P). As you can see here (plug in 60 degrees, select 1.78 as your aspect ratio, 13 feet for your seating distance then click calculate then click "Seating Distance Guidelines") your fills about 19 degrees of your field of view. Again, with 20/20 vision, you'd need a 21.33 field of view just to fully resolve 720P. You're well below the THX maximum allowable seating distance (26 degrees) or SMPTE's recommended distance (30 degrees) and nowhere near the THX optimum of 40 degrees.

Now, you may have better than 20/20 vision, but even with 20/15 vision, there's no way (other than bias confirmation) that you can see the difference between 2K and 4K resolutions on a 60" screen from 12-14 feet away. If you're lucky to have 20/10 vision, you do get some of the benefits of 4K resolution from 12-14 feet away (check out the 4K calculator on Chris Heinonen's site) but for someone with 20/20 vision (mine is corrected 20/20), your screen needs to fill 46 degrees of your field of view to fully resolve all the detail in a 4K image.

For a better understanding of all this stuff, there's a lot of good info in this thread (though it's chock full of contentious rhetoric and nonsense) - pay special attention to the posts by Mark Henninger ("imagic"). Stereodude, Glimmie and sarahb75 also make some excellent contributions but I'd recommend skipping over pages and pages of nonsense by MrOrange303.

I'm getting dangerously close to thread hijacking with this flame bait, so if you want to discuss it beyond this reply, I suggest you either PM me or start a new thread and I'll join you there.


----------



## marcuslaw

ElvisIncognito said:


> It's not a requirement of 3D (in fact, it's not a requirement at all - the resolution police aren't going to storm your castle and arrest you for this) - it's a 4K thing.


I've read a lot of the same literature on seating distances and have always come back to the same position (no pun intended). Sit where it's most comfortable and eye pleasing to you and not according to any rigid formula or calculations.


----------



## ElvisIncognito

I likewise respect your point-of-view but I can tell you, we obviously have vastly different preferences. You're obviously very fond of your Sony TV and I'm happy for you, but I could no sooner go back to a flat panel TV (from front projection sytems) than I could go back to dial-up internet. I sit 14-15 feet away from a 150" screen.


marcuslaw said:


> What brands have you tried and under what viewing conditions?


Most of them. I think I've installed and setup just about all of them, from Sony to Samsung to LG and Panny. I seem to be very sensitive to ghosting and even more so to flicker.

As for 3D with Atmos (and disregarding the laws of imaging science), let's just agree to disagree.


----------



## tgm1024

ElvisIncognito said:


> It's not a requirement of 3D (in fact, it's not a requirement at all - the resolution police aren't going to storm your castle and arrest you for this) - it's a 4K thing.


No it isn't.



ElvisIncognito said:


> Using the median distance you gave, from 13 feet away, if you have 20/20 (or corrected 20/20) vision, your eye can fully resolve 642 lines of resolution (so 642 I/P). As you can see here (plug in 60 degrees, select 1.78 as your aspect ratio, 13 feet for your seating distance then click calculate then click "Seating Distance Guidelines") your fills about 19 degrees of your field of view. Again, with 20/20 vision, you'd need a 21.33 field of view just to fully resolve 720P. You're well below the THX maximum allowable seating distance (26 degrees) or SMPTE's recommended distance (30 degrees) and nowhere near the THX optimum of 40 degrees.
> 
> Now, you may have better than 20/20 vision, but even with 20/15 vision, there's no way (other than bias confirmation) that you can see the difference between 2K and 4K resolutions on a 60" screen from 12-14 feet away. If you're lucky to have 20/10 vision, you do get some of the benefits of 4K resolution from 12-14 feet away (check out the 4K calculator on Chris Heinonen's site) but for someone with 20/20 vision (mine is corrected 20/20), your screen needs to fill 46 degrees of your field of view to fully resolve all the detail in a 4K image.
> 
> For a better understanding of all this stuff, there's a lot of good info in this thread (though it's chock full of contentious rhetoric and nonsense) - pay special attention to the posts by Mark Henninger ("imagic"). Stereodude, Glimmie and sarahb75 also make some excellent contributions but I'd recommend skipping over pages and pages of nonsense by MrOrange303.
> 
> I'm getting dangerously close to thread hijacking with this flame bait, so if you want to discuss it beyond this reply, I suggest you either PM me or start a new thread and I'll join you there.


You're completely misinterpreting those guidelines. The bottom line is that you have a 16x9 rectangle of some dimension in front of you. You can see this rectangle in 3D or in 2D. You will lose apparent vertical resolution with 1080 passive but you don't make up for this by sitting closer or further away. Nor does 4K require your seating to change at all.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> Try to find a 940C at your local dealer or BB Magnolia (Design Center) and bring along a copy of IMAX: Hubble (3-D). For years I tested many different panels, both active and passive, searching for the best 3-D image. My search ended with the Sony.


What rate does the 940c pulse at for its active 3D?


----------



## ElvisIncognito

tgm1024 said:


> You're completely misinterpreting those guidelines. The bottom line is that you have a 16x9 rectangle of some dimension in front of you. You can see this rectangle in 3D or in 2D. You will lose apparent vertical resolution with 1080 passive but you don't make up for this by sitting closer or further away. Nor does 4K require your seating to change at all.


Sorry, but it is you who have misinterpreted. Everything I said about resolution was to do with 4K. Completely and entirely. Forget about 3D for the moment; it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

You're technically right that 4K doesn't require you to change your seating, but only to the extent that you don't care about seeing the increased resolution that 4K offers. And even then, you don't actually have to sit closer - you can, instead, increase the screen size. (Precisely what I have done at my house.) But from 12-14 feet away, there's no way you can tell the difference between a 1080P (2K) image and a 2160P (4K) image. Not unless you have better than 20/15 vision. Again, that has NOTHING to with 3D. It has EVERYTHING to do with 4K resolution and visual acuity. 

Please reread my previous post - but without any thought for 3D - you missed/misinterpreted most of what I said.


----------



## NorthSky

blu-dog-avs said:


> Whoa. I agree 100%, but I thought _I _was out of line for bringing it up.
> When I say stuff like that, I usually wind up with my skull looking like the letter U. How do you get away with it?


I luv my Mum, and I luv this, in 3D ::: 










______










♥ _Wim Wenders_ (Buena Vista Social Club)


----------



## tgm1024

ElvisIncognito said:


> Sorry, but it is you who have misinterpreted. Everything I said about resolution was to do with 4K. Completely and entirely. Forget about 3D for the moment; it has nothing to do with what I was saying.


Nothing to do with 3D? Let's be clear here....you connected the two concepts directly. This is what you originally said (emphasis mine):


ElivisInconito: "I haven't read the whole thread but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents. Let me clearly state up front that I've never been a big fan of 3D. I find active glasses to be very distracting, shattering the immersion effect for me. *Passive 3D on a 4K TV is nice, but my vision is 20/20 at best, and I'm not going to spend megabucks on an 80" TV then rearrange my living room to sit 4.7 feet away.* (Besides, a 64 degree field of view is overwhelming and just not comfortable for me or my wife.)"​ 1080p 3D (the only kind currently) will yield a non-upconvered 1920x1080 on either a 4K active or passive set. So you now have a fixed number of pixels (2M), on a 80" TV. (......and.....?) You don't have to do a thing either way.

It would be like saying that in order to appreciate a higher resolution from my 2K set, I should sit twice as far back. These optimum viewing distance calculators are goofy at best, because they entirely miss the bottom line. And absolutely none of them can take into account the apparent resolution due to compression, that everything (including BD) undergoes.


----------



## tgm1024

Let's take a step back here and reassess.

You're saying you _could_ spend money on a 4K set (to get full 1080 from passive, and not 540), but it would be a waste because at the distances to take advantage of 4K you'd have to be too close to take full advantage of it?

Multiple problems with this, but the largest are 1. the visual acuity issues involved are under fierce debate and it's not just the manufacturers claiming that it's better----see the NHK 8K claims for instance and the poll recently done here by SW, and 2. Even if it were correct that you're getting less than 4K effective resolution because of acuity limitations, you don't need to get _precisely _4K effective resolution. It just doesn't matter if you're "wasting" resolution.

And you wouldn't be anyway.


----------



## marcuslaw

tgm1024 said:


> What rate does the 940c pulse at for its active 3D?


I don't know whether that has ever been specifically advertised by Sony or independently measured by a reviewer. For what it's worth, Sony states that all its 4K TVs are natively 120Hz and though I have no proof of this, I would expect given the 940C's processing power and how clear and detailed the 3-D image is, that it is capable of providing the left and right image at this same rate. The 930 and 940C do employ software called _Motionflow XR_ which boasts 1440 Hz, undoubtedly marketing speak only, but I have no idea how its employed or whether its used when in the locked default 3-D settings mode.


----------



## marcuslaw

NorthSky said:


> ♥ _Wim Wenders_ (Buena Vista Social Club)


Sky, have you read this yet? Wim Wenders Wants You To Give 3D Cinema A Chance


----------



## ElvisIncognito

tgm1024 said:


> Nothing to do with 3D? Let's be clear here....you connected the two concepts directly. This is what you originally said (emphasis mine):
> ElivisInconito: *Passive 3D on a 4K TV is nice, but my vision is 20/20 at best, and I'm not going to spend megabucks on an 80" TV then rearrange my living room to sit 4.7 feet away.*​


Wow. Incredible tenacity. If "Forget about 3D for the moment" and "that has NOTHING to with 3D" won't get it done, what will?

Let me try this... what if I had phrased that emphasized statement like this...
*Passive 3D on a 4K TV is nice, but disregarding 3D entirely, I'm not interested in 4K because my vision is 20/20 at best, and I'm not going to spend megabucks on an 80" TV then rearrange my living room to sit 4.7 feet away.

*Does that help at all?


> These optimum viewing distance calculators are goofy at best


Really? And how about that eye charts that the optometrist uses to test your _*visual acuity*_ and determine what sort of optical prescription you might need? Are those "goofy at best", too? Same exact science, my friend. Visual acuity principles are the foundation not only of those charts, but of THX and SMPTE and commercial cinema design. (And if they're not the foundation of home theater design, then you need a better designer.) 

If you're going to be dismissive of that stuff... if you're going to insist that you can see _any benefit whatsoever_ from the increased resolution of a 60" 4K display from 12-14 feet away, then you'll lose all credibility with anyone on these forums with even a cursory knowledge of imaging science/visual acuity.


----------



## ElvisIncognito

tgm1024 said:


> You're saying you _could_ spend money on a 4K set (to get full 1080 from passive, and not 540), but it would be a waste because at the distances to take advantage of 4K you'd have to be too close to take full advantage of it?


NO. *Not what I'm saying at all*_. _Strike everything to do with 3D and you'll have it right...

_I could spend money on a 4K set but it would be a waste because I'd have to sit way too close to get any benefit of the increased resolution - *AND *I don't find it comfortable to have my screen filling 64 degrees of my field of view._

That's what I'm saying_._


----------



## mars5l

coolhand said:


> ???
> 
> Got a link? Showing $9.99 for me.



Maybe they went up in price, but thats what they were in store for a few weeks in a display for whatever studio does them along with a bunch of other 2d titles. I have a best buy near me, so once a week I stop in and check to see if they have any on sale.


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> Sky, have you read this yet? Wim Wenders Wants You To Give 3D Cinema A Chance


Yes, almost done...

* This guy is important...he's good @ what he does.


----------



## Stereodude

I have a few thoughts...

1) Someone needs to tell the people who keep outbidding me on eBay that 3D is dead. 
2) Having just gotten into 3D I hope it's not dead cause I think it's pretty cool and if it's dead that means we won't get new 3D titles.
3) On the other hand, if 3D is dead I should be able to get 3D movies on the cheap.


----------



## aaronwt

Not necessarily. HD DVD has been dead for many years. Yet a few years ago I sold some of my titles for over $30 each. Although I wish I could sell all of them for that much. I still have around 350 of them. With many of them still in the wrapper.


----------



## Stereodude

aaronwt said:


> Not necessarily. HD DVD has been dead for many years. Yet a few years ago I sold some of my titles for over $30 each. Although I wish I could sell all of them for that much. I still have around 350 of them. With many of them still in the wrapper.


You must have found some suckers. I bought a handful of them used shortly after they announced the death of the format and got them for no more than $3 each (including shipping). I did the WB red2blue deal with a few of them (all the WB titles I had) and converted the others to Blu-Ray and burned them to BD-R.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> Not necessarily. HD DVD has been dead for many years. Yet a few years ago I sold some of my titles for over $30 each. Although I wish I could sell all of them for that much. I still have around 350 of them. With many of them still in the wrapper.


Wow, any of them in 3D?


----------



## Stereodude

NorthSky said:


> Wow, any of them in 3D?


Not unless they use red and blue glasses...

This made me laugh.


----------



## NorthSky

Is this for real or total fabrication? ...What this world became to? 

* Canadians, generally, prefer flat TVs (not curved), 3D Blu-rays (more than 2D), and rounded women (with skin and curves).


----------



## mars5l

Im sure one day when HD discs approach fandom like vinyl, yea then it will be worth $500. Unless youre one of the diehard HD owners that collects them. I totally forgot about HD till recently when I came across an HD disc at a used record store.


----------



## NorthSky

Speaking of vinyl; some are worth up to $60,000 for a single one! 

♦ http://rateyourmusic.com/list/yerbl...t_of_some_of_the_most_valuable_vinyl_records/


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> Speaking of vinyl; some are worth up to $60,000 for a single one!
> 
> ♦ http://rateyourmusic.com/list/yerbl...t_of_some_of_the_most_valuable_vinyl_records/


I dumped all my Vinyl back in 1985. Soon after getting my first CD player.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> I dumped all my Vinyl back in 1985. Soon after getting my first CD player.


Keep all your 3D Blu-ray movies...some day they'll be worth a lot.


----------



## tgm1024

ElvisIncognito said:


> If you're going to be dismissive of that stuff... if you're going to insist that you can see _any benefit whatsoever_ from the increased resolution of a 60" 4K display from 12-14 feet away, then you'll lose all credibility with anyone on these forums with even a cursory knowledge of imaging science/visual acuity.


YOU will lose credibility quickly on these forums if you continue with the attitude that folks that disagree with the 4K assessment distances are somehow lacking research and information, and very quickly so if you're convinced that everyone agrees. And it's not just the manufacturers. This is _*far*_ from a done deal.

We have been discussing the foibles of this resolution limitation for years and years. Several very indepth threads regarding this: pay attention to posts from irkuck who agrees with you and Chronoptimist (who does not). Pay attention to the Carlton Bale charts (which most of your stuff seems to agree with) and the charts from NHK who is responsible for the 8K source/mastering/delivery pipeline in Japan, which is in vehement opposition to anything similar to your 80" and 4.7 feet.

Here is what is apparently the anti-4Kers favorite chart:









Here is what NHK is basing their research on:









Now is NHK right and CB wrong? I'm betting it's in the middle with a strong slant toward NHK. You can read up on NHK on your own. As far as all the anti-4K stuff, I've almost certainly already read it over the years.

Several thoughts to consider about this visual acuity you keep mentioning.

1. The eye is not a CCD/CMOS array. The neuro-optics form _edges_ not rasters. To this extent we even gain apparent resolution from motion. For instance, you can't see a spider web strand dangling from a tree 20 feet away, but you might if it starts moving from the wind.

2. The eye acuity charts that too many folks errantly run to have their origins in the formation of eye charts. But what they're not telling you is that eye charts are about recognizing particular glyphs, *not *about determining if one glyph looks better than another.

3. An informal, non scientific yet interesting poll currently being conducted by Scott Wilkinson is showing most people participating in the poll claiming they can see UHD at HD distances. 141 to 109.

We've been battling this for years. Stop pretending that this is a done deal.


----------



## Stereodude

Since 3D is "dead"  how about Megamind 3D for $5.99 shipped? (not my listing, but I did buy one). 

IMHO, buying 3D discs is more entertaining than arguing about resolution.

Edit: Back in stock


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> Since 3D is "dead"  how about Megamind 3D for $5.99 shipped? (not my listing, but I did buy one).
> 
> IMHO, buying 3D discs is more entertaining than arguing about resolution.


Agreed. I'm done. This is all woefully OT, but this resolution research is a deeply complicated issue that folks are far too quick to regard as somehow simple and obvious, as if _anything_ regarding the eye is.


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> Since 3D is "dead"  how about Megamind 3D for $5.99 shipped? (not my listing, but I did buy one).


Got one too! Thanks man! My kids are gonna love this!


----------



## blu-dog-avs

Stereodude said:


> I have a few thoughts...
> 
> 1) Someone needs to tell the people who keep outbidding me on eBay that 3D is dead.
> 2) Having just gotten into 3D I hope it's not dead cause I think it's pretty cool and if it's dead that means we won't get new 3D titles.
> 3) On the other hand, if 3D is dead I should be able to get 3D movies on the cheap.



3-D is not dead, any more than a drunk - whiskey bottle in hand - is dead when he staggers across a busy highway in front of big rig trucks, singing at the top of his lungs. Now, a lot of people will say, "He's a dead man," but they'd be wrong. 


Others may say, "If he makes it across alive, he's must be in training for the Olympics," but that wouldn't be accurate either.


The real confusion comes in when people say, "He needs to stop drinking, right now, or he'll never make it," and someone else says, "No, try to lure him across with a full bottle of whiskey," and people start flipping coins and rolling dice and things, trying to figure it out. 


I would just stroll away whistling before a fistfight breaks out. It always ends up that way.


----------



## la1vi9872

i love 3D movis 
and 2D to 3D in oled 9300


----------



## william06

tgm1024 said:


> Got one too! Thanks man! My kids are gonna love this!


Same here thanks for the heads up good for the grandkids.


----------



## film113

aaronwt said:


> I dumped all my Vinyl back in 1985. Soon after getting my first CD player.


Too bad, as it's been announced that Technics is bringing back the superb 1200 turntable in 2017. They are taking their time to make sure it's the best it can be...and the old ones were pretty great! (I used to have two of them.)


----------



## aaronwt

Stereodude said:


> Since 3D is "dead"  how about Megamind 3D for $5.99 shipped? (not my listing, but I did buy one).
> 
> IMHO, buying 3D discs is more entertaining than arguing about resolution.
> 
> Edit: Megamind 3D is sold out.


Thanks. I just ordered one. They still have more for sale. They sold over two dozen so far today.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> Thanks. I just ordered one. They still have more for sale. They sold over two dozen so far today.


For some reason I keep hearing the Godfather theme....


----------



## Stereodude

aaronwt said:


> Thanks. I just ordered one. They still have more for sale. They sold over two dozen so far today.


Okay, I've edited my post to reflect that they have more stock.

I guess my trolling eBay for 3D Blu-Ray deals has reaped rewards for quite a few people today.


----------



## mo949

Sounds like someone is hooked. Before you know it you'll have 60 new 3D blus and waiting for the right time to view them all


----------



## Stereodude

mo949 said:


> Sounds like someone is hooked.


I probably am.



> Before you know it you'll have 60 new 3D blus and waiting for the right time to view them all


That's somewhat doubtful. I'm too cheap and am trying to avoid the movies that are reportedly not very well done 3D. $15 and less per movie is my sweet spot. That's proving challenging.


----------



## mo949

my threshold was about 20$ and except for a few I've managed to pick up most for under that. There's quite a bit of bad movies out there in 3D. There's a precious few where the movie is average and the 3D saves it.

As to native versus converted, I wouldn't pay attention to that, just the review. My favorites tend to be converted ones as I find out afterwards.

Need for Speed rocks pretty hard in 3D and is just a conversion - little harder to pick this one up though. Serious sound and bass in it too. If you like muscle cars at all, you need this movie and then crank it.


----------



## mars5l

mo949 said:


> Sounds like someone is hooked. Before you know it you'll have 60 new 3D blus and waiting for the right time to view them all


 Im at almost 100 in 9 months. Its to the point now I have almost all the 3d movies my local best buy has


----------



## longhornsk57

I'm at about 40 right now..

They add up fast.


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> I probably am.
> 
> 
> That's somewhat doubtful. I'm too cheap and am trying to avoid the movies that are reportedly not very well done 3D. $15 and less per movie is my sweet spot. That's proving challenging.


Camelcamelcamel is _*fantastic*_ for amazon. And they have a version for bestbuy, and a couple other sites. You even get a graph of price histories too so you can see what to shoot for.

There is also something called "fatfingers" and "NotiCraig", but I haven't tried them. Maybe they can siphon out from ebay better than the ebay notification mechanism(?)


----------



## dhvsfan

tgm1024 said:


> Camelcamelcamel is _*fantastic*_ for amazon. And they have a version for bestbuy, and a couple other sites. You even get a graph of price histories too so you can see what to shoot for.
> 
> There is also something called "fatfingers" and "NotiCraig", but I haven't tried them.


I've been using blu-ray.com and their price tracker for Amazon and BB. Its limited only to Blu-Rays, DVD and Video Games. I'll have to give Camel a try!

Need to save money some way

Is there a similar tool for Amazon.co.uk ? I've gotten some 3D Blu's from there.


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> Camelcamelcamel is _*fantastic*_ for amazon. And they have a version for bestbuy, and a couple other sites. You even get a graph of price histories too so you can see what to shoot for.
> 
> There is also something called "fatfingers" and "NotiCraig", but I haven't tried them. Maybe they can siphon out from ebay better than the ebay notification mechanism(?)


I've used camelcamelcamel for years at Amazon. I hadn't really thought of using it on 3D Blu-Ray 3rd party marketplace listings though.

IMHO, the problem with eBay is that there are way too many people watching it for 3D Blu-Rays, so any good deals (which are generally BiN, not auctions) in the daily e-mail summary you get for saved searches will be gone by the time you get the e-mail in the morning and click on them.


----------



## therealdjnugz

tgm1024 said:


> Got one too! Thanks man! My kids are gonna love this!


It's awesome in 3d. Great movie. It has a really awesome gimmicky pop out towards the end I think you'll enjoy.


----------



## william06

Stereodude said:


> Since 3D is "dead"  how about Megamind 3D for $5.99 shipped? (not my listing, but I did buy one).
> 
> IMHO, buying 3D discs is more entertaining than arguing about resolution.
> 
> Edit: Back in stock


I ordered this back on the 9th and got a cancellation notice and refund this morning saying this was an item they don't have and it was a system error anyone else with the same experience?


----------



## Stereodude

william06 said:


> I ordered this back on the 9th and got a cancellation notice and refund this morning saying this was an item they don't have and it was a system error anyone else with the same experience?


Odd... I have a tracking number for mine and the tracking number shows it has made it into the shippers hands and is on the way.

FWIW, they listed 3 more copies of it for sale yesterday at the same price.


----------



## mars5l

william06 said:


> I ordered this back on the 9th and got a cancellation notice and refund this morning saying this was an item they don't have and it was a system error anyone else with the same experience?


Yup, same message this morning


----------



## aaronwt

william06 said:


> I ordered this back on the 9th and got a cancellation notice and refund this morning saying this was an item they don't have and it was a system error anyone else with the same experience?


Crap!! I see I have a similar email. I guess I need to give negative feedback.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> Crap!! I see I have a similar email. I guess I need to give negative feedback.


Hmmm....mine still claims that it's transfered from UPS to USPS and is enroute.

We'll see I suppose.


----------



## william06

tgm1024 said:


> Hmmm....mine still claims that it's transfered from UPS to USPS and is enroute.
> 
> We'll see I suppose.


You might have been lucky before they caught mistake.


----------



## william06

I just went into add still up same price 5 available 49 sold


----------



## Stereodude

william06 said:


> I just went into add still up same price 5 available 49 sold


But the listing is ended you can't buy them even though it does show some being available.

Sorry that this didn't work out for all of you guys.


----------



## william06

Stereodude said:


> But the listing is ended you can't buy them even though it does show some being available.
> 
> Sorry that this didn't work out for all of you guys.


Not a problem thanks for sharing


----------



## Stereodude

How about Star Trek: Into Darkness for $12.99 shipped? I've seen mixed reviews on the 3D version...


----------



## mo949

Stereodude said:


> How about Star Trek: Into Darkness for $12.99 shipped? I've seen mixed reviews on the 3D version...


I nearly recommended this one to you. Its an awesome 3d experience. You'll be smiling from the start.

Kung Fu Panda is also great if you ever see a good price.

Finding Nemo is incredible.

Stay away from John Carter LOL


----------



## NorthSky

Looks to me that 3D is alive! ...I mean dead! ...No, alive! ...Dead or alive?


----------



## william06

Stereodude said:


> How about Star Trek: Into Darkness for $12.99 shipped? I've seen mixed reviews on the 3D version...


Have not a bad film 3 d is ok


----------



## william06

NorthSky said:


> Looks to me that 3D is alive! ...I mean dead! ...No, alive! ...Dead or alive?


Mabey 3D is a zombie keeps comming back from the dead.


----------



## Stereodude

mo949 said:


> Kung Fu Panda is also great if you ever see a good price.


I got Kung Fu Panda 2 for a decent price, haven't seen a compelling deal on the first one yet.



> Finding Nemo is incredible.


I bought a 3D disc only (+case) offering of Finding Nemo for what I guess is a fair price (~$12 shipped), seemed a tad stiff, but the Pixar 3D movies are fairly expensive even used.



> Stay away from John Carter LOL


Will do.


----------



## Stereodude

NorthSky said:


> Looks to me that 3D is alive! ...I mean dead! ...No, alive! ...Dead or alive?


Is it both until we open the box to find out?


----------



## 2ndvizio

Stereodude said:


> Is it both until we open the box to find out?


This ebay stuff is new for me and hard to figure out. Just started buying brand new 3D blurays here instead since its sometimes much cheaper than Amazon but I can't figure out how to find items since the prices seem to change all of the time. For example I just saw Madagascar 3 shows as 21.48 but when I click on it, it's 15.03 so I bought it.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Madagascar-...-ray-DVD-Co-/331567355767?hash=item4d32f45777


----------



## NorthSky

william06 said:


> Mabey 3D is a zombie keeps comming back from the dead.





Stereodude said:


> Is it both until we open the box to find out?


3D is actually very versatile...it is many things...among all the dead and alive. 
But mainly it is what it represents for each one of us...love or hate. 

And in true financial business...no doubt that it's going down hill. It simply doesn't attract enough people to justify its ultimate existence.
...Even with all the deep 3D love we (I) have for it. Me, my opinion, my existence means zero in the eyes of the 3D world as it lives or dies today...and tomorrow.
What is is that we are in a three DDD video forum and that we share our thoughts and experiences with the 3D BR format (youtube too) and try evaluating its true degree of aliveness, or death. And not just for us, in our own 3D movie collection, but also in the entire world...with all the 3D lovers and haters and what the movie studios are doing about it...producing it, distributing it, announcing it, killing it, abandoning it, resurrecting it, ....right now, as compared to yesterday and tomorrow. 

But two things are for sure...Mad Max rocks! ...And James Cameron is not dead yet.


----------



## Stereodude

2ndvizio said:


> This ebay stuff is new for me and hard to figure out. Just started buying brand new 3D blurays here instead since its sometimes much cheaper than Amazon but I can't figure out how to find items since the prices seem to change all of the time. For example I just saw Madagascar 3 shows as 21.48 but when I click on it, it's 15.03 so I bought it.


It's an auction / marketplace site. Sort of like the online equivalent of a flea market. You search for what you want and look at all the offerings from various sellers. I've never seen the price change for a specific item from the search result to the actual listing though.

Now if only somehow eBay sellers could tell the difference between a 3D Blu-Ray and a standard Blu-Ray... You know, like by reading the package before listing it so that when you buy a 3D Blu-Ray you actually get a 3D Blu-Ray... *sigh*


----------



## NorthSky

Those ePay guys...most of them never went to University. ...They quit school @ grade six. 

__________

♦ http://hometheaterreview.com/3d-isnt-as-dead-as-you-thought-it-was/


----------



## 2ndvizio

I don't understand the ebay stuff at all. Price is back to 21.48 now. I suppose the small time sellers change pricing or make mistakes more than Amazon would. I wonder if this will get cancelled too.


----------



## Stereodude

NorthSky said:


> Those ePay guys...most of them never went to University. ...They quit school @ grade six.


It's a good thing they teach people how to read in kindergarten and first grade then. 



2ndvizio said:


> I don't understand the ebay stuff at all. Price is back to 21.48 now. I suppose the small time sellers change pricing or make mistakes more than Amazon would. I wonder if this will get cancelled too.


It seems there was a temporary "sale". They should honor the reduced price. I wouldn't expect any problems.


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> It's a good thing they teach people how to read in kindergarten and first grade then.
> 
> 
> It seems there was a temporary "sale". They should honor the reduced price. I wouldn't expect any problems.


We'll see what shows up in my mailbox tomorrow. USPS claims it's a few towns over. Perhaps it'll be a DVD only version, LOL. It's amazing, truly amazing, how many people even in America don't know the difference between BD and DVD, let alone BD and 3DBD.


----------



## longhornsk57

It happens. I got From Legacy 3D from amazon for $3 - wasn't sure what I'd get but it was legit...


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> It's amazing, truly amazing, how many people even in America don't know the difference between BD and DVD, let alone BD and 3DBD.


You should have tried buying SACD's on the Amazon marketplace a few years ago. People would see there were multiple listings for an album and just list their CD under the most expensive one which of course was the SACD. Then when you got a CD instead of a SACD you had to try to explain to a skeptical seller that you weren't trying to pull a fast one on them, but that a CD wasn't a SACD and they should let you return it and pay the shipping.

FWIW, my Megamind 3D Blu-Ray is still a few days away from delivery.

Dead or not, someone thinks 3D will be highly profitable for them.  link


----------



## mars5l

http://m.ebay.com/itm/THE-HOBBIT-TR...REE-BRAND-NEW-SEALED-/281795341585?nav=SEARCH 

Oh hell yea. And ive bought from regionfreetitles before, good seller. He's got a few nature trilogy box sets for cheap i might order


----------



## Stereodude

I can't see how he'd sell any of them at those prices, but what do I know?


----------



## NorthSky

But the price is $222.22

I think 3D is dead now. ;-)


----------



## mars5l

Im sure someone in the US that is dying to watch them and an import will. The hobbit trilogy isnt as bad. A USA version of the ext box set of LOTR is $100 and that's not even 3d


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> I can't see how he'd sell any of them at those prices, but what do I know?


No kidding. Is this perhaps another pricing mistake, but in the opposite direction? Did something change quickly on this listing? Can that happen on BIN items on ebay like it can with products on Amazon?


----------



## NorthSky

You guys like to talk about that 3Pay stuff? ...It don't seem "solid" to me. ...First the prices they fluctuate a lot it seems and real fast, two those sellers don't even know what they're selling, three you never know what you might get, four who do you really trust?, five perhaps when they hear us talking about that they enjoy fooling around?

Me, I stay away (faraway) from ePay, and I get my 3D Blus from somewhere else. But that's me.


----------



## longhornsk57

I've gotten a lot of 3D DVDs from eBay at great prices and never had one not come as 3D or have any issues.

Half.com also has some great deals sometimes.


----------



## Stereodude

mars5l said:


> Im sure someone in the US that is dying to watch them and an import will. The hobbit trilogy isnt as bad. A USA version of the ext box set of LOTR is $100 and that's not even 3d


Is a whopping £30 for the theatrical 3D Hobbit trilogy from Amazon UK. I've seen a few of the UK releases go on eBay for $45.


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> No kidding. Is this perhaps another pricing mistake, but in the opposite direction? Did something change quickly on this listing? Can that happen on BIN items on ebay like it can with products on Amazon?


I suspect they're basically just placeholder listings since they're not released yet. The high price keeps anyone from buying them. Later the seller can revise the pricing.

AFAIK, pricing doesn't automatically change on what like on Amazon. The seller has to initiate price changes and the listing will indicate revisions.


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> I've gotten a lot of 3D DVDs from eBay at great prices and never had one not come as 3D or have any issues.
> 
> Half.com also has some great deals sometimes.


You meant _Blu-rays_.

No problemo; some people have reliable sources of reliable sellers. ePay is a different experience for each person...and @ different times.
But from the last few posts with links of ePay 3D Blu-ray sellers, right here, all wasn't rosy. 

No way that I share a link when not 100% certain, and no way that I share a link with $222.22 for The Hobbit 3D Blu-ray trilogy. 
When you order a 3D BR for say $5.99 and suddenly it becomes discontinued, or you get a DVD instead, or that the price is now $55.99 or $555.99 me I simply don't play @ ePay...no sir...thank you very much...see you @ Walmart or Best Buy or Amazon or Costco or HMV or ...

Last time I recommended stocks to my family...I lost them all. Make sure they end up winners and not losers.


----------



## longhornsk57

I don't think they even make 3D DVDs that are not bluray. Anything that plays 3D plays bluray.

I have bought a couple dozen on eBay and never had an issue. If the worst thing that happens is you get refunded a couple days later due to out of stock then it's not really all that bad.

Just another avenue that I'd recommend is all.


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> I don't think they even make 3D DVDs that are not bluray. Anything that plays 3D plays bluray.
> 
> I have bought a couple dozen on eBay and never had an issue. If the worst thing that happens is you get refunded a couple days later due to out of stock then it's not really all that bad.
> 
> Just another avenue that I'd recommend is all.


No, they do make DVDs in 3D...I have some. 

And all is fine with ePay...many folks shop there. Just be vigilant...that's all.


----------



## marcuslaw

For those craving something a bit different, import Musées du Vatican 3D. It's Region free with an English soundtrack option. The 3-D images of the Cistine Chapel and Michelangelo's Creation of Adam and Last Judgment will leave you speechless. Attenborough's Natural History Museum Alive 3D? No so much.


----------



## Stereodude

NorthSky said:


> When you order a 3D BR for say $5.99 and suddenly it becomes discontinued, or you get a DVD instead, or that the price is now $55.99 or $555.99 me I simply don't play @ ePay...no sir...thank you very much...see you @ Walmart or Best Buy or Amazon or Costco or HMV or ...


Your loss... eBay (not ePay) has very much stacked their whole system in favor of the buyer. If you get the wrong thing you will get your money back. I'm quite sure I couldn't have gotten any of these deals in a B&M store.


----------



## Stereodude

longhornsk57 said:


> I don't think they even make 3D DVDs that are not bluray. Anything that plays 3D plays bluray.


Blu-Ray discs are not DVDs. Blu-Rays are not even a subset of DVDs. There are 3D DVDs (anaglyph) and even some Blu-Ray's that are 3D (anaglyph) instead of MVC (true 3D).


----------



## Toe

Stereodude said:


> Your loss... eBay (not ePay) has very much stacked their whole system in favor of the buyer. If you get the wrong thing you will get your money back. I'm quite sure I couldn't have gotten any of these deals in a B&M store.


+1. I have bought a ton of blu ray discs (2d and 3d) from ebay for much cheaper than I could have got them from a store. Not to mention they come right to my door.


----------



## longhornsk57

Stereodude said:


> Blu-Ray discs are not DVDs. Blu-Rays are not even a subset of DVDs. There are 3D DVDs (anaglyph) and even some Blu-Ray's that are 3D (anaglyph) instead of MVC (true 3D).


Right, so what I said is that I've never seen an MVC DVD only bluray.


----------



## NSX1992

If the 3D file is less than 4.7GB or 8.5GB then it will fit a DVD and be real 3D.


----------



## Stereodude

NSX1992 said:


> If the 3D file is less than 4.7GB or 8.5GB then it will fit a DVD and be real 3D.


Yes, but the likelihood of that happening has to be really close to 0. AFAIK, there is no use at home MVC encoder that you can use to shrink 3D Blu-Rays, like you can with 2D Blu-Rays. Even for 2D movies they seem to intentionally make them so the video track + primary language lossless audio (throwing out the menus and all extras) won't fit on a 25GB single layer BD-R. In some cases that means they end up with totally unnecessary video bitrates, like nearly 40Mbit/sec average for an 80 minute movie that's computer animated.


----------



## longhornsk57

The point here is that the notion that you'd order a 3D movie from eBay and end up with a non bluray is far fetched and not something to realistically worry about.

The only thing you'd have to possibly worry about is getting a non 3D bluray, which does happen rarely, but you easily get it exchanged or refunded or whatever.

Whoever is saying "don't buy from eBay" or whatever genius pun thereof (not even sure what epay is supposed to imply?) doesn't really have a practical clue and is needlessly discarding a legit avenue for cheap 3D movies.

I got Sammy's adventure 2 for $6 shipped. I got how to train your dragon 2 for $12 shipped, I also got cloudy with a chance of meatballs for $8 shipped.

There are some great deals if you look for them.


----------



## NorthSky

Stereodude said:


> Your loss... eBay (not ePay) has very much stacked their whole system in favor of the buyer. If you get the wrong thing you will get your money back. I'm quite sure I couldn't have gotten any of these deals in a B&M store.


Yes, my loss...I fully realize that...I could have save approximately $50,000-75,000 going ePay instead of amazon. ...Just for Blu-rays alone. 

________

3D is alive! ...Everywhere...amazon...ePay...everywhere.


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> For those craving something a bit different, import Musées du Vatican 3D. It's Region free with an English soundtrack option. The 3-D images of the Cistine Chapel and Michelangelo's Creation of Adam and Last Judgment will leave you speechless. Attenborough's Natural History Museum Alive 3D? No so much.


Thx a bunch Marcus for that one...right in my alley.


----------



## longhornsk57

NorthSky said:


> Yes, my loss...I fully realize that...I could have save approximately $50,000-75,000 going ePay instead of amazon. ...Just for Blu-rays alone.
> 
> ________
> 
> 3D is alive! ...Everywhere...amazon...ePay...everywhere.


What does that mean "epay"

Like what does that clever pun actually mean to convey? That one pays more?

I'm really curious.

Or just it's fun to change letters in words?


As regards to the sarcasm, if you save $4 or $5 on some movies vs the price on amazon (sometimes amazon is lower) it does add up. Maybe not enough to make some hugely significant budgetary difference, but I mean I still don't get what the beef is with eSpray or eGray or eFillet or whatever....


----------



## NorthSky

The main thing is that we're all 3D lovers...it don't matter where we get them from...everyone is free to shop wherever he likes...amazon...best buy...wally...ePay...etc.

* ePay is from a good friend of mine who came up with it a long time ago...and I thought it was pleasantly humorous and fun...so voila...I simply adopted the term. It's all good...all good fun. 

You can also get some great 3D Blu-ray deals from amazon...wally...best buy...HMV stores. Some of them 3D BR titles mentioned here on ePay I paid very similar @ some of them stores...while doing other shopping...so no problemo...none @ all.


----------



## NorthSky

I was going to edit all my posts with the name ePay in them and swap it for eBay. ...I'll start from here instead...more simple...and no ambiguity...everyone happy.


----------



## longhornsk57

NorthSky said:


> I was going to edit all my posts with the name ePay in them and swap it for eBay. ...I'll start from here instead...more simple...and no ambiguity...everyone happy.


Lol it's all good, I just couldn't figure out the angle.

Back to 3D being dead..

I don't get how it could be considered "dead" when they keep making more and more movies.

Does anyone have an actual statistic on the increase or decrease of general DVD sales and attendance?

I basically stopped going to the theater altogether and just substitute the $24 in tickets for my wife and me for the bluray 3D.

150" screen at the house and it's just as good an experience without the annoying people and ability to pause if needed and actually good quality food.

I know not everyone has that setup but it's not as hard as people think.

Even with a 3D TV I'm sure these movies look cool, but I don't see 3D dying for years yet, until hologram technology comes out or something..


----------



## tgm1024

tgm1024 said:


> We'll see what shows up in my mailbox tomorrow. USPS claims it's a few towns over. Perhaps it'll be a DVD only version, LOL. It's amazing, truly amazing, how many people even in America don't know the difference between BD and DVD, let alone BD and 3DBD.


For anyone else considering this, FWIW, my Megamind 3D arrived yesterday.


----------



## rekbones

You can see 3D popularity is waning when the most active post on the 3D content fourm is this one.


----------



## scarabaeus

marcuslaw said:


> For those craving something a bit different, import Musées du Vatican 3D. It's Region free with an English soundtrack option. The 3-D images of the Cistine Chapel and Michelangelo's Creation of Adam and Last Judgment will leave you speechless. Attenborough's Natural History Museum Alive 3D? No so much.


Thanks for the tip. The two sellers on amazon.fr do not ship outside of France, unfortunately. fnac might, but they are way overpriced, and it's unclear if this is even the 3D disc. Even blu-ray.com is vague about the specs, the most accurate seems to be here: http://www.dvdfr.com/dvd/f159278-musees-du-vatican.html

The hunt is on...


----------



## longhornsk57

rekbones said:


> You can see 3D popularity is waning when the most active post on the 3D content fourm is this one.


Brilliant logic.


----------



## tgm1024

rekbones said:


> You can see 3D popularity is waning when the most active post on the 3D content fourm is this one.





longhornsk57 said:


> Brilliant logic.


LOL. No kidding. If the post were "Total proof that 3D improves sex life", or "3D was invented by the American NAZI party", it would also be the most active thread here.

It's active because it's emotionally charged. Not because of any high or low measure of accuracy.


----------



## william06

tgm1024 said:


> For anyone else considering this, FWIW, my Megamind 3D arrived yesterday.


You were lucky as stated above I also ordered pretty quickly and mine was cancelled and refunded by the dealer stating two different reasons. Out of stock even when the post was running two days later and the other reason in a different email, was run in error . Go figure. This was my first ever purchase on eBay and I also preordered another we will see what happens there.


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> For anyone else considering this, FWIW, my Megamind 3D arrived yesterday.


Are you sure? Maybe you got a case in shrink wrap with a CD-R in it?


----------



## aaronwt

Stereodude said:


> Blu-Ray discs are not DVDs. Blu-Rays are not even a subset of DVDs. There are 3D DVDs (anaglyph) and even some Blu-Ray's that are 3D (anaglyph) instead of MVC (true 3D).


A Blu-ray Disc has more in common with a CD than a DVD.


----------



## longhornsk57

aaronwt said:


> A Blu-ray Disc has more in common with a CD than a DVD.


Actually it has more in common with vinyl than a potato.


----------



## NorthSky

rekbones said:


> You can see 3D popularity is waning when the most active post on the 3D content fourm is this one.


*Megamind* 3D Blu-ray? 



aaronwt said:


> A Blu-ray Disc has more in common with a CD than a DVD.


- CD is PCM stereo and no picture.
- Blu-ray can have a PCM stereo track (or multichannel), but it also has a high def (1080p, or 1080i) moving motion picture...Blu-ray Video.
- DVD has compressed audio (DD or dts), and has a low def picture (480p, or 480i). ...It all depends. 

I'm talking about commercial discs here, and not CD-R/RW, BR-R/RW, and DVD-R/RW.

And, Blu-ray can be in 3D...the type with those red and blue carboard glasses, and so DVD. 
{I must have @ least a dozen 3D DVDs.}

* CD 3D...none. ...CDs with [email protected] least a dozen...*Roger Waters* - "Amused to Death" among them. ...It's like 3D sound with only two speakers stereo...with sounds coming from the extreme sides...and even from the rear...quite spooky. 

(((3D))) will never die...it is the source of holography...next...in UHD. ...And 4D sound eventually too. 
Laser technology will give us holographic [email protected] home. And we'll always be thankful to real 3D. 

And 3D, I don't know when exactly...but someday...in UHD. ...And with the best frame rate for the format...so that when the 3D camera is panning the moving pictures remain calm and stable...no blurring. ...Someday.


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> *Megamind* 3D Blu-ray?
> 
> 
> 
> - CD is PCM stereo and no picture.
> - Blu-ray can have a PCM stereo track (or multichannel), but it also has a high def (1080p, or 1080i) moving motion picture...Blu-ray Video.
> - DVD has compressed audio (DD or dts), and has a low def picture (480p, or 480i). ...It all depends.
> 
> I'm talking about commercial discs here, and not CD-R/RW, BR-R/RW, and DVD-R/RW.
> 
> And, Blu-ray can be in 3D...the type with those red and blue carboard glasses, and so DVD.
> {I must have @ least a dozen 3D DVDs.}
> 
> * CD 3D...none. ...CDs with [email protected] least a dozen...*Roger Waters* - "Amused to Death" among them. ...It's like 3D sound with only two speakers stereo...with sounds coming from the extreme sides...and even from the rear...quite spooky.
> 
> (((3D))) will never die...it is the source of holography...next...in UHD. ...And 4D sound eventually too.
> Laser technology will give us holographic [email protected] home. And we'll always be thankful to real 3D.
> 
> And 3D, I don't know when exactly...but someday...in UHD. ...And with the best frame rate for the format...so that when the 3D camera is panning the moving pictures remain calm and stable...no blurring. ...Someday.


I'm not talking about what audio or video format is on the disc. But about the way it's manufactured. In that respect a BD has more in common with a CD than a DVD.

EDIT: And I also had some video CDs from overseas back in the late 1990's and early 2000's for TV shows. Shows that were not available in the US on DVD yet. And they were the cheapest way for me to watch them at the time. I ran across them a few years ago in storage. They went into the trash pile. A bunch of them I had were the first few seasons of Stargate SG1 that were not available here in the US on DVD at the time.


----------



## Stereodude

aaronwt said:


> I'm not talking about what audio or video format is on the disc. But about the way it's manufactured. In that respect a BD has more in common with a CD than a DVD.


On the other hand, a CD has the reflective layer on the top of the disc (polycarbonate). Both BD and DVD have the reflective layer sandwiched in the middle of the disc with polycarbonate on both sides.


----------



## aaronwt

DVDs bond two substrates together. While CDs and BDs only have a single substrate.


----------



## Stereodude

aaronwt said:


> DVDs bond two substrates together. While CDs and BDs only have a single substrate.


FWIW, it looks like I was mistaken. A CD has the reflective layer on the top (furthest from the laser). A DVD has the reflective layer in the middle of a polycarbonate sandwich. A BD has the reflective layer on the bottom, but it has a protective coating over the reflective layer making it more robust and scratch resistant than either of the other two.


----------



## tomtastic

Funny thing is that scratches are worse on BD's than DVD's. I've had some really scratched up DVD's play just fine, but that one little hairline on a BD and the entire disc is dead.


----------



## Stereodude

tomtastic said:


> Funny thing is that scratches are worse on BD's than DVD's. I've had some really scratched up DVD's play just fine, but that one little hairline on a BD and the entire disc is dead.


It is much harder to scratch a BD in my experience. The "Hard Coat" on the bottom of BD's is pretty scratch resistant. It's also soft despite being called a hard coat. It seems to have some self healing properties. It will take on an impression from a fabric lined sleeve if the two are pressed together with some force that will render the disc unplayable. If you take the pressure off the impressions will go away in a day or two and they'll play back fine again. On the other hand you can polish scratches out of a DVD or CD. I don't think you can polish a BD.

FWIW, I haven't had any problems with the BD's I get from Netflix. Aside from the rare cracked disc I don't have BD playback problems. I have all sorts of problem with the DVDs Netflix sends me. Some of my drives can't play the DVDs they're so scratched up. In general the BDs come in much better shape. I can't definitively claim that proves they're more durable though. The BDs could be newer, or people renting BDs may take better care of them.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> Funny thing is that scratches are worse on BD's than DVD's. I've had some really scratched up DVD's play just fine, but that one little hairline on a BD and the entire disc is dead.


Pure WAG, but I suspect that this may have more to do with the maturity of the devices than the medium substrate, nor even scratch to bit size ratios. DVD's have had a very _very_ long time to get their error correction maxed out. BD's.....I wouldn't doubt if many of the less expensive BDP's are still mediocre in this regard.


----------



## marcuslaw

New article from the WSJ: 3-D Movies Graduate to Adult Dramas



> But filmmakers are discovering more subtle potential in 3-D, as a device for telling stories and building emotion. Later this year come Ron Howard’s seafaring drama “In the Heart of the Sea” and Ridley Scott’s “The Martian,” both in 3-D and IMAX. Ang Lee, who directed “Life of Pi,” is in postproduction of “Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime walk,” a 3-D film about soldiers having to return to Iraq after being celebrated as heroes at home.


This is interesting news especially for those who complain that 3-D isn't used widely enough across different genres.


----------



## cakefoo

marcuslaw said:


> New article from the WSJ: 3-D Movies Graduate to Adult Dramas
> 
> 
> 
> This is interesting news especially for those who complain that 3-D isn't used widely enough across different genres.


In the Heart of the Sea is action, so is The Martian.

Everest has a 64% Metacritic, but is action. Every Thing Will Be Fine is at 34%. The Walk looks iffy too. Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk doesn't come out for another 14 months.

The article isn't making a very strong point; good story-centric 3D is still rare.


----------



## marcuslaw

cakefoo said:


> In the Heart of the Sea is action, so is The Martian.
> 
> Everest has a 64% Metacritic, but is action. Every Thing Will Be Fine is at 34%. The Walk looks iffy too. Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk doesn't come out for another 14 months.
> 
> The article isn't making a very strong point; good story-centric 3D is still rare.


It seems to me that the point the author is making is that not all upcoming 3-D movies are animations (a common claim by haters) and that there is more to the format than pop out gimmickry. Quoting Wim Winders, 



> “It’s for capturing reality,” he says. “What I’m trying to achieve is that you’re closer to people. You’re more immersed in their lives. Overcoming a trauma is a process that happens inside people. My feeling is that 3-D can really look into people’s soul.”


Whatever the case, it's refreshing to read a current article in the WSJ about 3-D and to learn that there are more stereoscopic films on the way (and yes, one not for another 14 months). Personally, I cited it for the point that 3-D is far from dead; at least theatrically speaking.


----------



## Stereodude

Mad Max Road Fury in 3D for $19.90 shipped. Above my general target price for a 3D flick, but pretty a good price for a pretty new well reviewed title. There are 3 left as of this post.

Edit: All gone as of 12:37pm


----------



## cakefoo

marcuslaw said:


> It seems to me that the point the author is making is that not all upcoming 3-D movies are animations (a common claim by haters)


The point they were making is that 3D can be used for more than just blockbuster action movies like Avatar, Jurassic World, and Avengers (those were their examples). But the one that have been screened to critics just aren't impressing, so the market impact is not going to be great.

I understand a lot of you think things are ok as long as 3D isn't completely dead, but public perception will not improve if 3D just coasts along like it has been the last 5 years. It needs a boost from serious filmmakers with big box office draw like Scorsese and Cuaron. Indie/small studio/arthouse films, especially if they're just so-so, won't change much.


----------



## marcuslaw

cakefoo said:


> The point they were making is that 3D can be used for more than just blockbuster action movies like Avatar, Jurassic World, and Avengers (those were their examples). But the one that have been screened to critics just aren't impressing, so the market impact is not going to be great.
> 
> I understand a lot of you think things are ok as long as 3D isn't completely dead, but public perception will not improve if 3D just coasts along like it has been the last 5 years. It needs a boost from serious filmmakers with big box office draw like Scorsese and Cuaron. Indie/small studio/arthouse films, especially if they're just so-so, won't change much.


While I don't think 3-D is in danger of disappearing from home video, there are rough seas ahead. I do disagree, however, that the format has just "coast[ed] along" since 2010. The sheer # of them listed on this Wikipedia list indicates otherwise. Future releases are already projected into June 16, 2017 with Toy Story 4. It is a shame how quickly people are inclined to give up on Blu-ray 3-D and IMO often for reasons that could have been avoided. Sure, tinted glasses will make seeing your iPhone screen difficult in a darkened room, so put down the damn phone and just watch the movie. Another complaint is ghosting or other video noise due to the display. More often than not, 3-D is an afterthought for the average consumer until they see a 3-D film at a friend or neighbor's home. The next day they order Avatar and are soon greeted with a poor 3-D image on their $600 HDTV or have their uncharged or dead battery glasses crap out on them after the first 10 minutes. Equipment, equipment, equipment.


----------



## cakefoo

marcuslaw said:


> While I don't think 3-D is in danger of disappearing from home video, there are rough seas ahead. I do disagree, however, that the format has just "coast[ed] along" since 2010. The sheer # of them listed on this Wikipedia list indicates otherwise. Future releases are already projected into June 16, 2017 with Toy Story 4. It is a shame how quickly people are inclined to give up on Blu-ray 3-D and IMO often for reasons that could have been avoided. Sure, tinted glasses will make seeing your iPhone screen difficult in a darkened room, so put down the damn phone and just watch the movie. Another complaint is ghosting or other video noise due to the display. More often than not, 3-D is an afterthought for the average consumer until they see a 3-D film at a friend or neighbor's home. The next day they order Avatar and are soon greeted with a poor 3-D image on their $600 HDTV or have their uncharged or dead battery glasses crap out on them after the first 10 minutes. Equipment, equipment, equipment.


Sure, Hollywood's churning out 3D movies left and right for the cash. The corporate influence is keeping the content flowing, but the creativity, the director intent, it's just not improving much if at all. For the first few years of the most recent 3D wave, there were several directors passionately demonstrating masterful 3D filmmaking to the masses. Cameron, Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Ang Lee, Ridley Scott, Luhrmann, Cuaron... But for the past 2 years there's been nothing of that caliber- you ask someone if they recommended seeing Gravity in 3D, and there's a very high chance they'll say yes. That's not the case with the movies that have released since.

40-50% 3D share is ok. But it's not perception-changing. 3D needs to be innovative and artistic if it wants to grow. It's not just the tech. It's just that people won't even pay $3 because they feel too often it's just an aesthetic tweak with no real point. They recognize when there are exceptions. The masses are actually more observant than some 3D enthusiasts give them credit for. It's just that they have a higher expectation for what they pay.


----------



## therealdjnugz

marcuslaw said:


> While I don't think 3-D is in danger of disappearing from home video, there are rough seas ahead. I do disagree, however, that the format has just "coast[ed] along" since 2010. The sheer # of them listed on this Wikipedia list indicates otherwise. Future releases are already projected into June 16, 2017 with Toy Story 4. It is a shame how quickly people are inclined to give up on Blu-ray 3-D and IMO often for reasons that could have been avoided. Sure, tinted glasses will make seeing your iPhone screen difficult in a darkened room, so put down the damn phone and just watch the movie. Another complaint is ghosting or other video noise due to the display. More often than not, 3-D is an afterthought for the average consumer until they see a 3-D film at a friend or neighbor's home. The next day they order Avatar and are soon greeted with a poor 3-D image on their $600 HDTV or have their uncharged or dead battery glasses crap out on them after the first 10 minutes. Equipment, equipment, equipment.


Exactly. Most consumers experience with 3D is only at the theater. I cant tell you how many people see 3D at my home on a 100" front projection setup and are now fans. I absolutely love 3D . I almost always choose to watch a film in 3D when given the choice.


----------



## NorthSky

You know what would help 3D more? ...James Bond 'Spectre' in 3D.


----------



## EVERRET

therealdjnugz said:


> Exactly. Most consumers experience with 3D is only at the theater. I cant tell you how many people see 3D at my home on a 100" front projection setup and are now fans. I absolutely love 3D . I almost always choose to watch a film in 3D when given the choice.


When my friends (even the anti-3D ones) that see Movies & Games in 3D on my 65" 4K TV they are usually very impressed....... One friend last month said my 4K TV was the only 3DTV he had ever seen that did not give him a headache. 

It changed his whole attitude about 3D at home.


----------



## EVERRET

rekbones said:


> You can see 3D popularity is waning when the most active post on the 3D content fourm is this one.


The Original Thread starter was referencing Gravity.... 

It started out...... and is still is a....... "there is still hope for 3D" thread........ not a 3D is doomed thread. 

First post :


tomtastic said:


> *I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years.*.


----------



## therealdjnugz

EVERRET said:


> When my friends (even the anti-3D ones) that see Movies & Games in 3D on my 65" 4K TV they are usually very impressed....... One friend last month said my 4K TV was the only 3DTV he had ever seen that did not give him a headache.
> 
> It changed his whole attitude about 3D at home.


Yea man, 3d in the home environment will always be best in my opinion. And yes, the new James Bond film would be amazing if it were to be in 3d. When I bought my Xbox one, I was hoping there'd be some games in 3d. Doesn't look like it's going to happen. I still haven't experienced playing a video game in 3d. My friend plays games in 3d on his Playstation and loves it.


----------



## cakefoo

Re: 100" and 65" screens - Not everyone can setup a nice big projector in their home. Most people opt for a 42 or 50".

I'm fine with paying $3 for theatrical 3D. Shortage of great content is my #1 complaint. Hugo, Avatar, Gravity and Life of Pi get unanimously positive word of mouth from critics and average Joe, and do positive things for 3D sales, but movies like that only come around once or twice a year. The rest of the movies, only a fraction of the population loves them.


----------



## longhornsk57

I think most people would find it's easy to set up a 100" projector in almost any house or apartment.

People just have the idea it's expensive or difficult when really it's neither


----------



## cakefoo

Re: Spectre should be in 3D - Would you guys be happy with a 3D version as it was shot? Or would you only be interested if the cinematography was done specifically with 3D in mind?


----------



## blastermaster

cakefoo said:


> Re: Spectre should be in 3D - Would you guys be happy with a 3D version as it was shot? Or would you only be interested if the cinematography was done specifically with 3D in mind?


I would love it to be in 3D, but I wouldn't want the 3D to dictate how the film was shot if it were to compromise the feel of the movie. Hugo was 3D done right - it augmented the movie without feeling like it was just done for the sake of doing 3D. So, if Spectre 3D were done by Scorsese, yes I'd be all over it.


----------



## cakefoo

longhornsk57 said:


> I think most people would find it's easy to set up a 100" projector in almost any house or apartment.
> 
> People just have the idea it's expensive or difficult when really it's neither


Never owned a projector, just entertained the thought once or twice. I determined it wasn't a good option for an average living room or bedroom.


----------



## tomtastic

cakefoo said:


> Never owned a projector, just entertained the thought once or twice. I determined it wasn't a good option for an average living room or bedroom.


No, I tried it with a portable tripod screen for awhile in LR and after a few times with having to drag everything out and set it up every time after awhile I stopped using it. Finally, have a dedicated room now for that and have to say I don't watch movies on the 65" screen any more. Just too small.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> Re: Spectre should be in 3D - Would you guys be happy with a 3D version as it was shot? Or would you only be interested if the cinematography was done specifically with 3D in mind?


With an artist like Sam Mendes, his vision, the two main actresses, all the world's locales...3D could add a lot of charm and charisma to *Spectre* ... I think. 

It's a risky proposition because of 23 Bond movies made prior and all in 2D. 

Look, Mad Max is in 3D...what do you think?


----------



## therealdjnugz

cakefoo said:


> Re: 100" and 65" screens - Not everyone can setup a nice big projector in their home. Most people opt for a 42 or 50".
> 
> I'm fine with paying $3 for theatrical 3D. Shortage of great content is my #1 complaint. Hugo, Avatar, Gravity and Life of Pi get unanimously positive word of mouth from critics and average Joe, and do positive things for 3D sales, but movies like that only come around once or twice a year. The rest of the movies, only a fraction of the population loves them.


I'm not knocking anyone, or the 3d experience in general for not havin a large screen. Just simply saying size can help 3d look more impressive. I know most people have normal sized televisions. I had a 46" for years before I got into home theater equipment. I have a very modest sized living room, it can be done if you really want to do it. My setup just looks like a big flatscreen mounted on the wall. But I agree, it's not for most people.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> With an artist like Sam Mendes, his vision, the two main actresses, all the world's locales...3D could add a lot of charm and charisma to *Spectre* ... I think.
> 
> It's a risky proposition because of 23 Bond movies made prior and all in 2D.
> 
> Look, Mad Max is in 3D...what do you think?


I can't seem to connect the dots between Mad Max and James Bond. Enlighten me?

As far as Bond in 3D, the series' cinematography is pretty flat, even the action scenes, and there are so many dialog scenes that would be pointless in 3D. Not because dialog can't be done in 3D, but because it takes a completely different visual and emotional perspective to make it feel necessary, and that would be too drastic a change for Bond.


----------



## marcuslaw

cakefoo said:


> Re: 100" and 65" screens - Not everyone can setup a nice big projector in their home. Most people opt for a 42 or 50".


Not that I'm an advocate for home projectors, but opting for 42-50" is one of the problems weakening the format. TV's that small minimize and even eliminate the immersive experience of 3-D. Moreover, I believe it causes people to focus too much on pop gimmickry and become disappointed and give up when it only rarely occurs or doesn't occur at all.



> I'm fine with paying $3 for theatrical 3D. Shortage of great content is my #1 complaint. Hugo, Avatar, Gravity and Life of Pi get unanimously positive word of mouth from critics and average Joe, and do positive things for 3D sales, but movies like that only come around once or twice a year.


Movies like those only come around once or twice a year in stereo *or* mono. 



> The rest of the movies, only a fraction of the population loves them.


There are many, many terrific 3-D BD's out there. Imax Hubble, TS Spivet, 3-D Rarities, and Inferno just to name a few. The fact "only a fraction of the population loves them", if true, isn't just because they failed to get positive reviews (actually most of those I mentioned did), it's also because of priorities, cost and availability IMO. Owning BD's, let alone 3-D ones, isn't important to most consumers. Us BD collectors are apparently already a dying breed. A majority of consumers want to stream and, at least according to "industry surveying", use multiple screens and even watch entire movies on their handheld devices. How does the industry react? They redirect their products and marketing. Look at Disney. Aside from Pixar films, it has dropped BD 3-D and pushes the "second screen" experience. The resulting effect is that interest further waines. Also, as studios have ramped up digital consumption, the diversity and availability of 3-D disks is drying up thus driving up costs. That has further reduced consumer interest in the format. Anyhow, my point is that I don't think it's a lack of Hugo-like quality that is fueling some to believe 3-D is dying. It's priorities, cost and availability. I'll also repeat and add "equipment" to that list. It takes a little effort to get good 3-D in the home and it begins with the display (though it might also first begin with _expectation_). I'm not saying someone with a 50" screen can't enjoy it, but I would caution them to lower their expectations. For someone looking to get a new TV, I would encourage them to choose carefully and make 3-D a priority not an afterthought.


----------



## tgm1024

cakefoo said:


> I'm fine with paying $3 for theatrical 3D. Shortage of great content is my #1 complaint. Hugo, Avatar, Gravity and Life of Pi get unanimously positive word of mouth from critics and average Joe, and do positive things for 3D sales, but movies like that only come around once or twice a year.


I don't understand. That isn't enough in your assessment?



cakefoo said:


> The rest of the movies, only a fraction of the population loves them.


I think you may be discounting quite a few films. I spoke to a few employees of the local bazzillion-plex, and Pixar and similar quality films always sell well in 3D.


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> For anyone else considering this, FWIW, my Megamind 3D arrived yesterday.


My 3D Blu-Ray of Megamind arrived yesterday. New in the shrink wrap. I didn't open the shrink wrap yet, so I suppose its possible there a CD-R of the 80's greatest hits since I did buy it on eBay.


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> My 3D Blu-Ray of Megamind arrived yesterday. New in the shrink wrap. I didn't open the shrink wrap yet, so I suppose its possible there a CD-R of the 80's greatest hits since I did buy it on eBay.


Crap. Mine had this in it:


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> I can't seem to connect the dots between Mad Max and James Bond. Enlighten me?
> 
> As far as Bond in 3D, the series' cinematography is pretty flat, even the action scenes, and there are so many dialog scenes that would be pointless in 3D. Not because dialog can't be done in 3D, but because it takes a completely different visual and emotional perspective to make it feel necessary, and that would be too drastic a change for Bond.


I mentioned 'Mad Max' (Fury Road) in 3D because:
1. It's a popular movie with everybody (just like all James Bond flicks).
2. It is recent, like 'Spectre' coming soon.
3. Both are not animations, but real life actions, and great action...with actors we love and that look fantastic.
4. This is the year 2015 and with all the latest technologies in 3D immersive movie experience...cameras, techniques, etc.
5. Mad Max comes also in 2D (for the people who don't like 3D or any other reason). ...And Spectre too has the 2D version.
6. Mad Max will have a black and white director's preferred version, in 3D ... and James Bond 'Spectre' I would love in black and white too (xtra version).
7. That pretty much sums it...choices are good...versatility in cinema...multiple versions...immersion in visuals with the latest most popular flicks with the population's majority. ...And no loss of revenues for the movie studios in pushing the cinema experience to the highest level...before holography comes to UHD Blu-ray...one day hopefully and in 16K. 

Yes, I mentioned it; it would be a risky proposition because of what we are used to with Bond's movies...but how can we know for sure if we have never seen a Bond flick in 3D before? Sam Mendes, the director, I don't know his take on 3D, and with the movie executives he's working with.
Bond is one of the oldest and most financially rewarding movie franchise ever...so it's tough to break the ice and go further with 3D if all the elements are not in place yet. But eventually we might see a Bond movie in the future in 3D. ...And who knows, Ridley Scott might be the director then. 

The points you brought in are good points...and they are on the table to analyse further...theoretically and in practice...exploration.
3D is not specific to animations like from Disney PIXAR, super comic book heroes, CGI based sci-fi flicks, ...it also add perspective (3D depth) with any other movie genre (fantasy, adventure, horror, action, war, comedy, western, ...all). 

...In my opinion. And we can appreciate it from various forms, genres and sizes. [email protected] various levels...but satisfactory nonetheless @ those various levels.
It's not the intensity level it's the depth immersion in a higher movie experience. ... ((((3D)))) ... And with the 3D sound too (Atmos/DTS:X), to complement the 3D visuals. 

That's how I see, how I visualize and how I think.


----------



## cakefoo

marcuslaw said:


> Not that I'm an advocate for home projectors, but opting for 42-50" is one of the problems weakening the format. TV's that small minimize and even eliminate the immersive experience of 3-D. Moreover, I believe it causes people to focus too much on pop gimmickry and become disappointed and give up when it only rarely occurs or doesn't occur at all.


I agree that it's less immersive at that size, but I think the reason people look for strong popout in the typical movie is because the 95% of a movie is shot like the director doesn't give a damn about 3D. Movies like Hugo and Life of Pi are framed for 3D from start to finish.


> Movies like those only come around once or twice a year in stereo *or* mono.


My favorite films of 2014 (that I saw, at least)

Whiplash
Frank
Locke
Babadook
Calvary
Girl Walks Home Alone at Night
What We Do in the Shadows
Grand Budapest Hotel
Mr Turner
Birdman
John Wick
Nightcrawler
Gone Girl
Interstellar
American Sniper

I didn't see any movies in 3D in 2014. They were all too popcorn blockbustery. I go for the more adult, artsy movies.



> There are many, many terrific 3-D BD's out there. Imax Hubble, TS Spivet, 3-D Rarities, and Inferno just to name a few. The fact "only a fraction of the population loves them", if true, isn't just because they failed to get positive reviews (actually most of those I mentioned did), it's also because of priorities, cost and availability IMO.


No, it's because IMAX Hubble is an IMAX movie, TS Spivet didn't even get a domestic release until much later, 3-D Rarities is as the name implies a niche title for enthusiasts, and Inferno is 60 years old.

And anyway, when I said "only a fraction of the population loves them" I was referring to major mainstream blockbuster releases that do $100M+. The 3D impressions on those films is divided, as the vast majority of them are shot in 2D and postconverted, and instead of adding to the story and framing every shot for 3D, the films just feel 3D in the action scenes.



> Anyhow, my point is that I don't think it's a lack of Hugo-like quality that is fueling some to believe 3-D is dying. It's priorities, cost and availability. I'll also repeat and add "equipment" to that list. It takes a little effort to get good 3-D in the home and it begins with the display (though it might also first begin with _expectation_). I'm not saying someone with a 50" screen can't enjoy it, but I would caution them to lower their expectations. For someone looking to get a new TV, I would encourage them to choose carefully and make 3-D a priority not an afterthought.


I agree that the equipment required to get really immersive 3D is a financial barrier as well as logistical. But I also think that there's a lack of good content, even if you do have a huge screen. As the great filmmakers have shown, creating great 3D requires a lot of passion for the format. There are FAR more great 2D filmmakers than 3D, because 2D is the format they have the most experience with. There aren't a lot of production companies making 3D content for film or TV. The latter especially, because so few homes are outfitted with the equipment needed to view it. 3D for the last 5 years has had a chance to prove itself in cinemas, but Hollywood hasn't been taking advantage of it maturely. It's just spectacle to them. That can't really trickle down into broadcast content because of budget constraints and small 3DTV installed base.

It comes down to my belief that if you're going to do something, you HAVE to do it right or not at all. Because if your content sucks, the format takes all the blame.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> I can't seem to connect the dots between Mad Max and James Bond. Enlighten me?
> 
> As far as Bond in 3D, the series' cinematography is pretty flat, even the action scenes, and there are so many dialog scenes that would be pointless in 3D. Not because dialog can't be done in 3D, but because it takes a completely different visual and emotional perspective to make it feel necessary, and that would be too drastic a change for Bond.


I mentioned 'Mad Max' (Fury Road) in 3D because:
1. It's a popular movie with everybody (just like all James Bond flicks).
2. It is recent, like 'Spectre' coming soon.
3. Both are not animations, but real life actions, and great action...with actors we love and that look fantastic.
4. This is the year 2015 and with all the latest technologies in 3D immersive movie experience...cameras, techniques, etc.
5. Mad Max comes also in 2D (for the people who don't like 3D or any other reason). ...And Spectre too has the 2D version.
6. Mad Max will have a black and white director's preferred version, in 3D ... and James Bond 'Spectre' I would love in black and white too (xtra version).
7. That pretty much sums it...choices are good...versatility in cinema...multiple versions...immersion in visuals with the latest most popular flicks with the population's majority. ...And no loss of revenues for the movie studios in pushing the cinema experience to the highest level...before holography comes to UHD Blu-ray...one day hopefully and in 16K. 

Yes, I mentioned it; it would be a risky proposition because of what we are used to with Bond's movies...but how can we know for sure if we have never seen a Bond flick in the past, in 3D? Sam Mendes, the director, I don't know his take on 3D, and with the movie executives he's working with.
Bond is one of the oldest and most financially rewarding movie franchise ever...so it's tough to break the ice and go further with 3D if all the elements are not in place yet. But eventually we might see a Bond movie in the future in 3D. ...And who knows, Ridley Scott might be the director then. 

The points you brought in are good points...and they are on the table to analyse further...theoretically and in practice...exploration.
3D is not specific to animations like from Disney PIXAR, super comic book heroes, CGI based sci-fi flicks, ...it also add perspective (3D depth) with any other movie genre (fantasy, adventure, horror, action, war, comedy, western, ...all). 

...In my opinion. And we can appreciate it from various forms, genres and sizes. [email protected] various levels...but satisfactory nonetheless @ those various levels.
It's not the intensity level it's the depth immersion in a higher movie experience. ... ((((3D)))) ... And with the 3D sound too (Atmos/DTS:X), to complement the 3D visuals. 

That's how I see, how I visualize and how I think.


----------



## AllenA07

I think there is some credence for screen size being a huge factor with 3D. To this point I've had two 3D displays in my house, I've got my 50 inch TV and more recently a 110 inch projection screen. As much as I wanted to love 3D on my TV, I never was able to get into it. I found that the 3D more often then not was distracting and would give me a headache. 

When I got my projector about a year ago I decided to go ahead and buy the glasses for it, because it was able to do 3D. Thus far I've been very happy with it and find myself using the 3D feature far more then I ever did on the TV. The extra screen size makes it far more immersive, and a lot less distracting. As others have said though, the problem is that most people aren't putting 100+ inch screens and projectors in their home. The only real way I think there is for 3D to survive is for more people to get it as a feature on larger screens. I worry that having it on small screens may do more harm then good for acceptance. The other change would be more movies that are filed with it in mind. Gravity is a great example as it is a movie that really loses something when watched in 2D.


----------



## mo949

I want more adult artsy movies in 3d as well. No argument there. 3d must add a budget hit that makes the drama focused films have a harder time getting the ROI numbers to work out


----------



## cakefoo

tgm1024 said:


> I don't understand. That isn't enough in your assessment?


Buying a 3DTV, I would hope to get more than 2-4 hours of use per year.

The reason I exclude/am dismissive of so many 3D films is because I'm starting to prefer films that make me think/feel more. Stereography is just one of many elements that make up a movie- there's also script, story, direction, cinematography, score, acting, plot, mood, art design, etc, and these elements have been in practice for much longer and have matured a lot over the century cinema has been around. I'm generally only interested in 3D films that utilize all those elements AND 3D well.



> I think you may be discounting quite a few films. I spoke to a few employees of the local bazzillion-plex, and Pixar and similar quality films always sell well in 3D.


I'll trust the word of the domestic box office reports over "a few employees." Animated 3D movies sell poorly, 1 in 4 tickets maybe. It probably isn't about quality in the case of animation- animated films are native 3D and have unlimited creative control over the visuals, so they're a great fit. It's more because parents don't want to either a) pay premiums for the whole family, b) are afraid their kids' eyes aren't developed enough for 3D or c) can't reach a unanimous decision to see a film in 3D.

The movies I'm talking about that don't get a good reception as far as 3D goes, are the post-converted and sometimes even native action films. People have high expectations for 3D, it has to be meaningful, and not just there to enhance the action scenes. Action movies typically have an up and down pacing, and the last thing an action movie is going to excel in is their down-time cinematography. There's just no art, and no 3D consideration. Trailers always look great in 3D with their selective action-packed content, but then the actual films are a mixed bag.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> I mentioned 'Mad Max' (Fury Road) in 3D because:
> 1. It's a popular movie with everybody (just like all James Bond flicks).
> 2. It is recent, like 'Spectre' coming soon.
> 3. Both are not animations, but real life actions, and great action...with actors we love and that look fantastic.
> 4. This is the year 2015 and with all the latest technologies in 3D immersive movie experience...cameras, techniques, etc.
> 5. Mad Max comes also in 2D (for the people who don't like 3D or any other reason). ...And Spectre too has the 2D version.
> 6. Mad Max will have a black and white director's preferred version, in 3D ... and James Bond 'Spectre' I would love in black and white too (xtra version).


So... popular, recent, live action (and lots of action), technologically advanced, and looks good in 2D and black and white? There's a lot of padding on that list if I say so myself.

Compared to Mad Max, where the action is almost non-stop, Bond is very heavy on dialog scenes (sitting, standing, or walking). If they re-thought everything, it could work- dialog scenes aren't inherently 2D-- but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Let's get some Oscar-winning 3D dramas for action movies to model their dialog scenes after. Birdman would have been great in 3D I think.


----------



## tgm1024

cakefoo said:


> Buying a 3DTV, I would hope to get more than 2-4 hours of use per year.


A 3D TV doesn't inhibit viewing 2D. (?) Of course we all hope for good 3D films. We watch many a year and many of those we are very thankful they are 3D. Just last night my parents came over to watch the kids and they saw Maleficent 3D and just loved it.




cakefoo said:


> The reason I exclude/am dismissive of so many 3D films is because I'm starting to prefer films that make me think/feel more. Stereography is just one of many elements that make up a movie- there's also script, story, direction, cinematography, score, acting, plot, mood, art design, etc, and these elements have been in practice for much longer and have matured a lot over the century cinema has been around. I'm generally only interested in 3D films that utilize all those elements AND 3D well.


Well that's an argument against what I've been called the "schlock 3D" or the "3D for 3D sake". One of the major transitions that happened since Avatar (and despite the insistance of purist 3D historians to the contrary, it _only_ began with Avatar) was a serious concerted effort to have 3D just another part of a movie to immerse you into the story line.

Not merely into the scenes visually. But into the _story_ as a whole, better than ever before.

We've been through this many times. I suppose I'm not _quite_ understanding your point.


----------



## turls

Stereodude said:


> My 3D Blu-Ray of Megamind arrived yesterday. New in the shrink wrap. I didn't open the shrink wrap yet, so I suppose its possible there a CD-R of the 80's greatest hits since I did buy it on eBay.


I know you guys kid, but there is no doubt there is risk buying on Ebay, besides pricing and availability being so YMMV trying to track deals in a forum thread is a little pointless. Megamind 3D came out in late 2011, and has been cheaper than $15 on Amazon as recently as last year. Ebay has its place, but it isn't a slam dunk better method than regular vendors like Amazon, Best Buy and Fry's if you have a little patience or wait for sales. And its definitely worth a few more dollars to me to not have to deal with Ebay risk.


----------



## cakefoo

tgm1024 said:


> A 3D TV doesn't inhibit viewing 2D. (?)


Same can be said for the 2D HDTV in most people's home.



> Well that's an argument against what I've been called the "schlock 3D" or the "3D for 3D sake". One of the major transitions that happened since Avatar (and despite the insistance of purist 3D historians to the contrary, it _only_ began with Avatar) was a serious concerted effort to have 3D just another part of a movie to immerse you into the story line.
> 
> Not merely into the scenes visually. But into the _story_ as a whole, better than ever before.
> 
> We've been through this many times. I suppose I'm not _quite_ understanding your point.


Yes, you misunderstood. I'm saying the movies I prefer use the traditional filmmaking tools much better than the vast majority of 3D movies. In the last 2 calendar years, I can list on one hand the movies I saw that have 3D versions : Edge of Tomorrow, Godzilla, Ant-Man, Big Hero 6, and Lego Movie. 3 of them were Redbox, 2 of them (Godzilla, Ant-Man) were 2D theater. The only reason I saw them was because they were all group viewings, and there needed to be something everyone could enjoy.

When I'm alone, I watch films that would bore family and friends because they're not exciting enough, not by their simplistic standards, at least.


----------



## longhornsk57

cakefoo said:


> Never owned a projector, just entertained the thought once or twice. I determined it wasn't a good option for an average living room or bedroom.


Its much easier than you'd think. It's actually easy to set up in any situation if you read up a lot.






tomtastic said:


> No, I tried it with a portable tripod screen for awhile in LR and after a few times with having to drag everything out and set it up every time after awhile I stopped using it. Finally, have a dedicated room now for that and have to say I don't watch movies on the 65" screen any more. Just too small.


What you do is mount the PJ to the ceiling, and run cable to a receiver. You get a screen that rolls down and mount it just above your TV. 

To watch a movie just pull down the screen and let it cover your TV and use that for 3D and other movies. Takes 10 seconds. There are many other options too...


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> So... popular, recent, live action (and lots of action), technologically advanced, and looks good in 2D and black and white? There's a lot of padding on that list if I say so myself.
> 
> Compared to Mad Max, where the action is almost non-stop, Bond is very heavy on dialog scenes (sitting, standing, or walking). If they re-thought everything, it could work- dialog scenes aren't inherently 2D-- but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Let's get some Oscar-winning 3D dramas for action movies to model their dialog scenes after. Birdman would have been great in 3D I think.


It's funny you just mentioned *'Birdman'* in 3D, because I thought of it too. ...And *'Interstellar', 'The Zero Theorem', 'Lucy', 'Her', 'Under the Skin', 'ex_machina'*...all in 3D too, including the upcoming new Bond's flick *'Spectre'*.

And why not; *'The Martian'*, *'Dredd'*, *'Drive Angry'* and *'The Book of Life'* are already all in 3D. ... *'Mad Max: Fury Road'* too.


----------



## NorthSky

turls said:


> I know you guys kid, but there is no doubt there is risk buying on Ebay, besides pricing and availability being so YMMV trying to track deals in a forum thread is a little pointless. Megamind 3D came out in late 2011, and has been cheaper than $15 on Amazon as recently as last year. Ebay has its place, but it isn't a slam dunk better method than regular vendors like Amazon, Best Buy and Fry's if you have a little patience or wait for sales.
> *And its definitely worth a few more dollars to me to not have to deal with Ebay risk.*


That *^* I totally agree with. ...ePay is always risky...and you can get similar or even better 3D prices from more solid sources.


----------



## longhornsk57

NorthSky said:


> That *^* I totally agree with. ...ePay is always risky...and you can get similar or even better 3D prices from more solid sources.


What is so risky about it? You use PayPal. Both eBay and PayPal are heavily favored towards the buyer.

I use amazon, eBay and all others. If eBay happens to have a 3D bluray for $5 cheaper on that item that day, I go for it.

Never had an issue on dozens of 3D bluray.

No one is saying it's the "go to" place, but just writing it off for no real good reason for any even when the price is right doesn't make sense.


----------



## 2ndvizio

I've actually started buying 3D blurays from Ebay now since I've pretty much bought everything I liked from Amazon that was under $20. And that includes Amazon UK and Canada. First one from eBay was Guardian's of the Galaxy which arrived brand new and played perfectly. Just ordered the Hobbit Five Armies for $19 and I'm really looking forward to it. Why wait for Amazon pricing to go down if you can find it cheap at eBay now? Tired of waiting for the prices to fall. I admit it is pain to keep having to search eBay for discounted prices though.


----------



## NorthSky

I said it before; no problemo with people shopping on eBay. I simply agreed with what is written in the post above...post number 1932 (Matt's post) ... and that's it.

♦ http://domain.me/buying-on-ebay-guide/

♦♦ www.interbiztech.com/mavista/cms/en/home/9676


----------



## longhornsk57

Well you said it was risky. I was wondering what is so risky about it?


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> Well you said it was risky. I was wondering what is so risky about it?


I guess for inexpensive 3D Blu-rays it's just fine. ...Not much risk @ all there...if you follow the proper recommendations...and that you are not new @ this.

Which was the last 3D Blu-ray movie you watched?


----------



## longhornsk57

NorthSky said:


> I guess for inexpensive 3D Blu-rays it's just fine. ...Not much risk @ all there...if you follow the proper recommendations...and that you are not new @ this.
> 
> Which was the last 3D Blu-ray movie you watched?


Last one I saw was Dawn of the planet of the apes.

The movie itself was awesome, and the 3D just added great dimension. I got a great deal on ordering Transformers AoE and both kung fu panda movies, $14 each. Those are in the mail. I'm excited for all 3.

What kind of setup do you have?

I've never seen a 3D movie on a TV. My only experience is the movie theater and my home theater setup. Right now that's an HD141x with a 150" screen and the BC300 / ZF2300 glasses setup, which I love.

I know it's been mentioned but I'm really curious as to the 3D experience on a 55" or so TV. I feel like I wouldn't be so into 3D if I was watching it on a screen that small. And I guess I can see why some don't like it as much? 

Maybe some 3D TV owners can weigh in on this point.


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> Last one I saw was Dawn of the planet of the apes.
> 
> The movie itself was awesome, and the 3D just added great dimension. I got a great deal on ordering Transformers AoE and both kung fu panda movies, $14 each. Those are in the mail. I'm excited for all 3.
> 
> What kind of setup do you have?
> 
> I've never seen a 3D movie on a TV. My only experience is the movie theater and my home theater setup. Right now that's an HD141x with a 150" screen and the BC300 / ZF2300 glasses setup, which I love.
> 
> I know it's been mentioned but I'm really curious as to the 3D experience on a 55" or so TV. I feel like I wouldn't be so into 3D if I was watching it on a screen that small. And I guess I can see why some don't like it as much?
> 
> Maybe some 3D TV owners can weigh in on this point.


Apes 3D (Dawn) was $15 @ Best Buy.

Very humble setup: 60" 3D plasma (Samsung) and Oppo 103. ...I sit se7en feet from it for 3D. ...Eight feet for 2D ...a little less, and someone here recommended to sit farther from Mad Max: Fury Road 3D. I've yet to try it.
* Friends, and myself, when watching 3D Blu-ray movies on my relatively small 3D plasma screen...we all are awed by the experience.
The sound helps too...Avatar, Gravity, Prometheus, Tron: Legacy, ...

My local 3D IMAX theater...they have a big screen...more than 12.5 feet diagonal, and I prefer watching 3D on my tiny screen @ home. 

And if you have a large screen @ home, like yours, @ 150" wide, or even less...say 100"...or even more...say 180-200"...or a flat panel in the 70 to 90" class...you're good for the 3D movie experience @ home. 

And for people who have a PC monitor in the 32 to 42" size, 3D is cool [email protected] a distance of about 24 inches...or less...18 inches. 

Anyway, size does matter...Gotzilla. ...And Gotzilla loves 3D too, even when he watches it on his laptop's screen.
There are no rules to enjoy 3D...just ask Gotzilla. 
And when you go to your local 3D IMAX theater, sit where you feel the most comfy, even if it is in the first row and that you have to turn your head from left to right and right to left to see all there is to see.  ...As long that you are comfy with it...not me...I sit about in the middle. 

* If I was the King of Kongs, I would climb the tallest building of the world and bring my girlfriend with me up there, just to enjoy the view.
Then the next day we will be sitting on top of Everest, on a clear sky day. The best 3D is the real life outside wildlife...mountains, forests, jungles, all that 3D jazz. ...Then Mad Max.


----------



## Stereodude

NorthSky said:


> I said it before; no problemo with people shopping on eBay. I simply agreed with what is written in the post above...post number 1932 (Matt's post) ... and that's it.
> 
> ♦ http://domain.me/buying-on-ebay-guide/
> 
> ♦♦ www.interbiztech.com/mavista/cms/en/home/9676


The 2nd one is all about selling on eBay. Not sure what relevance that has to the conversation. The first is old and not really relevant when considering sub $20 transactions.


----------



## film113

longhornsk57 said:


> Last one I saw was Dawn of the planet of the apes.
> 
> 
> I know it's been mentioned but I'm really curious as to the 3D experience on a 55" or so TV. I feel like I wouldn't be so into 3D if I was watching it on a screen that small. And I guess I can see why some don't like it as much?
> 
> Maybe some 3D TV owners can weigh in on this point.


47" here (cry for me) and even on that, I love 3D to the point where the only BDs I but these days are 3D. (Most recently MAD MAX which, surprisingly enough, is being largely outsold by INSURGENT 3D!) Naturally, I'm not getting the full 3D effect on such a small display. So my next purchase will be a 3D PJ (either a BenQ or Epson...hard to decide as there are no ways to compare PQ of projectors at the retail level).


----------



## 2ndvizio

I have 60 and 65" plasma 3d tvs and 3d was good. After getting the epson 2000 projector, 3d was totally immersive, mind blowing even. I picked the epson since my 3d glasses would work with it but not with the DLP Benq. It was cheaper and I didn't have to worry about rainbows.


----------



## dc4all

Not sure if this has been asked earlier in the thread, sorry if it was.

I just purchased a 75" Sony Bravia TV. The PlayStation app allows for streaming 3d rentals for $5-$8 that work with the active 3d glasses. Has anyone tried the streaming 3d? If yes, how does it stack up vs BluRay? I ordered one of those too but it hasn't arrived yet. 

Seems to make sense to rent as there are only a few movies I watch more than once.

Any word on Netflix 3d?


----------



## tgm1024

longhornsk57 said:


> Last one I saw was Dawn of the planet of the apes.
> 
> The movie itself was awesome, and the 3D just added great dimension. I got a great deal on ordering Transformers AoE and both kung fu panda movies, $14 each. Those are in the mail. I'm excited for all 3.
> 
> What kind of setup do you have?
> 
> I've never seen a 3D movie on a TV. My only experience is the movie theater and my home theater setup. Right now that's an HD141x with a 150" screen and the BC300 / ZF2300 glasses setup, which I love.
> 
> I know it's been mentioned but I'm really curious as to the 3D experience on a 55" or so TV. I feel like I wouldn't be so into 3D if I was watching it on a screen that small. And I guess I can see why some don't like it as much?
> 
> Maybe some 3D TV owners can weigh in on this point.


I have a passive KDL-60R550A and it's *A-W-E-S-O-M-E* for 3D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## marcuslaw

dc4all said:


> Not sure if this has been asked earlier in the thread, sorry if it was.
> 
> I just purchased a 75" Sony Bravia TV. The PlayStation app allows for streaming 3d rentals for $5-$8 that work with the active 3d glasses. Has anyone tried the streaming 3d? If yes, how does it stack up vs BluRay? I ordered one of those too but it hasn't arrived yet.
> 
> Seems to make sense to rent as there are only a few movies I watch more than once.
> 
> Any word on Netflix 3d?


If it's the 940C you bought or another model from Sony's 2015 lineup, I'm told 3-D streaming isn't currently supported. In fact, about a month ago when I inquired about the availability of 3DGO!, a rep told me it might _never_ be.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> If it's the 940C you bought or another model from Sony's 2015 lineup, I'm told 3-D streaming isn't currently supported. In fact, about a month ago when I inquired about the availability of 3DGO!, a rep told me it might _never_ be.


But if he streams from his blu-ray player (most of them have netflix, etc., abilities) or some other device, then the TV would never know the difference, correct?

Or are you saying there's some other limiter involved?


----------



## marcuslaw

tgm1024 said:


> But if he streams from his blu-ray player (most of them have netflix, etc., abilities) or some other device, then the TV would never know the difference, correct?
> 
> Or are you saying there's some other limiter involved?


The rep and I only discussed streaming 3-D from an app in the TV's Android OS. I doubt that the limitation would also apply to a 3-D signal streaming form an app in an external device though candidly I haven't tested that myself.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> The rep and I only discussed streaming 3-D from an app in the TV's Android OS. I doubt that the limitation would also apply to a 3-D signal streaming form an app in an external device though candidly I haven't tested that myself.


The only gotcha in such things is whether there is a breakdown in OU vs SBS, or something weird like that. It's really a non-issue, particularly since there are very inexpensive streaming "sticks" out there, and any 3D BDP you get is almost certainly going to have streaming capability anyway.

It just doesn't seem like a big deal somehow.


----------



## turls

longhornsk57 said:


> Well you said it was risky. I was wondering what is so risky about it?


Really? If you have a customer service issue (shipping, damage, on and on) much preferable to deal with Amazon or Best Buy. You aren't at the mercy of Ebay or the seller, you are always going to have a wait period for Ebay. And if you have an issue on Ebay, most likely you never get the product you wanted and just wasted your time. With retailers, you will get what you are trying to purchase after resolution without much hassle almost every time.

If you want to pretend some guy that has sat on a Blu-ray in his basement for 2 years is going to be the same buying experience as the big boys, more power to you.


----------



## 2ndvizio

I think ebay may be risky for big ticket items but with blurays, you are probably risking at most $20 and how can it get damaged in shipping? I got four packages yesterday. The three from ebay was as expected, new and still shrink wrapped and packaged nicely. The one from bestbuy was poorly packaged and mangled but that was just the slip cover so I don't care. Actually I had to return a bluray to Bestbuy because they misrepresented it on their website as 3d. My order of Mastermind did get cancelled so eBay isn't perfect either. So I think both retailers and ebay have issues.


----------



## longhornsk57

Why rent a 3D movie for $5 to $8 when you can buy it for not much more?


----------



## Stereodude

longhornsk57 said:


> Why rent a 3D movie for $5 to $8 when you can buy it for not much more?


Because you might have to deal with that cesspool known as eBay to buy it and that would just not be cooth.


----------



## tgm1024

turls said:


> Really? If you have a customer service issue (shipping, damage, on and on) much preferable to deal with Amazon or Best Buy. You aren't at the mercy of Ebay or the seller, you are always going to have a wait period for Ebay. And if you have an issue on Ebay, most likely you never get the product you wanted and just wasted your time. With retailers, you will get what you are trying to purchase after resolution without much hassle almost every time.
> 
> If you want to pretend some guy that has sat on a Blu-ray in his basement for 2 years is going to be the same buying experience as the big boys, more power to you.


Correct, but the eBay discussion in this thread was fairly centric to buying 3DBDs. And having just gotten a 3DBD delivered for $6 is pretty dang cool, and not that much of a risk.


----------



## Toe

I have no idea how many 2d/3d blu rays, SACDs, DVD-A, DVDs I have bought off ebay over the years and not once have I been burned. I have saved a ton of $$$ though. Not to mention ebay is the ONLY place I have been able to find some rare out of production multichannel music discs. Surprised some are that paranoid that they won't buy a disc off ebay.


----------



## Stereodude

Have you guys downloaded the Reelwood 3D demo disc?


----------



## MrEmoto

longhornsk57 said:


> ...
> I know it's been mentioned but I'm really curious as to the 3D experience on a 55" or so TV. I feel like I wouldn't be so into 3D if I was watching it on a screen that small. And I guess I can see why some don't like it as much?
> 
> Maybe some 3D TV owners can weigh in on this point.


I have a 55" Panasonic plasma and the room is set up for 7.1. 

I have never seen a 3D film in the theater, nor have I ever watched tv on a larger screen, so I am blissfully ignorant of the benefits. What I can say is that I enjoy the heck out of watching 3D movies on my 55". Love how it looks, and the soundtrack also plays a big role in how immersive an experience it is. 

If this tv ever dies and is not reasonably repairable, I may well go to a larger screen, but I will jump off that bridge when I get to it. Right now, I am very happy with my current set-up for either 2D or 3D. I still catch myself thinking how wonderful it is to have such a large tv with such a beautiful picture.


----------



## guy_montag

I'm on the prowl for some 3D content that has lots of 'pop out'. I've been pretty disappointed with the lack of 'stuff coming out of screen'. The picture depth of 3D is good, but for some reason people say stuff coming out of the screen is a gimmick or cheesy - but isn't that the point of it?

I recently got a 65" Samsung JS9000, and the picture is amazing but none of the 3D I've watched so far has amazed me. I also have a DLP 1080p projector (105" screen) and it was the same deal there, no movie content was that impressive. I could go on youtube and watch people with 3D cameras point a knife at the camera and it looked like I was about to get stabbed in the eye, jarring and amazing. Have yet to see anything like that on film.. 

Any tips on making the experience better on Samsung 2015 SUHD's?


----------



## MrEmoto

guy_montag said:


> I'm on the prowl for some 3D content that has lots of 'pop out'. I've been pretty disappointed with the lack of 'stuff coming out of screen'. The picture depth of 3D is good, but for some reason people say stuff coming out of the screen is a gimmick or cheesy - but isn't that the point of it?
> 
> I recently got a 65" Samsung JS9000, and the picture is amazing but none of the 3D I've watched so far has amazed me. I also have a DLP 1080p projector (105" screen) and it was the same deal there, no movie content was that impressive. I could go on youtube and watch people with 3D cameras point a knife at the camera and it looked like I was about to get stabbed in the eye, jarring and amazing. Have yet to see anything like that on film..
> 
> Any tips on making the experience better on Samsung 2015 SUHD's?


Have you seen Flying Swords of Dragon Gate? Might be just what you're looking for.


----------



## dc4all

tgm1024 said:


> But if he streams from his blu-ray player (most of them have netflix, etc., abilities) or some other device, then the TV would never know the difference, correct?
> 
> Or are you saying there's some other limiter involved?


I have a Sony KDL75W850C 75-Inch 1080p 120Hz 3D Android Smart LED TV and my BDP-S6500 Blu-ray just arrived. 

I just installed the KODI streaming app which has dozens of 3D movies on it. I know that the Blu-ray uses Bluetooth active 3D. I am curious how the KODI 3D movies need to be viewed: with active shutter glasses or the passive, movie theater style ones. Anyone know?


----------



## marcuslaw

guy_montag said:


> I'm on the prowl for some 3D content that has lots of 'pop out'. I've been pretty disappointed with the lack of 'stuff coming out of screen'. The picture depth of 3D is good, but for some reason people say stuff coming out of the screen is a gimmick or cheesy - but isn't that the point of it?
> 
> I recently got a 65" Samsung JS9000, and the picture is amazing but none of the 3D I've watched so far has amazed me. I also have a DLP 1080p projector (105" screen) and it was the same deal there, no movie content was that impressive. I could go on youtube and watch people with 3D cameras point a knife at the camera and it looked like I was about to get stabbed in the eye, jarring and amazing. Have yet to see anything like that on film..
> 
> Any tips on making the experience better on Samsung 2015 SUHD's?


For pop, I recommend 3-D Rarities, The Bubble (poor movie, great 3-D) and the forthcoming Comin At Ya (really bad flick, lots of pop gimmickry).


----------



## marcuslaw

dc4all said:


> I have a Sony KDL75W850C 75-Inch 1080p 120Hz 3D Android Smart LED TV and my BDP-S6500 Blu-ray just arrived.
> 
> I just installed the KODI streaming app which has dozens of 3D movies on it. I know that the Blu-ray uses Bluetooth active 3D. I am curious how the KODI 3D movies need to be viewed: with active shutter glasses or the passive, movie theater style ones. Anyone know?


The method for how your TV displays a 3-D image is determined by the TV and not one of its apps or a connected player. FYI. I was told by a Sony rep (before the online store closed) that 2015 TVs do not currently support 3-D from apps. I don't know if that limitation effects the 850C.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> The method for how your TV displays a 3-D image is determined by the TV and not one of its apps or a connected player.


That's correct. The BDP has no clue about the 3D display vehicle (passive or active). It's the TV that controls the glasses, not the BDP----that BDP couldn't care less what the TV was using. Besides, consider why this has to be the case even if 100% of the world were active 3D----the TV is the one in full control over when the image actually *draws*.


----------



## william06

Just saw Everest 3D iMax this is what 3D is all about like you were there without the frostbite. Can't wait for the 3D bd. Cannot imagine this movie without 3D. More like this and we will need a thread titled 3D lives.


----------



## Stereodude

guy_montag said:


> I'm on the prowl for some 3D content that has lots of 'pop out'. I've been pretty disappointed with the lack of 'stuff coming out of screen'. The picture depth of 3D is good, but for some reason people say stuff coming out of the screen is a gimmick or cheesy - but isn't that the point of it?
> 
> I recently got a 65" Samsung JS9000, and the picture is amazing but none of the 3D I've watched so far has amazed me. I also have a DLP 1080p projector (105" screen) and it was the same deal there, no movie content was that impressive. I could go on youtube and watch people with 3D cameras point a knife at the camera and it looked like I was about to get stabbed in the eye, jarring and amazing. Have yet to see anything like that on film..
> 
> Any tips on making the experience better on Samsung 2015 SUHD's?


Download and try the Reelwood 3D Demo disc I linked to in post 1959. See if any of the demo scenes tickle your fancy. I've found the Dreamworks 3D animated movies (like Kung-Fu Panda 2 & Madagascar 3) have a lot of pop out 3D.


----------



## film113

Agree with 3D RARITIES. Also, most have given high marks to the SPONGE BOB movie (and honorable mention to MR PEABODY & SHERMAN). You might also want to check out CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON and Twilight Time's MAN IN THE DARK. Others you might want to see include DRIVE ANGRY, MY BLOODY VALENTINE, OZ-TGAP, HOUSE OF WAX, KISS ME KATE (if you like musicals) and the Robert Zemeckis version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL. But I should also add THE WIZARD OF OZ 3D...no pop-outs but an amazing viewing experience in 3D...you'll feel like you're seeing it for the very first time. A must for any 3D library.


----------



## NorthSky

Stereodude said:


> Have you guys downloaded the Reelwood 3D demo disc?


♦ Thank you. 



MrEmoto said:


> Have you seen *Flying Swords of Dragon Gate*? Might be just what you're looking for.


♦ That's a good one in 3D, very.



william06 said:


> Just saw *Everest 3D iMax* this is what 3D is all about like you were there without the frostbite. Can't wait for the 3D bd. Cannot imagine this movie without 3D. More like this and we will need a thread titled 3D lives.


♦ I've read excellent comments about that one. 
{I'll check it out @ my local IMAX theater.}


----------



## LowellG

guitarman512 said:


> Well guys - have a read at this http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...the-lone-ranger-and-the-necessary-evil-of-3d/
> it seems to make a profit nowadays it has to be made or converted to 3d. Thats fine by me ;0) I would have enjoyed Battleship and Oblivion a lot more if they were in 3d and I bet the studio's wish they had the foresight to convert them.
> 
> " With 3D, After Earth would surely be looking at around $300m worldwide. In 3D, Battleship may well have crossed $350m worldwide, while a 2D John Carter would have lost even more money. The movie is the movie, but 3D makes big films bigger and helps big flops earn just a little more when every dollar counts. Artistic intent aside, in this current environment, where 3D is still a major deal overseas, a 3D conversion basically amounts to money for nothing."


Were you being sarcastic on After Earth.  I love post apocalyptic movies and like Will Smith, but that's the worst movie I have watched in a long time.


----------



## longhornsk57

LowellG said:


> Were you being sarcastic on After Earth.  I love post apocalyptic movies and like Will Smith, but that's the worst movie I have watched in a long time.


I liked it a lot.

I thought it got slammed for no reason really, was a good movie.


----------



## Toe

guy_montag said:


> I'm on the prowl for some 3D content that has lots of 'pop out'. I've been pretty disappointed with the lack of 'stuff coming out of screen'. The picture depth of 3D is good, but for some reason people say stuff coming out of the screen is a gimmick or cheesy - but isn't that the point of it?
> 
> I recently got a 65" Samsung JS9000, and the picture is amazing but none of the 3D I've watched so far has amazed me. I also have a DLP 1080p projector (105" screen) and it was the same deal there, no movie content was that impressive. I could go on youtube and watch people with 3D cameras point a knife at the camera and it looked like I was about to get stabbed in the eye, jarring and amazing. Have yet to see anything like that on film..
> 
> Any tips on making the experience better on Samsung 2015 SUHD's?


The three Lichtmond titles have fantastic, strong 3d with lots of pop out and excellent depth. Great audio as well.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Hi all,

I do not have a blu Ray player so get my 3D content through HBO and Showtime on Demand, which is free from my provider.

The 3D is fantastic and its sometimes hard to realize so much is actually coming out in front of the screen because I lose sense of where the screen really is. I realized this when noticing the illuminated light under the screen of my Sony 50w500b appeared behind a lot of the scenes.

Just caught Exodus Gods and Kings and there were some coming at ya scenes but the best of the limited ones I've seen is Gravity. But to really appreciate them, I have to lean toward from my usual sitting position.

Is the 3D effect that much different on HD stations than blu Ray?


----------



## marcuslaw

Joseph Dubin said:


> Is the 3D effect that much different on HD stations than blu Ray?


While there's certainly a subjective component to that, I'm inclined to believe that there is _a difference_ (perhaps not much depending on bandwidth, buffering, etc.) given that an HD station is going to have more compression with resulting loss in detail and dynamic range. Of course with streaming, you're going to lose the benefit of lossless audio. IMO, Blu-ray 3D isn't immersive with just video alone.


----------



## film113

Joseph Dubin said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I do not have a blu Ray player so get my 3D content through HBO and Showtime on Demand, which is free from my provider.
> 
> Just caught Exodus Gods and Kings and there were some coming at ya scenes but the best of the limited ones I've seen is Gravity. But to really appreciate them, I have to lean toward from my usual sitting position.
> 
> Is the 3D effect that much different on HD stations than blu Ray?


Showtime doesn't have any OnDemand 3D. You might be thinking of Starz. I have the BD of EXODUS and I did a brief comparison with HBOs. The BD was the very clear winner, with much stronger detail/textures. (Surprisingly, both the 3D _and_ the 2D HBO versions are widescreen! (GONE GIRL was wide as well.) A new policy at HBO or just two director's insisting in it? Hope it's the former.)


----------



## Joseph Dubin

film113 said:


> Showtime doesn't have any OnDemand 3D. You might be thinking of Starz. I have the BD of EXODUS and I did a brief comparison with HBOs. The BD was the very clear winner, with much stronger detail/textures. (Surprisingly, both the 3D _and_ the 2D HBO versions are widescreen! (GONE GIRL was wide as well.) A new policy at HBO or just two director's insisting in it? Hope it's the former.)


Suspected blu ray would be the winner for my DVDs up converted have more impact than the premium station version. Well, at least using active glasses I'm getting the 1080i part of it.

Have been following the thread and will check out if the blu ray discs can be found cheaper in eBay or used at amazon to determine if I will go ahead and purchase a 3d blu ray player and start a collection.

Thanx for the feedback. Exodus wasn't a bad film if one thinks of it in terms of action more than religious. I mean, Moses didn't exactly seem in awe of the Creator most of the time.


----------



## marcuslaw

Article from the Irish Examiner: VIDEO: Creating the 3D for new movie Pan


----------



## NorthSky

That looks totally awesome Marcus.


----------



## NorthSky




----------



## grubadub

The Good Dinosaur - actually advertised that it will be in 3D . This Thanksgiving


----------



## johnny905

Stereodude said:


> Download and try the Reelwood 3D Demo disc I linked to in post 1959. See if any of the demo scenes tickle your fancy. I've found the Dreamworks 3D animated movies (like Kung-Fu Panda 2 & Madagascar 3) have a lot of pop out 3D.


How do I watch this on my TV? Do I have to burn it to blu ray? Or can I copy it to a memory stick and play it on my 3DTV or stream directly from my PC?

I just downloaded it today, and the only large file in the batch is 00000.m2ts, but I tried playing it on my PC to test it and it is only 2D (i.e., only one image, no left/right)

Thanks!


----------



## Stereodude

johnny905 said:


> How do I watch this on my TV? Do I have to burn it to blu ray? Or can I copy it to a memory stick and play it on my 3DTV or stream directly from my PC?
> 
> I just downloaded it today, and the only large file in the batch is 00000.m2ts, but I tried playing it on my PC to test it and it is only 2D (i.e., only one image, no left/right)
> 
> Thanks!


Well, it definitely worked for me when burned to a Blu-Ray. Whether it will work from a memory stick with your TV depends on your TV. You can try it and see.

Very few PC applications support 3D playback. You'd need PowerDVD (not sure which version) or ArcSoft TMT 6 (I don't think 5 supports 3D) and a video card that supports the right output mode. FFMPEG can't yet decode MVC, so programs like Kodi/XBMC & MPC-HC that use it for decoding can't play it back in 3D.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8NoETa3c0s


It's the same picture for each eye, just shifted to look like it's deeper than the screen.


----------



## NorthSky

But it won't be like that @ the theater and on Blu-ray.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> But it won't be like that @ the theater and on Blu-ray.


I'm just saying it's a fake Youtuber


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> I'm just saying it's a fake Youtuber


Yes, but still fun to grab your cardboard 3D glasses.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> Yes, but still fun to grab your cardboard 3D glasses.


It's prank 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> It's prank 3D.


Oh. ...Should I remove the video? ...I just wanted to share what I found on youtube while googling around.
So, it's not working with cardboard 3D glasses? ...Lol, those youtube guys are sure funny sometimes.

I had no clue, no biggie, not the end of the world, the youtube guys are having fun with 'The Martian' I guess...next 3D flick...*'Everest'*.

__________

EDIT: I just checked with my 3D glasses (cardboard type with red and blue lenses)...and it worked! 
I knew it would be working too. Sure it's not the real deal, and so another 3D thread with youtube videos here @ AVS.
That's not the point...the point is 3D, and 'The Martian' is in 3D, and that youtube video is in 3D, the inferior type of course but still in 3D and on topic with the thread. I think it's a cool 3D video myself...even if it's vastly inferior to 3D IMAX (REAL 3D) theaters. ...Or on 3D Blu-ray.
Watch some of the 3D youtube videos on the AVS thread and you'll see some of those videos where you need the same type of 3D glasses. 

Alright now. :cool"


----------



## NorthSky

...A fake, a prank, ...we can name it anything we want...but 'The Martian' is still in 3D, and that youtube video uses the lowest type of 3D effect. ...Still fun. 

Yes, it's a fake, it's a prank, it's youtube, it's fun, it's in 3D. ...True, the effect is very bad for a youtube 3D...looks like a fake, a prank... 
All good, from all perspectives.


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> EDIT: I just checked with my 3D glasses (cardboard type with red and blue lenses)...and it worked!
> I knew it would be working too. Sure it's not the real deal, and so another 3D thread with youtube videos here @ AVS.
> That's not the point...the point is 3D, and 'The Martian' is in 3D, and that youtube video is in 3D, the inferior type of course but still in 3D and on topic with the thread. I think it's a cool 3D video myself...even if it's vastly inferior to 3D IMAX (REAL 3D) theaters. ...Or on 3D Blu-ray.
> Watch some of the 3D youtube videos on the AVS thread and you'll see some of those videos where you need the same type of 3D glasses.
> 
> Alright now. :cool"


IThe trailer is using ONE image duplicated to both eyes. True 3D Youtube videos use 2 unique images.

And no, you don't have to watch Youtube 3D with red and blue glasses. You can use polarized glasses, or active, or whatever your TV uses.


----------



## NorthSky

I look @ my laptop's screen, just for the fun of it...from them 3D youtube videos....some good ones, others really lame...like this fake trailer one. 

On my regular plasma 3D TV I only watch Blu-rays...2D, and 3D...nothing else. 

But if people enjoy youtube videos in 3D, and Netflix in 3D, and other streaming services in 3D, then 3D is alive and will never die. 
IMAX theaters they always have 3D movies playing, and Blu-ray (movie studios) always release 3D titles every single month, week. ...And worldwide too. 

The question now is: How long till UHD 3D Blu-ray?


----------



## Defcon

Joseph Dubin said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I do not have a blu Ray player so get my 3D content through HBO and Showtime on Demand, which is free from my provider.
> 
> The 3D is fantastic and its sometimes hard to realize so much is actually coming out in front of the screen because I lose sense of where the screen really is. I realized this when noticing the illuminated light under the screen of my Sony 50w500b appeared behind a lot of the scenes.
> 
> Just caught Exodus Gods and Kings and there were some coming at ya scenes but the best of the limited ones I've seen is Gravity. But to really appreciate them, I have to lean toward from my usual sitting position.
> 
> Is the 3D effect that much different on HD stations than blu Ray?


Same here, I don't have Showtime only HBO and there's a few 3d movies on there, I also liked Gravity a lot in 3d, its a good showcase.

Compression and bitrate differences on broadcast vs disc will have no effect on 3d, popout etc, its just going to be things like banding and pixellation during action scenes, i.e. limited to 2d.


----------



## marcuslaw

mars5l said:


> Mm was $27.99 when it released, doubt you will $24.99 for awhile.


I took a little over 3 weeks. I just ordered Mad Max: Fury Road (3D/BR/DVD/UV) for $24.99 right now from Best Buy.


----------



## aaronwt

longhornsk57 said:


> Why rent a 3D movie for $5 to $8 when you can buy it for not much more?


Because you don't plan on watching it a second time.


----------



## johnny905

aaronwt said:


> Because you don't plan on watching it a second time.


+1

If i can find a 3D blu ray for under $15 I'll definitely consider buying it. But otherwise, except in rare exceptions, I now prefer to rent for that exact reason. Out of the 25 or so blu ray discs I have, there are probably only 3-4 that I have watched more than once.


----------



## Stereodude

johnny905 said:


> If i can find a 3D blu ray for under $15 I'll definitely consider buying it.


So far I've only paid over $15 for one of the 3D Blu-Rays and I have over 25. Granted most were used, but stalking eBay has been working out for me. They're still cheaper than going to the theater and buying two tickets even if I only watch them once.


----------



## longhornsk57

aaronwt said:


> Because you don't plan on watching it a second time.










johnny905 said:


> +1
> 
> If i can find a 3D blu ray for under $15 I'll definitely consider buying it. But otherwise, except in rare exceptions, I now prefer to rent for that exact reason. Out of the 25 or so blu ray discs I have, there are probably only 3-4 that I have watched more than once.


Doesn't make sense to me to rent for $8 what you could buy for $5 - $15 - but that's just me I guess...

I've never spent more than $20 on a 3D bluray and they usually cost much less. Even just a few months old.


----------



## johnny905

longhornsk57 said:


> Doesn't make sense to me to rent for $8 what you could buy for $5 - $15 - but that's just me I guess...
> 
> I've never spent more than $20 on a 3D bluray and they usually cost much less. Even just a few months old.


New BD releases are never $5-15 in Canada. Typically they are $25-35. Compared to $7.99 for a new release rental on 3DGO or $5.99 for an older release makes sense.

In the US I know you can get BDs cheaper, but then again 3DGO rental rates are cheaper in the US as well (3.49-5.49 I think). So at the end of the day, unless you are going to watch the movie more than 4-6 times its usually more economic to rent. I understand the desire of some to hold the physical disc, but 3 decades of VHS, DVD and BDs stacking up tell me they end up collecting dust more than anything. There are exceptions of course, but for most I'd just prefer to rent today.


----------



## tomtastic

2000 posts and 3D isn't dead yet.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> 2000 posts and 3D isn't dead yet.


Yes, but 2001 posts and their childish attempt at the assassination of 3D by fait accompli is as maddening as ever.


----------



## cakefoo

Too bad there are hardly any posts relevant to the actual topic.


----------



## Stereodude

cakefoo said:


> Too bad there are hardly any posts relevant to the actual topic.


Too bad yours just further dilutes those that are.


----------



## cakefoo

Stereodude said:


> Too bad yours just further dilutes those that are.


Funny, I have "dilluted" this thread with nothing but on-topic posts while everyone else ignores basic forum guidelines. I've earned the right to contribute one post to point this issue out. I've tried to ignore the issue and I lead by example, posting only things that are particularly relevant to 3D's future well-being. But people would rather talk about where to get cheap Blu-rays and tons of other unrelated topics. I'm subscribed to this thread, and I have a reasonable expectation that each new post will be relevant. This is how forums are supposed to work.


----------



## NorthSky

I revisited *Mad Max: Fury Road (((3D)))* couple nights ago...WoW...that's the right way to view this awesome flick!  

I can't wait for (((3D))) *'Everest', 'San Andreas', 'Jurassic World', 'Avengers: Age of Ultron', 'The Martian', 'Avatar 2', 'Inside Out', 'Pixels', ... * and a bunch more. 

________

I went to some of my local stores not long ago, and I was happy to see 3D Blu-ray titles on sale...some for $7.99, $9.99, $14.99 and $19.99 ...excellent!
Some of those 3D BR titles were $34.99 just few weeks ago. ...So this is encouraging...for the Blu-ray 3D format having a larger exposition (affordable) to a lot more people. ...That, is a key ingredient for survival. 

*'SpongeBob' (((3D)))* was $39.99 @ my local stores just few weeks ago...now it's only $19.99 for the 3D BR Special Edition package that comes with a sponge inside! WoW! ...Prices are the most important aspect of our society; it's important to know. Most people are poor people...so if 3D Blus are getting affordable it means *Long Live Blu-ray 3D!* ...Simple and cool as that. 

EDIT: I forgot...*'Minions' (((3D)))*


----------



## Stereodude

cakefoo said:


> Funny, I have "dilluted" this thread with nothing but on-topic posts while everyone else ignores basic forum guidelines. I've earned the right to contribute one post to point this issue out. I've tried to ignore the issue and I lead by example, posting only things that are particularly relevant to 3D's future well-being. But people would rather talk about where to get cheap Blu-rays and tons of other unrelated topics. I'm subscribed to this thread, and I have a reasonable expectation that each new post will be relevant. This is how forums are supposed to work.


Well, I was referring specifically to your post complaining about the off topic posts. It only served to worsen the problem you're complaining about.


----------



## mo949

the only reason renting 3D doesn't do it for me is that the night I choose a 3D title is more mood dependent than when I watch normal movies. So I pay for the flexibility to uncork it at will so to speak.


----------



## Bepaof8

I have just recently discovered Home 3D, primarily because I recently bought a 70" Sony 4k HDTV, replacing my 61" JVC RPTV. And now that I have viewed some terrific examples like Prometheus 3D and the IMAX Under the Sea 3D, I have purchased another 10 3D DVDs, and I plan to continue buying them. I also signed up at the 3D-DVDRental site. 

With people continually upgrading their home theater setups I would expect more interest in 3D. And why would it die out? We've had several years of crap movies and the desire for individual ownership of DVDs hasn't died out. I've still got 100+ HD DVDs that I watch frequently along with 2 HD DVD players and that technology ended years ago.

Years after 3D morphs into some new technology, I'll still be watching and enjoying the 3D movies in my collection. It's a lot easier to spend time enjoying technology than it is to spend time needlessly fretting over how long it might last.

I enjoyed holding a transistor radio up against my ear. Pong was a lot of fun. Intellivision had some really good games. You just can't beat a Walkman! Rotary-dial phones and touch-tone phones morphed into the smart phone you now carry around.


----------



## johnny905

mo949 said:


> the only reason renting 3D doesn't do it for me is that the night I choose a 3D title is more mood dependent than when I watch normal movies. So I pay for the flexibility to uncork it at will so to speak.


Funny. That's actually the reason I enjoy streaming. The flexibility to sit back and choose anything at will.


----------



## marcuslaw

3-D is not dead. In fact, more are on the way for Blu-ray including at least one classic horror film from Kino that you might not have heard of. Gog (1954) (3D) is being restored by the 3-D Film Archive for a 3/01/2016 release.


----------



## James Freeman

Nothing is done for the consumer enjoyment like it is presented in this industry, the only motivation and the cause for progress is MONEY! period.
If 3D Blu Ray will have little profit when UHD BluRay comes out it will be gone in less than a fraction of a heartbeat.
No, it's not like DVD that will stick along with the new format, DVD makes just as much money as BluRay. 
3D on the other hand is there because it was (is?) a profitable trend back when Avatar revived it.
You have to remember that creating a 3D movie costs a LOT more than 2D, and unprofitable trends quickly unplugged from the money vein by the companies.


----------



## marcuslaw

3-D is not dead. The 3-D movie streaming app, 3DGo!, is now available on Samsung TV's in the U.S.


----------



## James Freeman

I see you are a huge fan of 3D so you probably did some research.
Why do you think the reason BDA completely eliminated 3D from the upcoming UHD BluRay format?


----------



## marcuslaw

James Freeman said:


> I see you are a huge fan of 3D so you probably did some research.
> Why do you think the reason BDA completely eliminated 3D from the upcoming UHD BluRay format?


You're wrong. According to the BDA's Victor Matsuda, there are no _current plans_ for 3-D UHD disks because there is "no 4K theatrical 3D content". You can find that quote here.


----------



## Stereodude

James Freeman said:


> Why do you think the reason BDA completely eliminated 3D from the upcoming UHD BluRay format?


1) It supports 1080p 3D.
2) It doesn't support UHD 3D because there is no theatrical 4K 3D content. It's all 2K.


----------



## tomtastic

3D wasn't supported on the initial BD spec either. IF/When 4k UHD happens, they can always update the spec and release 4k UHD players at that time. I don't think it will happen this decade. The problem is 4k itself which is going to be a slow adaptive technology, slower than HD was.


----------



## film113

Stereodude said:


> 1) It supports 1080p 3D.
> 2) It doesn't support UHD 3D because there is no theatrical 4K 3D content. It's all 2K.


True. The upcoming Samsung UHD BD player supports 3D 1080p. And don't be fooled...any upcoming UHD 2D discs are all scanned from 2K sources, not 4K...including something as recent as JURASSIC WORLD


----------



## marcuslaw

film113 said:


> And don't be fooled...any upcoming UHD 2D discs are all scanned from 2K sources, not 4K...including something as recent as JURASSIC WORLD


How do you know that? Films like After Earth and The Hobbit series were shot in 4K. Why couldn't they be encoded at a minimum resolution of 3840×2160 pixels on a 100 GB UHD disk?


----------



## Stereodude

marcuslaw said:


> How do you know that? Films like After Earth and The Hobbit series were shot in 4K. Why couldn't they be encoded at a minimum resolution of 3840×2160 pixels on a 100 GB UHD disk?


Most movies have a 2K DI. There are a few, but not very many movies that have 4K DIs.


----------



## marcuslaw

Stereodude said:


> Most movies have a 2K DI. There are a few, but not very many movies that have 4K DIs.


Still, wouldn't you prefer to watch a film encoded at 3840×2160 on UHD Blu-ray if it's from a restored 2K negative? Take, for example, Bram Stoker's Dracula which underwent a 4k restoration as part of Sony's "Supreme Cinema Series". With UHD, you're going to get less compression, more detail and greater dynamic range than its 1080p counterpart. Do you disagree?


----------



## Stereodude

marcuslaw said:


> Still, wouldn't you prefer to watch a film encoded at 3840×2160 on UHD Blu-ray if it's from a restored 2K negative? Take, for example, Bram Stoker's Dracula which underwent a 4k restoration as part of Sony's "Supreme Cinema Series". With UHD, you're going to get less compression, more detail and greater dynamic range than its 1080p counterpart. Do you disagree?


Well, ironically older movies from the "vault" are likely to be better UHD candidates. They negatives can be scanned at high res and aren't limited by a DI. More recent movies that were shot digitally and have 2K DI's don't have that possibility.

I'm pretty sure that launching a new format with catalog titles being the best showcase of your capabilities makes it a hard sell.


----------



## film113

Stereodude said:


> Well, ironically older movies from the "vault" are likely to be better UHD candidates. They negatives can be scanned at high res and aren't limited by a DI. More recent movies that were shot digitally and have 2K DI's don't have that possibility.


Very true. Of course, going forward, some movies may get 4K DIs. I'd assume the future AVATAR movies will. But again, that's just an assumption.


----------



## Stereodude

3D is bound for success with capabilities like this!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ntman-walking-skyscrapers-induce-vertigo.html


----------



## marcuslaw

Stereodude said:


> 3D is bound for success with capabilities like this!!!
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ntman-walking-skyscrapers-induce-vertigo.html


You beat me to posting this. Yes, a side effect, while undesireable to some, would not otherwise be possible without 3-D.


----------



## James Freeman

Stereodude said:


> 3D is bound for success with capabilities like this!!!
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ntman-walking-skyscrapers-induce-vertigo.html


Yes 3D clearly works, but this is not the question.
The question is when this wave of 3D will end like many before it.


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> 3-D is not dead. The 3-D movie streaming app, 3DGo!, is now available on Samsung TV's in the U.S.





marcuslaw said:


> According to the BDA's Victor Matsuda, there are no _current plans_ for 3-D UHD disks because there is "no 4K theatrical 3D content". You can find that quote here.





film113 said:


> True. The upcoming Samsung UHD BD player supports 3D 1080p. And don't be fooled...any upcoming UHD 2D discs are all scanned from 2K sources, not 4K...including something as recent as JURASSIC WORLD





Stereodude said:


> Most movies have a 2K DI. There are a few, but not very many movies that have 4K DIs.





Stereodude said:


> Well, ironically older movies from the "vault" are likely to be better UHD candidates. They negatives can be scanned at high res and aren't limited by a DI. More recent movies that were shot digitally and have 2K DI's don't have that possibility.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that launching a new format with catalog titles being the best showcase of your capabilities makes it a hard sell.





Stereodude said:


> 3D is bound for success with capabilities like this!!!
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ntman-walking-skyscrapers-induce-vertigo.html





James Freeman said:


> Yes 3D clearly works, but this is not the question.
> *The question is when this wave of 3D will end like many before it.*


When Holography comes. ...But we might also see 3D UHD (five years?). 

________

Instead of replying to each individual quotes above...I just want to say Thanks to all the members who posted them.


----------



## James Freeman

Holography? UHD 3D?
Much sooner Bob, much sooner...


----------



## tgm1024

James Freeman said:


> Yes 3D clearly works, but this is not the question.
> The question is when this wave of 3D will end like many before it.


Well first of all, you're starting with the premise (as if it's universally accepted) that this is a "wave" (a transient thing) and _then_ also claiming that the question is _when_ it ends based upon that premise, and _then_ further attempting to lend credibility to the argument by saying it somehow must be "like many before it".

This is a fairly contrived arguing style.


----------



## James Freeman

tgm1024 said:


> This is a fairly contrived arguing style.


You know, you are not the first one to tell me this, on the internet or in reality.
I think I have some self-work to do. 

But it's not coming from an argumentative place but from not believing in the future of 3D mainly because of various discomforts.


----------



## tgm1024

James Freeman said:


> You know, you are not the first one to tell me this, on the internet or in reality.
> I think I have some self-work to do.


Y'know, self introspection like the above ^^^^ is rare, but announcing it on a forum is _beyond_ rare.

Very impressive in my opinion. No sarcasm.


----------



## marcuslaw

Well, if BR 3-D is a wave, which I really hope it is not, them I'm going to ride the hell out of it for as long as I possibly can. Seriously though, one barometer might be the number of upcoming UHD BD players that support 3-D. Matsuda of the BDA indicated in the interview posted at the Digital Bits that 3-D is a "voluntary" specification. Otherwise, continued support by UHD TV manufacturers and further 3-D BR releases will obviously influence its longevity as well.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> Well, if BR 3-D is a wave, which I really hope it is not, them I'm going to ride the hell out of it for as long as I possibly can. Seriously though, one barometer might be the number of upcoming UHD BD players that support 3-D. Matsuda of the BDA indicated in the interview posted at the Digital Bits that 3-D is a "voluntary" specification. Otherwise, continued support by UHD TV manufacturers and further 3-D BR releases will obviously influence its longevity as well.


All high-end BDPs I've seen of late have been 3D compatible (it must be an easy spec to implement), so I would suspect that 1080p 3D would be offered in the UHD BDPs which are likely to start out pretty expensive.


----------



## coolhand

I think this weekend points to a breakthrough development in the usage of 3D. Both Everest and The Walk really place people in environments they could never, would never see that way. And does so in a far more realistic manner than was ever available before. I saw Everest last night and the movie was entirely mediocre. But the visuals were remarkable and memorable. If they can continue to use 3D in this fashion it would really help the format.


----------



## marcuslaw

coolhand said:


> I saw Everest last night and the movie was *entirely mediocre*. But the visuals were remarkable and memorable. If they can continue to use 3D in this fashion it would really help the format. (Emphasis added)


No wonder the pre-order price of the 3-D BD on amazon is already down to $29.99. Still, I'm looking forward to picking it up when it hits $25 or better.


----------



## Hagenstein

marcuslaw said:


> Still, wouldn't you prefer to watch a film encoded at 3840×2160 on UHD Blu-ray if it's from a restored 2K negative? Take, for example, Bram Stoker's Dracula which underwent a 4k restoration as part of Sony's "Supreme Cinema Series". With UHD, you're going to get less compression, more detail and greater dynamic range than its 1080p counterpart. Do you disagree?


A couple of other 3D formats that could potentially be supported on UHD Blu Ray are 3840x1080p or 1920x2160p via SBS and OU formats, as long as the display device could handle. But I don't reasonably expect to see any commercial material being published that way. Could be cool though since something like two stacked 3840x1080p images could also support HDR, increased color gamuts, or any other features the UHD BR spec has to offer. No, it wouldn't be full 4K (technically 3840x2160 is "lite" 4K to me but who's counting...), but I've been experimenting with 3840x1080p stereoscopic on my LG 4K passive and it looks spectacular. This is accomplished by rendering my own content in a pre-interlaced format, and relies on the fact that the display has the FPR polarizing layer "built in", so no special processing is required on the set's part (I don't even need to put it into 3D mode). I haven't yet tested to see whether the display can process 3840x2160 Over-Under properly into its native interlaced format or not, but plan to in the near future. I could test SBS in this format too but this would only result in a 1920x1080p image, which is what you get already via passive interlaced on a 4K display, so no real advantage there.


----------



## boguspomp

If I can give my 5 cents: I love 3D and even though I wear glasses I think the experience of 3D outperforms the discomfort of 2 glasses on top of each other. It would be great if 3D stayed; I think it is a pity that all recent releases were "after the fact" computer generated 3D effects. Even though many come close to the "Real Thing", it is not the same as being filmed in 3D.
I think the UHD format could even benefit 2k movies, as the UHD disks could deliver full HD for each eye, compared to - or so I believe - half HD for each eye. Correct me if I am wrong. The 3D effect should be even greater with full HD for each eye.


----------



## tgm1024

boguspomp said:


> If I can give my 5 cents: I love 3D and even though I wear glasses I think the experience of 3D outperforms the discomfort of 2 glasses on top of each other. It would be great if 3D stayed; I think it is a pity that all recent releases were "after the fact" computer generated 3D effects. Even though many come close to the "Real Thing", it is not the same as being filmed in 3D.
> I think the UHD format could even benefit 2k movies, as the UHD disks could deliver full HD for each eye, compared to - or so I believe - half HD for each eye. Correct me if I am wrong. The 3D effect should be even greater with full HD for each eye.


You get 540p for each eye on a 1080p set using a passive 3D system.

You get 1080p for each eye on a 1080p set using an active 3D system, though many of us believe that passive is kinder on your neuro-optics.

On a 2160p passive _or_ active system, you can get 1080p delivered to each eye, so long as the manufacturer doesn't pull a fast one on you such as Sony did with their passive 55" version of their 900A (XBR-55900A), where they had it show 540p each eye (longer story there that is talked about elsewhere in the forum more than a few times). Their 65" version (XBR-65900A) showed 1080p each eye.


----------



## mo949

The point about 3D costing a lot more to make is what I consider the 'good point' in speculating on a future decline (not necessarily death). 


I'd add to that point that there's also a discomfort for the directors to embrace it. With UHD they get to still make things mostly the same and when it comes to HOME Video HDR, they'll likely do what they always do and just rely on the colorists/video guys to add in all the gimmicks the way they see fit and rubber stamp it at the end.


Other than that, 3D is clearly something almost everyone enjoys when they get to see it done well...its the $$ that's the problem. I'd even argue that well done 3D will trump HDR for an end user experience, even if HDR turns out to be more readily adopted.


The same problems that plague 3D will still plague UHD - namely, hardware adoption, Small Screen sizes (but these are on the rise on average finally), cost, and poor/gimmicky title selection.


----------



## Stereodude

mo949 said:


> The point about 3D costing a lot more to make is what I consider the 'good point' in speculating on a future decline (not necessarily death).
> 
> I'd add to that point that there's also a discomfort for the directors to embrace it. With UHD they get to still make things mostly the same and when it comes to HOME Video HDR, they'll likely do what they always do and just rely on the colorists/video guys to add in all the gimmicks the way they see fit and rubber stamp it at the end.
> 
> Other than that, 3D is clearly something almost everyone enjoys when they get to see it done well...its the $$ that's the problem. I'd even argue that well done 3D will trump HDR for an end user experience, even if HDR turns out to be more readily adopted.


Yes, but as far as I know they still make money from the 3D theatrical releases. They get more $$ for the tickets, and it prevents people recording the movie with a camera. I wouldn't expect there much cost involved with taking the 2k 3D theatrical masters and turning them into a 3D Blu-ray.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Cinderella'* (Disney Studios) should have been in 3D Blu.
*'Furious 7'* (Universal Studios) ...the same. ...And both with Dolby Atmos.

It's ok though, we have; *'The Martian, Inside Out, Pixels, San Andreas, Jurassic World, Avengers: Ultron, Poltergeist, Mission: Impossible 5*,* & *SpongeBob*.

* MI5 -> Just a tease. ;-)


----------



## Defcon

Obviously the ideal format to watch content is not a flat 2D screen. The goal is to be there right, so ideally you'd be in a hologram. That isn't possible so 3D is the closest we have. The reason it has somewhat declined is the added cost, the oversaturation of 3D sets which backfired, and people not upgrading their tv's or paying more at the cinema. None of this is unique to 3D, we will see the same slow adoption rate for 4K. 

3D is clearly the way forward, how the technical problems get solved remains to be seen. e.g. glassless 3D is probably not going to work in its current form as its limited to a sweet spot. But 3D as a concept can't be called a gimmick.


----------



## NorthSky

3D ... three words: Market | Strategy | Penetration

Not easy to teach folks to wear shades when watching TV. ...Few dig it...but many don't.


----------



## mo949

Stereodude said:


> Yes, but as far as I know they still make money from the 3D theatrical releases. They get more $$ for the tickets, and it prevents people recording the movie with a camera. I wouldn't expect there much cost involved with taking the 2k 3D theatrical masters and turning them into a 3D Blu-ray.


Agreed, but I'm not so sure that they make as good a margin as if they hadn't done the 3D version in the first place. Part of the reason you likely only see it done on big budget flicks like Jurassic World where they are reasonably sure that they can't lose money in the first place and that there ROI will be a high enough % that they don't consider it an opportunity wasted to have used portions of those extra budget dollars towards other higher % ROI 2D potentials.


----------



## coolhand

mo949 said:


> The point about 3D costing a lot more to make is what I consider the 'good point' in speculating on a future decline (not necessarily death).
> 
> 
> I'd add to that point that there's also a discomfort for the directors to embrace it. With UHD they get to still make things mostly the same and when it comes to HOME Video HDR, they'll likely do what they always do and just rely on the colorists/video guys to add in all the gimmicks the way they see fit and rubber stamp it at the end.
> 
> 
> Other than that, 3D is clearly something almost everyone enjoys when they get to see it done well...its the $$ that's the problem. I'd even argue that well done 3D will trump HDR for an end user experience, even if HDR turns out to be more readily adopted.
> 
> 
> The same problems that plague 3D will still plague UHD - namely, hardware adoption, Small Screen sizes (but these are on the rise on average finally), cost, and poor/gimmicky title selection.


The problem is that it's NOT expensive. A good post production conversion is probably 3 to 4M. And for that they charge an extra 40% at the BO and increase the disk price (for which there are basically no extra costs) another 30%. The greed of the studios is killing the technology.


----------



## coolhand

mo949 said:


> Stereodude said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but as far as I know they still make money from the 3D theatrical releases. They get more $$ for the tickets, and it prevents people recording the movie with a camera. I wouldn't expect there much cost involved with taking the 2k 3D theatrical masters and turning them into a 3D Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but I'm not so sure that they make as good a margin as if they hadn't done the 3D version in the first place. Part of the reason you likely only see it done on big budget flicks like Jurassic World where they are reasonably sure that they can't lose money in the first place and that there ROI will be a high enough % that they don't consider it an opportunity wasted to have used portions of those extra budget dollars towards other higher % ROI 2D potentials.
Click to expand...

This doesn't even make sense. Jurassic World had a budget of 150m. They also had at least 75m in marketing costs. The 3d adds 3m to the already sunk 225 in costs. Do you seriously think that increased BO returns and increased blu revenues on that 3m isnt the best investment imaginable?


----------



## mo949

I didn't realize that Imax 3D was so cheap to shoot, 3M, that's it? From all the talk about how expensive it was at first, I would have imagined that it consumed more of that 150m budget than that...


----------



## Dionyz

coolhand said:


> This doesn't even make sense. Jurassic World had a budget of 150m. They also had at least 75m in marketing costs. The 3d adds 3m to the already sunk 225 in costs. Do you seriously think that increased BO returns and increased blu revenues on that 3m isnt the best investment imaginable?


It is not a good investment if people don't buy 3D blue rays. 
I for one find 3-D a total distraction to the movie experience - it takes away from the enjoyment of the movie. 
And mind you I bought a 3D capable projector 3 years ago and wasted money buying 3D glasses.
After the first few movies, after the novelty wore off, 3D became a detraction. I have not purchased a 3D blu-Ray in over two and half years and avoid 3D versions of films at the theater like the plague.
I hope the studios stop wasting time and money on 3D and focus on getting us 4K blu-rays with full DCI color profile, along with HDR, which has real value, unlike 3D gimmick.

My apologies to the fans of 3D, but it is a dying format.
The projector and TV manufacturers hardly mention it in their marketing material (and definitely don't promote it).
3D didn't even make it into the 4K blu-Ray spec.


----------



## NorthSky

Dionyz said:


> 3D didn't even make it into the 4K blu-Ray spec.


♦ Read the two quotes below.



marcuslaw said:


> According to the BDA's Victor Matsuda, there are no _current plans_ for 3-D UHD disks *because there is "no 4K theatrical 3D content"*.
> You can find that quote here.





Stereodude said:


> 1) It supports 1080p 3D.
> 2) *It doesn't support UHD 3D because there is no theatrical 4K 3D content. It's all 2K.*


________

(((3D))) will eventually make it to UHD (4K)...after more films are shot with 4K cameras and in 3D. 
We just have to be patient, that's all...not going faster than where our technologies are. ...2K 3D is real nice right now.


----------



## mo949

HDR is already DOA for projectors.


----------



## mo949

coolhand said:


> The problem is that it's NOT expensive. A good post production conversion is probably 3 to 4M. And for that they charge an extra 40% at the BO and increase the disk price (for which there are basically no extra costs) another 30%. The greed of the studios is killing the technology.


So you made me look it up and I believe your numbers don't make any sense. A good 3d conversion, like titanic 3d, cost 18 million and took the stereo D company a team of 450 people to achieve with over a year's effort.


----------



## Stereodude

mo949 said:


> HDR is already DOA for projectors.


You mean you don't want to sacrifice your contrast ratio by cutting it at least in half, probably more, on 95% of your content for a few slightly brighter highlights? What's wrong with you?


----------



## tgm1024

mo949 said:


> So you made me look it up and I believe your numbers don't make any sense. A good 3d conversion, like titanic 3d, cost 18 million and took the stereo D company a team of 450 people to achieve with over a year's effort.


18? Huh. If that's true (18M/450), if it were _exactly_ one year and no longer, then it would have resulted in an average salary of $40,000, no? That can't be right (?)

In any case, question: In the case of movies like Gravity, where they set out to make a 3D film but by post-con anyway, do they do the post-con as they go or do they wait until the final 2D editing is basically "in the can" and _then_ start?


----------



## tomtastic

Titanic may not be the best example of cost on conversions. It's the second highest grossing film of all time so if they wanted to put more money and time into it, great, just don't I consider it the average cost. Most places I've read between 50,000 and 100,000 dollars per minute. So a 2 hr movie would be between 6 and 12 million.

A movie like Guardians of the Galaxy or Jurassic World, that's not much considering what they spend on advertising. Plus they charge extra for the tickets. No matter how you look at it, 3D is still selling more tickets. But I'd rather have a native 3D movie. I would estimate it would cost far less than conversion since there are less people involved.


----------



## danshane

Dionyz said:


> I hope the studios stop wasting time and money on 3D and focus on getting us 4K blu-rays with full DCI color profile, along with HDR, which has real value, unlike 3D gimmick.


I hope the studios stop wasting time and money on 3-D movies *that do not take advantage of the format.* 

Most of the product produced in the past decade is hardly distinguishable from the 2-D versions. You may call 3-D a gimmick (certainly the way the studios market the films it is), but the "gimmick" is hardly being exploited for its visual potential.


----------



## aaronwt

I picked up the 3D BD of Age of Ultron this morning from BestBuy. I like the fact that it didn't include the DVD and only cost $19.89 for the 2D BD, 3D BD, and the Digital Copy. I wish more titles came out without the DVD and at a lower price like this. 

The Jurassic World 3D BD pre-order is going for $35 now which is very high. And includes the crappy DVD too. I stopped watching DVDs at the end of 2005 in anticipation of the HD DVD and BD format launch in 2006.. I hate it when they keep putting DVDs in the package with BDs.


----------



## mo949

tomtastic said:


> Titanic may not be the best example of cost on conversions. It's the second highest grossing film of all time so if they wanted to put more money and time into it, great, just don't I consider it the average cost. Most places I've read between 50,000 and 100,000 dollars per minute. So a 2 hr movie would be between 6 and 12 million.
> 
> A movie like Guardians of the Galaxy or Jurassic World, that's not much considering what they spend on advertising. Plus they charge extra for the tickets. No matter how you look at it, 3D is still selling more tickets. But I'd rather have a native 3D movie. I would estimate it would cost far less than conversion since there are less people involved.


Thanks for the info. Those numbers make more sense. Btw Jurassic Park was also one of the highest grossing films of all time.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> I hate it when they keep putting DVDs in the package with BDs.


I don't. I need them for the kids for car rides.


----------



## william06

Wife and I saw the Martian today in 3D. A great movie and cannot imagine it without 3D. No pop out but awesome depth the Martian landscape shots were great. This is the kind of film tha will keep 3D alive. Everest too.


----------



## mo949

^Same goes for the Walk in IMax3D I hear. People getting vertigo watching it


----------



## Franchot

aaronwt said:


> I picked up the 3D BD of Age of Ultron this morning from BestBuy...


Likewise. I also picked up _Poltergeist 3D _during the same trip. Even though 3D continues to die, my 3D collection of movies continues to grow.

(And _Ant-Man 3D_ is on the horizon.)


----------



## marcuslaw

Scott Hettrick of _Hollywood in HiDef_ writes that 3-D, Atmos, and the IMAX format were all non-factors in Sir Ridley Scott's "The Martian". His article, **Spoiler Alert**, is entitled *Not my favorite “Martian”*. I'll be curious to learn how many people agree or disagree particularly with his opinion of the film's use of 3-D. Scott did use it quite effectively on Exodus IMO.


----------



## JMCurtis

A note about 3D is that I find it interesting is that, for the last 3 years, I've been seeing 3D TV's being given as prizes on notable game shows like "Let's Make a Deal" and "The Price is Right". This is putting dozens more 3D TV's each week into households.


----------



## johnny905

JMCurtis said:


> A note about 3D is that I find it interesting is that, for the last 3 years, I've been seeing 3D TV's being given as prizes on notable game shows like "Let's Make a Deal" and "The Price is Right". This is putting dozens more 3D TV's each week into households.


I guess I need to watch more daytime TV. 

For those interested, 3DGO is also giving away another 65" LG UHD 3DTV this month:

http://win.3dgo.com/

Unfortunately us Canucks are yet again left out, which is strange given that 3DGO! is a Canadian owned company!!


----------



## NorthSky

That's because the money is in the USA, not in Canada.  /// Many Canadian companies (music, films) do much better business in the USA than with the people of their own country.

* *'The Walk'* in (((3D))) I really want to see. ...Vertigo 

__________

♦ *'Avengers: Age of Ultron'* in 3D on Blu-ray has a nice polished quality to it, The 3D picture is very clean and clear...with nice oily blacks. ...All contributing to a very decent 3D perspective. //// Sure, lots of CGI effects, picture and sound wise, but remember too...this is a Disney/Marvel Blu-ray 3D title. @ least Disney is not all dead yet...3D picture and sound wise. They'll resurrect a new team of artists, maybe, with UHD Blu-ray...we'll see. 
One thing is certain; the master 3D film directors like James Cameron and Ridley Scott and Michael Bay and Peter Jackson and Martin Scorsese, etc., they don't work for Disney, no way. Disney is family/children stuff (PIXAR animation), kids stuff (Marvel) and the other stuff (Buena Vista).
I found Disney losing its 3D touch overall. ...The Midas touch, the great artistic family/children touch, trading the art for financial profits of lesser true human value. Yes, Walter is not with us anymore...and gone with him is philosophical value and integrity...my view. ...A critical view based on roller coaster rides and Tomorrowland of DisneyWorld. ...Hey, *'Cinderella'* in 2D only! 

Anyway, 3D is very powerful today..._The Walk, The Martian, Everest, San Andres, Jurassic World, Star Wars (new episodes), Spider Man, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, Avengers, Ant-Man, Avatar (next episodes), Batman, Mission Impossible: John Wick._ ;-) _...Transformators, Exterminators, Termitators, Imitators, ..._


----------



## James Freeman

Okay, gave it another shot with my Panasonic ST60 (active glasses) and Hobbit3 3D.... meh, I like the 2D better for less hassle and artifacts.
The 3D quality is very nice and the colors appear to match the 2D version, but I sometimes see some artifacts like smearing or "ghosting" or "haloing", plus the glasses require battery.

The absolutely best 3D experience I had is in the cinema with Dolby 3D with the special filter glasses.
The Dolby 3D glasses have special RGB filters per eye with different frequencies for the red, blu and green to each eye, so there is ZERO crosstalk between the eyes.
RealD 3D uses passive polarized glasses which have too much crosstalk.
Active glasses lose contrast and the LCD filter does not shut completely so there is still some bleed-through resulting in crosstalk between the eyes.

For me, I'll stick with 2D until zero bleed between the eyes and brighter image with passive glasses (or no glasses) comes to TVs.


----------



## johnny905

James Freeman said:


> Okay, gave it another shot with my Panasonic ST60 (active glasses) and Hobbit3 3D.... meh, I like the 2D better for less hassle and artifacts.
> The 3D quality is very nice and the colors appear to match the 2D version, but I sometimes see some artifacts like smearing or "ghosting" or "haloing", plus the glasses require battery.
> 
> The absolutely best 3D experience I had is in the cinema with Dolby 3D with the special filter glasses.
> The Dolby 3D glasses have special RGB filters per eye with different frequencies for the red, blu and green to each eye, so there is ZERO crosstalk between the eyes.
> RealD 3D uses passive polarized glasses which have too much crosstalk.
> Active glasses lose contrast and the LCD filter does not shut completely so there is still some bleed-through resulting in crosstalk between the eyes.
> 
> For me, I'll stick with 2D until zero bleed between the eyes and brighter image with passive glasses (or no glasses) comes to TVs.



Not to restart an old and well worn debate, but try it on a 4K passive 3DTV instead of active and I think your impression may be different. I had an active 3DTV for a couple years and once I bought my LG 4K 3DTV earlier this year my 3D viewing experience increased 1000%. They are 5 of us in my family, so having powered glasses available at all times is a huge pain. Plus the ghosting I used to get on my active 3DTV was brutal. I'm sure newer model active 3DTVs are better, but for me there is no comparison. Passive on a 4K 3DTV is just a much, much better viewing experience.


----------



## tgm1024

johnny905 said:


> Not to restart an old and well worn debate, but try it on a 4K passive 3DTV instead of active and I think your impression may be different. I had an active 3DTV for a couple years and once I bought my LG 4K 3DTV earlier this year my 3D viewing experience increased 1000%. They are 5 of us in my family, so having powered glasses available at all times is a huge pain. Plus the ghosting I used to get on my active 3DTV was brutal. I'm sure newer model active 3DTVs are better, but for me there is no comparison. Passive on a 4K 3DTV is just a much, much better viewing experience.


I hear this kind of thing all the time once people see 3D even on my 2K passive sony.

I believe rogo was the first to say this around here, but 3D absolutely would have faired much _much_ better had passive been developed _first.

_People see it on an active set and then _think_ they know what 3D looks like on a TV.


----------



## longhornsk57

I don't know, 3D active on my zf2300 glasses is amazing, and it's all true 1080p. No ghosting or crosstalk. Maybe it's because I use a projector and RF glasses, not sure, but I really like active 3D with my setup...


----------



## tgm1024

longhornsk57 said:


> I don't know, 3D active on my zf2300 glasses is amazing, and it's all true 1080p. No ghosting or crosstalk. Maybe it's because I use a projector and RF glasses, not sure, but I really like active 3D with my setup...


Oh I don't doubt that there are some incredibly well designed actives, don't get me wrong. As with everything in this industry, not all equipment and engineering designs are created equal, that's for sure.

I'm just speaking in the aggregate. I shouldn't have commented. It just re-ignites the same-old-same-old....


----------



## longhornsk57

tgm1024 said:


> Oh I don't doubt that there are some incredibly well designed actives, don't get me wrong. As with everything in this industry, not all equipment and engineering designs are created equal, that's for sure.
> 
> I'm just speaking in the aggregate. I shouldn't have commented. It just re-ignites the same-old-same-old....


No I get what you mean, and yeah we don't need to rehash that.

I think the one point we can agree on is your like/dislike of 3D has a lot to do with the equipment you viewed it on.


----------



## johnny905

longhornsk57 said:


> no i get what you mean, and yeah we don't need to rehash that.
> 
> I think the one point we can agree on is your like/dislike of 3d has a lot to do with the equipment you viewed it on.


+1
+1
+1


----------



## NorthSky

johnny905 said:


> Not to restart an old and well worn debate, but try it on a 4K passive 3DTV instead of active and I think your impression may be different. I had an active 3DTV for a couple years and once I bought my *LG 4K 3DTV earlier this year my 3D viewing experience increased 1000%*.
> They are 5 of us in my family, so having powered glasses available at all times is a huge pain. Plus the ghosting I used to get on my active 3DTV was brutal. I'm sure newer model active 3DTVs are better, but for me there is no comparison.
> *Passive on a 4K 3DTV is just a much, much better viewing experience*.


1,000% in 3D improvement (increased 3D viewing experience)... I want that!  ...From Passive 3D glasses. 

You think a 4K LG TV is equivalent to a Samsung 4K TV? ...Sony?
...In overall best 3D quality picture viewing experience...with less artifacts and motion blur possible.

Is yours curved? Is yours an OLED one?


----------



## william06

I love my panny 65zt60 active. No cross talk or ghosting. Had a Sony 70" passive 2 yrs ago after 2 weeks returned it for the panny. Got the two battery op Panasonic glasses with the tv and bought 4 pair of the rechargeable when on sale for $19.99 also got a bunc of Samsung cheap. Love the tv love the 3D .


----------



## NorthSky

Rechargeable 3D active glasses for only twenty bucks is a very good deal. Every time I looked to get myself few pairs they are around $40-50 a pair. 
So I just buy the replaceable battery type instead...for about twenty bucks a pair. 

I will look again...this Christmas coming up. ...Because "3D" batteries are expensive over time...for a guy like me and his 3D entourage.


----------



## longhornsk57

I have 10 pairs of DLP link glasses (rechargeable) I got for $20 each that I'd sell for $10 each . you can find deals on these if you really really look...


----------



## johnny905

NorthSky said:


> 1,000% in 3D improvement (increased 3D viewing experience)... I want that!  ...From Passive 3D glasses.
> 
> You think a 4K LG TV is equivalent to a Samsung 4K TV? ...Sony?
> ...In overall best 3D quality picture viewing experience...with less artifacts and motion blur possible.
> 
> Is yours curved? Is yours an OLED one?


I can't really compare to the other TVs as far as 2D image quality. I really bought it for the passive 3D more than anything, and the full HD per eye from the 4K panel. As well as the ability stream 3DGO which, at the time, was only available on LG in Canada. The LG model is 65UB9500. Not curved, not OLED. I've yet to even view anything in 4K on it, but I got a great deal on it and am loving it so far.


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> I have 10 pairs of DLP link glasses (rechargeable) I got for $20 each that I'd sell for $10 each . you can find deals on these if you really really look...


That's why I said that I will keep looking because last time I looked was about ten months ago or so...I know I will get them (3D rechargeable) for roughly $25/pair here on amazonian/Canadian territory. THX!



johnny905 said:


> I can't really compare to the other TVs as far as 2D image quality. I really bought it for the passive 3D more than anything, and the full HD per eye from the 4K panel. As well as the ability stream 3DGO which, at the time, was only available on LG in Canada. The LG model is 65UB9500. Not curved, not OLED. I've yet to even view anything in 4K on it, but I got a great deal on it and am loving it so far.


Thank you sir.


----------



## marcuslaw

James Freeman said:


> Okay, gave it another shot with my Panasonic ST60 (active glasses) and Hobbit3 3D.... meh, I like the 2D better for less hassle and artifacts.
> The 3D quality is very nice and the colors appear to match the 2D version, but I sometimes see some artifacts like smearing or "ghosting" or "haloing", plus the glasses require battery.


I always regret reading negative experiences had by some with the format. I don't know why you see artifacts because clearly they're not with the source. The Hobbits were all filmed in native 3-D and the first two had pristine transfers. I didn't see any of those issues when I watched it a few weeks ago. While again, I can understand frustration with the glasses, I always try to put things in perspective. We go to great lengths on a daily basis with charging cell phones - car chargers, solar chargers for the beach, mult-port USB chargers, so on and so forth. Is it really that big of a hassle to have to keep a couple of 3V batteries on hand for glasses you might only infrequently use? 

I use rechargeable Panasonic glasses with my Sony. A 30 min charge yields 30 hours of use. That amounts to having to recharge them after roughly 17 movies. I don't usually wait that long. If I forget and one runs out of gas, a quick intermission to charge (or in your case replace the battery) will provide enough juice to get through the rest of the film. To me, it's no more of a hassle then having to remember to plug my phone in each night. 



> Active glasses lose contrast and the LCD filter does not shut completely so there is still some bleed-through resulting in crosstalk between the eyes.


Again, I understand that's been your experience and am sorry it happens. I have none of these issues on my Sony and when I do (rarely), it's always been with the source (i.e., IMAX: Dolphins and Whales - not pretty).


----------



## marcuslaw

tgm1024 said:


> [/I]People see it on an active set and then _think_ they know what 3D looks like on a TV.


You need to see 3-D on a Sony 940C (active 3-D). You'll walk away thinking you experienced 3-D Nirvana.


----------



## marcuslaw

3-D is NOT dead. In addition to the pleasant discussion about passive and active technologies, we have this: 3D half of $55 mil Martian open

Some notable text from the article:



> During the summer, eight 3D releases captured more than 40% of their opening weekend gross in 3D dollars, including “Jurassic World” (48%), Terminator: Genisys (45%), San Andreas (44%) and Avengers: Age of Ultron (42%), among others.
> 
> Upcoming this Fall and into the holiday period, RealD 3D movies include “The Walk,” “Pan,” “The Peanuts Movie,” “Good Dinosaur,” and “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” among others.


----------



## James Freeman

marcuslaw said:


> I always regret reading negative experiences had by some with the format.


Please don't take it personally.
I also said that it looks good, but *sometimes* I see ghosting when the images are far apart if i pause the image and carefully observe.
The reason that effects me the most is that a plasma contrast ratio is around 10,000:1 but through the active shutter LCD glasses can give around 700:1 (at best) and that is not why I bought a plasma.
The 2D image looks infinitely better, 3D is not my cup of tea with this TV and current glasses technology.


----------



## tomtastic

Paranormal Activity The Ghost Dimension will be in 3D. It's converted. I think this would have been better if they had used an actual 3D camcorder. They could have used the Toshiba SK-3D7K which recorded to VHS tapes.


----------



## NSX1992

NorthSky said:


> 1,000% in 3D improvement (increased 3D viewing experience)... I want that!  ...From Passive 3D glasses.
> 
> You think a 4K LG TV is equivalent to a Samsung 4K TV? ...Sony?
> ...In overall best 3D quality picture viewing experience...with less artifacts and motion blur possible.
> 
> Is yours curved? Is yours an OLED one?


As I have stated before I have an active 92" DLP Mitsubishi in the bedroom that I thought had the best 3D until I got my 84" 4K passive LG. Neither set has any crosstalk but the LG is much brighter and the 4K solves the vertical resolution being cut in half by passive. The 3D is better than the theater. Since I want the best 3D I went to Magnolia to observe a Samsung 85" 4K active set. I was impressed with the 3D and the clarity but it was not any better than my passive. You would be happy with any large 4K set but the passive glasses are so easy to use and cheap.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> You need to see 3-D on a Sony 940C (active 3-D). You'll walk away thinking you experienced 3-D Nirvana.


Ken Ross has that TV as well. And based on his observations, that thing certainly seems to be LCD that breaks all the rules, so I don't doubt you at all.

If only my local BB would get the thing in so I could see one.


----------



## NorthSky

I'm very happy...to be part of this lovely 3D motion pictures experience...and it can only get better.


----------



## Hagenstein

NSX1992 said:


> As I have stated before I have an active 92" DLP Mitsubishi in the bedroom that I thought had the best 3D until I got my 84" 4K passive LG. Neither set has any crosstalk but the LG is much brighter and the 4K solves the vertical resolution being cut in half by passive. The 3D is better than the theater. Since I want the best 3D I went to Magnolia to observe a Samsung 85" 4K active set. I was impressed with the 3D and the clarity but it was not any better than my passive. You would be happy with any large 4K set but the passive glasses are so easy to use and cheap.


I went from a failing Mits 75" LaserVue to the LG 84UB9800. The Mits had great 3D and mind-blowing (albeit difficult to calibrate) color, but the clarity, brightness, and smoothness of motion in 3D on the LG leave my old Mits in the dust. The motion in particular has really spoiled me to the point that I seem to be much more sensitive to the slightly out-of-sync left/right eye images that are inherently an aspect of active 3D, even in the cinema. Especially when fast motion is involved. I did view a Samsung 4K active but I wasn't able to view any fast-action that would have revealed how well it handles fast motion in 3D. But at 3 times the price of the LG at the time, it was pretty easy decision for me. I've had it a little over year now and still lovin' it.


----------



## ferl

James Freeman said:


> Please don't take it personally.
> I also said that it looks good, but *sometimes* I see ghosting when the images are far apart if i pause the image and carefully observe.
> The reason that effects me the most is that a plasma contrast ratio is around 10,000:1 but through the active shutter LCD glasses can give around 700:1 (at best) and that is not why I bought a plasma.
> The 2D image looks infinitely better, 3D is not my cup of tea with this TV and current glasses technology.


With all due respect, the ST60 was rated well for 2D. It was not recommended as a display for 3D. I was in the market for my 2nd 3D display and was considering the st60. At that time I excluded the st60 due to the poor reviews for the st60's ability to provide an adequate 3D image. Aren't you the guy with the Frankenstein display? Didn't you swap out boards in an effort to convert your device to something it was not?

http://www.cnet.com/products/panasonic-tc-pst60/2

3D: (Update, April 15: This section, along with The Bad at the top of the review, was updated based upon additional testing after the review first posted.)If you care a lot about 3D picture quality, the 3D performance of the ST60 is somewhat disappointing compared with its 2D prowess.

New for this year Panasonic has added three hertz values (96Hz, 100Hz, and 120Hz) under "3D refresh rate" in its 3D menu. Although described as designed to combat flicker from fluorescent lights, they also have a major impact on the prevalence of crosstalk. That bugaboo of 3D TVs, especially those that use active 3D technology, appears as a ghostly double-image around many onscreen objects.

The ST60's double image was least noticeable and objectionable in the 96Hz mode. During my favorite crosstalk tests from "Hugo," including Hugo's hand as it reaches for the mouse (5:01), the tuning pegs on the guitar (7:49), and the face of the dog as it watches the inspector slide by (9:24), the ST60's crosstalk was quite dim -- a better performance than the E6500, although not quite as good as the Sony W900, where crosstalk was even less visible. The three Panasonic plasmas, meanwhile, were roughly equal when I placed the ST60 in 96Hz and the VT50 and ST50 in 48Hz mode.

(When the ST60 is in 3D mode, the "Hz" values under "24p Direct in" in the Advanced menu are grayed out and can't be adjusted, apparently because they're superseded by the three 3D refresh rate settings. That's different from on the 2012 plasmas, which use this setting for both 2D and 3D. The new menu design tripped me up initially, so I originally reported that characteristics like crosstalk reduction can't be adjusted on the ST60.)

Choosing the 100Hz setting worsened crosstalk considerably, and the 120Hz setting was worst of all. This adjustment didn't seem to do anything else to picture quality, and I didn't test its effects on fluorescent light flicker.

The ST60's 3D was still worse than that of the VT50 and ST50, however, because of the way it handled quick motion. During the herky-jerky chase sequence beginning at about 7:19, for example, the ST60's images seemed to break up and confuse me visually, taking me out of the moment. It was worst when I paid attention to the legs of the running dog, the arms of the flailing conductor, or other bursts of movement. The effect wasn't overwhelmingly distasteful, but it was still worse to watch these scenes on the ST60 than on the others. I couldn't address it with any of the settings adjustments I tried -- for example reducing light output/contrast or changing any of the 3D refresh rate or motion smoother settings.

http://hometheaterreview.com/panasonic-tc-p60st60-plasma-hdtv-reviewed/?page=2

Conclusion
Once again, Panasonic has thrown down the gauntlet with its ST Series, providing stiff competition for the other TVs I'll review as the year goes on. I'm sure there will be other great performers, but I'm not sure I'll encounter a better combination of performance and price. As I write this, the TC-P60ST60's street price is below $1,500; no, that's not cheap, but it is a fantastic value for this level of performance and the TV's thorough assortment of features. For those who are shopping specifically for a 3D TV or have a room with a lot of direct sunlight, this model is not the ideal choice. For everyone else, though, I highly recommend you check out the TC-P60ST60.
When it comes to 3D performance, the TC-P60ST60 is sub-par. While the active 3D technology produces a rich, highly detailed 3D image, this TV produced a little more crosstalk than other plasmas I've tested. I experimented with all three of the 3D refresh rates (96Hz, 100Hz, and 120Hz) and found the 96Hz mode to produce the least amount of crosstalk, but it still did not get rid of ghosting as effectively as the 96Hz mode in last year's VT50 plasma. Of greater concern was the ST60's handling of motion; 3D content had an oddly disorienting quality of motion, which I'm only guessing has something to do with how the new 3D refresh rates are created (since this isn't a problem I've seen with any previous Panasonic plasma). I don't know how Panasonic is creating the higher refresh rates, but it doesn't look like they're simply duplicating frames, and the problem goes beyond just the super-smooth look of normal de-judder functions. It affected the sense of focus and perspective and made 3D virtually unwatchable for me in Life of Pi (20th Century Fox) and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Buena Vista). Furthermore, the TY-ER3D5MA 3D glasses that came with my review sample were too big and kept sliding down my nose. The ST60 does support the universal HD 3D standard, so you can use other manufacturers' active 3D glasses with this TV, but I really wouldn't recommend this TV for 3D.


----------



## James Freeman

ferl said:


> . Aren't you the guy with the Frankenstein display? Didn't you swap out boards in an effort to convert your device to something it was not?


I am, I swapped the EU board with US board because the US board has 48Hz mode with the EU board lacks, and several other features.
But, the US board does not accept 50Hz signal at all, which I don't mind because I use the ST60 as a big secondary monitor with my PC to watch movies (madVR) and BluRay drive.
Mind you, the operation went flawlessly and after calibration the picture is fantastic.
I will try the 96Hz with 3D.


----------



## mars5l

marcuslaw said:


> 3-D is NOT dead. In addition to the pleasant discussion about passive and active technologies, we have this: 3D half of $55 mil Martian open
> 
> Some notable text from the article:



Saw The Walk in IMAX 3D, I dont think that movie should been scene any other way, well at least in 3d.


----------



## NorthSky

mars5l said:


> Saw *The Walk in IMAX 3D*, I dont think that movie should been scene any other way, well at least in 3d.


I believe this is the most challenging 3D movie ever so far I've read about...for the viewers.


----------



## marcuslaw

James Freeman said:


> 3D is not my cup of tea with this TV and current glasses technology.


How long to plan on keeping that display? I've read a lot of positive comments about how much improved 3-D looks on various 4K TV's (I didn't have 3-D with my previous 1080p set). Perhaps it's time for an upgrade? I'd also suggest you also experiment with different manufacturer glasses. If it's an active shutter system and the manufacturer is a member of the Full HD 3D Glasses Initiative, a different brand of Bluetooth glasses will be cross-compatible with your TV (I use Panasonic TY-ER3D4MU with my Sony). Throw in a region free, PAL, 3-D compatible player in you'll open new doors to a vast array 3-D films that you're sure to enjoy.


----------



## marcuslaw

*3doo* just announced a solution for smart TV owners who can't download its app for streaming 3D films. It's Android app you download to an Android tablet that turns it into a media center. You then connect it to your 3D TV and voila, you can stream from its 3-D film library. Here's a link to the press release. It should be noted though that I was told by Sony that its 2015 lineup 4K TV's are not capable of streaming 3-D pending a future firmware update. I don't know if this solution by 3doo would be an effective workaround to the Sony bug.


----------



## marcuslaw

I wasn't even aware this was coming and have to admit that it looks rather interesting: The Jungle Book 3D Teaser-Trailer is Online.


----------



## Stereodude

How can 3D possibly be dead with Star Wars 7 is coming out in 3D?


----------



## NSX1992

Hopefully Disney will have a 3D Blu-ray for Jungle Book, a reverse of their recent policy.


----------



## NorthSky

I watched *Monster House (((3D)))* last night...prettttty good. 

* Star Wars 7 in 3D means only one thing: The Force is with 3D.


----------



## Carbon Ft Print

*3D image quality is surprisingly better with 3D than 2D*

I've noticed 2D image quality is being surpassed by 3D image quality: 3D blacks are deeper, better contrast, better image detail and clarity. Of course there are exceptions. I use to hate 3D and have ignored it until recently.


"The Martian" 2D has overblown blacks and image detail is suffering from a lot of softness. The 3D version has much deeper blacks and much better image detail.


For blu ray, Gravity 2D is way too soft ... lacking much in image detail. The 3D version is fantastic ... I could not believe the difference.


The 2D version of the "Seventh Son" is very soft ... especially with distance shots. I just ordered the 3D version from Germany to see if the image quality is better ... I bet it is. 


I've recently watch 15 3D movies at home and I would say 80% had better image clarity and detail than their 2D counterparts. I have a JVC 6710 projector with a 9ft wide screen.


----------



## mo949

I'm envious, on my plasma the black levels rise in 3D mode. Obviously not the sources fault, just my TV's.


----------



## Stereodude

mo949 said:


> I'm envious, on my plasma the black levels rise in 3D mode. Obviously not the sources fault, just my TV's.


Mine does too if you look at the set without the 3D glasses. With them on it looks the same as looking at the TV without glasses for 2D content.


----------



## NorthSky

On my plasma TV I have different video settings for 2D and 3D.

* With 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' in 3D I even manually adjusted the "Depth" 3D video setting, by a couple notches higher...to the right.

I too noticed with several Blu-rays a better picture quality in 3D than in 2D ... even with my very modest plasma display. ...Must have some' to do with my careful video settings.

I revisited 'SpongeBob' (((3D))) last night...pretty good 3D rendition...no way that I want to see it in 2D...just no way.


----------



## javanpohl

NorthSky said:


> On my plasma TV I have different video settings for 2D and 3D.
> 
> * With 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' in 3D I even manually adjusted the "Depth" 3D video setting, by a couple notches higher...to the right.
> 
> I too noticed with several Blu-rays a better picture quality in 3D than in 2D ... even with my very modest plasma display. ...Must have some' to do with my careful video settings.
> 
> I revisited 'SpongeBob' (((3D))) last night...pretty good 3D rendition...no way that I want to see it in 2D...just no way.


On my Samsung plasma, on which I don't watch 3d anymore since I have a dlp projector, I too had better picture quality on many a 3D movie. This was mostly because the TV had a hard time getting to and staying at completely black levels so on 2D, bright scenes with black in them, the blacks would be grey. On 3D, it was just delicious blackness.


----------



## mo949

Stereodude said:


> Mine does too if you look at the set without the 3D glasses. With them on it looks the same as looking at the TV without glasses for 2D content.


Mines definitely a lot lighter blacks even with the glasses on. So in effect 3D gets less contrast since the lighoutput is like something really low, like 6FTL, but then the black levels are much higher too. Even still, 3D looks awesome, but a few extremely dark ones out there can make me need to adjust the gamma downwards a tick just so I can make anything out.


Looking forward to an upgrade and not needing batteries/charging - to me that's really the most annoying part about glasses, more so than wearing them.


----------



## NorthSky

Then Passive 3D glasses (no battery disposable/recharging in those).


----------



## marcuslaw

mo949 said:


> Looking forward to an upgrade and not needing batteries/charging - to me that's really the most annoying part about glasses, more so than wearing them.


I use the Panny TY-ER3D4MU active shutter Bluetooth glasses. 30 min charge yields 30 hours or, in case of an emergency, 2 min gives you approx. 3 hours of use. The downside is once the Lithium-ion polymer battery is finally spent, it's not replaceable. On the flip side, they have a range of 10.5', they're lightweight, and work flawlessly with my Sony. They also go on sale from time to time. I bought nine pair for $19 each a couple of months ago.


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> I use the Panny TY-ER3D4MU active shutter Bluetooth glasses. 30 min charge yields 30 hours or, in case of an emergency, 2 min gives you approx. 3 hours of use. The downside is once the Lithium-ion polymer battery is finally spent, it's not replaceable. On the flip side, they have a range of 10.5', they're lightweight, and work flawlessly with my Sony. They also go on sale from time to time. I bought nine pair for $19 each a couple of months ago.


Ok Marcus,

1. Full charge is 30 minutes? ...And it lasts 30 hours maximum?
2. How many charges can they take till full expiration, roughly? ...For those Lithium-ion polymer batteries. Because then you need to buy another pair of rechargeable 3D active glasses. ...Unless you have nine pairs like you, of course. 

- They usually sell from between $40 and $60 here in Canada (the cheapest model type...Samsung rechargeable). And @ best, on sale, about $39.99
{They are $60 right now, plus 12% tax, here @ my local Best Buy...for the cheapest Samsung model...not good, not good @ all.}
@ amazon they are $45 plus 12% tax...about $50 ...And the disposable battery type are around $35-40 right now...cheapest model too.

And you can also buy more fancy ones for more money...up to $300 or so per pair. * For $300 you can also buy a 50" class TV. ...3D TV?  ...In the USA.

*** In Canada we pay much much more than you guys. It must be for the transportation across the ocean.


----------



## mo949

marcuslaw said:


> I use the Panny TY-ER3D4MU active shutter Bluetooth glasses. 30 min charge yields 30 hours or, in case of an emergency, 2 min gives you approx. 3 hours of use. The downside is once the Lithium-ion polymer battery is finally spent, it's not replaceable. On the flip side, they have a range of 10.5', they're lightweight, and work flawlessly with my Sony. They also go on sale from time to time. I bought nine pair for $19 each a couple of months ago.


 
I have the same glasses . The part I don't like is always needing to turn them on and keep them synched with content when starting up discs.


There's a pair of Samsung rechargeable ones that I've found are actually better since they automatically turn on when you put them on your head, but they are a bit pricier, but I bought one to try when one of my others broke. They don't actually advertise the autoON/Off features, so it was a very welcome surprise . I don't like pausing things and coming back and having to power on and off my panny's all the time.


Just fyi http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Elect...158&sr=1-2&keywords=samsung+active+3d+glasses


----------



## NorthSky

The rechargeable Samsung one that I just mentioned above ($60 + tax) they turn On/Off automatically. I'm lazy today for links... ;-)


----------



## Stereodude

mo949 said:


> Mines definitely a lot lighter blacks even with the glasses on. So in effect 3D gets less contrast since the lighoutput is like something really low, like 6FTL, but then the black levels are much higher too. Even still, 3D looks awesome, but a few extremely dark ones out there can make me need to adjust the gamma downwards a tick just so I can make anything out.


Mine had a crazy gamma in 3D (~1.5) more before I took extensive efforts to change it so near blacks were glowing grey, while black was okay. Using the service menu & user menu I got it up to ~2.1 average and near blacks are much better.


----------



## tgm1024

Stereodude said:


> Mine had a crazy gamma in 3D (~1.5) more before I took extensive efforts to change it so near blacks were glowing grey, while black was okay. Using the service menu & user menu I got it up to ~2.1 average and near blacks are much better.


You put glasses on the sensor?


----------



## 2ndvizio

The Samsung rechargeable ones are fun since there is gyro that detects motion to turn on. Really cool feature. But the problem I had with them is that if you don't move your head for 5 minutes, they turn off by themselves. Another feature you might not know about is it supports wireless charging.

But I prefer the Panasonic ones since they fold up to store them and the sides help block ambient light. I got four of those when they were cheap but I wonder if they will go bad if you keep them stored and the battery drains completely.


----------



## NorthSky

It don't matter the sides to me...I watch 3D movies in total darkness anyway. ...And I cannot stay in the same vice grip position (my head) for 5 minutes.
And cool that they recharge without any wire.


----------



## Stereodude

tgm1024 said:


> You put glasses on the sensor?


The glasses change tint and brightness, but don't change gamma. I used the glasses to create a sensor correction/compensation matrix so I could then calibrate without the glasses as if they were still in front of the sensor.


----------



## marcuslaw

NorthSky said:


> Ok Marcus,
> 
> 1. Full charge is 30 minutes? ...And it lasts 30 hours maximum?


So far, yes.



> 2. How many charges can they take till full expiration, roughly? ...For those Lithium-ion polymer batteries.


I don't know yet. Officially Panasonic states 



> The battery duration will change as per the total usage time with the number of charge/discharge cycles.





> - They usually sell from between $40 and $60 here in Canada (the cheapest model type...Samsung rechargeable). And @ best, on sale, about $39.99
> {They are $60 right now, plus 12% tax, here @ my local Best Buy...for the cheapest Samsung model...not good, not good @ all.}
> @ amazon they are $45 plus 12% tax...about $50 ...And the disposable battery type are around $35-40 right now...cheapest model too.
> 
> And you can also buy more fancy ones for more money...up to $300 or so per pair. * For $300 you can also buy a 50" class TV. ...3D TV?  ...In the USA.
> 
> *** In Canada we pay much much more than you guys. It must be for the transportation across the ocean.


I wish that weren't the case. Right now, they're selling on amazon for $26.39 a pair and as low as $18.97 + $5 shipping (backordered) from one marketplace seller. FYI: c|net review.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> So far, yes.
> 
> I don't know yet. Officially Panasonic states
> 
> I wish that weren't the case. Right now, they're selling on amazon for $26.39 a pair and as low as $18.97 + $5 shipping (backordered) from one marketplace seller. FYI: c|net review.


Keep in mind that Lithium Ion's prefer shallow charging. Dropping clear to zero isn't great for them.


----------



## NorthSky

Marcus, good deal on those 3D Panasonic active/rechargeable glasses @ amazon USA.

* The Samsung ones, here, in CANADA (amazon.ca), 3D active/rechargeable glasses, are more money...I just don't feel to type the link...she's just too long.  But it's very true...you can easily verify.

Anyway, it's nice to live in the USA in instances like this. Our local Best Buy stores (& Walmart stores too) they just don't carry the same prices. 
Our Canadian dollar, even @ its low value today or higher value yesterday (when it was on par with the USA dollar) doesn't make any difference...it is always much more expensive to shop in Canada (on and off line). ...For the vast majority (99%) of all products. ...And even if we live only one block away from the border. 

Free Trade ain't so free after all. 

__________

I'll wait, I'm in no rush as I have a good supply of disposable batteries, to buy couple pairs of rechargeable 3D glasses (from Samsung, not Panasonic) @ around $40 a pair (on sale) on Black Friday or Boxing Day. Best Buy they now do match amazon prices (in Canada - amazon.ca). Before, Future Shop stores, they didn't. Because Future Shop is no more now, they changed the name...and some of them they cannot even afford to change their big sign outside...so you still see a huge red Future Shop sign outside affixed to a large building's wall, but inside it's all Best Buy. ...That's how ironic some of the things here in Canada.

Ten years from now...bye bye all those physical stores...that way they'll save a lot of money. Because right now it's just a huge waste of money...there are hardly any shoppers inside those huge stores. Every time I go to one of them...if I am not the only shopper there, @ most they'll be five or six of us. 
Also, their Blu-ray movie shelves are shrinking every time...it is now a waste of time to go there, and same with Walmart stores. 

Amazon, ...is better, much better, but only amazon USA, and not amazon Canada. ...And guess what happens to Canadians when they try to buy from the USA? ...Still better though, than to buy in our own country. ...Not always.

__________

♦ (((3D))) in the USA is more alive than in Canada. ...And same with Dolby Atmos theaters.


----------



## NorthSky

Here: www.amazon.ca/Samsung-Electronics-SSG-3570CR-Rechargeable-Glasses/dp/B00BMMPPCS

* Add 12% tax on top of that, plus shipping...and $55-60 roughly. And @ Best Buy (Canada) they are few dollars more.
But in the USA the same 3D pair model is roughly half of that. 

And we're not talking the best 3D glasses here, but the cheapest of the cheapest of all 3D rechargeable glasses. They probably cost twenty-five cents to manufacture. 
...And then of course we add the labor, the workers, the factories electrical bills, the worker's pension plans, the insurance companies, the warranty companies, the transportation, the local and federal taxes, the shipping fees, the custom fees, the gas (boats, trucks), the handling fees, the dock (ports) fees, the export fees, the all everything else it encompasses to be living here in Canada.  ... 25 cents multiplied by 240 = $60.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Hi all,

Well, yesterday ordered my first blu ray because the 3d has gotten me hooked. Crutchfeld took an additional ten dollars off the Sony BDP-S5500 and with my bonus points which were worth more than I thought, got it for $56.99. Have the Sony 50w800b.

Up to now, have seen 3d via on demand and simulated. Am excited about this next step, though the problem is not wanting to purchase discs for the 3d experience and not the movie. 

Ordered the wizard of oz after reading the great reviews about the remastering and 3d processing. Also pre ordered Jurrasic World and the new Avengers entry.

With simulated, know it is not the same but have found it adds to the enjoyment with my DVDs nevertheless. Since the monitor will already be receiving a 3d signal, simulated of course, I'm hoping that the additional depth adjustments availabe might add a bit more depth. Know too muc can cause distortion or eye strain.

Also ordered DISNEY WOW to help with proper calibration. Will be interesting to see how it compares to what I did based on just THX optimized.


----------



## longhornsk57

NorthSky said:


> Here: www.amazon.ca/Samsung-Electronics-SSG-3570CR-Rechargeable-Glasses/dp/B00BMMPPCS
> 
> * Add 12% tax on top of that, plus shipping...and $55-60 roughly. And @ Best Buy (Canada) they are few dollars more.
> But in the USA the same 3D pair model is roughly half of that.
> 
> And we're not talking the best 3D glasses here, but the cheapest of the cheapest of all 3D rechargeable glasses. They probably cost twenty-five cents to manufacture.
> ...And then of course we add the labor, the workers, the factories electrical bills, the worker's pension plans, the insurance companies, the warranty companies, the transportation, the local and federal taxes, the shipping fees, the custom fees, the gas (boats, trucks), the handling fees, the dock (ports) fees, the export fees, the all everything else it encompasses to be living here in Canada.  ... 25 cents multiplied by 240 = $60.


Yikes.

Why not just get one of us to order it in the states and send mail it? Would that be cheaper if you wanted 4 or 6 or 10 pairs?


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> Yikes.
> 
> Why not just get one of us to order it in the states and send mail it? Would that be cheaper if you wanted 4 or 6 or 10 pairs?


Yes, been there done that. ...I only mentioned the real facts; reality of "3D" shopping here in my country using the normal/regular channels.

Online (((3D))) shopping is better with friends from both countries (USA & Canada), like you just said. ...It helps too in building stronger friendship/bonds between Canadians and Americans. We all live in North America...the only thing that separates us is that line they draw on the ground. 
...Then everything else that this line means.


----------



## longhornsk57

NorthSky said:


> Yes, been there done that. ...I only mentioned the real facts; reality of "3D" shopping here in my country using the normal/regular channels.
> 
> Online (((3D))) shopping is better with friends from both countries (USA & Canada), like you just said. ...It helps too in building stronger friendship/bonds between Canadians and Americans. We all live in North America...the only thing that separates us is that line they draw on the ground.
> ...Then everything else that this line means.


Yep agreed.

And if you look hard enough you can really find what you're looking for. I searched for my zf2300 glasses for like 6 weeks before I found 10 at a good price..


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> Yep agreed.
> 
> And if you look hard enough you can really find what you're looking for. I searched for my zf2300 glasses for like 6 weeks before I found 10 at a good price..


Waiting for the right time (if we have the patience) to shop for what we want is always good practice and beneficial over time. 
It goes with everything else too, not just 3D glasses and TVs and 3D receivers but with it all. 

* Patience is a very nice virtue...it liberates us from all life's stresses and confinements and extra expenses.
It saves us money, frustration and disenchantment.


----------



## therealdjnugz

I know this isn't directly related to 3d being "dead", but can anyone recommend a decent 3d blu ray player. I'm currently using a Sony bdv e3100 which was part of a htib. I've had it for years, it was my first surround system. Anyways, it's starting to have problems reading discs. I can tell it's not going to last much longer. I'd like an Oppo 103-D, but not sure I can swing it. However, I don't want a super cheap player that isn't going to last. Any reccomendations would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## NorthSky

Maximum budget?

Look @ Sony 3D Blu-ray players...$100 to $150.


----------



## tgm1024

NorthSky said:


> Maximum budget?
> 
> Look @ Sony 3D Blu-ray players...$100 to $150.


And his display would be useful too (2K/4K).

But absolutely something Sony. Their upscaling ability is unreal, even for SD/ED (DVDs).

I probably wouldn't shell out any big $$ for a 4K BDP yet though, unless you have a 4K display already.

Consider one of the region free converted ones....there have been a suggestion or two for those already in this forum. That will allow you to buy 3DBDs from anywhere without worry, though I'd still strongly suggest buying region free BDs if at _all_ possible.


----------



## therealdjnugz

tgm1024 said:


> And his display would be useful too (2K/4K).
> 
> But absolutely something Sony. Their upscaling ability is unreal, even for SD/ED (DVDs).
> 
> I probably wouldn't shell out any big $$ for a 4K BDP yet though, unless you have a 4K display already.
> 
> Consider one of the region free converted ones....there have been a suggestion or two for those already in this forum. That will allow you to buy 3DBDs from anywhere without worry, though I'd still strongly suggest buying region free BDs if at _all_ possible.


My display (epson 5025) and other equipment is listed in my signature . Budget is $200 max. Also 4k is of no concern right now. I don't plan on going 4k any time soon. Maybe in a couple years when 4k projectors are affordable


----------



## johnny905

NorthSky said:


> Maximum budget?
> 
> Look @ Sony 3D Blu-ray players...$100 to $150.


In my experience I would avoid Sony players. I have owned 2 and neither of them can stream AVI or most other video formats from my PC. Including home videos. The LG players I've owned on the other hand seem to handle almost any format.


----------



## therealdjnugz

johnny905 said:


> In my experience I would avoid Sony players. I have owned 2 and neither of them can stream AVI or most other video formats from my PC. Including home videos. The LG players I've owned on the other hand seem to handle almost any format.


I only watch blu rays so I'm not concerned with the player being able to play random video formats, not to sound like a blu ray snob. I don't download legally or illegally. My wife occasionally watches Netflix and I sometimes watch clips from YouTube . So basically I want a solid player that is going to last, be fast, and have the standard apps such as Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, and Pandora.


----------



## longhornsk57

I have a Sony BDP S5200 - have had it for a couple years now and it plays my 3D blurays like a champ. Picture is amazing. Never frreezes, never skips, has not had a single issue in over 2 years. I highly recommend Sony.

Like you I don't do any of that XBMC or Kodo or any mpg or avi files. I have my blurays and I use my phone with Chromecast for Netflix and Google play movies. I also have DISH which always has like 5,000 free on demand movies, so I'm good to go.

You can get this model (newer than mine) for pretty cheap, and I bet it delivers for what you need.


http://www.amazon.com/Sony-BDPS5500-Blu-Ray-Player-Wi-Fi/dp/B00TYFCJOM


----------



## NorthSky

johnny905 said:


> In my experience I would avoid Sony players. I have owned 2 and neither of them can stream AVI or most other video formats from my PC. Including home videos. The LG players I've owned on the other hand seem to handle almost any format.


In my experience, I would not...I have four Sonys...they all play SACDs, DVDs, Blu-rays, two of them *(((3D)))* Blu-rays, have the latest apps...and zillion of them...plus I don't stream...ever. ...Firmware updates too. ...And Wi-Fi too. ...They have Netflix (I don't use myself), Pandora, and all the other Voodoo magic. 
And they're all between $50 and $120 max. For $150-170 I could have one with two HDMI outputs and dual-core video processor...extremely fast. 
Excellent Blu-ray picture quality (2D and *3D*) ...right there on top with the more expensive ones. ...And top-notch HDMI bitstream multichannel audio performance...Blu-ray (lossless), SACD (hi-res multich) and DVD (lossy).


----------



## Stereodude

Over in the Blu-ray player forum Panasonic and Sony are the recommended players if you're not willing to up the ante for an Oppo.


----------



## william06

Currently have 6500 and 7200 couldn't be happier bd, 3D, and streaming Netflix, Amazon, Vudu, Pandora


----------



## NickTheGreat

I went cheap in my HT and got a Sony 5100 and it works well. The vudu app is great. Youtube isn't bad. Only done Netflix a couple of times, but that seemed solid. My sister has the 5200 or 5300 and uses Netflix all the time.


----------



## longhornsk57

FYI amazon.co.UK has Disney 3D movies. 2 for $35 shipped. I just got big hero 6 and finding nemo. BH6 is normally like $30 by itself...

All region free. They have some good ones like frozen and wreck it Ralph and more...

Edit: that's $35 shippes to America.


----------



## mo949

Sadly I own all of those except BH6 :'(


----------



## longhornsk57

Get BH6 and another and maybe sell or trade it? I would be in the same boat but I needed finding memo too...


----------



## therealdjnugz

Thank you all for your suggestions. I think I may go with the Sony BDP-S5200 player modified to be region free, which was suggested by another memeber. Regiono free is becoming more important with certain 3d titles being harder to find in North America. Still up for suggestions and input though. Haven't placed an order yet.


----------



## therealdjnugz

I was also looking at the Sony 6500. If I got it modified to be region free, it would be $40 over my budget. Besides the fact that is can upscale to 4k, do you guys think there'd be much difference from the S5200? If it's truly a better player, I'd consider coughing up the extra cash.


----------



## mars5l

I have a 7200, I have never used any of the apps on it though since I have a UHD tv and would rather use the tv apps to get 4k content. I do wish I had bought a region free player and next time around I will. In fact I think next time I will see if I can just get a straight bluray player that has wifi and no apps. Though I think the next one will be a UHD BD player when they come out. I like my 7200, but I think a modified region free one was about $400 on ebay.


----------



## longhornsk57

therealdjnugz said:


> I was also looking at the Sony 6500. If I got it modified to be region free, it would be $40 over my budget. Besides the fact that is can upscale to 4k, do you guys think there'd be much difference from the S5200? If it's truly a better player, I'd consider coughing up the extra cash.


I think it will play content the same. I love my S5200. Region free is nice too.


----------



## MrEmoto

What is the best way to get a region-free 3D BR player?


----------



## longhornsk57

MrEmoto said:


> What is the best way to get a region-free 3D BR player?


Amazon, eBay, the internet etc.. They're all around.


----------



## MrEmoto

longhornsk57 said:


> Amazon, eBay, the internet etc.. They're all around.


Any specific recommendations that you (or anyone else) have had a good experience with?


----------



## marcuslaw

MrEmoto said:


> Any specific recommendations that you (or anyone else) have had a good experience with?


I have an Oppo BDP95. Though on the pricier side, Oppos come with unparalleled customer service and play everything except HD DVD and can receive pretty much every conceivable audio stream for decoding. Mine is mod'd with an external region free kit which is handy in that it didn't void the warranty and can be easily be replaced/removed. If its apps you want, the newer models (103/105) feature more but have MHL and other connections for fire stick and the like. Of course, you might want to save the coins for their UHD player which I expect will debut next year.


----------



## MrEmoto

Thanks, Marcuslaw!


----------



## johnny905

Toe said:


> I have no idea how many 2d/3d blu rays, SACDs, DVD-A, DVDs I have bought off ebay over the years and not once have I been burned. I have saved a ton of $$$ though. Not to mention ebay is the ONLY place I have been able to find some rare out of production multichannel music discs. Surprised some are that paranoid that they won't buy a disc off ebay.


I've bought around 1/2 of my blu ray discs on eBay. Lately I've been renting 3D films on 3DGO, but last week decided to buy Guardians of the Galaxy on 3D BD from eBay. Just got it yesterday in the mail. the only problem is that they sent me the 2D version, not the 3D version. Not very happy at the moment.


----------



## longhornsk57

johnny905 said:


> I've bought around 1/2 of my blu ray discs on eBay. Lately I've been renting 3D films on 3DGO, but last week decided to buy Guardians of the Galaxy on 3D BD from eBay. Just got it yesterday in the mail. the only problem is that they sent me the 2D version, not the 3D version. Not very happy at the moment.


That happened to me on amazon once.. It happens but it's rare.

I got guardians from eBay for $17 a couple months ago and it came to me the right version.

Bad luck man.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

johnny905 said:


> I've bought around 1/2 of my blu ray discs on eBay. Lately I've been renting 3D films on 3DGO, but last week decided to buy Guardians of the Galaxy on 3D BD from eBay. Just got it yesterday in the mail. the only problem is that they sent me the 2D version, not the 3D version. Not very happy at the moment.


Just got my first blu ray player for the 3D and only have Wizard of Oz so far which I found was cheapest on eBay brand new with free shipping. Only watched a few minutes cause I'm waiting for a calibration disc which will come next week with Jurassic World and Avengers pre orders from Amazon. Did use thx optimizer for up conversion of DVDs for temporary use.

Needless to say was floored. Better than anything ever seen on demand over cable. Stunning and can't wait till i get the hd callibration disc to really bring out the picture!

Since player also has simulated 3D used that and was able to create a tad more depth with monitor picking up a 3D signal thus now using two depth adjustments.

Will not replace my collection for the 3d for its too expensive and will be careful to get movies I can enjoy watching more than just for the effect. Going to get Titanic which used copies are available on both Amazon and eBay. 

Was not in the market for 3D but if they can lure one in, an average home theater guy can certainly get hooked.


----------



## therealdjnugz

Thought I'd give you guys an update. I ended up purchasing the Sony 6500 from Best Buy. They had it on sale for $130. No region free, but at this point I haven't found a 3d title I wanted that wasn't region A or region free. So I'm hoping I won't run into a region problem. The 6500 is way faster than my previous player. It's pretty incredible. With my previous player, I was noticing a lot of crosstalk on 3d titles in the background that I wasn't seeing in the past. It's never the object that the camera is focused on. I have my projector set to the correct screen size but the new player has this option as well. I'm hoping I can address the crosstalk with the 3d setting on the Blu Ray playe, although it could obviously be my projector. I've also seen people say that when they set the 3d size to their correct screen size it made the crosstalk worst, so I'll be experimenting with the setting. I was also suprised at how incredibly light and small these players are getting. It feels cheap, but it's really fast. The power source is external which helps weight wise, but even if it was internal it'd still be light. So far so good, but more time is needed to get a real opinion on the new player. Again, thank you everyone for your help and input! Jurassic World tomorrow gentlemen!


----------



## longhornsk57

We should really set up an internal forum 3D movie trading or lending system since we all have some 3D movies..


----------



## marcuslaw

I watched a couple of good 3-D titles and one not so good over the weekend. The two good ones were 3net's Imax: Space Intelligence Vol. 1 and the BBC's Planet Dinosaur. Both offered clean, artifact free video, good depth and even several pop scenes with no ghosting or cross talk. 


The surprising loser for us was Jurassic World which my family all saw for the first time Saturday night. I think its 3-D performance was rather subdued so much so I would rank it behind the first film's stereo conversion. But perhaps the biggest reason it finished third, was because of the movie itself which we all felt was unoriginal and way too predicable. I'm going so far as to say that I'd rank it below JP II & III. Bryce Howard's character Claire was downright annoying and distracting at times. Her sudden transformation from a compulsive, corporate control freak to caring, survival mode Mom (complete with a hair style change from straight to wavy and dirty) was way to abrupt and transparent. I could go on. With so much else to watch, it'll be a long time before I JW again. One plus, I did like seeing the Deleted Scenes and Interview between Chris Pratt and Joss Whedon in 3-D. Kudos to Universal for including them in stereo.


----------



## tgm1024

marcuslaw said:


> I watched a couple of good 3-D titles and one not so good over the weekend. The two good ones were 3net's Imax: Space Intelligence Vol. 1 and the BBC's Planet Dinosaur. Both offered clean, artifact free video, good depth and even several pop scenes with no ghosting or cross talk.
> 
> 
> The surprising loser for us was Jurassic World which my family all saw for the first time Saturday night. I think its 3-D performance was rather subdued so much so I would rank it behind the first film's stereo conversion. But perhaps the biggest reason it finished third, was because of the movie itself which we all felt was unoriginal and way too predicable. I'm going so far as to say that I'd rank it below JP II & III. Bryce Howard's character Claire was downright annoying and distracting at times. Her sudden transformation from a compulsive, corporate control freak to caring, survival mode Mom (complete with a hair style change from straight to wavy and dirty) was way to abrupt and transparent. I could go on. With so much else to watch, it'll be a long time before I JW again. One plus, I did like seeing the Deleted Scenes and Interview between Chris Pratt and Joss Whedon in 3-D. Kudos to Universal for including them in stereo.


It was a 6/10 at the very best. Very poor script. There are so many top-tier writers in hollywood. How _this dreck_ ended up as the script for a legacy brand blockbuster is beyond me. Seriously, I have to wonder about stuff like this. I saw so many places in the story needing overhauling.

1. Cardboard, dull characters (the character depth, not how they appeared).
2. Cliche after cliche.
3. Predictable scenes (oh wait...he's relaxing....something tense is going to happen...)
4. Absurd science.

This could have been so _so_ much better.


----------



## Wilson Laidlaw

At my French house, I have a 49" 4K Philips TV which is great for 2D. I borrowed a Sony upscaling Blu-Ray player from my neighbour and we watched Avatar in 3D (the only 3D Blu-Ray disc I have), using the polarised glasses supplied with the Philips. To say I was underwhelmed would be an understatement. We actually preferred watching it in 2D. I am glad I only borrowed the Sony 3D Blu-Ray as I was thinking of upgrading my 8 year old Panasonic Blu-Ray. I will now wait until 4K Blu-Ray players come out and descend a bit from the estimated stratospheric prices being mooted for early adopters, before upgrading.


----------



## tomtastic

marcuslaw said:


> I watched a couple of good 3-D titles and one not so good over the weekend. The two good ones were 3net's Imax: Space Intelligence Vol. 1 and the BBC's Planet Dinosaur. Both offered clean, artifact free video, good depth and even several pop scenes with no ghosting or cross talk.
> 
> 
> The surprising loser for us was Jurassic World which my family all saw for the first time Saturday night. I think its 3-D performance was rather subdued so much so I would rank it behind the first film's stereo conversion. But perhaps the biggest reason it finished third, was because of the movie itself which we all felt was unoriginal and way too predicable. I'm going so far as to say that I'd rank it below JP II & III. Bryce Howard's character Claire was downright annoying and distracting at times. Her sudden transformation from a compulsive, corporate control freak to caring, survival mode Mom (complete with a hair style change from straight to wavy and dirty) was way to abrupt and transparent. I could go on. With so much else to watch, it'll be a long time before I JW again. One plus, I did like seeing the Deleted Scenes and Interview between Chris Pratt and Joss Whedon in 3-D. Kudos to Universal for including them in stereo.


I agree on Jurassic World, they didn't use the full range of 3D. It was a layered middle 3D range movie like most of these newer converted titles coming out. By middle range I mean they're not using negative and positive parallax for full the full range of 3D our displays are capable of doing. It's not that they need to do this in all scenes but once in awhile there should be a few shots that this is done, especially a movie like JW. I would expect it, but it was a middle range 3D movie, never anything before the screen plane and nothing deep.

The story was equally disappointing, I actually think JP 3 was better overall.

Getting back to what this thread is about, this year is panning out as I expected. The top movies are all converted and the first year since Avatar that converted titles outnumber native. They're only using 3D now for extra ticket sales, not as an approach to unique filmmaking. There are a few directors out there, I'm looking forward to The Martian, one of the few native titles this year.

Thanks for posting 3net's Imax: Space Intelligence Vol. 1, I didn't know about this one. I'll have to take a look at it, I miss my 3Net channel!


----------



## Jacob305

Wilson Laidlaw said:


> At my French house, I have a 49" 4K Philips TV which is great for 2D. I borrowed a Sony upscaling Blu-Ray player from my neighbour and we watched Avatar in 3D (the only 3D Blu-Ray disc I have), using the polarised glasses supplied with the Philips. To say I was underwhelmed would be an understatement. We actually preferred watching it in 2D. I am glad I only borrowed the Sony 3D Blu-Ray as I was thinking of upgrading my 8 year old Panasonic Blu-Ray. I will now wait until 4K Blu-Ray players come out and descend a bit from the estimated stratospheric prices being mooted for early adopters, before upgrading.


I had a 50 inch and it seem very small for 3d. some 3d work fine and others did not. I upgraded to a projector. now 3d is awesome. I can do 149 inches.if you want to do 3d, go bigger with the screen size. 

Jacob


----------



## NorthSky

In the world of Hollywood movies we live in, and with all the people living in and around going to the movie theaters...what counts the most is MONEY. 

So don't expect films to be intelligent and all that jazz...they are for special effects, sound effects, and popcorn entertainment to blow your mind off from the real world.
It's all very normal. Don't sweat the small stuff. ...Just enjoy flicks like 'San Andreas' in 3D ... and go along for the brainless ride; look @ the pretty eyes of the pretty people...enjoy the mayhem...earth shattering and splitting...dam collapsing...skyscrapers tumbling like domino cards...water rising into 500 feet giant wave...tra-la-la.

And it's true that the 3D in 'Jurassic World' is subpar...very unfortunately, but that's reality. ...2D is not bad though.  ...It's just that 3D is generally so much more fun.


----------



## NorthSky

Wilson Laidlaw said:


> At my French house, I have a 49" 4K Philips TV which is great for 2D. I borrowed a Sony upscaling Blu-Ray player from my neighbour and we watched Avatar in 3D (the only 3D Blu-Ray disc I have), using the polarised glasses supplied with the Philips. To say I was underwhelmed would be an understatement. We actually preferred watching it in 2D. I am glad I only borrowed the Sony 3D Blu-Ray as I was thinking of upgrading my 8 year old Panasonic Blu-Ray. I will now wait until 4K Blu-Ray players come out and descend a bit from the estimated stratospheric prices being mooted for early adopters, before upgrading.


Good post. 

There are so many variables when we talk about 3D. 

- How each TV can effectively reproduce it.
- How each set of people's eyes can react to it...wearing dark shades.
- Active vs Passive.
- Screen's size for sheer immersive 3D experience...the bigger the usually the better but not always that's for sure because some folks can't stand 3D @ an IMAX theater and they enjoy more on a 50" 3D TV @ home. ...Don't ask; it's their preference and we don't question personal 3D preference in life. 
- ...And everything else.


----------



## marcuslaw

Wilson Laidlaw said:


> At my French house, I have a 49" 4K Philips TV which is great for 2D. I borrowed a Sony upscaling Blu-Ray player from my neighbour and we watched Avatar in 3D (the only 3D Blu-Ray disc I have), using the polarised glasses supplied with the Philips.


I'm sure that's a fine performing TV, but it's an awfully small one for viewing 3-D. Avatar virtually set the gold standard for depth and layering. IMO, you really need at least 65" to really become immersed on Pandora. Incidentally, there's not much pop gimmickry whatsoever (if at all). 



> I am glad I only borrowed the Sony 3D Blu-Ray as I was thinking of upgrading my 8 year old Panasonic Blu-Ray. I will now wait until 4K Blu-Ray players come out and descend a bit from the estimated stratospheric prices being mooted for early adopters, before upgrading.


Like I suggested above, unless the borrowed player was introducing something into the image, I don't think it was the problem. Also, a UHD player isn't going to improve the 3-D with Avatar (which will not likely ever be released in 3-D UHD).


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> Also, a UHD player isn't going to improve the 3-D with Avatar (which will not likely ever be released in 3-D UHD).


Not for @ least five years.


----------



## cbcdesign

marcuslaw said:


> I'm sure that's a fine performing TV, but it's an awfully small one for viewing 3-D. Avatar virtually set the gold standard for depth and layering. IMO, you really need at least 65" to really become immersed on Pandora. Incidentally, there's not much pop gimmickry whatsoever (if at all).


Its not screen size that matters so much as viewing distances. You can have a perfectly satisfactory 3d experience on a 49" set if you sit close enough to the set to offset the smaller screen size.


----------



## James Freeman

No to be negative but this is relevant to this thread,
Watching the "CEDIA 2015 Wrap-Up" video the fellows said that there were only one booth that showed 3D, and they were quite happy about it. 
They even joked that this wave is dead and 3D might show up again in 2040...

Now, I don't like (the hassles of) 3D myself, but why the majority of the pro reviewers and industry insiders are happy about it being held by the last thread?
Any thoughts?


----------



## aaronwt

tgm1024 said:


> It was a 6/10 at the very best. Very poor script. There are so many top-tier writers in hollywood. How _this dreck_ ended up as the script for a legacy brand blockbuster is beyond me. Seriously, I have to wonder about stuff like this. I saw so many places in the story needing overhauling.
> 
> 1. Cardboard, dull characters (the character depth, not how they appeared).
> 2. Cliche after cliche.
> 3. Predictable scenes (oh wait...he's relaxing....something tense is going to happen...)
> 4. Absurd science.
> 
> This could have been so _so_ much better.


Yet it was good enough to become the third highest grossing movie of all time, worldwide.


----------



## James Freeman

NorthSky said:


> Not for @ least five years.


Never actually.
Considering that it took the worlds most powerful computer to render 1 frame (out of 24 per second) several hours!!! all in crappy 2K.
Do you realize how much money it'll cost the studios to render it again in 4k just so you and I can buy it on home video?

http://www.geek.com/chips/the-computing-power-that-created-avatar-1031232/


> To tackle the task of helping create Avatar, it took the Weta Digital super computers processing up to 1.4 million tasks per day to render the movie, which consisted of processing 8 gigabytes of data per second running 24 hours for over a month. *Often each of Avatar’s frames took several hours to render.* And when you consider that is just one frame out of 24 for every second of film, you can imagine why the major processing power at Weta Digital was needed.


High hopes for the 4K 3D version?... Don't.


Up-scaled to 2160p from 2K DCI with P3 gamut is what we'll get a LOT of on UHD Blu Ray.


----------



## dhvsfan

James Freeman said:


> Never actually.
> Considering that it took the worlds most powerful computer to render 1 frame (out of 24 per second) several hours!!! all in crappy 2K.


Not sure that this is the most powerful computer ?! Your URL indicates a server farm with 4000 blades.



James Freeman said:


> Do you realize how much money it'll cost the studios to render it again in 4k just so you and I can buy it on home video?


Probably more money than they would spend - agreed.


James Freeman said:


> http://www.geek.com/chips/the-computing-power-that-created-avatar-1031232/


WETA's server farm according to the URL was made up of G5 blade servers. In 2014, HP released the G9 server's which are quite a bit more powerful. So the once impressive computer power is now less impressive. According to HP: Triple compute capacity and increase efficiency across multiple workloads at a lower total cost of ownership with design optimization and automation. HP internal comparison between HP ProLiant DL380 Gen9 vs. HP ProLiant DL380 G6
HP wasn't even comparing down to the G5 which were all pretty much retired before I left HP earlier this year.


----------



## EVERRET

James Freeman said:


> No to be negative but this is relevant to this thread,
> Watching the "CEDIA 2015 Wrap-Up" video the fellows said that there were only one booth that showed 3D, and they were quite happy about it.
> They even joked that this wave is dead and 3D might show up again in 2040...
> 
> Now, I don't like *(the hassles of)* 3D myself, but why the majority of the pro reviewers and industry insiders are happy about it being held by the last thread?
> Any thoughts?


Are they older guys with glasses ? 

What do you think are the hassles with 3D ? 

If there is a TV that displays 3D with no glasses needed for the same price as 2D ..... would it still be a hassle ? 

*In 2015*
3D looks better than ever in 4K - passive is finally full HD 
3D is cheaper than ever - TV's - Glasses - Players 
3D is so easy now to set up , it can be streamed , it can be converted, it can be played on a game console or 3D player. 

The problem is most people are naive and don't realize just how easy it is. When people come over to watch 3D movies a my house they are blown away by the picture quality compared to the theaters, they cannot believe how little i have spent to do it either. 

When i went to CES this year there was 3D everywhere "if you looked for it" , some of it was glassless , yet most of the media reported that there were none there. What they don't realize is by ignoring 3D they are ignoring at least 1/3 of their audience , and it's the *upper 1/3 that has the most disposable income !* 

CNET POLL: http://www.cnet.com/news/poll-is-3d-dead-do-you-care/ 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/92-community-news-polls/1438341-3d-home-do-you-care.html

http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=4K 3D TV

Here is a* younger guy* from CES in (first minute) he mentions 3D in 4K (so it proves it was there, lol) - 




*I have a local TV dealer that loves 3D and pushes 3D and it's a huge advantage for him, most local sales people still think 3D is a hassle when it is not. *


----------



## Rudy1

I've never quite understood the outright hatred directed at 3D by some parties. Especially this whole thing about having to "wear glasses" to view a movie in 3D---duh! It's not the 22nd century, so ultrahigh resolution holographic cinema is not quite here yet. From the very beginning, when some critics (who should've known better), complained about how "silly" and "ridiculous" the glasses make people look. As if one was going to wear the damn things 24 hours a day in public or while engaged in intimacy with that special someone. Or those critics who made their own poor eyesight everybody's problem by complaining that the 3D glasses were difficult to wear over their own prescription eyewear. But by far the worst were those TV reviewers who jumped on the "3D is not important" bandwagon started by a certain myopic reviewer from a certain online publication. Okay, dude, I get it: YOU don't like 3D, but don't presume to tell ME I shouldn't like it either! 

And the greedy, cheap studios turned many enthusiasts' stomachs by doing terrible 3D conversions, some of movies that were so pathetically bad to begin with that they wouldn't have stood a chance even if the conversion had actually gone well. Of course, the TV manufacturers didn't do themselves any favors either by putting out models with 3D performance so dismal that it made any good points about that specific set irrelevant. I don't think anyone actually expected ALL movies to eventually be shot in 3D, so it's not like every single director or producer needed to "get onboard". The genre is suited best for use by those with the vision (no pun intended) and artistic expertise to make the most of the format, and not those content to sit back scratching their nut sacks and complaining about "what a pain in the ass" shooting in 3D is. There are "directors" and "cinematographers", and there are people who direct and shoot movies. Unfortunately, the latter seem to be the ones getting all the money and screen time these days. 3D in the home is but one of many casualties of this trend.


----------



## NorthSky

*(((3D))) is Alive!*



James Freeman said:


> No to be negative but this is relevant to this thread,
> Watching the "CEDIA 2015 Wrap-Up" video the fellows said that there were only one booth that showed 3D, and they were quite happy about it.
> They even joked that this wave is dead and 3D might show up again in 2040...
> 
> Now, I don't like (the hassles of) 3D myself, but why the majority of the pro reviewers and industry insiders are happy about it being held by the last thread?
> Any thoughts?


Very simple: Many people aren't ready to change their habits. ...To have some variety in life.

♦ But mark my words; 3D ain't going to die...they are going to be presenting 3D movies more in more in the theaters than ever before...and we'll have them on Blu-ray too. So no matter how much they want to put 3D down, it's just the contrary that is happening...and more tomorrow than today.

Disney is only backing off slightly @ this moment...analyzing their overall revenues. When they realize all the money they are losing for their investors they'll be back stronger than ever all across the 3D world line. 

And not only that, but when 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' shows up on December 18 @ our local Cineplex and IMAX 3D theaters...watch out! 
And when they'll see 'Avatar 2' in 3D with James Cameron's latest technical tour-de-force...watch out too! 

Hey, 'Everest' is in 3D, 'The Martian' is in 3D, 'The Walk' is in 3D...(((3D))) is alive and very very strong with the force. 

*** CEDIA 2015 was on the emphasis of UHD/HDR, DTS:X, the new stuff coming up...that's all. So they have to emphasize that new market..._tout à fait naturel._ ...They didn't want to distract the dealers and manufacturers and reviewers and audio/video writers and the high profile public who are the leaders of the latest and newest technologies. 

But 3D is strong, and will be strong with a vengeance alongside with 3D immersive sound (DTS:X - Dolby Atmos - Auro-3D).
The only glitch in the ointment is no 3D UHD on Blu-ray. ...But the'll include the 3D Blu-ray 1080p disc with the package...some studios...and others separately...my very good guess...depending of each Hollywood movie studio's financial/business plan strategy/stratagem/scheme.
Because, after all, money is the main incentive...after the creative art itself. 

Us, the moviegoers, the movie lovers, the Blu-ray buyers...we just vote with our wallets in the direction we prefer...without following necessarily what the movie studios try to dictate us with. It's their decision on the choice(s) they give us...and you can bet that their decision is going to be directly related to financial revenues...the most MONEY they can make. 

Nah, 3D is good business...it's good for us and it's good for them.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> Yet it was good enough to become the third highest grossing movie of all time, worldwide.


♦ *$1.666 billion*. ... *'Jurassic World'*



James Freeman said:


> Never actually.
> Considering that it took the worlds most powerful computer to render 1 frame (out of 24 per second) several hours!!! all in crappy 2K.
> Do you realize how much money it'll cost the studios to render it again in 4k just so you and I can buy it on home video?
> 
> http://www.geek.com/chips/the-computing-power-that-created-avatar-1031232/


♣ "Never" is a big long-time word...I wouldn't say that...a future "Rainbow" multi-layered Purple-ray disc...with one terabyte capacity (12 layers).
And streaming UHD from Netflix, Vudu, and all the future newcomers into the world of 4K (UHD). ...High-speed internet, and 7.14 Dolby Atmos and DTS:X immersive audio (streaming). 



> *High hopes for the 4K 3D version?... Don't.*
> Up-scaled to 2160p from 2K DCI with P3 gamut is what we'll get a LOT of on UHD Blu Ray.


♠ Maybe not during our generation time...but our grandchildren (or even our children) have the best chance of all. ...There is hope...certainly.


----------



## johnny905

Wilson Laidlaw said:


> At my French house, I have a 49" 4K Philips TV which is great for 2D. I borrowed a Sony upscaling Blu-Ray player from my neighbour and we watched Avatar in 3D (the only 3D Blu-Ray disc I have), using the polarised glasses supplied with the Philips. To say I was underwhelmed would be an understatement. We actually preferred watching it in 2D. I am glad I only borrowed the Sony 3D Blu-Ray as I was thinking of upgrading my 8 year old Panasonic Blu-Ray. I will now wait until 4K Blu-Ray players come out and descend a bit from the estimated stratospheric prices being mooted for early adopters, before upgrading.


That's a first. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone say they preferred Avatar in 2D. I don't think I could ever watch it in 2D personally.


----------



## mo949

He probably didn't know how to use the equipment and had it set to upconvert to 3D and not use the native 3D signal as well as forgetting to adjust the tv size in the 3D settings on the bluray player.. I once did this by accident and predictably the results were not good.


----------



## ekaaaans

A name change for this thread would be appropriate I think.

The title reads like a slap in the face...and it's been 2 YEARS since the question was asked. 

Since 3D is obviously sticking around for awhile, I recommend *"The Future of 3D"* as a more forum friendly thread title. 

Just a suggestion.


----------



## NorthSky

ekaaaans said:


> A name change for this thread would be appropriate I think.
> 
> The title reads like a slap in the face...and it's been 2 YEARS since the question was asked.
> 
> Since 3D is obviously sticking around for awhile, I recommend *"The Future of 3D"* as a more forum friendly thread title.
> 
> Just a suggestion.


Methinks that the OP selected his thread's title according to his spirit and the times he was living in @ the time...so it's all perfectly perfect. 
I like it, very.


----------



## johnny905

tomtastic said:


> I agree on Jurassic World, they didn't use the full range of 3D. It was a layered middle 3D range movie like most of these newer converted titles coming out. By middle range I mean they're not using negative and positive parallax for full the full range of 3D our displays are capable of doing. It's not that they need to do this in all scenes but once in awhile there should be a few shots that this is done, especially a movie like JW. I would expect it, but it was a middle range 3D movie, never anything before the screen plane and nothing deep.
> 
> The story was equally disappointing, I actually think JP 3 was better overall.


I rented JW but still haven't watched it yet. It least my expectations will be low after reading this thread... :-(


----------



## ferl

NorthSky said:


> Methinks that the OP selected his thread's title according to his spirit and the times he was living in @ the time...so it's all perfectly perfect.
> I like it, very.


Eloquently stated!


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

EVERRET said:


> *In 2015*
> 3D looks better than ever in 4K - passive is finally full HD
> 3D is cheaper than ever - TV's - Glasses - Players
> 3D is so easy now to set up , it can be streamed , it can be converted, it can be played on a game console or 3D player.
> 
> The problem is most people are naive and don't realize just how easy it is.


OK.....I'll bite! How easy is it?

I have a 3 year old, 1080p Toshiba, passive 3D TV that I have been fairly happy with. Compared to the newer, UHD sets of course it's not as good, but that's not my main question. 

It is HOW do you set up your 3D playback? Do you use an HTPC or some sort of hardware device? If an HTPC, what software package do you run to do this?

I have played with a couple HTPC players. I'm currently running Plex. I can get it to play SBS or TAB, 3D MKV's. I simply switch the TV's 3D mode to that sort of 3D format. I use this program to rip my BR's: BDtoAVCHD (forum wouldn't let me post a link)

I don't know how to use all the settings because that single page make sup the entire manual on it. However, the results are that I am able to create files that Plex will play and result in MKV files that are usually less than 10GB in size. That is not full resolution, but it works.

Are there better programs or options for making playable 3D content for an HTPC setup?

I have used MakeMKV and found a tutorial to make MVC 3D MKV files. However, I have no idea how to play them. Plex will play them, but they are only 2D. It appears MVC 3D requires special players or hardware to play. Maybe you can confirm/deny this?

Do you know of a good primer on 3D? I have been searching and although there are plenty of hits on this general topic, the quality seems to have been lacking as a one-stop explanation.

One thing about 3D being "cheaper": I haven't found that to be true. I could buy a 50"+ 1080 TV with 3D for under $1000 a year ago. Today, it seems all 3D TV's are UHD, which is fine, but you don't get any 3D options until you get to at least the mid-range TV's, putting them in the $1700+ range to start. I'm not sure what they are cheaper than.

Thanks in advance if you can help! I'd be happy to start a new thread, but you mentioned here how "easy" it was so this was my starting point. Sorry for the potential hijack.


----------



## NorthSky

ferl said:


> Eloquently stated!


Merci beaucoup; you sound like a very generous person...


----------



## EVERRET

KaraokeAmerica said:


> One thing about 3D being "cheaper": I haven't found that to be true. I could buy a 50"+ 1080 TV with 3D for under $1000 a year ago. Today, it seems all 3D TV's are UHD, which is fine, but you don't get any 3D options until you get to at least the mid-range TV's, putting them in the $1700+ range to start. I'm not sure what they are cheaper than.
> 
> Thanks in advance if you can help! I'd be happy to start a new thread, but you mentioned here how "easy" it was so this was my starting point. Sorry for the potential hijack.


http://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-55...lack/2698045.p?id=1219555370090&skuId=2698045

Wrong thread for HTPC questions , I run a stand alone 3D player through a video processor.


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> Yet it was good enough to become the third highest grossing movie of all time, worldwide.


I suppose $30.7 million in marketing didn't hurt. Also from an article entitled How and why Jurassic World managed — surprisingly — to break box office records: 



> *The timing of Jurassic World's release was key*: Above all else, Jurassic World got lucky because of the calendar. The last blockbuster to open was Avengers: Age of Ultron on May 1, and while several modest hits have debuted since then, the box office hasn't seen a single other film top $200 million. Plus, potential megahits like Tomorrowland ultimately struggled to make an impression. People were craving a big summer movie, and only Jurassic World really fit the bill.
> 
> *Jurassic World is different, but not too different*: Recent box office champs have largely been either comic book movies or adaptations of young adult novels. But both 2014's Mockingjay — Part 1 (the latest Hunger Games film) and 2015's Avengers: Age of Ultron have fallen a bit short of expectations. Granted, said expectations may have been too lofty to begin with, but the perception persists. Perhaps the audience, as the thinking goes, is looking for something outside of those two genres — in which case Jurassic World is a perfect fit. But it's also not so different as to be alienating. People know exactly what they're going to get.
> 
> *The Jurassic Park franchise has always been popula*r: The first two Jurassic Park films set opening-weekend records, and even the much-reviled Jurassic Park III managed to rake in more than $180 million in 2001. The nice long break between Jurassic Park III and Jurassic World allowed both nostalgia for the franchise and anticipation for the new film to build, and gave box office analysts plenty of time to forget what a monster performer the original trilogy was. Jurassic World also enjoyed a minor bump from half-pretending the second and third films didn't exist, though this may not have been creatively optimal, as Screencrush's Matt Singer notes.
> 
> *Jurassic World's marketing campaign smartly focused on the movie at hand*: The press tour for Jurassic World didn't spend lots of time focusing on future Jurassic movies, as Forbes's Scott Mendelson pointed out. It didn't involve teasing an expanded dinosaur universe. Universal's promotion of the movie was ubiquitous, yes, but it never felt quite so in-your-face as some of Marvel's campaigns have. That allowed Jurassic World to seem like an underdog, at least as much as a movie about dinosaurs eating people can seem like an underdog.
> 
> *Everybody loves Chris Pratt*: The entire cast of Jurassic World is solid — even Bryce Dallas Howard, whose character is impossible to play. But Universal chose to sell Jurassic World with Pratt as its central hero after 2014's Guardians of the Galaxy became such a big hit. What's fascinating is that Pratt isn't even the true protagonist of the film; it's Howard's character (who goes from being obsessed with her job to feeling more maternal, an arc that has drawn criticism for being sexist) who has the much more traditional storyline. Pratt's character pretty much remains the same throughout the whole movie, and the actor clearly struggles with the part. (It's his weakest big-screen work to date.) But Pratt is much loved on the press circuit, and he's always a charming presence onscreen.


----------



## Wilson Laidlaw

marcuslaw said:


> Like I suggested above, unless the borrowed player was introducing something into the image, I don't think it was the problem. Also, a UHD player isn't going to improve the 3-D with Avatar (which will not likely ever be released in 3-D UHD).


I am not thinking of a 4K player for 3D just for improved 2D. I have a demo 4K travelogue on my Retina MacBook Pro and that looks fantastic on the Philips 49" 4K. I would agree that 49" is probably not big enough for 3D effects but I don't want the room dominated by a screen. I am quite happy to go to an IMAX to see "proper" immersive 3D. I am going to pre-book for our local UK IMAX (Crawley) to watch the new Star Wars film. 

Wilson


----------



## Wilson Laidlaw

johnny905 said:


> That's a first. I don't think I've EVER heard anyone say they preferred Avatar in 2D. I don't think I could ever watch it in 2D personally.


It was sharper and brighter in 2D, without the polarising glasses.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

EVERRET said:


> Wrong thread for HTPC questions , I run a stand alone 3D player through a video processor.


Yes, I knew I was risking a hijack. I will start a new thread. I'd appreciate you coming along for the ride!

New thread is here:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-home-theater-computers/2184289-3d-htpc-questions.html#post38428177

Thanks!


----------



## johnny905

Wilson Laidlaw said:


> It was sharper and brighter in 2D, without the polarising glasses.


Yes... but it's just Avatar in 2D. There's not much point in the movie if its not in 3D imo.


----------



## NorthSky

'Avatar' is fine in 2D, and is fun in 3D. 

And how can we hijack a 3D thread with any 3D discussion? ...If 3D HTPC has the force with it...reason more that 3D is still well alive. 
And it's all part of this topic...(((3D))) dead or alive.

______

* One small question: If you do a lot of surfing in a day...from any type of screen (PC, Mac Pro, tablet, iPhone, laptop, etc.), and lots of TV watching (flat LED, OLED, plasma panel), do you think that it affects your eyes...in 2D...and in 3D? 

What do you think would be a reasonable amount of hours per day to watch 3D content?
...Now the same question...but with 2D content?

If you watch screens for several hours per day average, how are your eyes...tiredness/redness wise? ...And how is it with 3D...do you feel that your eyes have to work more, and is active 3D watching more tiring than 3D passive watching?


----------



## film113

Wilson Laidlaw said:


> It was sharper and brighter in 2D, without the polarising glasses.


I found the sharpness to be equal to the 2D. And the darkening when using glasses is because the 3D encode is usually brighter than the 2D since they take the slight darkening into account. When the glasses are put on, it becomes a more correct image. When well-mastered, there should be little difference between the two.


----------



## mo949

He might have watched it on a an HD passive setup which would be less sharp since there's less resolution.


----------



## bweissman

Rudy1 said:


> From the very beginning, when some critics (who should've known better), complained about how "silly" and "ridiculous" the glasses make people look. As if one was going to wear the damn things 24 hours a day in public or *while engaged in intimacy with that special someone*.


So where is the 3D porn? I like 3D, but if it were going to survive, wouldn't porn be the obvious content for all those black bat-cave home theaters?


----------



## NorthSky

Good point. ...Regarding passive 3D (less resolution = less sharpness).

And good point too about porno films in 3D.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

tomtastic said:


> I agree on Jurassic World, they didn't use the full range of 3D. It was a layered middle 3D range movie like most of these newer converted titles coming out. By middle range I mean they're not using negative and positive parallax for full the full range of 3D our displays are capable of doing. It's not that they need to do this in all scenes but once in awhile there should be a few shots that this is done, especially a movie like JW. I would expect it, but it was a middle range 3D movie, never anything before the screen plane and nothing deep.
> 
> The story was equally disappointing, I actually think JP 3 was better overall.
> 
> Getting back to what this thread is about, this year is panning out as I expected. The top movies are all converted and the first year since Avatar that converted titles outnumber native. They're only using 3D now for extra ticket sales, not as an approach to unique filmmaking. There are a few directors out there, I'm looking forward to The Martian, one of the few native titles this year.
> 
> Thanks for posting 3net's Imax: Space Intelligence Vol. 1, I didn't know about this one. I'll have to take a look at it, I miss my 3Net channel!


Agree, found the 3D disappointing overall. There were some great scenes and some very bland ones as well. Expected more. But thought the story itself was as good as any entry.


----------



## therealdjnugz

NorthSky said:


> Good point. ...Regarding passive 3D (less resolution = less sharpnes).
> 
> And good point too about porno films in 3D.


Haha I remember when I got my first 3d display(Epson 2030), I swear all my friends asked if I was watching 3d porn in surround sound!


----------



## NorthSky

therealdjnugz said:


> Haha I remember when I got my first 3d display(Epson 2030), I swear all my friends asked if I was watching 3d porn in surround sound!


All your friends...girls?


----------



## dr_bling

If you watch screens for several hours per day average, how are your eyes...tiredness/redness wise? ...And how is it with 3D...do you feel that your eyes have to work more, and is active 3D watching more tiring than 3D passive watching?[/QUOTE]



NorthSky said:


> Good point. ...Regarding passive 3D (less resolution = less sharpness).
> 
> And good point too about porno films in 3D.


NorthSky, I have 3 active 3D sony tv's and without a doubt it makes me very tired watching a movie and playing games was cool for 15 minutes. Purchased my sony passive 3D XBR65850B and now i can watch a full movie without any fatigue and in full 1080 resolution which looks pretty spectacular and way better than active 3D on my other 3 sony's


----------



## therealdjnugz

NorthSky said:


> All your friends...girls?


Unfortunately no. All dudes and they all asked the same question at different times. I surround myself with such mature guys, I know. I'm married with two kids. Don't think the wife would be happy if chicks were asking me about 3d porn haha.


----------



## therealdjnugz

dr_bling said:


> If you watch screens for several hours per day average, how are your eyes...tiredness/redness wise? ...And how is it with 3D...do you feel that your eyes have to work more, and is active 3D watching more tiring than 3D passive watching?



I honestly have never experienced eye fatigue from 3d. I've only owned active 3d projectors. However my ears used to get fatigued from movies. Upgraded my front stage to SVS prime towers and center and no longer have that problem.


----------



## NorthSky

Bob said:


> If you watch screens for several hours per day average, how are your eyes...tiredness/redness wise? ...And how is it with 3D...do you feel that your eyes have to work more, and is active 3D watching more tiring than 3D passive watching?





Doc Bling said:


> ]NorthSky, I have 3 active 3D sony tv's and without a doubt it makes me very tired watching a movie and playing games was cool for 15 minutes. Purchased my sony passive 3D XBR65850B and now i can watch a full movie without any fatigue and in full 1080 resolution which looks pretty spectacular and way better than active 3D on my other 3 sony's


Bob's my name Doc.  ...Thank you for your reply...makes a lot of sense. With my 3D active plasma TV I do experience tired/red eyes sometimes...when not enough vision relaxed. ...So I found it's best, for me, to watch 3D Blu-rays (that's all I watch...Blu-rays) when I'm relaxed...not tired.

Next TV...UHD 3D OLED or LED...depending if I can get what I want for the right price...OLED UHD 3D 70" for $3,000 (Loonie dollars). ...LG
If not I'll go LED UHD 3D with Samsung...in the 65" area. Those are all 3D passive right? 

* Would love a UHD 3D front projector too, for less than five grands. 

And I know that Blu-ray 3D is only in 2K (1080p) and not Blu-ray UHD (4K). ...I'm good with that...for the moment...until the world starts to wake up.


----------



## NorthSky

therealdjnugz said:


> Unfortunately no. All dudes and they all asked the same question at different times. I surround myself with such mature guys, I know. I'm married with two kids. Don't think the wife would be happy if chicks were asking me about 3d porn haha.


Ahhhhhh, you are married. 

* You just said on your above post that your eyes don't get tired from watching active 3D with your front projectors...may I ask how old are your eyes and if you normally wear prescription glasses? 
Me my eyes are 60, and I also wear prescription glasses...to watch movies...so my active 3D glasses they sit on top. 
Plus, I have a scratch in the middle of my iris (left eye), from a work injury, and it's there for life...and it makes my eye very sensitive to temperature changes, wind, speed, dust, pollen, and you name it. And it is also for that reason that I cannot wear contact lenses.
Also the sun affects my eyes...I am very sensitive to the sun rays. 

But, I can open my eyes under water without too much problem, and stay there for three minutes...without oxygen. ...Not wearing any type of glasses, and even less 3D ones. ;-)

Normally most people in a similar situation to me wouldn't bother with 3D, but me I love 3D even with the few issues I have with my eyes, and because I know that a well made 3D movie is much more immersive into the story that is happening around my 3D display...like if I could enter myself in the film and interact directly with the actors in their decors...it's very spooky that way, and much more rewarding movie experience wise...life in (((3D))), closer to real life. ...Next is 3D sound...DTS:X...next year...100%.

♦ Depth of field is more fun, and 3D is in art to be mastered and appreciated. It also helps that I'm in ART graduate. ...Visually and auditory.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Regarding 3D being dead, I look at it at possibly becoming alive based on my own experience. I am now very much into 3D but for myself, when first introduced, I resented the consumer electronics industry's hype and spin.

Based on surveys with questions worded in a certain way that almost guaranteed a positive response, 3D television was indeed not a most wanted consumer electronics product though being marketed as such. Appearing to have such a potential interest came from quoting stats from in house surveys that were accurate but conducted and designed to compile favorable data, a practice used all the time to mold public opinions on subjects obviously of much greater concern and importance than 3D. But it was still dishonest.

That's just me and my own reaction to what I find a misuse of the public trust.

But for most consumers, it was probably just introduced at the wrong time. Television sales were down because most consumers had already invested in a HD set and were not looking to replace it. Perhaps it's time for a new campaign with less hoopla and concentration on the enjoyment one will find with 3D added as a feature to their home theater with sets, players, glasses and discs being so much cheaper.

It's no longer buying a 3D television, its buying a television that includes 3D. That's how I got hooked in.


----------



## dr_bling

NorthSky said:


> Bob's my name Doc.  ...Thank you for your reply...makes a lot of sense. With my 3D active plasma TV I do experience tired/red eyes sometimes...when not enough vision relaxed. ...So I found it's best, for me, to watch 3D Blu-rays (that's all I watch...Blu-rays) when I'm relaxed...not tired.
> 
> Next TV...UHD 3D OLED or LED...depending if I can get what I want for the right price...OLED UHD 3D 70" for $3,000 (Loonie dollars). ...LG
> If not I'll go LED UHD 3D with Samsung...in the 65" area. Those are all 3D passive right?
> 
> Active 3D make my wife dizzy and my oldest son says he cannot visually see the 3D in active but I think he "might be a hater" but everyone seams to generally enjoy our passive 3D.
> 
> The UHD OLED's have a gorgeous PQ but I notice the judder in fast action and panning and I LOVE the SOAP OPERA AFFECT.
> 
> Not sure on Samsung being passive, My biggest concern was how uverse HD feed would look and it looks great. I think this is what separates Vizio, Sharp and some of the other discount brands from Sony's video processing.


----------



## therealdjnugz

NorthSky said:


> Ahhhhhh, you are married.
> 
> * You just said on your above post that your eyes don't get tired from watching active 3D with your front projector...may I ask how old are your eyes and if you normally wear prescription glasses?
> Me my eyes are 60, and I also wear prescription glasses...to watch movies...so my active 3D glasses they sit on top.
> Plus, I have a scratch in the middle of my iris (left eye), from a work injury, and it's there for life...and it makes my eye very sensitive to temperature changes, wind, speed, dust, pollen, and you name it. And it is also for that reason that I cannot wear contact glasses.
> Also the sun affects my eyes...I am very sensitive to the sun rays.
> 
> But, I can open my eyes under water without too much problem, and stay there for three minutes...without oxygen. ...Not wearing any type of glasses, and even less 3D ones. ;-)
> 
> Normally most people in a similar situation to me wouldn't bother with 3D, but me I love 3D even with the few issues I have with my eyes, and because I know that a well made 3D movie is much more immersive into the story that is happening around my 3D display...like if I could enter myself in the film and interact directly with the actors in their decors...it's very spooky that way, and much more rewarding movie experience wise...life in (((3D))), closer to real life. ...Next is 3D sound...DTS:X...next year...100%.


I'm 28 and have never had to wear glasses. I haven't had an eye exam in over 10 years though. What's weird is playing a video game will exhaust my eyes, especially in a first person view. I also barely ever watch a movie all the way through in one sitting. I always take a break for one reason or another. So I'm sure that contributes to my eyes not getting exhausted.


----------



## NorthSky

This is a very good 3D discussion we are having...it's educative, fructifying.


----------



## aaronwt

For some reason my eyes always get fatigued with passive 3D. But with active 3D glasses I don't usually have an issue.


----------



## NickTheGreat

johnny905 said:


> Yes... but it's just Avatar in 2D. There's not much point in the movie if its not in 3D imo.


There's the over-the-top liberal preachiness . . .


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> For some reason my eyes always get fatigued with passive 3D. But with active 3D glasses I don't usually have an issue.


Here goes my theory...  ...Perhaps I should stick with active 3D. 

May I ask how hold is your set of eyes?
And! Are you using a 3D flat panel (OLED, LCD LED or Plasma, 2K or 4K) or a front 3D projector, and what kind of technology (chip) and also your screen type? ...Important related answers for important/serious questions.

Last, the size of your screen (or 3D flat panel) and the distance you sit from it?


----------



## longhornsk57

I've got a 3D active setup and I watch hours with no issues or fatigue.

I think the bigger the screen, the better it is. Also I have a projector setup so I think a fabric screen is easier on the eyes than a glass one? 

Who knows..

But I've had multiple people watching at the same time with zero complaints.


----------



## Stereodude

film113 said:


> I found the sharpness to be equal to the 2D. And the darkening when using glasses is because the 3D encode is usually brighter than the 2D since they take the slight darkening into account. When the glasses are put on, it becomes a more correct image. When well-mastered, there should be little difference between the two.


Avatar's 2D and 3D are the same brightness / gamma. Unlike most movies the 3D version does not have gamma curve adjustments compared to the 2D.


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> I've got a 3D active setup and I watch hours with no issues or fatigue.
> I think the bigger the screen, the better it is. * Also I have a projector setup so I think a fabric screen is easier on the eyes than a glass one?*
> Who knows..
> 
> But I've had multiple people watching at the same time with zero complaints.


You raised a good point...the question you asked and highlighted in magenta. ...I tend to believe Yes; a fabric screen is more gentle on our eyes than a "mirror glass" flat panel emitting light. 

...Any taker?


----------



## longhornsk57

Stereodude said:


> Avatar's 2D and 3D are the same brightness / gamma. Unlike most movies the 3D version does not have gamma curve adjustments compared to the 2D.


I watched avatar in 3D recently and while this may be true it was more than bright enough on my setup and it looked just awesome.







NorthSky said:


> You raised a good point...the question you asked and highlighted in magenta. ...I tend to believe Yes; a fabric screen is more gentle on our eyes than a "mirror glass" flat panel emitting light.
> 
> ...Any taker?


I would think so, I mean I get fatigue sitting in front of a computer for 3 hours but I can watch 3 movies in 3D and I'm good, or 9 hours of NFL (6 of them on red zone) and I'm good to go.

Distance and screen type I think play a role.

I've got a 150" screen and I sit about 16' away. I used Carl's Place flexiwhite to make the screen, and never had any eye issue at all, even with hard core 3D like Sammy's Adventure etc..


----------



## marcuslaw

bweissman said:


> So where is the 3D porn? I like 3D, but if it were going to survive, wouldn't porn be the obvious content for all those black bat-cave home theaters?


It's all in Europe and seemingly mostly in Germany. Here's a link to a bunch on amazon.de. Caution. Don't click on the link if you're on a work PC.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

aaronwt said:


> For some reason my eyes always get fatigued with passive 3D. But with active 3D glasses I don't usually have an issue.


Interesting. I have active glasses too and don't develop eye strain or headaches as I thought I might. Do feel tired after a while but I get that way with 2D as well.  

Still waiting for the original batteries to go. Believe already went past 100 hours since getting my Sony 50w800b in early April. Gather once the batteries go, I'll notice it immediately on the glasses.


----------



## JMCurtis

I have a 55" 4k LG LCD/LED with Passive 3D. The only issue I have with my eyes, is that I need to blink to regain the sense of 3D every so often. I'm 60 years old and about 3 years ago I had to have implant lenses put in both eyes due to a cataract problem.


----------



## CINERAMAX

NorthSky said:


> You raised a good point...the question you asked and highlighted in magenta. ...I tend to believe Yes; a fabric screen is more gentle on our eyes than a "mirror glass" flat panel emitting light.
> 
> ...Any taker?


It all depends on the implementation, scientific analysis warranted.


----------



## CINERAMAX

*III-D Vini, Vedi Vinci at CEDIA!*

Like Caesar said. Immersion 2025 3d laser 6p demo went to cedia, viewed its competition and resoundingly won the battle of home cinema demos.

Here is what Gary Reber had to say he is an avid 3D fan.


----------



## CINERAMAX

NorthSky said:


> Bob's my name Doc.  ...Thank you for your reply...makes a lot of sense. With my 3D active plasma TV I do experience tired/red eyes sometimes...when not enough vision relaxed. ...So I found it's best, for me, to watch 3D Blu-rays (that's all I watch...Blu-rays) when I'm relaxed...not tired.
> 
> Next TV...UHD 3D OLED or LED...depending if I can get what I want for the right price...OLED UHD 3D 70" for $3,000 (Loonie dollars). ...LG
> If not I'll go LED UHD 3D with Samsung...in the 65" area. Those are all 3D passive right?
> 
> * Would love a UHD 3D front projector too, for less than five grands.
> 
> And I know that Blu-ray 3D is only in 2K (1080p) and not Blu-ray UHD (4K). ...I'm good with that...for the moment...until the world starts to wake up.


My bpm were very high putting together the demo at cedia tempers flaring people calling other people names, so I was at my most unrelaxed and the 3d was still pretty darn good, so equipment quality can trump tension in some cases.LOL


----------



## NorthSky

CINERAMAX said:


> It all depends on the implementation, scientific analysis warranted.


♦ _"Any taker?"_ ...That includes 3D picture expert scientists.  



CINERAMAX said:


> Like Caesar said. Immersion 2025 3d laser 6p demo went to cedia, viewed its competition and resoundingly won the battle of home cinema demos.
> 
> Here is what Gary Reber had to say he is an avid 3D fan.


♦ Cool, thx Peter. 



CINERAMAX said:


> My bpm were very high putting together the demo at cedia tempers flaring people calling other people names, so I was at my most unrelaxed and the 3d was still pretty darn good, so equipment quality can trump tension in some cases.LOL


♦ I read you well Peter. ...You're one guy that can take a lot of criticism but doesn't flinch one bit, almost like me. ;-) :-D

____________

Some of my best friends are . . . the (((3D))) movie viewers.


----------



## CinemaAndy

As far as panels go, 3D is DEAD. 3D is very alive for projectors. Why? Because blue-ray in its wisdom thinks that 4K/UHD is the way to go, and in doing so are leaving 3D behind. It really doesn't matter as not much is being produced in a 4K/UHD format, but they want to you believe there is. How do you get 3D? Simple, go to your local theatre


----------



## tomtastic

I don't understand the correlation to 3D Blu ray and Projectors. If we're comparing new models, there are still a number of manufacturers for 3D display panels, I'm taking a guess but I would estimate there are just as many 3D display panels as PJ's. 3D wasn't rolled out with Blu ray either, I wouldn't expect it to with UHD. Considering a very small percentage have upgraded their systems to 4k it stands to reason that 4k/UHD 3D would be a niche within a niche, not something that would concern many right now. In a few years, possibly they could, but it doesn't look like 2K 3D Blu ray is going anywhere yet which is fine for most.


----------



## film113

CinemaAndy said:


> As far as panels go, 3D is DEAD. 3D is very alive for projectors. Why? Because blue-ray in its wisdom thinks that 4K/UHD is the way to go, and in doing so are leaving 3D behind.


Samsung's 4K/UHS player is also 3D compatible, with full 1080p (including passive).


----------



## CINERAMAX

Not to mention the lg 65ef9500 oled and the upcoming flexible &77 OLED where you can select flat or varaible degree of curvature. These are phenomenal 4k hdr passive 3-d displays.








65 flat OLED

The uhd players are probably the best PQ 3d blu ray players available going on sale in japan for 3,200 on the 16 of this month, so 3D at home will be better than ever by the end of this month, specially if you spring for a production pair of passive glasses from sony $200.


----------



## NorthSky

CinemaAndy said:


> As far as panels go, 3D is DEAD. 3D is very alive for projectors. Why? Because blue-ray in its wisdom thinks that 4K/UHD is the way to go, and in doing so are leaving 3D behind. It really doesn't matter as not much is being produced in a 4K/UHD format, but they want to you believe there is. How do you get 3D? Simple, go to your local theatre


No sweat, my next TV is a 3D 1080p front projector, for less than a thou (twice less money than my tiny 60" active 3D flat panel plasma TV).
As for UHD, if it flies it flies and by the time it flies UHD OLED 3D TVs will be affordable to us all, and same for UHD 3D front projectors. 

* My flat panel will be relieve to 3D movie watching bathroom duties, for the next twenty years or more. No problem here either with over 500 3D Blus. 

And besides, the day they'll stop making 3D flat panels all together...that'll be the day.


----------



## marcuslaw

CinemaAndy said:


> As far as panels go, 3D is DEAD. 3D is very alive for projectors. Why? Because blue-ray in its wisdom thinks that 4K/UHD is the way to go, and in doing so are leaving 3D behind. It really doesn't matter as not much is being produced in a 4K/UHD format, but they want to you believe there is. How do you get 3D? Simple, go to your local theatre


You are a bit misinformed. Including, as one person already mentioned, Samsung, both Sony and Panasonic's 2015 series 4K TVs also support 3D. It looks stunning on my XBR-75940C 4K FALD LCD. Sure, theaters are one place to get it, Best Buy, eBay, Zavvi and amazon (incl. amazon.uk, de, it and fr) are a few others.


----------



## marcuslaw

New 3-D titles announced for those of you who can stream with the 3doo app: Now available on 3doo.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

marcuslaw said:


> New 3-D titles announced for those of you who can stream with the 3doo app: Now available on 3doo.


I have never heard of 3doo and even after reading their FAQ (website is very spartan) I can't tell if a 3D TV is even required:



> Which brands or devices are compatible with 3doo today?
> 
> 3doo is available today on 3D Smart TVs from LG, Panasonic and Samsung. More major brands will soon be announced.


Does this work on 2D TV's somehow?


----------



## johnny905

marcuslaw said:


> New 3-D titles announced for those of you who can stream with the 3doo app: Now available on 3doo.


I tried 3doo a few months ago and the content was brutal and I gave up on it. I recall the PQ not being that great either. I'll check it out again and see if any of the new content is better.




KaraokeAmerica said:


> I have never heard of 3doo and even after reading their FAQ (website is very spartan) I can't tell if a 3D TV is even required:
> Quote:
> _Which brands or devices are compatible with 3doo today?
> 
> 3doo is available today on 3D Smart TVs from LG, Panasonic and Samsung. More major brands will soon be announced._
> 
> 
> Does this work on 2D TV's somehow?


It says it is available on "3D Smart TVs from...". What makes you think it might work on 2D TVs?


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

johnny905 said:


> it says it is available on "3d smart tvs from...". What makes you think it might work on 2d tvs?


doh!!!


----------



## NorthSky

She does 3D (Passive), and she's only five grands. 

♦ http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-65EG9600-oled-4k-tv


----------



## azz7686

NorthSky said:


> She does 3D (Passive), and she's only five grands.
> 
> ♦ http://www.lg.com/us/tvs/lg-65EG9600-oled-4k-tv


 This TV is awesome love to have it but will wait cause I could have a better car for 5grand


----------



## NorthSky

A car for five grands! ...Make that $5 millions. ...For a nice car.


----------



## googamagooga

tomtastic said:


> I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years. That being said, can 3D survive? It seems like there's just been too much post converted 3D, or lack of content to begin with. Haven't seen much released on Blu ray that's been decent 3D in awhile, all seems to just be post converted or just lame depth only stuff. If they don't make 3D standard on TV's I just don't see it continuing much longer.
> 
> 
> I was really excited about a year ago, now I'm thinking about getting a 3D camcorder but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. Is 3D once again, just another passing fad? I really hope not because there is a lot of potential with movies like Gravity and documentaries just doesn't seem to be gaining steam now. If you look at TV content it will probably disappear altogether in the next year. There's what, 2 channels left? ESPN's gone, which I never understood why that was 3D anyway if they weren't going to show live content, there's nothing new on 3D TV.
> 
> 
> So are manufactures backing off 3D? Or is it still going forward like it was a few years ago? I noticed there's not much in the way of 3D camcorders.


3D is a novelty in my opinion.


----------



## marcuslaw

googamagooga said:


> 3D is a novelty in my opinion.


Apparently it is for many folk. Yet, there are us enthusiasts. Unlike bell bottoms, which will hopefully remain dead forever, 3-D first emerged in the 50's and began making its come back more than 12 years ago with James Cameron's Ghosts of the Abyss. Theatrical ticket sales remain high to this day. New stereo films will be debuting beyond 2019. IMO, the only thing lending credence to the notion that "3D is dead" or "3D is dying" is that the home video industry has turned its attention to 4k/UHD. 3D BD releases continue to come out and their sales remain strong overseas. As for NA, I don't know about some of you, but I'm pretty excited for The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies (3D) (EE) which is coming in just 7 days.


----------



## Hagenstein

> ...I don't know about some of you, but I'm pretty excited for The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies (3D) (EE) which is coming in just 7 days.


Count me among the excited. Looking forward to Ant Man also, which I missed in theaters. Might be a bit of a dry spell for 3D Blu Rays after that until The Martian and The Walk are released in 2016. I'll likely check out Pan also, despite its poor reception.


----------



## therealdjnugz

Hagenstein said:


> Count me among the excited. Looking forward to Ant Man also, which I missed in theaters. Might be a bit of a dry spell for 3D Blu Rays after that until The Martian and The Walk are released in 2016. I'll likely check out Pan also, despite its poor reception.


Very excited for the extended edition. I preordered Amazons limited edition statue version. Such a sucker for middle earth, especially in 3d!


----------



## NorthSky

*(((3D)))*



marcuslaw said:


> Apparently it is for many folk. Yet, there are us enthusiasts. Unlike bell bottoms, which will hopefully remain dead forever, 3-D first emerged in the 50's and began making its come back more than 12 years ago with James Cameron's Ghosts of the Abyss. Theatrical ticket sales remain high to this day. New stereo films will be debuting beyond 2019. IMO, the only thing lending credence to the notion that "3D is dead" or "3D is dying" is that the home video industry has turned its attention to 4k/UHD. 3D BD releases continue to come out and their sales remain strong overseas.
> * As for NA, I don't know about some of you, but I'm pretty excited for The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies (3D) (EE) which is coming in just 7 days.*


(((Right on right on right on!)))



Spoiler



https://www.youtube.com/embed/iHDjX-pzrD0?rel=0



♦ Just imagine for a moment...if *The Lord of the Rings* trilogy (Extended Edition) would have been filmed in 3D and available on Blu-ray. 

The world's most lucrative business is the sale of arms (guns and all). ...The second one is probably oil. ...And the third 3D movies.


----------



## Hagenstein

So the family and I went to see The Peanuts Movie today at a local theater. Went to a 1:00pm showing in 3D. We had watched the Minions movie in a similar time slot when it was playing and we were literally the only ones in the theater. A few weeks after we saw Inside Out in 3D and the size of the audience was more respectable. Today, the 3D showing of Peanuts was packed! The highest attendance I've seen for the 3D version of a theatrically shown film since Avatar I think.

I don't assume this is representative of larger trends but it surprised me as, even though I prefer 3D, I wasn't convinced the visual style of this film would lend itself much to 3D, nor capture the interest of more 3D-indifferent / 3D-casual viewers. I was wrong.

The 3D itself was sort of all over the map but a much larger percentage of the movie had medium-to-strong-medium 3D than I was expecting. It didn't push the medium creatively or anything but I enjoyed its sddition nonetheless. After the movie I heard noone complain about the 3D or headaches or any of that. And it wasn't all kids. Healthy ratio of adults to kids in the audience. The wife and my 7yo daughter enjoyed it as well.

I think the reports of 3D's "death" are highly exaggerated!

As a film, it successfully honors Charles Shultz legacy I think, both in style and substance. The Snoopy/Red Baron sequences seemed to interrupt the flow of the main story for me but not to the point I would excise them completely. Those sequences could have been shorter (even though those contained some of the best 3D). But it's an underdog story at heart - how could it not be starring Charlie Brown? And who doesn't love an underdog?

Touching and highly recommended if you have an ounce of nostalgia in you for the Peanuts characters. Will be an instant buy for me on 3D Blu Ray when released.


----------



## aaronwt

Does anyone know how the passive 4K 3D sets are? FOr instance with the 1080P passive 3D sets, you needed to be at least six feet away when viewing. Can you sit closer with passive 3D on a 4K set? I plan on getting a 60" or 65" 4K set at my secondary viewing location. And my viewing distance will be six feet. If you still need to sit the same 6' distance, then I would need to look at getting a 4K set with active 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

Hagenstein said:


> So the family and I went to see *The Peanuts Movie* today at a local theater. Went to a 1:00pm showing in 3D. We had watched the Minions movie in a similar time slot when it was playing and we were literally the only ones in the theater. A few weeks after we saw Inside Out in 3D and the size of the audience was more respectable. Today, the 3D showing of Peanuts was packed! The highest attendance I've seen for the 3D version of a theatrically shown film since Avatar I think.
> 
> I don't assume this is representative of larger trends but it surprised me as, even though I prefer 3D, I wasn't convinced the visual style of this film would lend itself much to 3D, nor capture the interest of more 3D-indifferent / 3D-casual viewers. I was wrong.
> 
> The 3D itself was sort of all over the map but a much larger percentage of the movie had medium-to-strong-medium 3D than I was expecting. It didn't push the medium creatively or anything but I enjoyed its sddition nonetheless. After the movie I heard noone complain about the 3D or headaches or any of that. And it wasn't all kids. Healthy ratio of adults to kids in the audience. The wife and my 7yo daughter enjoyed it as well.
> 
> I think the reports of 3D's "death" are highly exaggerated!
> 
> As a film, it successfully honors Charles Shultz legacy I think, both in style and substance. The Snoopy/Red Baron sequences seemed to interrupt the flow of the main story for me but not to the point I would excise them completely. Those sequences could have been shorter (even though those contained some of the best 3D). But it's an underdog story at heart - how could it not be starring Charlie Brown? And who doesn't love an underdog?
> 
> Touching and highly recommended if you have an ounce of nostalgia in you for the Peanuts characters. Will be an instant buy for me on 3D Blu Ray when released.


♦ This, is the movie of the century, in (((3D))). It's good for the heart and soul of all people. 

______










aaronwt said:


> Does anyone know how the passive 4K 3D sets are? FOr instance with the 1080P passive 3D sets, you needed to be at least six feet away when viewing. Can you sit closer with passive 3D on a 4K set? I plan on getting a 60" or 65" 4K set at my secondary viewing location. And my viewing distance will be six feet. If you still need to sit the same 6' distance, then I would need to look at getting a 4K set with active 3D.


♦ That's interesting; I didn't know about that.


----------



## johnny905

aaronwt said:


> Does anyone know how the passive 4K 3D sets are? FOr instance with the 1080P passive 3D sets, you needed to be at least six feet away when viewing. Can you sit closer with passive 3D on a 4K set? I plan on getting a 60" or 65" 4K set at my secondary viewing location. And my viewing distance will be six feet. If you still need to sit the same 6' distance, then I would need to look at getting a 4K set with active 3D.


4K passive 3DTVs show 3D in full HD. You can sit as close as you want.


----------



## NorthSky

johnny905 said:


> 4K passive 3DTVs show 3D in full HD. You can sit as close as you want.


1080p per each eye (just like active 3D). 

* Before with 3D passive if you were sitting too close you would see the lines from the the half resolution per each eye. 

So what we gain with UHD TVs is 3D passive 1080p. Wow, talk about progress!


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> 1080p per each eye (just like active 3D).
> 
> * Before with 3D passive if you were sitting too close you would see the lines from the the half resolution per each eye.
> 
> So what we gain with UHD TVs is 3D passive 1080p. Wow, talk about progress!


It's still half resolution of the TV set though. The lines are still interlaced but closer together since it's half of 2160. But if I can be closer that sounds good then. Now if the sets just drop down to the price I want.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> It's still half resolution of the TV set though. The lines are still interlaced but closer together since it's half of 2160. But if I can be closer that sounds good then. Now if the sets just drop down to the price I want.


You're still missing the bottom line. _All you ever get_ from a 3DBD is 1080p. Period, end of story.


----------



## aaronwt

tgm1024 said:


> You're still missing the bottom line. _All you ever get_ from a 3DBD is 1080p. Period, end of story.


Believe me, I'm not missing that. I wan't even going to get a 4K set for my secondary TV until I saw the low prices. Like $1k for a 65" set. But then I figured I would still want 3D, which does add a lot to the price. So I'm hoping the Sony or LG sets I've been looking at go on sale over the next couple of months. SInce a large percentage of TVs are usually cheaper after Black Friday weekend than during it.


----------



## tgm1024

aaronwt said:


> Believe me, I'm not missing that. I wan't even going to get a 4K set for my secondary TV until I saw the low prices. Like $1k for a 65" set. But then I figured I would still want 3D, which does add a lot to the price. So I'm hoping the Sony or LG sets I've been looking at go on sale over the next couple of months. SInce a large percentage of TVs are usually cheaper after Black Friday weekend than during it.


Then I'm confused as to why you would say:

aaronwt: "It's still half resolution of the TV set though."

*This doesn't matter*, because it's no different a resolution than active 3D yields on a 4K set because the limiter is in the source. The source is _always_ no better than 2K: There's no lamenting the fact that it's half the resolution of the TV because both active and passive 4K sets will yield the same number of vertical lines. 1080.

Note: If what you're implying is that there is upscaling going on in the 4K active 3D case (or horizontal upscaling in the passive 3D case), I don't believe they're doing this. The reason is that each eye would have to be upscaled independently, and this would risk having edges no longer line up as cleanly as they did during editing. The 3DBD is made with fusion in mind....they wouldn't risk messing with that (again, IMO).


----------



## tomtastic

tgm1024 said:


> *This doesn't matter*, because it's no different a resolution than active 3D yields on a 4K set because the limiter is in the source. The source is _always_ no better than 2K: There's no lamenting the fact that it's half the resolution of the TV because both active and passive 4K sets will yield the same number of vertical lines. 1080.


I don't think that's the case with all 4k displays. As some have said around here select Samsung models will display in 4K3D SbSh so each eye will get 1920x2160. I have no way to confirm that, just what some are claiming because they have tested it, or so they say. However, there is some 4k3D SbSh on YT right now, so those claims may be true. But yeah, from a commercial source, no. Makes no difference. There may be some games that will work with 4k3D too half-width. And when UHD-R discs arrive with authoring tools they should be able to view in UHD SbSh, if what they're claiming about these Samsung models is true. Myself, I'll just wait tell full 4k3d is available.


----------



## tgm1024

tomtastic said:


> I don't think that's the case with all 4k displays. As some have said around here select Samsung models will display in 4K3D SbSh so each eye will get 1920x2160. I have no way to confirm that, just what some are claiming because they have tested it, or so they say. However, there is some 4k3D SbSh on YT right now, so those claims may be true. But yeah, from a commercial source, no. Makes no difference. There may be some games that will work with 4k3D too half-width. And when UHD-R discs arrive with authoring tools they should be able to view in UHD SbSh, if what they're claiming about these Samsung models is true. Myself, I'll just wait tell full 4k3d is available.


I also believe that 4K3D will eventually be available. But the question was limited to halving the vertical resolution from passive, not the SBS vs OU hooey. That business is a simple fact of life for all 3D.

BTW, the lack of 4K3D in the standard affects streaming as well. If a BDP is has a YT app, it'll be accessing YT and not be allowed to send 4K3D (no matter who concocted it), because there will simply be no protocol to send it to the TV. Correct?


----------



## tomtastic

I guess that depends on the hardware, I think from a PC source, as long as you have the appropriate GPU that can push 3820x2160 it's not an issue. Right now you can output from Sony Vegas Pro a SbSh 3820x2160 file which would yield 1920x2160 to each eye, assuming you have the right Samsung display (and that they do indeed deliver 4k3D half-width and it hasn't been misinterpreted). 

I would imagine you would know when you view it, the extra resolution from a true 4k source, would become apparent. But a SbSh file would not half the vertical resolution, it would still be 2160p to each eye, but half-width at only 1920x2160 to each eye. I've done a lot of comparing with my LG which can only display 960x540p to each eye from Blu ray vs a SbSh file which is 960x1080p to each eye, no difference since the TV cuts half the vertical resolution anyway here, so when viewing on a passive screen, from Blu ray or SbSh, they appear identical. If I were to cut the vertical resolution again down for the output file to 1920x540p I would gather it would look identical as well on that same LG since it disregards half the lines to each eye.

On my active PJ, it can do 1080p to each eye so it would be more apparent if it's only 960x540p file but I've compared 960x1080p(a single 1920x1080 SbSh frame) vs full 1920x1080p MVC to each eye from the Blu ray, and I can't really tell the difference. I would estimate that with 4k3D half-width and full 4k3D I wouldn't notice the difference either, but I can't test that theory yet.


----------



## Don Landis

Isn't it ironic that the thread is asking if 3D is dead yet this thread is the most alive topic of discussion in the entire forum section, ever?

I don't think it is because 3D IS dead, it's because there is so much interest in 3D that this thread has accumulated so much off question discussion which tells me 3D is alive and active, not just in the theaters, but also among us enthusiasts.


----------



## tomtastic

You know, it _is_ the most active thread. At first glance, one might expect it to be an anti-3D thread, but if anything: it's had the opposite effect. It's kind of a catch all for anything 3D but there is still talk about 3D's future and present state which I believe should be the main focus, but if you feel the need to expand beyond the topic I can't see that it would hurt. 

I remember I asked it originally myself because I was considering getting into 3D filming vs sticking with traditional 2D, which is why I made the post, not because I was a 3D hater, just wanted to get a feel for what everyone thought about the state of 3D at the time before I dove in. If 3D was going to die in the next year or two, I would have stuck with 2D. Of course, no way to really know that except a gut feeling. And here it is, 2 years later, not dead yet. This thread does bring in haters but it brings in enthusiasts too that love to share what they love about 3D. One thing though, I have given up trying to understand why so many that hate something spend so much time dwelling on it and convincing others. Go back to what you love and leave 3D to those who enjoy it!


----------



## Franchot

Is 3D still in its death throes?

This year I added many more 3D movies to my collection:

Jurassic World
Avengers: Age of Ultron
San Andreas
Terminator: Genisys
Inside Out
Home
Enchanted Kingdom
Mad Max: Fury Road
Seventh Son
Jupiter Ascending
SpongeBob Movie
Insurgent
Poltergeist
Pixels
The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies

And pre-ordered so far:

Ant-man
Minions
Pan
The Walk
Everest

If 3D movies were _thriving_, I'd be broke!


----------



## NorthSky

*It's alive!*



Don Landis said:


> Isn't it ironic that the thread is asking if 3D is dead yet this thread is the most alive topic of discussion in the entire forum section, ever?
> 
> I don't think it is because 3D IS dead, it's because there is so much interest in 3D that this thread has accumulated so much off question discussion which tells me 3D is alive and active, not just in the theaters, but also among us enthusiasts.


Of course it's alive; 3D is the most alive thing since cheese. It's more alive than UHD. 

____________


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> You know, it *is* the most active thread. At first glance, one might expect it to be an anti-3D thread, but if anything: it's had the opposite effect. It's kind of a catch all for anything 3D but there is still talk about 3D's future and present state which I believe should be the main focus, but if you feel the need to expand beyond the topic I can't see that it would hurt.


♦ I totally agree @ 100% 



> I remember I asked it originally myself because I was considering getting into 3D filming vs sticking with traditional 2D, which is why I made the post, not because I was a 3D hater, just wanted to get a feel for what everyone thought about the state of 3D at the time before I dove in. If 3D was going to die in the next year or two, I would have stuck with 2D. Of course, no way to really know that except a gut feeling. And here it is, 2 years later, not dead yet. This thread does bring in haters but it brings in enthusiasts too that love to share what they love about 3D. One thing though, I have given up trying to understand why so many that hate something spend so much time dwelling on it and convincing others. Go back to what you love and leave 3D to those who enjoy it!


♦ I wonder who was the nice young fellow that started this cool (((3D))) thread?  ...Could it have been you, the *Thread Starter*. :nerd:



Franchot said:


> Is 3D still in its death throes?
> 
> This year I added many more 3D movies to my collection:
> 
> *1.Jurassic World
> 2. Avengers: Age of Ultron
> 3. San Andreas
> 4. Terminator: Genisys
> 5. Inside Out
> 6. Home
> 7. Enchanted Kingdom
> 8. Mad Max: Fury Road
> 9. Seventh Son
> 10. Jupiter Ascending
> 11. SpongeBob Movie
> 12. Insurgent
> 13. Poltergeist
> 14. Pixels
> 15. The Hobbit: Battle of Five Armies*


♦ Of the fifteen BR 3D titles above only two aren't in my collection, yet. ...But they will eventually. ...Christmas 3D is next month. 



> And pre-ordered so far:
> 
> *1. Ant-man
> 2. Minions
> 3. Pan
> 4. The Walk
> 5. Everest*
> 
> If 3D movies were _thriving_, I'd be broke!


♦ Them five are sure to be part of my BR 3D collection. ...Can't wait for *'The Walk'*, and *'The Martian'* 3D on Blu.


----------



## mars5l

I hate having to wait 3 or 4 months after a movie hits theaters for it finally come out on bluray


----------



## Franchot

NorthSky said:


> ♦ Them five are sure to be part of my BR 3D collection. ...Can't wait for *'The Walk'*, and *'The Martian'* 3D on Blu.


Yes!!!! *The Martian*! 

The one I'm looking forward to the most...but no pre-order yet at Amazon...(just Best Buy.)

Edit: Well what do you know? The Martian gets a pre-order page at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Martian-3...65953&creativeASIN=B01866YS0M&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER

(But I'll wait for a better price. Fifty clams is too much!)


----------



## NorthSky

mars5l said:


> I hate having to wait 3 or 4 months after a movie hits theaters for it finally come out on bluray


I agree; it should be more like *3 or 4 weeks*, @ most, after it hits the theaters. :smile:


----------



## NorthSky

Franchot said:


> Yes!!!! *The Martian*!
> 
> The one I'm looking forward to the most...but no pre-order yet at Amazon...(just Best Buy.)


How could you have omitted it from your 3D BR list? :eeksurprise: ...Should you get spanked? :serious::grin:

... _The Force Awakens_


----------



## therealdjnugz

NorthSky said:


> How could you have omitted it from your 3D BR list? :eeksurprise: ...Should you get spanked? :serious::grin:
> 
> ... _The Force Awakens_


I'm really REALLY excited for The Martian in 3d to hit shelves. 2 more months!


----------



## Franchot

NorthSky said:


> How could you have omitted it from your 3D BR list? :eeksurprise: ...Should you get spanked? :serious::grin:
> 
> ... _The Force Awakens_


Yes! I'll have my wife spank me tonight! :wink:

No pre-order yet for_ The Force Awakens_, of course. When does it get its first showing in a movie theater...and who gets it first--overseas or the U.S.?


----------



## therealdjnugz

Franchot said:


> Yes!!!! *The Martian*!
> 
> The one I'm looking forward to the most...but no pre-order yet at Amazon...(just Best Buy.)
> 
> Edit: Well what do you know? The Martian gets a pre-order page at Amazon:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Martian-3...65953&creativeASIN=B01866YS0M&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER
> 
> (But I'll wait for a better price. Fifty clams is too much!)


You can preorder it now. Amazon charges the smallest price it dips down to between the time you preorder and when it ships. It's not often but sometimes the price dips lower than the price when it's released, and you'd pay that lower price. I always find it odd some blurays show crazy prices like $50, when we all know it'll probably be $25-$28 when it's released.


----------



## johnny905

mars5l said:


> I hate having to wait 3 or 4 months after a movie hits theaters for it finally come out on bluray


This one's being released just a couple weeks after hitting theaters, but not sure it's on my "must see" list...

-------------------------------

On December 15th you will only see the activity in 3D on 3DGO!
Paranormal Activity:The Ghost Dimension
Exclusively available in 3D on 3DGO!, not on Blu-ray, not anywhere and just weeks from its release in theaters, this haunting thriller is the first of the series to be filmed in 3D, bringing you close to the terror as a family tries to protect their daughter from an evil entity.
But you can’t save them. All you can do is watch…
Beginning December 15th on 3DGO!
Make your movie night special. Make it a 3D movie night!


----------



## NorthSky

Franchot said:


> No pre-order yet for *Star Wars: The Force Awakens (((3D)))*, of course.
> When does it get its first showing in a movie theater...and who gets it first--overseas or the U.S.?


♦ *December 18, 2015* - Worldwide...Canada, USA, ...all over the galaxy: http://www.starwars.com/news/event_category/release-dates


----------



## mars5l

johnny905 said:


> This one's being released just a couple weeks after hitting theaters, but not sure it's on my "must see" list...
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> On December 15th you will only see the activity in 3D on 3DGO!
> Paranormal Activity:The Ghost Dimension
> Exclusively available in 3D on 3DGO!, not on Blu-ray, not anywhere and just weeks from its release in theaters, this haunting thriller is the first of the series to be filmed in 3D, bringing you close to the terror as a family tries to protect their daughter from an evil entity.
> But you can’t save them. All you can do is watch…
> Beginning December 15th on 3DGO!
> Make your movie night special. Make it a 3D movie night!


I have not used 3dgo yet, I'd think id rather still get the bluray for the best quality


----------



## ZzBloopzZ

mars5l said:


> I have not used 3dgo yet, I'd think id rather still get the bluray for the best quality


Agreed.


----------



## Don Landis

I just added another 3D camera rig to my collection. With 3D GoPro getting more difficult to get, but not dead yet, here is the ultimate U/W system for 3D:

Shown with UW light and 3rd GoPro 4S for a viewfinder. And the second image is the camera with filters added for color enhancement.


----------



## cakefoo

Don Landis said:


> Isn't it ironic that the thread is asking if 3D is dead yet this thread is the most alive topic of discussion in the entire forum section, ever?
> 
> I don't think it is because 3D IS dead, it's because there is so much interest in 3D that this thread has accumulated so much off question discussion which tells me 3D is alive and active, not just in the theaters, but also among us enthusiasts.


2,257 posts over a 759-day lifespan averages out to just 3 messages per day. 2 people have almost as many posts as the #3-11 posters, and the top 11 posters account for over half of all posts in this thread.

And look at what you're comparing it against: With only one active topic per day in this subforum, and even less activity in the other 3D subforums, I wouldn't say that 3D is alive and active among enthusiasts.


----------



## johnny905

mars5l said:


> I have not used 3dgo yet, I'd think id rather still get the bluray for the best quality


I used to be that way as well, but with 3DGO I figured the cost savings was worth it, especially for movies I'll likely only ever watch once. I have a whole tower of 3D movies collecting dust that can back that up. Plus, with movies like Paranormal and Hondo, it seems like more and more films are 3DGO exclusives these days if you want to watch them in 3D at home. I tend to be 50/50 these days on blu-ray vs. 3DGO. For example, I rented Inside Out last week and will likely rent Terminator this weekend, but Mad Max I'll be picking up on Blu-Ray soon based on the reviews I've read.

As far as picture quality, I'm sure 3DGO's streaming isn't technically as good as blu-ray, but I'd be hard pressed to see the difference in most cases. They have a bunch of free trailers and stuff on their app, feel free to check it out and see what you think if it's available on your TV.


----------



## turls

therealdjnugz said:


> You can preorder it now. Amazon charges the smallest price it dips down to between the time you preorder and when it ships. It's not often but sometimes the price dips lower than the price when it's released, and you'd pay that lower price. I always find it odd some blurays show crazy prices like $50, when we all know it'll probably be $25-$28 when it's released.


He has every 3D Blu that has come out, you'd think that would be common knowledge...

that being said I always cancel my pre-order and re-order if I see a much lower price or a price I think will be the lowest because I don't trust Amazon to give me a lower price than the release price.


----------



## turls

johnny905 said:


> This one's being released just a couple weeks after hitting theaters, but not sure it's on my "must see" list...
> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> On December 15th you will only see the activity in 3D on 3DGO!
> Paranormal Activity:The Ghost Dimension
> Exclusively available in 3D on 3DGO!, not on Blu-ray, not anywhere and just weeks from its release in theaters, this haunting thriller is the first of the series to be filmed in 3D, bringing you close to the terror as a family tries to protect their daughter from an evil entity.
> But you can’t save them. All you can do is watch…
> Beginning December 15th on 3DGO!
> Make your movie night special. Make it a 3D movie night!
> [/URL]


This is just dumb. If you can't even get 3DGO on any external box like Roku or Fire TV, it shouldn't be an exclusive.


----------



## film113

turls said:


> This is just dumb. If you can't even get 3DGO on any external box like Roku or Fire TV, it shouldn't be an exclusive.


Yep. Neither my LG 3D set or flagship Sony 3D BD player contain this app. So I guess I'm forced to rent or buy on BD!


----------



## film113

Franchot said:


> Is 3D still in its death throes?
> And pre-ordered so far:
> 
> Ant-man
> Minions
> Pan
> The Walk
> Everest
> 
> If 3D movies were _thriving_, I'd be broke!


I'm in the same boat, although not for MINIONS. Instead, I'm going for THE MASK, GOG, and Twilight Time's CAPT HARLOCK: SPACE PIRATE


----------



## mo949

The Martian, Walk, Everest, JW, and Pan are the ones I'm looking forward to soon. I'm done with the marvel stuff. I really want more movies like Titanic in 3D that blend drama, period settings, and cinematic views into the 3D world.


----------



## johnny905

film113 said:


> Yep. Neither my LG 3D set or flagship Sony 3D BD player contain this app. So I guess I'm forced to rent or buy on BD!


That would be fine, except it doesn't sound like Paranormal 3D will be released on Blu-Ray. Maybe overseas? I don't know.

"Exclusively available in 3D on 3DGO!, not on Blu-ray, not anywhere and just weeks from its release in theaters, this haunting thriller is the first of the series to be filmed in 3D, bringing you close to the terror as a family tries to protect their daughter from an evil entity."

film113 - Is your LG pre-2012? Otherwise I thought all LG 3D sets had the app...


----------



## mars5l

Is 3dgo on Samsung uhd tvs?


----------



## johnny905

mars5l said:


> Is 3dgo on Samsung uhd tvs?


3DGO should be on all Samsung, LG, Panasonic and Vizio 3DTVs. At least those made in the last 3-4 years. So I would suspect any Samsung UHD 3DTV should have it.


----------



## film113

johnny905 said:


> That would be fine, except it doesn't sound like Paranormal 3D will be released on Blu-Ray. Maybe overseas? I don't know.
> 
> "Exclusively available in 3D on 3DGO!, not on Blu-ray, not anywhere and just weeks from its release in theaters, this haunting thriller is the first of the series to be filmed in 3D, bringing you close to the terror as a family tries to protect their daughter from an evil entity."
> 
> film113 - Is your LG pre-2012? Otherwise I thought all LG 3D sets had the app...


Don't go by advertising, as I'm fairly sure that it will be on 3D BD here in the states. Gotta read ads carefully...it only means that it is not available on BD_ right now_. Neither is the 2D...doesn't mean it's not coming.

My set was made in Oct 2011, just months before 2012. You'd think that 3DGO would want o be on all 3D sets. Guess not.


----------



## azz7686

I have a samsung and its on mine fyi!


----------



## marcuslaw

For anyone interested, amazon has again dropped the price down to $19 on the Panasonic VIERA TY-ER3D4MU Active Shutter 3D Eyewear which are Full HD 3D Glasses Standard Compatible and so should work with just about any active shutter TV that communicates with glasses via Bluetooth. It's a good time to stock up on an extra pair or two . . . just in case.

Update: Unlike previous price drops, there doesn't seem to a limit of one per customer. I successfully ordered two pair.


----------



## johnny905

film113 said:


> Don't go by advertising, as I'm fairly sure that it will be on 3D BD here in the states. Gotta read ads carefully...it only means that it is not available on BD_ right now_. Neither is the 2D...doesn't mean it's not coming.


Hmmm, I don't know about that. I think the wording was pretty clear that it won't be available on 3D blu-ray disc in the US any time soon. What makes you think otherwise? Plus I only see 2D available for pre-order at amazon.com yet 3DGO! has announced Paranormal Ghost Dimension 3D will be available for streaming next week (December 15).


----------



## tomtastic

cakefoo said:


> 2,257 posts over a 759-day lifespan averages out to just 3 messages per day. 2 people have almost as many posts as the #3-11 posters, and the top 11 posters account for over half of all posts in this thread.
> 
> And look at what you're comparing it against: With only one active topic per day in this subforum, and even less activity in the other 3D subforums, I wouldn't say that 3D is alive and active among enthusiasts.


It's because we're too busy watching 3D, not posting here online.  I'm actually surprised there's this much online activity for a niche format. And when movies come out in theater, that's when everyone becomes a 3D fan. How else could they still be selling 3D tickets? Just wish they'd stop charging more for it, then more would watch in 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> It's because we're too busy watching 3D, not posting here online.  I'm actually surprised there's this much online activity for a niche format. And when movies come out in theater, that's when everyone becomes a 3D fan. How else could they still be selling 3D tickets? Just wish they'd stop charging more for it, then more would watch in 3D.


It's only a dollar extra here. I don't think people aren't seeing 3D in the theater because of an extra dollar.


----------



## film113

johnny905 said:


> Hmmm, I don't know about that. I think the wording was pretty clear that it won't be available on 3D blu-ray disc in the US any time soon. What makes you think otherwise? Plus I only see 2D available for pre-order at amazon.com yet 3DGO! has announced Paranormal Ghost Dimension 3D will be available for streaming next week (December 15).


Here is the Amazon pre-order. Scheduled for 01/12/16 (Price will drop by release date.) Plus, the included 2D BD should also feature an extended cut.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...t Dimension&qid=1449642446&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1


----------



## EVERRET

film113 said:


> Here is the Amazon pre-order. Scheduled for 01/12/16 (Price will drop by release date.) Plus, the included 2D BD should also an extended cut.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...t Dimension&qid=1449642446&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1


Also Best Buy http://www.bestbuy.com/site/paranor...D=1&siteID=f7sX52tQY3I-JUEUoKDKX5xqHzoryi46bg


----------



## EVERRET

aaronwt said:


> *It's only a dollar extra here*. I don't think people aren't seeing 3D in the theater because of an extra dollar.


Where ? What theater ?


----------



## cakefoo

tomtastic said:


> It's because we're too busy watching 3D, not posting here online.


By that logic you must be pretty bored of 3D.



> And when movies come out in theater, that's when everyone becomes a 3D fan. How else could they still be selling 3D tickets?


In post #1 , you focused a lot on the home 3D aspect. The content that we do get is just mirroring what came out in theaters. And if you're like me, and *only reward creators who actually TRY to incorporate 3D into the story and not just as another Michael Bay effect*, then you're only getting maybe 3 or 4 worthwhile movies a year, for a total of 6-8 hours of annual usage. Therefore, I'm not willing to re-buy a 3DTV and spend $100+ a year on 3D Blu-rays, when I can get the same content in theaters for $14 a pop, maybe 3-4 times a year.


----------



## johnny905

film113 said:


> Here is the Amazon pre-order. Scheduled for 01/12/16 (Price will drop by release date.) Plus, the included 2D BD should also feature an extended cut.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...t Dimension&qid=1449642446&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1


Interesting. I don't recall seeing 3D releases being delayed a month after 2D releases for other movies in the past. Any idea why they would do that? Or why they would release the 3D to a streaming app like 3DGO a month before it comes out on blu-ray?


----------



## aaronwt

EVERRET said:


> Where ? What theater ?


AMC theaters.


----------



## aaronwt

johnny905 said:


> Interesting. I don't recall seeing 3D releases being delayed a month after 2D releases for other movies in the past. Any idea why they would do that? Or why they would release the 3D to a streaming app like 3DGO a month before it comes out on blu-ray?


They have been releasing digital versions of 2D titles up to a month before the disc release for a long time now. So it just sounds like now they are starting to do the same thing with 3D titles.


----------



## johnny905

cakefoo said:


> And if you're like me, and *only reward creators who actually TRY to incorporate 3D into the story and not just as another Michael Bay effect*, then you're only getting maybe 3 or 4 worthwhile movies a year, for a total of 6-8 hours of annual usage. Therefore, I'm not willing to re-buy a 3DTV and spend $100+ a year on 3D Blu-rays, when I can get the same content in theaters for $14 a pop, maybe 3-4 times a year.


Are you going to see Ron Howard's In The Heart of the Sea? I had never even heard of it before, but just saw the trailer on 3DGO today and the 3D looks really, really good. Like every shot was planned for 3D. It opens in North America tomorrow, but unfortunately it's not likely the type of movie that will beat any box office records imo, even though it looks like an expensive movie to make.


----------



## marcuslaw

cakefoo said:


> The content that we do get is just mirroring what came out in theaters.


Isn't that true of all home video? Regardless, many of us prefer the in-home viewing experience over the theater (save for the occasional IMAX film) at least in so far as PQ and audio is concerned. IMO, films, particularly 3-D ones, look and sound far better on my system. Moreover, my family and I are way more comfortable watching them at home due to not having to commute to a theater, having a pause button, clean bathrooms, no glowing cell phones, no B/O from people around you, no obnoxious teens and non-escorted tweeners, no screen defects, no fear of head lice from back of your seat, less concern over getting gunned down, etc.). 



> And if you're like me, and *only reward creators who actually TRY to incorporate 3D into the story and not just as another Michael Bay effect*, then you're only getting maybe 3 or 4 worthwhile movies a year, for a total of 6-8 hours of annual usage.


We can agree to disagree on the quantity of "worthwhile" 3-D Blu-ray films. IMO, there are more good 3-D movies than your estimate. Incidentally, there are also many good 3-D non-full length releases both foreign and domestic. All in all, much more than 6-8 hours. 



> Therefore, I'm not willing to re-buy a 3DTV and spend $100+ a year on 3D Blu-rays, when I can get the same content in theaters for $14 a pop, maybe 3-4 times a year.


Once again, you value the theater experience more. That's your prerogative. My system and the comforts of my home are well any costs over matinee ticket prices.


----------



## film113

johnny905 said:


> Interesting. I don't recall seeing 3D releases being delayed a month after 2D releases for other movies in the past. Any idea why they would do that? Or why they would release the 3D to a streaming app like 3DGO a month before it comes out on blu-ray?


Well, it's not just the 3D version...the 2D versions get delayed too. They are trying to force people to not buy discs and instead switch to streaming (more expensive purchase for lesser quality). In this case, Paramount had made a deal to release some movies for home viewing just weeks after the theatrical. This has some theater owners upset, of course. PA is one of those films and SCOUTS GUIDE TO THE APOCALYPSE is another.


----------



## tomtastic

cakefoo said:


> By that logic you must be pretty bored of 3D.


How do you figure? I don't post that often in this (content) section save for what I'm watching which I haven't posted my recent viewings for the past 3 months. I visit the 3D developer threads mostly but that's to stay up to date on my filming needs.



cakefoo said:


> In post #1 , you focused a lot on the home 3D aspect. The content that we do get is just mirroring what came out in theaters. And if you're like me, and *only reward creators who actually TRY to incorporate 3D into the story and not just as another Michael Bay effect*, then you're only getting maybe 3 or 4 worthwhile movies a year, for a total of 6-8 hours of annual usage. Therefore, I'm not willing to re-buy a 3DTV and spend $100+ a year on 3D Blu-rays, when I can get the same content in theaters for $14 a pop, maybe 3-4 times a year.


Most who will see 3D content will see it in theater, once (maybe more for Star Wars). I think it costs 3 dollars more per ticket for 3D here and even more for IMAX. If people had the choice without paying more 3D would have a better chance. For home viewing, the added cost in technology shouldn't up the price at all. The cost of rendering out and replicating 3D discs shouldn't be any more than 2D by now.

Yes, the Marvel type 3D movies, I consider those low grade 3D movies, converted 3D isn't great, but with so much CGI, I don't know the answer there. I'll still watch them in 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> How do you figure? I don't post that often in this (content) section save for what I'm watching which I haven't posted my recent viewings for the past 3 months. I visit the 3D developer threads mostly but that's to stay up to date on my filming needs.
> 
> 
> 
> Most who will see 3D content will see it in theater, once (maybe more for Star Wars). I think it costs 3 dollars more per ticket for 3D here and even more for IMAX. If people had the choice without paying more 3D would have a better chance. For home viewing, the added cost in technology shouldn't up the price at all. The cost of rendering out and replicating 3D discs shouldn't be any more than 2D by now.
> 
> Yes, the Marvel type 3D movies, I consider those low grade 3D movies, converted 3D isn't great, but with so much CGI, I don't know the answer there. I'll still watch them in 3D.


How many movies are shot in 3D? is it even 5%? I thought the vast majority of 3D movies are post converted like the Marvel movies?


----------



## johnny905

aaronwt said:


> How many movies are shot in 3D? is it even 5%? I thought the vast majority of 3D movies are post converted like the Marvel movies?


Some of the post conversions are definitely worth watching. Titanic and Jurassic Park are 2 that immediately come to mind.


----------



## cakefoo

marcuslaw said:


> Isn't that true of all home video?


There are hundreds of 2D feature films released each year, and the variety is very broad. There are also tons of new TV episodes and live broadcasts. And Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, cable, etc. The 3D library is relatively small and acquiring content can be pretty expensive.



> We can agree to disagree on the quantity of "worthwhile" 3-D Blu-ray films. IMO, there are more good 3-D movies than your estimate. Incidentally, there are also many good 3-D non-full length releases both foreign and domestic. All in all, much more than 6-8 hours.


I used to actively seek out 3D movies up til a year or two after Avatar, but I just don't care enough for most of the movies that get 3D versions anymore. My tastes changed, matured even, no insult intended. I care more about how the story, script etc resonate with me, than how eye-popping and ear-pounding the experience is.



johnny905 said:


> Are you going to see Ron Howard's In The Heart of the Sea? I had never even heard of it before, but just saw the trailer on 3DGO today and the 3D looks really, really good. Like every shot was planned for 3D. It opens in North America tomorrow, but unfortunately it's not likely the type of movie that will beat any box office records imo, even though it looks like an expensive movie to make.


I have an unexplainable ability to watch a 2D trailer and feel out the 3D. Movies like Life of Pi, Hugo, Great Gatsby, Avatar, Gravity, The Walk, etc, have a 3D feel to them not present in the trailer for In the Heart of the Sea.



tomtastic said:


> How do you figure? I don't post that often in this (content) section save for what I'm watching which I haven't posted my recent viewings for the past 3 months. I visit the 3D developer threads mostly but that's to stay up to date on my filming needs.


I was being facetious-- you said the reason this forum is such a ghost town is because people are busy watching 3D. Which is contrary to the impression I get: that the more interested you are, the more you post about it.



> Most who will see 3D content will see it in theater, once (maybe more for Star Wars). I think it costs 3 dollars more per ticket for 3D here and even more for IMAX. If people had the choice without paying more 3D would have a better chance. For home viewing, the added cost in technology shouldn't up the price at all. The cost of rendering out and replicating 3D discs shouldn't be any more than 2D by now.


Cost to press a disc has nothing to do with market value. You're paying for the experience, not just the plastic.


----------



## EVERRET

aaronwt said:


> AMC theaters.


https://www.amctheatres.com/movie-theatres/washington-d-c/amc-potomac-mills-18

12/10/15 

The Good Dinosaur - 
Adult 3D $16.50 / 2D $12.59..... Difference - $4 
Child 3D $13.59 / 2D $9.59 ...... Difference - $4 

Heart Of The Sea -
Adult IMAX 3D $18.59 / RealD 3D $16.59 / 2D $12.59 ........ Difference - $4-$6
Child IMAX 3D $13.59 / RealD 3D $ 13.59 / 2D $9.59........... Difference - $4-$6

*(comparing "similar evening showtimes" in your area for 12/10/15 ) *

Originally Posted by *aaronwt*  
_*It's only a dollar extra here*. I don't think people aren't seeing 3D in the theater because of an extra dollar.

They are not paying a dollar extra there ...... *they are paying a extra four to six dollars* just to see it in bold futuristic 3D instead of flat cheap 2D. 

On 12/10/15 - The first showing (11:30 am) of the good dinosaur in 2D is $6.29 ...... that's still not cheap enough to not watch the 3D version instead . 

_


----------



## EVERRET

*The Force Awakens*

*http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...d/news-story/cf82b958e7f1dc7b6823202129ffe5f5
*

*AP: What do you think is the ideal way to watch The Force Awakens?*
*ABRAMS:* "As someone who really hasn’t been the most vocal advocate of 3-D, the strangest thing happened to me on this. When I was watching the reels in 3-D, there were a number of shots — and I know this sounds insane — that I hadn’t understood in the three-dimensional space quite the way I did when I saw them in 3-D. I actually felt that there were things that were playing better in 3-D. I had never felt that before. And if people have access to a theatre that has laser projection, it is shockingly better."


My advise : Find the biggest brightest 3D Screen in your area ... and bring your own 3D glasses, don't use the cheap theater glasses.


----------



## aaronwt

EVERRET said:


> https://www.amctheatres.com/movie-theatres/washington-d-c/amc-potomac-mills-18
> 
> 12/10/15
> 
> The Good Dinosaur -
> Adult 3D $16.50 / 2D $12.59..... Difference - $4
> Child 3D $13.59 / 2D $9.59 ...... Difference - $4
> 
> Heart Of The Sea -
> Adult IMAX 3D $18.59 / RealD 3D $16.59 / 2D $12.59 ........ Difference - $4-$6
> Child IMAX 3D $13.59 / RealD 3D $ 13.59 / 2D $9.59........... Difference - $4-$6
> 
> *(comparing "similar evening showtimes" in your area for 12/10/15 ) *
> 
> Originally Posted by *aaronwt*
> _*It's only a dollar extra here*. I don't think people aren't seeing 3D in the theater because of an extra dollar.
> 
> They are not paying a dollar extra there ...... *they are paying a extra four to six dollars* just to see it in bold futuristic 3D instead of flat cheap 2D.
> 
> On 12/10/15 - The first showing (11:30 am) of the good dinosaur in 2D is $6.29 ...... that's still not cheap enough to not watch the 3D version instead .
> 
> _


Those prices are not right. I just looked. The Heart of the Sea is $17.59 for IMAX 2D and $18.59 for IMAX 3D. $1 difference. I saw The Hunger Games in IMAX last night and the cost was $17.59 for the 2D ticket. No idea about childs prices or Real 3D since I don't have kids or go to the Real 3D showings. The last one I went to was MAd MAx and it was one of the worst experiences for me in the theater for 3D or 2D. The video and audio quality was crap. At home in 3D the movie was excellent. So I typically avoid the Real3D showings. Another crappy experience was The Hobbitt in Real3D.

When I go to the AMC theater I either go by myself at night, to the IMAX theater, when it isn't busy(I was the only one watching last night during the Hunger Games). Or when I go with my GF we go to Shows that start before noon so the price is only around $6.50.


----------



## tomtastic

cakefoo said:


> I was being facetious-- you said the reason this forum is such a ghost town is because people are busy watching 3D. Which is contrary to the impression I get: that the more interested you are, the more you post about it.
> 
> Cost to press a disc has nothing to do with market value. You're paying for the experience, not just the plastic.


In turn, my comment was a joke, in case you didn't catch that. But it could work both ways. Some post a lot, maybe they have the time, I don't know everyone's habits. But getting back to your comment that "X" number of posts per day indicates a low interest in 3D, makes no sense. 3D is niche, the fact that there's even a dedicated section for it here at AVS is enough to suggest that it's an important viewing experience.

Yes, they've retained the IMAX experience for 3D and are still charging more for it. It used to make sense to do that, but the way I see it, by now, and especially if 3D sales start to slip and for some movies: they have, why give the customer the chance to watch it in 2D for less? Because they'll pay more for 3D? 3D interest may not hold for too long. People are divided on it. They're seeing the same movie too whether it's 2D or 3D. 

So it's the experience, but at a significant increase in cost. At my theater I think it's 3.00 more, so 13.00 instead of 10.00. And if you want IMAX, hold onto your popcorn it's 16.00 (13.00 for 2D IMAX). And that gets passed onto the Blu ray release. At Best Buy they're still selling 3D Thor retail for 37.99!, 2D disc is 19.99. Yes, that's just one example, and you can get it cheaper elsewhere. Still the cost difference is a lot looking at retail prices. Avengers Ultron is 29.99 for 3D and 23.99 for 2D. 6.00 difference. And this pricing scheme follows online and in the resale markets. It may be easier to know the difference in cost of production with a converted title, since they write a check for it for the conversion work, but native filmed movies, it's really getting easier and easier and requiring less people involved. 

I read The Good Dinosaur, which is panning out to be the first Pixar bomb, they spent 200m on production and 150m on advertising. When you look at what studios spend on advertising, should they charge more for tickets because they showed a primetime ad for their movie five nights a week for 3 weeks? The cost comparison between converting a movie and not doesn't add 1.3 times the cost (comparing tickets sales 10.00 to 13.00). Again, 3D conversion costs a drop in the bucket compared to advertising. And this is why I think some 3D movies are just 3D because it's the super size effect. Give the customer something more and they'll pay more. It doesn't always mean it's a good experience.

In a previous post someone said that native films accounted for only 5% of 3D movies released? Looking here, up until 2015 it was something like 2:1 native to converted, this year it's the other way around. Hopefully, it's not a new trend. Some converted movies work. It helps when the movie has the "better in 3D" feel to it and certain movies do. This year, "Everest" a converted title looks like it will be better in 3D. Jurassic Park, certainly, but the 3D felt flat to me. San Andreas, flat, Mad Max, better, to me the 3D wasn't that impressive but it was there. I'll probably always watch it in 3D. But if they had filmed some of it in 3D, I can only imagine how much better it would be. Star Wars, I don't know. Abrams has never been a supporter of 3D but it might work. I'll probably wait for the Blu ray release.


----------



## EVERRET

aaronwt said:


> Those prices are not right. I just looked. The Heart of the Sea is $17.59 for IMAX 2D and $18.59 for IMAX 3D. $1 difference. I saw The Hunger Games in IMAX last night and the cost was $17.59 for the 2D ticket. No idea about childs prices or Real 3D since I don't have kids or go to the Real 3D showings. The last one I went to was MAd MAx and it was one of the worst experiences for me in the theater for 3D or 2D. The video and audio quality was crap. At home in 3D the movie was excellent. So I typically avoid the Real3D showings. Another crappy experience was The Hobbitt in Real3D.
> 
> When I go to the AMC theater I either go by myself at night, to the IMAX theater, when it isn't busy(I was the only one watching last night during the Hunger Games). Or when I go with my GF we go to Shows that start before noon so the price is only around $6.50.



I got those prices from this page for Thursday - https://www.amctheatres.com/movies/in-the-heart-of-the-sea
7pm 3d IMAX - 8pm RealD - 9pm 2D 

I agree 100% about RealD projection , If it's not bright enough or clear enough it's hardly even watchable , especially when you know how it should be.


----------



## NorthSky

Here on the island where I live, @ the local IMAX theaters in Victoria, a good 3D movie is about $20 total with the tax. 
...A dollar or two less, depending; for an adult. 

When I buy a good 3D Blu-ray movie; from Disney or Warner, ...with tax I pay $35-40 on average. ...So roughly twice what I pay @ my local 3D IMAX theater. But with the gas to get there and back, and if I eat over there; it roughly comes to the same price. 

@ the end, it's the 3D journey that counts.

♦ Last word: Native 3D (filmed with 3D cameras, and planned for 3D best presentation, with intelligent technological experience) is the very best.


----------



## marcuslaw

EVERRET said:


> *http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...d/news-story/cf82b958e7f1dc7b6823202129ffe5f5
> *
> 
> *AP: What do you think is the ideal way to watch The Force Awakens?*
> *ABRAMS:* "As someone who really hasn’t been the most vocal advocate of 3-D, the strangest thing happened to me on this. When I was watching the reels in 3-D, there were a number of shots — and I know this sounds insane — that I hadn’t understood in the three-dimensional space quite the way I did when I saw them in 3-D. I actually felt that there were things that were playing better in 3-D. I had never felt that before. And if people have access to a theatre that has laser projection, it is shockingly better."


Wow. Disney will have a hard time explaining if they don't someday release this in 3-D on Blu-ray (UHD no less).


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> Wow. Disney will have a hard time explaining if they don't someday release this in 3-D on Blu-ray (UHD no less).


DIsney is still releasing the Marvel titles in 3D. I got Ant-MAn in 3D for only $15 this week(after $5 back in Reward Dollars at BestBuy). And best of all there is no DVD with it. Just the 2D BD and 3D BD. I wish all releases would do this.


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> DIsney is still releasing the Marvel titles in 3D. I got Ant-MAn in 3D for only $15 this week(after $5 back in Reward Dollars at BestBuy). And best of all there is no DVD with it. Just the 2D BD and 3D BD. I wish all releases would do this.


That film's director also underwent a 3-D conversion (pun intended) of sorts. Time mag quoted Reed as saying:



> I’ve traditionally not been a huge 3D fan. I’ve seen all the 3D movies, but this movie really felt like it organically lent itself to 3D, just because we’re dealing with issues of scale and perspective, and shallow depth of field—things like that. I love the movie in 3D. Honestly, I wasn’t sure I was gonna say that. I really wanted it to be a strong 3D movie, but I was really pleased to see the final results.


----------



## mo949

Force Awakens will only be at its fullest in IMAX 3D. It better darn well be available on 3D blu with any IMAX aspect ratios as well!


----------



## R Harkness

I had been starting to get into 3D more and more on my JVC projector. And when I buy a title, if it has a 3D version I get that one.

JVC has just introduced new, much brighter projectors and the 3D fanatics on the projector forum are saying that cross-talk and artifacts are now so much improved, that combined with the brightness and incredible contrast, it's the best projected 3D they've seen. I recently received one of the JVCs and this has me all the more stoked for 3D.

I'm really looing forward to The Martian Blu-Ray release!


----------



## cakefoo

It happens all the time: studio decides on 3D, director humbly gives 3D conversion artists a pat on the back after it's finished.

Directors who are true 3D advocates are actively endorsing it from the get-go, not just reacting to the conversion process during the final marketing stretch.


----------



## cakefoo

tomtastic said:


> In turn, my comment was a joke, in case you didn't catch that. But it could work both ways. Some post a lot, maybe they have the time, I don't know everyone's habits. But getting back to your comment that "X" number of posts per day indicates a low interest in 3D, makes no sense. 3D is niche, the fact that there's even a dedicated section for it here at AVS is enough to suggest that it's an important viewing experience.


Yes, I just disagree with the notion that was proposed about how this thread is proof that 3D is alive and well, rah rah rah, etc. It's a few enthusiasts habitually engaging in a conversation, not a barometer for 3D's commercial longevity.

From my perspective, 3DTV is facing a slump that it doesn't currently have the power to get out, but maybe glasses-free technology releases and sales pick back up?


----------



## Barry C

IMO, 3D will merrily chug along at a low but consistent level. I doubt it will contract much more or expand much more, for that matter. Not in the near future, in any event. Oh well, if every year I get to buy 3 or 4 movies I think are worth owning, that's cool. Looking forward to the Martian, next month. As for Force Awakens, I'm skeptical that Disney will release it as a 3D bluray. Hope I'm wrong. Hard to say why Disney is behaving this way. It's not as if it really costs them anymore to burn a 3D disc. Hell, I burn my own from my own projects, from time to time. It costs me all of about $1. for a blank disc. For them, it would be substantially less. They're attitude about 3D BD is quite baffling and annoying. I sure would have liked to have been able to purchase Tomorrrowland in 3D. But, it is what it is.

As for these forum threads, our opinions don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it's just nice to have a place to discuss this stuff with other 3D enthusiasts and be entertained by the 3D haters who just can't resist visiting- for reasons, I know not why.


----------



## danshane

Barry C said:


> I sure would have liked to have been able to purchase Tomorrrowland in 3D.


TOMORROWLAND was not a 3-D release at the theatres.


----------



## Barry C

danshane said:


> TOMORROWLAND was not a 3-D release at the theatres.


Dan, I believe you're mistaken. Perhaps it only was in certain areas, I can't say. But, I've actually read reviews from reviewers who saw the 3D version in theaters, and have seen pictures of the 3D poster for it.


----------



## tomtastic

Certain areas had it appranently. You can add this one to the list of "Lost 3D Films"


The Lost 3D Movie List:

Robocop (China)
Transcendence (China)
The Colony (scrapped, no release anywhere)
The Hunger Games Part 1 (China)
Tomorrowland (limited release)

Any others I'm missing?


----------



## Barry C

tomtastic said:


> Certain areas had it appranently. You can add this one to the list of "Lost 3D Films"
> 
> 
> The Lost 3D Movie List:
> 
> Robocop (China)
> Transcendence (China)
> The Colony (scrapped, no release anywhere)
> The Hunger Games Part 1 (China)
> Tomorrowland (limited release)
> 
> Any others I'm missing?


We probably could add the new Star Wars movie now- kind of get a jump on things- since it's Disney.


----------



## cakefoo

Barry C said:


> As for these forum threads, our opinions don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things, but it's just nice to have a place to discuss this stuff with other 3D enthusiasts *and be entertained by the 3D haters who just can't resist visiting- for reasons, I know not why*.


I feel like you're referring to me, but calling me a 3D hater would an inaccurate assumption. I'm just not a big fan of 95% of the movies that get 3D slapped on, and 3D is no longer something that can sell me on a movie I would otherwise not be interested in. The movie has to appeal to my tastes and I have to be convinced that the director was deeply passionate about the tool, and not just an outside observer scratching his chin going, "Neat! Good job guys. I totally didn't expect it to look this good."


----------



## Barry C

cakefoo said:


> I feel like you're referring to me, but calling me a 3D hater would an inaccurate assumption. I'm just not a big fan of 95% of the movies that get 3D slapped on, and 3D is no longer something that can sell me on a movie I would otherwise not be interested in. The movie has to appeal to my tastes and I have to be convinced that the director was deeply passionate about the tool, and not just an outside observer scratching his chin going, "Neat! Good job guys. I totally didn't expect it to look this good."


Actually, I wasn't referring to you. I often find that you make good points, even though I may not agree with you. However, I think it's fair to say that what you consider appropriate for 3D is MUCH more limited than what many of the rest of us feel is, myself included. So, hater, no. But hardly much of a fan. But, that's cool
As far as I'm concerned, we serious 3D lovers- again myself included- are sort of the leper colony of this AVS forum


----------



## santa rosa peter

The only reason there is not much chatter on this topic is because it is boring and a dead-end. If you don't like 3D, don't buy or watch them. If you DO, as I do, then congratulations because there are tons of 3D releases to watch and no apparent end to them either. It does seem like there are a lot of 3D haters populating this and other media discussion forums who just can't stand the fact that others actually enjoy 3D.


----------



## film113

tomtastic said:


> Star Wars, I don't know. Abrams has never been a supporter of 3D but it might work. I'll probably wait for the Blu ray release.


Of course, since Disney won't release 3D BDs here, it might be a long wait! (Unless Disney makes an exception, or if LucasFilm overrides Disney, as Pixar and Marvel have.)


----------



## film113

R Harkness said:


> I had been starting to get into 3D more and more on my JVC projector. And when I buy a title, if it has a 3D version I get that one.
> 
> JVC has just introduced new, much brighter projectors and the 3D fanatics on the projector forum are saying that cross-talk and artifacts are now so much improved, that combined with the brightness and incredible contrast, it's the best projected 3D they've seen. I recently received one of the JVCs and this has me all the more stoked for 3D.


Models? (I'm considering a PJ for 2016 and have been researching Epson and BenQ. If the JVC is better...)


----------



## film113

cakefoo said:


> From my perspective, 3DTV is facing a slump that it doesn't currently have the power to get out, but maybe glasses-free technology releases and sales pick back up?


I disagree...it could most certainly grow larger IF the industry ever bothered to acknowledge that it exists. With ZERO advertising (both software and hardware), it's actually doing well considering that most are unaware it exists. One person I know had a 3D-capable set but didn't know it for months. Another person with a 3D set had no idea that 3D Blu-rays were even sold. (he found out accidentally via a visit to Best Buy.) The only time 3D is advertised is for theatrical releases. (prominently displayed as "See it in IMAX 3D and RealD 3D!!!") But when the films are released on disc, no mention that 3D is available at all. More people have 3D sets than UHD sets but the business refuses to inform consumers that 3D is even an option . If current 3D sales already account for anywhere between 10% - 33% of all combined DVD/BD sales, how much better would they sell with even a small bit of advertising!


----------



## aaronwt

film113 said:


> Of course, since Disney won't release 3D BDs here, it might be a long wait! (Unless Disney makes an exception, or if LucasFilm overrides Disney, as Pixar and Marvel have.)


With as big as the Star Wars movie is, I would be surprised if it is not available in 3D when it's released on Disc. Of course you never know. Although I hope there is a version available that includes the UHD BD and a 3D BD.


----------



## R Harkness

film113 said:


> Models? (I'm considering a PJ for 2016 and have been researching Epson and BenQ. If the JVC is better...)


The new range is the RS400, RS500, RS600.

The RS400 is the bargain price. The RS500 is the "sweet spot" offering the most specs etc for the money. Check the projector forum:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/24-digital-hi-end-projectors-3-000-usd-msrp/


----------



## rfbrang

cakefoo said:


> By that logic you must be pretty bored of 3D.
> 
> In post #1 , you focused a lot on the home 3D aspect. The content that we do get is just mirroring what came out in theaters. And if you're like me, and *only reward creators who actually TRY to incorporate 3D into the story and not just as another Michael Bay effect*, then you're only getting maybe 3 or 4 worthwhile movies a year, for a total of 6-8 hours of annual usage. Therefore, I'm not willing to re-buy a 3DTV and spend $100+ a year on 3D Blu-rays, when I can get the same content in theaters for $14 a pop, maybe 3-4 times a year.


Have not read up on this thread in a while, so this might be the canned response by now... 

I agree with your sound logic. I like high quality well thought out and smooth 3D and I do vote with my wallet by buying the Blueray. However, my kids enjoy any form of 3D they can see and rewatch their movies far more than I ever will so, so we also buy them the Bluray combo pack. 

- For $30 our family of 5 can watch without breaking the bank. 
- I do not personally like the boomy sound of our local theatre, so my own home theatre configuration suits my needs better. 
- I also have the added benefit to stop a movie and give a stank eye when someone picks up their phone and starts talking...


----------



## cakefoo

rfbrang said:


> Have not read up on this thread in a while, so this might be the canned response by now...
> 
> I agree with your sound logic. I like high quality well thought out and smooth 3D and I do vote with my wallet by buying the Blueray. However, my kids enjoy any form of 3D they can see and rewatch their movies far more than I ever will so, so we also buy them the Bluray combo pack.
> 
> - For $30 our family of 5 can watch without breaking the bank.
> - I do not personally like the boomy sound of our local theatre, so my own home theatre configuration suits my needs better.
> - I also have the added benefit to stop a movie and give a stank eye when someone picks up their phone and starts talking...


Good points, it's definitely a cost-savings for familes. But there aren't a lot of families buying 3D movies at home, as evidenced by the much lower 3DBD shares of cartoons. Why that is, I don't know, but I always suspected the low shares for theatrical family-friendly cartoons was because of the multiple ticket premiums adding up. We know that's not the case though with Blu-rays, which are a flat fee. Perhaps the parents are too busy with work and kids / have too tight a budget to pursue 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

*The Force Awakens | IMAX 3D Blu-rray*



aaronwt said:


> With as big as the Star Wars movie is, I would be surprised if it is not available in 3D when it's released on Disc. Of course you never know.
> Although I hope there is a version available that includes the UHD BD and a 3D BD.


Very exact same here.


----------



## johnny905

cakefoo said:


> Good points, it's definitely a cost-savings for familes. But there aren't a lot of families buying 3D movies at home, as evidenced by the much lower 3DBD shares of cartoons. Why that is, I don't know, but I always suspected the low shares for theatrical family-friendly cartoons was because of the multiple ticket premiums adding up. We know that's not the case though with Blu-rays, which are a flat fee. Perhaps the parents are too busy with work and kids / have too tight a budget to pursue 3D.


I don't know about everyone else, but my kids always want to watch blu rays in 3D when available. Maybe, as another poster said, it simply has to do with limited availability and limited advertising of the fact that 3D blu rays are actually available. Just like most people with 3DTVs don't even know you can rent 3D movies on Vudu or 3DGO.


----------



## MrEmoto

EVERRET said:


> *...My advise : Find the biggest brightest 3D Screen in your area ... and bring your own 3D glasses, don't use the cheap theater glasses.*


*

I have yet to see a 3D film in a theater. How do you know if your home 3D glasses will work in a theater? There has been more than one kind of system hasn't there?*


----------



## tomtastic

MrEmoto said:


> I have yet to see a 3D film in a theater. How do you know if your home 3D glasses will work in a theater? There has been more than one kind of system hasn't there?


ReadD theaters will work, only thing around me is Dolby 3D and the IMAX 3D so my passive glasses won't work. One of my biggest complaints about 3D in theaters is the glasses are usually dirty and smeared, have to remember to bring a cleaning towel.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> ReadD theaters will work, only thing around me is Dolby 3D and the IMAX 3D so my passive glasses won't work. One of my biggest complaints about 3D in theaters is the glasses are usually dirty and smeared, have to remember to bring a cleaning towel.


I've only had that issue with the IMAX glasses since all they do is put them in a washer. The times I've seen Real 3D, the glasses are always in a sealed plastic pouch and clean. I wish the IMAX glasses were like that.


----------



## EVERRET

MrEmoto said:


> I have yet to see a 3D film in a theater. How do you know if your home 3D glasses will work in a theater? There has been more than one kind of system hasn't there?


*RealD 3D theaters use circular polarized glasses* 

Like these 
http://www.amazon.com/GSAstore-Univ..._UL160_SR160,160_&refRID=1BR712VWY4JGK9MH9F67

*IMAX 3D uses linear polarized glasses 0/90 *

Like these (IMAX)
http://www.berezin.com/3d/3dglasses.htm#Imax


----------



## MrEmoto

EVERRET said:


> *RealD 3D theaters use circular polarized glasses*
> 
> Like these
> http://www.amazon.com/GSAstore-Univ..._UL160_SR160,160_&refRID=1BR712VWY4JGK9MH9F67
> 
> *IMAX 3D uses linear polarized glasses 0/90 *
> 
> Like these (IMAX)
> http://www.berezin.com/3d/3dglasses.htm#Imax


Aha! Thank you for that. So, my Panasonic active shutter 3D glasses from 2011 will NOT work in a theater, if I understand that correctly.


----------



## danshane

Barry C said:


> Dan, I believe you're mistaken. Perhaps it only was in certain areas, I can't say. But, I've actually read reviews from reviewers who saw the 3D version in theaters, and have seen pictures of the 3D poster for it.


I wish I was mistaken, but I doubt you will find any documentation that counts identifying a 3-D release anywhere in the world:

http://www.wdwparkhoppers.com/disney-changes-title-for-brad-birds-1952′-to-tomorrowland/

Put simply, anyone who "remembers" seeing the movie or its pre-release trailer in 3-D is imagining it. Of all recent Disney releases that would have seemed an obvious candidate for 3-D TOMORROWLAND tops the list; maybe that is why so many think it actually happened, but Brad Bird never intended it to be anything but a conventional and IMAX film.


----------



## Barry C

danshane said:


> I wish I was mistaken, but I doubt you will find any documentation that counts identifying a 3-D release anywhere in the world:
> 
> http://www.wdwparkhoppers.com/disney-changes-title-for-brad-birds-1952′-to-tomorrowland/
> 
> Put simply, anyone who "remembers" seeing the movie or its pre-release trailer in 3-D is imagining it. Of all recent Disney releases that would have seemed an obvious candidate for 3-D TOMORROWLAND tops the list; maybe that is why so many think it actually happened, but Brad Bird never intended it to be anything but a conventional and IMAX film.


Dan, here's a link to a reviewer who SAW it twice, once in 3D and once in 2D. See paragraph 8:
http://geekdad.com/2015/05/8-things-parents-tomorrowland/

Here's another link to Cleveland movietimes.com which clearly indicates a 3D version was available back then:

http://cleveland.mrmovietimes.com/movies/tomorrowland-3d.html

So, thanks again Disney for your wonderful policy of not making 3D available on bluray


----------



## rckrzy1

I like 3D, spent about $300 more to buy the Samsung 8500 SUHD just to have 3D. Most movies I've seen in theater have been 3D.

Now if they can make it possible without glasses that would be great. I wear one contact for distance and my 3D perception is not as great as it could be. 

But overall I think 3D is going to be around for a while.


----------



## danshane

Barry C said:


> Dan, here's a link to a reviewer who SAW it twice, once in 3D and once in 2D. See paragraph 8:
> http://geekdad.com/2015/05/8-things-parents-tomorrowland/
> 
> Here's another link to Cleveland movietimes.com which clearly indicates a 3D version was available back then:
> 
> http://cleveland.mrmovietimes.com/movies/tomorrowland-3d.html
> 
> So, thanks again Disney for your wonderful policy of not making 3D available on bluray


You really should stop blaming Disney for this one. It was Bird's call to not post-convert TOMORROWLAND.

There are a number of archived theater listings advertising their showings in 3-D. They are all in error. Please note these are not live listings, of course. Many theaters mistakenly assumed this would be another high-profile 3-D release in a string of such Disney titles, and they had to correct their listings when that proved not to be the case.

And though I have already seen blogger Jim McQuarrie's review online, I contest he never really saw the movie in 3-D. He may have seen it on an IMAX screen and is confusing the two technologies, but TOMORROWLAND was never released in 3-D on any screen. Provide a quote directly from Disney Studios or the press materials that state otherwise and I will recant. I am quite certain you will not find any such reference.


----------



## Barry C

Dan, I've gone as far as I'm going to go with this. If you choose not to believe it, that's fine. Since, in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't matter what you and I think anyway. But, I will agree to disagree with you. I have other sites that I haven't linked which also reference it as a 3D conversion but I'm sure none of them would satisfy you. So, I'm just not going to bother. I do find it interesting that you choose not to believe a reviewer who claims to have actually seen it in 3D, or feel that he must be confused

PS: I will also continue to choose to blame Disney, since they are the ones who have ultimate control over this sort of thing and this seems to be their overall policy on virtually all 3D BD releases.


----------



## tomtastic

Not finding much info on the conversion or where it was shown in 3D. There were a few theaters websites but like danshane said, that could have been labeled wrong with early speculation, not convincing enough. I saw that reviewer's article too, I think he must be mistaken. There was a tweet from the director specifically if it was going to be in 3D and he said no 3D. 

Usually if something is in 3D there is more information such as where it was released. China paid for some releases, why they got them and we didn't here. But with Tomorrowland, there's no info out there on who did the conversion. Not by StereoD, Legend 3D or any others that I could find. The best info is from the director himself who said it wasn't 3D.

Also here: answered by writer Damon Lindelof

*Did you ever consider going 3D with this movie, or was it always 2D?*

We always wanted the movie to be in 2D. Brad kind of felt that if we were going to do it in 3D, we would need to shoot it in 3D because he didn't want to do the conversion, and if we're shooting it in 3D, we're probably going to be distracted from making it the best it can be, so we made the decision early on to keep it 2D.


----------



## aaronwt

There was an extended preview of Tomorrow land with a movie I saw at the IMAX theater. I thought that was in 3D but I'm not sure. I'm not really sure what the movie was I saw that had the extended preview. But I remember going to see tomorrowland strictly based on that extended preview. I looked at my AMC ticket stubs but it doesn't have enough space on the title to show whether it was in 3D. But I could have sworn that at least the movie I saw with the extended preview of Tomorrowland was in 3D. T


----------



## johnny905

aaronwt said:


> There was an extended preview of Tomorrow land with a movie I saw at the IMAX theater. I thought that was in 3D but I'm not sure. I'm not really sure what the movie was I saw that had the extended preview. But I remember going to see tomorrowland strictly based on that extended preview. I looked at my AMC ticket stubs but it doesn't have enough space on the title to show whether it was in 3D. But I could have sworn that at least the movie I saw with the extended preview of Tomorrowland was in 3D. T


There's certainly a lot of conversation about a very (imo) forgettable movie. Saw this one on a plane a few months ago and would have no interest in owning it in either 2D or 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

Anyway this flick is only in 2D, the picture is clean as the blue sky in the summer rising sun, and the title was chosen by Disney, and Brad had to follow orders, and it has no life's essence.
A pristine 2D 1080p picture and audio won't cut it in this 3D world, @ the hedge of UHD Blu-ray, and in the era of 3D immersive sound. 


So, Tomorrowland (Disneyland) 2D is simply killing 3D by its off topic creation.  ...It has not much going for it, other than plain pretty 1080p picture only days away from 4K. 
- The film itself is about 18% on the Richter scale of love and that is that, IMAX or not, and 3D non-existent. 


And! 3D is alive and very healthy thank you very much...'Pan'...according to the tabulates. 


Next ...


----------



## NorthJersey

MrEmoto said:


> Aha! Thank you for that. So, my Panasonic active shutter 3D glasses from 2011 will NOT work in a theater, if I understand that correctly.


 not sure if anyone answered this for you, but no, active shutter won't work in movie theaters, only passive


----------



## EVERRET

aaronwt said:


> There was an extended preview of Tomorrow land with a movie I saw at the IMAX theater. I thought that was in 3D but I'm not sure. I'm not really sure what the movie was I saw that had the extended preview. But I remember going to see tomorrowland strictly based on that extended preview. I looked at my AMC ticket stubs but it doesn't have enough space on the title to show whether it was in 3D. But I could have sworn that at least the movie I saw with the extended preview of Tomorrowland was in 3D. T


The movie you would have watched was Avengers : Age of Ultron...... yes it was in 3D 

IMAX has a bad habbit of telling everyone to put on their 3D glasses then showing a 2D movie trailer. They did this again to me Sunday when I went to see In the Heart of the sea in 3D ........ they had the blurry 3D emblem come on the screen that informs everyone to put on their 3D glasses then they showed a preview of Deadpool.

So , everyone in the theater had their 3D glasses on for the 2D Deadpool trailer..... you can see how the confusion can happen.


----------



## danshane

EVERRET said:


> IMAX has a bad habbit of telling everyone to put on their 3D glasses then showing a 2D movie trailer. They did this again to me Sunday when I went to see In the Heart of the sea in 3D ........ they had the blurry 3D emblem come on the screen that informs everyone to put on their 3D glasses then they showed a preview of Deadpool.
> 
> So , everyone in the theater had their 3D glasses on for the 2D Deadpool trailer..... you can see how the confusion can happen.


I am fairly confident this is the sort of thing that led to the confusion about TOMORROWLAND. I have seen a few posts online from those who claim they saw a 3-D trailer for the movie ahead of a 3-D feature.

And the one (and only one) blogger who claimed he saw the movie in both flat and stereo screenings says he saw nothing special about the 3-D version. Indeed. DEADPOOL viewed with 3-D specs would not be much to write home about either.

I really wanted to like TOMORROWLAND, and I had high expectations based on Brad Bird's track record. But the movie created such mixed feelings in me that I would not have bought it on Blu-ray if it *had* been a 3-D release.


----------



## CINERAMAX

johnny905 said:


> There's certainly a lot of conversation about a very (imo) forgettable movie. Saw this one on a plane a few months ago and would have no interest in owning it in either 2D or 3D.


Tweak the color space on your oppo, set bit depth to 30 dydethred, buy an 65ef6500 oled, and set to deep color, crank the color setting to max.

Do that and this movie begins to look like Oscar material, if you want to see what deep color is all a bout try the above.


----------



## marcuslaw

CNN Money is reporting that nearly half, 47% to be exact, of Thursday night's grosses from Star Wars: The Force Awakens were from 3-D screenings.


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> CNN Money is reporting that nearly half, 47% to be exact, of Thursday night's grosses from Star Wars: The Force Awakens were from 3-D screenings.


That definitely tells me that I will be getting the UHD Blu-ray along with the 3D version. ...No excaping that, just no freekin3d way.


----------



## william06

I know it's early Best Buy and Amazon are pushing preorders for the force awakens blu ray but nothing in 3D yet . Are we 3D supporters getting dumped again especially after the post above. By the way saw it iMac 3D today. 👍


----------



## NorthSky

william06 said:


> I know it's early Best Buy and Amazon are pushing preorders for the force awakens blu ray but nothing in 3D yet . Are we 3D supporters getting dumped again especially after the post above. By the way saw it iMac 3D today. í ½í±�


William, Disney has three months to come up with 'The Force Awakens' on Blu-ray, and in (((3D))). ...Keep the Christmas spirit alive, be optimist. 

(((â€¢))) http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Wars-The-Force-Awakens-3D-Blu-ray/64238/


----------



## film113

william06 said:


> I know it's early Best Buy and Amazon are pushing preorders for the force awakens blu ray but nothing in 3D yet . Are we 3D supporters getting dumped again especially after the post above. By the way saw it iMac 3D today. 👍


Depends on LucasFilm. If left up to Susan McClain (who began the 3D prohibition) and Disney, they will not release a 3D disc in North Amweica. Bit if LucasFilm chooses otherwise, then we will. Hoping for the latter


----------



## NorthSky

_"...the 3D prohibition)"_ Lol ... what kind of North American '3D' attitude is that! ...She must know some business people that we don't. 

She has a Linkedin blog where she welcome simple North America citizen's opinions? ...Susan McClain, from Hollywood, California?

• Her? -> http://www.imagen.org/mpil/susan-mcclain

• Or her? -> https://www.linkedin.com/in/susan-mclain-79494147


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> William, Disney has three months to come up with 'The Force Awakens' on Blu-ray, and in (((3D))). ...Keep the Christmas spirit alive, be optimist.
> 
> (((•))) http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Wars-The-Force-Awakens-3D-Blu-ray/64238/


They'll probably have a UHD, 3D BD, and UV set for around $100


----------



## Worf

No, this is Disney and Lucas. They will do a plain old DVD only release. Then they'll do a special edition DVD with digital copy 3 months later. Near the end of 2016, you'll see an enhanced remastered version on Blu Ray. And then there'll be a director's cut version on UHD. And somewhere they'll show a 3D release.

Note that none of the releases will match the theatrical scene by scene, except maybe the original DVD release. The rest will have modifications and new cgi to go with it.


----------



## johnny905

Worf said:


> No, this is Disney and Lucas. They will do a plain old DVD only release. Then they'll do a special edition DVD with digital copy 3 months later. Near the end of 2016, you'll see an enhanced remastered version on Blu Ray. And then there'll be a director's cut version on UHD. And somewhere they'll show a 3D release.
> 
> Note that none of the releases will match the theatrical scene by scene, except maybe the original DVD release. The rest will have modifications and new cgi to go with it.


I don't know when the 3D blu-ray will come out, but I suspect they will release it on 3D streaming platforms first.


----------



## NorthSky

johnny905 said:


> I don't know when the 3D blu-ray will come out, but I suspect they will release it on 3D streaming platforms first.


April 20, 2016?


----------



## JMCurtis

Maybe May 4th, 2016? As in May the 4th be with you!! Ha, ha!! Anyhow, no way to really tell. As long as it makes good money in the theaters, that alone could stall the video release date. I'm of course, hoping for a 3D release as well on this one, even though I haven't made it to the theater to see it yet [but plan to between Xmas and New Years].


----------



## marcuslaw

From the Washington Post: ‘Everest’ is an example of how to use 3D the right way. Next, Everest 3D (Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD/Digital Copy) just dropped down to $22.99 on amazon.


----------



## marcuslaw

Newly released Pan (3-D) has just been reviewed and Ron Epstein says: 



> There's more stylish eye candy here than substance. That being said, I found this to be one of those rare films whose combined immersive 3D presentation and absorbing sound made me feel as if I were on a theme park ride. For that reason alone, I am insisting Pan be a definitive purchase for anyone that appreciates a fine 3D experience. The bigger your screen and the louder your system, the better. Just be sure to strap yourself into your chair before you engage the ride.


Just before him, Mike Rueben wrote:



> After so much negative advance word, I was surprised to find that Pan was an enjoyable viewing experience. The visuals are often stunning, the story is classical, and the characters are consistently interesting (and anyone who thinks they're unrealistic or too broadly drawn should take a good long look at reality, which daily offers people every bit as extreme as Blackbeard or Hook). If the film has flaws, they're in the restraint that Wright applied to keep the film family-friendly and in the vestiges of narrative machinery (e.g., the opening voiceover) that dangle the promise of an "origin story". Pan is something else, and if you can take it that way, the Blu-ray is recommended, the 3D Blu-ray highly so.


----------



## mo949

Surprisingly 3D is becoming even more adopted by average movie goers today. 

After paying even more to see an HDR movie on a recent trip when the IMAX seats were sold out, I'm even more convinced that people will turn back to 3D with laser projection to get their thrills.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

marcuslaw said:


> Newly released Pan (3-D) has just been reviewed and Ron Epstein says:
> 
> 
> 
> Just before him, Mike Rueben wrote:


More I read about Pan, the more I wonder why it was "panned". The story and the 3D seem to be getting a second life.

Just looking for the best deal on bluray 3D.

Am still only a half year into this and if anyone visits us and sees Avitar or Pacific Rim, they will become booked like I recently did.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

marcuslaw said:


> Newly released Pan (3-D) has just been reviewed and Ron Epstein says:
> 
> 
> 
> Just before him, Mike Rueben wrote:


More I read about Pan, the more I wonder why it was "panned". The story and the 3D seem to be getting a second life.

Just looking for the best deal on bluray 3D.

Am still only a half year into this and if anyone visits us and sees Avitar or Pacific Rim, they will become hooked like I recently did.


----------



## CinemaAndy

marcuslaw said:


> You are a bit misinformed. Including, as one person already mentioned, Samsung, both Sony and Panasonic's 2015 series 4K TVs also support 3D. It looks stunning on my XBR-75940C 4K FALD LCD. Sure, theaters are one place to get it, Best Buy, eBay, Zavvi and amazon (incl. amazon.uk, de, it and fr) are a few others.


Misinformed? I'm sorry what part of commercial presentation do you work in?


----------



## Toe

Joseph Dubin said:


> More I read about Pan, the more I wonder why it was "panned". The story and the 3D seem to be getting a second life.
> 
> Just looking for the best deal on bluray 3D.
> 
> Am still only a half year into this and if anyone visits us and sees Avitar or Pacific Rim, they will become booked like I recently did.


I would be curious to check out the 3d, but having watched the movie yesterday in 2d, I'm glad I rented! One and done for me and can't see myself sitting through this one again even for reference 3d. I would suggest a rent first.


----------



## NorthSky

'Pan', 'Everest', 'The Walk', 'The Martian', 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' ... all in 3D have excellent 3D reviews from all the 3D movie critics. /// So they must be doing something real good because movie critics are a real tough species when it comes to (((3D))). 

Methinks it's Disney who is losing sight of the real (((3D))) perspective here.

♦ I saw *Pan* in 3D (Blu-ray), and it was extraordinary 3D good. ...Makes the ride (film) that much more engulfing, with audio to match. 
It beats Ultron (Avengers), and it beats Genisys (Terminator)...in my 3D cinema book. ...Along with _The Book of Life - 3D_ on Blu. 

The only real 3D dead thing...is Disney. ...Their own lost in the year 2016 when the world is aiming high. 
- Disney lost it when DVD came (non-anamorphic releases), they lost it when they stopped promoting 3D, and they lost it by not releasing Dolby Atmos BR movie titles. 
Now that UHD Blu-ray is with us, and that within the next six months DTS:X will be implemented inside more and more receivers, and that 3D will not exist in 4K but only in 2K...watch out of what's coming up. I'm having my two eyes wide open and my brain exposed to the upcoming business plans from Disney and FOX and Columbia/Sony movie studios.

I feel in better hands (more confidence/trust) with Warner Brothers and Paramount studios.

Universal studios and Lionsgate Films and E1 distribution and Alliance Films are the "drug dealers" of our movie industry. ...Meaning that anything bad for our kids can happen. 
...It's just a way of speech, and history is our best measuring gauge. 

Lol, Lionsgate with their copy protection paranoia, like FOX studios...to the point of playing havoc with our sound @ home. ...And not communicating in a friendly manner between our audio/video components. Lionsgate released 'The Expendables 3', 'John Wick' and now 'Sicario', but not in 3D. ...What's that! ...Plus they're screwing up with 3D immersive audio...Dolby Atmos! ...Yeah, with Lionsgate BR titles we need to get new BR players! 

Anyway, this all 3D affair is a funny one; because no one is following the directives to play nice with everyone else. ...And! Less and less films are shot in 3D natively! 

There is no doubt in my brain that 3D is the much more immersive movie experience. It's just that it is not the most profitable one, and today without profit there is no art. 
What an unfortunate series of events. ...A very sad dose of reality. ...Almost like Auro-3D, and DTS:X ... but not as bad as Dolby Atmos...because after all Mad Max (WB) got the full 3D enchilada treatment with high grace and high grade (3D picture and 3D Atmos sound). 

The Force Awakens is in 3D, and Avatar 2 is/will be in 3D. ...3D is far of being dead completely. ...Actually it will resurrect itself much much stronger in the year 2017-18. 
2016 is simply the introspective trampoline...because of UHD. ...But watch a good 3D (2K) BR flick like 'Pan' on a UHD (4K) 3D OLED LG TV or UHD 3D LCD LED Samsung TV (curved), and be blown away to smithereens. ...And then 4K UHD front projectors...laser. 

It's just too bad that 'The Hateful Eight' wasn't shot natively with 3D cameras. ...Panavision is cool, but for vistas; not for a bunch of crooked dialog soaked with multiple buckets of fake blood. Tarantino is behind the 3D curve...he is stuck in his own blood of extreme violence for the boys that can't grow up peacefully ion this world of violence and terror. 
Quentin gets all his priorities wrong in living in the 2D past. There is no redemption for the guy who shot in 70mm and concentrate mainly on his own ego and blood. 
Try to watch his films with your wife and kids, and ask Disney what they think. Yeah, no picture needed here, we got it. 
The day Quentin Tarantino is going to film in 3D that'll be his first waking up call. ...And who love 3D more than anyone else? ...That's right...the kids. 

That is just my opinion. I don't despise anyone, I just tell it like it is. ...Quentin and all that 3D jazz...

Last word: Watch *'Pan'* on Blu-ray, in 3D.  ...And the best and worst are yet to come. ...Strap yourself real good in 2016.


----------



## aaronwt

Disney already has digital pre-order purchases up for The Force Awakens for $15(at least on t he Playstation network). But no mention of 3D.


----------



## NorthSky

I am not worry one single drop of a bit rain. SW: The Force Awakens will be on Blu-ray 3D. ...Or the "Force" will simply die all together with Disney and their biggest money maker ever. All the kids (us) will demand the best movie experience not only @ the theater but also @ home on Blu-ray...and it's in (((3D))). ...3D or die. 

And the year ain't over yet.


----------



## MrEmoto

I watched the 3D version of The Wizard of Oz the other day and really enjoyed it. It is apparently the 75th anniversary, if the packaging can be believed. 

The reason I mention this in this thread is because there is apparently a market for 3D conversions of classic films. This may be old news to some of you folks, but I am kind of new to considering these things, and am happy that it exists. I hope they do well selling the 3D Wiz, and decide to do more of these. 

The conversion was, in my unschooled opinion, well done. There was good depth added to most scenes. It just added to the realism rather than distracting. I don't recall seeing any pop-outs.


----------



## MLXXX

CinemaAndy said:


> As far as panels go, 3D is DEAD. 3D is very alive for projectors. Why? Because blue-ray in its wisdom thinks that 4K/UHD is the way to go, and in doing so are leaving 3D behind. It really doesn't matter as not much is being produced in a 4K/UHD format, but they want to you believe there is. How do you get 3D? Simple, go to your local theatre





marcuslaw said:


> You are a bit misinformed. Including, as one person already mentioned, Samsung, both Sony and Panasonic's 2015 series 4K TVs also support 3D. It looks stunning on my XBR-75940C 4K FALD LCD. Sure, theaters are one place to get it, Best Buy, eBay, Zavvi and amazon (incl. amazon.uk, de, it and fr) are a few others.





CinemaAndy said:


> Misinformed? I'm sorry what part of commercial presentation do you work in?


CinemaAndy, it is important to be aware that the lack of inclusion of a 4k 3D standard for the new wave of Blu-ray players is neither based on apathy, nor on a conscious decision to abandon 3D altogether because of alleged lack of popularity. Rather the decision not to proceed with 3D at a UHD resolution at this time would have been made in the knowledge that:



The data rates and frame sizes that would be required for fully fledged frame packed UHD 3D in the home would be challenging and expensive with current technology.
There are hardly any 3D feature films in existence that have been edited with a digital intermediate of higher resolution than 2k.
Until there are advances in 1 and 2, consumers can watch 3D at home using *Full HD 3D Blu-ray discs*. This would include playing such discs using a UHD Blu-ray player (when they become available, and assuming they will be able to play "legacy" discs) connected to a UHD 3D panel.

I agree with marcuslaw, that your post was a bit misinformed. 3D is *not* dead insofar as television display panels are concerned.


----------



## marcuslaw

The pre-order price for the restored Gog (3-D) (1954) has just dropped to $17.99 on amazon. Previously the lowest price was $24 at Best Buy.


----------



## film113

MLXXX said:


> There are hardly any 3D feature films in existence that have been edited with a digital intermediate of higher resolution than 2k.


Yep. Even the new STAR WARS is from a 2K DI, from what I've heard. Part of the reason I'm in no hurry to get a 4K set...no need to spend more for something with little to no content.


----------



## johnny905

film113 said:


> Yep. Even the new STAR WARS is from a 2K DI, from what I've heard. Part of the reason I'm in no hurry to get a 4K set...no need to spend more for something with little to no content.


Agreed, as long as you like active 3D. I prefer passive 3D so am very happy with my 4K purchase.


----------



## NorthSky

That's the beneficial/positive aspect of 3D in 2016...Passive 3D UHD TVs...1080p (full 2K resolution) per each eye...just like Active 3D with HD TVs. 

Can't wait for _*'The Walk'*_ in (((3D))) ::: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...6930-walk-3d-blu-ray-review.html#post39950650


----------



## film113

NorthSky said:


> That's the beneficial/positive aspect of 3D in 2016...Passive 3D UHD TVs...1080p (full 2K resolution) per each eye...just like Active 3D with HD TVs.
> 
> ]


Yep. Slipped my mind but that would be the primary reason I'd get a UHD set


----------



## Joseph Dubin

MrEmoto said:


> I watched the 3D version of The Wizard of Oz the other day and really enjoyed it. It is apparently the 75th anniversary, if the packaging can be believed.
> 
> The reason I mention this in this thread is because there is apparently a market for 3D conversions of classic films. This may be old news to some of you folks, but I am kind of new to considering these things, and am happy that it exists. I hope they do well selling the 3D Wiz, and decide to do more of these.
> 
> The conversion was, in my unschooled opinion, well done. There was good depth added to most scenes. It just added to the realism rather than distracting. I don't recall seeing any pop-outs.


We have it too and did a quick look - utterly fantastic and as if we were watching the movie for the first time. It definitely added a whole new immersive experience.

I am of the school that an original production is a work if art and should be treated with respect and reverence. However, that doesn't mean using modern technology to make alternative versions - not to replace or rival the film value or letting the history of cinema fade in appreciation - but simply as additional enhanced forms of entertainment. They should not be promoted as improving the original as was done with colorization in the eighties.

With that in mind, I am glad they colorized the 1933 King Kong and sad they have not redone the process for bluray (still have the vhs). That would indeed be a great film to convert to 3D. So would the original Japanese 1954 Godzilla. Simulating them on my Sony KDL50W800b adds a semblance of 3d which I guess is better than nothing.

But it would be a great idea reconverting some classics but i wonder if it would be financially profitable.


----------



## NSX1992

We went to the movies to see the latest Star Wars which was good but I was surprised they showed 10 3D previews, some I hadn't even heard of before. So 3D certainly is not dead at the movies and we will get them later for home use.


----------



## film113

Joseph Dubin said:


> We have it too and did a quick look - utterly fantastic and as if we were watching the movie for the first time. It definitely added a whole new immersive experience.
> 
> With that in mind, I am glad they colorized the 1933 King Kong and sad they have not redone the process for bluray (still have the vhs). That would indeed be a great film to convert to 3D. So would the original Japanese 1954 Godzilla. Simulating them on my Sony KDL50W800b adds a semblance of 3d which I guess is better than nothing.
> 
> But it would be a great idea reconverting some classics but i wonder if it would be financially profitable.


Well, they did convert JURASSIC PARK. Not quite GODZILLA but it was done well-enough that the 3D is better than what we see in JURASSIC WORLD. Sure wouldn't mind seeing something like FANTASIA converted but then...it's Disney. Or YELLOW SUBMARINE. Or 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Or...


----------



## Joseph Dubin

film113 said:


> Well, they did convert JURASSIC PARK. Not quite GODZILLA but it was done well-enough that the 3D is better than what we see in JURASSIC WORLD. Sure wouldn't mind seeing something like FANTASIA converted but then...it's Disney. Or YELLOW SUBMARINE. Or 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Or...


The first two Superman films with Christopher Reeve would be a natural for conversion. Same with the Indiana Jones series.


----------



## Hagenstein

Saw the trailer for Disney's "Alice In Wonderland" sequel "Alice Through the Looking Glass" 3D. I'm not sure how confident I am in the story but Good Golly Miss Molly... The visuals look amazing and almost every shot looked tailor-made and thought out for 3D (it is listed that it will be shown in RealD 3D and IMAX 3D). I might actually give this one a shot at the theater upon release. Hopefully Disney won't make us import this one when it comes to Blu Ray.

3D dead? Phfft. Most of the trailers I saw before Star Wars had at least medium to strong 3D; none had what I would describe as weak 3D, even if negative parallax was limited.

If filmakers working in the stereoscopic medium abandon this weak "natural" 3D crap approach that some had taken, and start composing for 3D's strengths and artistic capabilities - there is a learning curve I think - it will continue to exist and perhaps even thrive.


----------



## Barry C

Hagenstein said:


> 3D dead? Phfft. Most of the trailers I saw before Star Wars had at least medium to strong 3D; none had what I would describe as weak 3D, even if negative parallax was limited.
> 
> If filmakers working in the stereoscopic medium abandon this weak "natural" 3D crap approach that some had taken, and start composing for 3D's strengths and artistic capabilities - there is a learning curve I think - it will continue to exist and perhaps even thrive.


Indeed!!


----------



## NorthSky

Last two nights I revisited two 3D Blu-ray films (*Oz The Great and Powerful* and *San Andreas*) and I enjoyed my time @ the movies in the comfort of home with full (((3D))) contentment for a vibrant experience once and twice more. I'm so 3D hyper that I want to become immortal so that I don't miss the next one billion 3D Blu-ray flicks. 

Also, I am going to apply for a new job @ Disney, in the 3D department of Blu-ray 3D distribution for the North American market. 
I hope to penetrate the highest echelon as top 3D chef executive.  

* The sequel of *Alice In Wonderland : Alice Through the Looking Glass - 3D* sounds wonderful and magic to me. ...Next three Avatars and next two Star Wars as well. 
Plus the other billion ones...that my great great great grand kids are going to relish on and savor full flavor top grade/notch best future 3D rendition in 4D holographic full gamut of emotional/sensory impacts of the highest 3D caliber ever. ...They should have a real blast. ...I'll be right there with them...as a guardian angel above the clouds. 

They are building the tallest skyscraper of the world as we speak somewhere in a Saudi Arabian desert (one kilometer tall), and it's only the beginning; should be done by 2018-19 or near: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...begin-building-worlds-tallest-skyscraper.html

_________





_________


• Then there are drawings for a one mile tall one! ...Then there are drawings for one billion more 3D Blu-rays! 

3D dead? ...Are you kidding me!
...Eventually you'll be able to put all those 3D Blu-ray movies on top of each other and you'll have a ten miles tall 3D tower...Alibaba!


----------



## HeadSpace10

NorthSky said:


> Also, I am going to apply for a new job @ Disney, in the 3D department of Blu-ray 3D distribution for the North American market.
> I hope to penetrate the highest echelon as top 3D chef executive.


Please let us know when you land that job. I have recently had my love of 3D reignited after seeing Star Wars twice in IMAX 3D. It was glorious. I have a wonderful 3D projector and have been enjoying some of my favorite films in my home and damn, I really wish there were more places to buy or rent 3D movies!


----------



## andy sullivan

It's not dead but it looks 
Ike some of the studios are trying to commit 3D suicide. On Amazon the 3D version of Everest is $10 more than the blu-ray version. $20 compared to $30. That's just a bad bad idea.


----------



## william06

andy sullivan said:


> It's not dead but it looks
> Ike some of the studios are trying to commit 3D suicide. On Amazon the 3D version of Everest is $10 more than the blu-ray version. $20 compared to $30. That's just a bad bad idea.


Interesting I preordered from Amazon was $22.99.


----------



## NorthSky

I watched *The Martian - 3D* last week; everyone thought he was dead, but they were all dead wrong...he was well alive and cultivating potatoes.
He was in excellent shape, and the moral high...3D was pretty good...far away then being dead, like they all thought, and left him for dead without checking first to confirm. You don't do that in the field, you never leave your 3D friends behind...never. 

♦ Tonight very high probability on *Everest - 3D*


----------



## cakefoo

andy sullivan said:


> It's not dead but it looks
> Ike some of the studios are trying to commit 3D suicide. On Amazon the 3D version of Everest is $10 more than the blu-ray version. $20 compared to $30. That's just a bad bad idea.


According to Keepa, they were both $22.99 from December 19th-January 19th. Today the 3D price went up and the 2D price dropped. The tracker isn't flawless, but I trust it to an extent.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> The price difference was only $3 from December 19th-January 19th


3D inflation since then?


----------



## mo949

NorthSky said:


> I watched *The Martian - 3D* last week; everyone thought he was dead, but they were all dead wrong...he was well alive and cultivating potatoes.



Those potatoes looked about as tasty as half of my 3D collection though


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> 3D inflation since then?


P.S. See my edit-- I mis-quoted the price difference. It was actually $0 difference from 12/19-1/19!


----------



## Hagenstein

Posting this from my phone which makes it harder for me to properly insert hyperlinks but regardless...

Everest Blu Ray 3D is still showing a price of $22.99 at Target. I don't have much luck finding 3D Blu Rays at my local Target but I do like me some price matching... A little off-topic but posted here anyhow per the bit of Everest 3D Blu Ray price chatter.

http://m.target.com/p/everest-3d-blu-ray-dvd/-/A-50437812


----------



## NorthSky

mo949 said:


> Those potatoes looked about as tasty as half of my 3D collection though


♦ It was a phony movie (funny potatoes on Mars). Yeah, they looked tasty for sure, the way Matt was eating them. 



cakefoo said:


> P.S. See my edit-- I mis-quoted the price difference. It was actually $0 difference from 12/19-1/19!


♦ I saw that. Prices for 3D Blu-rays are all over the map, and depending from where you buy, and @ the time you buy. 
Here in Canada you cannot escape our low loonie and outrageous prices for newest 3D Blu-ray releases.
Life is tough in the Great White North. Gotta see above the sky, towards the stars. 

'The Martian' in 3D I thought was pretty well done technically...no problemo...picture quality wise.
And I expect similar with 'Everest' in 3D.


----------



## marcuslaw

andy sullivan said:


> It's not dead but it looks
> Ike some of the studios are trying to commit 3D suicide. On Amazon the 3D version of Everest is $10 more than the blu-ray version. $20 compared to $30. That's just a bad bad idea.


IMO, the price differential is due to the studio's capitalizing on what has become a very loyal home video niche market. They already know people will be pay more for 3-D theater tickets. I always get a kick of out 3-D haters and doomsdayers. "3-D is dead!" they declare. That's followed by The Force Awakens breaking records where nearly half its ticket sales were for 3-D. "Look at Vizio and Toshiba," they proudly announce. "They don't support 3-D anymore!" That's followed by Sony, Samsung and Panny all announcing support for the format in their 2015, and I believe 2016, lineups. As long as the studios continue to profit from 3-D, it won't die.


----------



## cakefoo

*Optical disc unit sales marketshare for 3D Blu-ray opening weeks:*
Minions 3% ($10 premium on amazon at time of release)
Ant-Man 28% ($2 premium)
Avengers: Age of Ultron 27% ($0 premium)
The Walk 29% ($5 premium)
Mad Max 9% ($8 premium)
Jurassic World 7% ($5 premium)
San Andreas 7% ($8 premium)

3D marketshare source: http://www.homemediamagazine.com/content/search?keywords="top 20 sellers"
AMZ price tracking source: Keepa

Andy Sullivan was actually on the right track with his post about price differences-- All the movies with >25% unit share were only $0-5 higher on amz.


----------



## jvh4

cakefoo said:


> *Optical disc unit sales marketshare for 3D Blu-ray opening weeks:*
> Minions 3% ($10 premium on amazon at time of release)
> Ant-Man 28% ($2 premium)
> Avengers: Age of Ultron 27% ($0 premium)
> The Walk 29% ($5 premium)
> Mad Max 9% ($8 premium)
> Jurassic World 7% ($5 premium)
> San Andreas 7% ($8 premium)
> 
> 3D marketshare source: http://www.homemediamagazine.com/content/search?keywords="top 20 sellers"
> AMZ price tracking source: Keepa
> 
> Andy Sullivan was actually on the right track with his post about price differences-- All the movies with >25% unit share were only $0-5 higher on amz.


Wow, Antman and Avengers are great data points for those of us who want 3D to continue. Jurassic world is very disappointing, but I don't read too much into MadMax. I loved MadMAx in 3D, but I don't think it stands out as a movie the mainstream would think is a 3D oriented movie. 

I actually think the minions number is a little worrisome too. Is it a volume issue? I mean is it 3% of a huge number? What I'm trying to figure out if there is a market saturation for 3D whereas there is an almost indefinite volume of bluray that can be sold. In other words: if 90% Americans have a DVD player, 60% have bluray, x% have 3D. So, if 100% of people with a bluray player buy minions, that means 2.5% of Americans bought the 3D version. My guess is there this is not anywhere close to saturation.


----------



## cakefoo

jvh4 said:


> Wow, Antman and Avengers are great data points for those of us who want 3D to continue. Jurassic world is very disappointing, but I don't read too much into MadMax. I loved MadMAx in 3D, but I don't think it stands out as a movie the mainstream would think is a 3D oriented movie.
> 
> I actually think the minions number is a little worrisome too. Is it a volume issue? I mean is it 3% of a huge number? What I'm trying to figure out if there is a market saturation for 3D whereas there is an almost indefinite volume of bluray that can be sold. In other words: if 90% Americans have a DVD player, 60% have bluray, x% have 3D. So, if 100% of people with a bluray player buy minions, that means 2.5% of Americans bought the 3D version. My guess is there this is not anywhere close to saturation.


Minions - Blu-ray 63% | 3D 3% | $10 premium
Inside Out - Blu-ray 57% | 3D 4% | $8 premium


----------



## cakefoo

In terms of _theatrical _2D:3D revenue share, family animation performs much lower than live action. A couple reasons may be that kids get antsy with glasses and are feared to develop eyesight issues, and 3D ticket premiums for a whole family can really add up. 3D Blu-ray performance is roughly twice as bad as the theatrical disparity though, and to explain that, well to start, the premium gap on those 3D Blu-rays is on the higher end of the spectrum. But also, when you're a parent you have less time to research new technology, so that may be a barrier for 3D hardware investment amongst families. Having to charge multiple pairs of active shutter glasses can also be a chore. And also, getting your kids to sit still and behave on the couch at home is harder to do than in the theater.

Just my 2 cents!


----------



## skeeder

cakefoo said:


> *Optical disc unit sales marketshare for 3D Blu-ray opening weeks:*
> Minions 3% ($10 premium on amazon at time of release)
> Ant-Man 28% ($2 premium)
> Avengers: Age of Ultron 27% ($0 premium)
> The Walk 29% ($5 premium)
> Mad Max 9% ($8 premium)
> Jurassic World 7% ($5 premium)
> San Andreas 7% ($8 premium)
> 
> 3D marketshare source: http://www.homemediamagazine.com/content/search?keywords="top 20 sellers"
> AMZ price tracking source: Keepa
> 
> Andy Sullivan was actually on the right track with his post about price differences-- All the movies with >25% unit share were only $0-5 higher on amz.


Depends on how it is bundled. Many new Marvel releases are Bluray Only, DVD only or "multi-format" which includes the 3D release. The multi-format is only about $5 more...I think that is skewing the dataset for those supporting 3D.

Also, now with 4K UHD releases, we may see a greater shift, current release in UHD are 4K BR, BR, Digital Copy or 3D BR, BR, Digital Copy. We may see people go 4k over 3D.


----------



## jvh4

cakefoo said:


> In terms of _theatrical _2D:3D revenue share, family animation performs much lower than live action. A couple reasons may be that kids get antsy with glasses and are feared to develop eyesight issues, and 3D ticket premiums for a whole family can really add up. 3D Blu-ray performance is roughly twice as bad as the theatrical disparity though, and to explain that, well to start, the premium gap on those 3D Blu-rays is on the higher end of the spectrum. But also, when you're a parent you have less time to research new technology, so that may be a barrier for 3D hardware investment amongst families. Having to charge multiple pairs of active shutter glasses can also be a chore. And also, getting your kids to sit still and behave on the couch at home is harder to do than in the theater.
> 
> Just my 2 cents!


Well my baby girl is 2 months old and we've watch zero 3D movies since she was born . . . I think you are probably right on all counts.


----------



## jvh4

skeeder said:


> Depends on how it is bundled. Many new Marvel releases are Bluray Only, DVD only or "multi-format" which includes the 3D release. The multi-format is only about $5 more...I think that is skewing the dataset for those supporting 3D.
> 
> Also, now with 4K UHD releases, we may see a greater shift, current release in UHD are 4K BR, BR, Digital Copy or 3D BR, BR, Digital Copy. We may see people go 4k over 3D.


I am very worried that 4K will be the death of 3D at home. I think they can coexist in the theater, but people are forced to choose between 3D and UHD since 4k 3D is not technically feasible with current bluray standards.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

jvh4 said:


> I am very worried that 4K will be the death of 3D at home. I think they can coexist in the theater, but people are forced to choose between 3D and UHD since 4k 3D is not technically feasible with current bluray standards.


Personally, I would choose 3D over 4K. 4K may be better resolution, but virtually all UHD's I have seen upconvert and although it's not AS good as native 4K it doesn't add enough, IMO, to outweigh the dramatic difference in experience 3D offers.

YMMV


----------



## jvh4

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Personally, I would choose 3D over 4K. 4K may be better resolution, but virtually all UHD's I have seen upconvert and although it's not AS good as native 4K it doesn't add enough, IMO, to outweigh the dramatic difference in experience 3D offers.
> 
> YMMV


I will choose 3D too, but it means 3D will remain a niche, and may become a smaller niche which will do little to promote advancement of 3D.


----------



## marcuslaw

*3-d uhd bd*

An interesting excerpt pertaining to 3-D UHD BD from Bill Hunt's post entitled CES 2016 WRAP-UP – SOME DETAILED THOUGHTS & PERSPECTIVE ON ULTRA HD BLU-RAY over at the Bits:



> A number of Bits readers have complained that UHD Blu-ray doesn’t include a 3D option. Here’s the thing: Backwards compatibility with existing Blu-ray 3D is absolutely an option in the spec, but the decision as to whether to implement this or not is left up to the individual manufacturers. What you’re going to see is that some manufacturers, like Samsung, will choose to still include BD3D compatibility in their displays and players going forward. Others will not. As to why the UHD Blu-ray spec didn’t launch with full 4K 3D support right from the start, Fox’s Chief Technology Officer, Hanno Basse (one of the key people responsible for organizing the industry behind the UHD Premium standard), reminded me that there’s simply no actual 4K 3D content available. Everything you see theatrically in 3D is 2K. Basse also noted that full 4K 3D could certainly be added to the UHD BD spec later on, as was the case with DTS on DVD and 3D on regular Blu-ray. It will depend on consumer and industry demand.
> 
> Based on my conversations with the various display manufacturers at CES, all of them are currently choosing to focus on 4K rather than 3D, as 1080p 3D really never took off widely with consumers. The reason: Most people hate wearing the glasses at home. Most manufacturers do anticipate revisiting consumer/home 3D at some point in the future, but likely not until truly high-quality “autostereoscopic” display technology (that does not require glasses) is ready to leave the lab. And that may be a good decade away yet. Basse (and others) told me that progress on this front is steady but very slow. Some engineers believe it may actually require 8K displays and still higher refresh rates. Moreover, it’s going to require a tremendous increase in image processing power on the display itself, which will add greatly to the hardware price point. So don’t expect it anytime soon.


Personally speaking, I never understand this "hatred" for wearing glasses and I even wear them over prescription lenses. We watch a lot of 3-D. The only hassle is making sure they're charged the night before which only requires minor forethought. Oh well. To each his own.


----------



## SoToS

> Based on my conversations with the various display manufacturers at CES, all of them are currently choosing to focus on 4K rather than 3D, as 1080p 3D really never took off widely with consumers. The reason: Most people hate wearing the glasses at home.


Wrong. They don't hate wearing glasses. They hate wearing glasses that causes them headaches (active) for content that doesn't worth it (subtle/uninteresting 3D effect). 

Right now the best 3D experience you can have is from 1080p 3D watched on a passive 4K 3D TV because 1) it doesn't causes headaches from flicker (plus all the other active problems) and 2) you can watch 3D quite close to the screen and see more detail (the twin projector solution for passive is too extreme for the average viewer to even mention it).

So, if you playback a 3D blu ray with a good 1080p 3D movie on a 4K passive 3D TV and an upscaled 4K 2D one, chances are that 95% or more will prefer the 1080p 3D with the passive glasses.
And this is why 4K TVs with passive 3D capability will prevail: You can have the best 3D experience today AND watch 4K 2D content if and when it becomes available -or the footage from your 4K camcorder today.

Aside movie viewing, there will be another 3D revolution this year which will help attract the viewers' attention back to 3D - I can't say more.


----------



## tezster

Resolution aside, the UHD blu-ray spec could've at least tacked on 10-bit/HDR to 3D 1080P - that in itself would've offered a significant PQ improvement on HDR-capable TVs.


----------



## aaronwt

skeeder said:


> Depends on how it is bundled. Many new Marvel releases are Bluray Only, DVD only or "multi-format" which includes the 3D release. The multi-format is only about $5 more...I think that is skewing the dataset for those supporting 3D.
> 
> Also, now with 4K UHD releases, we may see a greater shift, current release in UHD are 4K BR, BR, Digital Copy or 3D BR, BR, Digital Copy. We may see people go 4k over 3D.


I really like the Marvel releases since they only include the 3D BD, 2D BD, and digital HD version. No 20th century format included(DVD).


----------



## aaronwt

SoToS said:


> Wrong. They don't hate wearing glasses. They hate wearing glasses that causes them headaches (active) for content that doesn't worth it (subtle/uninteresting 3D effect).
> ...............


Most people I've talked to with families that also have 3D sets. They don't get headaches from 3D. They don't like 3D because they hate wearing the glasses. And that is also why they don't see the 3D in the theater. They hate wearing the glasses. My GF is the same way. She doesn't get any headaches, it's wearing the glasses she doesn't like. So she prefers not to see the 3D. I'll get her to sometimes, like with The Martian(but the show time had more to do with that), but that is not the norm.



SoToS said:


> ...............
> 
> Right now the best 3D experience you can have is from 1080p 3D watched on a passive 4K 3D TV because 1) it doesn't causes headaches from flicker (plus all the other active problems) and 2) you can watch 3D quite close to the screen and see more detail (the twin projector solution for passive is too extreme for the average viewer to even mention it).
> 
> ...........


Persoanlly, with Passive 3D at home. I'm more likely to get a headache from passive than active. At least with 2K sets. I have a tough time watching with passive for 2 hours on a 2K set, while with active I can go for many hours. Although I have not tried out passive 4k. I specifically got a 4K set with active 3D since active was more comfortable for me with the 2K sets. And my eyes feel good with active on my Sony 4K set. Like my 2K DLP set with active glasses, with my 4K set there is no flickering or other issues from active glasses for me.


----------



## jvh4

aaronwt said:


> Most people I've talked to with families that also have 3D sets. They don't get headaches from 3D. They don't like 3D because they hate wearing the glasses. And that is also why they don't see the 3D in the theater. They hate wearing the glasses. My GF is the same way. She doesn't get any headaches, it's wearing the glasses she doesn't like. So she prefers not to see the 3D. I'll get her to sometimes, like with The Martian(but the show time had more to do with that), but that is not the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Persoanlly, with Passive 3D at home. I'm more likely to get a headache from passive than active. At least with 2K sets. I have a tough time watching with passive for 2 hours on a 2K set, while with active I can go for many hours. Although I have not tried out passive 4k. I specifically got a 4K set with active 3D since active was more comfortable for me with the 2K sets. And my eyes feel good with active on my Sony 4K set. Like my 2K DLP set with active glasses, with my 4K set there is no flickering or other issues from active glasses for me.


Agreed. When coworkers or friends tell me they don't care about 3D, it is almost always because it's not worth the cost and effort. And all most all of them gave 3D one chance and saw a crappy conversion. Those who like 3D have seen it done well and find it to be the preferred viewing format for blockbusters. 

To be honest, even I, an enthusiast who has spent WAY too much money to have 3D home theater wouldn't bother with 3D for certain movies - there is a layer of inconvenience. I also no longer convert 2d into 3D even tho I have a device that by all account does a decent job of it.

I have never heard anyone tell me they've been turned off from 3D because of headaches. 

Also my DLP projector is active and no one has ever had headaches or discomfort.


----------



## marcuslaw

SoToS said:


> Wrong. They don't hate wearing glasses. They hate wearing glasses that causes them headaches (active) for content that doesn't worth it (subtle/uninteresting 3D effect).


No one I've ever watched 3-D with in my home has _ever_ complained of a headache after watching a 3-D film. Realistically, that's about 15 different people ranging in age from 6 to 76. Oh, and did you know someone started a thread related to this headache claim? Does passive or active 3D cause more headaches? 



> Right now the best 3D experience you can have is from 1080p 3D watched on a passive 4K 3D TV because 1) it doesn't causes headaches from flicker (plus all the other active problems) and 2) you can watch 3D quite close to the screen and see more detail (the twin projector solution for passive is too extreme for the average viewer to even mention it).


I would put my 940C up against any current market passive 3-D TV. Though I occasionally see flicker, it's only when there is ambient light. We don't normally watch movies during the day so this happens only when someone turns on the kitchen lights. I sit about 9 feet from my TV but have been closer and still see no artifacts though I'm not sure if that's where you were going with that. I have no idea what you mean by "all the other active problems" but besides rare flicker, I'm not aware of what those might be.



> So, if you playback a 3D blu ray with a good 1080p 3D movie on a 4K passive 3D TV and an upscaled 4K 2D one, chances are that 95% or more will prefer the 1080p 3D with the passive glasses.
> And this is why 4K TVs with passive 3D capability will prevail: You can have the best 3D experience today AND watch 4K 2D content if and when it becomes available -or the footage from your 4K camcorder today.


Again, my experience proves otherwise. I see a superb 3-D image and can't imagine another TV displaying a better one.



> Aside movie viewing, there will be another 3D revolution this year which will help attract the viewers' attention back to 3D - I can't say more.


Great! Bring it on, though I'm still enjoying the 3-D revolution with my equipment now.


----------



## Barry C

SoToS said:


> Wrong. They don't hate wearing glasses. They hate wearing glasses that causes them headaches (active) for content that doesn't worth it (subtle/uninteresting 3D effect).
> 
> Right now the best 3D experience you can have is from 1080p 3D watched on a passive 4K 3D TV because 1) it doesn't causes headaches from flicker (plus all the other active problems) and 2) you can watch 3D quite close to the screen and see more detail (the twin projector solution for passive is too extreme for the average viewer to even mention it).
> 
> So, if you playback a 3D blu ray with a good 1080p 3D movie on a 4K passive 3D TV and an upscaled 4K 2D one, chances are that 95% or more will prefer the 1080p 3D with the passive glasses.
> And this is why 4K TVs with passive 3D capability will prevail:


I really hate this tired old active vs passive argument. No, IMO, active does not cause headaches in any more people than passive does. Fact is, some people are just uncomfortable watching 3D on any system. No, the flicker isn't even noticable to anyone I've ever talked to or watched active with. Projectors are virtually ALL active so virtually ALL people with large high end systems are quite happy with their active systems- myself included. 

On my own content, I choose to edit on active 27" monitors- which I obviously sit quite close to. For me, I prefer to edit at full 1080 res rather than the decreased res of passive displays. However, some of my fellow 3D content creator friends on the forum edit with passive displays and are quite happy.

Bottom line, they're both GOOD for watching 3D, as long
as they're on GOOD displays. So please, enough with the passive vs active stuff. It's been beaten to death already.


----------



## tomtastic

I don't notice flicker on my PJ. Like many, it was something that I worried about before I tried it, but I don't notice it. Using a passive screen for editing I think would be a problem because of the close proximity with passive, but I haven't tried it either. The main complaint I would think would be crosstalk which is worse on active and passive and better on DLP devices. I love the Benq 1070, I don't think I've ever seen any crosstalk yet with it.

The other advantage would be passive 4k you don't have to charge and sync with glasses. That's the biggest complaint with my active PJ, but it's not like you have to charge all the time.

Right now Best Buy has a Samsung 4k 3D TV 60" (UN60JU7090FXZA) for 999.00. I wonder if this model handles 3D in 4k resolution? Would be nice for viewing SbS 4k 3D.


----------



## SoToS

@aaronwt @jvh4 @marcuslaw 

I used the word "headache" due to internet chat economy and because it is used by many others, but it might not be the right word. I'll try again:

In short, all of your arguments or your "statistics" will collapse spectacularly the moment you provide a number of random viewers the chance to judge the viewing experience between two 3D TV sets side-by-side, one with active glasses and one with passive, especially a 4K passive one. Let them try the active 3D TV for 10 minutes, then immediately give them the passive glasses to watch the passive 4K TV. You'll find out that the vast majority, if not ALL of them, will prefer the passive set expressing the huge difference they feel with that system.

Explanation: It is a subconscious inconvenience that is caused by providing your brain with a noisy 3D image -half the 3D information in a given time and worse. It's like the hum (ripple) on an unregulated voltage for those involved with electronics. While your brain tries to build the parallax mental image, the signal from both eyes is not consistent. 

Either you see the left image and a faint right afterimage from the previous frame, or the right image and a faint left afterimage from the current frame. This image ripple along with the interference from the previous frame is causing a negative feeling subconsciously (or even consciously for many people) which can be realized fully only with the above experiment. Your brain constantly strugles to deal with a noisy, unbalanced signal that creates stress at least subconsciously. It's not a matter of belief or personal opinion, it's a scientific fact.


----------



## blackssr

andy sullivan said:


> It's not dead but it looks
> Ike some of the studios are trying to commit 3D suicide. On Amazon the 3D version of Everest is $10 more than the blu-ray version. $20 compared to $30. That's just a bad bad idea.


Just sell off the DVD, Blu-ray 2D and HD code on eBay. I do it all the time. I just sold off all 3 for $10 for DVD, $12 for BD and $ 7 for HD Code. I only paid $23 for entire package. Even with eBay/paypal/shipping fees, I still got the 3D for next to nothing.


----------



## marcuslaw

SoToS said:


> In short, all of your arguments or your "statistics" will collapse spectacularly the moment you present a number of random viewers the chance to judge the viewing experience between two 3D TV sets side-by-side, one with active glasses and one with passive, especially a 4K passive one. Let them try the active 3D TV for 10 minutes, then immediately give them the passive glasses to watch the passive 4K TV. You'll find out that the vast majority, if not ALL of them, will prefer the passive set expressing the huge difference they feel with that system.[/COLOR]


We're going off topic. I'm glad your a fan of home video 3-D even if you're an advocate of competing technology. I'm not interested in side-by-side comparisons. I'm only interested in my own experience and of those with whom I've shared my TV and I can tell you that it's been overwhelmingly positive. 



> Explanation: It is a subconscious inconvenience that is caused by providing your brain with a noisy 3D image -half the 3D information in a given time and worse. It's like the hum (ripple) on an unregulated voltage for those involved with electronics. While your brain tries to build the parallax mental image, the signal from both eyes is not consistent.


This sounds like an excerpt from the script of Pixar's Inside Out. Look, whatever happens inside my head while watching 3-D on my TV apparently creates a pleasing, headache free result. 



> Either you see the left image and a faint right afterimage from the previous frame, or the right image and a faint afterimage from the current frame. This image ripple along with the interference from the previous frame is causing a negative feeling subconsciously (or even consciously for many people) which can be realized fully only with the above experiment. Your brain constantly strugles to deal with a noisy, unbalanced signal that creates stress at least subconsciously. It's not a matter of belief or personal opinion, it's a scientific fact.


Watching 3-D on my Sony creates warm, fuzzy feelings. I don't know about ripples, noise and subconscious unbalancing.


----------



## Barry C

SoToS said:


> @aaronwt @jvh4 @marcuslaw
> 
> I used the word "headache" due to internet chat economy and because it is used by many others, but it might not be the right word. I'll try again:
> 
> In short, all of your arguments or your "statistics" will collapse spectacularly the moment you present a number of random viewers the chance to judge the viewing experience between two 3D TV sets side-by-side, one with active glasses and one with passive, especially a 4K passive one. Let them try the active 3D TV for 10 minutes, then immediately give them the passive glasses to watch the passive 4K TV. You'll find out that the vast majority, if not ALL of them, will prefer the passive set expressing the huge difference they feel with that system.
> 
> Explanation: It is a subconscious inconvenience that is caused by providing your brain with a noisy 3D image -half the 3D information in a given time and worse. It's like the hum (ripple) on an unregulated voltage for those involved with electronics. While your brain tries to build the parallax mental image, the signal from both eyes is not consistent.
> 
> Either you see the left image and a faint right afterimage from the previous frame, or the right image and a faint afterimage from the current frame. This image ripple along with the interference from the previous frame is causing a negative feeling subconsciously (or even consciously for many people) which can be realized fully only with the above experiment. Your brain constantly strugles to deal with a noisy, unbalanced signal that creates stress at least subconsciously. It's not a matter of belief or personal opinion, it's a scientific fact.


Thank you for that insightful explanation on why active is inferior. Now, I'll repeat myself, I'm really tired of this active vs passive stuff. Both are good and are enjoyed by 3D enthusiasts when viewed on GOOD displays. Arguing about what everyone would, or should, like if given the choice is meaningless and I won't engage in it. Time to move on. Perhaps, if you feel that this topic merits extended discussion, a new dedicated passive is better than active thread would be warranted


----------



## andy sullivan

blackssr said:


> Just sell off the DVD, Blu-ray 2D and HD code on eBay. I do it all the time. I just sold off all 3 for $10 for DVD, $12 for BD and $ 7 for HD Code. I only paid $23 for entire package. Even with eBay/paypal/shipping fees, I still got the 3D for next to nothing.


I agree with your solution but the question remains, is 3D dead. The consensus here seems to be that death may be eminent if marketing continues as it has. How many would buy the 3D/BR movie if the cost was the same as the BR movie? How many 3D movies would you buy if the price was the same as the BR version but the 3D package did not include the BR version?


----------



## SoToS

@marcuslaw Barry C 
I said what I had to say about the OT subject. And I didn't speak from a subjective perspective. More or less it's the boiling frog syndrome: If you put a frog in a pot with water and start gradually increasing the temperature, the frog will continuously adapt and remain inside even when the water starts to boil and eventually will die from the high temperature. If instead you drop the frog inside a pot with the water already boiling, the frog will immediately jump out because of the temperature comparison. Comparison is key.



marcuslaw said:


> I have no idea what you mean by "all the other active problems" but besides rare flicker, I'm not aware of what those might be.


Ghosting, blury image, heavier glasses, expensive glasses, charging, sync problems, interference from lights, you can't simultaneously work and watch an active 3D panel etc.
Of course some of the above vary from model to model and the later models are getting better.

@Barry C 
I didn't want to start an OT discussion (and I won't continue), I referred to this as a factor to the overall viewing experience and 3D impression that has affected the industry.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Hi just stumble upon this thread,

I would like for 3D to finally get the attention it deserves. I like 3D and have the chance to have a good cinema nearby with good 3D they keep their PJ healthy lumens wise and the 3D is really good for realD I also have a IMAX close(ISH) 1hour drive.

Couple a years ago I bought a samsung 3D Plasma and while it was nice I never really used it to much crosstalk on the material I saw and I was honestly shocked that I could get a better 3D than that. It got even worse after I got it calibrated I lost to much light and had to use Dynamic so I said that was enough for the home. Also my wife caught the worst headaches and eye fatigue real quick.

Then I went to a friends house and saw a nice 3D image on his passive TV, bonus was that my wife didn't get a headache 

At that point I was starting to look into PJ and did a lot of research for passive 3D PJ setups. I even found out I could build such a setup for under 3K and was just about to pull the trigger when my wife lost her job during maternity leave (talk about as*holes). So it had to be postponed.

Earlier this year after year of waiting I finally bought a PJ, a single one for now thinking I would first try its 3D has it had been reported to be really good and bright.

To my surprise we BOTH like a lot and no headaches or eye fatigue in sight.

I also went back to check the TV with the newer glass (FULLHD3D) and lo and behold 3D's much better. (still a little crosstalk tho)

As I said I have a good cinema nearby, but during the holidays I just had one of the worst 3D experience of my life... I went to see Star Wars in a theater I didn't know with my in-laws.

OMG !!! picture was so BAD lots of crosstalk I mean LOTS also image was dull lifeless and the lamp was being milked to its last lumen. The worst ever. Had it been my first 3D movie honestly I'm not sure I would've bothered again. especially since its 3$ more.

So I love 3d and my wife Supports my love of 3D but there are so many variables (content, display, glasses, physical state (no booze please  )in seeing good 3D that its really easy to understand why so many people dont care for it. Unfortunately marketing doesn't take this into account they only see the $$$ it made. 

I wish that good 3D lives and that they stop retrofitting bad movies in cheap 3D for a gimmick it's bad press. 

In the end my PJ has some of the best 3D I ever seen. I just watched the Lorax it was really impressive. But I think that stupid business decision will ultimately kill 3D they already moved to the next gimmick i.e: enter ATMOS.


----------



## marcuslaw

andy sullivan said:


> I agree with your solution but the question remains, is 3D dead. The consensus here seems to be that death may be eminent if marketing continues as it has. How many would buy the 3D/BR movie if the cost was the same as the BR movie? How many 3D movies would you buy if the price was the same as the BR version but the 3D package did not include the BR version?


I believe 3-D BD will continue on pace so long as 3-D theatrical ticket sales remain high. It translates into the home video market. If there's money to be made, the studios will continue to produce them.


----------



## jvh4

SoToS said:


> @marcuslaw Barry C
> I said what I had to say about the OT subject. And I didn't speak from a subjective perspective. More or less it's the boiling frog syndrome: If you put a frog in a pot with water and start gradually increasing the temperature, the frog will continuously adapt and remain inside even when the water starts to boil and eventually will die from the high temperature. If instead you drop the frog inside a pot with the water already boiling, the frog will immediately jump out because of the temperature comparison. Comparison is key.
> 
> Ghosting, blury image, heavier glasses, expensive glasses, charging, sync problems, interference from lights, you can't simultaneously work and watch an active 3D panel etc.
> Of course some of the above vary from model to model and the later models are getting better.
> 
> @Barry C
> I didn't want to start an OT discussion (and I won't continue), I referred to this as a factor to the overall viewing experience and 3D impression that has affected the industry.


Last thing I will say on this topic.

We understand the difficulties people can experience while watching 3D. The problem we have with your posts is that you are attributing display problems to the entire technology. It is possible to watch 3D movies on a quality active display without experiencing the problems you are describing. I have an active DLP projector and can watch 3D almost indefinitely. 

It's like going into a car forum and saying trucks are better than cars because cars have issues. It matters if you're driving a pinto or a porche. You can scream until your face turns blue that trucks are better because cars have issues, but at the end of the day, both technologies will get you where you're going and those of us with the porche aren't feeling the effects of a tap on the pinto's gas tank.


----------



## jvh4

marcuslaw said:


> I believe 3-D BD will continue on pace so long as 3-D theatrical ticket sales remain high. It translates into the home video market. If there's money to be made, the studios will continue to produce them.


This is where I'm nervous. You can go to the theater and watch a 3D movies without much sacrifice of resolution. They are showing 3D movies on projectors that can do UHD. IMAX advertises 4k 3D movies. At home however, you do have to choose between 3D and UHD.


----------



## blackssr

andy sullivan said:


> I agree with your solution but the question remains, is 3D dead. The consensus here seems to be that death may be eminent if marketing continues as it has. How many would buy the 3D/BR movie if the cost was the same as the BR movie? How many 3D movies would you buy if the price was the same as the BR version but the 3D package did not include the BR version?


I happen to enjoy 3D movies. I realize many do not. I have about 70 movies or so. Avatar, The Avengers,The Martian, Everest, The Walk, Pacific Rim and Transformers, just to name a few, are really fun to watch in 3D. I have an 80" and an 85" TV with active and passive glasses. I would buy the 3D version any way they put them out because I am vested now and could sell off if the need arises but we really have fun when friends come over to watch.


----------



## marcuslaw

jvh4 said:


> This is where I'm nervous. You can go to the theater and watch a 3D movies without much sacrifice of resolution. They are showing 3D movies on projectors that can do UHD. IMAX advertises 4k 3D movies. At home however, you do have to choose between 3D and UHD.


I see your point. I've already been confronted with that choice in the case of The Martian and went with the 3-D 1080p version (it also happened to be cheaper than the UHD pre-order price, a first, I'm sure). I thought I read somewhere that Fox was going to package the 3-D disc with the UHD where applicable. If true, hopefully other studios will follow. Perhaps it's time to drop the DVD copy.


----------



## andy sullivan

jvh4 said:


> This is where I'm nervous. You can go to the theater and watch a 3D movies without much sacrifice of resolution. They are showing 3D movies on projectors that can do UHD. IMAX advertises 4k 3D movies. At home however, you do have to choose between 3D and UHD.


Not to mention the choices out there now of how to receive your movie. Pay Per View, stream it from several places like NetFlix and Amazon, rent it from Redbox. Not many options if you want to watch a 3D version. 3D seems to be/is getting lost in the UHD revolution.


----------



## longhornsk57

jvh4 said:


> Last thing I will say on this topic.
> 
> We understand the difficulties people can experience while watching 3D. The problem we have with your posts is that you are attributing display problems to the entire technology. It is possible to watch 3D movies on a quality active display without experiencing the problems you are describing. I have an active DLP projector and can watch 3D almost indefinitely.
> 
> It's like going into a car forum and saying trucks are better than cars because cars have issues. It matters if you're driving a pinto or a porche. You can scream until your face turns blue that trucks are better because cars have issues, but at the end of the day, both technologies will get you where you're going and those of us with the porche aren't feeling the effects of a tap on the pinto's gas tank.


This is key.

I have an optoma PJ and I use optoma RF glasses. This means 100% sync always, even if I leave the room, I notice no ghosting, no flicker, and everyone enjoys 3D at my house.

Same setup with a $10 Chinese dlp link is not as good, and bad passive suffers some worse issues like no 1080p or ghosting etc vs DLP active.

Set up right 3D is just awesome.


----------



## cakefoo

Active shutter has more of a liquid rip or blur than a flicker. The tech works by rapidly flipping between left and right eye images, and the brain associates those as one image because they show at nearly the same time. But every time a new frame updates, our brain tries to join the new frame with the previous frame the other eye just saw, and results in a brief time warp.

Even SOME polarized projectors at theaters employ this alternating technique. I just saw Star Wars and it looked like a blurry mess in motion. Completely ruins the film framerate look.

My passive monitor shows the left and right eye at the exact same time, so it retains the look of moving film perfectly.


----------



## rural scribe

longhornsk57 said:


> I have an optoma PJ and I use optoma RF glasses. This means 100% sync always, even if I leave the room, I notice no ghosting, no flicker, and everyone enjoys 3D at my house.
> 
> Same setup with a $10 Chinese dlp link is not as good, and bad passive suffers some worse issues like no 1080p or ghosting etc vs DLP active.
> 
> Set up right 3D is just awesome.


I also have an Optima projector (HD 25e) and RF glasses, with the same result as you. A good, solid 3D experience (depending on the film). I never see any flicker in my 3D movies at all, at 144hz, but I can see flicker in 60hz fluorescent lights.

I recently watched the new Star Wars movie in Dolby 3D in a movie theater, and it was greatly inferior to my home setup. I saw the same film at a Cinemark XD venue (similar to Imax) and the 3D and sound quality were both far superior to the other theater (Real D 3D in both theaters, too).

With different 3D equipment, and different people watching, it is difficult to make comparisons that have equivalency.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

longhornsk57 said:


> This is key.
> 
> I have an optoma PJ and I use optoma RF glasses. This means 100% sync always, even if I leave the room, I notice no ghosting, no flicker, and everyone enjoys 3D at my house.
> 
> Same setup with a $10 Chinese dlp link is not as good, and bad passive suffers some worse issues like no 1080p or ghosting etc vs DLP active.
> 
> Set up right 3D is just awesome.





rural scribe said:


> I also have an Optima projector (HD 25e) and RF glasses, with the same result as you. A good, solid 3D experience (depending on the film). I never see any flicker in my 3D movies at all, at 144hz, but I can see flicker in 60hz fluorescent lights.
> 
> I recently watched the new Star Wars movie in Dolby 3D in a movie theater, and it was greatly inferior to my home setup. I saw the same film at a Cinemark XD venue (similar to Imax) and the 3D and sound quality were both far superior to the other theater (Real D 3D in both theaters, too).
> 
> With different 3D equipment, and different people watching, it is difficult to make comparisons that have equivalency.


I have the epson 2040 who also have RF glasses and I havent lost sync yet either and havent noticed any flicker/ghosting/crosstalk issues so far and has I wrote in my previous post I had all those issues with my samsung plasma. 

I also had the same bad STAR WARS experience. I'm schedule to see it in IMAX ULTRA AVX D-BOX soon at over 20$ a seat I have high hopes.


----------



## NorthSky

Question to the experts: *OLED UHD 3D Passive or Active?* ;-)

*UHD 3D front projectors?*

Serious question, and LG (OLED) and Samsung (LED), and Sony (LED) UHD 3D into very big consideration...for flat panel TVs.

* And I know that UHD is only in 2D; but I am asking strictly about the best UHD display for 3D rendition, and yes, even in 2016 about the state of Passive and Acive 3D. Because yesterday wasn't like today; yesterday was only 2K, today is 4K, so the slight change might also account for a slight perception's difference between active and passive 3D...I just don't know...that's why I'm asking. There is nothing absolute and nothing is wrong about asking that question in the age of UHD, OLED, ...in 2016. Someone wants to know, and others I'm sure too.


----------



## SoToS

jvh4 said:


> Last thing I will say on this topic.
> 
> We understand the difficulties people can experience while watching 3D. *The problem we have with your posts is that you are attributing display problems to the entire technology.* It is possible to watch 3D movies on a quality active display without experiencing the problems you are describing. I have an active DLP projector and can watch 3D almost indefinitely.


 Good for you. I also can (could) watch whole movies in anaglyph while most people can't -our personal tolerance is too subjective.
But even a "Porche" active display can't provide a picture to both of your eyes simultaneously (120 or 144 hz is not simultaneous) and therefore can't compete in terms of comfort with the simultaneous viewing of a passive display for many people. That's not a display problem it's a technology problem common to all active displays.

Active displays have other pros, but statistically viewing comfort is not their strength. I would buy an active 3D TV too in order to work at a close distance with highly detailed material, if 4K passive 3D TVs didn't exist, so when time comes I'll just upgrade to a 4K passive 3D TV instead to save myself from additional eyestrain, interference with stray light, charging etc.

I hope I didn't made your viewing less enjoyable in your active theater just because I mentioned how this affects other people.
We didn't invent those technologies, we just bought their products and we might sell them to get something better, even something completely different in the future. It's silly to defend them like they are our brain children!


----------



## film113

The REAL issue with 3D is that there is ZERO advertising. When a movie hits theaters, the ads always show "See it in ReakD and IMAX 3D! But when it hits home video, not a single ad ever indicates tht it is available in 3D...not even on a photo of the BD case. Heck, our esteemed reviewer Ralph Potts requested a 3D title for review but the studio only sent the standard BD. Even trade publications won't indicate it. Yet, despite the industry doing everything in its power to hide 3D's existence on discs, many titles still sell well enough to account for 25% - 33% of all disc sales of a title. (Of course, other do less well...depends on the title.) If it can do that with no advertising, one can only speculate on sales if people actually know the product existed (outside of sites like AVS). THAT is what should be asked when speaking with studio people. And personally, I've never met anyone who hates the glasses so much that they'd sacrifice the experience with well-done titles. What I have heard people say is that they forgot they were even wearing the glasses. Had a couple over a while back and we watched EXODUS (I know, I know) and the first response was "wow!" All enjoyed it and that is most likely primarily due to the 3D more than the movie itself. (And they own a 4K (non-3D) set too! A clueless industry relying more on hype than substance.


----------



## longhornsk57

SoToS said:


> Good for you. I also can (could) watch whole movies in anaglyph while most people can't -our personal tolerance is too subjective.
> But even a "Porche" active display can't provide a picture to both of your eyes simultaneously (120 or 144 hz is not simultaneous) and therefore can't compete in terms of comfort with the simultaneous viewing of a passive display for many people. That's not a display problem it's a technology problem common to all active displays.
> 
> Active displays have other pros, but statistically viewing comfort is not their strength. I would buy an active 3D TV too in order to work at a close distance with highly detailed material, if 4K passive 3D TVs didn't exist, so when time comes I'll just upgrade to a 4K passive 3D TV instead to save myself from additional eyestrain, interference with stray light, charging etc.
> 
> I hope I didn't made your viewing less enjoyable in your active theater just because I mentioned how this affects other people.
> We didn't invent those technologies, we just bought their products and we might sell them to get something better, even something completely different in the future. It's silly to defend them like they are our brain children!


You are basing your opinion on dubious logic. What "statistics" are you talking about? Was there a legitimate national survey done?

If you cannot differentiate the frame alternation at 144hz then intrinsically it is simultaneous 1080p.

That's like saying a 16K resolution on a 5" screen is "better" than an 8K. It's not discernible at that point.

If I have dozens of friends and family watch 3D movies and gotten zero complaints and comments like "it's better than the movie theater (passive)" then that evidence outweighs theoretical reasons why you are getting headaches.

Keep in mind a lot of us use PJs. I have a 150" screen, so active is the only way to go, but it looks as good or better than the movie theater and is MORE comfortable to me personally and people I know.


----------



## SoToS

film113 said:


> The REAL issue with 3D is that there is ZERO advertising. When a movie hits theaters, the ads always show "See it in ReakD and IMAX 3D! But when it hits home video, not a single ad ever indicates tht it is available in 3D...not even on a photo of the BD case. Even our esteemed reviewer Ralph Potts requested a 3D title for review but the studio nly sent the standard BD. Even trade publications won't indicate it. Yet, despite the industry doingn everything in its power to hide 3D;s existence on discs, many titles still sel well enough to account for 25% - 33% of all disc sales of a title. (Of course, other do less well...depends on the title.) If it can do that with no advertising, one can only speculate on sales if people actually know the product existed (outside of sites like AVS). THAT is what should be asked when speaking with studio people. And personally, I've never met anyone who hates the glasses so much that they'd sacrifice the experience with well-done titles. What I have heard people say is that they forgot they were even wearing the glasses. Had a couple over a while back and we watched EXODUS (I know, I know) and the first response was "wow!" (Re: the 3D, not the film...but all enjoyed it and that is most likely primarily due to the 3D more than the movie itself. And they own a 4K (non-3D) set too!) A clueless industry relying more on hype than substance.


Even worse, there is zero advertising on 3D TVs, I had to dig deep to discover their 3D products, so I agree about the "clueless industry" both the entertainment industry and the manufacturers. Instead of improving their products until they are accepted and do a market research early enough to avoid failures, and then continuously request feedback, they ...don't even speak about them if they don't sell well or they completely abandon them! 

That's a fatalistic and anti-evolution policy. So much for the marketing science too -either they are clueless about marketing (and most are no matter how big, books are written about it eg the book _"In search of Stupidity: Over 20 years of marketing disasters"_ -a great read BTW) or it is because they approach market as gambling -they don't invent products themselves so they have no vision or confidence with technology let alone trust to the true inventors, they just gamble with money, stocks and manufacturing.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

SoToS said:


> Even worse, there is zero advertising on 3D TVs, I had to dig deep to discover their 3D products, so I agree about the "clueless industry" both the entertainment industry and the manufacturers. Instead of improving their products until they are accepted and do a market research early enough to avoid failures, and then continuously request feedback, they ...don't even speak about them if they don't sell well or they completely abandon them!
> 
> That's a fatalistic and anti-evolution policy. So much for the marketing science too -either they are clueless about marketing (and most are no matter how big, books are written about it eg the book _"In search of Stupidity: Over 20 years of marketing disasters"_ -a great read BTW) or it is because they approach market as gambling -they don't invent products themselves so they have no vision or confidence with technology let alone trust to the true inventors, they just gamble with money, stocks and manufacturing.


Bull eye nothing more to ad. Except that I'll look up that book


----------



## NorthSky

True; zero 3D promoting. ...We are left all alone.


----------



## SoToS

To avoid OT pollution:


Spoiler






longhornsk57 said:


> You are basing your opinion on dubious logic. What "statistics" are you talking about? Was there a legitimate national survey done?


If there was a national-wide one, we wouldn't have that discussion now, but google a little bit and you'll see everyone talking about passive being more comfortable to watch -that's enough statistics to arrive to a conclusion, but better check viewing comfort yourself as I did with a few friends, side-by-side, same size, same content.



> If you cannot differentiate the frame alternation at 144hz then intrinsically it is simultaneous 1080p.


Only half of your brain makes realizations. Your right part of your brain operates subconsciously and its feedback is just sentiments, feelings of inconvenience, pain etc. If we were to judge only what we immediately realize we would ignore half of our brain capacity -or less. Bad marketing /promotion actually exploits our human subconscious weaknesses and uses it to pass misleading messages, should we consider misleading "good" just because we don't realize it?



> That's like saying a 16K resolution on a 5" screen is "better" than an 8K. It's not discernible at that point.


Bad analogy, it won't cause you discomfort or pain so you don't care at all and most of all, you won't see or feel a difference by comparing them in contrast to the active vs passive comfort comparison.



> If I have dozens of friends and family watch 3D movies and gotten zero complaints and comments like "it's better than the movie theater (passive)" then that evidence outweighs theoretical reasons why you are getting headaches.


Actually, the passive movie theater (RealD) alternates the polarized images @ 144 hz so it's not a simultaneous viewing experience either. They all like it until they do the comparison side by side.



> IKeep in mind a lot of us use PJs. I have a 150" screen, so active is the only way to go, but it looks as good or better than the movie theater and is MORE comfortable to me personally and people I know.


Not the only way, you could put two 1080p 2D projectors instead with polarizing filters and have the best possible experience, with simultaneous, full res, bright huge image passive viewing. That's what I'd do as I had a 2D projector for 7 years so I miss the huge screen advantage.


----------



## longhornsk57

I've googled it and gotten mixed "reviews" most negative ones are based on logic vs actual experience. Some say they can't tell the difference.

You say it's a bad analogy because one doesn't cause pain. That's my point, no one has ever complained of pain or discomfort at my house, it is either placebo or rare.

I am not talking about fooling a hemisphere of the brain, I am talking about the flicker being so fast your EYES see it as one frame, therefore it's tantamount to one frame at 1080p for both eyes at the same time.

The logic you're using isn't even scientifically proven, it's assumption of reasoning for an unproven result.

So I should solve a nonexistent problem by buying another projector, filters, the device to send the signal, and an expensive polarized screen.

There is no real hard science for this


----------



## SoToS

@longhornsk57
I'll try once more:
It's something you feel subconsciously, you don't realize you feel it UNLESS you immediately switch to a 4K 3D passive set wear the passive glasses and watch the same content at the same screen size and distance with the center of the screen at eye level, AFTER you have watched the active one for 10-15 minutes. Only if you do this test you'll know, but better take with you a couple of friends not used to watching 3D to take into account their neutral opinions too. If you do this test properly you'll be surprised.


----------



## longhornsk57

SoToS said:


> @longhornsk57
> I'll try once more:
> It's something you feel subconsciously, you don't realize you feel it UNLESS you immediately switch to a 4K 3D passive set wear the passive glasses and watch the same content at the same screen size and distance with the center of the screen at eye level, AFTER you have watched the active one for 10-15 minutes. Only if you do this test you'll know, but better take with you a couple of friends not used to watching 3D to take into account their neutral opinions too. If you do this test properly you'll be surprised.


I'm not trying to be argumentative or prove anything or defend my setup, I just am having trouble seeing the logic.

You're saying that I'm in pain or discomfort but it's not scientifically biological, more of a subconscious effect I'm not even aware of. But if I saw the exact same setup on real passive setup I'd know the difference.

Problem is I wouldn't even have access to a 150" passive setup to compare apples to apples, and I suspect if I see it even on an 80" 4K set I'd be underwhelmed because I'm used to seeing it at about 4X that size.

But it's hard to just take your word for it that I am somehow missing out or in discomfort I don't even know about. I don't believe you're trolling, I think I'm tracking.

But my main point is that neither I nor anyone who's seen 3D on my setup has ever complained of any discomfort. Just "that's awesome!" - so using active as a reason for decline of 3D seems dubious o'er my experience. That was mainly it.


----------



## SoToS

longhornsk57 said:


> I suspect if I see it even on an 80" 4K set I'd be underwhelmed because I'm used to seeing it at about 4X that size.


You don't have to be amazed by the 3D effect as you are at home, you won't compare the 3D impression, you'll compare the viewing comfort between two screens of identical size and content, one active, the other 4K passive. Don't take my word, try it -you or anyone else that wants to investigate the subject with an open mind and honestly reveal the result, but do it right the way I've suggested.


----------



## longhornsk57

SoToS said:


> You don't have to be amazed by the 3D effect as you are at home, you won't compare the 3D impression, you'll compare the viewing comfort between two screens of identical size and content, one active, the other 4K passive. Don't take my word, try it -you or anyone else that wants to investigate the subject with an open mind and honestly reveal the result, but do it right the way I've suggested.


I will try it on a demo unit at the store and get back to you.


----------



## MLXXX

NorthSky said:


> Question to the experts: *OLED UHD 3D Passive or Active?* ;-)
> 
> *UHD 3D front projectors?*
> 
> Serious question, and LG (OLED) and Samsung (LED), and Sony (LED) UHD 3D into very big consideration...for flat panel TVs.
> 
> * And I know that UHD is only in 2D; but I am asking strictly about the best UHD display for 3D rendition, and yes, even in 2016 about the state of Passive and Acive 3D. Because yesterday wasn't like today; yesterday was only 2K, today is 4K, so the slight change might also account for a slight perception's difference between active and passive 3D...I just don't know...that's why I'm asking. There is nothing absolute and nothing is wrong about asking that question in the age of UHD, OLED, ...in 2016. Someone wants to know, and others I'm sure too.


In recent posts in this thread, SoToS has been promoting passive over active. I tend to be in the passive camp myself as I am very sensitive to the timing mismatch between the presentation of the Left and Right views inherent in an alternating system for the display of stereoscopic views. But a lot of people don't have that degree of sensitivity.

In Australia a few years ago we had television test broadcasts of 3D sport at 50Hz interlaced, with shutter glasses in the home operating at only 100Hz. And people in Europe would also have experienced 100Hz alternation rate 3D with sport. I personally found 100Hz too slow for comfortable viewing of 3D. I saw mirage effects at that alternation rate, and a general jumpiness in the picture. However, many people didn't experience such effects, and found 100Hz acceptable.

Today we have:


 typical flat panel active 3D displays alternating at 120Hz for 24fps or 60Hz content
 RealD public cinemas where for a 24fps movie the alternation rate is 144Hz at the projector, and the audience wear passive glasses.
 a handful of active 3D home projector models operating at 144Hz, for 24fps content, though most home pj's appear to alternate at only 120Hz for 24fps content.


I will go out on a limb and say that the average person is likely to be reasonably comfortable with a 120Hz 3D alternation rate. I say that as it has been the standard for flat panel displays, and is not all that much below the 144Hz of RealD public cinema 3D. Many people have reported watching 3D that way (at a 120Hz alternation rate) for long periods, without any ill effects. For myself it will generate a general choppiness, and a sporadic mirage effect. I find these effects worse when viewing a projector screen. I find a home projector operating at 144Hz a significant step up from a home projector operating at 120Hz, but then I am very sensitive to the out of phase "mirage" effect! 

Even 144Hz will very occasionally produce a mirage effect for my vision at a public cinema. (I think I'd prefer 196Hz if it were available for 24fps 3D movies.) Generally though, I find 3D at a RealD cinema calming and satisfying, though a little lacking in brightness.

But there are two factors that can swing the balance towards active:



Viewing height is very critical when viewing a flat panel screen that uses a film-type patterned retarder (the typical technology for a passive 3D panel). If you sit on the floor, or stand up, or sit on a stool, the cross-talk between Left and Right can become so severe the 3D is unwatchable.
 Although cross-talk is low with passive glasses used within the optimum vertical viewing angle range, it can be lower with DLP projectors and active glasses.
 
I would recommend that anyone contemplating purchasing a flat panel or a projector expressly for the enjoyment of 24fps 3D movies carry out tests beforehand to determine how sensitive they are to alternating Left and Right. If you are very sensitive like me, you will not choose a projector that alternates at only 120Hz. And you would likely buy a 4k flat panel TV that requires passive glasses. On the other hand, if you are of average sensitivity, you may find an alternation rate of 120Hz quite acceptable and comfortable.

Showrooms theses days are not always set up for demonstration of 3D but perhaps as a potential buyer you should insist on a demonstration. Are the active glasses giving you a calm, serene impression, or is the effect a little jumbled with an occasional mirage effect?

There's not too much 3D sport these days. But anyone thinking of watching 50Hz 3D sport to a significant extent should be particularly wary. If the shutter glassses drop down to only 100Hz for such content, you may find the picture becomes quite difficult to watch, depending on your personal sensitivity.


----------



## cakefoo

MLXXX said:


> In recent posts in this thread, SoToS has been promoting passive over active. I tend to be in the passive camp myself as I am very sensitive to the timing mismatch between the presentation of the Left and Right views inherent in an alternating system for the display of stereoscopic views. But a lot of people don't have that degree of sensitivity.
> 
> In Australia a few years ago we had television test broadcasts of 3D sport at 50Hz interlaced, with shutter glasses in the home operating at only 100Hz. And people in Europe would also have experienced 100Hz alternation rate 3D with sport. I personally found 100Hz too slow for comfortable viewing of 3D. I saw mirage effects at that alternation rate, and a general jumpiness in the picture. However, many people didn't experience such effects, and found 100Hz acceptable.
> 
> Today we have:
> 
> 
> typical flat panel active 3D displays alternating at 120Hz for 24fps or 60Hz content
> RealD public cinemas where for a 24fps movie the alternation rate is 144Hz at the projector, and the audience wear passive glasses.
> a handful of active 3D home projector models operating at 144Hz, for 24fps content, though most home pj's appear to alternate at only 120Hz for 24fps content.
> 
> 
> I will go out on a limb and say that the average person is likely to be reasonably comfortable with a 120Hz 3D alternation rate. I say that as it has been the standard for flat panel displays, and is not all that much below the 144Hz of RealD public cinema 3D. Many people have reported watching 3D that way (at a 120Hz alternation rate) for long periods, without any ill effects. For myself it will generate a general choppiness, and a sporadic mirage effect. I find these effects worse when viewing a projector screen. I find a home projector operating at 144Hz a significant step up from a home projector operating at 120Hz, but then I am very sensitive to the out of phase "mirage" effect!
> 
> Even 144Hz will very occasionally produce a mirage effect for my vision at a public cinema. (I think I'd prefer 196Hz if it were available for 24fps 3D movies.) Generally though, I find 3D at a RealD cinema calming and satisfying, though a little lacking in brightness.
> 
> But there are two factors that can swing the balance towards active:
> 
> 
> 
> Viewing height is very critical when viewing a flat panel screen that uses a film-type patterned retarder (the typical technology for a passive 3D panel). If you sit on the floor, or stand up, or sit on a stool, the cross-talk between Left and Right can become so severe the 3D is unwatchable.
> Although cross-talk is low with passive glasses used within the optimum vertical viewing angle range, it can be lower with DLP projectors and active glasses.
> 
> I would recommend that anyone contemplating purchasing a flat panel or a projector expressly for the enjoyment of 24fps 3D movies carry out tests beforehand to determine how sensitive they are to alternating Left and Right. If you are very sensitive like me, you will not choose a projector that alternates at only 120Hz. And you would likely buy a 4k flat panel TV that requires passive glasses. On the other hand, if you are of average sensitivity, you may find an alternation rate of 120Hz quite acceptable and comfortable.
> 
> Showrooms theses days are not always set up for demonstration of 3D but perhaps as a potential buyer you should insist on a demonstration. Are the active glasses giving you a calm, serene impression, or is the effect a little jumbled with an occasional mirage effect?
> 
> There's not too much 3D sport these days. But anyone thinking of watching 50Hz 3D sport to a significant extent should be particularly wary. If the shutter glassses drop down to only 100Hz for such content, you may find the picture becomes quite difficult to watch, depending on your personal sensitivity.


I'm sensitive to the mirage effect too. Not only does it make moving images blurrier, it also kills the 3D effect when something is moving side to side, as it either negates the parallax or it amplifies it, depending on if the object is moving left to right, or right to left.

Excluding Star Wars in RealD, it's been over 2 years since I saw a 3D movie in theaters. I've seen 3D movies look flawless in theaters, and I've tried to look back at the projectors to figure out if there were two of them, but I never could tell. And I can't remember if I was in an IMAX theater or RealD in any specific instances. I want to say IMAX uses dual projectors and doesn't have the mirage effect.


----------



## MLXXX

Cakefoo, I think an alternation rate of 144Hz can work for a high percentage of people in a RealD cinema because the light level looking through the passive glasses is quite low. I have read that our eyes respond a little more slowly at low light levels. For my eyes, 144Hz at low lighting levels really isn't too bad at all for 24fps content. On the other hand I find 120Hz, in a home projector or flat panel, annoying.


----------



## jvh4

Not to be a jerk, but there are are plenty of threads on this topic already. No one is going to post anything we haven't heard before. Can we please get back topic?


----------



## jvh4

film113 said:


> The REAL issue with 3D is that there is ZERO advertising. When a movie hits theaters, the ads always show "See it in ReakD and IMAX 3D! But when it hits home video, not a single ad ever indicates tht it is available in 3D...not even on a photo of the BD case. Heck, our esteemed reviewer Ralph Potts requested a 3D title for review but the studio only sent the standard BD. Even trade publications won't indicate it. Yet, despite the industry doing everything in its power to hide 3D's existence on discs, many titles still sell well enough to account for 25% - 33% of all disc sales of a title. (Of course, other do less well...depends on the title.) If it can do that with no advertising, one can only speculate on sales if people actually know the product existed (outside of sites like AVS). THAT is what should be asked when speaking with studio people. And personally, I've never met anyone who hates the glasses so much that they'd sacrifice the experience with well-done titles. What I have heard people say is that they forgot they were even wearing the glasses. Had a couple over a while back and we watched EXODUS (I know, I know) and the first response was "wow!" All enjoyed it and that is most likely primarily due to the 3D more than the movie itself. (And they own a 4K (non-3D) set too! A clueless industry relying more on hype than substance.


I have often lamented the same thing. When I see ads for the Martian, for example, why don't they say "buy it today in 3D, and take the experience to a new level. Let yourself be transported to Mars." 

Best I can tell, the studios are hedging their bets. They put money into the production and distribution, but aren't willing to invest more in 3D which apparently includes advertising. Maybe they consider the niche market to not require the advertising, and they don't project enough new sales to offset the marketing costs?

It baffles me.


----------



## NorthSky

@MLXXX ... Thx for your reply; very informative relating to 3D's survival, technologically: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/1496126-3d-about-dead-82.html#post40868442

Cheers


----------



## Joseph Dubin

jvh4 said:


> I have often lamented the same thing. When I see ads for the Martian, for example, why don't they say "buy it today in 3D, and take the experience to a new level. Let yourself be transported to Mars."
> 
> Best I can tell, the studios are hedging their bets. They put money into the production and distribution, but aren't willing to invest more in 3D which apparently includes advertising. Maybe they consider the niche market to not require the advertising, and they don't project enough new [email protected];s to offset the marketing costs?
> 
> It baffles me.


All I can say is I was looking for a new HD set and 3D happened to be one of the features but not one of the factors that made my decision. But since I had it, I slowly got hooked, first with just simulated which seemed to be the extent of it. But our cable provider had HBO and STARZ on demand which included 3D titles.

That was all the exposure I needed. Though not wanting to take on the added expense, the bug got to me and I went ahead and got a bluray 3D player and started collecting discs.

Mid priced sets often include 3D as a standard feature so its a matter of getting some sort of content to the buyer to see. Understand on demand 3D for free is not included with many providers.

But it seems all sets with 3D are also smart sets. The manufactures would be smart to have one or two dedicated apps for 3D, even if just in the form of trailers. Give it some free exposure in the home in order to further market the product.

If I didn't have the free on demand, I might not have caught the bug. Many of us do not go to the theaters and experience 3D there to know how great it is. For example. Turned off Pacific Rim twenty minutes into the movie when first on cable. After getting the bluray 3D player, read up on the disc, bought it used, and loved the film because I got immersed in the 3D depth.


----------



## aaronwt

SOmeone mentioned 144Hz for Real 3D in the theater. How is Imax 3D? I am not a fan of the Real 3D in the theater. I've had several bad 3D viewing experiences with them. But never a bad 3D experience with Imax. So I tend to avoid Real 3D showings. But we did see The Martian in Real 3D, and that showing seemed fine to me.


----------



## cakefoo

aaronwt said:


> SOmeone mentioned 144Hz for Real 3D in the theater. How is Imax 3D? I am not a fan of the Real 3D in the theater. I've had several bad 3D viewing experiences with them. But never a bad 3D experience with Imax. So I tend to avoid Real 3D showings. But we did see The Martian in Real 3D, and that showing seemed fine to me.


Credit goes to dual projectors. I want to say RealD always uses a single projector, and IMAX always uses two, but don't quote me on that. My memory's too fuzzy to recall whether I was in a RealD or IMAX theater whenever flicker was present or absent. I haven't seen a 3D movie in theaters since Gravity, because of lack of interest in the kinds of movies that tack on 3D these days.

Strangely, I seem to recall in one or more instances, seeing flicker in the preview trailers but not in the feature film- like they switched from single to dual projection as soon as the movie started. I don't recall if that was RealD or IMAX.


----------



## DustNavy

I'd say it's about done, especially with 4k leaving it behind


----------



## SoToS

DustNavy said:


> I'd say it's about done, especially with 4k leaving it behind


That's as wise as saying, oranges are about done, especially with apples leaving them behind.

Just because 4K is promoted far more these days, it doesn't mean it competes with 3D.


And BTW, I just recalled this is one of the marketing tricks to make you buy something TWICE. In short, it's foolish to buy a 4K-only TV today just because of the marketing hype and because it's cheaper, otherwise you might find yourself selling your 4K TV -still new in a couple of years but obsolete, for pennies, to buy another brand new 4K with 3D capabilities costing you in total much more.


----------



## marcuslaw

DustNavy said:


> I'd say it's about done, especially with 4k leaving it behind


Marketing yes. 3-D sure looks fantastic on my UHD TV though. This weekend we watched Beyond the Edge (3-D), Everest (3-D), and last night, Terminator: Genisys (3-D). All eye candy in full HD.


----------



## Ste-lar7

marcuslaw said:


> Marketing yes. 3-D sure looks fantastic on my UHD TV though. This weekend we watched Beyond the Edge (3-D), Everest (3-D), and last night, Terminator: Genisys (3-D). All eye candy in full HD.


My weekend viewing has been Everest 3D, The Martian 3D and The Walk 3D. All extremely satisfying in 3D and I would dare say you HAVE to see The Martian in 3D. It was a different movie than the one I saw in the theater in 2D. A DLP projector and 3D have me buying up discs on release day more than ever. And, my family agrees wholeheartedly.


----------



## aaronwt

I've watched The Martian twice, but only in 3D. Once in the theater and once at home. I'm looking forward to see how it is in 2D HDR with the UHD BD.


----------



## NorthSky

♦ http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ultra-hd-not-always-4k/

4K, 3D, 'The Martian', ...all that jazz.


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> ♦ http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ultra-hd-not-always-4k/
> 
> 4K, 3D, 'The Martian', ...all that jazz.


?? The Martian is not using the 2K Digital Intermediate for the UHD BD. As well as other titles. The martian is using the 5K footage and using that for all the live action. And all the effects will be scaled from 2K to 4K. And this is not upscaling in reatime like is done on a TV. Upscaling like this yields excellent results.

This is about as good as you can get since the special effects are typically done in 2K. And it would be cost prohibitive to do them all over again in 4K. Until the norm is special effects in 4K, this will be as good as it gets for most titles.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> ?? The Martian is not using the 2K Digital Intermediate for the UHD BD. As well as other titles. The martian is using the 5K footage and using that for all the live action. And all the effects will be scaled from 2K to 4K. And this is not upscaling in reatime like is done on a TV. Upscaling like this yields excellent results.
> 
> This is about as good as you can get since the special effects are typically done in 2K. And it would be cost prohibitive to do them all over again in 4K. Until the norm is special effects in 4K, this will be as good as it gets for most titles.


♦ *" 'The Martian’ – Shot in 5k, with a 2k DI "* ...for the UHD Blu-ray disc.

That's what it says Aaron.

* If this is incorrect, tell the author of the article, Josh Zyber. 
But usually Josh is pretty well informed on the latest technological audio/video related matters.


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> ?? The Martian is not using the 2K Digital Intermediate for the UHD BD. As well as other titles. The martian is using the 5K footage and using that for all the live action. And all the effects will be scaled from 2K to 4K. And this is not upscaling in reatime like is done on a TV. Upscaling like this yields excellent results.
> 
> This is about as good as you can get since the special effects are typically done in 2K. And it would be cost prohibitive to do them all over again in 4K. Until the norm is special effects in 4K, this will be as good as it gets for most titles.





NorthSky said:


> ♦ *" 'The Martian’ – Shot in 5k, with a 2k DI "* ...for the UHD Blu-ray disc.
> 
> That's what it says Aaron.
> 
> * If this is incorrect, tell the author of the article, Josh Zyber.
> But usually Josh is pretty well informed on the latest technological audio/video related matters.


While I'm not sold on Zyber's technical prowess, NorthSky might be right unless a new DI is made from the 5K stock. According to imdb, a 2K DI was made for The Martian. Now according to kodak in its Digital Workflow whitepaper,



> In digital post-production, the final digital intermediate is used to render a digital master. The digital master is recorded directly out to film to create prints or an internegative for release printing or to output a variety of electronic formats including digital cinema, SD, HD, DVD, and Blu-Ray.


Unless this workflow changes for UHD BD or a new DI is made, then The Martian's UHD BD might indeed derive from the 2K DI.


----------



## jvh4

aaronwt said:


> SOmeone mentioned 144Hz for Real 3D in the theater. How is Imax 3D? I am not a fan of the Real 3D in the theater. I've had several bad 3D viewing experiences with them. But never a bad 3D experience with Imax. So I tend to avoid Real 3D showings. But we did see The Martian in Real 3D, and that showing seemed fine to me.


In my experience, IMAX has been far superior to Real3D. 

The thing to keep in mind is not all theaters are equal. There is one theater near me with Read3D which is passable, but another one near me is atrocious. 

I'm lucky to have an Jordan's Furniture IMAX 30 minutes away. Best Theater experience I've had. I have also seen IMAX at a traditional theater a few times, and it was better than the Real3D, but not as good as the Jordan's 3D. 

There is a 2nd Jordan's that is an hour away that advertises laser 4k, but I've only been once and our seats were horrible (only got there an hour before show time) so I couldn't tell if it was better than the IMAX closer to home. 

I know for a fact that both of the Jordan's IMAX theater use dual projector set ups.


----------



## SoToS

NorthSky said:


> ♦ http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/ultra-hd-not-always-4k/
> 
> 4K, 3D, 'The Martian', ...all that jazz.


It's the illusion of 4K content, which reminds me the illusion of HD content, with the huge hype about the upscale-capable DVD players and the countless reviews about a decade ago, for the first generation of HD displays.

So buying a 4K TV for about 7 true-4K mediocre movies currently available is not a good reason (I wouldn't be a sucker paying a premium for upscaled content).

Buy a 4K TV to have the most comfortable, full res 3D blu ray experience instead -it must be a *passive *4K 3D TV for that.
And you can watch 2D 4K movies too if you want, when more quality titles are available, but I bet you'll prefer to watch them in 3D instead -at least those worth watching in 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> ♦ *" 'The Martian’ – Shot in 5k, with a 2k DI "* ...for the UHD Blu-ray disc.
> 
> That's what it says Aaron.
> 
> * If this is incorrect, tell the author of the article, Josh Zyber.
> But usually Josh is pretty well informed on the latest technological audio/video related matters.


Yes it is incorrect. They are not using the 2K DI for the UHD BD. Here is the info about what was done with The Martian UHD BD. From James Finn, an executive VP at Twentieth Century Fox .


----------



## mo949

Although I believe the 4k/HDR portion to be true, I'm not confident that a studio executive reassuring me that a filmmaker or cinematographer is involved in the process is worth much in general to all future titles.


----------



## SoToS

aaronwt said:


> *Yes it is incorrect. They are not using the 2K DI for the UHD BD.* Here is the info about what was done with The Martian UHD BD. From James Finn, an executive VP at Twentieth Century Fox .


Where did you see they are not using 2K DI? In that article he admits:
1. they start with 2K DI
2. they also use raw assets (5K for the Martian) -obviously occasionally, not further clarifying, but you can bet that cost priority will limit this.
3. they fake dynamic range using a colorist who paints and adjusts the contrast of frames ie the final dynamic range is NOT captured with the camera sensor.
Therefore, the end result is a mixed bag of upsampled content + some higher res material + the paint work of a colorist to fake the contrast of the picture.

I don't doubt it will look better, but it definitely will look worse than native 4K and native dynamic range. 

Even more, if you don't own an OLED UHD TV with the "Prime" logo, you will enjoy just a fraction of that DR increase -if at all.


----------



## NorthSky

*Right on!*



SoToS said:


> It's the illusion of 4K content, which reminds me the illusion of HD content, with the huge hype about the upscale-capable DVD players and the countless reviews about a decade ago, for the first generation of HD displays.
> So buying a 4K TV for about 7 true-4K mediocre movies currently available is not a good reason (I wouldn't be a sucker paying a premium for upscaled content).
> Buy a 4K TV to have the most comfortable, full res 3D blu ray experience instead -it must be a *passive *4K 3D TV for that.
> And you can watch 2D 4K movies too if you want, when more quality titles are available, but I bet you'll prefer to watch them in 3D instead -at least those worth watching in 3D.


♦ Good post, good advice, it suits my today's needs perfectly to a nice fitting 3D glove. 
3D is still the technology with the highest dimensional impact @ the movies...I go with the most fulfilling cinematic experience. 



aaronwt said:


> Yes it is incorrect. They are not using the 2K DI for the UHD BD. Here is the info about what was done with The Martian UHD BD. From James Finn, an executive VP at Twentieth Century Fox .


♦ That would be good additional information to Josh then.











mo949 said:


> Although I believe the 4k/HDR portion to be true, I'm not confident that a studio executive reassuring me that a filmmaker or cinematographer is involved in the process is worth much in general to all future titles.


♦ I just searched around...and I got confused and couldn't find the official truth under all that 4K veneer. So maybe some experts will know for certain on February 6, when 'The Martian' will become avail on UHD Blu? I don't even know if you can verify with measurements from that UHD Blu. 

For now I'll stay with the regular Blu (2K) in 3D.  ...I'll be reading soon enough regarding 4K and all that jazz from various movie studios...
Besides, 4K experts have their own dedicated threads, and here we're in 3D territory, with more depth and dimensional perspective; and I agree with *SoToS*'s above post...4K Passive TV for 2K/3D content...best of both worlds...that's where the 3D technology is @ today.
Next James Cameron and the rest of the 3D gang. ...The true genuine 3D conquistadors...the real artists of that higher cinematic movie experience. 
...Shot in 3D for our viewing pleasure.

2016 is going to be a good year...the best so far.


----------



## MLXXX

SoToS said:


> Where did you see they are not using 2K DI? In that article he admits:
> 1. they start with 2K DI
> 2. they also use raw assets (5K for the Martian) -obviously occasionally, not further clarifying, but you can bet that cost priority will limit this.
> 3. they fake dynamic range using a colorist who paints and adjusts the contrast of frames ie the final dynamic range is NOT captured with the camera sensor.
> Therefore, the end result is a mix bug of upsampled content + some higher res material + the paint work of a colorist to fake the contrast of the picture.
> 
> I don't doubt it will look better, but it definitely will look worse than native 4K and native dynamic range.
> 
> Even more, if you don't own an OLED UHD TV with the "Prime" logo, you will enjoy just a fraction of that DR increase -if at all.


Yes it seems the result would be a mixed bag.

I was not all that reassured when I read the quote attributed to an executive VP at Twentieth Century Fox. The language used struck me as loose, and very possibly to have had input from marketing specialists.

Given that in 2016 marketing people typically give a very positive spin, I have to assume that the explanation puts the best possible light on the true facts, whatever those true facts may be.

Perhaps a neutral and detailed explanation may emerge in the future.


----------



## aaronwt

SoToS said:


> Where did you see they are not using 2K DI? In that article he admits:
> 1. they start with 2K DI
> 2. they also use raw assets (5K for the Martian) -obviously occasionally, not further clarifying, but you can bet that cost priority will limit this.
> 3. they fake dynamic range using a colorist who paints and adjusts the contrast of frames ie the final dynamic range is NOT captured with the camera sensor.
> Therefore, the end result is a mix bag of upsampled content + some higher res material + the paint work of a colorist to fake the contrast of the picture.
> 
> I don't doubt it will look better, but it definitely will look worse than native 4K and native dynamic range.
> 
> Even more, if you don't own an OLED UHD TV with the "Prime" logo, you will enjoy just a fraction of that DR increase -if at all.


They take the raw 5K footage for the live shots and use that. The special effects are 2K, so that has to be upscaled. Which while not 4K will still look very good. Since we are not talking about real time upscaling.


----------



## MLXXX

aaronwt said:


> They take the raw 5K footage for the live shots and use that. The special effects are 2K, so that has to be upscaled. Which while not 4K will still look very good. Since we are not talking about real time upscaling.


Aaronwt, you basically made that claim back at your post #2448 .

The question that has been raised is what source of information do we have to support the claim. Is there anything beyond the James Finn words you provided at post #2453 ?

I would like to believe that in producing transfers to UltraHD Blu-ray it is feasible to use a 2K DI master as a reference and locate original much higher resolution footage and use those frames instead of the 2K DI master frames. To do a complete job, that would require that all of the original raw footage used for the 2K DI was still available.


----------



## EVERRET

Technavio is a leading global technology research and advisory company

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160125005064/en/Global-Large-Area-LCD-Display-Market-Surpass



> *Emergence of 3D LCD, UHD, and smart TVs*
> The global 3D LCD flat panel TV market is expected to grow at a rate of about 60% by volume until 2019, whereas the global smart TV market is expected to post a 19% growth in volumes during the same period. Rising sales of electronic brands in these segments is predicted to immensely benefit the large area LCD display market over the next four years.
> Technavio expects the penetration rate of 3D LCD and smart TVs to witness heightened interest among consumers interested in buying 3D technology. The emergence of UHD (ultra-high-definition) TV is also expected to fuel the demand for TFT LCD displays with prominent UHD TV makers such as Samsung developing the next-gen quantum dot LCD 4K UHD TV.


The more people that see 3D movies on UHD TVs ....... the more popular it will become globally.

Overall UHD 4K TV's & players will help 3D more than hurt it, because they both support existing Blu-rays and make 3D look better than ever.

Big blockbusters like Star Wars really helps 3D also , a few friends came by Sunday and asked if i had the 3D version yet so they could check it out.


----------



## aaronwt

But it doesn't help when the biggest seller of TVs, doesn't sell any 3D sets any more.


----------



## tomtastic

There's still Sony, Samsung and LG. All three of those are big and quality display manufacturers. What did we loose, Vizio and Panasonic? There's also PJ manufacturers.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> There's still Sony, Samsung and LG. All three of those are big and quality display manufacturers. What did we loose, Vizio and Panasonic? There's also PJ manufacturers.


Doesn't Vizio have almost 30% of the TV market? And still growing?

Vizio and Panasonic combined should be around a third of the market. I don't know for sure about Panasonic, but if both of them don't sell 3D TVs, that is almost one third of sets that won't have it. Then with the manufacturers that do sell 3D TVs, they don't sell all their TVs with that feature. It looks like each year 3D sales decrease.

Of course years ago they also predicted some gigantic amount of 3D TV sales by 2016. But that never came to pass.


----------



## EVERRET

aaronwt said:


> But it doesn't help when the biggest seller of TVs, doesn't sell any 3D sets any more.


Global TV sales

http://www.statista.com/statistics/267095/global-market-share-of-lcd-tv-manufacturers/

Visio ? was at 3.1%


----------



## marcuslaw

tomtastic said:


> There's still Sony, Samsung and LG. All three of those are big and quality display manufacturers. What did we loose, Vizio and Panasonic? There's also PJ manufacturers.


No, not Panasonic. For example, all three of its 2016 Premier 4K Ultra CX800 series  TVs support 3D. Just those two other ones, Vizio and Toshiba. Wooptidy doo.


----------



## aaronwt

EVERRET said:


> Global TV sales
> 
> http://www.statista.com/statistics/267095/global-market-share-of-lcd-tv-manufacturers/
> 
> Visio ? was at 3.1%


Maybe what I read was US only then? The article I read was from a year ago and showed them nipping at the heals of Samsung and had expected them to pass them soon.


----------



## tomtastic

marcuslaw said:


> No, not Panasonic. For example, all three of its 2016 Premier 4K Ultra CX800 series  TVs support 3D. Just those two other ones, Vizio and Toshiba. Wooptidy doo.


I went and looked at those, where do they mention 3D? They must have that feature buried somewhere in the notes. Good that Panasonic hasn't given up.

Yeah, Vizio I would never buy anyway, not a big loss there.


----------



## andy sullivan

tomtastic said:


> I went and looked at those, where do they mention 3D? They must have that feature buried somewhere in the notes. Good that Panasonic hasn't given up.
> 
> Yeah, Vizio I would never buy anyway, not a big loss there.


I learned a long time ago to never say never. Today Vizio offers a very good TV and I don't own one. As more components are farmed out by the major established brands (Sony) we'll continue to see Vizio's marketing strategy being implemented. The key to offering a quality product is using quality parts in that product. For instance, Sony doesn't make any of their own panels but they are big enough to dictate the quality and features in the panels they buy. As a huge lover of 3D I hated to see Vizio drop the 3D feature. This is a significant blow to the acceptance and especially the growth of 3D. This combined with the horrible marketing of 3D DVD's does not bode well for the growth of our 3D passion. It will be interesting to see how the release of Star Wars 3D is marketed in a couple of months.


----------



## aaronwt

is Star Wars: The Force Awakens even coming out in 3D on Disc? For weeks I've seen where you could already purchase the 2D HD version digitally for a March release(Like from PSN, Amazon, and VUDU). But I've not seen any mention of what their 3D disc plans were.

I'm hoping it comes out with a 3D and UHD package. But in reality that is probably a long shot. Heck 3D in the US might even be less likely than a UHD BD.


----------



## jvh4

Yeah Vizio is definitely a big blow. Globally they may not be a force, but locally in the US they seem to be (anecdotal observation - not data driven). In a market driven by volume we cannot underestimate American propensity to impulse buying. Look at TV sales on Black Friday. It's the cheapest sets, not the best value, that everyone lines up for. So many of my friends and family are more than happy buying westinghouse TVs without even glancing at the specs - except those is big letters on the front of the box. 

Enthusiasts like us are already the minority, and the 3D subset is a minority of the minority. Anytime a mainstream brand drops a feature we appreciate, it poses a risk.

The people who need to have the newest thing are all jumping to 4K and if that means leaving 3D behind they will be willing to do so.

On the less negative nancy end of things, Disney (the enemy of the state for 3D at home) has been a huge help to keeping 3D relevant in the theaters. The Avengers and StarWars movies almost guarantee 3 or more blockbusters a year that will be offered in 3D. This is a huge plus for 3D IMHO.


----------



## marcuslaw

tomtastic said:


> I went and looked at those, where do they mention 3D? They must have that feature buried somewhere in the notes. Good that Panasonic hasn't given up.
> 
> Yeah, Vizio I would never buy anyway, not a big loss there.


Click on the one of the TV's to pull up its individual profile. Then click on "specifications" then "expand all". You'll see "Y" next to 3D which is the last item under the "display" set of features.


----------



## SoToS

jvh4 said:


> Look at TV sales on Black Friday. It's the cheapest sets, not the best value, that everyone lines up for. So many of my friends and family are more than happy buying westinghouse TVs without even glancing at the specs - except those is big letters on the front of the box.


Unfortunately we are in the middle of a global crisis, which is getting worse. That is the main factor which forces the great majority of people globally to buy the cheapest option -if they buy anything at all for their entertainment, and as a consequence also forces companies to abandon products, technologies and risky investments globally.

There are other factors too, like shortsighted marketing, greedy policies, inadequate R&D and semi-implementations from formats to TVs, but for the vast majority the current crisis is the main factor.

We can't pretend it's not happening. It was started by crook-investors (trained by crook-conomic universities -the main role of today's economic universities) and bankers with their puppet-politicians, and the impact has spread from the peoples who were called to pay the price (as always), to the big manufacturers who sell all kinds of products to them -especially entertainment products. 
It's simple math: If people are getting poorer, their top priority is to survive, NOT buy 3D TVs, or they will buy the cheapest they can get. Simple as that.

And your friends don't have to be poor, they just have to be in the middle class because as analysts say, the middle class is a species in extinction. It has practically vanished in US in EU and elsewhere. 

So 3D enthusiasts -both poor and rich are all affected as the development of new and ambitious technologies is at a crawl currently. Even if something new is produced, if the sales are too low, the product and the company might not survive.

The middle class extinction also explains the current trend in the market: Either an X company will significantly reduce the quality and features of its products (cheaper components, lower performance, abandonment of less critical features -like 3D etc) in order to lower the cost and retail price and keep its sales from dropping too low, OR will switch to manufacturing of high end products for the rich minority.
Even then, a company is dependent on many other technologies and smaller manufacturers of components etc. If everything is going down and research is seriously reduced in other sectors, companies close, ambitious formats are not even considered, big investments are not happening etc that company won't have much to offer by itself, not even to the rich boys.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

From the beginning I never felt the sale of 3D television was going to come anywhere close to resembling the lofty predictions spun by the industry in 2010 when it was obvious the consumer marketing 'research" touted consisted of surveys set up to produce positive statistical results. 

So I think there's a niche following and the amount of monitors produced or sold might nit bebthe correct barometer to judge whether or not 3D is really dead. There are certainly enough enthusiasts to make it profitable to produce the discs which I suspect might be the money makers in all this. Televisions and players are not commodities but movies are collectibles. 

How are the discs selling as part of the overall bluray/dvd market which we all know has suffered due to streaming and rentals?


----------



## SoToS

Joseph Dubin said:


> From the beginning I never felt the sale of 3D television was going to come anywhere close to resembling the lofty predictions spun by the industry in 2010 when it was obvious the consumer marketing 'research" touted consisted of surveys set up to produce positive statistical results.


Reality has always the final word. You're more down to earth than me, personally I'm usually more optimistic as I see possibilities, especially technological ones due to my background, but I'm often disappointed by the industry's superficial approach.



> Televisions and players are not commodities but movies are collectibles.


Every television sale creates many years of profitable movie watching for the entertainment industry. Many people forget this, especially from the entertainment industry.



> How are the discs selling as part of the overall bluray/dvd market which *we all know has suffered due to streaming and rentals*?


Blu ray sales, streaming and rentals all provide profit for the entertainment industry and digital streaming or download is the future (and the current trend). 
With ad/sponsor support, it could be even provided for free with a business model similar to or better than YouTube -if they were open minded enough to adopt it. 

That would cause far more widespread of the movies -as it would be far better adapted to our difficult times, would motivate more 2D/3D TV sales, and eventually would return more profit to the whole industry.


----------



## jvh4

Joseph Dubin said:


> From the beginning I never felt the sale of 3D television was going to come anywhere close to resembling the lofty predictions spun by the industry in 2010 when it was obvious the consumer marketing 'research" touted consisted of surveys set up to produce positive statistical results.
> 
> So I think there's a niche following and the amount of monitors produced or sold might nit bebthe correct barometer to judge whether or not 3D is really dead. There are certainly enough enthusiasts to make it profitable to produce the discs which I suspect might be the money makers in all this. Televisions and players are not commodities but movies are collectibles.
> 
> How are the discs selling as part of the overall bluray/dvd market which we all know has suffered due to streaming and rentals?


It varies, but some movies like Ant Man had 3D sales that were 25-30% of total sales, but others like Minions were 2-5%. Someone posted great info about this a week or so ago in this thread I think.

I'm not sure what the break even point is. Like how many copies of 3D do you have to sell to be worth while. There is obviously a large upfront cost to author the the 3D content, plus the actual disc production and distribution.


----------



## Hagenstein

Meanwhile... The theatrical 3D releases keep coming at least. And once the $$ have been spent on 3D for the film, it seems a no-brainer to release it on 3D Blu Ray as well to get the biggest return on the 3D investment. Although in reality we've seen that hasn't been the case 100% of the time, no-brainer or not (at least with Disney ala Frozen, Big Hero 6, Need For Speed, & Planes: Fire & Rescue). But other than those Disney exceptions, the vast majority of films released theatrically in 3D are indeed available on 3D Blu Ray, and even the mentioned exceptions are available via import. My point to all that is that I'm hopeful that as long as there continue to be theatrical 3D releases we'll see 3D Blu Rays as well.

With that said, I'm looking forward Laika's next stop-motion animated film in native 3D, "Kubo and the Two Strings". Hoping the 3D is stronger than in Coraline, Paranorman, & Boxtrolls though.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

jvh4 said:


> It varies, but some movies like Ant Man had 3D sales that were 25-30% of total sales, but others like Minions were 2-5%. Someone posted great info about this a week or so ago in this thread I think.
> 
> I'm not sure what the break even point is. Like how many copies of 3D do you have to sell to be worth while. There is obviously a large upfront cost to author the the 3D content, plus the actual disc production and distribution.


Those number actually make sense if you stop and think about viewers age.

Ant man 3D I have.

Minion 3D I'll buy when it'll it a price drop. Anyways my kids are too young for 3d.

It doesn't make sense to buy 3D family movies If the family can't watch them together. 
In theathers most kids that will behave themselves for a whole movies are over 6 so 3d is an option. On the home front it's a different story I would not pay over 30$ for a movie just so my kids can watch it in a couple of years. Except when the price dictates otherwise. That's why the only 3d family/kids blu-ray I have I paid under 15$. I know that i'll get my moneys worth. Digital copy/ dvd in the game room/ blu-ray in the HT/ 3d Blu-ray on stand-by.


----------



## James Freeman

1. I always thought 3D is a dying fad. 
2. The only figures whom will decide when 3D is dead are the corporations.

It took the industry a few years but it happened, they ended 3D
It's not a technological question whether UHD can handle the bandwidth of 3D, it can, it's a question of PROFIT to the company and nothing more.
I have no idea what were their motives, but they made a decision not to include 3D even in the UHD Bluray standard.

I guess we'll be having DVD, Bluray and UHD Bluray to choose from.
Also, we have to remember that DVD is not going anywhere soon, the majority of the world (not first world) and its elder people still have no clue (or care) about the simple old Bluray.


----------



## tomtastic

James Freeman said:


> 1. I always thought 3D is a dying fad.
> 2. The only figures whom will decide when 3D is dead are the corporations.
> 
> *It took the industry a few years but it happened, they ended 3D*
> It's not a technological question whether UHD can handle the bandwidth of 3D, it can, it's a question of PROFIT to the company and nothing more.
> I have no idea what were their motives, but they made a decision not to include 3D even in the UHD Bluray standard.
> 
> I guess we'll be having DVD, Bluray and UHD Bluray to choose from.
> Also, we have to remember that DVD is not going anywhere soon, the majority of the world (not first world) and its elder people still have no clue (or care) about the simple old Bluray.


You speak as if 3D is no longer being produced:

Coming in 2016:

Jan 29, 2016	Fox / DreamWorks Animation	Kung Fu Panda 3
Jan 29, 2016	Disney	The Finest Hours
Feb 26, 2016	Lionsgate / Summit	Gods of Egypt
Mar 4, 2016	Disney	Zootopia
Mar 18, 2016	Paramount	The Little Prince
Mar 25, 2016	Warner Bros.	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Apr 15, 2016	Disney	The Jungle Book (2016)
Apr 29, 2016	Disney / IMAX	A Beautiful Planet
Apr 29, 2016 Sony/ Ratchet and Clank: The Movie
May 6, 2016	Disney	Captain America: Civil War
May 20, 2016	Sony / Columbia	The Angry Birds Movie
May 27, 2016	Disney	Alice Through the Looking Glass
May 27, 2016	Fox	X-Men: Apocalypse
Jun 3, 2016	Paramount	Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
Jun 10, 2016	Universal	Warcraft
Jun 17, 2016	Disney	Finding Dory
Jun 24, 2016	Fox	Independence Day: Resurgence
Jul 1, 2016	Disney / DreamWorks	The BFG
Jul 1, 2016	Warner Bros.	The Legend of Tarzan
Jul 8, 2016	Universal	The Secret Life of Pets
Jul 15, 2016	Sony / Columbia	Ghostbusters (2016)
Jul 22, 2016	Fox	Ice Age: Collision Course
Jul 22, 2016	Paramount	Star Trek Beyond
Aug 5, 2016	Warner Bros.	Suicide Squad
Aug 12, 2016	Disney	Pete's Dragon (2016)
Aug 12, 2016	Universal	Spectral
Aug 19, 2016	Focus	Kubo and the Two Strings
Sep 23, 2016	Warner Bros.	Storks
Nov 4, 2016	Disney	Doctor Strange
Nov 4, 2016	Fox / DreamWorks Animation	Trolls
Nov 11, 2016	Sony / TriStar	Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk
Nov 18, 2016	Warner Bros.	Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Nov 23, 2016	Disney	Moana
Nov 23, 2016	Universal	The Great Wall
Dec 16, 2016	Disney	Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

3D movies are already slated for 2017 and beyond.



> *I guess we'll be having DVD, Bluray and UHD Bluray to choose from.*


You left off Blu ray 3D, On Demand, Vudu and 3DGo.


----------



## James Freeman

I understand that 3D will live on in the old bluray format, but why the association left it out from the new format?


----------



## NorthSky

James Freeman said:


> I understand that 3D will live on in the old bluray format, but why the association left it out from the new format?


Several reasons: Not happening in theaters, and many other technical reasons. It can take years before it's happening.

• http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/1849658-uhd-4k-blu-ray-format-will-not-support-3d.html
♦ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1842273-ultra-hd-blu-ray-spec-ces-2015-a.html

There are other threads too, and few 3D guys here know some.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Hearing how good the LG OLED is with 3D, and its passive, looks like Im back in the game...


----------



## tomtastic

LG 55" 4k OLED and 3D 2999.00
LG 65" 4k OLED and 3D 4999.00

I'm going to wait until the 65" comes down at least half this cost. But I can't wait until they do.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Might be 2-3 years Id guess for a 65" to be $2500. They are barely keeping up with demand and Cleveland Plasma (when they have them) are $4250 shipped.

Ive ordered my 65" so I'm all in.


----------



## NorthSky

*3D Blu-ray titles...some of them...*

In Canada it might take a bit longer for a 65" OLED 4K 3D LG to hit the $3,000 mark. 

By the way, $35 + 12% tax for UHD Blu-ray (2-disc set...the second one is a regular Blu-ray). 
I'm not happy with this, I want the 3D disc included too, and with 3D immersive audio in each and everyone discs (3). 

Sony has 'Goosebumps' 3D/2D package for $35 + 12% tax. No UHD, and no Dolby Atmos on the 3D version...only on the 2D 1080p one. 
Times are tough in the Blu-ray world...and it ain't cheap either. It's twice cheaper @ the 3D IMAX theater, but here where I live they don't have Atmos.

___________

*Question for the 3D experts: Your take on...all these 3D Blu-ray titles?*

• 'Pan' (6)
• 'San Andreas' (9)
• 'Terminator: Genisys' (11)
• 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' (12)
• 'SpongeBob' (2)
• 'Ant-Man' (10)
• 'The Walk' (3)
• 'The Martian' (5)
• 'Everest' (7)
• 'Jurassic World' (8)
♦ 'Mad Max: Fury Road' (4)
♦ 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' (14)
♦ 'Godzilla' (13)
♥ 'Inside Out' (1)
♠ 'The Hobbit' trilogy (0.5 - meaning best)

* Put them in order from worst to best...mine are in ( ).
If you don't have some on 3D Blu-ray, just rate the ones you have from that list of fourteen above ('The Hobbit' is on his own...trilogy).


----------



## longhornsk57

NorthSky said:


> In Canada it might take a bit longer for a 65" OLED 4K 3D LG to hit the $3,000 mark.
> 
> By the way, $35 + 12% tax for UHD Blu-ray (2-disc set...the second one is a regular Blu-ray).
> I'm not happy with this, I want the 3D disc included too, and with 3D immersive audio in each and everyone discs (3).
> 
> Sony has 'Goosebumps' 3D/2D package for $35 + 12% tax. No UHD, and no Dolby Atmos on the 3D version...only on the 2D 1080p one.
> Times are tough in the Blu-ray world...and it ain't cheap either. It's twice cheaper @ the 3D IMAX theater, but here where I live they don't have Atmos.
> 
> ___________
> 
> *Question for the 3D experts: Your take on...all these 3D Blu-ray titles?*
> 
> • 'Pan' (6)
> • 'San Andreas' (9)
> • 'Terminator: Genisys' (11)
> • 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' (12)
> • 'SpongeBob' (2)
> • 'Ant-Man' (10)
> • 'The Walk' (3)
> • 'The Martian' (5)
> • 'Everest' (7)
> • 'Jurassic World' (8)
> ♦ 'Mad Max: Fury Road' (4)
> ♦ 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' (14)
> ♦ 'Godzilla' (13)
> ♥ 'Inside Out' (1)
> ♠ 'The Hobbit' trilogy (0.5 - meaning best)
> 
> * Put them in order from worst to best...mine are in ( ).
> If you don't have some on 3D Blu-ray, just rate the ones you have from that list of fourteen above ('The Hobbit' is on his own...trilogy).


Are you asking about the movie itself or just the 3D quality (addition) etc?


----------



## NorthSky

Just the 3D picture immersive depth. This thread is about 3D, dead or alive.

...'SpongeBob'...2nd best flick...lol


----------



## gadgtfreek

Ordered Everest 3D and In the Heart of the Sea 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

I hope some of these UHD BD titles I ordered include the 3D BD. I have eleven UHD BD titles on pre-order now. If not the UHD BD purchases will seriously curtail my 3D BD purchases this year.


----------



## marcuslaw

If for some reason it's not already in your collection, the price for 3-D Rarities has dropped below $25 for the first time on amazon. There's more pop in 3-D Rarities than if you were face to face with Madonna's Cone Bra. 

From amazon:



> 3-D RARITIES
> A Collection of 22 Ultra-Rare and Stunningly Restored 3-D Films
> It has taken over 30 years for the 3-D Film Archive to assemble and restore the material in 3-D Rarities, an eye-popping collection of ultra-rare and long-lost movies, which Flicker Alley and the 3-D Film Archive are proud to present here for the first time on Blu-ray.
> 
> Selections include Kelley's Plasticon Pictures, the earliest extant 3-D demonstration film from 1922 with incredible footage of Washington and New York City; New Dimensions, the first domestic full color 3-D film originally shown at the World's Fair in 1940; Thrills for You, a promotional film for the Pennsylvania Railroad; Around is Around, a 3-D animated gem by Norman McLaren; Rocky Marciano vs. Jersey Joe Walcott, the only 3-D newsreel; Stardust in Your Eyes, a hilarious standup routine by Slick Slavin; trailer for The Maze, with fantastic production design by William Cameron Menzies; Doom Town, a controversial anti-atomic testing film mysteriously pulled from release; puppet cartoon The Adventures of Sam Space, presented in widescreen; I'll Sell My Shirt, a burlesque comedy unseen in 3-D for over 60 years; Boo Moon, an excellent example of color stereoscopic animation...and more!
> 
> Presented in high-quality digital 3-D, all films have been stunningly restored and mastered direct from archival materials. Meticulously aligned shot by shot for precise registration of the original left/right elements, these historic 3-D motion pictures have never before looked this good.
> 
> The date of the first documented exhibition of a 3-D film occurred on June 10, 1915. 3-D Rarities commemorates the centennial of 3-D motion pictures!
> 
> Bonus Materials Include:
> - Introductions by Leonard Maltin and Trustin Howard.
> - Essays by Julian Antos, Hillary Hess, Thad Komorowski, Donald McWilliams, Ted Okuda, Mary Ann Sell and Jack Theakston.
> - 3-D photo galleries - Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923), New York World's Fair (1939), Sam Sawyer View-Master reels (1950) and 3-D Comic Books (1953).
> - 3-D footage directed by Francis Ford Coppola from The Bellboy and the Playgirls (1962).
> - Commentary tracks by Thad Komorowski and Jack Theakston.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Sadly, starz (or showtime, forgot which) just dropped 3D titles from its free on demand service for subscribers. And HBO stopped including Mad Max once it premiered on premium. So less titles available for free on cable which isn't helping.

I did not get my 50 inch 800b for the purpose of 3D but having access to this service made me an addict. Reducing the chances for owners to "stumble" onto 3D is certainly not going to help its growth in popularity. Understand this is a cable industry problem but was looking forward to seeing Mad Max in 3D on cable first before deciding if I wanted to add it to my collection.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Sadly, starz (or showtime, forgot which) just dropped 3D titles from its free on demand service for subscribers. And HBO stopped including Mad Max once it premiered on premium. So less titles available for free on cable which isn't helping.

I did not get my 50 inch 800b for the purpose of 3D but having access to this service made me an addict. Reducing the chances for owners to "stumble" onto 3D is certainly not going to help its growth in popularity. Understand this is a cable industry problem but was looking forward to seeing Mad Max in 3D on cable first before deciding if I wanted to add it to my collection.


----------



## Carrick

tomtastic said:


> LG 55" 4k OLED and 3D 2999.00
> LG 65" 4k OLED and 3D 4999.00
> 
> I'm going to wait until the 65" comes down at least half this cost. But I can't wait until they do.


I was a 73" Mitsu tv guy until I bought my current pj, so now it will have to be OLED quality in 120" before I upgrade to a UHD screen and that monster is gonna have to be a lot less than 1/2 the current price.


----------



## tomtastic

Joseph Dubin said:


> Sadly, starz (or showtime, forgot which) just dropped 3D titles from its free on demand service for subscribers. And HBO stopped including Mad Max once it premiered on premium. So less titles available for free on cable which isn't helping.
> 
> I did not get my 50 inch 800b for the purpose of 3D but having access to this service made me an addict. Reducing the chances for owners to "stumble" onto 3D is certainly not going to help its growth in popularity. Understand this is a cable industry problem but was looking forward to seeing Mad Max in 3D on cable first before deciding if I wanted to add it to my collection.


Well, I can help you out there, just buy it, worth every penny. So Far, Mad Max and The Martian, two best 3D movies last year. Haven't seen Star Wars yet. I plan on just purchasing.

For me, Directv never had the package 3D movies, only cine3D channel (for purchase). Personally, I'd rather just have Blu ray 3D than any other option since it's higher quality but I wish they'd bring back a broadcast 3D channel. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3D stuff disappeared altogether from HBO, Stars and even the cine3D channel on Directv. 

The 3DGO, I think does pretty good, would be better if it was available for all screens or on a web browser at least. There's also the 3D World app on LG, with some free titles (nothing that spectacular though), I've used it a few times. Watched Fascinating India on that.


----------



## SoToS

> Sadly, starz (or showtime, forgot which) just dropped 3D titles from its free on demand service for subscribers. And HBO stopped including Mad Max once it premiered on premium. So less titles available for free on cable which isn't helping.
> 
> I did not get my 50 inch 800b for the purpose of 3D but having access to this service made me an addict. Reducing the chances for owners to "stumble" onto 3D is certainly not going to help its growth in popularity.


It's the blinders producers wear. They can only see the money if you hold them straight ahead.


----------



## film113

Joseph Dubin said:


> Sadly, starz (or showtime, forgot which) just dropped 3D titles from its free on demand service for subscribers. And HBO stopped including Mad Max once it premiered on premium. So less titles available for free on cable which isn't helping.


The Starz contract with Disney ended at the end of 2015 which may be why, since Disney/Marvel/Pixar made up most of the Starz 3D offerings. HBO just added CORALINE to their 3D section.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

film113 said:


> The Starz contract with Disney ended at the end of 2015 which may be why, since Disney/Marvel/Pixar made up most of the Starz 3D offerings. HBO just added CORALINE to their 3D section.


Hi Film,

Yup, the marvel titles all gone from on demand. Was able to catch both of the Planes entries and big hero 6 in 3D before being taken off.

Very few titles available free of charge. With Corline added, HBO on demand still only has seven.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

tomtastic said:


> Well, I can help you out there, just buy it, worth every penny. So Far, Mad Max and The Martian, two best 3D movies last year. Haven't seen Star Wars yet. I plan on just purchasing.
> 
> For me, Directv never had the package 3D movies, only cine3D channel (for purchase). Personally, I'd rather just have Blu ray 3D than any other option since it's higher quality but I wish they'd bring back a broadcast 3D channel. I wouldn't be surprised if the 3D stuff disappeared altogether from HBO, Stars and even the cine3D channel on Directv.
> 
> The 3DGO, I think does pretty good, would be better if it was available for all screens or on a web browser at least. There's also the 3D World app on LG, with some free titles (nothing that spectacular though), I've used it a few times. Watched Fascinating India on that.


Hi tomtastic,

If it's something I really want based on the reviews by viewers, I get the disc, but if not sure do like to see a bit of the film first. Often don't get titles immediately but a little later after release get a new or used copy as the prices drop. 

Our Sony has the explore TV app which has some nice 3D shorts, but you know the unreliability with WiFi on these tvs despite strong signals.n.


----------



## johnny905

tomtastic said:


> The 3DGO, I think does pretty good, would be better if it was available for all screens or on a web browser at least. There's also the 3D World app on LG, with some free titles (nothing that spectacular though), I've used it a few times. Watched Fascinating India on that.


Well, enjoy 3DGO while you can. The company, Sensio, that launched the service is now broke and under creditor protection. They are in the process of trying to sell the service. If they can't sell it then say goodbye to the best thing to happen to 3D since UHD passive 3D. I rented The Martian tonight and loved it. Hopefully I still get the chance to rent more in the future.


----------



## NorthSky

*'The Martian'* (((3D))) on Blu-ray...wow!

*'Pan'* (((3D))) on Blu-ray...wow!

*'The Walk'* (((3D))) on Blu-ray...wow!


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

NorthSky said:


> *'The Martian'* (((3D))) on Blu-ray...wow!
> 
> *'Pan'* (((3D))) on Blu-ray...wow!
> 
> *'The Walk'* (((3D))) on Blu-ray...wow!


Haven't seen Pan yet, but I concur on the other two! "The Walk" gave me vertigo while watching!


----------



## tomtastic

johnny905 said:


> Well, enjoy 3DGO while you can. The company, Sensio, that launched the service is now broke and under creditor protection. They are in the process of trying to sell the service. If they can't sell it then say goodbye to the best thing to happen to 3D since UHD passive 3D. I rented The Martian tonight and loved it. Hopefully I still get the chance to rent more in the future.


I've never used it.


----------



## film113

tomtastic said:


> I've never used it.


I would have but my LG set apparently missed their cut-off by several months. They should have made it more available.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

NorthSky said:


> *'The Martian'* (((3D))) on Blu-ray...wow!
> 
> *'Pan'* (((3D))) on Blu-ray...wow!
> 
> *'The Walk'* (((3D))) on Blu-ray...wow!


Martian - watched 3D bluray yesterday. Stunning in its realism.

Have the other two, need to get around to them. Same with 3D rararites and the Casper cartoon.


----------



## jvh4

Joseph Dubin said:


> Sadly, starz (or showtime, forgot which) just dropped 3D titles from its free on demand service for subscribers. And HBO stopped including Mad Max once it premiered on premium. So less titles available for free on cable which isn't helping.


This actually made cutting the cord easier. Once Comcast stopped being a source for free 3D the last string keeping me attached was cut. I mentioned it when I cancelled, not that I expected it to reach anyone.


----------



## aaronwt

If recent info is correct with the Sony 4K line. Only the 2016 high end 93/94 series will have 3D capability. I'm glad I got my 850C model last year which does have 3D.


----------



## gadgtfreek

I just watched some on the new OLED. Man it looks nice and I love the passive glasses.


----------



## film113

Joseph Dubin said:


> Hi Film,
> 
> Yup, the marvel titles all gone from on demand. Was able to catch both of the Planes entries and big hero 6 in 3D before being taken off.
> 
> Very few titles available free of charge. With Corline added, HBO on demand still only has seven.



It's not just 3D with Starz. They have also removed most OnDemand HD selections. A handful remain...maybe 5. So HBO actually has more 3D movies than Starz has HD! Using Internet logic, that must mean that HD is dead or dying


----------



## johnny905

tomtastic said:


> I've never used it.


That's the problem, not enough people did.


----------



## turls

Joseph Dubin said:


> Sadly, starz (or showtime, forgot which) just dropped 3D titles from its free on demand service for subscribers *(excluding DirecTV)*.


Fixed that for you. DirecTV has never had On Demand 3D with any of the pay services.

For that matter, it might be your provider that dropped it, not Starz/Showtime.


----------



## turls

johnny905 said:


> Well, enjoy 3DGO while you can. The company, Sensio, that launched the service is now broke and under creditor protection. They are in the process of trying to sell the service. If they can't sell it then say goodbye to the best thing to happen to 3D since UHD passive 3D. I rented The Martian tonight and loved it. Hopefully I still get the chance to rent more in the future.





johnny905 said:


> That's the problem, not enough people did.


Well, they sure didn't help their case by not ever getting on Roku and game consoles as they promised. Guess that won't ever happen now. They should have been more worried about that than getting on TVs that not very many people have.


----------



## aaronwt

If this is true it doesn't bode well for 3D at home. Already Sonys 2016 3D sets are limited to just it's top two models.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/no-more-3d-tvs-the-future-is-flat-for-samsung-and-lg



> 3D TV nears its end - future flat for Samsung and LG
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/...s-flat-for-samsung-and-lg#b2mGbro46TugvZ5d.99*There's every indication that Samsung and LG are abandoning 3D for future TV sets.*
> CES 2016 brought with it a raft of exciting new TV sets from the usual players, particularly Samsung and LG. While 4K, HDR, and deeply connected smart UIs seem to be the future, however, there appears to be no place for 3D.
> A recent report from Korea's ET News (via Pocket-lint) reveals that both Samsung and LG - the two biggest TV makers in the business - are turning their backs on home cinema 3D technology.
> Samsung apparently won't be adding 3D to any new products, as it emerges that it hasn't placed any orders for 3D glasses with its suppliers.
> Meanwhile, LG has confirmed that only its premium 2016 TV sets will sport 3D as a feature. This will represent a halving of its usual 3D-capable roster.
> "Although 40% of all TVs last year had 3D functions, only 20% of TVs this year will have 3D function," an LG spokesperson told the publication.
> If you're wondering why LG is still sticking with the feature at all when Samsung has seemingly opted to drop it altogether, the report suggests that it could be down to the lower production cost of LG's 3D system.
> 
> Read more at http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/...s-flat-for-samsung-and-lg#b2mGbro46TugvZ5d.99


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

So right now, who is making a UHD, passive 3D TV? 

Honestly, I'm confused by all the conversations going on and don't know where to start!

Thanks!


----------



## EVERRET

KaraokeAmerica said:


> So right now, who is making a UHD, passive 3D TV?
> 
> Honestly, I'm confused by all the conversations going on and don't know where to start!
> 
> Thanks!


If you want a Passive 3D UHD TV you need to get a LG TV 

If you can afford it , the LG OLED TV is one of the best.... if not the best 3DTV out right now.


----------



## marcuslaw

KaraokeAmerica said:


> So right now, who is making a UHD, passive 3D TV?
> 
> Honestly, I'm confused by all the conversations going on and don't know where to start!
> 
> Thanks!





EVERRET said:


> If you want a Passive 3D UHD TV you need to get a LG TV
> 
> If you can afford it , the LG OLED TV is one of the best.... if not the best 3DTV out right now.


I think we can all agree that later statement is a matter of opinion. Allow me to offer you another. If you haven't completely written off active or frame sequential 3-D LCD TVs, then you should seriously consider the Sony XBR-75X940C 4K Ultra HD TV. It's enormous size takes 3-D immersion to a whole new level. It's a full array local dimming panel that can on one hand produce deep blacks with little or no haloing and on the other, eyeball searing brightness which taken together make it perfectly suited for 3-D. While the 940C might not best OLED in the black performance category, it comes close. From HDTVtest:



> Of course, even with the help of local dimming, blacks (outside of a full-black screen) on the KD75X9405C could never reach the true zero state of an OLED television, but it’s good enough, especially if some bias lighting’s added to the mix. On balance, we’d take this over the near-black uniformity issues seen on LG OLEDs – what’s the point of having perfect blacks if you’re missing as much as one-third of the picture in very dark scenes? (We’re referring to the vignetting problem as described in our review of LG’s 55EC930V curved OLED TV)


From the avforums review:



> The 75X94C uses a VA or, as Sony like to call it, a Deep Black Panel with OptiContrast and it certainly delivered the goods. We measured 0IRE at 0.025cd/m2 with the local dimming off and for an LCD panel that's an excellent native black level. Using our usual target of 120cd/m2 for 100IRE that equates to an on/off contrast ratio of 4,800:1. Using a checkerboard pattern we measured an average black level of 0.067 and an average white level at 154cd/m2 which gives an ANSI contrast ratio of 2,299:1, which is also excellent for an LCD panel. The panel is also seriously bright, we could get 120cd/m2 from the minimum Brightness (backlight) setting and with everything maxed out the X94C could produce a whopping 534cd/m2. Sony are planning a firmware update to add HDR (High Dynamic Range) support later this year and based up these measurements that won't be a problem.
> 
> As soon as you set the Auto Local Dimming to Low the measurement for 0IRE immediately drops to 0.001cd/m2 and using a checkerboard pattern we measured an average black level of 0.048cd/m2 and an average white level of 157cd/m2. This equates to an ANSI contrast ratio of 3,340:1 which, whilst good, doesn't tell the full story. We actually found that the local dimming was very effective, delivering deep blacks but also maintaining shadow detail. The X9405C handled all our usual test scenes with ease, producing a wonderful sense of dynamic range. There was no obvious haloing, although for the best results you needed to sit in a fairly narrow viewing angle. As is often the case with a VA panel, as soon as you start to move too far off centre the contrast is reduced, the local dimming shows more obvious haloing and colours are washed out.


It's been said in more than one review that the 940C might be the best LCD panel ever made (yes, even better than the Sharp Elite). I can tell you after having seen 3-D on many TVs over the years, that the image on the 940C _is_ the best I've ever seen. Gravity (3-D) looks stunning with the blackness of deep space in the background. Shadow detail and color reproduction of Avatar (3-D) is exponentially better than I remember it in my local IMAX theater. IMAX: Hubble and Space Station look magnificent with no ghosting. Odd alien images of Lichtmonds 1-3 (3-D) float effortless outside the screen. So there, my $.02. Incidentally, we did receive that HDR update referenced in the above quote. Also, if “Ultra HD Premium” certification is of importance to you, it is has been said that the 940C might be only one of two 2015 UHD TVs that stand a chance of receiving it retroactively.


----------



## tomtastic

At that price, I'd just go with the LG 65" OLED. I think I'm going to wait another year at least. I was considering getting something cheap for now, but I may just hold off and see what the OLED's are next year.


----------



## gadgtfreek

I cant say anything for or against the 940C, but the passive 3D on this OLED is pretty dang fine. As well as 2D


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

marcuslaw said:


> I think we can all agree that later statement is a matter of opinion. Allow me to offer you another. If you haven't completely written off active or frame sequential 3-D LCD TVs, then you should seriously consider the Sony XBR-75X940C 4K Ultra HD TV.


So....the first thing I did was plop that model into Amazon and it is $6000.

I appreciate these suggestions. I do.....but I'm not looking to buy a new car.

Are there....even if not the BEST models on the planet.....more reasonably priced ones out there?

The reason I like passive models is two-fold: I have seen posts supporting them as superior to active shutter....or at least with fewer technological concerns. Also though, the passive glasses cost $3/pair. I have 20 pairs at home already that work great with my 47" Samsung and I can invite all my friends over to watch a movie. The idea that....even if the picture were somehow better would make it worth spending $50+/pair.....is lunacy, IMO.


----------



## marcuslaw

KaraokeAmerica said:


> So....the first thing I did was plop that model into Amazon and it is $6000.
> 
> I appreciate these suggestions. I do.....but I'm not looking to buy a new car.
> 
> Are there....even if not the BEST models on the planet.....more reasonably priced ones out there?
> 
> The reason I like passive models is two-fold: I have seen posts supporting them as superior to active shutter....or at least with fewer technological concerns. Also though, the passive glasses cost $3/pair. I have 20 pairs at home already that work great with my 47" Samsung and I can invite all my friends over to watch a movie. The idea that....even if the picture were somehow better would make it worth spending $50+/pair.....is lunacy, IMO.


Totally understandable. Before I step aside then, I do want to comment on a couple of things first. I would gladly submit the 940C against any passive UHD TV for comparison, OLED or LCD. Aside from occasional side flicker in the direction of an external light source, e.g., sunlight through curtains or the kitchen light switched on at night, the 940C has none of the issues that plagued early 1080p active sets (ghosting, jutter, etc.). Only 1 person out of 20 or so who have watched 3-D on my TV reported eye strain (after about 1 hour of Exodus) and no one complained of flicker. Lastly, though still costing more than your passive glasses, the most I've paid for my Panasonic TY-ER3D4MU has been $20 (they're frequently on sale at Best Buy and amazon). Though the battery isn't replaceable, you get 1 hour for each minute charged. If those don't tickle one's fancy, as far as I know, any Bluetooth active glasses will work on the 940C as long as they are certified by the FULL HD 3D Initiative. That should be true of any active TV that complies with the Initiative. 

Well, good luck finding a TV. I think it's refreshing to learn that there are consumers thinking about 3-D _before_ they buy. Further evidence that 3-D _is not_ dead.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

marcuslaw said:


> Totally understandable. Before I step aside then, I do want to comment on a couple of things first. I would gladly submit the 940C against any passive UHD TV for comparison, OLED or LCD. Aside from occasional side flicker in the direction of an external light source, e.g., sunlight through curtains or the kitchen light switched on at night, the 940C has none of the issues that plagued early 1080p active sets (ghosting, jutter, etc.). Only 1 person out of 20 or so who have watched 3-D on my TV reported eye strain (after about 1 hour of Exodus) and no one complained of flicker. Lastly, though still costing more than your passive glasses, the most I've paid for my Panasonic TY-ER3D4MU has been $20 (they're frequently on sale at Best Buy and amazon). Though the battery isn't replaceable, you get 1 hour for each minute charged. If those don't tickle one's fancy, as far as I know, any Bluetooth active glasses will work on the 940C as long as they are certified by the FULL HD 3D Initiative. That should be true of any active TV that complies with the Initiative.
> 
> Well, good luck finding a TV. I think it's refreshing to learn that there are consumers thinking about 3-D _before_ they buy. Further evidence that 3-D _is not_ dead.


Thanks. I wasn't at all suggesting you "step aside". I appreciate the input of those more knowledgeable than myself!

I just didn't realize you folks were so hardcore! I paid less $700 new for my current TV in 2012:

http://support.toshiba.com/support/modelHome?freeText=47l6200u

It was on sale at Fry's for that price when it was normally about $1600.

The least expensive UHD-3D TV in the 65" range I have seen lately has been around $1500-1700. They have been a mix of LG, Samsung etc. I couldn't tell you if were passive or active and before I bought mine I had no preference. I still don't know why they make two types. I'm guessing that the proprietary tech each manufacturer uses falls into different categories, but who knows... 

I also couldn't tell you what makes a TV of the same size with $3500K when another is $1500. I'm sure there are little bells and whistles that vary, but whether or not I need any of them is arguable. I use Plex and a HTPC. I know some have Plex apps built in. Nice.....but I wouldn't pay extra for that.

Any other reason why it matters?

Thanks!


----------



## gadgtfreek

Display pricing is drive by several things:

1) features
2) performance
3) type of tech and expense of that tech

For example his 940C is a full array display which helps it out a lot with blacks, and brightness, vs your cheaper side lit led lcd's. Better contrast ratio and looks a lot better in a dark room if that mattes (does to me). My OLED is pricey because the tech is new, and their is an obvious premium for that.


----------



## NorthSky

Methinks that 3D is starting to look like a high-end cinema art niche...only for the true (((3D))) art lovers. 
It's all fine by me because the true 3D art movie creators...that won't stop them to practice their passion. 

Be the best quality 3D TVs less and more expensive, and the best quality 3D Blu-ray movies more. 
The TV manufacturers...unfortunately are going to lose...with UHD TVs. ...And 3D will be back...mass produced again. 

...Methinks.


----------



## aaronwt

NorthSky said:


> Methinks that 3D is starting to look like a high-end cinema art niche...only for the true (((3D))) art lovers.
> It's all fine by me because the true 3D art movie creators...that won't stop them to practice their passion.
> 
> Be the best quality 3D TVs less and more expensive, and the best quality 3D Blu-ray movies more.
> The TV manufacturers...unfortunately are going to lose...with UHD TVs. ...And 3D will be back...mass produced again.
> 
> ...Methinks.


But that is the problem. It is just the opposite. LG has already said that in 2016, only 20% of their models will have 3D. Compared to 40% in 2015. Sony also pared down 3D in 2016 to only their two upper end models. Samsung might be getting out of 3D altogether. But that remains to be seen. Unfortunately, with UHD TVs, they are now producing less 3D models, not more.


----------



## william06

Unless I missed something some of the upcoming releases that were 3D in theaters have been announced as preorders but not 3D. The highest honor, the good dinasour, and the force awakens. Just a few I noticed m


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> But that is the problem. It is just the opposite. LG has already said that in 2016, only 20% of their models will have 3D. Compared to 40% in 2015. Sony also pared down 3D in 2016 to only their two upper end models. Samsung might be getting out of 3D altogether. But that remains to be seen. Unfortunately, with UHD TVs, they are now producing less 3D models, not more.


And that's exactly what I said Aaron. ...It's becoming more and more a high-end niche because of that very same reason you mentioned above. 
If you read my post attentively you'll see. 

...And I've read all the previous posts before mine very attentively. 

(((3D))) is becoming like high-end audio. It'll never die and just keeps getting better and better. (-: ...The high-end audio/video people are the true connoisseurs of good music and 3D movie taste. ...Just like good old Rock&Roll classic music...The Rolling Stones. ...And Pink Floyd in 3D sound and picture, and Metallica too. ...*Roger Waters - The Wall* in Dolby Atmos, and *Metallica - Through the Never* in Dolby Atmos and in (((3D))).
{*Roger Waters - Amused to Death* in Q-Sound and in Multichannel hi-res audio, and other Floyd's albums on hybrid multichannel SACD.}

3D moving pictures is following a similar path...of higher level of picture depth (audio immersion) for us, the elite few from a higher plateau of the art mastering _connaissance._ ...We are automatically pushed against the wall of that market niche. I am not afraid, to the contrary I espouse and cherish with arms and feet wide open, above and solidly anchored to the ground, and below (the underworld/underground) my new-found status in life. 

Brief, they can do all they want, but they'll never take my 3D away from me. ...Same for James Cameron, Ridley Scott, ...Star Wars, and all what's 3D coming up. ...This year (2016), next year (2017), year after next year (2018), and beyond...to infinity.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

william06 said:


> Unless I missed something some of the upcoming releases that were 3D in theaters have been announced as preorders but not 3D. The highest honor, the good dinasour, and the force awakens. Just a few I noticed m


I interpret these lapses as simply the studio wanting to have multiple waves of home video releases to capitalize on their popularity.


----------



## william06

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I interpret these lapses as simply the studio wanting to have multiple waves of home video releases to capitalize on their popularity.


That has not been the case they have either been releasing the 2&3d at the same time either separate or a multi format pkg. just saying. I hope your right. But no more double vying for me


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

william06 said:


> That has not been the case they have either been releasing the 2&3d at the same time either separate or a multi format pkg. just saying. I hope your right. But no more double vying for me


I would never double buy. 

If the price is right I pre-order my movies from Amazon. Ant-Man in 3D was $19.99 for example.

If it's a title like Force Awakens or something that I want to see, but it isn't available in 3D I will probably just rent it for now and see what happens.

Something else I have been doing lately with 3D releases is I'll rent them from the local Family Video store if I haven't seen the film....or just wait if I've seen it. After a month or two when the popularity dies down they start selling off used copies. I got "Home" for example for less than $10 in 3D. The most I've paid for one I think is $12.

In the case of "Force Awakens" I'd be shocked if they didn't ultimately release it. The demand I would think is high enough to justify making it. My gut is, like I said, that they want to have a second "release" party so they can re-sell it later in the year. I hope I'm right......

Is it possible that it will be released in 3D in other parts of the world if not here? If so I'd bet it finds it way over here at some point....


----------



## NorthSky

*3D's provenance ... and larger penetration ...*

It's like 8K TVs; if we want one we order it from Japan.

'Lucy' Blu-ray with Dolby Atmos audio; we order it from Hong Kong, Asia.

'Ratatouille' 3D Blu-ray; we order it from France, or from the UK. 

Disney's 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' 3D Blu-ray; we order it from somewhere else outside North America. 









China is real big on 3D.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

NorthSky said:


> Disney's 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' 3D Blu-ray; we order it from somewhere else outside North America.
> 
> View attachment 1245041
> 
> 
> China is real big on 3D.


Are you saying that it IS available outside the US for order or pre-order?


----------



## NorthSky

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Are you saying that it IS available outside the US for order or pre-order?


No, because orders aren't available yet, as indicated @ bluray.com
Disney is no more promoting 3D Blu-ray here in North America...that we know for sure.
And "IF" The Force Awakens becomes avail in 3D Blu-ray in the not too far galaxy, "IF", it has great chances that it might be available only from the outside world...outside North America. 

Because Star Wars is not a Marvel comic books based film.

Sorry for the ambiguity, it was more of a deduction from what the past has been with Disney studios, regarding their Blu-ray 3D movie titles.
And add UHD Blu-ray on top, to the equation, and the chances become even slimmer.


----------



## mo949

With director Abrams even going on record as saying the 3D experience was the ultimate way to enjoy the Force Awakens, it would be hard to imagine it not being released that way. I can easily envision a collectors edition price gouge forcing you to pay for a whole package of crap in order to get to the 3D title, as was the case with the Lego Movie 3D release.


----------



## NorthSky

mo949 said:


> With director Abrams even going on record as saying the 3D experience was the ultimate way to enjoy the Force Awakens, it would be hard to imagine it not being released that way. I can easily envision a collectors edition price gouge forcing you to pay for a whole package of crap in order to get to the 3D title, as was the case with the Lego Movie 3D release.


...Or in the style of 'Oz The Great and Powerful' two different packages...one with only the 2D version, and the other one only with the 3D version (I bought them both, and put them in a two-disc Blu-ray case). 

What is also bothering me (a bit, a lot) is UHD Blu-rays; they mainly come only with the Blu-ray UHD disc, and the regular Blu-ray (1080P...2D). 
...No 3D Blu-ray included in the package. And! It seems that the new 3D audio coding (Dolby Atmos...and DTS:X) are more reserved for the UHD BR version, and maybe the 2D regular Blu-ray. ...But the separate 3D version...if...no way with 3D audio immersion. 

And that...for me...is a huge downer in my pursuit of everything 3D love and passion and affection and life-death quasi situation. 
'Gravity', 'Goosebumps' ...just to name two. 

The 3D TVs I don't care...I'll buy my next one from eBay, a 3D plasma one from Samsung. Then an OLED large screen UHD 3D when they come down @ affordable prices for the mass market...ten years or so from now.  ...A curved one...but curved the other way around...with the edges farther away from the main viewing sweet spot. ;-) ...The old cathode ray tube style.


----------



## longhornsk57

I bought Oz the great and powerful in a double disc format...


----------



## NorthSky

longhornsk57 said:


> I bought Oz the great and powerful in a double disc format...


From France?


----------



## marcuslaw

One reporter from the UK paper, IBT, has just declared 3-D dead. Why? Here's the whole article followed by my two cents:



> Just a few short years after 3D burst into our living rooms claiming to be the future of television, it is dead. The technology was barely mentioned at the CES technology show in January 2016, and now both LG and Samsung have cut back their use of 3D.
> 
> Samsung will not be including 3D in any of its 2016 televisions, while LG is only adding the feature to its most expensive models, cutting the number of TVs it sells with 3D capabilities from 40% in 2015 to 20% this year. The cutbacks come after Sky canned its 3D channel and consumer interest shifts to Ultra HD and virtual reality.
> 
> Korean news site ETNews reports that, according to industry sources, Samsung has not ordered any new 3D glasses from its suppliers. Such glasses would normally be bundled in pairs with every new 3D television sold. "Even though we had been supplying 3D glasses until last year, there is no[t] any request for new supply this year." a representative of the supplier said, adding: "It is seen that Samsung Electronics is not going to apply 3D technology into its new TVs."
> 
> LG joins the 3D TV cull
> 
> It is a similar story at LG. A representative of the company told ETNews: "Although 40%of all TVs last year had 3D functions, only 20% of TVs this year will have 3D function. Because there are still consumers who enjoy 3D movies and others, we are going to apply 3D function mainly on premium products."
> 
> A lack of 3D content is a huge problem for the technology. A good number of films arrive at the cinema in both 2D and 3D, but very few televisions networks broadcast in 3D. In many cases, such as Sky 3D, those who offered broadcast 3D no longer do because of a lack of content and paying subscribers.
> 
> A recent report from market research company IHS states: "3D TV was a fail due to content, prices and technology. The fact that people have to wear glasses to watch 3D TVs did not work too well for consumers."
> 
> 3D will likely now be put on hold by consumers and TV manufacturers alike until the same pictures can be produced without the need for glasses.


Is Alistair basing his statement that Samsung isn't including 3-D in its 2016 on the fact the company simply isn't including glasses or on an official release/spec? Notice the source is a "representative of the supplier". Does anyone know for sure? Yes, Sky3D shuttered but it moved its content to on demand instead. That was last summer anyhow. Where's Alistair been? Drunk on the floor in a pub all this time? LG's cutbacks are probably cost related given its focus on OLED. Lack of 3D content? Broadcast maybe, but I've read that compression took its toll on PQ anyway. Physical media is a whole other subject. I own 247 Blu-ray 3-D titles. It's hard to argue with the alleged IHS research though. The fact that 3-D BD's are priced higher is a problem as are complaints about wearing glasses. You all know how I feel about that second matter. Why do people hate wearing glasses at home yet they pack in 3-D theatrical showings? Nearly half of Force Awakens ticket sales were 3-D! My guess has always been that many viewers like to multi-task at home including using a phone or tablet which can be a problem seeing through 3-D glasses. Is putting down your phone and making some minor advance preparations like ensuring active glasses are charged beforehand all that difficult? I just don't get it.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Im not sure why they wouldn't still replicate 3D discs and packets. They cost more and you would think they were still making $$$ on them. I would think the 3D film would be covered by the ticket premium in the theater, so they just need to produce enough 3D discs for demand.


----------



## NorthSky

Old news already: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/136...ture-samsung-and-lg-tvs-won-t-even-support-it


----------



## william06

I guess as time goes on us 3 d fanatics are going to be rewatching a lot of movies. By the way the good dinasour is up for preorder on Amazon Disney Pixar.


----------



## SoToS

-So, Samsung was shipping their lower cost 3D TVs without glasses, to ...compete with LG's lower cost 3D TVs (idiocy #1). 
-Both, along with the rest of TV manufacturers have removed promotion of 3D from their websites since a long time now (idiocy #2). 
-Most filmmakers consider 3D as a gimmick -not a cinematic tool, therefore they are OK with letting a company fake 3D stereo at post (idiocy #3). 
-Most filmmakers make their 3D (native or converted) subtle instead of intensive and engaging, probably because they are doing tests in huge projection screens, or because they want to make it easier to watch for the few that complain, or just because of conversion limitations (idiocy #4). 

Result: 3D is not promoted at all, plus is not impressive enough (as a friend recently told me).

Now according to the rumors, the TV manufacturers because of the fewer sales, will remove it completely, at least from their lower cost products, therefore only Ri¢hie Ri¢h and his friends will be able to watch it at home. But can an artistic expression medium be used and supported only from the elit? Or only from the 3D ticket sales? I highly doubt it. Most likely it will go even lower and everyone will get poor 3D at 99.9% of the movies produced -the few movies that will be produced.

Of course there is also the global crisis which is a major factor, most likely bigger than the poor marketing -and even worse, there are strong indications we are approaching WW3, so we might have far bigger problems than 3D anyway... 

Otherwise, if everything goes well, I think 2017 will be the year that 3D will come back stronger than ever. For a number of reasons.


----------



## marcuslaw

Interesting take SoToS although I am _okay_ with the apparent focus of late being on depth of field (DOF) rather than pop. It's worked well in Ridley Scott films assisting the narrative rather than overtaking it (unlike Comin' At Ya! which takes pop gimmickry to the extreme). I chalk this up to director preferences though I think Disney/Pixar has dialed down DOF a bit too much. Yesterday, I watched the Capturing Avatar feature from Disc 2 of the Extended Collector's Edition (see my comment below). I was interested by its coverage of Cameron's development of the Fusion 3-D camera system that was much lighter (50 lbs. versus 400!) and smaller than side-by-side stereoscopic rigs. Why some cinematographers continue to gripe about 3-D camera rigs as a reason for not liking to film in stereo is beyond me. Anyhow, it's apparent that Cameron too favored a slightly more subdued stereo image though it offers a much deeper DOF than Disney/Pixar films. It works for that film. I've watched it in mono several times before finally seeing it on my 940C in 3-D a few months ago and I was blown away how much immersion it added to the film. That's not to say Cameron couldn't have dialed it up a notch. Take T.S. Spivet which remains one of the most impressive uses of 3-D I've ever seen. Each frame contains so many layers of objects and plains that it's nearly disorienting but in a good way. 

I'm looking forward to another year with more 3-D BD releases. We've got _In the Heart of the Sea_ and _The Good Dinosaur_ to look forward to in the near future. That takes me back to Avatar, the Extended Collector's Edition (3-Disc Blu-ray). Unbeknownst to me, there are two 3-D Easter Eggs on Disc 3 (yes, I know, it's apparently old news). One is the trailer and the other a neat little overview of the world of Pandora entitled _Pandora Discovered_ that is narrated by Sigourney Weaver. So there you go. The first 3-D content I'm aware of on a 2-D Blu-ray (not surprisingly though you must be watching it on a 3-D compatible player and TV).


----------



## SoToS

Comin' at ya! is almost unwatchable, it's beyond extreme, it's in error, so it's not a good example.
Like with every medium, audio, video and every artistic expression, taking advantage of the whole range makes a better experience, assuming it's executed in a proper, artistic way of course. Music has its lows and highs, image its shadows and highlights, or dark and intense colors, 3D its + or - parallax, in other words, contrast or dynamics which make expression more interesting instead of boring and monotonous.

Making a 3D movie just look good in a 150" screen is not enough. That 3D will look dull in the smaller range of TV screen sizes. Directors should take into account them too -even better, give priority to the smaller sizes. 

Ridley Scott's Martian was good (its 3D effect), but not intense enough if watched in a small screen size. At least it was better than Prometheus which was on the subtle extreme -exclusively to be enjoyed in a huge screen and at a closer distance.

I haven't watched "Capturing Avatar", but I have watched J.Cameron's Sanctum (2011), one of the few films with intense 3D, very enjoyable in smaller screen sizes. I also recently watched Dial M for Murder (1954), another film with great 3D and great plot too -a rare combination (only extreme was the titles in the beginning). Do those films irritate the viewers in large screen sizes? I don't think so, which is why I think today's 3D effect should be at least 2 times more intense. BTW, Cameron has promised next Avatar's 3D will be more intense.

Another major factor is framing. See for example the female character holding the paper in the beginning of Dial M for Murder. It exploits a large part of the parallax dynamic range -properly, and the result is highly enjoyable 3D, exactly the kind of 3D I'm talking about.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

I'm a costumer service expert, I have read this entire thread, and there is one simple conclusion I can take from it.


At first there an Idea, you make a products that is good, and people like it. Then comes the marketing idiots, (I should know I have to take care of their crap all day long) they make study groups, who are always too small and badly chosen, then there's always a leader in the study group one that will have strong enough ALPHA vibe that people will tune their songs to his (we've made test to that regard). If he's a Idiot you're screwed. Its the same for every field be it cars, audio, and so on. Marketing starts taking intake from those groups. They take some input from them, more or less good.

Then you make more products but as you make more you try to capitalize on the original success and cheap out. At first everything is fine because you changed it a bit given the study results, so they have an "improved" product. And they are happy for it.

Then people start to notice that somethings off, at first they presume it's a glitch, a variance. After a while it keeps getting worse, because they still buy it in hopes of seeing the original back, so they start to complain about the little details that bothered them from the start. They could live with them, until they realize their being screwed, then all thats left is the bitter taste and some even can't remember it ever being a good product. A costumer that has pleasant experience will tell a maximum of around 3 to 5 persons about it (and that's for a real good experience), on the other hand one that didn't like his experience will tell at the very least 10 people about it. The one that have been told about the good experience dont usually talk about it to more than 2 people so the positive effect dies rather quickly. But if someone tells you is been had, your sure to relate it. So a bad experience can live on for years (serious here).


The simple truth is this. Companies are still doing things like it's the 80's and you can't. The real simplest and cheapest solution is right here.

And I mean internet forums. They have the largest study ever conducted in every single field right under their nose, free and available with limitless data. But they dont bother to look it up. Worse the forum posters are actual costumers that give a real emotional response from something they love or hate so much that they take time from their lives to share it for free. Not some dude's cousin looking for a quick $$ and cookies. If a display or studio exec took the time to read trough this thread they would know what's wrong with 3d and how to fix it for cheap.

Until there are major changes in company management they will spend billions in Idiots salaries, 50$ check for study participants and the millions in coffee juice and cookies. All that money could go into research.

That would all make my life so much easier.

Until then 3d is probably dead and I am sad for it. Especially since it will be a long agonizing death.

BTW some people in this thread should be company execs.

My 2 cents 

Chris


----------



## william06

The_Forth_Man said:


> I'm a costumer service expert, I have read this entire thread, and there is one simple conclusion I can take from it.
> 
> 
> At first there an Idea, you make a products that is good, and people like it. Then comes the marketing idiots, (I should know I have to take care of their crap all day long) they make study groups, who are always too small and badly chosen, then there's always a leader in the study group one that will have strong enough ALPHA vibe that people will tune their songs to his (we've made test to that regard). If he's a Idiot you're screwed. Its the same for every field be it cars, audio, and so on. Marketing starts taking intake from those groups. They take some input from them, more or less good.
> 
> Then you make more products but as you make more you try to capitalize on the original success and cheap out. At first everything is fine because you changed it a bit given the study results, so they have an "improved" product. And they are happy for it.
> 
> Then people start to notice that somethings off, at first they presume it's a glitch, a variance. After a while it keeps getting worse, because they still buy it in hopes of seeing the original back, so they start to complain about the little details that bothered them from the start. They could live with them, until they realize their being screwed, then all thats left is the bitter taste and some even can't remember it ever being a good product. A costumer that has pleasant experience will tell a maximum of around 3 to 5 persons about it (and that's for a real good experience), on the other hand one that didn't like his experience will tell at the very least 10 people about it. The one that have been told about the good experience dont usually talk about it to more than 2 people so the positive effect dies rather quickly. But if someone tells you is been had, your sure to relate it. So a bad experience can live on for years (serious here).
> 
> 
> The simple truth is this. Companies are still doing things like it's the 80's and you can't. The real simplest and cheapest solution is right here.
> 
> And I mean internet forums. They have the largest study ever conducted in every single field right under their nose, free and available with limitless data. But they dont bother to look it up. Worse the forum posters are actual costumers that give a real emotional response from something they love or hate so much that they take time from their lives to share it for free. Not some dude's cousin looking for a quick $$ and cookies. If a display or studio exec took the time to read trough this thread they would know what's wrong with 3d and how to fix it for cheap.
> 
> Until there are major changes in company management they will spend billions in Idiots salaries, 50$ check for study participants and the millions in coffee juice and cookies. All that money could go into research.
> 
> That would all make my life so much easier.
> 
> Until then 3d is probably dead and I am sad for it. Especially since it will be a long agonizing death.
> 
> BTW some people in this thread should be company execs.
> 
> My 2 cents
> 
> Chris


Chris very well put. I would be remiss if I did not add customers who buy items which they are too lazy or too ignorant to educate themselves on how to properly use or set up properly. 
Then there is the awefull training of sales people by the stores and manufacturers. Or lazy opininated sales people who totally misinform .
I could go on and on including the whole concept of professional reviewing. 3D is the current example even with its few flaws it is an amazing technology that couldn't even be conceived a few years ago with being unjustly worked into oblivion. Such a shame
My 2 cents


----------



## marcuslaw

Looks like flatpanels has picked up on the Feb. 8 ibtimes article but somewhat differently cites unidentified representatives "at Samsung Forum 2016" as saying they are not including 3-D in their 2016 TV lineup. Rasmus proudly declares "[o]nce again, 3D has failed." Once again? What does he mean "again"? Is he comparing analglyph (red and blue) to today's passive/active Blu-ray 3-D? He can't be referring to theaterical 3-D. There have been more films released in the current stereo renaissance than in the golden era or the 80's and there is no end in sight.

In what seems at first strangely familiar, Rasmus writes



> As for the other TV manufacturers some of them will continue to support 3D in its (sic) 2016 TVs but only on the most expensive models.


Now compare that statement to what appears in the earlier story from ibtimes which was attributable to LG:



> Because there are still consumers who enjoy 3D movies and others, we are going to apply 3D function mainly on premium products."


Who are these "other manufacturer*s*" with TV's announced for 2016 that flatpanels is referring to? It would not surprise me one bit to learn that the flatpanels author isn't a fan of 3-D and is somewhat disingenuously broadening the LG comment in order to fit a bias against 3-D. Am I splitting hairs? Maybe. Regardless, if you like 3-D, Samsung buyers beware. Long live 3-D!


----------



## The_Forth_Man

william06 said:


> Chris very well put. I would be remiss if I did not add customers who buy items which they are too lazy or too ignorant to educate themselves on how to properly use or set up properly.
> Then there is the awefull training of sales people by the stores and manufacturers. Or lazy opininated sales people who totally misinform .
> I could go on and on including the whole concept of professional reviewing. 3D is the current example even with its few flaws it is an amazing technology that couldn't even be conceived a few years ago with being unjustly worked into oblivion. Such a shame
> My 2 cents


Your quite right about those points. But please lets ignore those OBVIOUS facts


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Because there will be less sets featuring 3D does not necessarily mean the format is dead.

This is what I hope is more than just a guess but a reasonable deduction that one does not need a degree in marketing to come to. Most consumers already have their HD monitors and are not in the market to buy new ones. This means a drop in demand and production. Similar to what the consumer electronics industry faced when 3D was first introduced. It came after the mainstream consumer had already purchased a HD monitor and not in the market for a new one. 3D thus came at a time when television sales were on the decline. We have been in that period the past few years once again

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/08/decline-in-global-tv-sales-expected-to-continue/

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...chnology/u-s--tv-sales-shrink-nearly-10-.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/24/tv_sales_dropping/

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/...st-largest-annual-decline-five-years-ihs-says

So other than the videofile, a large consumer segment already has its monitor and dvd or bluray player, whether it be 3D or not. So why single out 3D in a declining consumer market related to televisions to begin with?

We could be looking at this the wrong way. Maybe it is not the number of sets being manufactured or sold but the amount of discs being produced and sold. And that could indicate 3D is still a healthy profit maker, abiet limited because it is geared toward a specific afficiando.

Or, if 3D is dying, its because television in general is dragging it down with it.


----------



## film113

As far as Samsung not ordering glasses, I seem to recall (several months back) hearing that Samsung would be using passive on future 3D sets. Can't verify if that's true...but if it is, then Samsung would no longer be ordering from whoever supplies the active glasses. Just a thought.


----------



## video_analysis

gadgtfreek said:


> I just watched some on the new OLED. Man it looks nice and I love the passive glasses.


Nice, you came around! Did the SO concur?


----------



## farr3ll

gadgtfreek said:


> Not much decent released on blu-ray in awhile? Have you been looking?


Clearly not mate.

I'll add The Good Dinosaur and Hotel Transylvania 2 as some very recent and worthy additions.


----------



## video_analysis

marcuslaw said:


> I would gladly submit the 940C against any passive UHD TV for comparison, OLED or LCD.


With almost any other LCD (especially one which is not FALD), that's pretty much a given. However, have you been able to evaluate the 940c against a 2015 OLED? I agree the increased immersion furnished by the requisite size increase can't be taken for granted.


----------



## gadgtfreek

video_analysis said:


> Nice, you came around! Did the SO concur?


Yep, she is happy with passive.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Hi all,

Still new to 3D so wondering how one sets the depth adjustment.

Since its on both the player and monitor, should it be kept at zero on one and adjusted with the other or use both? I start with both set to max and lower the player's output should I find any cross talk. Use active glasses

Is it really just preference? Could what I'm doing be overkill or distorting the effect (i,e., like one with the his or her set calibrated incorrectly and enjoying the artificially created but incorrect picture). No headaches or eye strain or crosstalk to be concerned about.

Thanx,

Joe


----------



## aaronwt

Joseph Dubin said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Still new to 3D so wondering how one sets the depth adjustment.
> 
> Since its on both the player and monitor, should it be kept at zero on one and adjusted with the other or use both? I start with both set to max and lower the player's output should I find any cross talk. Use active glasses
> 
> Is it really just preference? Could what I'm doing be overkill or distorting the effect (i,e., like one with the his or her set calibrated incorrectly and enjoying the artificially created but incorrect picture). No headaches or eye strain or crosstalk to be concerned about.
> 
> Thanx,
> 
> Joe


I think it's really a preference. I keep mine set at the default of zero on player and TV.


----------



## gadgtfreek

aaronwt said:


> I think it's really a preference. I keep mine set at the default of zero on player and TV.


I always have.


----------



## Patriot666

Now that I have a relatively big screen (92" at 9 feet vd) I really appreciate the added sense of immersion of 3d movies. If I go out to the theater, which is extremely rare, I go for IMAX 3D. Tis the best imo.


----------



## SoToS

Another way to look at this [if the rumors are true], is that it's the death of active 3D TVs (as Samsung was the active 3D TV leader), NOT the death of 3D in general.

Active 3D TVs were always significantly more expensive than passive 3D TVs. They required fast electronics and fast panels, consuming more power, while passive required just a micropolarized layer on top of the screen, having the display and electronics work at ease, at best quality and at the lowest cost.

With the 4K trend, the difference would be even greater, while there wouldn't be any 3D resolution advantage from 4K active (with the current 3D format), still keeping all the active disadvantages (flicker, eyestrain, sync, charging, weight, cost). 

So the game was lost for Samsung already. With 4K displays, passive won active, hands down. 
The bonus is that there will be no more disappointed viewers sensitive to eye-strain, or not willing to pay extra for 3D glasses, or replace them after the kids broke them.

The question is, if LG will reconsider to keep 3D in the lower cost models too, since its main competitor will give them all its 3D share.



Personally I would like to see smaller 4K screen sizes with passive 3D. Right now I'm using a 32" passive 1080p LG as PC monitor and I find it far more relaxing for the eyes to work at about twice the distance of my previous smaller monitor in 2D and triple in 3D -it proved to be the best decision I made the last few years. A 4K passive 3D display between 40" and 32" would be perfect as a 3D monitor with double the vertical definition, for 3D CAD work, 3D video editing etc, with maximum comfort, as well as a 2D monitor. LG do you hear?


----------



## NorthSky

*Deadpool* ... in (((3D))) ?


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> *Deadpool* ... in (((3D))) ?


2D theatrical release, 4K boxart... what are you getting at?


----------



## Solidify

I heard on the radio that 3D TVs didn't sell as well as they'd liked them to because people were worried about visual fatigue and so now they won't be manufacturing them anymore (Samsung). Not sure if it's true or not.


----------



## mars5l

I read dead pool had a tiny budget compared to the other marvel movies. So I guess no 3d conversion unless its done before the Blu-ray hits


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> 2D theatrical release, 4K boxart... what are you getting at?


Is it in *(((3D)))* in some theaters?


----------



## NorthSky

Solidify said:


> I heard on the radio that 3D TVs didn't sell as well as they'd liked them to because people were worried about visual fatigue and so now they won't be manufacturing them anymore (Samsung). Not sure if it's true or not.


You must be listening to the same radio station as I. ...Samsung, and LG too are going to produce less 3D televisions. LG, only their top models. 



mars5l said:


> I read dead pool had a tiny budget compared to the other marvel movies. So I guess no 3d conversion unless its done before the Blu-ray hits


Only $58 million. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadpool_(film)


----------



## cakefoo

NorthSky said:


> Is it in *(((3D)))* in some theaters?


No. Maybe Deadpool 2 will be in 3D, now that they know the market for the franchise is really big.


----------



## NorthSky

cakefoo said:


> No. Maybe Deadpool 2 will be in 3D, now that they know the market for the franchise is really big.


Thank you very much.

* So 3D might resurrect itself...from the dead. ...And not just from what we've heard on the radio.


----------



## m-tec

tomtastic said:


> I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years. That being said, can 3D survive? It seems like there's just been too much post converted 3D, or lack of content to begin with. Haven't seen much released on Blu ray that's been decent 3D in awhile, all seems to just be post converted or just lame depth only stuff. If they don't make 3D standard on TV's I just don't see it continuing much longer.
> 
> 
> I was really excited about a year ago, now I'm thinking about getting a 3D camcorder but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. Is 3D once again, just another passing fad? I really hope not because there is a lot of potential with movies like Gravity and documentaries just doesn't seem to be gaining steam now. If you look at TV content it will probably disappear altogether in the next year. There's what, 2 channels left? ESPN's gone, which I never understood why that was 3D anyway if they weren't going to show live content, there's nothing new on 3D TV.
> 
> 
> So are manufactures backing off 3D? Or is it still going forward like it was a few years ago? I noticed there's not much in the way of 3D camcorders.


3D movies that are filmed with stereoscopic cameras are easy to convert to blu-ray and viewed with polarized glasses or active glasses but movies like the Wizard of OZ and Titanic that were never intended to be released in 3D were filmed in 2D but when they had to convert those movies to 3D, they had to do it frame-by-frame and it was a long and complicated process for both films but had very nice results. JVC has recently developed a new technology to convert 2D movies to 3D faster and far less complicated with comparable results. So we will see if this helps. The new 4k standard does not include 3D at the moment and that is depressing. I do hope they change their minds and include it.


----------



## tomtastic

m-tec said:


> 3D movies that are filmed with stereoscopic cameras are easy to convert to blu-ray and viewed with polarized glasses or active glasses but movies like the Wizard of OZ and Titanic that were never intended to be released in 3D were filmed in 2D but when they had to convert those movies to 3D, they had to do it frame-by-frame and it was a long and complicated process for both films but had very nice results. JVC has recently developed a new technology to convert 2D movies to 3D faster and far less complicated with comparable results. So we will see if this helps. The new 4k standard does not include 3D at the moment and that is depressing. I do hope they change their minds and include it.


First, why are you quoting something from over 2 years ago? Second, the JVC 3D conversion software is not new, it was used way back with I, Robot and everyone can agree, that was not a great conversion. The results are far inferior to Titanic where hands on work is done over a 9 month period rather than running it through a quick algorithm process. Thankfully, no one is using JVC software anymore. 

Stereo conversions are a compromise between having to take extra time and experience (to film native) or handing it over on the back end to experienced conversion artists. In some cases it is a benefit with more scene-intense CGI is used and you lack DP's and directors that are willing to shoot in native stereo. But the benefit here is you have a 3D movie were the choice given to the director the only option would be 2D, you now also have the choice of 3D. But as far as quality and realistic 3D, conversion simply can't look as pristine as native, though it has been getting better. There are a few like Gravity, Mad Max, Guardians of the Galaxy that are pretty convincing.


----------



## adrummingdude

Solidify said:


> I heard on the radio that 3D TVs didn't sell as well as they'd liked them to because people were worried about visual fatigue and so now they won't be manufacturing them anymore (Samsung). Not sure if it's true or not.



That seems far fetched to me. The couple times per month or so I peruse TV's which are out at Costco or Magnolia, these are the questions I hear other shoppers ask:


1. What's 4K?...do I need it?


2. Can I mount this on a wall?


3. Wow, that one looks great, but why is it so expensive (usually looking at the OLED)?


Now what I HAVEN'T heard is: "Is 3D more visually fatiguing?" Mainly because I think no one cares about 3D. That's the real reason 3D is dying.


It's easy on boards like this to think that everyone must have at least a little bit of AV nut in them, but we are the true one-percenters with this stuff, and large scale manufacturers don't build products for one-percenters. 


Think about it. If most of us told the average joe off the street how much money we have wrapped up in this hobby they'd either think we were crazy or they'd plan to rob us.


----------



## m-tec

tomtastic said:


> First, why are you quoting something from over 2 years ago? Second, the JVC 3D conversion software is not new, it was used way back with I, Robot and everyone can agree, that was not a great conversion. The results are far inferior to Titanic where hands on work is done over a 9 month period rather than running it through a quick algorithm process. Thankfully, no one is using JVC software anymore.
> 
> Stereo conversions are a compromise between having to take extra time and experience (to film native) or handing it over on the back end to experienced conversion artists. In some cases it is a benefit with more scene-intense CGI is used and you lack DP's and directors that are willing to shoot in native stereo. But the benefit here is you have a 3D movie were the choice given to the director the only option would be 2D, you now also have the choice of 3D. But as far as quality and realistic 3D, conversion simply can't look as pristine as native, though it has been getting better. There are a few like Gravity, Mad Max, Guardians of the Galaxy that are pretty convincing.


Lol, I quoted that probably because I didn't notice the posting date. There is alot of old information on the internet and if one isn't paying attention to dates, it can slip by. It all boils down to the filming process
and the way the director intended for you to see it.


----------



## SoToS

adrummingdude said:


> It's easy on boards like this to think that everyone must have at least a little bit of AV nut in them, but we are the true one-percenters with this stuff, and large scale manufacturers don't build products for one-percenters.


We are true one-percenters because the 3D promotion is non-existent (if not negative). Imagine how many we would be with 1% 3D promotion!


----------



## The_Forth_Man

SoToS said:


> We are true one-percenters because the 3D promotion is non-existent (if not negative). Imagine how many we would be with 1% 3D promotion!


Well Actually there is 3D promotion....

Only it's made by the 1%


----------



## MrEmoto

The idea of 3D movies will never die. 

Technology will come and go over the years. 

The current 3D technology is the best yet. I am very happy to be able to watch some films in 3D.


----------



## marcuslaw

Who remembers this bit of tantalizing news? 

http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2014/04/all-6-star-wars-in-blu-ray-3d/

http://screenrant.com/star-wars-attack-clones-revenge-sith-3d-cancelled/

They're out there. Disney just has to push the release button . . . for us one percenters.


----------



## MrEmoto

marcuslaw said:


> Who remembers this bit of tantalizing news?
> 
> http://hollywoodinhidef.com/2014/04/all-6-star-wars-in-blu-ray-3d/
> 
> http://screenrant.com/star-wars-attack-clones-revenge-sith-3d-cancelled/
> 
> They're out there. Disney just has to push the release button . . . for us one percenters.


Holy cow!


----------



## tomtastic

They completely did the conversions for 1-3, only Phantom was released theatrically. Eps 4,5,6 have not been completed.

http://www.primefocusworld.com/star-wars-1-2-3

Since Disney is is control and the 3D showing of Ep 1 only did about 100 million, unlikely episodes 2 or 3 will get a theatrical release or come to Blu ray.


----------



## mo949

With a conversion cost that's already covered itself. How could they lose money releasing the special 1-3 3D editions??? If the Hobbit can make money, star wars, prequels or not, should be able to. I didn't even like them that much and I'd be bleeding green for them.


----------



## MrEmoto

mo949 said:


> With a conversion cost that's already covered itself. How could they lose money releasing the special 1-3 3D editions??? If the Hobbit can make money, star wars, prequels or not, should be able to. I didn't even like them that much and I'd be bleeding green for them.


Yeah, I'd buy them. I don't have blu-rays of any of the Star Wars films.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

MrEmoto said:


> Yeah, I'd buy them. I don't have blu-rays of any of the Star Wars films.


Nor do I. I have the first 6 in DVD only and would happily buy a 3D version of the originals.

Something perhaps some don't realize is that having it in 3D does NOT mean you must watch it in 3D. You can watch it in 2D if you want or have company that doesn't like 3D, but at least you'd have the option.


----------



## mars5l

Id love the original trilogy in 3d. But I also want the non tampered added CGI versions


----------



## NorthSky

MrEmoto said:


> The idea of 3D movies will never die.
> 
> Technology will come and go over the years.
> 
> The current 3D technology is the best yet. I am very happy to be able to watch some films in 3D.


Amen!


----------



## Joseph Dubin

If 3D is dead, before the funeral note which two discs made high definition's top three essentials for January.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...ef-digests-essential-picks-january-2016/29368


----------



## cakefoo

Joseph Dubin said:


> If 3D is dead, before the funeral note which two discs made high definition's top three essentials for January.
> 
> http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...ef-digests-essential-picks-january-2016/29368


I can't help but point out that Sicario got the only Best Cinematography nomination out of that list


----------



## gain3

...usually the AR/VR evangelist scavengers get a glimpse of 3D-s death first, so they can enjoy 'confirmation-bias' and their 'true-to-life-stamp-size-screens' more throuroughly.


----------



## xvfx

I see Samsung has issued a notice for their SmartHub that Explore3D is going.


----------



## tomtastic

So now Samsung is out of the 3D TV market too?

Looks like Mark is no longer a 3D fan: 



> _"It's funny, two or three years ago I couldn't get enough 3D. Now, I actively avoid it."_


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/2332417-3d-tv-dead.html


----------



## Wryker

I can't see it going away. Too many movies are still coming out in 3D and with 4K being forced down consumers throat that will only help 3Ds adoption.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

Wryker said:


> I can't see it going away. Too many movies are still coming out in 3D and with 4K being forced down consumers throat that will only help 3Ds adoption.


I hope it doesn't go away because I love it!

What is the connection though between 3D adoption and "4K being forced down consumers throat"?


----------



## MrEmoto

xvfx said:


> I see Samsung has issued a notice for their SmartHub that Explore3D is going.


Um... "going"?


----------



## Wryker

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I hope it doesn't go away because I love it!
> 
> What is the connection though between 3D adoption and "4K being forced down consumers throat"?


It's getting harder and harder to find a TV w/o 4K. And w/4K that will allow 3D in HD and wear the same glasses you do in the theater versus having to wear 'active' glasses to get full HD 3D.

I love my 3D Sony Projector and have >1503D BDs so I'm not leaving it!


----------



## NorthJersey

Wryker said:


> It's getting harder and harder to find a TV w/o 4K. And w/4K that will allow 3D in HD and wear the same glasses you do in the theater versus having to wear 'active' glasses to get full HD 3D.
> 
> I love my 3D Sony Projector and have >1503D BDs so I'm not leaving it!


problem is the majority of new (2016) 4k tv's are eliminating the 3d mode.

only Sony and LG high-end 2016 4k (UltraHD) models appear to also have a 3D mode (active and passive, respectively)

it's probably the companies trying to save a buck by removing 3d processing yet stating a public cause because the 4K spec doesn't include 3D
it's also why you'll barely (if ever) find a new UHD bluray combo that will also come with [1080p] 3D bluray disc


----------



## jvh4

As someone who loves 3D, I am sad to say my greatest fears are being realized. 4k had killed 3D at home. It didn't have to be that way, but greed always wins - they have made the same mistakes with 4k that they did with 3D and 1080p before it. Rush out a newer "better" tv before there is contents or solid industry standards. I am actively boycotting 4K at home, not that anyone will ever care.


----------



## MrEmoto

jvh4 said:


> As someone who loves 3D, I am sad to say my greatest fears are being realized. 4k had killed 3D at home. It didn't have to be that way, but greed always wins - they have made the same mistakes with 4k that they did with 3D and 1080p before it. Rush out a newer "better" tv before there is contents or solid industry standards.* I am actively boycotting 4K at home,* not that anyone will ever care.


Me too! 

Hey, are you the JVH YB who I know?


----------



## GreySkies

I have heard that 3D TVs are still rather popular in China (I may be incorrect, though), so my hope is as the market for home 3D in North America shrinks, that the Chinese market keeps it afloat, even if we have to import discs.


----------



## MrEmoto

So, here's an idea we can all do. Won't cost us a cent.

Go into your local TV store and ask to see one of the new 4K screens. Have the clerk give you the song and dance. Then, ask him to show you a sample on it in 3D. When he pales and says "sorry, it doesn't do 3D" ask him which one does. When he says "none" then say "Ok then, I have no interest in a new TV that doesnt play in 3D" and turn on your heel and leave.


----------



## xvfx

MrEmoto said:


> Um... "going"?


Yes. I don't normally use the SmartHub but last night the message popped up that it will be removed. I'll check again later tonight as a date was set. It also said any accounts related to the Explore3D will also be removed.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/2337153-samsung-drops-explore-3d-app.html


----------



## azz7686

App removal set for 2016.2.29!!! Just checked on my TV.


----------



## teckademic

jvh4 said:


> As someone who loves 3D, I am sad to say my greatest fears are being realized. 4k had killed 3D at home. It didn't have to be that way, but greed always wins - they have made the same mistakes with 4k that they did with 3D and 1080p before it. Rush out a newer "better" tv before there is contents or solid industry standards. I am actively boycotting 4K at home, not that anyone will ever care.


that was my thought when I read that the upcoming 4k tvs will not include 3d capability. What would be the point of investing in 3d when the general consumer doesn't even have the capability.


----------



## xvfx

azz7686 said:


> App removal set for 2016.2.29!!! Just checked on my TV.


Says March 15 for mine.


----------



## Wryker

NorthJersey said:


> problem is the majority of new (2016) 4k tv's are eliminating the 3d mode.
> 
> only Sony and LG high-end 2016 4k (UltraHD) models appear to also have a 3D mode (active and passive, respectively)
> 
> it's probably the companies trying to save a buck by removing 3d processing yet stating a public cause because the 4K spec doesn't include 3D
> it's also why you'll barely (if ever) find a new UHD bluray combo that will also come with [1080p] 3D bluray disc


I just bought a 3D 4K 60" Samsung for $999. I'm putting it in my bedroom.


----------



## NorthSky

Wow ↑ that's almost free for a 3D 4K 60" TV! Yaman, right on! 

____________

Meanwhile ... (((•))) → http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/te...inemas-in-3d-with-a-release-planned-for-2016/


----------



## gadgtfreek

MrEmoto said:


> So, here's an idea we can all do. Won't cost us a cent.
> 
> Go into your local TV store and ask to see one of the new 4K screens. Have the clerk give you the song and dance. Then, ask him to show you a sample on it in 3D. When he pales and says "sorry, it doesn't do 3D" ask him which one does. When he says "none" then say "Ok then, I have no interest in a new TV that doesnt play in 3D" and turn on your heel and leave.


Not gonna matter, 4K is the new 1080p. There was like a 40" monitor in Costco that was 4K, I laughed.

I enjoy movies, and Ill take em at the best quality I can get them whether it be DVD, 1080p 2D, 1080p 3D or 2160p.

I think once the chips are there you will see UHD 3D so they can sell us more gear...


----------



## NorthSky

gadgtfreek said:


> Not gonna matter, 4K/3D is the new 1080p.


◄☼► http://hometheaterreview.com/3d-tv-to-make-a-come-back/


----------



## gadgtfreek

Like I said, UHD 3D will cause new AVR purchases, new player purchases and new display purchases. Whats not to love!

That being said, considering what I just spent on this display, AVR and UHD player, I will not be upgrading any time soon. 1080p 2D and 3D coupled with UHD 2D will have to be enough for me.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

Wryker said:


> I just bought a 3D 4K 60" Samsung for $999. I'm putting it in my bedroom.


What model and where?? Passive 3D?


----------



## tomtastic

Yeah, Best Buy had that model on sale. Look on their website, it's the largest display you can get at that price of any brand. I looked at a similar model in the store but they didn't have any 4k material playing on it, only HD so I couldn't get an idea of PQ on it, of course they didn't have 3D viewing setup either.


----------



## GreySkies

NorthSky said:


> ◄☼► http://hometheaterreview.com/3d-tv-to-make-a-come-back/


Sadly, I'd be more encouraged if the article wasn't two years old. I'm hopeful, though.


----------



## NorthSky

GreySkies said:


> Sadly, I'd be more encouraged if the article wasn't two years old. I'm hopeful, though.


You noticed the date. 

* 3D is a wild card, technology speaking...takes a guy like Cameron, or Bay, or Scott, or Jackson to resurrect it just like that, with a snap of two fingers. 

It'll be back, in our TVs, and without glasses...

And on the big screen it's not going anywhere but more 3-dimensionally up.


----------



## jvh4

At one point there was a lot of hype on this site about a glasses free tech (called Ultra-D or something like that) that worked by installing a layer on top of the 4k display. The result was 3D in 2K and 2D in less than 4k, but I think better than 2K? 

This seems to get around the HDMI standard since the on-board chip creates the 3D. This is where I get confused: I think there was info out there that said 3D sources would display the original right and left eye data - so not 2D to 3D conversion. That I assume would rely on HDMI and the Disc standards, so would the result be 1080p 3D, or upscaled 2K 3d? I would concede 2K 3D as a fair compromise and would easily pick that over 4k 2D. Could 4k 3D be possible on 8k displays in the near future? 

The reason I bring it up is if glasses free TV becomes reality, not only could it bring 3D back from the dead, it may already have technological answers the the UHD standard issues - or at least force the industry's hand to update the standard.

Just a shred of hope on a Friday morning.


----------



## Wryker

KaraokeAmerica said:


> What model and where?? Passive 3D?


Best Buy - but checking now i see it's no longer available so i got lucky! It's being delivered a week from today. BUT it's active 3D. That's fine with me since I'm used to it.
I'll have 3D on my 120" screen and in my bedroom on the 60" 4K set.


----------



## EM3

Just like Jason Vorhees or Freddy Kreuger it will rear it's ugly head yet again and the cycle will start all over.

"The very first 3-D movie to be shown in front of an audience, _The Power of Love_, premiered at the Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel in 1922. But the process wouldn't gain wide acceptance by the mainstream until the ‘50s. Kicked off by the release of Arch Oboler's dual-strip _Bwana Devil_ in 1952, the decade saw a flood of 3-D movies, including _Man in the Dark_, _House of Wax_, _It Came from Outer Space_, and _Creature from the Black Lagoon_. 


But by the decade's end, the process was in decline due to the expense and the kitschy associations of obvious 3-D stunts like paddleballs bouncing off the screen or a monster reaching out at the audience. Although scattered 3-D movies have been released over the years, the antiquated genre is generally grouped with '50s cigarette ads, pet rocks, disco, and other laughable nostalgia."

Now stereoscopic images have been around since umm lets see

In 280 A.D., Euclid was the first to recognize that depth perception is obtained when each eye simultaneously receives one of two dissimilar images of the same object. In 1584 Leonado da Vinci studied the perception of depth and, unlike most of contemporaries, produced paintings and sketches that showed a clear understanding of shading, texture and viewpoint projection. Around the year 1600, Giovanni Battista della Porta produced the first artificial 3-D drawing based on Euclid’s notions on how 3-D perception by humans works. This was followed in 1611 when Kepler's _Dioptrice_ was published which included a detailed description of the projection theory of human stereo vision.

Queen Victoria visited the World's Fair in London in 1851 and was so entranced by the stereoscopes on display that she precipitated an enthusiasm for three-dimensional photography that soon made it a popular form of entertainment world-wide.

It was Sir Charles Wheatstone who in 1833 first came up with the idea of presenting slightly different images to the two eyes using a device he called a reflecting mirror stereoscope. When viewed stereoscopically, he showed that the two images are combined in the brain to produce 3-D depth perception. The invention of the Brewster Stereoscope by the Scottish scientist Sir David Brewster in 1849 provided a template for all later stereoscopes. This in turn stimulated the mass production of stereo photography which flourished alongside mono-photography. Stereo photography peaked around the turn of the century and went out of fashion as movies increased in popularity. In 1939 William Gruber saw a way to make use of the newly invented flexible 35mm film by Kodak and teamed up with Harold Graves to form the View-Master company. These toys first became available during the 1940's and are still available today.

So you see folks everything old eventually becomes new again.


----------



## azz7686

Must be cause of different models or is it location?


----------



## teckademic

jvh4 said:


> At one point there was a lot of hype on this site about a glasses free tech (called Ultra-D or something like that) that worked by installing a layer on top of the 4k display. The result was 3D in 2K and 2D in less than 4k, but I think better than 2K?
> 
> This seems to get around the HDMI standard since the on-board chip creates the 3D. This is where I get confused: I think there was info out there that said 3D sources would display the original right and left eye data - so not 2D to 3D conversion. That I assume would rely on HDMI and the Disc standards, so would the result be 1080p 3D, or upscaled 2K 3d? I would concede 2K 3D as a fair compromise and would easily pick that over 4k 2D. Could 4k 3D be possible on 8k displays in the near future?
> 
> The reason I bring it up is if glasses free TV becomes reality, not only could it bring 3D back from the dead, it may already have technological answers the the UHD standard issues - or at least force the industry's hand to update the standard.
> 
> Just a shred of hope on a Friday morning.



I've seen this tech at work, not Ultra-D specifically, but a glasses free tv that was a prototype. I can't say the brand or any other information relating to the tech being used for obvious NDA reasons, but I can say that the tech to make this possible in homes is very far away. The image it provided was very convincing in the effect of seeing a 3d image, but tilt your head or move side to side and the image would distort. Best way to describe the image would be like looking at the 3d hologram slip covers for blu rays where you have to look directly on to the image to see the effect. With that said, i'd say that the possibility is there, just not anytime soon since the viewing angles were extremely poor to non existent, unless you're directly in front of the tv.


----------



## tomtastic

The funny thing is that Ultra D tech is already out now and their was "Zero" discussion on here about it when it was released last year. I posted about it here. These are aimed more at signage but according to the specs they're full 4k and 3D and they are glasses less 3D. I don't remember if they were full smart screens, I could really care less about those features. I actually wouldn't mind just getting a basic display that does input and on/off, that's it --and of course 4k and 3D.

The prices are a little high on the IZON, like OLED 4k sets, but I think, given the advantage of glasses less 3D of these screens, you would think their would be a lot of discussion around here about it. I think everyone lost interest in it, because 1) it took to long and everyone forgot about it and/or 2) it was too late to the party even when it was announced. And maybe 3) those that want quality 3D to watch 3D Blu rays want the best 3D and that may not be with glasses less screens at least until the tech is improved. This is something that is going to take a long time to get right.

So there's one more display manufacturer to add to the list, IZON. I don't know if I would actually buy one. If I had a place for an extra screen I think it would be nice to have, out where everyone can view it and you could show off 3D on it and you wouldn't have to hand out the glasses. Think about it.


----------



## Worf

No, the Ultra D sets don't have smart features. They do have the advantage that they stay good even if you tilt your head or anything. They have a 120 degree 3d viewing angle, which degrades gracefully into 2d as you exceed it and view it from the sides (the screen itself has a standard 178 degree viewing angle).

The really nice thing is at no point does the image become unwatchable (short of adjusting the 3d controls to "throw up" settings) - at the worst, you get a perfectly watchable 2 d image.

That's why the first use is digital signage - viewers in the 3d zone (it's fairly big) get 3d, while everyone else sees it as 2d.

Compared to my new 3ds xl, which get blurry when it loses facial lock.


----------



## film113

Worf said:


> No, the Ultra D sets don't have smart features. They do have the advantage that they stay good even if you tilt your head or anything. They have a 120 degree 3d viewing angle, which degrades gracefully into 2d as you exceed it and view it from the sides (the screen itself has a standard 178 degree viewing angle).
> 
> The really nice thing is at no point does the image become unwatchable (short of adjusting the 3d controls to "throw up" settings) - at the worst, you get a perfectly watchable 2 d image.
> 
> That's why the first use is digital signage - viewers in the 3d zone (it's fairly big) get 3d, while everyone else sees it as 2d.
> 
> Compared to my new 3ds xl, which get blurry when it loses facial lock.


The glasses-free tech is fine if you don't want or enjoy pop-outs/extensions. Ultra-D fails in that regard. The tech may appeal to some but the 3D is not as good as it is with glasses.i


----------



## Worf

I've had plenty of pop out with Ultra D, even at the muted default settings. I've cranked it up and you get a lot of it, but then it makes most people queasy after a few minutes. I turn it back down and it settles down. You have to realize that it stays in 3d mode for practically all content - you can turn it off, but the default operation is 3d even for 2d content (it features an excellent 2d to 3d converter).

So the defaults are muted which means everyone can watch it continuously without getting sick. But you can crank it up. And the pop out works well enough for me because I find window violations far more annoying than lack of pop out. (Window violations are highly distracting to me). 

And let's say I cringe at going to the theatre - I like the high end showings and all that, but the glasses, ugh. I forgot all about the glasses. (And I wear glasses)


----------



## gadgtfreek

Watched Everest 3D tonight, loved it.


----------



## jvh4

Worf said:


> I've had plenty of pop out with Ultra D, even at the muted default settings. I've cranked it up and you get a lot of it, but then it makes most people queasy after a few minutes. I turn it back down and it settles down. You have to realize that it stays in 3d mode for practically all content - you can turn it off, but the default operation is 3d even for 2d content (it features an excellent 2d to 3d converter).
> 
> So the defaults are muted which means everyone can watch it continuously without getting sick. But you can crank it up. And the pop out works well enough for me because I find window violations far more annoying than lack of pop out. (Window violations are highly distracting to me).
> 
> And let's say I cringe at going to the theatre - I like the high end showings and all that, but the glasses, ugh. I forgot all about the glasses. (And I wear glasses)


So if I wanted to watch a 3D bluray as the director intended, I could use the left/right eye info from the disc and the depth including pop out would be correct? In other words pass-through the 3D from the disc.


----------



## dfergie

tomtastic said:


> So now Samsung is out of the 3D TV market too?
> 
> Looks like Mark is no longer a 3D fan:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/2332417-3d-tv-dead.html


Nothing but an anti 3D thread for sure...


----------



## Barry C

Just my own 2 cents and opinions:
1. On a good well calibrated active set, or projector, there is NO flicker problem. Virtually ALL home theater projector setups- with a few very expensive exceptions- are active. The 3D is comfortable to watch, and great. From those of us who have these active projector theaters, I've heard no flicker complaints, period!

2. A good- and I emphasize GOOD- 3D movie is more immersive than its 2D counterpart. Given a choice between watching a good 3D movie in 1080 or watching it in 2D 4K, even with HDR, for an immersive experience, it's 3D hands down! However, I realize that some people are just uncomfortable with 3D and I get that, and respect it. I shoot and edit 3D, 4K, and 4K HDR, and that's the way I feel about it.

3.HDR 4K is just another tool but hardly a panacea and I don't feel it makes the image "pop" and feel more immersive than 3D. HDR needs to be used sparingly and will only be present in occassional scenes such as sunsets, sun peaking through clouds where there are highly contrasting foregrounds, ect, ect. Whereas, 3D is present through the entire movie. Much more of a window effect, overall. I'm presently working with a new system which is capable of creating 4K HDR timelapse and realize that I must use it sparingly and only on certain content which will have direct benefits, otherwise, it can look pretty lame.

4. For those of you who are unhappy about the fact that you must see the movie in 3D to get the Atmos sound, IMO, you're not missing anything by not having Atmos. Talk about gimmicky, Atmos is overrated, and way overhyped. Just my opinion, but I couldn't give a rat's ass about it and I've heard plenty of it at our local new state of the art IMAX theater. I've got a 7.1 channel system with 2 ceiling mounted rear speakers and, after experiencing Atmos, can find no reason to upgrade to it.


----------



## film113

Barry C said:


> Just my own 2 cents and opinions:
> 1. On a good well calibrated active set, or projector, there is NO flicker problem. Virtually ALL home theater projector setups- with a few very expensive exceptions- are active. The 3D is comfortable to watch, and great. From those of us who have these active projector theaters, I've heard no flicker complaints, period!
> 
> 2. A good- and I emphasize GOOD- 3D movie is more immersive than its 2D counterpart. Given a choice between watching a good 3D movie in 1080 or watching it in 2D 4K, even with HDR, for an immersive experience, it's 3D hands down! However, I realize that some people are just uncomfortable with 3D and I get that, and respect it. I shoot and edit 3D, 4K, and 4K HDR, and that's the way I feel about it.
> 
> 3.HDR 4K is just another tool but hardly a panacea and I don't feel it makes the image "pop" and feel more immersive than 3D. HDR needs to be used sparingly and will only be present in occassional scenes such as sunsets, sun peaking through clouds where there are highly contrasting foregrounds, ect, ect. Whereas, 3D is present through the entire movie. Much more of a window effect, overall. I'm presently working with a new system which is capable of creating 4K HDR timelapse and realize that I must use it sparingly and only on certain content which will have direct benefits, otherwise, it can look pretty lame.
> 
> 4. For those of you who are unhappy about the fact that you must see the movie in 3D to get the Atmos sound, IMO, you're not missing anything by not having Atmos. Talk about gimmicky, Atmos is overrated, and way overhyped. Just my opinion, but I couldn't give a rat's ass about it and I've heard plenty of it at our local new state of the art IMAX theater. I've got a 7.1 channel system with 2 ceiling mounted rear speakers and, after experiencing Atmos, can find no reason to upgrade to it.


You are 100% on-target on all counts. I've seen glasses-free "3D", heard Atmos demos, seen UHD...and have found all to be negligible at best! Going by this advance report, 4K is more trouble than it's worth for just a minor improvement: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=18524


----------



## jvh4

dfergie said:


> Nothing but an anti 3D thread for sure...


What's a bit ironic is @imagic was the one driving all of the Ultra-D hype . . .


----------



## gadgtfreek

jvh4 said:


> What's a bit ironic is he was the one driving all of the Ultra-D hype . . .


I still think it waivers, and then they gear up to rob our pockets of UHD 3D ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$)

As long as they keep selling blu-ray discs in 3D, and as long as I own a passive OLED that does 3D, I will keep buying the discs. I've already preordered Point Break in3D and NOT UHD. Blasphemy, I know.


----------



## scarabaeus

Ultra-D impressions on ArsTechnica:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/...chnology-that-made-me-believe-in-3d-tv-again/


----------



## Barry C

film113 said:


> You are 100% on-target on all counts. I've seen glasses-free "3D", heard Atmos demos, seen UHD...and have found all to be negligible at best! Going by this advance report, 4K is more trouble than it's worth for just a minor improvement: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=18524


As far as I'm concerned, I find 4K useful- when shooting it- more so for its cropping potential with animated pan, zoom, and tilt crops, than for its additional resolution when viewing it in its full res uncropped form. The extra res just isn't that significant over GOOD 1080p.


----------



## marcuslaw

*Force Awakens Possible on BD3D*

From the always reliable Bill Hunt of Digital Bits:



> Also, here’s something interesting, but we qualify it as rumor until it’s officially confirmed by the studio: We’re hearing from some of our industry and retail sources that you shouldn’t discount the idea of a Blu-ray 3D version of Star Wars: The Force Awakens from Disney, despite the recent decline of BD3D support by Hollywood and the leading CE manufacturers. We don’t know if a 3D version would be a wide-release or a retailer exclusive, or if it would be released day and date with the regular Blu-ray version or held for a later date. But don’t give up on a 3D version of Force Awakens in 2016 just yet. If there’s any title that would sell well in Blu-ray 3D, it’s this one (much like the Marvel films) and Disney certainly knows this. We expect an official announcement of the title in the 2 or 3 weeks.


Personally speaking, I didn't care for the film and had no intention on buying a copy. However, I will buy it in 3-D if not merely to show my support for the format.


----------



## aaronwt

Until a 3D version or UHD version of The Force Awakens is released, I will not be buying it.


----------



## tomtastic

dfergie said:


> Nothing but an anti 3D thread for sure...



Didn't Mark abandon the Blu ray market entirely, selling off all of his Blu rays? This strikes me as nothing more than trendsetting to push digital content. I convert most of my content to digital but the source is usually always Blu ray as it's the highest content source available and I keep all of them for backup and special features. I view digital as it's more convenient for everyone else in the home to play back over Plex. As far as 3D Blu ray's it is the most available source for 3D so no wonder he's not a fan. I will ignore anything he says in regards to 3D and Blu ray going forward.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Yeah, I kinda thought he was the pro streaming guy. I get streaming is cool and easy, but my ISP sucks and I have about $8k in my 3.2 audio setup, lossless audio kinda matters to me...


----------



## The_Forth_Man

tomtastic said:


> Didn't Mark abandon the Blu ray market entirely, selling off all of his Blu rays? This strikes me as nothing more than trendsetting to push digital content. * I convert most of my content to digital but the source is usually always Blu ray as it's the highest content source available and I keep all of them for backup and special features. I view digital as it's more convenient for everyone else in the home to play back over Plex. As far as 3D Blu ray's it is the most available source for 3D so no wonder he's not a fan.* I will ignore anything he says in regards to 3D and Blu ray going forward.


Exactly the same here in house. 

The best being that I'll have all those 3d Blu-ray when my son's old enough to watch them is also a factor for me.

Maybe someday people will start looking for those old 3d BR like the vinyls trend that's going back to mainstream now. And then I'll be that cool old Dad that has all those vintage BR.


----------



## dfergie

For me besides the fact that I love physical discs (lost about 2/3rd's of my collection in a fire though along with 2 of my 3 3D sets)I have 3D video from a Sony camcorder (that survived the fire)...


----------



## film113

marcuslaw said:


> From the always reliable Bill Hunt of Digital Bits:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally speaking, I didn't care for the film and had no intention on buying a copy. However, I will buy it in 3-D if not merely to show my support for the format.


I am probably one of the only people in the country who has not seen this (I was sick of it even before it opened from every burger, insurance, car, cereal, etc. commercial was shoving it down my throat. (I'm just not as obsessive over SW as many others are.) However, I have every intention of buying it IF it is in 3D. If it's only 2D, then it's only a rental.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

film113 said:


> I am probably one of the only people in the country who has not seen this (I was sick of it even before it opened from every burger, insurance, car, cereal, etc. commercial was shoving it down my throat. (I'm just not as obsessive over SW as many others are.) However, I have every intention of buying it IF it is in 3D. If it's only 2D, then it's only a rental.


Well I had such a bad time in the theater watching it in 3D that I wish I didn't see it. That was One if not THE worst 3D I have seen in my life. 

But I put it on the BAD THEATER never again 3D in there..... 

I'll wait for you guys to valid the 3D implementation then I'll jump on board.


----------



## gadgtfreek

If its Star Trek or Star Wars, its bought, even if its only DVD.


----------



## Patriot666

Saw SW TFA in IMAX 3D and I thought it was fantastic, though I too missed the sub behind my seat.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## film113

The_Forth_Man said:


> Well I had such a bad time in the theater watching it in 3D that I wish I didn't see it. That was One if not THE worst 3D I have seen in my life.
> 
> But I put it on the BAD THEATER never again 3D in there.....
> 
> I'll wait for you guys to valid the 3D implementation then I'll jump on board.


Had to be the theater. Even though I haven't seen it, those I've spoken to who have seen it have all said that the 3D was "pretty cool." Even J.J. Abrams liked it in 3D and found himself "surprised" at how much better some of the movie played in 3D. I'm not expecting this to be on the par with GRAVITY or PACIFIC RIM, but it should still be a great enhancement. We shall (hopefully) see.


----------



## xvfx

gadgtfreek said:


> Yeah, I kinda thought he was the pro streaming guy. I get streaming is cool and easy, *but my ISP sucks* and I have about $8k in my 3.2 audio setup, lossless audio kinda matters to me...


What do you get?


----------



## gadgtfreek

I have 6mbps DSL from ATT at $57/month. Only other option is nothing or satellite. My speed is usually about 5.4 mbps and I can get 1080p Netflix after a couple of minutes, which will hold the entire program (usually).


----------



## The_Forth_Man

gadgtfreek said:


> I have 6mbps DSL from ATT at $57/month. Only other option is nothing or satellite. My speed is usually about 5.4 mbps and I can get 1080p Netflix after a couple of minutes, which will hold the entire program (usually).


I feel for you. 


I'm really lucky in that section I live in a rural area and most of my neighbour have similar to what you have. I am the last house in my street to have both access to water/sewers from the city and High speed internet. We new about sewers when we bought the house but internet was a pleasant surprise as we never thought of checking first


----------



## xvfx

gadgtfreek said:


> I have 6mbps DSL from ATT at $57/month. Only other option is nothing or satellite. My speed is usually about 5.4 mbps and I can get 1080p Netflix after a couple of minutes, which will hold the entire program (usually).


I know that feeling. I've never went down the route of streaming services as my connection was a bit slower than yours. I had 5.7 syncrate but the throughput was 4.8. Soon as anything heavy went on it everything else suffered. Or would likely hinder what was downloading.

Now that I've just went on fibre today, streaming services still doesn't appeal to me. Even though I could get more speed. Maybe it is because for so many years of it teaching me to appreciate physical copies and their quality. CDs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, that I refuse to go down the path that those who have had these services from the get go and it is all they know.


----------



## gadgtfreek

I just punted on UHD today, hell Disney may not even support it... Im gonna stick with 2D and 3D 1080p for at least the rest of this year.


----------



## mo949

If you only have the exceedingly awful Samsung player to choose from then I can understand why.


----------



## gadgtfreek

mo949 said:


> If you only have the exceedingly awful Samsung player to choose from then I can understand why.


Its been good to me so far. Its the lack of UHD support and standard we are going to see for awhile. Im happy with 2D and 3D blu-ray on this new display, so I have no need to rush in into this one. I also want to let the calibrators catch up too.

I can easily get an accurate 2D and 3D cal now, UHD not so much. After seeing two 2D movies and Everest in 3D on this, I'm fine to tread water.

Hopefully next year we will see Oppo, Panny, and Sony with players and more studios announcing action. Disney showing no interest and not offering Star Wars is a blow, it would have sold well. I just hope we get it in 3D.


----------



## mo949

I have this funny feeling Disney is only going to go streaming dolby vision for US.


Once Sony has a region free UHD player, I'm going in.


----------



## gadgtfreek

mo949 said:


> I have this funny feeling Disney is only going to go streaming dolby vision for US.


There seem to be some rumblings...


----------



## aaronwt

gadgtfreek said:


> I just punted on UHD today, hell Disney may not even support it... Im gonna stick with 2D and 3D 1080p for at least the rest of this year.


Boooooo!


----------



## RolandL

gadgtfreek said:


> I have 6mbps DSL from ATT at $57/month. Only other option is nothing or satellite. My speed is usually about 5.4 mbps and I can get 1080p Netflix after a couple of minutes, which will hold the entire program (usually).


I had ATT DSL with 10mbps. Dropped them and went with Comcast cable. I now get 95mbps on my old PC. If I had a new one, it would be closer to 150mbps.


----------



## CinemaAndy

MLXXX said:


> CinemaAndy, it is important to be aware that the lack of inclusion of a 4k 3D standard for the new wave of Blu-ray players is neither based on apathy, nor on a conscious decision to abandon 3D altogether because of alleged lack of popularity. Rather the decision not to proceed with 3D at a UHD resolution at this time would have been made in the knowledge that:
> 
> 
> 
> The data rates and frame sizes that would be required for fully fledged frame packed UHD 3D in the home would be challenging and expensive with current technology.
> There are hardly any 3D feature films in existence that have been edited with a digital intermediate of higher resolution than 2k.
> Until there are advances in 1 and 2, consumers can watch 3D at home using *Full HD 3D Blu-ray discs*. This would include playing such discs using a UHD Blu-ray player (when they become available, and assuming they will be able to play "legacy" discs) connected to a UHD 3D panel.
> 
> I agree with marcuslaw, that your post was a bit misinformed. 3D is *not* dead insofar as television display panels are concerned.


2K in the left eye, 2K for the right eye = 4K.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

CinemaAndy said:


> 2K in the left eye, 2K for the right eye = 4K.


I'm sorry but to me it's like saying that 1080I is 1080 line of resolution.  or that 540 per eye is full hd 3d. No it's simply not.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Well, at least HBO has added or brought back more 3D titles to it's free on-demand service for subscribers. Mad Max, San Andreas, etc. 

Was disappointed with the 3D overall in San Andreas. So much of the disaster scenes gave as much depth as simulated 3D. More appeared on close ups with people and objects with the vast exteriors looking almost like 2D. At least seemed that way to me.


----------



## film113

Joseph Dubin said:


> Well, at least HBO has added or brought back more 3D titles to it's free on-demand service for subscribers. Mad Max, San Andreas, etc.
> 
> Was disappointed with the 3D overall in San Andreas. So much of the disaster scenes gave as much depth as simulated 3D. More appeared on close ups with people and objects with the vast exteriors looking almost like 2D. At least seemed that way to me.


It's no better on the BD. The 3D s very mild on this one.


----------



## CinemaAndy

The_Forth_Man said:


> I'm sorry but to me it's like saying that 1080I is 1080 line of resolution.  or that 540 per eye is full hd 3d. No it's simply not.


I never fell for the 1080I nonsense. 1080I was interlaced 720P for those who didn't know better and had a large wallet. 4K is about the same, as all the content is UHD, not true 4K. I think there will be 2 or 3 4K movies released this year.


----------



## GreySkies

CinemaAndy said:


> I never fell for the 1080I nonsense. 1080I was interlaced 720P for those who didn't know better and had a large wallet.


Not quite. 1080i was not interlaced 720p—it was alternating frames of 540 interlaced to create a 1080 image. Films at 1080i60 could be converted to 1080p24 via reverse pulldown. The downside to 1080i60 is that some fast moving video, like some fast moving sports, can show interlacing artifacts (as could NTSC). I'm not really bothered by them in CBS or NBC sports presentations, and I doubt most people notice them.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

CinemaAndy said:


> I never fell for the 1080I nonsense. 1080I was interlaced 720P for those who didn't know better and had a large wallet. 4K is about the same, as all the content is UHD, not true 4K. I think there will be 2 or 3 4K movies released this year.


I'm sorry that I took your previous statement seriously, while you where being sarcastic. Sarcasm is hard to convey into text without those little guys 

I have seen 4k (3.5k or so) content up close and I have to say that it's no 1080i the fact that it's progressive over interlaced wins hands down but your right about the problem being the lack of such content being shot/edited and distributed in 4k



GreySkies said:


> Not quite. 1080i was not interlaced 720p—it was alternating frames of 540 interlaced to create a 1080 image. Films at 1080i60 could be converted to 1080p24 via reverse pulldown. The downside to 1080i60 is that some fast moving video, like some fast moving sports, can show interlacing artifacts (as could NTSC). I'm not really bothered by them in CBS or NBC sports presentations, and I doubt most people notice them.


While you may not be bothered buy the 1080i on some channels. ESPN stayed with 720p instead of 1080i and says a lot for a company that breathe sports.

I for one cut the cable a couple of years ago in part because they could not deliver real hd 1080p while charging a premium for it.

Little fun fact. During the holidays my father in law bought the SAMSUNG js9000 4k tv and he said the image was not has great at home as it was in store (that was to expected  ) so I went ahead and did a quick calibration. it was nicer but what made the real difference was switching from 1080i to 720p in the cable box output. My guess is that while the human eye might not be fast enough and can be fooled the tv was not. So 720p gave more info for the tv to upscale on every frame instead of 540 lines every odd frame.

Now those BD looked very good tho.  I'll make sure and bring some 3d ones next year.


----------



## andy sullivan

3D is alive and well at the theaters but with more and more TV manufactures dropping 3D from their main stream sets, some popular movies not being released in 3D and forcing us to pay through the nose for 3D movies that are always packaged along with the blu-ray version and often the SD version, it certainly looks like 3D is going down the drain for home theater consumption.


----------



## aaronwt

The_Forth_Man said:


> I'm sorry that I took your previous statement seriously, while you where being sarcastic. Sarcasm is hard to convey into text without those little guys
> 
> I have seen 4k (3.5k or so) content up close and I have to say that it's no 1080i the fact that it's progressive over interlaced wins hands down but your right about the problem being the lack of such content being shot/edited and distributed in 4k
> 
> 
> 
> While you may not be bothered buy the 1080i on some channels. ESPN stayed with 720p instead of 1080i and says a lot for a company that breathe sports.
> 
> I for one cut the cable a couple of years ago in part because they could not deliver real hd 1080p while charging a premium for it.
> 
> Little fun fact. During the holidays my father in law bought the SAMSUNG js9000 4k tv and he said the image was not has great at home as it was in store (that was to expected  ) so I went ahead and did a quick calibration. it was nicer but what made the real difference was switching from 1080i to 720p in the cable box output. My guess is that while the human eye might not be fast enough and can be fooled the tv was not. So 720p gave more info for the tv to upscale on every frame instead of 540 lines every odd frame.
> 
> Now those BD looked very good tho.  I'll make sure and bring some 3d ones next year.


It's always been the opposite here. 720P channels have typically showed lower detail than the 1080i channels. It's especially noticeable with football games. The NBC and CBS broadcasts show more background detail than the Fox and ESPN broadcasts. I have some 1080i BDs from the UK and the picture is superb. 720P content can't come anywhere close to it. As long as the content is de-interlaced properly, it will look great.


----------



## marcuslaw

Just keep buying the Blu-ray 3-D's folks and opting for the ticket at the theater. As long as we buy them, the studios will continue to release them . . . for the meantime anyway.


----------



## gadgtfreek

marcuslaw said:


> Just keep buying the Blu-ray 3-D's folks and opting for the ticket at the theater. As long as we buy them, the studios will continue to release them . . . for the meantime anyway.


I refuse to attend the theater any more, but Ill keep buying them as long as them make the blu-ray version!

I stocked up on passive glasses just in case LG pulls the plug on selling them.


----------



## jvh4

Joseph Dubin said:


> Well, at least HBO has added or brought back more 3D titles to it's free on-demand service for subscribers. Mad Max, San Andreas, etc.
> 
> Was disappointed with the 3D overall in San Andreas. So much of the disaster scenes gave as much depth as simulated 3D. More appeared on close ups with people and objects with the vast exteriors looking almost like 2D. At least seemed that way to me.


That's great news. Any idea if HBO Now supports 3D playback? We just cut cable but still get HBO through HBO Now.


----------



## turls

Joseph Dubin said:


> Well, at least HBO has added or brought back more 3D titles to it's free on-demand service for subscribers * of participating providers.*


Fixed that for you. DirecTV (and others) have never offered any 3D On Demand from the pay services.



jvh4 said:


> That's great news. Any idea if HBO Now supports 3D playback? We just cut cable but still get HBO through HBO Now.


HBO Go and HBO Now should offer 3D, but they don't. It would serve to give notice to providers that won't bother to offer 3D even though I pay the same as everybody else for HBO, Starz, etc that they need to get with the program.


----------



## tomtastic

turls said:


> Fixed that for you. DirecTV (and others) have never offered any 3D On Demand from the pay services.


Yeah, the Cine3D channel you have to wait for the title to be shown, it is a pay service but you can't pick your title at will like the On Demand stuff. I'd rather view the Blu ray version anyway so it wouldn't hurt me if they removed it.


----------



## turls

tomtastic said:


> Yeah, the Cine3D channel you have to wait for the title to be shown, it is a pay service but you can't pick your title at will like the On Demand stuff. I'd rather view the Blu ray version anyway so it wouldn't hurt me if they removed it.


Sure, they have their token 3D PPV channel (which I'm not interested in paying extra for their poor 3D anyway) after dropping everything else (not all their fault)--at one time they had I think 3 full-time 3D channels. But do they bother to replace it with content from HBO, Starz, etc readily available to them--no.


----------



## jvh4

turls said:


> Fixed that for you. DirecTV (and others) have never offered any 3D On Demand from the pay services.
> 
> 
> 
> HBO Go and HBO Now should offer 3D, but they don't. It would serve to give notice to providers that won't bother to offer 3D even though I pay the same as everybody else for HBO, Starz, etc that they need to get with the program.


Looks like they'll be getting a call from me today


----------



## tomtastic

turls said:


> poor 3D


The 3D itself would be identical to the Blu ray version, only difference would be Side by Side format vs. frame packing and higher compression, but the 3D itself wouldn't change.


----------



## turls

tomtastic said:


> The 3D itself would be identical to the Blu ray version, only difference would be Side by Side format vs. frame packing and higher compression, but the 3D itself wouldn't change.


If it wasn't obvious, that's what I mean. I understand the actual 3D is the same.


----------



## cakefoo

CinemaAndy said:


> I never fell for the 1080I nonsense. 1080I was interlaced 720P for those who didn't know better and had a large wallet. 4K is about the same, as all the content is UHD, not true 4K. I think there will be 2 or 3 4K movies released this year.


4K has just 6% more pixels than UHD. 1080p has 100% more pixels than 1080i.

About the same? Crazy talk.


----------



## aaronwt

cakefoo said:


> 4K has just 6% more pixels than UHD. 1080p has 100% more pixels than 1080i.
> 
> About the same? Crazy talk.


???
1080i is still 1920x1080. Properly deinterlaced 1080i can look superb. I have some 1080i BDs and they look very detailed.


----------



## tomtastic

Yeah, that was confusing. 1080i or 1080p are equal pixel resolution, the differences are how the lines are scanned. Interlaced they are displayed in alternating fields of 1920x540, odd first then even every 30th of a second. Progressive they are displayed all at once.

Interlaced vs progressive. Interlaced can look decent. However, some features I've watched recently like Frozen Planet look soft too me compared to 1080p24 such as Planet Earth. Just about anything I record in 1080i60 I deinterlace to 30p. Looks better to me but generally 30p looks better on computer monitors. Coming directly out of Directv, 1080i60 and 720p60 look pretty close.


----------



## rural scribe

gadgtfreek said:


> I refuse to attend the theater any more, but Ill keep buying them as long as them make the blu-ray version!
> 
> I stocked up on passive glasses just in case LG pulls the plug on selling them.


Funny you should say that. According to this Techspot article, LG is cutting back its 3D TV production by 50 percent this year, and Samsung has reportedly stopped ordering 3D glasses, which could mean the company will soon stop making 3D TVs: 

http://www.techspot.com/news/63739-samsung-lg-abandon-technology-end-3d-tvs.html


----------



## gadgtfreek

rural scribe said:


> Funny you should say that. According to this Techspot article, LG is cutting back its 3D TV production by 50 percent this year, and Samsung has reportedly stopped ordering 3D glasses, which could mean the company will soon stop making 3D TVs:
> 
> http://www.techspot.com/news/63739-samsung-lg-abandon-technology-end-3d-tvs.html


I already understood the trend which is why I bought the backup glasses! The hope is we keep seeing blu-ray offerings of at least major movies in 3D, because I will keep buying as long as I can.

If they take the time to convert or film for the cinema, hopefully they will make small runs of 3D blu-rays for purchase.


----------



## rural scribe

gadgtfreek said:


> I already understood the trend which is why I bought the backup glasses! The hope is we keep seeing blu-ray offerings of at least major movies in 3D, because I will keep buying as long as I can.
> 
> If they take the time to convert or film for the cinema, hopefully they will make small runs of 3D blu-rays for purchase.


Aren't all passive 3D glasses the same? I've collected some from the local movie theater, just in case they might work with a home passive polarized 3D display.


----------



## gadgtfreek

I think they are, but I like the LG one's they have had a few years so I just grabbed 4 more of the same to give me 6. Most we use at a time is 3, so I am good.


----------



## rural scribe

The_Forth_Man said:


> Well I had such a bad time in the theater watching it in 3D that I wish I didn't see it. That was One if not THE worst 3D I have seen in my life.
> 
> But I put it on the BAD THEATER never again 3D in there.....
> 
> I'll wait for you guys to valid the 3D implementation then I'll jump on board.


I've seen it both ways. In one theater the 3D was bad (dim + ghosting). Later, I saw "Gods of Egypt" in 3D at the same theater (but not the same auditorium) and the 3D was fine.

The second theater had a good 3D presentation of the same movie (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) one of those upscale Cinemark XD theaters with a huge screen and bright 4K Barco projector.

Waiting impatiently for the 3D bluray.


----------



## aaronwt

rural scribe said:


> I've seen it both ways. In one theater the 3D was bad (dim + ghosting). Later, I saw "Gods of Egypt" in 3D at the same theater (but not the same auditorium) and the 3D was fine.
> 
> The second theater had a good 3D presentation of the same movie (Star Wars: The Force Awakens) one of those upscale Cinemark XD theaters with a huge screen and bright 4K Barco projector.
> 
> Waiting impatiently for the 3D bluray.


It's already March and the Force Awakens comes out in around a month on disc(a couple of weeks digitally). Have they even announced a 3D version? All I've heard about are the digital versions, DVD, and the 2D BD. I've seen nothing about a 3D BD or UHD BD.


----------



## rural scribe

aaronwt said:


> It's already March and the Force Awakens comes out in around a month on disc(a couple of weeks digitally). Have they even announced a 3D version? All I've heard about are the digital versions, DVD, and the 2D BD. I've seen nothing about a 3D BD or UHD BD.


According to Bluray.com, the 2D Bluray will be released on April 5, but no word yet on 3D. Since Disney is releasing this film, 3D star wars might be tough one to acquire. That was the case with Big Hero 6.

According to this web page (http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Wars-The-Force-Awakens-3D-Blu-ray/64238/) they offer email notification when it becomes available.


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> It's already March and the Force Awakens comes out in around a month on disc(a couple of weeks digitally). Have they even announced a 3D version? All I've heard about are the digital versions, DVD, and the 2D BD. I've seen nothing about a 3D BD or UHD BD.


Partial re-post:

From the always reliable Bill Hunt of Digital Bits:



> Also, here’s something interesting, but we qualify it as rumor until it’s officially confirmed by the studio: We’re hearing from some of our industry and retail sources that you shouldn’t discount the idea of a Blu-ray 3D version of Star Wars: The Force Awakens from Disney, despite the recent decline of BD3D support by Hollywood and the leading CE manufacturers. We don’t know if a 3D version would be a wide-release or a retailer exclusive, or if it would be released day and date with the regular Blu-ray version or held for a later date. But don’t give up on a 3D version of Force Awakens in 2016 just yet. If there’s any title that would sell well in Blu-ray 3D, it’s this one (much like the Marvel films) and Disney certainly knows this. We expect an official announcement of the title in the 2 or 3 weeks.


----------



## marcuslaw

*Journey to Space UHD Blu-ray Coming with 2-D/3-D BD Disk*

Great news. Looks like Journey to Space will be the first UHD BD to come packaged with a 1080p 2-D/3-D disc. I had heard Fox might do this, but Journey is a Shout Factory release. Nice start to the day!


----------



## gadgtfreek

The Force Awakens breakdown on Amazon is still limited in detail about discs, so hopefully we will get good news...


----------



## gadgtfreek

> Note: The 3D version of *Star Wars: The Force Awakens* will be available later this year.


Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/dvd/news/...l-release-dates-announced#twSKLYyc4IQ5EOw4.99


----------



## marcuslaw

gadgtfreek said:


> Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/dvd/news/...l-release-dates-announced#twSKLYyc4IQ5EOw4.99


Yet, Flatpanelshd, ibtimes and Forbes (John Archer) continue to write posts about how the major manufacturers have effectively declared 3-D dead (only Philips has expressly done so). How are 2016 Samsung owners going to feel about not being able to immerse themselves in 3-D with Force Awakens on Blu-ray or a couple of years from now, with Avatar II and III? Oh well. Here's to hoping my Sony doesn't crap out during the next 5 years or so.


----------



## gadgtfreek

I can see 3D fine on my OLED!


----------



## The_Forth_Man

marcuslaw said:


> Yet, Flatpanelshd, ibtimes and Forbes (John Archer) continue to write posts about how the major manufacturers have effectively declared 3-D dead (only Philips has expressly done so). How are 2016 Samsung owners going to feel about not being able to immerse themselves in 3-D with Force Awakens on Blu-ray or a couple of years from now, with Avatar II and III? Oh well. Here's to hoping my Sony doesn't crap out during the next 5 years or so.


If your sony dies then it'll be the time to go to a nice sony w40 or 55 

If flat panel ditch 3d then sc*ew them I love my samsung plasma but 3d is nowhere near as good as the CHEAP epson c2040 I bought in november.

Agreed that motion and blacks are better on plasma in 2d but the sheer size and actual 3d of front projection cannot be beaten by flat panels.

Front projectors will have 3d for YEARS to come.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

gadgtfreek said:


> Read more at http://www.comingsoon.net/dvd/news/...l-release-dates-announced#twSKLYyc4IQ5EOw4.99


Hi gadgtfreek,

Saw this coming. Release the bluray first, figuring so many will purchase it. Release the 3D version later on, knowing all 3D enthusiasts will purchase it again. 

So the question is, can the we wait a bit for the the force to awaken to save our cash?


----------



## Joseph Dubin

We're talking so much about the cut back of televisions with 3D. How about the availability of blu ray players with this feature? Without the blu ray, there is no 3D.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Joseph Dubin said:


> Hi gadgtfreek,
> 
> Saw this coming. Release the bluray first, figuring so many will purchase it. Release the 3D version later on, knowing all 3D enthusiasts will purchase it again.
> 
> So the question is, can the we wait a bit for the the force to awaken to save our cash?



For me, I did not see it at the theatre, so waiting for the 3D version won't hurt my feelings. I will have plenty of stuff to watch.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

gadgtfreek said:


> For me, I did not see it at the theatre, so waiting for the 3D version won't hurt my feelings. I will have plenty of stuff to watch.


Same with me on all counts


----------



## aaronwt

I've never seen it in 2D. So it will be interesting to watch the 2D BD rental.


----------



## film113

Joseph Dubin said:


> We're talking so much about the cut back of televisions with 3D. How about the availability of blu ray players with this feature? Without the blu ray, there is no 3D.


Well, the UHD players have 3D so I imagine some standard BD players will continue to have it.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Well the Force may not be upon us Yet but PEANUTS is 

That's my next buy tomorrow. Especially since this was my son's first movie in a theatre and he was to young for 3D (still his) but one day he'll get see it.

And in the meantime Daddy'll get to see the 3d


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Also I was at my local costco today and OH surprise there was a 3d demo on a curved samsung in the lobby... 

They where even going through shutter glasses tech etc. explaining the whole thing!

Somebody didnt get the memo it seems


----------



## kwok lau

I am sure that 3D will die eventually, exactly happened in the past.
The main reason is the un-comfortable feeling of wearing 3D glasses to most people. It is tough to view a movie in full length, without the feeling of dizziness to a lot of people. This problem has been proved, time and time again, by my friends and relatives who came to watch 3D in my completely light controlled theater (see photo attached). In my opinion, watching 3D video clips of less than 2/3 hour is fun, especially those video documentary in 3D (say from Imax) and those cartoon movies.
My grand kids do NOT like to put on those 3D glasses too. They prefer 2D instead.
Asking my 3 grand kids to sit steadily and finish watching a 3D cartoon of over 1 hour in length..........thanks but no thanks.
I am sure this happen to most of the family. 
With the UHD 4K around the comer and a few projector manufacturers are dropping the 3d TV and projector production on their entry series, I envision 3D will be gone within 3 to 5 years, unless there is a break through of the application of 3d glass technology and further price drop on 3D blue ray disc (which is almost US$30 per a 3d blue ray disc on movie).


----------



## gadgtfreek

Problem is consistency of the tech.

I get a FP in a dark room offers great 3D, but active glasses suck IMO. The 4K displays with passive are great, but many flat panels crap up PQ when they have to increase brightness for 3D. Im real happy with the LG because it is passive (1080p to each eye) and holds contrast ratio for a great image.


----------



## marcuslaw

kwok lau said:


> I am sure that 3D will die eventually, exactly happened in the past.
> The main reason is the un-comfortable feeling of wearing 3D glasses to most people. It is tough to view a movie in full length, without the feeling of dizziness to a lot of people. This problem has been proved, time and time again, by my friends and relatives who came to watch 3D in my completely light controlled theater (see photo attached). In my opinion, watching 3D video clips of less than 2/3 hour is fun, especially those video documentary in 3D (say from Imax) and those cartoon movies.
> My grand kids do NOT like to put on those 3D glasses too. They prefer 2D instead.
> Asking my 3 grand kids to sit steadily and finish watching a 3D cartoon of over 1 hour in length..........thanks but no thanks.
> I am sure this happen to most of the family.
> With the UHD 4K around the comer and a few projector manufacturers are dropping the 3d TV and projector production on their entry series, I envision 3D will be gone within 3 to 5 years, unless there is a break through of the application of 3d glass technology and further price drop on 3D blue ray disc (which is almost US$30 per a 3d blue ray disc on movie).


Prior 3-D did not fail because of uncomfortability with wearing glasses. Read Jack Theaston's article What Killed 3-D? In sum,



> Essentially, the sloppy presentations and inability to maintain synchronization is the reason why 3-D failed in the 1950s.
> 
> * * *
> 
> As a result of all the faulty presentations, admission to 3-D movies began to decline in the last few summer months of 1953. On June 14, 3-D pioneer John A. Norling told the New York Times: "The technical mis-handling of 3-D motion pictures to date threatens the art with an early and untimely death."


You and your family's experience is unfortunate but I doubt one that is typical. My family regularly watch 3-D films including documentaries and full length films and no one ever complains of discomfort. We just watched Ghost of the Abyss two nights ago and loved it. No one I have ever shown 3-D to including films heavy in stereoscopic imagery like Lichtmond has complained of discomfort either. I have both 3-D Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray and the latter will never replace the former. UHD with HDR is gorgeous, bright and bursts with color. As nice as it is, it is not stereo. UHD does not add depth, volume and it cannot exist in the negative parallax. Only 3-D can do that. I feel sorry for people who can't view 3-D whether because of discomfort like you and your family or because of the drop of support by manufacturers as of late. Hopefully, despite recent moves away from 3-D by Samsung and others, studios will continue to release titles on Blu-ray 3-D and folks like the 3D Film Archive, Kino and others will continue to restore older catalogue titles for years to come.


----------



## film113

The only time I've ever heard people complain about discomfort from 3D was with the old cardboard cellophane-lensed glasses. The REAL reason some may not like the glasses is because it interferes with texting, vacuuming, updating social websites, etc. while a movie is running.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Having owned both active and passive, passive are much more comfortable. It's like the Costa fishing sunglasses I have. I have owned both types, one with a plastic lens and one with a glass lens. You don't realize what those extra few ounces will do to your nose comfort wise. And of course passive does not bother my wife's eyes like active did.


----------



## MrEmoto

Probably won't help, but I went onto Amazon and made a "reivew" on Phantom Menace saying simply that I will not buy this film until it comes out in 3D. If we all go do this, maybe someone will notice. I dunno.


----------



## kwok lau

Gadgtfreek and others,

Have any of you tried PASSIVE 3d glasses with Sony HW40es projector? if yes, what brand and model? I do not think it works.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Not me, my first experience with passive is this OLED, other than the theater. I always had active with my plasma's.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

kwok lau said:


> Gadgtfreek and others,
> 
> Have any of you tried PASSIVE 3d glasses with Sony HW40es projector? if yes, what brand and model? I do not think it works.


It works really well with any cheap passive glasses....

You only need two sony's stacked with polarized filter and a polarized screen and a geobox. 

You could do it with 2 benq w1070 or 2 epson 2040 for less than one sony. I almost did 3 years ago but we felt having a child was more important in our lives at that time. Looking back right now we think we made the right call.


----------



## cctvtech

The_Forth_Man said:


> I almost did 3 years ago but we felt having a child was more important in our lives at that time. Looking back right now we think we made the right call.


Come back in 12 years and tell us if you still feel that way.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

cctvtech said:


> Come back in 12 years and tell us if you still feel that way.


Yeah I know....


----------



## jvh4

I remain in awe of the glasses hatred. I love my active projector. The only nuisance is the charging of glasses, but that's my burden and doesn't impact my family or guests. It a burden I am happy to bear.

I have cheap active glasses (less than $35 each) and they are all* light and all as comfortable as the passive glasses I get at the theater. I have 2 pairs of estar glasses and 10 pairs of monster vision. The electronics reside in the part of the glasses over the ear. Maybe I have the world's strongest ears? 

*I don't count the glasses that came with my mitsu projector because they are known to be the worse glasses ever and we don't use them.


----------



## gadgtfreek

So opinon and fact are hatred?
Well, I repsond by saying your post is a great work of active glass fanboyism then.

They are obvious reasons passive is a more user friendly option (if 1080p to both eyes) and prob would have helped adoption, not hurt.

Weight
Price
Charging
Eye issues

All those are FACTS. I owned two plasmas with active and now this passive set, Ill take passive any day of the week, and while you sound like you love yours, it doesn't change certain realities.

IMHO, 

These









Are superior to these:


----------



## aaronwt

My Passive 3D LG glasses are uncomfortable compared to my Xpand Active 3D glasses. But I'm sure if I got a different passive brand I could get one that is more comfortable. But since the LG TV came with four or six pairs of 3D glasses, I didn't see the need to buy any more. Plus that TV is in a tertiary setup.


----------



## kwok lau

The-forth-man,
I do not understand your advice. Would you please explain how you can use passive 3d glasses to view 3d with the Sony HW40es projector? Step by step. Also advise which brand and model of the 3d passive glasses you used.

Thank you.


----------



## kwok lau

aaronwt - where did you buy the Xpand 3d active glasses? How much you paid per glass?


----------



## jvh4

I am not getting baited into another active/passive pissing match. My comment is not directed at any post in particular. My comment quite clearly states that I personally remain in awe of the continued hate on 3D glasses. Everywhere you turn someone is whining about 3D glasses. Based on my experience I find it incredible that with minimal effort people can't find glasses that are comfortable enough to justify 3D viewing. 

To respond to you specifically, I'm not an active fanboy. I am equally open to both technologies. A DLP active projector happened to be the best balance of features and cost for my application which is a 106" screen. I would likely not purchase an active flat screen TV now that 4K is cost effective.

The fact that one would list glasses charging as an inconvenience and not mention upgrading an entire HT system to 4K just to get true 1080p 3D as a disadvantage seems a bit more biased then any statement I recall making.


----------



## aaronwt

kwok lau said:


> aaronwt - where did you buy the Xpand 3d active glasses? How much you paid per glass?


I got them from Amazon. The first pair I got in 2012, for my DLP set, I paid around $70 for(but it also included the BT emitter needed for my DLP set). But the second pair I got a few months later only cost $30.
Then the pairs I got for my Sony UHD TV last year in November only cost me around $20.(one of those also included a BT emitter)

I see Amazon has them for around $60 right. They seem to go up and down a lot in price on Amazon for some reason.

For instance right now for $60 you get the glasses and BT emitter. But the one that only has the glasses, they want $65
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009ZW7SR2?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A279MD2?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00


----------



## andy sullivan

I've mentioned this before but feel obligated to repeat something. My first 3D TV was the 70R550A which was passive. A dozen different people watched many 3D movies on this set and everyone was highly impressed. Many of these same people watched 3D movies on my next set, a Active 70X850B and it's replacement Active 75X850C and were equally impressed with the PQ. No one felt that that Passive or Active delivered a better picture. However, everyone preferred the comfort of the Passive glasses. In my opinion Passive should be the choice for all future displays.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

kwok lau said:


> The-forth-man,
> I do not understand your advice. Would you please explain how you can use passive 3d glasses to view 3d with the Sony HW40es projector? Step by step. Also advise which brand and model of the 3d passive glasses you used.
> 
> Thank you.


Actually you cannot use any passive glasses with your projector ( or any affordable ) projector as it stand right now. 

There is a way to create a true passive projection display using a DUAL projector set up.

There are a couple of ways to do this.

Epson makes a ready to use set up in this:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?UseCookie=yes&sku=V11H494020

But basically you can do it with any projector by adding filters and a converter box.

Not to highjack this thread, If you are interested in going that route Pm me I'll be happy to tell you all I know about that


----------



## Wryker

Passive 3D is fine - if you are ok with half the resolution. I want full 1080p thus I have active.


----------



## turls

Wryker said:


> Passive 3D is fine - if you are ok with half the resolution. I want full 1080p thus I have active.


But you can get that with 4K passive...just saying.


----------



## GreySkies

Wryker said:


> Passive 3D is fine - if you are ok with half the resolution. I want full 1080p thus I have active.


The_Forth_Man's post above yours is a full resolution passive 3D setup.


----------



## Wryker

turls said:


> But you can get that with 4K passive...just saying.



Correct - and that's what I'm hoping to see in the near future at an excellent price-point.


----------



## Wryker

GreySkies said:


> The_Forth_Man's post above yours is a full resolution passive 3D setup.



Correct- but it's not something 'off the shelf'. To me, 4K should be ushering in sets wfull 3DHD instead, most of them dropping it!

I bought a Samsung 4K 3D60" set - but it's still using active tech!


----------



## evertec

Wryker said:


> Correct- but it's not something 'off the shelf'. To me, 4K should be ushering in sets wfull 3DHD instead, most of them dropping it!
> 
> I bought a Samsung 4K 3D60" set - but it's still using active tech!


I think LG's the only one that does passive at full 1080P anymore. I have one of their LCD 4K models that does full 1080P to each eye, hoping that they don't drop the 3D from their OLEDs by the time they're affordable.


----------



## Hagenstein

kwok lau said:


> I am sure that 3D will die eventually, exactly happened in the past.
> The main reason is the un-comfortable feeling of wearing 3D glasses to most people. It is tough to view a movie in full length, without the feeling of dizziness to a lot of people. This problem has been proved, time and time again, by my friends and relatives who came to watch 3D in my completely light controlled theater (see photo attached). In my opinion, watching 3D video clips of less than 2/3 hour is fun, especially those video documentary in 3D (say from Imax) and those cartoon movies.
> My grand kids do NOT like to put on those 3D glasses too. They prefer 2D instead.
> Asking my 3 grand kids to sit steadily and finish watching a 3D cartoon of over 1 hour in length..........thanks but no thanks.
> I am sure this happen to most of the family.
> With the UHD 4K around the comer and a few projector manufacturers are dropping the 3d TV and projector production on their entry series, I envision 3D will be gone within 3 to 5 years, unless there is a break through of the application of 3d glass technology and further price drop on 3D blue ray disc (which is almost US$30 per a 3d blue ray disc on movie).


I haven't heard of a single projector mfgr. announcing that they were dropping 3D from their projectors. Source?

It has become so tiresome everytime a tv mfgr. announces that not all of their models will include 3D, or that it will only be available on their top models, that the haters run to grab their party whistles and confetti poppers. As though they'd been tied to a chair and forced to re-create the rehabilitation scenes in A Clockwork Orange in 3D for the past few years. Letting those that enjoy 3D and are *not* bothered by the glasses enjoy their 3D in peace seems to not be an option with those folk.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Hagenstein said:


> I haven't heard of a single projector mfgr. announcing that they were dropping 3D from their projectors. Source?
> 
> It has become so tiresome everytime a tv mfgr. announces that not all of their models will include 3D, or that it will only be available on their top models, that the haters run to grab their party whistles and confetti poppers. As though they'd been tied to a chair and forced to re-create the rehabilitation scenes in A Clockwork Orange in 3D for the past few years. Letting those that enjoy 3D and are *not* bothered by the glasses enjoy their 3D in peace seems to not be an option with those folk.


Some people "LOVE TO HATE" what are gonna do about it.... I would say ignore them they will go away but that as proven to fail more than work so I say lets spam their threads 

I havent seen any PJ dropping 3D yet neither, and even if they did the solution I described earlier would still work and provide the ABSOLUTE BEST 3D solution (If implemented correctly).

Anyway as much as I love 3D for me Front Projection is a must to really appreciate it! 60" doesn't cut it anymore 

EDIT: But I agree that 3D will become (if not already) a 1% thing in home.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Hi all,

When 3D television was first introduced, I was criticized by many who took my reasoning that it was not going to catch on as a mainstream consumer product to be critical of it as an entertainment venue for a loyal following, which is exactly what has occurred. So it would be natural for manufacturers to limit production of sets with this feature.

Does that signal the death of 3D in the home? Or just that it was only going to achieve a niche level more reasonable than the over anticipated projections of a half decade ago? That includes, unfortunately, less Hollywood productions each year resulting in less titles to buy but not a total absence.

This is all conjecture. It could go way of the mini disc. Or, like Avatar, the restored 3D version of Titanic or Star Wars 7, it can get a new resurrection. At least according to the attached, there is no reason to give up hope:

http://www.commercialintegrator.eu/article/xpand-argues-that-3d-cinema-is-here-to-stay

In the meantime, let us thus be content with the limited content we hopefully can still depend upon, even if it's Peanuts. .


----------



## NorthSky

Joseph Dubin said:


> ... In the meantime, let us thus be content with the limited content we hopefully can still depend upon, even if it's *Peanuts*. .


----------



## The_Forth_Man

NorthSky said:


>


It was in the house March 10th. Havent had time to check 3D yet but to movies has played 4 times in the weekend.  

Can I watch Noospy Daddy...

Also went on Rampage at my local BB 

Since I was the only one interested in 3D in my house before we bought the PJ, most of my viewing was from rentals.  My wife didn't like the 3D from our Samsung plasma but NOW that's a whole different story. 

So I'm building my collection slowly. This week bought Peanuts - Avatar - Titanic - Life of Pi and Gravity. 

I get to discover them all again on the big"gish" screen...


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Well call me Captain Obvious but...I was thinking back to what I just wrote and I think I see one of the reason 2d BR outsell 3D version every time.

Let's take Peanuts for example. The price difference was only 3$ so it was a no brainer for me even if it meant that I would be the only one in the house to ever watch it and only once the rental price would've been covered.

But on the other hand when you reach the 10$+ difference I simply couldn't justify to my significant other why I should get that version since she wouldn't watch it with me. So most of the time It was regular BR + rental for me if I wanted 3D once in a while. Especially since rentals become cheaper and cheaper over time.

So essentially Marketing killed 3D by making it too expensive (especially since we all know 3D cost are covered largely by theatre tickets)

Now I have to find a way to justify the "Double dipping" Oh wait the PJ does it for me


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Hi All,

To follow up with my earlier thoughts.

The marketing "studies" released by the consumer electronics industry back in 08/09 were not scientific but rather hyped "push polls", a marketing technique used to influence the response of those being questioned under the guise of conducting a poll. That is why in my opinion we did not see a long-term financial commitment by production companies, television networks or cable providers in this area. These industries would have had to sustain a tremendous amount of fiscal loss before seeing the profit, making sure that a steady and growing stream of 3D content was available to entice new audiences. Unlike high definition, where the content was already in place and growing to entice the mainstream consumer and the studies showed there would be a major market for it in the long-term, that, unfortunately, was not the case with 3D. Few major commitments outside the consumer electronics industry were to be made unless the mainstream consumer - and not the early adopters - showed a strong interest. ESPN and 3Net were short lived. Cable companies did not take on the expense of expanding their systems to accommodate 3D. The BBC dropped it's 3D experimentation. Same with Australia and other countries. The 2014 Olympics were shunned though planned for.

Would 3D had taken on had there been more of a commitment? Though a big fan of 3D, back then I felt it would not because it was introduced at the wrong time. As mentioned before, it came at the end of the HD surge in sales and the beginning of the recession and had so much competition all that could be done with the internet. 

But again, it is my hope there are enough of us to keep it thriving. If we ignore the padded anticipated projections and instead examine what could have been realistically expected, has 3D reached a sustainable level where it can make a profit in the movies and on blu ray to justify the extra expense? Would the same amount of people pay to see the same films in 2D? Would we buy the same blu ray discs in 2D or just watch them on cable instead since it's the allure of the 3D that gets us to make the purchase? Or, would some like me, simply dub them onto DVD-R and be satisfied with a still quite enjoyable up-converted copy (for example, my recording of HBO's Lady Day at Emerson's Bar & Grill was quite satisfying and at at approximately 40 cents for the blank disc, well worth it). 

I would not enjoy Coroline in 2D, knowing how it was in 3D. So I don't see the number of "addicts" shrinking. Are there enough of us out there? That is the question - and more important than Passive versus Active glasses. BTW - I use active for my Sony KD50w800B if anyone is interested. And I was able to purchase a set of three non-name active ones for around $60 on eBay which are actually a bit better than than the ones Sony gave - and rechargeable and more comfortable too.


----------



## Franchot

Is home 3D *still *dying?! 

I find it hard to believe, since the beginning of this year I've been tempted to buy or bought...

Comin' At Ya!
Minions
Peanuts: The Movie
In The Heart of the Sea
The Good Dinosaur
The Martian
Everest
The Walk
Gog
Goosebumps
Hotel Transylvania 2

With the following on my pre-order list:

Quackerz
Zootopia
Point Blank
Love (I might skip this one.)
It Came From Outer Space
Mockingjay Part II
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Robinson Crusoe

I'm sure I'm missing some, but if there are more 3D movies coming out I'll need to take out a bank loan.


----------



## aaronwt

Franchot said:


> Is home 3D *still *dying?!
> 
> I find it hard to believe, since the beginning of this year I've been tempted to buy or bought...
> 
> Comin' At Ya!
> Minions
> Peanuts: The Movie
> In The Heart of the Sea
> The Good Dinosaur
> The Martian
> Everest
> The Walk
> Gog
> Goosebumps
> Hotel Transylvania 2
> 
> With the following on my pre-order list:
> 
> Quackerz
> Zootopia
> Point Blank
> Love (I might skip this one.)
> It Came From Outer Space
> Mockingjay Part II
> Star Wars: The Force Awakens
> Robinson Crusoe
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing some, but if there are more 3D movies coming out I'll need to take out a bank loan.


Where is Mockingjay Part II in 3D? Is that from the UK? I know theatrically it was only in 2D in the US. unfortunately.


----------



## dhvsfan

Franchot said:


> Is home 3D *still *dying?!
> 
> 
> With the following on my pre-order list:
> 
> . . .
> 
> Mockingjay Part II
> Star Wars: The Force Awakens
> 
> . . .
> 
> I'm sure I'm missing some, but if there are more 3D movies coming out I'll need to take out a bank loan.


If the last two are available in either region A or region-free, please let the group know. I am interested in both !!


----------



## Franchot

aaronwt said:


> Where is Mockingjay Part II in 3D? Is that from the UK? I know theatrically it was only in 2D in the US. unfortunately.





dhvsfan said:


> If the last two are available in either region A or region-free, please let the group know. I am interested in both !!


https://www.jbhifi.com.au/movies-tv...re/hunger-games-the-mockingjay-part-2/936368/

Australian release. 

Supposedly a release from the United Kingdom is coming also. Probably some other countries, also. Remains to be seen which ones are locked or Region Free.
_
Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ in 3D will be coming later this year according to the announcement that stated that _Star Wars: The Force Awakens _is coming to Blu ray. The 3D version will release sometime after the regular Blu ray version becomes available. No word on when that "sometime" is. However, it will be in 2016.


----------



## dhvsfan

Franchot said:


> https://www.jbhifi.com.au/movies-tv...re/hunger-games-the-mockingjay-part-2/936368/
> 
> Australian release.
> 
> Supposedly a release from the United Kingdom is coming also. Probably some other countries, also. Remains to be seen which ones are locked or Region Free.
> _
> Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ in 3D will be coming later this year according to the announcement that stated that _Star Wars: The Force Awakens _is coming to Blu ray. The 3D version will release sometime after the regular Blu ray version becomes available. No word on when that "sometime" is. However, it will be in 2016.


Franchot, thanks for the link. This Australian release of Mockingjay Part 2 (via the link) claims Region B if you look at the details tab. But here's hoping for Region Free !!


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Though having a Sony KDL50W800B for almost a year, only had a 3D blu ray player for five months. Must have purchased about 40 titles during that time which averages almost two per week! So as said, this is addicting. The advantage is being able to get so many of the discs released over the years cheaply by used. Just recently ordered Gog and the import Noah. Have but still need to get around to Ultron, Walk and Everest.

Never thought I would pay $37 for a film like Noah but 3D can do that to ya.

It ain't dead as far as I'm concerned. As a last resort, there's always simulation which at times can be quite satisfying if the expectations are within reason.


----------



## aaronwt

dhvsfan said:


> Franchot, thanks for the link. This Australian release of Mockingjay Part 2 (via the link) claims Region B if you look at the details tab. But here's hoping for Region Free !!


I just rip it to my server and play the 3D BD ISOs from my media players. That's what I've had to do for several of my titles since I'm not about to purchase a region free BD player.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

aaronwt said:


> I just rip it to my server and play the 3D BD ISOs from my media players. That's what I've had to do for several of my titles since I'm not about to purchase a region free BD player.


I dont want to get OT but how do you go about it? 

That's what I do with my regular BD I usually go trough MakeMKV and Plex, I used to run them through Handbrake to reduce size but I dont anymore since HDD space only cost about 1$ per movie in average.


----------



## aaronwt

The_Forth_Man said:


> I dont want to get OT but how do you go about it?
> 
> That's what I do with my regular BD I usually go trough MakeMKV and Plex, I used to run them through Handbrake to reduce size but I dont anymore since HDD space only cost about 1$ per movie in average.


You can use MakeMKV too for 3D. But I typically just use Any DVD HD to rip to ISOs. Normally I keep the region code on my rips, but for those titles I have from other regions, I just have it remove the region code when ripping it to an ISO.


----------



## Franchot

dhvsfan said:


> Franchot, thanks for the link. This Australian release of Mockingjay Part 2 (via the link) claims Region B if you look at the details tab. But here's hoping for Region Free !!


I'm thinking that if there's an Australian release of this movie in 3D, then there are pretty good odds that there will be an Asian release coming out in 3D, also. This is not some small, independent film. 

(As you probably know, Region A from an Asian country will play in your Region A North American player.)


----------



## ultrasilent

Do anybody have insider information about 3d blu-ray format death? Hollywood plan is to stop 3d filming process, no more 3d in theaters, no more new 3d BD releases? What is the last info about this biggest disaster of this year?


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Alright just went on my newly approved"ISH" BB friday rampage, no more rentals... 

Added the following to my 3D selection

Dawn of Planet of the apes
The great Gatsby
Man of Steel
Sin city a Dame to kill for
Pacific Rim
X-men Days if future past
Lego Movie
transformer age of extension
--------
Already add (from last week)

Gravity
Avatar
Titanic
life of pi

Any new (OLD) titles I should absolutely buy and steer clear off ?


----------



## ultrasilent

hollywood kill 3d stereo cinematography? 

http://realorfake3d.com/

2016 last year of 3d? samsung can`t be wrong about which technology dies in few (2-3) years or sooner!


----------



## The_Forth_Man

ultrasilent said:


> hollywood kill 3d stereo cinematography?
> 
> http://realorfake3d.com/
> 
> 2016 last year of 3d? samsung can`t be wrong about which technology dies in few (2-3) years or sooner!


Yeah Samsung will surely convince James Cameron to do Avatar's sequel un 2d ROFL.

Edit: and you honestly think all the Marvel movies announced till 2020 won't be 3D? seriously.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Actually this thread should be renamed: 

The death of sub 3k TV's 3D. (In North America).

That's pretty much what samsung is telling us!


----------



## ultrasilent

The_Forth_Man said:


> Yeah Samsung will surely convince James Cameron to do Avatar's sequel un 2d ROFL.
> 
> Edit: and you honestly think all the Marvel movies announced till 2020 won't be 3D? seriously.


But would they be released on 3D BD? 



The_Forth_Man said:


> Actually this thread should be renamed:
> 
> The death of sub 3k TV's 3D. (In North America).
> 
> That's pretty much what samsung is telling us!


Samsung completly removed 3d from 2016 line-up. Without any price statement.


----------



## NorthSky

The_Forth_Man said:


> Actually this thread should be renamed:
> 
> The death of sub 3k TV's 3D. (In North America).
> 
> That's pretty much what samsung is telling us!


...And LG, that's right; 3D is now a niche market, for the hi-end 3D videophiles. It's about time; that way less complaining from the general population and more lovin' from the cinemophiles appreciative of artistic/creative (((3D))) motion pictures in the year 2016 and beyond...all that hi-def jazz. 
And the general population can now concentrate on no more shades and in the new wave...4K. It'll take off like wild fire I'm sure; just wait this summer when the temperatures get really hot.

Have you watched _The Peanuts Movie_ and _The Good Dinosaur_ on Blu and in 3D recently? 
If not because you cannot afford a 3D TV now, you can also check them out in 2D, on DVD...with your 4K TV.


----------



## EVERRET

*3D*

*Don’t Leave 3D for Dead: Why the Movie Model Remains a Global Force *

https://www.thewrap.com/dont-leave-...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


----------



## marcuslaw

EVERRET said:


> *Don’t Leave 3D for Dead: Why the Movie Model Remains a Global Force *
> 
> https://www.thewrap.com/dont-leave-...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer


Finally, someone publishes what I've been thinking all along. 



> The sheer scale of that global footprint allows for enormous opportunities for studios, filmmakers, exhibitors and audiences, all of whom continue to embrace 3D and the magic that the best of those experiences provide.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

The_Forth_Man said:


> Actually this thread should be renamed:
> 
> The death of sub 3k TV's 3D.* (In North America).*
> 
> That's pretty much what samsung is telling us!





EVERRET said:


> *Don’t Leave 3D for Dead: Why the Movie Model Remains a Global Force *
> 
> https://www.thewrap.com/dont-leave-...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer





marcuslaw said:


> Finally, someone publishes what I've been thinking all along.



Exactly! Well said. That's why if you look back at my previous post I wrote in North America.
Even Disney Releases almost all their movies in 3D on Blu ray for zone B and the Asian market. Their not about to let their newly acquired markets shrink down.

You have to think GLOBALLY. Just look here on AVS how many countries are represented here.


----------



## marcuslaw

Bill Hunt of the Bits is reporting that the forthcoming Panasonic UHD player will support 3-D. Stereo for the next generation. ;-)

http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/031816_1400


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> Bill Hunt of the Bits is reporting that the forthcoming Panasonic UHD player will support 3-D. Stereo for the next generation. ;-)
> 
> http://thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/031816_1400


I thought that was known a long time ago? I didn't think there was any question about the Panasonic player supporting 3D and 2D Blu-ray Discs?


----------



## Rudy1

The_Forth_Man said:


> Alright just went on my newly approved"ISH" BB friday rampage, no more rentals...
> 
> Added the following to my 3D selection
> 
> Dawn of Planet of the apes
> The great Gatsby
> Man of Steel
> Sin city a Dame to kill for
> Pacific Rim
> X-men Days if future past
> Lego Movie
> transformer age of extension
> --------
> Already add (from last week)
> 
> Gravity
> Avatar
> Titanic
> life of pi
> 
> Any new (OLD) titles I should absolutely buy and steer clear off ?


I would recommend "Alice In Wonderland", "The Adventures Of Tintin", "Beowulf", "Thor", "Final Destination 5", and "Thor - The Dark World".


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Rudy1 said:


> I would recommend "Alice In Wonderland", "The Adventures Of Tintin", "Beowulf", "Thor", "Final Destination 5", and "Thor - The Dark World".


Tintin was in my watch list as is Hugo.

Anything Marvel related will be bought at some point but 45$  a little out of my price range for a movie. It does not meet WAF.

I'll have to skip Final Destination, I'm a wimp 
I keep a eye out for Beowulf as well as Polar express if I can find them for cheap.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

The_Forth_Man said:


> Exactly! Well said. That's why if you look back at my previous post I wrote in North America.
> Even Disney Releases almost all their movies in 3D on Blu ray for zone B and the Asian market. Their not about to let their newly acquired markets shrink down.
> 
> You have to think GLOBALLY. Just look here on AVS how many countries are represented here.


Hi Forth,

And if Disney and others continue to dismiss the niche home theater 3D market in the U.S. for whatever cost control purposes they feel would cut into their profit margins, there will hopefully be region free releases overseas that we can import. Just did it with Noah.


----------



## MrEmoto

Joseph Dubin said:


> Hi Forth,
> 
> And if Disney and others continue to dismiss the niche home theater 3D market in the U.S. for whatever cost control purposes they feel would cut into their profit margins, there will hopefully be region free releases overseas that we can import. Just did it with Noah.


That's becoming an increasingly attractive option. Forgive me for asking here, but what is a reasonable region-free 3D BR player?


----------



## Joseph Dubin

MrEmoto said:


> That's becoming an increasingly attractive option. Forgive me for asking here, but what is a reasonable region-free 3D BR player?


Hi MrEmoto,

Wouldn't know since referring to the discs only. But would there be a problem with playback on PAL discs if, for example, region B? Converting feature might raise the cost of the player with 3D even more.


----------



## dhvsfan

MrEmoto said:


> That's becoming an increasingly attractive option. Forgive me for asking here, but what is a reasonable region-free 3D BR player?


Depends on what you consider reasonable. You can try the Sony BDP-S5500 Region Free 3D Blu-Ray DVD Player
http://www.220-electronics.com/sony-bdp-s5500-region-free-blu-ray-dvd-player.html $179 with the $40 add-on for Region-Free Blu-Ray.


----------



## MrEmoto

Joseph Dubin said:


> Hi MrEmoto,
> 
> Wouldn't know since referring to the discs only. But would there be a problem with playback on PAL discs if, for example, region B? Converting feature might raise the cost of the player with 3D even more.


Hmm. PAL. I do not know anything about PAL. Sorry.



dhvsfan said:


> Depends on what you consider reasonable. You can try the Sony BDP-S5500 Region Free 3D Blu-Ray DVD Player
> http://www.220-electronics.com/sony-bdp-s5500-region-free-blu-ray-dvd-player.html $179 with the $40 add-on for Region-Free Blu-Ray.


Thanks for the pointer!


----------



## aaronwt

Joseph Dubin said:


> Hi MrEmoto,
> 
> Wouldn't know since referring to the discs only. But would there be a problem with playback on PAL discs if, for example, region B? Converting feature might raise the cost of the player with 3D even more.


Region B discs won't play on a Region A player. With those titles i only watch them from my media players after ripping(and stripping the region) them to my unRAID servers. Since I'm not going to pay the extra money for several region free players for just a handful of titles i have from other regions.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

I'm pretty active in the epson 2040/45 thread in the sub 3000$ Pj section and noticed that people who buy a Pj for the first time are almost blown Away by 3D

Here is a exemple of the reaction I see over there. This was posted today.



AngelArs said:


> Bought the Panasonic 3D glasses shown here;
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-TY-...&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00
> 
> Because of the price I did not expect much, but *OMG *are they amazing! Using the Epson 2045 which I picked up for 649. The 3D on this projector is much better than any TV 3D. Watched the movie _Avatar _in 3D and it was breathtaking at times. The glasses do not come with a case, but you can buy one separately. As soon as I turned the glasses on they connected all by themselves automatically to the 2045. Very happy with purchase. Will be starting a 3D library now.


Makes me wonder how many people actually go out of there way to find glasses and try the 3D. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people who dont like 3D on their TV would like it on the big screen. I know my wife as the wife of one my close friend who bought the w1070 were never watching 3d on tv and now like the Pj's very much.

I think that there's a dormant market for in home 3D

Both my plasma and Pj are FullHD 3D.


----------



## AngelArs

The_Forth_Man said:


> I'm pretty sure that a lot of people who dont like 3D on their TV would like it on the big screen.


I read somewhere that this is usually the case, primarily because TVs are generally much smaller than a projector screen, and the added size of the projector screen makes your brain feel that whats you're seeing is real, where as when you're watching on a smaller screen your brain is harder to fool. I was never big on 3D (_saw it all on a TV_) but I like it so much better on the projector that I'm going out of my way to find good 3D movies now. Some of the scenes in Avatar were very well done.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

AngelArs said:


> I read somewhere that this is usually the case, primarily because TVs are generally much smaller than a projector screen, and the added size of the projector screen makes your brain feel that whats you're seeing is real, where as when you're watching on a smaller screen your brain is harder to fool. I was never big on 3D (_saw it all on a TV_) but I like it so much better on the projector that I'm going out of my way to find good 3D movies now. Some of the scenes in Avatar were very well done.


Welcome to this thread and the Fabulous world of 3D!


----------



## AngelArs

The_Forth_Man said:


> Welcome to this thread and the Fabulous world of 3D!


Thank you. I needed a new hobby


----------



## The_Forth_Man

AngelArs said:


> Thank you. I needed a new hobby


I know what you mean after AVS and beer brewing I just took up Charcuterie 

You know what they say: Idle hands....


----------



## GreySkies

The_Forth_Man said:


> I know what you mean after AVS and beer brewing I just took up Charcuterie
> 
> You know what they say: Idle hands....


Nice! Change beer brewing to wine making, and it sounds like my house! Although my next door neighbor's wine make mine taste like gasoline.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Well me and the Wife just watched TITANIC in 3D It was the first time we both watched the movie since the original 2D release. In one word... : 

WOW!!!!!!!

That is some impressive work they did. Probably in my top 3 3D movie so far again WOW.


----------



## mo949

Joseph Dubin said:


> Hi MrEmoto,
> 
> Wouldn't know since referring to the discs only. But would there be a problem with playback on PAL discs if, for example, region B? Converting feature might raise the cost of the player with 3D even more.


All bluray movies are 24p and not pal. No conversion to be done. Rare foreign released made for TV movies that are 1080i and 50fps do need conversion.


----------



## EVERRET

By: Michael L. Tan *@inquirerdotnet*

*Philippine Daily Inquirer*


*02:23 AM March 30th, 2016

http://opinion.inquirer.net/94058/modern-epics*


> I was among those who queued to get tickets for “Batman v Superman.” Two queues in fact. The first was in Greenhills, even before the malls opened. My 6-year-old daughter is the early bird in the family so we did groceries together and made it to the Promenade gates early, only to be greeted by a long line. My daughter whined and suggested I check my iPad if there were shorter lines in other theaters.*
> She was right, not about the length of lines but about alternatives. When I did check, I realized Greenhills didn’t have 3D and made the mistake of telling my bodyguard of a daughter, who promptly protested and said we should find one with 3D.*
> Later that day I was once again in a queue with my daughters, this time at Robinson’s Magnolia, where they do have 3D.


Funny.... I had to smile because this is played out in my family when picking movies to watch or where to watch them...... if it's in 3D or not. ​ 


​


----------



## tomtastic

*END OF LINE FOR BLU RAY 3D*

Disney made it official they are _no longer releasing 3D movies on Blu ray 3D format in any region_, including the new Star Wars The Force Awakens. This also includes subsidary studios it owns like Marvel and Pixar. Sony Entertainment has announced they are reviewing Blu ray 3D sales and performance which means they too will likely give 3D the axe. So without Blu ray 3D that's pretty much it. It was fun while it lasted.




Spoiler



April Fools! Sorry, I couldn't resist. I hope this doesn't actually come true, which it could, especially with Disney. Have a wonderful April!


----------



## Barry C

tomtastic said:


> *END OF LINE FOR BLU RAY 3D*
> 
> Disney made it official they are _no longer releasing 3D movies on Blu ray 3D format in any region_, including the new Star Wars The Force Awakens. This also includes subsidary studios it owns like Marvel and Pixar. Sony Entertainment has announced they are reviewing Blu ray 3D sales and performance which means they too will likely give 3D the axe. So without Blu ray 3D that's pretty much it. It was fun while it lasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> April Fools! Sorry, I couldn't resist. I hope this doesn't actually come true, which it could, especially with Disney. Have a wonderful April!


Tom , you're an evil sadistic man


----------



## HockeyoAJB

tomtastic said:


> *END OF LINE FOR BLU RAY 3D*
> 
> Disney made it official they are _no longer releasing 3D movies on Blu ray 3D format in any region_, including the new Star Wars The Force Awakens. This also includes subsidary studios it owns like Marvel and Pixar. Sony Entertainment has announced they are reviewing Blu ray 3D sales and performance which means they too will likely give 3D the axe. So without Blu ray 3D that's pretty much it. It was fun while it lasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> April Fools! Sorry, I couldn't resist. I hope this doesn't actually come true, which it could, especially with Disney. Have a wonderful April!


I HATE YOU!


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> *END OF LINE FOR BLU RAY 3D*
> 
> Disney made it official they are _no longer releasing 3D movies on Blu ray 3D format in any region_, including the new Star Wars The Force Awakens. This also includes subsidary studios it owns like Marvel and Pixar. Sony Entertainment has announced they are reviewing Blu ray 3D sales and performance which means they too will likely give 3D the axe. So without Blu ray 3D that's pretty much it. It was fun while it lasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> April Fools! Sorry, I couldn't resist. I hope this doesn't actually come true, which it could, especially with Disney. Have a wonderful April!


----------



## chrisagon

tomtastic said:


> *END OF LINE FOR BLU RAY 3D*
> 
> Disney made it official they are _no longer releasing 3D movies on Blu ray 3D format in any region_, including the new Star Wars The Force Awakens. This also includes subsidary studios it owns like Marvel and Pixar. Sony Entertainment has announced they are reviewing Blu ray 3D sales and performance which means they too will likely give 3D the axe. So without Blu ray 3D that's pretty much it. It was fun while it lasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> April Fools! Sorry, I couldn't resist. I hope this doesn't actually come true, which it could, especially with Disney. Have a wonderful April!


That was mean. I almost had a heart atteak. But...well done!


----------



## aaronwt

I was checking out times for the Batman/Superman IMAX lite showings at my local AMC theater. In the past they have always had all showings in 3D, when it was a 3D title. But this is the first one I've seen that has had 2D showings sprinkled in with 3D showings. Which sucks since that means there are less options to choose from to see it in 3D. 

So around 40% of the IMAX lite showings are now 2D at that location.


----------



## kwok lau

April Fool day!
Quote:
Disney made it official they are no longer releasing 3D movies on Blu ray 3D format in any region, including the new Star Wars The Force Awakens. This also includes subsidary studios it owns like Marvel and Pixar. Sony Entertainment has announced they are reviewing Blu ray 3D sales and performance which means they too will likely give 3D the axe. So without Blu ray 3D that's pretty much it. It was fun while it lasted.
End-quoted from former posting by TomTastic


----------



## MrEmoto

tomtastic said:


> *end of line for blu ray 3d*
> 
> disney made it official they are _no longer releasing 3d movies on blu ray 3d format in any region_, including the new star wars the force awakens. This also includes subsidary studios it owns like marvel and pixar. Sony entertainment has announced they are reviewing blu ray 3d sales and performance which means they too will likely give 3d the axe. So without blu ray 3d that's pretty much it. It was fun while it lasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> april fools! sorry, i couldn't resist. I hope this doesn't actually come true, which it could, especially with disney. Have a wonderful april!


hahahaha!!!!


----------



## NickTheGreat

The sad thing is that none of us were very surprised by that statement . . .


----------



## kwok lau

Just take it easy, 3D movies and disc purchase is a huge market for the movie manufacturers. In my belief, if buyers support 3D sale, they will keep producing. 
In other words, we shall buy more good 3d discs, share our experience of which good ones to buy in this website and others................their sale will rise and price will drop. A win win situation,

Do not let the April fool date's joke scare you. This is what I belief

I like 3D movie at home, even though it gives me dizziness if watch over 1 hour or so. Have to find a lighter 3D glasses. I have 12 pairs of Sony Playstation3 3D glasses, but they are too heavy and bulky to me and guests. My grand kids do not like the Sony glasses neither.
I wonder if any one call tell if this shall be a good substitute........which is double the price of the Sony playstation3 3d glass. Any one can advise me???

http://www.amazon.com/IncrediSonic-...e&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_15&smid=A2MCP9XRDS4FRC

Kwok Lau


----------



## markmathers

I am a Disney Movie Club member and learned today from one of the reps that the Star Wars movie will not be released in 3D. I assume that's accurate based on the source but has anyone heard if it will be coming sometime down the road?? Sucks if not.


----------



## aaronwt

markmathers said:


> I am a Disney Movie Club member and learned today from one of the reps that the Star Wars movie will not be released in 3D. I assume that's accurate based on the source but has anyone heard if it will be coming sometime down the road?? Sucks if not.


Disney had announced that the 3D version of The Force Awakens would be coming later. I know I won't be purchasing The Force Awakens until it's available on 3D or UHD BD.

http://www.starwars.com/news/its-true-all-of-it-star-wars-the-force-awakens-is-coming-home



> Note: The 3D version of Star Wars: The Force Awakens will be available later this year.


----------



## kwok lau

Where in that webpage saying a 3d version will be out? By end of this year?

If it is a real confirmation from Disney, I will be one of the minority group to wait. I do not want to be ripped off more from Disney, eventhough $20 is not a big amount for the 2d movie in blue ray of this hot movie immediately. I have not seen this movie, so I cannot make justification if buy the 2nd now and get extra disc on 3d months if not years after. Hard decision.


----------



## dew42

The 3D note is just above the "Retailer Exclusives" heading. starwars.com is the official Star Wars web site owned by Disney. I'm waiting.


----------



## Rudy1

No one seems to want to say it, so I will: It wasn't the studios who killed 3D in the home. It was the "all knowing" professional video reviewers with all their whining about the glasses ("Oh, they're so uncomfortable!", "They don't fit over my prescription glasses!", "The batteries die after just a couple of movies!", "They make me look ridiculous!", etc., etc.). This began with just a couple of well-known reviewers (both of whom require vision correction in the form of glasses), and then spread like wildfire throughout the industry as each and every superstar reviewer wannabe decided that 3D in the home was "too much trouble" and "too uncool" to be relevant and/or enjoyable. And of course, one cannot overlook the tremendous impact on sales of sets from oft well-meaning yet technically illiterate salespeople who, rather than spending a few minutes explaining the tech to interested buyers, chose instead to just say "Nobody uses that!". I encountered this attitude from salespeople (Best Buy, are you listening???) from the introduction of the first Samsung 3D TV...the salesmen had just sold their first unit, and were actually making fun of the woman because she chose the 3D model instead of the 2D model they were pushing even though it cost her hundreds more. Even after the tech had been on the market for a couple of years, there were still some salespeople who claimed you "couldn't watch a movie in 3D at home". So I'm not surprised that, faced with flattening sales in America and a total lack of support from the professional reviewers, studios like Disney have chosen to concentrate their efforts in the overseas markets. American companies are notorious for not thinking long-term, and this is just another example of what that kind of mentality can result in. 3D was seen by the studios as a potential cash cow (hence the large number of ill-conceived 3D conversions), but they just didn't know how to make it work to its best advantage in the home video market.

Of course, there were legitimate concerns regarding the long-term viewing of 3D content by young children, and from what I've read some people actually became nauseated or suffered headaches while wearing the glasses at the movie theaters. But the overall impact these issues had on actual owners of 3D TVs was minimal: no one was ever put in any actual danger because each and every 3D TV came with the capability to turn off 3D viewing.

So it wasn't just the studios...they had a whole lot of help along the way in killing 3D in the home. My acquaintances in the industry tell me they're now setting their sights on VR. I guess we will just have to wait and see how that goes.


----------



## kwok lau

dew42 said:


> The 3D note is just above the "Retailer Exclusives" heading. starwars.com is the official Star Wars web site owned by Disney. I'm waiting.


Could you cut and paste that announcement here? Or quote that webpage. I am dumb that I could not find it from (http://www.starwars.com/news). Tks.

Again, it should be worth to wait if 3D will be coming latest by the end of the year.


----------



## dew42

> Note: The 3D version of _Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ will be available later this year.



This link should take you to the correct page:
http://www.starwars.com/news/its-true-all-of-it-star-wars-the-force-awakens-is-coming-home


You could also try Google's cached copy:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...cmp=smc%7C386077053+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca


----------



## markmathers

Thanks for the Star Wars 3D info everyone. I also will wait for that release.


----------



## JMCurtis

I'll buy the 2D one at Best Buy now, and I'll get the 3D release when it's available too!! It won't be the first time I've double dipped!! Besides, originally all the other SW movies were originally 2D!!


----------



## SoToS

JMCurtis said:


> I'll buy the 2D one at Best Buy now, and I'll get the 3D release when it's available too!! It won't be the first time I've double dipped!! Besides, originally all the other SW movies were originally 2D!!


And when you get the 3D release, your memory will be full of spoilers. That's what their marketing department wants, it's an old marketing tactic to make consumers buy twice (multiple times actually) -hence the delay for the first 2D blur ray (to buy cinema tickets), the delay for the 3D version (to buy the 2D blu ray first), the delay for the collector's edition with "exclusive" content etc. So I don't buy that, I'll wait for the 3D release-the only release I want to watch.


----------



## turls

Its sad they are delaying the 3D release, and hopefully doesn't become a trend. I would hope they would consider including different extras or something that prevents it from being a straight double dip.

At this point we get whatever scraps the 3D overlords give us, I know.


----------



## Hagenstein

tomtastic said:


> *END OF LINE FOR BLU RAY 3D*
> 
> Disney made it official they are _no longer releasing 3D movies on Blu ray 3D format in any region_, including the new Star Wars The Force Awakens. This also includes subsidary studios it owns like Marvel and Pixar. Sony Entertainment has announced they are reviewing Blu ray 3D sales and performance which means they too will likely give 3D the axe. So without Blu ray 3D that's pretty much it. It was fun while it lasted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> April Fools! Sorry, I couldn't resist. I hope this doesn't actually come true, which it could, especially with Disney. Have a wonderful April!


My poor heart skipped a beat. Well played sir, well played.


----------



## Worf

It's Disney. If there's any company dedicated to parting cash from people, it's them. Combine that with the general fan base you're talking about (who may have seen the movie at least three times) and you've got the cash registers ringing. So you can bet it will be a double dip. Followed by collector's edition, special edition, director's cut, ultra edition, super duper edition, jar jar edition, Lucas edition, just before the next movie edition, etc.


----------



## Hagenstein

aaronwt said:


> Disney had announced that the 3D version of The Force Awakens would be coming later. I know I won't be purchasing The Force Awakens until it's available on 3D or UHD BD.
> 
> http://www.starwars.com/news/its-true-all-of-it-star-wars-the-force-awakens-is-coming-home


No 3D would equal no purchase for me also if that turns out to be the case. But I do in fact expect a 3D release for this (but then, they surprised me with Frozen...) and I do actually question the reliability of some youngster phone-clerk for the Disney club (of which I too am a member). Guess I'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

Hagenstein said:


> No 3D would equal no purchase for me also if that turns out to be the case. But I do in fact expect a 3D release for this (but then, they surprised me with Frozen...) and I do actually question the reliability of some youngster phone-clerk for the Disney club (of which I too am a member). Guess I'll just have to wait and see.


I was thinking of something. It appears that the titles NOT released in 3D in america are generally aimed at a young"er" audience could it be that dont release 3D in fear of future lawsuits when children with uninformed/stupid parents develop vision problems due to excessive 3D watching at a "too" young age?

With all the lawsuits thrown around by greedy/idiots companies are afraid of everything.

I mean Stihl writes in the user manual to NOT stop the chain with your hands  It's a F'ing CHAINSAW!!!

Also that woman with the coffee at Mc'D!!!

Laws might be different elsewhere, where they actually put a little bit of responsibility on the user end.

Because I can look at it from every angle and I just dont see any reason Not to release a 3D title when ITS readily available and distributed in other parts of the world. That doesn't make any sense business wise.

Just a thought


----------



## NickTheGreat

The_Forth_Man said:


> I was thinking of something. It appears that the titles NOT released in 3D in america are generally aimed at a young"er" audience could it be that dont release 3D in fear of future lawsuits when children with uninformed/stupid parents develop vision problems due to excessive 3D watching at a "too" young age?
> 
> With all the lawsuits thrown around by greedy/idiots companies are afraid of everything.
> 
> I mean Stihl writes in the user manual to NOT stop the chain with your hands  It's a F'ing CHAINSAW!!!
> 
> Also that woman with the coffee at Mc'D!!!
> 
> Laws might be different elsewhere, where they actually put a little bit of responsibility on the user end.
> 
> Because I can look at it from every angle and I just dont see any reason Not to release a 3D title when ITS readily available and distributed in other parts of the world. That doesn't make any sense business wise.
> 
> Just a thought


Is there anything to this, or just rampant speculation?


----------



## MLXXX

Rudy1 said:


> No one seems to want to say it, so I will: It wasn't the studios who killed 3D in the home. It was the "all knowing" professional video reviewers with all their whining about the glasses ("Oh, they're so uncomfortable!", "They don't fit over my prescription glasses!", "The batteries die after just a couple of movies!", "They make me look ridiculous!", etc., etc.).


There have also been many negative reviews about high frame rate 3D. So much so, a future for HFR in public cinemas is not assured.

Peter Jackson's _The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey_ available in selected theatres in 48fps 3D ran up against intense criticism in late 2012 and early 2013 from a large number of movie critics, and journalists. According to them, HFR looked like a soap opera and made people sick. The fact that the use of a higher frame rate brought an uncanny realism to the 3D motion, hardly rated a mention!


----------



## aaronwt

MLXXX said:


> There have also been many negative reviews about high frame rate 3D. So much so, a future for HFR in public cinemas is not assured.
> 
> Peter Jackson's _The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey_ available in selected theatres in 48fps 3D ran up against intense criticism in late 2012 and early 2013 from a large number of movie critics, and journalists. According to them, HFR looked like a soap opera and made people sick. The fact that the use of a higher frame rate brought an uncanny realism to the 3D motion, hardly rated a mention!


Personally I hated the HFR version of the Hobbit. The second time I saw it I avoided the HFR version and saw the regular 3D one. And for the two sequels I only saw the normal 3D showings.


----------



## SoToS

The_Forth_Man said:


> I was thinking of something. It appears that the titles NOT released in 3D in america are generally aimed at a young"er" audience could it be that dont release 3D in fear of future lawsuits when children with uninformed/stupid parents develop vision problems due to excessive 3D watching at a "too" young age?


That doesn't seem logical, as 
1) 3D is not the invention of a specific company, 
2) most 3D titles are animations and are made for kids,
3) animations never have excessive parallax,
4) it requires time to cause a problem at which time the kid will have watched several different movies from different studios,
5) 3D TV's manuals have all sorts of warnings, 
6) the large corporations have lawyers that can deal with any unreasonable lawsuit incl. from idiotic and irresponsible parents.



The_Forth_Man said:


> I can look at it from every angle and I just dont see any reason Not to release a 3D title when ITS readily available and distributed in other parts of the world. That doesn't make any sense business wise.


 Are you sure that the force awakens has been released in *3D* Blu ray elsewhere?



aaronwt said:


> Personally I hated the HFR version of the Hobbit. The second time I saw it I avoided the HFR version and saw the regular 3D one. And for the two sequels I only saw the normal 3D showings.


Why did you hated it?


----------



## aaronwt

SoToS said:


> That doesn't seem logical, as
> 1) 3D is not the invention of a specific company,
> *2) most 3D titles are animations and are made for kids,*
> 3) animations never have excessive parallax,
> 4) it requires time to cause a problem at which time the kid will have watched several different movies from different studios,
> 5) 3D TV's manuals have all sorts of warnings,
> 6) the large corporations have lawyers that can deal with any unreasonable lawsuit incl. from idiotic and irresponsible parents.
> 
> Are you sure that the force awakens has been released in *3D* Blu ray elsewhere?
> 
> *Why did you hated it?*


I have many dozens of 3D titles. Most of them are not animated.

I didn't like the HFR Hobbit versions because of how it looked.(Soap Opera Look-Video look) Maybe if I grew up with content looking that way I would like it. But I didn't(I'll be 50 this year)and I don't like how it looks.

EDIT: I just did a quick search of 3D titles and most of them don't seem to be animated.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

aaronwt said:


> I have many dozens of 3D titles. Most of them are not animated.
> 
> I didn't like the HFR Hobbit versions because of how it looked.(Soap Opera Look-Video look) Maybe if I grew up with content looking that way I would like it. But I didn't(I'll be 50 this year)and I don't like how it looks.
> 
> EDIT: I just did a quick search of 3D titles and most of them don't seem to be animated.


Only three i know of since the first of the year:

The Peanuts Movie
The Good Dinosaur
Hotel Transylvania II

Some more were released in December along with a few special editions. Liked Mr. Peabody and Sherman.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

NickTheGreat said:


> Is there anything to this, or just rampant speculation?


Pure Speculation. That's why I started by: " I was thinking"



SoToS said:


> That doesn't seem logical, as
> 1) 3D is not the invention of a specific company,
> 2) most 3D titles are animations and are made for kids,
> 3) animations never have excessive parallax,
> 4) it requires time to cause a problem at which time the kid will have watched several different movies from different studios,
> 5) 3D TV's manuals have all sorts of warnings,
> 6) the large corporations have lawyers that can deal with any unreasonable lawsuit incl. from idiotic and irresponsible parents.
> 
> Are you sure that the force awakens has been released in *3D* Blu ray elsewhere?


You make a lot of valid points but....

1) True, But how they handle it is company specific.
2) False, there are more family/adult 3d than G title released. If you mean that most animation movies shown in theater have 3D version then you are right. then again you won't bring a 3year old see every 3D release in a theather EVER. No one will. My son is an angel when he watches a movie "he actually sits down for the entire length and watch the thing. And even with him the theater was an action packed time.

Also It's been proven that the brain doesn't perceive and process information from a monitor and a screen due to the nature/intensity of the incoming light that might have some ground.
3) ok
4) it's true but being the reference for kids movies Disney might be more careful than others or as i said it might be an american thing.
5)true but I fail to see how content providers should depend on display providers warnings.
They each cover their own ass.
6)Also true, But those guys charge big money AND they can loose. I.e: the Mc'd coffee.

Also the Force Awaken hasn't been released YET in 3D but it will and probably ini 3 different version. It's STAR WARS they will milk that cow dry.

I do not know you personally and I do not know what you do for a living. But from my own experience has a business owner, account executive for MAJOR brands and customer relation expert, I cannot understand what is going with Disney if it not fear.

let us take Big hero six. It's been made in 3D, It's available in 3D on BD (region free if you please) but never officially released in the US. Why? THERE ARE NO ADDED COSTS whatsoever. That is illogical and its far form the only title.


----------



## SoToS

aaronwt said:


> I didn't like the HFR Hobbit versions because of how it looked.(Soap Opera Look-Video look) Maybe if I grew up with content looking that way I would like it. But I didn't(I'll be 50 this year)and I don't like how it looks


I also grew up with thousands of films at 24fps (too many in retrospect) but I can't wait until the frame rate gets so high that will render movies totally frame-less (I've seen what a frame-less look can do).

I think the filmmakers should look forward and seek new artistic challenges instead of artificially restricting themselves with the technological restrictions of the 1800's era. Let's get rid of the ghosts of the distant past and see some progress.



aaronwt said:


> I have many dozens of 3D titles. Most of them are not animated.
> EDIT: I just did a quick search of 3D titles and most of them don't seem to be animated.





The_Forth_Man said:


> 2) False, there are more family/adult 3d than G title released.


Yeah, I was wrong, I don't know how I got that impression, probably because I used to look at native 3D lists, watching native 3D non-animated movies become fewer and fewer. I think that was the case for 2015 and most likely it will be for 2016 too.



The_Forth_Man said:


> Also It's been proven that the brain doesn't perceive and process information from a monitor and a screen due to the nature/intensity of the incoming light that might have some ground.


Not sure what you mean here.



The_Forth_Man said:


> from my own experience has a business owner, account executive for MAJOR brands and customer relation expert, I cannot understand what is going with Disney if it not fear.
> 
> let us take Big hero six. It's been made in 3D, It's available in 3D on BD (region free if you please) but never officially released in the US. Why? THERE ARE NO ADDED COSTS whatsoever. That is illogical and its far form the only title.


Well, corporate idiocy has many forms, one weak link (low I.Q) from production to market is enough to break the chain. That's my explanation, there is no mystery and no need to be puzzled.


----------



## marcuslaw

*Recent Batch of Blu-ray 3-D Announcements*

The last several days have seen a batch of Blu-ray 3-D release announcements. They include Jaws 3, Gods of Egypt, Rocky Mountain Express (IMAX / 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray), and Flight of the Butterflies (IMAX / 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray 3D + Blu-ray). The last two join Journey to Space as the new format's first releases to come packaged with a 3-D version of the film courtesy of Shout Factory. Yes they're priced too high, especially the shorter IMAX films, but just wait it out. They'll come down.


----------



## tomtastic

Been waiting on Flight of the Butterflies for awhile now. Really wish they would finally release Titans of the Iceage. I saw it in a dome theater in 2D, would like the 3D version.


----------



## Frank714

tomtastic said:


> Been waiting on Flight of the Butterflies for awhile now. Really wish they would finally release Titans of the Iceage. I saw it in a dome theater in 2D, would like the 3D version.


 
Thanks for the hint / recommendation, just ordered the German 3D Blu-ray of _Flight of the Butterflies_.


----------



## marcuslaw

Frank714 said:


> Thanks for the hint / recommendation, just ordered the German 3D Blu-ray of _Flight of the Butterflies_.


Wow. Look at that. It's only 16.49 euros ($19 USD) at amazon.de. That's an easy decision to import (note that it's PAL and maybe Region 2).


----------



## Frank714

marcuslaw said:


> Wow. Look at that. It's only 16.49 euros ($19 USD) at amazon.de. That's an easy decision to import (note that it's PAL and maybe Region 2).



On European Blu-ray discs PAL is no longer relevant, they are all 1080 / 60 Hz and therefore globally palatable (European HDTV broadcasts are 50 Hz).
The only obstacle could be region lock.


----------



## tomtastic

Frank714 said:


> On European Blu-ray discs PAL is no longer relevant, they are all 1080 / 60 Hz and therefore globally palatable (European HDTV broadcasts are 50 Hz).
> The only obstacle could be region lock.


If the discs are 24hz for 3D they are fine or 720p60 if there are any, but sometimes the special features will be in 50hz and will not play on some BD/display combos. We've had that problem with the David Attenborough programs. They played fine on my setup but I've read others weren't able to play the making of features because they were 50hz. So region locking and 50hz content are what you have to watch out for.


----------



## turls

marcuslaw said:


> The last several days have seen a batch of Blu-ray 3-D release announcements.


I didn't realize that Jaws 3 was going to be an actual 3D Blu-ray. The packaging doesn't indicate it. That's great if it gets released that way...


----------



## LexInVA

Jaws 3D is the Lost Ark of 3D titles, so it's the only one I'll buy for full MSRP right off the bat. It helps that it's for a decent price, unlike most catalog 3D titles which are still at or near their original release prices years after being released on 3D BD.


----------



## GreySkies

turls said:


> I didn't realize that Jaws 3 was going to be an actual 3D Blu-ray. The packaging doesn't indicate it. That's great if it gets released that way...





LexInVA said:


> Jaws 3D is the Lost Ark of 3D titles, so it's the only one I'll buy for full MSRP right off the bat. It helps that it's for a decent price, unlike most catalog 3D titles which are still at or near their original release prices years after being released on 3D BD.


Heck yeah! Pre-ordered.


----------



## LexInVA

turls said:


> I didn't realize that Jaws 3 was going to be an actual 3D Blu-ray. The packaging doesn't indicate it. That's great if it gets released that way...



Because of it's cult status as something of an iconic bad movie and because the existing SD 2D transfer was actually one-half of the 3D negative, Universal ponied up the cheese for a fresh transfer and 3D re-master to create a 3D DCP that has been shown once or twice. The 2D transfer should be a big leap over the horrible DVD release and the 3D should be exquisitely cheezeeee with all of it's pop-out effects.


----------



## SoToS

LexInVA said:


> Jaws 3D is the Lost Ark of 3D titles, so it's the only one I'll buy for full MSRP right off the bat. It helps that it's for a decent price, unlike most catalog 3D titles which are still at or near their original release prices years after being released on 3D BD.


It's also native 3D (Gods of Egypt and Rocky Mountain Express are shot 2D), I hope they did a good job back then. I haven't seen the 2D version BTW.


----------



## LexInVA

SoToS said:


> It's also native 3D (Gods of Egypt and Rocky Mountain Express are shot 2D), I hope they did a good job back then. I haven't seen the 2D version BTW.


JAWS 3D was the Avatar of the 80's. I wasn't old enough to see it and I don't know anyone who did, but what I do know is that they put a lot of work into 3D effects. However, like all other productions of the time, it was crude and ineffective. I can only hope that Universal "tweaked it" a bit when they did the 3D transfer, cause it is one case of a film where the pop out effects really need to be popping out as intended. I've also read - but not confirmed - that the new transfer was done at 4K, so we should get a great image if that was the case.


----------



## tomtastic

Yes, native 3D, but from what I've seen of the 2D version, it was the in your face gimmicks every so often: an arm floating in front of screen and so on. And of course the movie itself is one of the worst sequals ever made. I don't think 3D is going to help this movie. Admittedly, I'll probably get it just to finally see it in 3D. When you watch the 2D version those in your face pop outs seem out of place, like intention slap stick comedy where you don't laugh.


----------



## aaronwt

turls said:


> I didn't realize that Jaws 3 was going to be an actual 3D Blu-ray. The packaging doesn't indicate it. That's great if it gets released that way...


I thought Jaws 3 was in 3D in the theater? 3D with the Anaglyph Red/Blue glasses.

I know I hated those things and hated 3D because of them. So I never saw it in the theater in that format. Besides, I saw Jaws 1 in the theater in 1975 and it (and even Jaws 2) was miles better than Jaws 3 anyway.


----------



## GreySkies

aaronwt said:


> 3D with the Anaglyph Red/Blue glasses.


Nope, it was polarized lenses. Jaws 3D was the first 3D flick I ever saw in a theater.


----------



## Steve P.

It was never shown in anaglyphic form in theaters. It was polarized 3-D via over/under single strip 35mm projection. There were anaglyphic gum card sets and posters for the film sold at the time though, as well as (terrible) anaglyphic TV showings in that era which might account for the confusion.


Even back in the 1950's the 3-D movies were all shown in polarized 3-D, except that at that time they used dual left/right 35mm prints with two interlocked projectors. Only a very small number of 2-D films with short 3-D segments tacked on ("The Mask", "Freddy's Dead", etc) and a small number of porn releases were released in anaglyph, but not major studio releases. Early this century, we did get a couple of kid flicks in anaglyph, but this was very much an exception to the rule. A few of the older 3-D movies also got converted to anaglyph form for re-issue in the early 70s and later for TV broadcast, but those versions are far inferior to the original 3-D prints.


Check out www.3dfilmarchive.com; it's got all the truthful info about 3-D movies dating back over 100 years in one place along with interesting articles about myths associated with 3-D movies, essays on the various films and loads of one-sheet images.


The JAWS 3-D DCP that's been making the rounds on the revival circuit for the last couple of years is decent; it looks much better than the 35mm over/under version from 1983 even though they didn't bother to fix a few alignment issues. I'd imagine they are utilizing this same master for the Blu-ray.


----------



## aaronwt

GreySkies said:


> Nope, it was polarized lenses. Jaws 3D was the first 3D flick I ever saw in a theater.


It was 33 years ago. I was in High School back then. I didn't realize they had used polarized lenses for it. Maybe I did actually see it in the theater?

I do remember seeing several movies that had 3D in some of it where we had the glasses. I thought they were the Anaglyph glasses because I hated those so much.


----------



## GreySkies

aaronwt said:


> It was 33 years ago. I was in High School back then. I didn't realize they had used polarized lenses for it. Maybe I did actually see it in the theater?
> 
> I do remember seeing several movies that had 3D in some of it where we had the glasses. I thought they were the Anaglyph glasses because I hated those so much.


The only anaglyph movie I remember back then was when Svengoolie showed Revenge of the Creature on TV back in the summer of '82. Of course being the first 3D flick I'd ever seen, I loved it, and still have my glasses from it.

The only other anaglyph movies that I've seen were a midnight showing of Blond Emmanuelle  that my wife and I saw twenty five years ago, and Spy Kids 3D that my son and I saw when that came out ten or so years ago.


----------



## MrEmoto

If this new Jaws 3 3D ios a commercial release, does anyone have a link to the "best version"?


----------



## RolandL

MrEmoto said:


> If this new Jaws 3 3D ios a commercial release, does anyone have a link to the "best version"?


There is only one version, $9.99 on Amazon right now.


----------



## EVERRET

*3D is Up 20% from 2014 - 2015*

Box Office up 8%
3D Box Office up 20% 

U.S./Canada

• In 2015, U.S./Canada box office was $11.1 billion, up 8% from $10.4 billion in 2014. 
*3D box office ($1.7 billion) was up 20% from 2014* and comprised 15% of total box office

Over a third (35%) of the general population attended a 3D or large screen format movie in 2015, compared with (69% ) of the population who viewed any movie


https://t.co/Djcn6nNVNf

*I predict 2016 to be a even bigger jump in 3D Box Office sales with 30+ 3D movies this year. *

:nerd:


----------



## marcuslaw

To add to that, James Cameron recently announced that there will be four (4) more Avatar films beginning in 2018 and ending in 2023. Though he did not specifically state they would all be filmed in 3-D, it seems a sure bet given the legacy of the first installment.


----------



## MrEmoto

marcuslaw said:


> To add to that, James Cameron recently announced that there will be four (4) more Avatar films beginning in 2018 and ending in 2023. Though he did not specifically state they would all be filmed in 3-D, it seems a sure bet given the legacy of the first installment.


I'm starting to worry about him ever delivering anything.


----------



## aaronwt

MrEmoto said:


> I'm starting to worry about him ever delivering anything.


Avatar 2 was supposed to start filming a few days ago. Although I guess they are supposed to film the sequels back to back.


----------



## MrEmoto

aaronwt said:


> Avatar 2 was supposed to start filming a few days ago. Although I guess they are supposed to film the sequels back to back.


I didn't even realize that. I have been hoping for the sequel(s) for a long time, so I hope he manages to make them.


----------



## mo949

EVERRET said:


> Box Office up 8%
> 3D Box Office up 20%
> 
> U.S./Canada
> 
> • In 2015, U.S./Canada box office was $11.1 billion, up 8% from $10.4 billion in 2014.
> *3D box office ($1.7 billion) was up 20% from 2014* and comprised 15% of total box office
> 
> Over a third (35%) of the general population attended a 3D or large screen format movie in 2015, compared with (69% ) of the population who viewed any movie
> 
> 
> https://t.co/Djcn6nNVNf
> 
> *I predict 2016 to be a even bigger jump in 3D Box Office sales with 30+ 3D movies this year. *
> 
> :nerd:



Shhhh don't tell the editors of AVS, they should have to figure it out for themselves


----------



## NorthSky

_Jaws 3 (((3D)))_ should help resurrect 3D from the ocean's depth.  ...Any movie to do with sharks. 

On a serious note, because the above is not serious, how truly serious is 3D @ home? ...Because _Birdman, The Revenant, Under the Skin, The Hateful Eight, Sicario, Brooklyn and Bridge of Spies_ ...they certainly were not shot and presented in 3D @ our theaters. ..._Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ was, but that is an exception, a timing and financial one. 

There are two guys right now who can rejuvenate 3D; Michael Bay (Transformers franchise) and James Cameron (Avatar franchise). 
...Also Peter Jackson (LOTR trilogy). ...Terminator, Predator, Disney Star Wars, PIXAR animations, Pirates of the Caribbean, Indie Jones franchise, Jurassic franchise, Iron Man, Batman, Superman, Ant-Man, Spiderman, Catwoman, Ultraman, X-Men and Zombieland. 

3D is like a vampire...having a day nap right now...and watch out when the night falls from the dark sky for good. ...It'll be back, and with it 3D TVs. ...Year 2022. 
This ain't no fact, just a calculated guess. 

For now 4K Blu is the real deal; slow but wow!


----------



## xvfx

Shark still looks fake.


----------



## marcuslaw

*3DGO! Has Shut Down*

Always hate to be the bearer of bad news, but for those of you lucky enough to have the app on your smart TV's platform, 3DGO is gone.


----------



## NickTheGreat

Ouch. I never used this, but it's still not good to hear


----------



## jlmarra

*3D Crave now available on Roku Streaming Devices!*

Hello Everybody, I am new to the forum so excuse me if it is not cool to self promote. 
I am an avid fan of 3D an too feel the frustration of many of us who cannot find any 3D content to watch at home... 

*So I co-founded 3D Crave, a 3D Streaming service exclusive to 3D content.
*
Two days ago we released our first app for Roku Streaming devices and are excited to share it with the world. I cannot post links here because I am new, but just go our website which is 3Dcrave DOT com

I would really appreciate it if any of you wouldn't mind trying out our Roku Channel and posting comments and suggestions.

We have a small launch catalogue but we are loading a whole bunch of more titles. Obviously, getting traffic will help us get more. 

I've been working on this project for 3 years now and I really feel that now is the time for 3D to thrive at home, especially with Blu-rays being so expensive and streaming being the way of the future. There are so many titles, vintage and new, that could find a home in people's living rooms and capture a new audience of 3D fans or 3D Curious. 

We feature all sorts of content, such as Short movies, Slideshows, trailers, music videos and feature films.

Anyway, I could go on an on about 3D and why people think it "failed", when in reality 3D has been alive for 100 years and will continue to live for as long as we have two eyes.

It is our goal at 3D Crave to create a simple to use video-on-demand service for all of us who love 3D and want more. 

Fell free to contact us via our website if you would like to know more about us.

Thank you so much!

Jose Marra
CO-FOUNDER / CEO


----------



## jlmarra

*Rip 3d go*



marcuslaw said:


> Always hate to be the bearer of bad news, but for those of you lucky enough to have the app on your smart TV's platform, 3DGO is gone.
> 
> 
> 
> I am so sad to hear about 3DGO. Nicholas, their CEO and I talked a few times while hey were trying to find investors. The problem is that 3DGo is owned by Sensio, a giant company and as such, it is really hard to adapt and move fast in an ever changing market. The other problem is that their content was great, but very recent. Most people had already seen their catalogue in the movie theaters, or skipped it. John Wayne's Hondo was their most interesting title since it was not in theaters, but they failed to promote it.
> 
> Also, the minimum guarantees they had to pay for their 100+ titles made it so they could not stay afloat. The company was making about 2-3 million dollars in revenue, but spending 5 million to operate.
> All that, plus the fact that they were US only just put the final nail in the coffin.
> 
> Rest in peace 3D Go. You were my favorite.
> 
> Jose


----------



## EVERRET

jlmarra said:


> Hello Everybody, I am new to the forum so excuse me if it is not cool to self promote.
> I am an avid fan of 3D an too feel the frustration of many of us who cannot find any 3D content to watch at home...
> 
> *So I co-founded 3D Crave, a 3D Streaming service exclusive to 3D content.
> *
> Jose Marra
> CO-FOUNDER / CEO


Thanks for the Info , looks promising ! I will have to check it out soon. 

http://www.3dcrave.com/


----------



## cmjohnson

This technological interpretation of 3D is a dead end. 

3D will become mainstream when two conditions are met:

1: "glasses free" viewing.

2: The viewer sees 3D exactly as he does the real world. He can CHOOSE what to focus on anywhere in the field of view. Current 3D has a "forced focus point", or so it seems to me, and it doesn't work right if I attempt to focus on something that was not intended to be the point of the viewer's attention. 

Try to focus on something in the background, and it's much harder than to focus on the main character or object
that is clearly meant to be the subject of the viewer's intention. You may experience this difficulty, the same as I have. 

Of the two, the open, glasses free technology is really the most important.


----------



## jlmarra

2016 last year of 3d? samsung can`t be wrong about which technology dies in few (2-3) years or sooner! [/quote]
Well, the same people who made 3DTVs that shipped with no 3D Glasses during a time were the only 3D Content available where IMAX documentaries and some underwater fish, at the same ones that are saying 3D is Dead. Ha-Ha. 

They rolled the 3DTVs out with no available content. By the time 3D-Blurays caught on, physical media was on it's way out with streaming taking it's place. Also, to add to it all, people had to buy a new blu-ray player, when they most likely bought one or two years before AND a new hdmi cord. 

Also, the few good movies that were out, were exclusive to the same manufacturers. Panasonic had Avatar, Sony had Alice in wonderland and Samsung had how to train your dragon and others. 

In short, it is the same people who did it all wrong who are telling us that now the way to go is to put phones on our faces. 

3D is not dead. It's been around for 100 years and nobody knows it.

My two cents.

Jose


----------



## GreySkies

jlmarra said:


> I would really appreciate it if any of you wouldn't mind trying out our Roku Channel and posting comments and suggestions.


Excellent! I added it, and will check it out.


----------



## tomtastic

cmjohnson said:


> This technological interpretation of 3D is a dead end.
> 
> 2: The viewer sees 3D exactly as he does the real world. He can CHOOSE what to focus on anywhere in the field of view. Current 3D has a "forced focus point", or so it seems to me, and it doesn't work right if I attempt to focus on something that was not intended to be the point of the viewer's attention.
> 
> Try to focus on something in the background, and it's much harder than to focus on the main character or object
> that is clearly meant to be the subject of the viewer's intention. You may experience this difficulty, the same as I have.
> .


Depends on how you look at it. Shallow depth of field or bokeh is a style and often used for storytelling purposes like emphasis and deemphasis. The difference between natural vision and movies is that our eyes perform the same task but under our own control and timing whereas in movies the director makes the choice to direct the viewer to a predetermined depth que. So for movies because there is still a story to tell I do see the need for shallow DOF but for something like nature documentaries deep focus is better. Not to say that movies couldn't use that approach too, but there's other reasons they do it, one of which is cost. Deep focus shots require all points of the set to be finished, so costs will go up. Also and maybe most importantly, nearly everyone is used to this techique by now and it would be noticably absent and "off" if they used all deep focus shots. You'd esstentially have a broadcast production.


----------



## dew42

The worst case of shallow depth of field I experienced was in a 2D movie that I watched in 2D. The director wanted me to note something about the character in the foreground but I was trying to watch the out of focus character in the background who was talking and dominated the screen. 3D may require less use of this tool but I never consider 3D to be at fault when it does not work.


----------



## cmjohnson

Good point, I wasn't even thinking so much about focus and depth of field.

For 3D to work perfectly, depth of field should be infinite. Everything in focus. Shot with an F/40 aperture. Or F/infinity. 


Otherwise it falls apart when you try to look at something that's out of focus because it was filmed that way.

That's fine for 2D, but for 3D it's just a box of fail.


----------



## SoToS

cmjohnson said:


> For 3D to work perfectly, depth of field should be infinite. Everything in focus. Shot with an F/40 aperture. Or F/infinity.
> 
> 
> Otherwise it falls apart when you try to look at something that's out of focus because it was filmed that way.
> 
> That's fine for 2D, but for 3D it's just a box of fail.


Not necessarily, and it isn't fine for 2D either -I have encountered many times I wanted to look something in a 2D movie and I only saw bluriness. *All depends on the direction of the specific scene*. If the director has succeeded to guide your attention to a specific part of the scene and he created that scene in such a way that you have absolutely no reason to look elsewhere (you don't want to) and the timing doesn't allow it either, then you can have the maximum realistic experience, as this is what happens in real life too -you always see in bluriness the background, OR a foreground object appearing momentarily too close.


----------



## cmjohnson

I've found that being unable to focus on something I want to look at really takes me out of the moment in the movie. THAT is why I say it fails. Oh, it works just fine if you are willing and compliant and wish to see just what the director wants you to see, no problem there. But in any event I find that the usage of a narrow depth of field as an artistic feature of a movie always annoys the crap out of me. There aren't many times when there's a change in focal point during a scene where I think "Oh, that's a nice visual transition!". More likely I'll groan in annoyance when someone pulls focus.


----------



## SoToS

cmjohnson said:


> I've found that being unable to focus on something I want to look at really takes me out of the moment in the movie. THAT is why I say it fails. Oh, it works just fine if you are willing and compliant and wish to see just what the director wants you to see, no problem there. But in any event I find that the usage of a narrow depth of field as an artistic feature of a movie always annoys the crap out of me. There aren't many times when there's a change in focal point during a scene where I think "Oh, that's a nice visual transition!". More likely I'll groan in annoyance when someone pulls focus.


That's because these scenes rarely succeed. If bokeh distracts you, then it has failed. If you have enough time to watch the important things AND wonder on the blurry background it has failed. If you want to see something else than the director's intention, or something else draws your attention, the director's attempt has failed. Still, it can succeed and enhance your 2D or 3D experience if it feels natural for you and/or happens momentarily before you realize the effect itself.


----------



## Boxozaxu

cmjohnson said:


> Good point, I wasn't even thinking so much about focus and depth of field.
> 
> For 3D to work perfectly, depth of field should be infinite. Everything in focus. Shot with an F/40 aperture. Or F/infinity.
> 
> 
> Otherwise it falls apart when you try to look at something that's out of focus because it was filmed that way.
> 
> That's fine for 2D, but for 3D it's just a box of fail.


Infinite depth of field will not fix what's broken with current 3D technology. The problem with 3D today is that it requires someone to focus their eyes at a fixed distance (seat to the screen) and then requires our eyes to converge at various changing distances depending what's being shown on the screen. Yes we can force our eyes to work against how they evolved but the effort eventually leads to strained viewing. Nothing they can do will fix this problem. Unfortunately for 3D there are emerging alternative immersive experiences such as VR. As VR becomes more mainstream, 3D will be left behind and be remembered as that short blip in the history of cinema. Even the relatively big first gen VR headsets people are wearing are more comfortable than the majority of 3D glasses shipped with TVs or projectors.


----------



## MLXXX

Boxozaxu said:


> The problem with 3D today is that it requires someone to focus their eyes at a fixed distance (seat to the screen) and then requires our eyes to converge at various changing distances depending what's being shown on the screen. Yes we can force our eyes to work against how they evolved but the effort eventually leads to strained viewing.


That might be more of an issue if viewing a 3D computer monitor. By the time you get to 10 feet from a 65" screen, the focus required for human eyes is close to infinity. By that I mean there is very little adjustment required in real life when changing from focusing on an object at 10 feet to focusing on an object at one mile. It's close-in objects that require large changes in focus for human vision. [Of course people with poor short vision require prescription glasses. How such people would cope with a 3D source that emulated real life with close-ups I'm not sure. They might need to put on bifocal glasses, or their reading glasses.] 

A mental disparity can arise for some people if the picture on the screen is a close up. That requires a close up focus of the eyes in real life but not when viewing a television screen. However, we're used to that from years of watching 2D videos and looking at 2D pictures in books and magazines. I suggest we need to develop a similar approach to 3D cinema when a close up is shown - an ability not to be thrown by the fact that what we are viewing differs from real life viewing, as regards focus.

I personally have never experienced any conscious conflict as regards focus with close-ups in 3D on a television screen. Nor have I experienced eye-strain (unless the 3D source happened to have exaggerated 3D as can happen with some amateur 3D video).

It appears Boxozaxu this is an issue that has affected you. However I'm not sure that it affects a large percentage of the general population when they watch a 3D movie on a TV screen at a distance of 10 feet or more.


----------



## SoToS

Boxozaxu said:


> Infinite depth of field will not fix what's broken with current 3D technology. The problem with 3D today is that it requires someone to focus their eyes at a fixed distance (seat to the screen) and then requires our eyes to converge at various changing distances depending what's being shown on the screen. Yes we can force our eyes to work against how they evolved but the effort eventually leads to strained viewing. Nothing they can do will fix this problem. Unfortunately for 3D there are emerging alternative immersive experiences such as VR. As VR becomes more mainstream, 3D will be left behind and be remembered as that short blip in the history of cinema. Even the relatively big first gen VR headsets people are wearing are more comfortable than the majority of 3D glasses shipped with TVs or projectors.


Actually, with VR you are still required to focus at a fixed distance which is determined by the internal lenses. Only when the lenses will actively change their focus distance depending on what you see by following your pupils, will VR mimic real life (idea of the moment). And VR *is *3D, it is just incomparably more immersive as you're watching the content from inside.

The problem with 3D today is that directors make 3D movies with weak 3D effect (because they optimize it for huge theater screens only) and they don't invest time to study 3D, make it immersive and avoid all 3D mistakes (let alone they approximate 3D with conversions instead of shooting in 3D). Such a weak and sloppy effect removes most of the enjoyment and makes it not worth the added cost and inconvenience, that's the problem, not the focus distance.


----------



## film113

Boxozaxu said:


> Even the relatively big first gen VR headsets people are wearing are more comfortable than the majority of 3D glasses shipped with TVs or projectors.


You're joking, right?


----------



## marcuslaw

Boxozaxu said:


> Even the relatively big first gen VR headsets people are wearing are more comfortable than the majority of 3D glasses shipped with TVs or projectors.





film113 said:


> You're joking, right?


My thought exactly film113. Box, have you ever tried on a VR headset? If so, do you seriously think they were less cumbersome, heavy and uncomfortable than a pair of glasses? I'm sorry, but that's plain ridiculous. They're bulky, have wires hanging down, and cause headaches and lots of facial redness. To me vergence-accommodation conflict will create more problems for VR than headaches did for active shutter glasses.


----------



## turls

jlmarra said:


> I am so sad to hear about 3DGO. Nicholas, their CEO and I talked a few times while hey were trying to find investors. The problem is that 3DGo is owned by Sensio, a giant company and as such, it is really hard to adapt and move fast in an ever changing market. The other problem is that their content was great, but very recent. Most people had already seen their catalogue in the movie theaters, or skipped it. John Wayne's Hondo was their most interesting title since it was not in theaters, but they failed to promote it.


You've obviously had no trouble getting a 3D app on the Roku, as you were beta testing for quite a while. Any idea why 3DGO never could get that done? Seems like an obvious thing that could have made a huge difference in their fortunes.


----------



## Boxozaxu

MLXXX said:


> That might be more of an issue if viewing a 3D computer monitor. By the time you get to 10 feet from a 65" screen, the focus required for human eyes is close to infinity. By that I mean there is very little adjustment required in real life when changing from focusing on an object at 10 feet to focusing on an object at one mile. It's close-in objects that require large changes in focus for human vision. [Of course people with poor short vision require prescription glasses. How such people would cope with a 3D source that emulated real life with close-ups I'm not sure. They might need to put on bifocal glasses, or their reading glasses.]
> 
> A mental disparity can arise for some people if the picture on the screen is a close up. That requires a close up focus of the eyes in real life but not when viewing a television screen. However, we're used to that from years of watching 2D videos and looking at 2D pictures in books and magazines. I suggest we need to develop a similar approach to 3D cinema when a close up is shown - an ability not to be thrown by the fact that what we are viewing differs from real life viewing, as regards focus.
> 
> I personally have never experienced any conscious conflict as regards focus with close-ups in 3D on a television screen. Nor have I experienced eye-strain (unless the 3D source happened to have exaggerated 3D as can happen with some amateur 3D video).
> 
> It appears Boxozaxu this is an issue that has affected you. However I'm not sure that it affects a large percentage of the general population when they watch a 3D movie on a TV screen at a distance of 10 feet or more.


Vergence accommodation conflict is real and it's not limited to computer monitors unfortunately. Different people will experience it differently but virtually everyone is subject to it. Having a director who knows what he's doing can be the diffence in having a good 3D experience vs a bad one.


----------



## Boxozaxu

SoToS said:


> Actually, with VR you are still required to focus at a fixed distance which is determined by the internal lenses. Only when the lenses will actively change their focus distance depending on what you see by following your pupils, will VR mimic real life (idea of the moment). And VR *is *3D, it is just incomparably more immersive as you're watching the content from inside.
> 
> The problem with 3D today is that directors make 3D movies with weak 3D effect (because they optimize it for huge theater screens only) and they don't invest time to study 3D, make it immersive and avoid all 3D mistakes (let alone they approximate 3D with conversions instead of shooting in 3D). Such a weak and sloppy effect removes most of the enjoyment and makes it not worth the added cost and inconvenience, that's the problem, not the focus distance.





film113 said:


> You're joking, right?





marcuslaw said:


> My thought exactly film113. Box, have you ever tried on a VR headset? If so, do you seriously think they were less cumbersome, heavy and uncomfortable than a pair of glasses? I'm sorry, but that's plain ridiculous. They're bulky, have wires hanging down, and cause headaches and lots of facial redness. To me vergence-accommodation conflict will create more problems for VR than headaches did for active shutter glasses.


You're right, VR is 3D and vergence-accommodation conflict is also a problem with VR headsets. I also agree that a properly shot 3D movie will reduce the issue. Too bad many people viewed 3D movies that were done improperly and essentially caused them to write off the technology. But, unlike 3D on TVs or 3D projected on a screen, headsets provide options for eliminating the V-A C so, while the current gen VR is currently susceptible, there are companies working on at least two different solutions to eliminate this problem for future VR headsets. Of course we won't see any of this technology in the near future but at least it offers some hope.

As for my outrageous statement about the ergonomics of VR headsets vs glasses. All I'm going to say is that the VR companies have dumped a heck of a lot more money into making these bulky things as comfortable as possible than the designers of 3D glasses. My kids will take the glasses off and continue watching without them. That's pretty common for younger kids though.


----------



## MLXXX

Boxozaxu said:


> Vergence accommodation conflict is real and it's not limited to computer monitors unfortunately. Different people will experience it differently but virtually everyone is subject to it. Having a director who knows what he's doing can be the diffence in having a good 3D experience vs a bad one.


Would you be able to quote a scene in a 3D movie which exemplifies the challenge for human eyes of changing vergence but maintaining a fixed accommodation; when watching a TV screen (or I guess sitting in a public cinema)? I have a fair range of 3D Blu-rays. If you could quote the time when the scene comes up in the 3D Blu-ray, that would be even more helpful. 


On the subject of glasses, passive glasses tend to be very light weight. I find them quite similar to putting on a pair of sunglasses. The first generation of active glasses did tend to be heavier; later generations more ergonomic.

VR glasses are in a different league: generally bulky, heavy, and I understand often attached by cables. As to image quality, the visible resolution is usually well below Full HD because of the much wider angle of view (both vertically and horizontally) than a TV screen provides. [There may be a large number of horizontal and vertical pixels but they are widely spaced, leading to a soft image compared with viewing a Full HD Blu-ray.] To provide even more pixels would increase the cost of the glasses even further and increase the Graphics Processing Unit load even further. The GPU load is already considerable because of the high frame rate for good VR (60fps or more) and the need to respond rapidly to changes in the position of the viewer's head.


----------



## SteveCaron

aaronwt said:


> It was 33 years ago. I was in High School back then. I didn't realize they had used polarized lenses for it. Maybe I did actually see it in the theater?
> 
> I do remember seeing several movies that had 3D in some of it where we had the glasses. I thought they were the Anaglyph glasses because I hated those so much.


 
I still have my Jaws 3d glasses with the shark formed the bridge of the frame. I've never tried these with my LG I wonder if they'll work.


----------



## NickTheGreat

My Gear VR probably weighs 10x what the glasses for my Epson PJ or Sammy TV (both active) do. They're hot also.

I don't love my active glasses either, but you eventually forgot you have them on. The Gear VR not so much.


----------



## aaronwt

Boxozaxu said:


> ............... Even the relatively big first gen VR headsets people are wearing are more comfortable than the majority of 3D glasses shipped with TVs or projectors.


 Thanks for the big laugh today. That is so far from reality that it has to be a joke.

right?


----------



## Boxozaxu

MLXXX said:


> Would you be able to quote a scene in a 3D movie which exemplifies the challenge for human eyes of changing vergence but maintaining a fixed accommodation; when watching a TV screen (or I guess sitting in a public cinema)? I have a fair range of 3D Blu-rays. If you could quote the time when the scene comes up in the 3D Blu-ray, that would be even more helpful.
> 
> On the subject of glasses, passive glasses tend to be very light weight. I find them quite similar to putting on a pair of sunglasses. The first generation of active glasses did tend to be heavier; later generations more ergonomic.
> 
> VR glasses are in a different league: generally bulky, heavy, and I understand often attached by cables. As to image quality, the visible resolution is usually well below Full HD because of the much wider angle of view (both vertically and horizontally) than a TV screen provides. [There may be a large number of horizontal and vertical pixels but they are widely spaced, leading to a soft image compared with viewing a Full HD Blu-ray.] To provide even more pixels would increase the cost of the glasses even further and increase the Graphics Processing Unit load even further. The GPU load is already considerable because of the high frame rate for good VR (60fps or more) and the need to respond rapidly to changes in the position of the viewer's head.


Sorry, I don't have a movie to suggest off hand but I suspect one of the earlier 2D movies converted to 3D (Clash of the Titans or Alice comes to mind) to catch the initial 3D trend would be most offensive. Later 3D movies avoid a lot of the 3D headache causing badness. I read somewhere that tilting your head 90 degrees while watching a 3D movie will cause eye strain/headache. I haven't tried it myself. 

The only reason I brought this up was because someone mentioned that infinite focus would lead to perfect 3D, which is not the case. Not to mention that I agree with the others here who think proper use of depth of field is a good thing so eliminating it just for the sake of making 3D "work" makes no sense (to me.)

As for VR specs, the current target it 90 fps and that will only go up as will screen resolution. They'll shove 4k and 8k screens in there as soon as they can. There's no reason to believe future computers and GPUs won't keep up.


----------



## Boxozaxu

aaronwt said:


> Thanks for the big laugh today. That is so far from reality that it has to be a joke.
> 
> right?


I deserve all this for not being more precise with my comment. VR headsets will continue to improve (lighter, untethered, smaller) and 3D glasses will remain the same or get even cheaper. I think the sony glasses that came with my projector as well as the PS3 glasses I own are very uncomfortable. Hard cheap plastic, no padding and the arms pinch my head/ears. I should have left VR out of my comment but posting is like a bag of chips. Sometimes you can't stop yourself. 

But really, you thought my comment was funny but you simply scrolled by the previous post about a new 3D streaming service? I'm genuinely happy for those that will use and enjoy the service but come on!!! The only way I could have hit the floor harder was if he had said he was opening a video rental store.


----------



## scarabaeus

SteveCaron said:


> I still have my Jaws 3d glasses with the shark formed the bridge of the frame. I've never tried these with my LG I wonder if they'll work.


Probably not, sorry. Those polarized glassed from a few decades ago were linear polarized (+45 degrees / -45 degrees), while RealD cinemas and Sensio (passive) TVs use circular polarization (left / right circular). That allows you to tilt your head by about 45 degrees each way without losing 3D, while the linear ones crapped out at about 15 to 20.


----------



## scarabaeus

Boxozaxu said:


> I deserve all this for not being more precise with my comment. VR headsets will continue to improve (lighter, untethered, smaller) and 3D glasses will remain the same or get even cheaper. I think the sony glasses that came with my projector as well as the PS3 glasses I own are very uncomfortable. Hard cheap plastic, no padding and the arms pinch my head/ears. I should have left VR out of my comment but posting is like a bag of chips. Sometimes you can't stop yourself.
> 
> But really, you thought my comment was funny but you simply scrolled by the previous post about a new 3D streaming service? I'm genuinely happy for those that will use and enjoy the service but come on!!! The only way I could have hit the floor harder was if he had said he was opening a video rental store.


Your statement might be closer to the truth for active 3D glasses, which are a chore. Have you tried a passive 3D TV? Especially the 4K UHD sets, like the LG OLEDs are spectacular, and you hardly notice the glasses.


----------



## MLXXX

Boxozaxu said:


> Sorry, I don't have a movie to suggest off hand but I suspect one of the earlier 2D movies converted to 3D (Clash of the Titans or Alice comes to mind) to catch the initial 3D trend would be most offensive. Later 3D movies avoid a lot of the 3D headache causing badness.


Clash of the Titans is technically the worst post-conversion 3D movie I've ever seen. The conversion was a rush job and in parts very badly done. The movie wasn't all that successful at the box office so we may be waiting a very long time for the conversion ever to be redone properly.

I recall that Alice in Wonderland, an early post conversion effort, tended to layer the scene content in a way that made some of the content appear like a cardboard cutout. 

In neither of these movies was I conscious of a vergence-accommodation conflict. It was just that the conversions looked odd at times. (With Clash of the Titans most of the time!)



> I read somewhere that tilting your head 90 degrees while watching a 3D movie will cause eye strain/headache. I haven't tried it myself.


Stereoscopic 3D is only designed for viewing by a human head that is reasonably close to vertical. The 3D effect collapses if you tilt your head at 90 degrees. Similarly with stereophonic sound: you lose the stereo sound image if you tilt your head by 90 degrees.

Mind you, human vision is very impaired anyway if you tilt your head at 90 degrees. Try playing tennis like that, or driving a car, or just reading a book, or recognising a face. Our brains do not process real life scenes very well if what we are viewing is rotated 180 degrees (upside down) or even by 90 degrees. 



> As for VR specs, the current target it 90 fps and that will only go up as will screen resolution. They'll shove 4k and 8k screens in there as soon as they can. There's no reason to believe future computers and GPUs won't keep up.


I don't think anyone queries that the eventual future for VR might be bright. However, in the meantime,...

The current state of the art for consumer devices is soft resolution. Progress has not been rapid over the last 3 years. I suspect 3 years from now high end consumer goggles might reach Full HD TV panel pixel density at VR angles of view, but most likely will not have reached 4k TV panel pixel density at VR angles of view.

But there are fundamental issues of where the heck the source video is going to come from. Computer games yes, with extremely heavy duty processing; but real life material at very wide angles of view at 90fps moving rapidly with movements of the viewer's head would raise a host of issues.

Anyway I may be straying too far from the thread topic which after all is about 3D not VR! Cheers


----------



## film113

Boxozaxu said:


> But really, you thought my comment was funny but you simply scrolled by the previous post about a new 3D streaming service? I'm genuinely happy for those that will use and enjoy the service but come on!!! The only way I could have hit the floor harder was if he had said he was opening a video rental store.


What's wrong with Roku?


----------



## EVERRET

*3D Crave*

Roku 
3D Crave is now available around the world! Our app launched internationally on Friday. Enjoy!


https://twitter.com/3dcrave/status/727196756622987265


----------



## killerip

EVERRET said:


> Roku
> 3D Crave is now available around the world! Our app launched internationally on Friday. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/3dcrave/status/727196756622987265


Thats pretty cool!


----------



## Don Landis

I'm on Anthem of the Seas, Cruise ship. Just wanted to say that this ship has a 3D projector in the main auditorium. Kung Fu Panda 3 in 3D is showing today. 

Disney has had 3D movie theater on its cruise ships for some time, but I reported last September, that I saw the crew installing a Sony VW1100ES on the day I was leaving.


----------



## NorthSky

Hi Don, happy cruise.


----------



## Worf

That was probably a very expensive post... Cruise ship internet is $$$$ so the fact he spent real money must mean the 3d is really good...


----------



## Bill

M


scarabaeus said:


> Your statement might be closer to the truth for active 3D glasses, which are a chore. Have you tried a passive 3D TV? Especially the 4K UHD sets, like the LG OLEDs are spectacular, and you hardly notice the glasses.


I had passive 3D which was good but limited viewing angle and obviously less resolution, not upconverted to 4K to each eye, is not as good as my new active set. I can get up and wander around the room with still great 3D and anyone in the room no matter what the angle has great 3D. Also the Samsung bluetooth glasses are just as light and comfortable. My sons girlfriend who can't stomach 3D in the theater, loves it on my TV.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Bill said:


> M
> 
> I had passive 3D which was good but limited viewing angle and obviously less resolution, not upconverted to 4K to each eye, is not as good as my new active set. I can get up and wander around the room with still great 3D and anyone in the room no matter what the angle has great 3D. Also the Samsung bluetooth glasses are just as light and comfortable. My sons girlfriend who can't stomach 3D in the theater, loves it on my TV.


Am sure most everybody here has already seen the bluray but tonight was the first time my wife and popped in "The Walk". If there was ever a case to be made for the thrilling entertainment value that good 3D could provide, then this is it.

I got scared sh*tless immersed with the height on top the Twin Towers. No kidding, it seemed so real, even though I knew better. Just magnificent.

Have been expanding my collection immensely with used copies on sale. Never thought I would enjoy 3D as much as I am. Have an active Sony 800b 50 inch set and calibrated using the Disney Wow disc. Didn't realize user adjustments were not automatically retained for the 3D mode so for a long while was using factory presets. Entered the same adjustments for 3D and WOW, what a critical difference not only in color, clarity, punch, etc, but in the 3D depth as well.

Know this might be old stuff for most, but when one can get naucious being made to feel he's crossing a wire between the late twin towers while sitting in the comfort of his living room sofa, it's exciting to talk about his still relatively new toy.

BTW, purchased a few pairs of generic brand rechargeable active glasses off eBay and actually get a bit more colorful and stronger picture than the ones provided by Sony. Anybody else notice differences between active glasses compatible with the same set?


----------



## adrummingdude

Worf said:


> That was probably a very expensive post... Cruise ship internet is $$$$ so the fact he spent real money must mean the 3d is really good...


I was recently surprised by how inexpensive wifi on a plane has become, so maybe his post wasn't so expensive after all. 

I flew Tel Aviv to New York, browsing the whole way for about $17. Interestingly though, my last leg, New York to San Francisco would have been $33.


----------



## EVERRET

Joseph Dubin said:


> Am sure most everybody here has already seen the bluray but tonight was the first time my wife and popped in "The Walk". If there was ever a case to be made for the thrilling entertainment value that good 3D could provide, then this is it.
> 
> I got scared sh*tless immersed with the height on top the Twin Towers. No kidding, it seemed so real, even though I knew better. Just magnificent.
> 
> Have been expanding my collection immensely with used copies on sale. Never thought I would enjoy 3D as much as I am. Have an active Sony 800b 50 inch set and calibrated using the Disney Wow disc. Didn't realize user adjustments were not automatically retained for the 3D mode so for a long while was using factory presets. Entered the same adjustments for 3D and WOW, what a critical difference not only in color, clarity, punch, etc, but in the 3D depth as well.
> 
> Know this might be old stuff for most, but when one can get naucious being made to feel he's crossing a wire between the late twin towers while sitting in the comfort of his living room sofa, it's exciting to talk about his still relatively new toy.
> 
> BTW, purchased a few pairs of generic brand rechargeable active glasses off eBay and actually get a bit more colorful and stronger picture than the ones provided by Sony. Anybody else notice differences between active glasses compatible with the same set?


It's Great to see you are enjoying your 3D movies...... thanks for taking the time to post.

If you like 3D that much on a 50" TV it only gets better from there .

When you find aftermarket Brands/Items that you think work better than the Originals , Go ahead and let us know what Brand you like better with a Link to that Item. 

With a record number of movies in 3D this year , it will be a exciting time at home and in the theaters, the future looks bright.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

Joseph Dubin said:


> Am sure most everybody here has already seen the bluray but tonight was the first time my wife and popped in "The Walk". If there was ever a case to be made for the thrilling entertainment value that good 3D could provide, then this is it.
> 
> I got scared sh*tless immersed with the height on top the Twin Towers. No kidding, it seemed so real, even though I knew better. Just magnificent.


I agree. It was phenomenal. I had vertigo watching that on my Toshiba 47" passive 3D TV!


----------



## Joseph Dubin

EVERRET said:


> When you find aftermarket Brands/Items that you think work better than the Originals , Go ahead and let us know what Brand you like better with a Link to that Item.


Hi Everret,

Don't want to be an endorser for the seller, etc., but this is the eBay link for the glasses. You can negotiate the price. I got the two for $35.00. Note once the glasses are on, press the button twice to see which mode works best for you (for my Sony, the initial one is blurrier and darker, the second one is sharp and brighter).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/281555378432?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT


----------



## Don Landis

Worf said:


> That was probably a very expensive post... Cruise ship internet is $$$$ so the fact he spent real money must mean the 3d is really good...


Not this time. $50 for the week. Plus the new technology on this ship is now broadband, capable of standard Netflix and other video. I didn't waste time watching Netflix, but was able to stream 10 security cameras with this. Normally the streaming internet is $20 a day but they had a special I snagged plus I also had some credits I used.


----------



## marcuslaw

Joseph Dubin said:


> Am sure most everybody here has already seen the bluray but tonight was the first time my wife and popped in "The Walk". If there was ever a case to be made for the thrilling entertainment value that good 3D could provide, then this is it.
> 
> I got scared sh*tless immersed with the height on top the Twin Towers. No kidding, it seemed so real, even though I knew better. Just magnificent.
> 
> Have been expanding my collection immensely with used copies on sale. Never thought I would enjoy 3D as much as I am. Have an active Sony 800b 50 inch set and calibrated using the Disney Wow disc. Didn't realize user adjustments were not automatically retained for the 3D mode so for a long while was using factory presets. Entered the same adjustments for 3D and WOW, what a critical difference not only in color, clarity, punch, etc, but in the 3D depth as well.
> 
> Know this might be old stuff for most, but when one can get naucious being made to feel he's crossing a wire between the late twin towers while sitting in the comfort of his living room sofa, it's exciting to talk about his still relatively new toy.
> 
> BTW, purchased a few pairs of generic brand rechargeable active glasses off eBay and actually get a bit more colorful and stronger picture than the ones provided by Sony. Anybody else notice differences between active glasses compatible with the same set?


The Walk is a great example how 3-D can enhance the experience of a film. I'm always delighted to read about people's positive experiences with Blu-ray 3-D. The longer 3-D ticket sales continue to be strong and the longer we continue to buy 3-D Blu-ray, the longer the format will remain around even if just barely. I encourage you to delve into Ron Epstein's HTF TOP 30 MUST OWN 3D TITLES and honorable mentions. Some on that list will likely require you to possess a region free player but they're well worth it. The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet and A Turtle's Tale: Sammy's Adventures (Optimum) are stunners in 3-D. You'll soon forget that Sammy is a kiddie flick after you've picked your jaw up off of the ground the first few times. Also, even if you can't afford to go region free, don't be afraid to import after confirming the region lock. The Lichtmond 3-D series (Lichtmond, Universe of Light, and Days of Eternity) from Germany are region free (contrary to info contained on a couple of websites - see here) and simply breathtaking to behold in 3-D and with original, hypnotic scores to boot. Oh, a word about glasses. If your set uses Bluetooth to sync with active shutter lenses, check to see if the TV is compliant with the now defunct _Full HD 3D Glasses Initiative_. If both the set and glasses are compliant, then any brand glasses should work. For example, Panasonic TY-ER3D4MU work fine with my Sony 940C.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

marcuslaw said:


> The Walk is a great example how 3-D can enhance the experience of a film. I'm always delighted to read about people's positive experiences with Blu-ray 3-D. The longer 3-D ticket sales continue to be strong and the longer we continue to buy 3-D Blu-ray, the longer the format will remain around even if just barely. I encourage you to delve into Ron Epstein's HTF TOP 30 MUST OWN 3D TITLES and honorable mentions. Some on that list will likely require you to possess a region free player but they're well worth it. The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet and A Turtle's Tale: Sammy's Adventures (Optimum) are stunners in 3-D. You'll soon forget that Sammy is a kiddie flick after you've picked your jaw up off of the ground the first few times. Also, even if you can't afford to go region free, don't be afraid to import after confirming the region lock. The Lichtmond 3-D series (Lichtmond, Universe of Light, and Days of Eternity) from Germany are region free (contrary to info contained on a couple of websites - see here) and simply breathtaking to behold in 3-D and with original, hypnotic scores to boot. Oh, a word about glasses. If your set uses Bluetooth to sync with active shutter lenses, check to see if the TV is compliant with the now defunct _Full HD 3D Glasses Initiative_. If both the set and glasses are compliant, then any brand glasses should work. For example, Panasonic TY-ER3D4MU work fine with my Sony 940C.


Hi Marcus

Glad to be aboard.  I've found that movies which didn't interest me at all did a complete turnaround in 3D.  Pacific Rim was one of them.  The initial euphoria is over so now I can distinguish between poor use of 3D and clinckers  as far as plot, acting, etc no matter how good the effect is. 

3D goes way beyond action films.  Dramas like Titanic and The Great Gatsby made great use of 3D to enhance getting involved in the stories.  Totally enjoyed Verdi's "Aidi" in 3D because I felt I was in the audience in Milan.  Loved Maleficent and then got a bigger pleasure obtaining the imported 3D version.  It's a shame Disney and others release them only overseas however am thankful they are mostly region free.

3D Rarieties was a joy to watch.

My set is Bluetooth but the glasses support both IF and Bluetooth.

Will not compare simulated to actual 3D but the nature and geographic shows on cable do look more realistic with the added depth.

Have not compared active which I have to passive, however, do appreciate the sharpness and full color of 1080p. 

When 3D television was first introduced I felt it would not be anything remotely close to the commercial success the consumer electronics industry was hyping as, with its slanted marketing polls.  Consumers in general had already purchased their new HD sets and television is not a commodity.  It would also be too expensive for networks and cable providers to invest for such a small group which would result in big fiscal losses not worth the uncertain risk.  Felt it would have a niche following which it does have. 

Is it not cost effective to include the 3D feature in more mid level sets instead of eliminating it?  I needed a new set after my Sony XBR34W960 broke.  3D was not the deciding factor nor a feature I was looking for.  With free HBO on demand was able to experience 3D beyond simulated and that's how I got hooked.  Am sure others can be too.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

Joseph Dubin said:


> Loved Maleficent and then got a bigger pleasure obtaining the imported 3D version.


I agree with the sentiment of the entire post, but this sentence caught my attention because I have seen this multiple times. Where can you get the "imported" versions of these films reliably? There are films I would buy the imported version of because you can get it in 3D and would.....if I knew where.

Thanks!


----------



## Joseph Dubin

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I agree with the sentiment of the entire post, but this sentence caught my attention because I have seen this multiple times. Where can you get the "imported" versions of these films reliably? There are films I would buy the imported version of because you can get it in 3D and would.....if I knew where.
> 
> Thanks!


Hi Karaoke, 

Find them on Amazon and EBay. Got titles like Noah, Big Hero Six, Frozen that were region free.. Some are from England. Others might have a different language written on the back of the slerve like the Italian Noah but the soundtrack is the original English.

Got the Hobbit trilogy too.


----------



## dew42

Your amazon.com account will work at amazon.co.uk, amazon.de, and amazon.fr. Check that the Blu-ray is region free unless your player is unlocked. Europe is region B. Some amazon websites will have an "In English" button (located in the top middle) to make navigation easier. yesasia.com is also a good place to look as Hong Kong is region A (same as USA and Canada). You can get The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet 3D in region A. Some Asian titles will _not_ have English audio but may have English subtitles (e.g. Chronicles of the Ghostly Tribe 3D).


----------



## marcuslaw

Joseph Dubin said:


> Is it not cost effective to include the 3D feature in more mid level sets instead of eliminating it?  I needed a new set after my Sony XBR34W960 broke.  3D was not the deciding factor nor a feature I was looking for.  With free HBO on demand was able to experience 3D beyond simulated and that's how I got hooked.  Am sure others can be too.


First, two thoughts about region coding. Avoid the issue by getting a region free BR 3-D player. Pricey Oppos are not the only ones out there. You can find more budget friendly options on eBay such as LG, Sony and Yahama. Second, check this site, Blu-Ray Region Code Info. I'm not sure if it's regularly updated or current but the site boasts 2,939 releases. Yes, 3-D playback does add to the cost of manufacturing a TV (at least the author of this research paper thought so). Aside from the panel itself, I'm sure that it requires more than a few processing chips and capacitors which can take up precious real estate within a TV that is already dedicated to UHD, widgets and Netflix. For me, 3-D was a primary factor in choosing a TV. That meant that size was another. I also wanted one that wouldn't be rendered out-of-date as soon as it got hung on the wall - but that's a topic for another thread. I'm not one for streaming 3-D. While it's not always the case, the needed compression zaps too much out of the PQ. For me, it's Blu-ray only especially if the film also features a lossless audio track or better, ATMOS or DTS:X. Last night we watched Gods of Egypt which we all enjoyed much more than critics said we would. Although the 3-D was bit too reserved for my liking, the DTS-X track was fantastic.


----------



## EVERRET

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I agree with the sentiment of the entire post, but this sentence caught my attention because I have seen this multiple times. Where can you get the "imported" versions of these films reliably? There are films I would buy the imported version of because you can get it in 3D and would.....if I knew where.
> 
> Thanks!


The easiest places are EBAY and Amazon , both are international.

On EBAY when you search for a title make sure worldwide is checked on. 
On Amazon , at the very bottom of the page it shows all the International Amazon sites you can search on. 

China is region A , so you can go to Yesasia or DDD house to find most hard to find 3D titles 
Mexico also has some hard to find 3D titles at decent prices and they are region A at Sanborns or Almaraz

If anyone wants to find any 3D title that they really want but can't seem to find anywhere , just look for thread here or make a thread for that movie in the 3D thread .... and just ask us , I can get anyone links to 90% of 3D movies ever made.


----------



## aaronwt

I just rip my region locked 3D BDs to my unRAIDs and use my media players to play the 3D content back. Back in the old days with DVDs I had some region free players. But I've never purchased a region free BD player. And as long as I can just rip it and watch it with my media players, I have no reason to get a region free 3D BD player.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

EVERRET said:


> If anyone wants to find any 3D title that they really want but can't seem to find anywhere , just look for thread here or make a thread for that movie in the 3D thread .... and just ask us , I can get anyone links to 90% of 3D movies ever made.


Thank you for the info!

Can you get "The Force Awakens"? I had to ask....


----------



## gadgtfreek

Lol ^^^


----------



## EVERRET

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Thank you for the info!
> 
> Can you get "The Force Awakens"? I had to ask....


lol

http://www.mubis.es/titulos/star-wars-el-despertar-de-la-fuerza-blu-ray-3d/relacionadas
http://www.discshop.fi/elokuvat/bluray/star_wars_the_force_awakens_blu_ray_3d/P107476
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Star-Wars-Episode-VII-The-Force-Awakens-3D-Blu-ray/64238/

There is placeholders out there for it , but no actual 3D BR yet


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

EVERRET said:


> There is placeholders out there for it , but no actual 3D BR yet


Earlier in this thread I think there was a link to the Disney site saying that it was going to be released in the US later this year, but no date yet.

I'm curious about movies that were released in 3D elsewhere, but were NEVER released in the US in 3D. Do your sources have those types of titles available? I clicked on a couple of them, but I can't read them. lol


----------



## tezster

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I'm curious about movies that were released in 3D elsewhere, but were NEVER released in the US in 3D. Do your sources have those types of titles available? I clicked on a couple of them, but I can't read them. lol


For Disney titles, just check Amazon UK - they also have periodic sales at very reasonable prices.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Just got a copy of Finest Hours 3D ordered with a help from the thread over at blu-ray.com, from a guy on ebay. Guess Ill have to do the same with Jungle Book (UK Amazon).

Also preordered Jaws 3D.


----------



## EVERRET

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Earlier in this thread I think there was a link to the Disney site saying that it was going to be released in the US later this year, but no date yet.
> 
> I'm curious about movies that were released in 3D elsewhere, but were NEVER released in the US in 3D. Do your sources have those types of titles available? I clicked on a couple of them, but I can't read them. lol


Some of them are , but you have to keep in mind the languages , Region coding and possible forced subtitles. 

Here is a recent example of a 3D movie released oversees , but only was 2D here in the US. 

The Huntsman : Winters War 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Huntsman-W...sr=8-1&keywords=The+Huntsman:+Winter's+War+3D
https://www.amazon.de/Huntsman-Ice-...=sr_1_40?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1465338083&sr=1-40
http://www.zavvi.com/blu-ray/the-hu...teelbook-limited-to-2000-copies/11265415.html

It's a little pricey , but there is a "region A version" of The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2 3D (from Thailand) on EBAY right now.


----------



## marcuslaw

EVERRET said:


> It's a little pricey , but there is a "region A version" of The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2 3D (from Thailand) on EBAY right now.


For those 3-D nuts/completists out there, you can also get Mockingjay Part 1 in 3-D previously seen theatrically only in China and now only available in the Limited Complete Edition "Die Tribute von Panem" sold in Germany (Region B locked). Happy hunting.


----------



## xplorar

The real question here is -
Movies that are NOT released in 3D in US - Are they even worth watching in 3D?
IMHO No. I think they are a quick & rough 3d post-conversions that are created just to catch some extra cash in foreign box office. That's why they don't make the effort to release it in US.
I could be wrong. So, please let me know of any title that you think had great 3D but was released as 2D in US.


----------



## marcuslaw

xplorar said:


> I could be wrong. So, please let me know of any title that you think had great 3D but was released as 2D in US.


Noah comes to mind. Disney's Planes is another. Mockingjay Part 1 isn't bad either. Oh I nearly forgot T.S. Spivet - the greatest 3D release of them all with only a mono domestic. You could add another kiddie flick to that list as well, Sammy's Adventure.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Finest Hours 3D...


----------



## xplorar

gadgtfreek said:


> Finest Hours 3D...


Sorry, I should have been more specific - Please let me know of any title that you think had great 3D but was released as 2D *theatrically* in US.
Finest Hours was 3D in theaters. I will be getting its 3D blu-ray from outside US. Same goes for new Star Wars



marcuslaw said:


> Noah comes to mind. Disney's Planes is another. Mockingjay Part 1 isn't bad either. Oh I nearly forgot T.S. Spivet - the greatest 3D release of them all with only a mono domestic. You could add another kiddie flick to that list as well, Sammy's Adventure.


I didn't know that these titles had good 3D (Except Sammy's Adventures which I think has one of the best 3D effects ever). I will try to catch them all in 3D. Thanks for the list!


----------



## Steve P.

I'd agree on T.S. Spivet, which was shot in 3-D (not converted) and really makes good use of the format. We still await a domestic 3-D release. There are other recent native 3-D movies out there also which quietly have had domestic 2D only releases; a recent one I watched was "Taking of Tiger Mountain".


----------



## Stereodude

Add it to your 3D death casket, I mean collection.

The Martian 3D Blu new, $15 shipped

http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Martian-Blu-Ray-3D-Blu-Ray-Digital-HD-/322135601819?


----------



## mo949

xplorar said:


> The real question here is -
> Movies that are NOT released in 3D in US - Are they even worth watching in 3D?
> IMHO No. I think they are a quick & rough 3d post-conversions that are created just to catch some extra cash in foreign box office. That's why they don't make the effort to release it in US.
> I could be wrong. So, please let me know of any title that you think had great 3D but was released as 2D in US.


 
Frozen is a no brainer. Also, a lot of folks said Big Hero 6 was good.


----------



## Patriot666

I have a bunch of (mostly Disney) 3d movies in my Amazon UK cart right now. Can't beat the price. I hope they aren't "post-conversions". I just got Brave and Thor The Dark World Region Free but haven't watched them yet. I'm really liking 3d on my new scope setup.


----------



## marcuslaw

For those die hard Hunger Games fans with region free playback capability, you can soon get Mockingjay Part 1 in 3-D. The new release available on September 1, 2016 will be feature both Mockingjay films in 3-D. Previously, the only way to obtain Part 1 in stereo was in the now OOP Limited Complete Collection, Die Tribute von Panem.


----------



## CINERAMAX

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1533209/to-3d-or-not-to-3d-buy-the-right-ghostbusters-movie-ticket


----------



## GreySkies

CINERAMAX said:


> https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1533209/to-3d-or-not-to-3d-buy-the-right-ghostbusters-movie-ticket


Sounds like a buy!


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

Stereodude said:


> Add it to your 3D death casket, I mean collection.
> 
> The Martian 3D Blu new, $15 shipped
> 
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Martian-Blu-Ray-3D-Blu-Ray-Digital-HD-/322135601819?


If I didn't already own this in 3D I would buy it.

I am fortunate to have a real, birck and mortar video store near where I live and they will often sell off extra copies of movies after the initial rental surge is over. I got this one used for less than that price even.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

xplorar said:


> Finest Hours was 3D in theaters. I will be getting its 3D blu-ray from outside US. Same goes for new Star Wars


Have you found these in 3D yet, especially Star Wars?


----------



## TomcatTLC

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Have you found these in 3D yet, especially Star Wars?



 ... I know this is bordering on Blasphemy but ... I was not all that impressed with the latest Star Wars Episode. My favorites were the first three releases. But to watch this latest episode in 3D would definitely be  and I know several people who will be envious of the 3D . I have an Oppo BD Player which is capable of displaying any world zone movie format. If you or anyone knows where one can get their hands on a 3D copy I would be most appreciative !


----------



## aaronwt

I didn't think The Force Awakens had been released anywhere in 3D yet?


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Next week Batman versus Superman 3D is released.


----------



## aaronwt

Joseph Dubin said:


> Next week Batman versus Superman 3D is released.


Is it also 3D in the extended version?


----------



## xplorar

aaronwt said:


> I didn't think The Force Awakens had been released anywhere in 3D yet?


Nope


aaronwt said:


> Is it also 3D in the extended version?


Nope


----------



## madsony1

xplorar said:


> Nope
> 
> Nope


It makes me hate Disney. Why no 3d....


----------



## xplorar

madsony1 said:


> It makes me hate Disney. Why no 3d....


I am sure that we will get Star Wars 3D one way or another before the end of the year


----------



## marcuslaw

TomcatTLC said:


> ... I know this is bordering on Blasphemy but ... I was not all that impressed with the latest Star Wars Episode. My favorites were the first three releases. But to watch this latest episode in 3D would definitely be  and I know several people who will be envious of the 3D . I have an Oppo BD Player which is capable of displaying any world zone movie format. If you or anyone knows where one can get their hands on a 3D copy I would be most appreciative !


Episodes I-III were converted and Phantom Menace was shown theatrically in 3-D but received poor (from the studio's perspective) box office numbers (it only brought in $103 million), along came Disney's purchase of Lucasfilm, the Force Awakens, and the plug was pulled. I understand the mouse's disinterest in re-releasing them theatrically, but how about on Blu-ray 3-D? I'll buy. Fun reading:

‘Star Wars’ 3D Re-Releases Cancelled; Focus now on ‘Episode 7′  

EXCLUSIVE: No More ‘Star Wars’ 3D Prequel Releases; Lucasfilm Passes To Focus On New Trilogy

You'll be able to watch the entire Star Wars prequel trilogy in 3D, if you dare

All Six STAR WARS Films to Be Re-Released in 3D Starting in 2012

‘Star Wars’ Does Not Merit 3D Re-Release


----------



## TomcatTLC

... Now we know the REAL reason 3D is dying ... nice going guys !


----------



## tomtastic

marcuslaw said:


> Episodes I-IV were converted and Phantom Menace was shown theatrically in 3-D


Only Eps 1-3 were converted.

http://www.primefocusworld.com/star-wars-1-2-3

Since it's Disney, probably never get a Blu ray release.


----------



## NorthSky

What about *The Abyss* on Blu-ray and in 3D? ...And Dolby Atmos. 

*The Lord of the Rings* trilogy in 3D? ...That would be a good boost to convert more new 3D addicts. 
And it's _Warner Bros_, the same great Blu-ray 3D supporter Hollywood movie studios who did _Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice_ coming up in 3D next Tuesday. 

*The Incredibles* in (((3D))) ? ...Ya man!


----------



## Stereodude

NorthSky said:


> *The Incredibles* in (((3D))) ? ...Ya man!


There were articles confirming that Ratatouille and The Incredibles were being converted to 3D. Ratatouille was released overseas on a region locked BD (most 3D Disney releases are not). So far The Incredibles has been AWOL.


----------



## aaronwt

Stereodude said:


> There were articles confirming that Ratatouille and The Incredibles were being converted to 3D. Ratatouille was released overseas on a region locked BD (most 3D Disney releases are not). So far The Incredibles has been AWOL.


I got Ratatouille 3D from Amazon UK. I can't play teh disc in my players because of the region locking. But I have no issue playing back the 3D BD ISO from my PCH media players.


----------



## NorthSky

'Ratatouille' 3D plays in my hacked BR player. And it plays overseas too.  

'The Incredibles 2' - I'm waiting for it...in (((3D))).


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

aaronwt said:


> Is it also 3D in the extended version?


Yes:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01DEBC7ZW/


----------



## xplorar

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Yes:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01DEBC7ZW/


No.
You are confused. Read 'Product Details'. 3D cut is 151 mins. That's theatrical length.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

xplorar said:


> No.
> You are confused. Read 'Product Details'. 3D cut is 151 mins. That's theatrical length.


Hmm.....perhaps you're right. I assumed that if you buy the 3D version it will be the same length as the extended edition.....in this case it would include the extra footage.

We'll find out for sure tomorrow.....or in my case maybe next weekend since I'm out of town this week and won't get it until then.....


----------



## Joseph Dubin

xplorar said:


> The real question here is -
> Movies that are NOT released in 3D in US - Are they even worth watching in 3D?
> IMHO No. I think they are a quick & rough 3d post-conversions that are created just to catch some extra cash in foreign box office. That's why they don't make the effort to release it in US.
> I could be wrong. So, please let me know of any title that you think had great 3D but was released as 2D in US.


Malificent, Noah. Pirates: On Stranger Tides (all region)


----------



## marcuslaw

Quote:
Originally Posted by xplorar View Post
The real question here is -
Movies that are NOT released in 3D in US - Are they even worth watching in 3D?
IMHO No. I think they are a quick & rough 3d post-conversions that are created just to catch some extra cash in foreign box office. That's why they don't make the effort to release it in US.
I could be wrong. So, please let me know of any title that you think had great 3D but was released as 2D in US.



Joseph Dubin said:


> Malificent, Noah. Pirates: On Stranger Tides (all region)


Beowulf and Need for Speed come to mind. BTW. On Stranger Tides was released domestically on Blu-ray 3-D.


----------



## Patriot666

My Brave UK 3d disc worked great in my PS3. I'm glad the UK 3d are truly region free. I'm going to load up on them now.


----------



## aaronwt

Patriot666 said:


> My Brave UK 3d disc worked great in my PS3. I'm glad the UK 3d are truly region free. I'm going to load up on them now.


Not all of them. I have two or three 3D titles from the UK that are region locked. I need to use my media player to play back the 3D BD ISO in 3D.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Got Batman versus Superman yesterday. Will watch it tonight. Anyone catch it yet at home?

With more 3D releases scheduled, maybe it's not dead as it has a good niche following. When there are less theatrical releases, that might be the signal.


----------



## Patriot666

aaronwt said:


> Not all of them. I have two or three 3D titles from the UK that are region locked. I need to use my media player to play back the 3D BD ISO in 3D.


Out of curiosity...were any of them from Amazon and labeled "region free"? Just wondering because I haven't had an issue yet, but I don't want to order too many if they aren't all region free.


----------



## aaronwt

Patriot666 said:


> Out of curiosity...were any of them from Amazon and labeled "region free"? Just wondering because I haven't had an issue yet, but I don't want to order too many if they aren't all region free.


I don't think so. I knew before I ordered that they were region B/2 discs.

EDIT: I know Ratatouille was one of the 3D titles.


----------



## Patriot666

aaronwt said:


> I don't think so. I knew before I ordered that they were region B/2 discs.


Ok cool. Thanks.


----------



## marcuslaw

tomtastic said:


> marcuslaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Episodes I-IV were converted and Phantom Menace was shown theatrically in 3-D
> 
> 
> 
> Only Eps 1-3 were converted.
> 
> http://www.primefocusworld.com/star-wars-1-2-3
> 
> Since it's Disney, probably never get a Blu ray release.
Click to expand...

News today from the Digital Bits:



> By the way, file this in the Rumor Mill category, but we?re now hearing a new Star Wars-related Blu-ray rumor from some of our retail and industry sources, and this one makes a bit more sense. Disney and Lucasfilm MAY be planning a Blu-ray 3D box set that would include The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith, plus The Force Awakens, all in 3D. As you know, the prequels were going to be 3D-converted for theatrical release several years ago, but only the 3D conversion of The Phantom Menace was released into theaters (in early 2012), the 3D conversion of Attack of the Clones screened at the Christopher B. Smith Film Center in San Rafael, CA last November (as part of a tribute to Dennis Muren), and Revenge of the Sith finally made its 3D debut at Star Wars Celebration in Anaheim last year. So a Blu-ray release would make sense on a lot of levels, though Fox still owns the physical distribution rights to the prequels (which is not to say that some kind of deal couldn?t be made if the desire was there). We?re digging into this with our sources and will try to confirm one way or another.


----------



## Stereodude

Patriot666 said:


> Out of curiosity...were any of them from Amazon and labeled "region free"? Just wondering because I haven't had an issue yet, but I don't want to order too many if they aren't all region free.


You can generally check them before you buy at Blu-ray.com. Pick the UK flag and then search for the title.

AFAIK, Ratatouille is one of the only Disney 3D Blu-rays that is region locked (both 2D & 3D disc). Reportedly the 2D disc of UP is region locked B, but not the 3D.

There are a number of them cheap at Amazon UK right now. Cars, Cars 2, Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Monster's Inc., etc... They're £7.49 after VAT removal, which is about $10.50.

Here's a thread on it. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=280294


----------



## Patriot666

Stereodude said:


> You can generally check them before you buy at Blu-ray.com. Pick the UK flag and then search for the title.
> 
> AFAIK, Ratatouille is one of the only Disney 3D Blu-rays that is region locked (both 2D & 3D disc). Reportedly the 2D disc of UP is region locked B, but not the 3D.
> 
> There are a number of them cheap at Amazon UK right now. Cars, Cars 2, Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Monster's Inc., etc... They're £7.49 after VAT removal, which is about $10.50.
> 
> Here's a thread on it. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=280294


Thanks. Yep I've have most of these titles in my cart for a while. Every time I check it the prices have decreased so I haven't checked out yet. These are great deals. We do mid day Disney 3D's with my daughter. She loves it.


----------



## Stereodude

Patriot666 said:


> Thanks. Yep I've have most of these titles in my cart for a while. Every time I check it the prices have decreased so I haven't checked out yet. These are great deals. We do mid day Disney 3D's with my daughter. She loves it.


Buying 3D outside the US can save you a lot of money.

In my most recent Amazon UK order I picked up the three Toy Story movies, the two Cars movies, Up, and Ratatouille. In a prior order I picked up Terminator Genisys 3D (£8.33), Kung Fu Panda 3D (£9.84), and Jean-Michel Cousteau's Film Trilogy: Dolphins & Whales/Sharks/Ocean Wonderland Blu-ray 3D (£6.62) from Amazon UK.

I got The Hobbit Trilogy Extended Edition 3D Blu-ray 15 disc boxset from Zavvi in the UK for about $45 shipped with a 15% off coupon they had a few weeks back. 

I've also bought a few discs from Mexico from the deals (some are now expired) listed in this thread. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=280138


----------



## tomtastic

My recent trip to Best Buy I noticed that the UHD section next to the 3D section is now spilling into the 3D section. The 3D section is now about 25 percent smaller. UHD discs will continue to grow in numbers and space. Based on the cost of most 3D titles I don't see myself buying many there save for new releases. They still want original retail cost on most titles which have already been discounted at Amazon or you can get used.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

tomtastic said:


> My recent trip to Best Buy I noticed that the UHD section next to the 3D section is now spilling into the 3D section. The 3D section is now about 25 percent smaller. UHD discs will continue to grow in numbers and space. Based on the cost of most 3D titles I don't see myself buying many there save for new releases. They still want original retail cost on most titles which have already been discounted at Amazon or you can get used.


A similar thing is happening at Fry's. I don't take that as a sign 3D is dead. I take it as a sign that retailers follow the volume. UHD is an "up and coming" thing.

I find it particularly amusing that the 3D/UHD disk section is the next aisle over from the vinyl record section.....


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Stereodude said:


> Buying 3D outside the US can save you a lot of money.
> 
> In my most recent Amazon UK order I picked up the three Toy Story movies, the two Cars movies, Up, and Ratatouille. In a prior order I picked up Terminator Genisys 3D (£8.33), Kung Fu Panda 3D (£9.84), and Jean-Michel Cousteau's Film Trilogy: Dolphins & Whales/Sharks/Ocean Wonderland Blu-ray 3D (£6.62) from Amazon UK.
> 
> I got The Hobbit Trilogy Extended Edition 3D Blu-ray 15 disc boxset from Zavvi in the UK for about $45 shipped with a 15% off coupon they had a few weeks back.
> 
> I've also bought a few discs from Mexico from the deals (some are now expired) listed in this thread. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=280138


Wow, you are lucky. I got for about the same price the regular cuts in 3D from the UK Box Set.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

I'm looking at the upcoming titles scheduled for blu ray 3D which includes box office hits like Captain America, Star Trek, Star Wars 7. Just released Batman versus Superman and Zootopia. No, don't think it's dead as long as the theaters keep it going. Remember, it's a niche following, not one for the general consumer. Expectations should not be as high regarding expansion beyond what we have now nor should they dampen due to the decrease in sets with the 3D feature. Remember, there are many who purchased HD sets the past few years with the feature already available but not using it who could slowly come into the fold like like I did last year. 

And even if that is not the case, instead of thinking in terms of 3D being dead in home theater, I am looking at it - in hopefully true terms - as having a certain amount of followers that is more than enough to sustain it's popularity and profit margin. If not, well...., then I will be depressed.


----------



## Stereodude

Joseph Dubin said:


> Wow, you are lucky. I got for about the same price the regular cuts in 3D from the UK Box Set.


Once they have another coupon or promotion it should be the same price. http://www.zavvi.com/blu-ray/the-hobbit-trilogy-extended-edition/11157520.html The regular price is only $54.39 (as of today) and shipping is like $1.35.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

Stereodude said:


> Once they have another coupon or promotion it should be the same price. http://www.zavvi.com/blu-ray/the-hobbit-trilogy-extended-edition/11157520.html The regular price is only $54.39 (as of today) and shipping is like $1.35.


Thanks for letting me know about coupons. Gather the price has gone down since when I was searching for it, lowest was maybe $79 plus shipping.


----------



## film113

KaraokeAmerica said:


> A similar thing is happening at Fry's. I don't take that as a sign 3D is dead. I take it as a sign that retailers follow the volume. UHD is an "up and coming" thing.


May be "up and coming" but it doesn't sell. 3D titles sell 50% - 75% more than UHD. Right now on Amazon, STAR TREK BEYOND was just announced. (Excluding the Amazon Exclusive gift set, which includes both 3D and 4K) the 3D is at #21 , the 4K is...not even in the Top 100!


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

film113 said:


> May be "up and coming" but it doesn't sell. 3D titles sell 50% - 75% more than UHD. Right now on Amazon, STAR TREK BEYOND was just announced. (Excluding the Amazon Exclusive gift set, which includes both 3D and 4K) the 3D is at #21 , the 4K is...not even in the Top 100!


Frankly, I don't blame people for not buying 4K titles...yet. The cheapest, native 4K player I have ever seen costs close to $400. That's more like buying an OLED over a regular UHD set.

Personally, I'll probably wait until they are $100 before I buy one....

Furthermore, 3D has been around for years and has hundreds or thousands of titles available. 4K has a small fraction of that available. As time goes on I would anticipate the stats on these two to cross each other at some point as UHD slowly replaced BD.


----------



## film113

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Frankly, I don't blame people for not buying 4K titles...yet. The cheapest, native 4K player I have ever seen costs close to $400. That's more like buying an OLED over a regular UHD set.
> 
> Personally, I'll probably wait until they are $100 before I buy one....
> 
> Furthermore, 3D has been around for years and has hundreds or thousands of titles available. 4K has a small fraction of that available. As time goes on I would anticipate the stats on these two to cross each other at some point as UHD slowly replaced BD.


UHD will never replace BD as there is hardly any difference on most displays...it will just be another option. Heck, the majority of people still only use standard DVD.


----------



## cakefoo

film113 said:


> May be "up and coming" but it doesn't sell. 3D titles sell 50% - 75% more than UHD.


Source? If a 5 month old format is selling 33-66% as much as a 6 year old format, that sounds pretty good to me...



> Right now on Amazon, STAR TREK BEYOND was just announced. (Excluding the Amazon Exclusive gift set, which includes both 3D and 4K) the 3D is at #21 , the 4K is...not even in the Top 100!


I wouldn't expect anyone to preorder from Amazon when it's $49 there, and only $30 at Best Buy.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

cakefoo said:


> I wouldn't expect anyone to preorder from Amazon when it's $49 there, and only $30 at Best Buy.


Got a link to Best Buy's 4K/3D/BD bundle for $30? I found these options:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/clp/star-trek/pcmcat748302046392.c?id=pcmcat748302046392


----------



## cakefoo

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Got a link to Best Buy's 4K/3D/BD bundle for $30? I found these options:
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/clp/star-trek/pcmcat748302046392.c?id=pcmcat748302046392


film113 and I were referring to the barest 3D and 4K skus.

To film113: By the way, the sku you excluded has the 4K and is ranked #17th , and only costs $1 more than the other 4K sku ranked #135. While I'm not suggesting 4K demand alone got it to #17 , it says a lot about why the #135th ranked 4K sku is selling how it is (in addition to it being $19 cheaper at Best Buy).


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

xplorar said:


> No.
> You are confused. Read 'Product Details'. 3D cut is 151 mins. That's theatrical length.


You are correct. The "Ultimate" cut is about 30 minutes longer than the 3D version.....


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

cakefoo said:


> I wouldn't expect anyone to preorder from Amazon when it's $49 there, and only $30 at Best Buy.


There is in fact a 4K/3D combo set for $49 at Amazon. I couldn't find it at Best Buy for any price.

The 3D version is $30 at Amazon as well:

https://www.amazon.com/Star-Beyond-Digital-Combo-Blu-ray/dp/B01IS31RMK/


----------



## aaronwt

film113 said:


> UHD will never replace BD as there is hardly any difference on most displays...it will just be another option. Heck, the majority of people still only use standard DVD.


And streaming has recently surpassed DVD sales. Most people use streaming instead of DVD now.


----------



## aaronwt

KaraokeAmerica said:


> There is in fact a 4K/3D combo set for $49 at Amazon. I couldn't find it at Best Buy for any price.
> 
> The 3D version is $30 at Amazon as well:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Star-Beyond-Digital-Combo-Blu-ray/dp/B01IS31RMK/


Isn't the 4K/3D version exclusive to Amazon?

I don't like theses exclusive versions. Kung Fu Panda 3 in 3D was exclusive to BestBuy.


----------



## cakefoo

KaraokeAmerica said:


> There is in fact a 4K/3D combo set for $49 at Amazon. I couldn't find it at Best Buy for any price.


I just got done explaining to film113 that that's why the $48 4K sku is ranked so low.


----------



## xplorar

'The Huntsman: Winter's War' was also released as 2D theatrically in US but as 3D internationally.
Any updates about its blu-ray release? Any chance of getting it in 3D?


----------



## dew42

xplorar said:


> 'The Huntsman: Winter's War' was also released as 2D theatrically in US but as 3D internationally.
> Any updates about its blu-ray release? Any chance of getting it in 3D?


See this post from this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/1496126-3d-about-dead-97.html#post44575345

Plus the following region free option:

https://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/B01FV3FM12


----------



## dew42

*Ratchet & Clank [3D & 2D Blu-ray]*

*Audio*: English (DTS-HD 5.1), French (DTS-HD 5.1)
*Region*: Region B / 2
*Number of Discs*: 2
*Studio*: TF1 Video
*DVD Release Date*: August 13, 2016
*Duration*: 94 minutes

https://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/B01EJI4D1K/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2865120/


----------



## EVERRET

xplorar said:


> 'The Huntsman: Winter's War' was also released as 2D theatrically in US but as 3D internationally.
> Any updates about its blu-ray release? Any chance of getting it in 3D?


USA - No

Internationally - Yes 

Region Free - Or - Region A versions - Yes

3D Steelbook - Yes 

Release dates - Mid August


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

EVERRET said:


> USA - No
> 
> Internationally - Yes
> 
> Region Free - Or - Region A versions - Yes
> 
> 3D Steelbook - Yes
> 
> Release dates - Mid August


My concerns about ordering "overseas" disks is what it does to things like languages and audio. Let's say you buy this Huntsman movie from France.......aside from the region code issue, is the audio in English? I know you can CHOOSE English from the options on playback, but is it the original, produced audio or something else?

Maybe a dumb question for you more experienced folks, but it's what came to mind....


----------



## EVERRET

KaraokeAmerica said:


> My concerns about ordering "overseas" disks is what it does to things like languages and audio. Let's say you buy this Huntsman movie from France.......aside from the region code issue, is the audio in English? I know you can CHOOSE English from the options on playback, but is it the original, produced audio or something else?
> 
> Maybe a dumb question for you more experienced folks, but it's what came to mind....


They are not dumb questions at all , it's the original audio..... but the quality can be different , sometimes it's better quality. 

The other things like menu languages , default audio languages , and Forced subtitles can only be found out by people who have bought it. 

You can ask here , or on the 3D forum at bluray.com


----------



## tomtastic

Yes, the audio quality can certainly be different. I know of two right off where this is true, not 3D stuff but, Open Range, the French region free version I believe had inferior audio to the German release which I acquired. Also with the film Enemy Mine which I bought the limited Twilight Time version has a 4 channel DTS HD MA plus isolated score, the Umbrella Entertainment version does not have isolated score, and likely not the same audio encoding. Video seems to be sourced from same but the Eureka has a higher mbps rate audio appears to be different on all 3. Have to do a lot of research and see what you can live with.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

tomtastic said:


> Have to do a lot of research and see what you can live with.


That's where these forums are way handy. Who can afford to just order essentially non-returnable disks from overseas just to try them? I can't!


----------



## Stereodude

For those of your looking to add some more dead 3D content to your collection... Jet.com has 20% Off Books And Media When You Buy 3+ Books And Media Items With Code: *ENTERTAINMENTBASH*

Max.Discount: $30 / Expires August 1, 2016, 8:59am EST.

Some decent 3D deals I noted were:

Jerusalem 3D
The Walk 3D
Everest 3D
Gods of Egypt 3D
Pixels 3D
Minions 3D

I can't give exact pricing since it's so variable (based on the number of items in your cart, if you pay with a Debit card, if you forgo free returns, etc.). On my order with 8 items, skipping free returns, and paying with a debit card I got Pixels 3D down to $12.79, Jerusalem 3D to $10.95, Minions 3D to $12.42, and Gods of Egypt 3D to $16.78. I already had Everest 3D and The Walk 3D so I didn't get them.


----------



## Stereodude

*improve formating*



KaraokeAmerica said:


> That's where these forums are way handy. Who can afford to just order essentially non-returnable disks from overseas just to try them? I can't!


What do you mean, just to try them? Try them to see if they will play in your player? You can determine that without having to buy it. Blu-ray.com and their forum is a pretty good resource to determine if they're region free or at least Region A compatible and to make sure they're not 1080i50. Most major theatrical 3D BD releases have a full lossless English audio track. I've bought a number of Region Free 3D titles from outside the US. I've bought the most from the UK (Amazon UK and Zavvi). I bought a few from Mexico (Sanborns). I've also bought a few HBO TV show complete series BD boxsets (not 3D) from France (Amazon FR). Europe is region B. Mexico is region A. UK releases will obviously have no issues with English. It's not that hard to sort out.

For example, with a 15% off coupon _The Hobbit Extended Edition Trilogy 3D_ was about $45 shipped from Zavvi (all 3 movies). 15 BD's in the boxset. It's Region Free. That's pretty much the cost of one of the movies at Best Buy. For 1/3rd the price I can do a little research.


----------



## longhornsk57

He meant the quality


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

Stereodude said:


> What do you mean, just to try them? Try them to see if they will play in your player? You can determine that without having to buy it. Blu-ray.com and their forum is a pretty good resource to determine if they're region free or at least Region A compatible and to make sure they're not 1080i50. Most major theatrical 3D BD releases have a full lossless English audio track. I've bought a number of Region Free 3D titles from outside the US. I've bought the most from the UK (Amazon UK and Zavvi). I bought a few from Mexico (Sanborns). I've also bought a few HBO TV show complete series BD boxsets (not 3D) from France (Amazon FR). Europe is region B. Mexico is region A. UK releases will obviously have no issues with English. It's not that hard to sort out.
> 
> For example, with a 15% off coupon _The Hobbit Extended Edition Trilogy 3D_ was about $45 shipped from Zavvi (all 3 movies). 15 BD's in the boxset. It's Region Free. That's pretty much the cost of one of the movies at Best Buy. For 1/3rd the price I can do a little research.


Thank you for illustrating my point. If not for forums I wouldn't know that region codes were an issue and that US-produced movies have English audio even if intended for overseas.

Anything is easy if you have the knowledge to formulate the question....


----------



## Stereodude

Here's an example. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Terminator-Genisys-3D-Blu-ray/125326/

The listing shows the languages / audio format & region coding. You pick the country with the flag on the right side of the search blank. That's how you can see information of releases in other countries. The region coding information isn't always comprehensive though. Sometimes it will just show B, even if it is A compatible. The Amazon UK product listings will sometimes state region free if it is. Sometimes they're still region free, but it won't show it in the Amazon listing. You can look at reviews and questions. Or, look at the rear artwork and see if it shows A, B, & C. Lastly there are the forums.


----------



## rural scribe

*4,000 new RealD units headed for Chinese theaters*

I saw this interesting article today in the L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-reald-wanda-20160801-snap-story.html

The deal, to install Real D equipment on 4,000 screens in China is " ... the largest 3D installation agreement in the history of the cinema business, according to RealD and Beijing-based Wanda, a subsidiary of Dalian Wanda Group."

The Chinese company, Wanda, the biggest theater chain in China, is looking to make big inroads in the U.S., too.

"Wanda also owns AMC Entertainment, the second largest U.S. exhibitor, which is trying to buy rival Carmike Cinemas," The story says.


----------



## aaronwt

I didn't realize AMC was sold to Wanda earlier this year. I guess they are responsible for their crap premiere membership that creates two lines for everything and creates longer wait times.

I just wish they would add a Dolby Cinema to the local AMC. 3D with Dolby ATMOS would be great. But they only have an Imax lite theater right now.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

aaronwt said:


> I didn't realize AMC was sold to Wanda earlier this year. I guess they are responsible for their crap premiere membership that creates two lines for everything and creates longer wait times.


My local cinemaplex is an AMC. On the rare occasion I go to a theater anymore they always ask if I want to sign up. It's annoying...



aaronwt said:


> ....But they only have an Imax lite theater right now.


Same with the one near me. It's like an extra $3-4 to see a movie in that theater and I can't tell the difference between that and a regular 3D theater except the screen is slightly concave. Bleh...


----------



## Patriot666

AMC's popcorn is terrible, and I hate that they don't have Pepsi.


----------



## mars5l

I totally forgot about ratchet and clank. That was a short lived in theater movie. I also need to find Underdogs 3d.


----------



## marcuslaw

New from Bill Hunt at the Bits:



> Also, we have a quick update on the rumors we’ve been hearing regarding Star Wars: The Force Awakens finally being released in Blu-ray 3D format. The latest from our retail and industry sources is that Disney and Lucasfilm are considering a 5-disc Blu-ray 3D box set, which would include The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, and The Force Awakens – all in Blu-ray 3D format – along with a fifth disc of exclusive bonus content. The release date would presumably be in time for the holidays this year, and likely timed to promote the theatrical release of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story on 12/16. As soon as we catch any official word on this we’ll let you know.


----------



## Stereodude

I bet it costs >$120 too. 

You want The Force Awakens in 3D... You have to buy 3 more crappy movies. Then again, I thought The Force Awakes was fairly crappy too. However, it was crappy in a different way.


----------



## tomtastic

marcuslaw said:


> New from Bill Hunt at the Bits:
> 
> Also, we have a quick update on the rumors we’ve been hearing regarding Star Wars: The Force Awakens finally being released in Blu-ray 3D format. The latest from our retail and industry sources is that Disney and Lucasfilm are considering a 5-disc Blu-ray 3D box set, which would include The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, and The Force Awakens – all in Blu-ray 3D format – along with a fifth disc of exclusive bonus content. The release date would presumably be in time for the holidays this year, and likely timed to promote the theatrical release of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story on 12/16. As soon as we catch any official word on this we’ll let you know.



By any chance was the article date April 1st? If that were true, Disney would totally redeem themselves.


----------



## turls

Stereodude said:


> I bet it costs >$120 too.
> 
> You want The Force Awakens in 3D... You have to buy 3 more crappy movies. Then again, I thought The Force Awakes was fairly crappy too. However, it was crappy in a different way.


But at least they would finally release them in 3D. Phantom Menace was in theaters in 3D years ago and never got a Blu-ray, and the other 2 prequels were only shown at conventions in 3D.


----------



## tomtastic

120 would be about right, most new releases are 30.00 now. I think they would do better by releasing them individually vs. an all in one pack, unless they discount the price, like 99.00 or 104.99.


----------



## Stereodude

tomtastic said:


> ...Disney would totally redeem themselves.


No, that would require them to release the original unaltered trilogy on Blu-ray.


----------



## NorthSky

I checked around and it doesn't seem that the Rio Summer Olympic Games are nowhere broadcasted in 3D. ...That kind of sad.
Did anyone try the 2D to 3D upconversion from their 3D front projectors (or 3D TVs)? ...Just for Rio.


----------



## tomtastic

Stereodude said:


> No, that would require them to release the original unaltered trilogy on Blu-ray.


I've honestly never cared about such nonsense. I hear so much complaining about how bad the prequels are or the new one, did Han fire first, blah, blah, blah...I never thought any of them were that great to begin with. I have the faces LD set but don't have any desire to see them. 

At any rate it wasn't Disney's fault that never happened or what's caused a negative attitude towards Disney, which was their decision not to release region 1 3D Blu rays at least around the 3D forums here. They may at some point release the unaltered versions but I somehow doubt it. It would be the director's and Fox studios fault. They delayed the original DVD release until 2004 I believe then never released the original version in their time. Disney didn't have anything to do with it.


----------



## turls

NorthSky said:


> I checked around and it doesn't seem that the Rio Summer Olympic Games are nowhere broadcasted in 3D. ...That kind of sad.
> Did anyone try the 2D to 3D upconversion from their 3D front projectors (or 3D TVs)? ...Just for Rio.


Not sure why you would have expected any differently, what's it been 2 or 3 years since the last 3D broadcast sporting event? UHD is the shiny new thing. I loved watching the last summer olympics in 3D, but DirecTV's 3D was pretty crappy.


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> New from Bill Hunt at the Bits:


That's sounds great!! Unfortunately I'm sure Disney will ream us on the price.


----------



## tomtastic

NorthSky said:


> I checked around and it doesn't seem that the Rio Summer Olympic Games are nowhere broadcasted in 3D. ...That kind of sad.
> Did anyone try the 2D to 3D upconversion from their 3D front projectors (or 3D TVs)? ...Just for Rio.


No, they're not being filmed in 3D. London they had a deal with Panasonic using 3DP1 and 3DA1 cameras. But they were filmed in 50i though. That was back when 3D was being pushed into every market. 3D television is over, didn't make a breakthrough like movies have. Other thing that's difficult with that type of filming, is distance. A lot of stuff is simply too far away for those cameras to make good 3D anyway. 

Rio there's some 4k you can see if you have it and if in Japan limited 8k content. Lol, I'd still take 3D though, to me the added dimension is better than more resolution though it depends on the event, too far away and it all looked pretty flat from what I remember of the content.


----------



## Stereodude

tomtastic said:


> At any rate it wasn't Disney's fault that never happened or what's caused a negative attitude towards Disney, which was their decision not to release region 1 3D Blu rays at least around the 3D forums here. They may at some point release the unaltered versions but I somehow doubt it. It would be the director's and Fox studios fault. They delayed the original DVD release until 2004 I believe then never released the original version in their time. Disney didn't have anything to do with it.


I know Disney isn't to blame. George Lucas is to blame. He wouldn't let the originals out into the wild after he mangled them...

Disney as a corporation isn't exactly a benevolent outfit. Their meddling with copyright laws via campaign contributions and lobbying making sure their original content doesn't fall into public domain while simultaneously milking the public domain for ideas and what not doesn't engender good feelings toward them. My comment was a tongue in cheek remark that they would redeem themselves in the eyes of many by releasing the original unaltered trilogy.


----------



## Stereodude

marcuslaw said:


> New from Bill Hunt at the Bits:


Of course this is totally false. Disney won't have physical distribution rights to 1-6 at any point in 2016 so they can't be releasing 1-3 on 3D Blu-ray in time for the Holidays. They will get 1-3, 5 & 6 in June of 2020. Fox will have distribution rights to #4 forever.

Edit: I suppose they could be working on a deal with Fox to distribute them in a box set for the holidays, unless somehow the 3D converted version of the films aren't considered a derivative work and fall outside the existing distribution agreements for the films.


----------



## marcuslaw

Stereodude said:


> Edit: I suppose they could be working on a deal with Fox to distribute them in a box set for the holidays, unless somehow the 3D converted version of the films aren't considered a derivative work and fall outside the existing distribution agreements for the films.


Bill Hunt is rarely fooled by false rumor. Otherwise, your edit was exactly what I was going to say in reply. It wouldn't surprise me if Lucasfilm owns the 3D distribution rights likely b/c they fronted the costs of the post conversions.


----------



## NorthSky

turls said:


> Not sure why you would have expected any differently, what's it been 2 or 3 years since the last 3D broadcast sporting event? UHD is the shiny new thing. I loved watching the last summer olympics in 3D, but DirecTV's 3D was pretty crappy.


I don't exactly know when was the last time that a major event was broadcasted in 3D. 
I simply decided to research about the Rio games to see if someone was artistic enough to present them in 3D, but helas not.
So I shared what I found here in case some of you knew some' I did not. 
Thanks for confirming the inevitable. 



tomtastic said:


> No, they're not being filmed in 3D. London they had a deal with Panasonic using 3DP1 and 3DA1 cameras. But they were filmed in 50i though. That was back when 3D was being pushed into every market. 3D television is over, didn't make a breakthrough like movies have. Other thing that's difficult with that type of filming, is distance. A lot of stuff is simply too far away for those cameras to make good 3D anyway.
> 
> Rio there's some 4k you can see if you have it and if in Japan limited 8k content. Lol, I'd still take 3D though, to me the added dimension is better than more resolution though it depends on the event, too far away and it all looked pretty flat from what I remember of the content.


Rio Olympic games in that amazing picturesque setting would have been totally awesome in 3D. 
I'm sure the awesomeness that 4K and 8K bring is even more attractive to the true photography lovers of the world.

Yes, Rio was made to be filmed in 3D, and in 8K too even more so...both, plus 4K. 4K should win the heart and brain of the entire TV world. 
We need more OLED 4K TVs, 4K front projectors, 4K receivers and pre/pros, 4K Blu-ray players, 4K Blu-ray movies/animations/documentaries, 4K TV shows, movies, live music concerts, all in 4K. ...4K streaming, 4K movie servers, 4K downloading, 4K viewing everywhere, universal, for all the masses.

As for 3D, just too bad; next time around, when no more 3D shades, when 3D will be holographic and everyone in love. 
I will continue to support 3D by investing my money in those 3D Blu-ray releases...only the ones where true dedication is still the menu-du-jour. 
I will never buy a 2D TV, never. It has to be 4K (or 8K) and with 3D capability. 

As for Rio; I'm sure the true 3D videographers are filming them games in 3D for their own small artistic groups...Bravo! 

Thank you thank you thank you ... in (((3D)))


----------



## tomtastic

Stereodude said:


> would redeem themselves in the eyes of many by releasing the original unaltered trilogy.


Good point. Although seeing an unaltered version released doesn't interest me (I only watch SW films maybe once every 5 years) it does seem to rank high on many's hit list. Disney is all about finding ways to make money which is why I think it would happen eventually.


----------



## Stereodude

tomtastic said:


> Disney is all about finding ways to make money which is why I think it would happen eventually.


Exactly my thinking as well. They'll price it sky high and then hide it in their vault to maximize returns.


----------



## marcuslaw

The state of 3-D is good at the moment. Stereoscopy News reports that Suicide Squad 3-D grossed $267,105,000 worldwide though only $135M in the US. For IMAX, it set a new record for August knocking off Guardians of the Galaxy as the previous record holder (with $1.9 million). Switching gears, and years, there's an ongoing effort by 3-D Space and the 3-D Film Archive to restore the lost 1960 3-D classic September Storm and two bonus short films, Sea Dream and The Adventures of Same Space (which originally ran theatrically with Sept. Storm), that will appear on the eventual 3-D Blu-ray. Learn about, and donate to, the kickstarter campaign for the restoration by clicking here. For those who saw Suicide Squad in 3-D, how about that trailer for Doctor Strange?


----------



## marcuslaw

Force Awakens 3-D announced! 

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/10/star-wars-force-awakens-new-blu-ray-jj-abrams-commentary


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> Force Awakens 3-D announced!
> 
> http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/10/star-wars-force-awakens-new-blu-ray-jj-abrams-commentary


Sweet!!!

But four Disc?!?

I think I might put it on my Christmas list.


----------



## videofx

marcuslaw said:


> Force Awakens 3-D announced!
> 
> http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/10/star-wars-force-awakens-new-blu-ray-jj-abrams-commentary


Awesome!

Cant wait to see it on my new OLED


----------



## Stereodude

aaronwt said:


> Sweet!!!
> 
> But four Disc?!?


At least you won't have to flip them over partway through the movie.


----------



## GreySkies

marcuslaw said:


> Force Awakens 3-D announced!


Heck Yeah! I was worried for a few days that I'd have to buy 3D conversions of I-III to get this one in 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

GreySkies said:


> Heck Yeah! I was worried for a few days that I'd have to buy 3D conversions of I-III to get this one in 3D.


Are those still supposed to be coming out? I'd rather have a four disc 3D set that has episodes I, II, III, and VII.

Even The Force Awakens is a title converted from 2D to 3D. Which is typical for Disney Live Actions movies.


----------



## film113

aaronwt said:


> Are those still supposed to be coming out? I'd rather have a four disc 3D set that has episodes I, II, III, and VII.


Scuttlebut is that I - III may still be released as a set. Whether TFA will be part of it is unknown. They might want to see how pre-orders go for TFA.


----------



## GreySkies

Pre-order is live at Amazon. Fifty bucks—ouch. I ordered anyway.


----------



## MrEmoto

GreySkies said:


> Pre-order is live at Amazon. Fifty bucks—ouch. I ordered anyway.


Yeah, saw that. I am trying to wait until it starts being discounted.


----------



## marcuslaw

MrEmoto said:


> Yeah, saw that. I am trying to wait until it starts being discounted.


For those who care, the pre-order price is already down to $34.99 on amazon. It'll reach $27.99 by October. My mind, and money, is on an further news about that SW prequel 3-D set. Hopefully, should it come to fruition, it won't cost a lung.


----------



## partcrash

Back to the original subject...

I too was of the opinion that 3d (especially at home) is at worst a useless gimmick at best a headache- inducing nausea tool. 

However, a few months ago I replaced my projector with a 3d- capable one (The Optoma HD28DSE) and bought also a pair of active 3d glasses. 

Then I put on Tron 3D and... I absolutely loved it. Watched also Life of Pi, Avatar, Hugo and few other 3D "staples". I am absolutely hooked. 

I dont like the 3d effects where stuff is thrown at you, but I do like the more subtle "immersive" 3D like the one in Hugo. 

Maybe it is my enveloping setup (very large screen). Maybe it is the total audio/ video experience. I am not sure. All I know is that I really really like the final result and I am looking forward to the new Star Wars movie released in 3D. 

So, in my mind 3D is not dead. Far from it. One just needs to find the suitable 3D movies for him/her and enjoy as at least to me the success of a 3D movie is not dependent on the 3D technology, but the way the director has implemented it. 

My 2 cents


----------



## Joseph Dubin

partcrash said:


> Back to the original subject...
> 
> I too was of the opinion that 3d (especially at home) is at worst a useless gimmick at best a headache- inducing nausea tool.
> 
> However, a few months ago I replaced my projector with a 3d- capable one (The Optoma HD28DSE) and bought also a pair of active 3d glasses.
> 
> Then I put on Tron 3D and... I absolutely loved it. Watched also Life of Pi, Avatar, Hugo and few other 3D "staples". I am absolutely hooked.
> 
> I dont like the 3d effects where stuff is thrown at you, but I do like the more subtle "immersive" 3D like the one in Hugo.
> 
> Maybe it is my enveloping setup (very large screen). Maybe it is the total audio/ video experience. I am not sure. All I know is that I really really like the final result and I am looking forward to the new Star Wars movie released in 3D.
> 
> So, in my mind 3D is not dead. Far from it. One just needs to find the suitable 3D movies for him/her and enjoy as at least to me the success of a 3D movie is not dependent on the 3D technology, but the way the director has implemented it.
> 
> My 2 cents


Hi part crash,

That was sort of my experience too. Though I replaced my monitor with a more modest Sony kdl50w800b, it was due to the price and overall picture quality reviews than for 3d, which I was happy to get as an extra but was not the deciding factor.

We had HBO on demand so was able to experience some titles and were floored by the experience. So natch, came an inexpensive Blu ray player with 3d. Now in less than a year must have over 80 titles. We use active glasses too and have purchased generic additional pairs which actually work better than the ones made by Sony.

It is addictive but of course not for everybody. But don't think it's dead but rather has a small loyal following that makes it profitable for the consumer electronics industry to continue.


----------



## aaronwt

Where is the Jungle Book 3D BD? I see one that will be released in the UK. But I don't see one here for the US.

Although with shipping it's only around $18 pounds which is supposed to be under $25 US dollars. So I may just order it from Amazon UK. Not sure though. It does say it's region B/2 so I would have to rip it to be able to view it..


----------



## NorthSky

marcuslaw said:


> Force Awakens 3-D announced!
> 
> http://www.ew.com/article/2016/08/10/star-wars-force-awakens-new-blu-ray-jj-abrams-commentary


Say no more...(((3D))) is well alive with the force.


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> Where is the Jungle Book 3D BD? I see one that will be released in the UK. But I don't see one here for the US.
> 
> Although with shipping it's only around $18 pounds which is supposed to be under $25 US dollars. So I may just order it from Amazon UK. Not sure though. It does say it's region B/2 so I would have to rip it to be able to view it..


It's funny...because _The Jungle Book_ 3D Blu-ray title is available everywhere in the world, except for North America! 
And this is the type of film that is perfect for 3D. Beats me! ...Maybe North Americans are pushing more UHD instead of 3D? ...Most probably like it. 

* I found this: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/com...se-the-jungle-book-3d-blu-ray-blu-ray.348402/
Maybe for Christmas? Disney works in mysterious ways...double dipping wouldn't be their first surprise, or the 3D BR version will be included with the UHD version? 

Too many "maybe", "if", ...incertitude. When not sure check Blu-ray.com for all other world regions if it will play here in North America region, and order from overseas. That, or wait to see what the future holds in Disney's strategic plan regarding 'The Jungle Book' here where we live on Blu-ray 3D.


----------



## scarabaeus

For both, SW:TFA and JB, I will wait for the combo UHD/3D pack. Both with Atmos, of course. Dolby Vision would be the cherry on top. Come on, Disney!


----------



## mars5l

scarabaeus said:


> For both, SW:TFA and JB, I will wait for the combo UHD/3D pack. Both with Atmos, of course. Dolby Vision would be the cherry on top. Come on, Disney!


So that means never?


----------



## scarabaeus

mars5l said:


> So that means never?


I'll wait even longer than that, if necessary!


----------



## CINERAMAX

scarabaeus said:


> For both, SW:TFA and JB, I will wait for the combo UHD/3D pack. Both with Atmos, of course. Dolby Vision would be the cherry on top. Come on, Disney!


The hdr for sw tfa is already done waiting for when disney decides, in addition to specular highlights it pushes the wcg to the limits of p3, JB is probably being transferred too. As told to an audience and me at NAB by the filmakers from both flicks.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

NorthSky said:


> Say no more...(((3D))) is well alive with the force.


Amazon already has it for pre-order, however, there is no discount for Prime members (which my brother is). Will wait to see what the competition is. There are some other good ones being released after Captain America, Civil War in three weeks:

Warcraft September 27
It Came From Outer Space October 4
X Men Apocolypse October 4
Legend of Tarzan October 11
Independence Day Resurgence October 18

No release date for Star Trek but Amazon already accepting pre-orders.

So would not say 3D at home is not exactly dead.


----------



## NorthSky

For me 3D is more alive than 4K. Now, if only some studios could realize that; then perhaps they'd start to offer DTS:X and Dolby Atmos audio with all their 3D BR versions? 

The 3D people are the ones who are truly into immersive movie experience...visually and auditory. If only all the Hollywood movie studios knew that...


----------



## old corps

Joseph Dubin said:


> Amazon already has it for pre-order, however, there is no discount for Prime members (which my brother is). Will wait to see what the competition is. There are some other good ones being released after Captain America, Civil War in three weeks:
> 
> Warcraft September 27
> It Came From Outer Space October 4
> X Men Apocolypse October 4
> Legend of Tarzan October 11
> Independence Day Resurgence October 18
> 
> No release date for Star Trek but Amazon already accepting pre-orders.
> 
> So would not say 3D at home is not exactly dead.



I don't see It Came From Outer Space or Legend of Tarzan in 3D on Amazon.???


Ed


----------



## tomtastic

It Came From Outer Space is a Best Buy exclusive.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> It Came From Outer Space is a Best Buy exclusive.


 Not again. They did that crap with Kung Fu Panda 3 in 3D too.


----------



## tomtastic

aaronwt said:


> Not again. They did that crap with Kung Fu Panda 3 in 3D too.


I'm sure it's a small production run, so I can't really complain. Just to have it on Blu ray 3D is worth the ordering restrictions.


----------



## film113

tomtastic said:


> It Came From Outer Space is a Best Buy exclusive.


And the price is more than right!


----------



## NorthSky

Tough to complain: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/it-came...D=1&siteID=f7sX52tQY3I-82ONzEVJGegP0iEtpyRN1A









_______

And this guy, should come down in price...around $20...eventually: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Legend-of-Tarzan-3D-Blu-ray/159229/
From Warner Bros, yes. WB they are the best studio when it comes to the price is right...in time. And their 3D Blu-ray flicks are generally (((3D))) immersive...read quality executed. 

No, 3D is far far away to be dead...just look around...3D is very alive and well. And not only it's a more immersive movie experience but it is also more affordable than 4K. UHD is the new trend, and because it's the newest tech it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best and that everyone is going to buy. 
But the movie studios seem to acknowledge that, and because they fear, because they are afraid to lose their piggy bank cash flow, because they are afraid of the seven seas and of the sailors sailing them, some of them they exclusively embed dts:X and Atmos on them, as an incentive to buy. 
But, Netflix stops @ DD+ 5.1

In theaters around the planet 3D is big. In China it is huge. In North America...Disney seems to know some' that we don't...
But Disney, they work in mysterious ways when it comes to 3D here. ...Just their prices are a good indicator. 
Some of my favorite 3D movies are from PIXAR (Disney); I paid a dear premium for them, but money is no object for art. 
Yes, the artistic side is one, the business side is the other. We pick one or both; if the choice is presented to us. 

But no matter what studio, their ways, the money in the world is flowing in (((3D))). 
_______

My prediction: If not holography perhaps 3D 8K. ...Somewhere not far away in the galaxy...with the force.


----------



## aaronwt

Unfortunately though with the Tv manufacturers, the trend is to eliminate TVs that have 3D capability.


----------



## Joseph Dubin

old corps said:


> I don't see It Came From Outer Space or Legend of Tarzan in 3D on Amazon.???
> 
> 
> Ed


Hi Ed,

Announced on Blu-ray com. In the 3D section.

http://www.blu-ray.com/3d/


----------



## Joseph Dubin

film113 said:


> And the price is more than right!


Just preordered it myself. Shipping and tax brought it up to $15. Gather it won't be available to general public either at this price or on Blu-ray for a while except through best buy?


----------



## NorthSky

aaronwt said:


> Unfortunately though with the Tv manufacturers, the trend is to eliminate TVs that have 3D capability.


It's ok, tomorrow's 3D front projectors (UHD) will cost less than OLED 3D UHD TVs.


----------



## tomtastic

Did you guys see the news? Jason Bourne was converted to 3D in China but it's been making people sick. Shaky cam and fight scenes.

I'd still see it in 3D, but we need more native 3D films.


----------



## kwok lau

The new Jason Bourne movie is horrible. Do not even bother to buy 2d. The whole movie is focusing on car chase, car crash, shooting secret agents to death, but Jason Bourne has a few minor scratches on his face or body. He is no god after all.
The movie looks like "cut and paste" from past 3 movies, on those car chase, crash and shooting. If you have not seen the former movies, you won't have a clue of the story. I won't buy this new movie.
It would be better to convert those 3 old movies to 3D, in my opinion.


----------



## Tekuza

Glad I found this post, yea It was my concern too about 3d movies being dead now. I know its the novelty but I enjoy watching 3D movies at home still. But I'm noticing more movies are being shown in 3D in Australia.


----------



## marcuslaw

*imagic's Redemption*

Mark, you welcome back on the team.

3D is Not Dead. It’s Awesome.
by Mark Henninger on September 6, 2016


----------



## Joseph Dubin

marcuslaw said:


> Mark, you welcome back on the team.
> 
> 3D is Not Dead. It’s Awesome.
> by Mark Henninger on September 6, 2016


Hi Marc,

I've gone broke ordering 3D titles since getting hooked about a year ago. First was able to purchase a lot of titles used and cheaper because I was catching up, however, that's now changed since like others, I'm getting many as released, searching for the best prices. Of course, purchasing region free discs not released in North America like Jungle Book, Frozen, Malifecent, Noah, Big Hero Six, etc.

So it's not dead..... 3D has a healthy nitch following.


----------



## longhornsk57

Just saw TMNT Out of the Shadows in 3D. Awesome presentation!


----------



## Mike-90

Well LG have followed the general trend by dropping the feature from all of their 2017 models, now whilst I'm not someone who proffeses to watch 3d often (the same goes for films in general) it's still sad that it likely won't be an option for much longer.


----------



## unretarded

tomtastic said:


> Did you guys see the news? Jason Bourne was converted to 3D in China but it's been making people sick. Shaky cam and fight scenes.
> 
> I'd still see it in 3D, but we need more native 3D films.


 I believe everything has a purpose/use if one looks hard enuff, I would own it just because of the fact it makes people hurl.


Save it for those special occasions, when you get that right person who insists nothing ever bothers them.........for that real he-man everyone knows one.......:laugh:


I think fast pan scenes are poor in 3d, maybe because most are conversions....but overall fast action scenes seem to suffer for some reason in 3d.


----------



## marcuslaw

Mike-90 said:


> Well LG have followed the general trend by dropping the feature from all of their 2017 models, now whilst I'm not someone who proffeses to watch 3d often (the same goes for films in general) it's still sad that it likely won't be an option for much longer.


I believe LG plans to continue supporting 3-D on its flagship models so not all hope is lost for their consumers. It's gone from Vizio and maybe Samsung but not Sony who I exclusively buy TV's from. I don't anticipate Sony will discontinue supporting the format anytime soon. So while choices are becoming more limited, 3-D will remain around IMO as long as theatrical ticket sales continue to remain strong. For example, 38% of Rogue One's tickets sold on opening weekend were 3-D. That's a lot of surcharge profit for Disney out of a smaller number of screens; something execs like very much. Otherwise, most action movies continue to see dual format theatrical and home video releases particularly Marvel films such as Doctor Strange (which coincidentally I recently pre-ordered from Best Buy (the steelbook sold out but the 3-D version in the tandard slim case remains available for pre-order)).


----------



## tomtastic

I think LG has dropped 3D on _all_ 2017 models but I'm not certain. In other words: LG is out of the 3D market.

This would just leave Sony as the lone supplier of flat panel 3D TV's though I don't know what new models they're releasing. 

This will likely have a domino effect on 3D movie distribution for home entertainment. Disney has already been unreliable on releasing its movies on the Blu ray 3D format. Studios will begin to phase out their home 3D releases and that will in turn phase out theater releases in 3D.

I hope I'm wrong but it seems this is the likely outcome. I blame the studios for one. They wanted to throw 3D in the mix as a money grabbing attempt instead of artistic reasons and instead of doing 3D right the way it's been done for years, they've allowed a new market of conversion to become the standard for 3D. 3D has primarily been a two camera method for many years but since 2012 they look at 3D as it simply adds a couple bucks to the ticket price. 

There have been some really good conversion movies like Gravity and a few others but mostly it just doesn't hold up to the standards that began the latest 3D bubble back in 2009 with Avatar and there are too few good conversions like Gravity. With so few directors willing to put forth the effort of true 3D filming, it's no wonder 3D interest has dwindled. Looking at 2017: there's Alien Covenant that's native, anything else? Transformers has been 3D for awhile but it seems Bay has moved to 2D shooting with his custom Red 8K rig though I'm so done with Transformers I don't even care. An 8K sensor, wow, is this going to look any better on my 1080p screen?

3D movies peaked about 2012 and that year there was also broadcast 3D. Since then 3D has been in a decline and it shifted for a good balance of native filmed 3D movies and converter to just converted 3D movies. And the most 3D movies now are your action super hero movies with quick pans and blurred backgrounds, no wonder 3D interest is declining.

I love 3D, but only when it's done right. When I look at the collection of 50's 3D films I have I can see they put a lot of effort into those for the time and what they had available, the movies may have been cheesy, some of them quite a bit, some are pretty good. Now, it's a single camera and convert it in post. Sometimes they get it right, but mostly it just shows they're not concerned with quality. I've seen quite a few 3D converted movies where there are scenes they could have easily shot native without any special effects to render, yet they film the entire movie with one camera and rely on the conversion company. I'm not blaming the conversion company, really I'm impressed with what they can do, but it's no where near what native shots will show.

At this point, I don't look forward to really any 3D movies and haven't for awhile since converted method has taken over (greed by studios), so I say let it die. 3D needs to die and those that want to do it right can make their films without pressure from big studio greed. The other thing is 4K and everyone has their nose up in the air on 3D because 4k is the thing right now which is purely a manufacturing dilemma because the next evolution is simply 4K 3D because 3D can be 4K too, it's just held up by the fascination of 4K 2D right now.


----------



## NorthJersey

after watching SW:TFA in 3D about 3 or 4 weeks ago, this news truly makes me sad. LG and Sony were the last of the 3D stragglers, and it looks like both will drop support. The TFA 3D bluray release was so good. I wasn't planning on ditching my 2016 LG UH8500 model anytime soon, but definitely won't change my mind after reading that 3D is no longer available in newer models

apparantly 8k may be the golden egg, to have all the available bandwidth, to support stereostopic 3D (sans glasses), so maybe we will see that by 2019 (or even sooner), but 3D will be just about dead before that

it's just funny though because Disney, and to an extend, Sony, are still releasing a lot of 3D content in theaters today. You would think those companies would want 3D supported in the home as well, to sell more 3D media in stores (or online). 
Disney still hasn't fully committed to UHD, and isn't expected to release anything on UHD media in 2017. Instead it will be 3D and 2D releases of their blockbusters such as Dr Strange, Rogue One, Moana, etc
Makes you wonder how committed the studios will be to releasing 3D content at all, if it's not ultimately able to re-sell in stores/online on media. I haven't seen any Disney 3D movies available at all on any of the online apps (ie Netflix/Vudu/Amazon/Google etc)


----------



## marcuslaw

We'll see what Sony and Panasonic do. If they drop 3-D from their 2017 sets then all hope is lost and I will cling to my 940C ever more tightly. Like I've said many times before, I'm a huge fan of the format and hope it continues to be supported by these two early champions of the tech even if it's relegated to an unadvertised feature on their sets. Blu-ray 3-D's look outstanding on my FALD panel and I'd hate to learn that my enjoyment of them will end once my 940C crokes. It's time for us 3-D aficionados to raise our voices to influential power players like James Cameron who might slow its demise.


----------



## aaronwt

Now I'm going to be seeing less 3D in the theater. The two AMC theaters near me recently opened a Dolby Cinema theater at each location. But they don't show any 3D in them. So with Underworld, I was going to see it in 3D until I realized it was in one of the DOlby theaters with reserve seating. So I will be choosing the 2D Dolby theater over 3D from now on. The experience and their Dolby Cinema is so much better than any of their other theaters. With Leather seats, auto reclining, pleanty of space, and excellent picture and sound. 

I had not expected this until I saw Rogue One in the Dolby theater and was just amazed. It was the best theater experience I've had.


----------



## tomtastic

I think the way LG looks at 3D is that since there's no support for 4K, HDR, Dolby Vision or whatever on the UHD Blu ray format, then 3D is something they have to keep as legacy support for 1080p. But hey, as long as we have that Netflix app and other smart features we should be happy.

At this point my main viewing is on a PJ in 1080p still which I find satisfactory and an advantage over any flat panel with its larger size and ghost free 3D. I think for flat panels I'm not worried about it. I'm more interested in Ultra D now and for the technology to get more consumer support. Currently, there is IZON with 55/65" models but the prices are just a little too high still aimed at digital signage commercial market. I think the future is going to be glasses free for flat panels, that's the only future I see for 3D in that market. I think in 5 years or so 3D will come back after technology catches up. 

The real problem right now is 4K.

It's been a real blunder on the roll out which they're still trying to get the standards in place. If you bought early and I don't know all the blunders or if they could be updated such as: you don't have the right HDMI port on the board, no HDCP 2.2 or no HDR. They released UHD with no 3D support at all, even at HD. Then they just announced HDMI 2.1. Support for 4K120. So many changes where 4K is concerned and when you look at 3D it's basically the same standard since 2010 for Blu ray accept where UHD displays are concerned. When you look at it, 3D had a much better roll out than 4K. It's no wonder they're not including 3D now, as big of a headache that 4K must be to keep current, 3D would be like a boat anchor.

Unfortunately, 3D will likely disappear from all major display manufacturers this year or the next. So what needs to happen is for manufacturers to get the technology up to where it needs to be first for 4K and then in a few years adapt glasses free 3D technology. The content is still coming out albeit nearly all converted 3D.

Until then I'm still rockin my BenQ 1070 I bought for 700.00 in my main theater room, my original 1080p 65" LG in LR, and I picked up a used 49" 4K LG passive for editing.


----------



## marcuslaw

tomtastic said:


> I think the way LG looks at 3D is that since there's no support for 4K, HDR, Dolby Vision or whatever on the UHD Blu ray format, then 3D is something they have to keep as legacy support for 1080p. But hey, as long as we have that Netflix app and other smart features we should be happy.


The chair of the Ultra HD committee from the BDA, Matsuda (or something???), was qouted as saying there is no current UHD support for 3-D because there isn't any films shot natively in UHD 3-D. That is now no longer the case. BTW. If what you're saying is that we should be happy with 3-D from TV apps on 1080p smart panels, I say humbug. I have consistently seen noise and other artifacts when viewing streamed 3-D content not to mention the inability to simultaneously enjoy pristine lossless surround sound.



> At this point my main viewing is on a PJ in 1080p still which I find satisfactory and an advantage over any flat panel with its larger size and ghost free 3D. I think for flat panels I'm not worried about it. I'm more interested in Ultra D now and for the technology to get more consumer support. Currently, there is IZON with 55/65" models but the prices are just a little too high still aimed at digital signage commercial market. I think the future is going to be glasses free for flat panels, that's the only future I see for 3D in that market. I think in 5 years or so 3D will come back after technology catches up.


Why not both? With the right film, the 3-D, ghost-free, 1080p-to-both-eyes, image produced by the 940C is nothing short of mindblowing. With 3-D, it's always been about the equipment. IMO, many people who diss the format have done so after watching content on 46" active/frame sequential panels while sitting 15 feet or more away in a living room with lamps turned on at their sides (causing distracting flicker) while texting on their phones. All in all, a recipe for an unpleasant experience. 



> The real problem right now is 4K.
> 
> It's been a real blunder on the roll out which they're still trying to get the standards in place. If you bought early and I don't know all the blunders or if they could be updated such as: you don't have the right HDMI port on the board, no HDCP 2.2 or no HDR.


I have yet to read a quote from any panel manufacturer that engineering a 4K panel is made more difficult by the inclusion of 3-D support. AFAIK, the lack of it is due to waning support by a majority of consumers at the expense of us enthusiasts. 



> They released UHD with no 3D support at all, even at HD. Then they just announced HDMI 2.1. Support for 4K120. So many changes where 4K is concerned and when you look at 3D it's basically the same standard since 2010 for Blu ray accept where UHD displays are concerned. When you look at it, 3D had a much better roll out than 4K. It's no wonder they're not including 3D now, as big of a headache that 4K must be to keep current, 3D would be like a boat anchor.


I feel that while Blu-ray 3-D was heavily marketed, equipment manufacturers failed to properly support it. This was worsened by the fact that many consumers couldn't afford more expensive gear that produced a better image and who approached the tech naively without a proper understanding of what was necessary to better enjoy 3-D in the home. 



> Unfortunately, 3D will likely disappear from all major display manufacturers this year or the next. So what needs to happen is for manufacturers to get the technology up to where it needs to be first for 4K and then in a few years adapt glasses free 3D technology. The content is still coming out albeit nearly all converted 3D.


I hope you're wrong. According to a recent announcement by Stereoscopy News, Cars 3 is set to hit cinemas on June 16, 2017 in 3-D (with Stewart Pomeroy as stereoscopic technical director). That means a possible 3-D Blu-ray in early 2018. I believe James Cameron has said that all 3 of the forthcoming Avatar sequels will be filmed in 3-D. If that's the case then we'll potentially be virtually guaranteed 3-D Blu-ray releases well into 2020. Even the old timers have reason to celebrate stereo with the 3-D Archive's steady release of restored golden age titles like _3-D Rarities_ and _It Came from Outer Space_. The native versus post-conversion debate rolls on but even the post-conversion haters have to admit that the tech has improved greatly since the days of Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Clash of the Titans.


----------



## tomtastic

marcuslaw said:


> f what you're saying is that we should be happy with 3-D from TV apps on 1080p smart panels, I say humbug. I have consistently seen noise and other artifacts when viewing streamed 3-D content not to mention the inability to simultaneously enjoy pristine lossless surround sound.
> 
> *No, I'm saying that the apps themselves for 2D are the solution. They are smart apps and because they're a feature more important than a 3D feature, so it would seem from a manufacture perspective. Personally, I wouldn't mind a smart-less display so long as it had 3D.*
> 
> 
> Why not both? With the right film, the 3-D, ghost-free, 1080p-to-both-eyes, image produced by the 940C is nothing short of mindblowing. With 3-D, it's always been about the equipment. IMO, many people who diss the format have done so after watching content on 46" active/frame sequential panels while sitting 15 feet or more away in a living room with lamps turned on at their sides (causing distracting flicker) while texting on their phones. All in all, a recipe for an unpleasant experience.
> 
> *The problem is that the manufacturers see 3D as a feature and it's holding up 4K on the panel (no UHD 3D content, no HDR, blah blah blah.). I haven't read much on what 2017 models will have 3D besides the OLED news but I suspect they too will be without 3D this year or the next. A lot of content has been filmed in 4K3D so there's already a lot of content available. So when everyone stops ohhing and ahhing 4K and HDR and whatever else they should have had rolled out on day one with 4K, maybe they'll add glasses free feature for 3D and people will actually watch 3D. 4K was rolled out too soon years ago and the manufacturers knew this and they released them anyway because they knew there would be suckers that would buy them knowing they would have to upgrade again in just a few years. The average person that bought a 3D TV between 2011-2013 didn't like 3D manly because they had to put on glasses because you know it's so hard to do that just like putting on a pair of sunglasses, so much effort and time and oh it makes the screen so dark and it gives me a headache, did I forget anything?Glasses-free is the only real solution to make that crowd happy.*
> 
> I have yet to read a quote from any panel manufacturer that engineering a 4K panel is made more difficult by the inclusion of 3-D support. AFAIK, the lack of it is due to waning support by a majority of consumers at the expense of us enthusiasts.
> 
> *I don't know if it's more difficult to include it, but regardless compared to the advancements that 4K has made, 3D is dead weight. The 3D standard is 6 years old on Blu ray. Cost, just comparing an LG UHD with 3D to one without both with HDR support for 4K, it appears there's a 200.00 difference. So not a lot different in cost but possibly the 3D-less models are outselling the 3D ones so they just unilaterally pulled 3D. Again, I don't know if this is the case on the non OLED models but LG stated a year ago they were basically phasing out 3D so I don't think the OLED news is really a shock.*
> 
> I feel that while Blu-ray 3-D was heavily marketed, equipment manufacturers failed to properly support it. This was worsened by the fact that many consumers couldn't afford more expensive gear that produced a better image and who approached the tech naively without a proper understanding of what was necessary to better enjoy 3-D in the home.
> 
> I think the high cost of Blu ray 3D's is the main culprit. With so many PS3's out there (approx. 80 million) it really comes down to displays purchased with or without 3D and weather the user likes 3D or not.
> 
> I hope you're wrong. According to a recent announcement by Stereoscopy News, Cars 3 is set to hit cinemas on June 16, 2017 in 3-D (with Stewart Pomeroy as stereoscopic technical director). That means a possible 3-D Blu-ray in early 2018. I believe James Cameron has said that all 3 of the forthcoming Avatar sequels will be filmed in 3-D. If that's the case then we'll potentially be virtually guaranteed 3-D Blu-ray releases well into 2020. Even the old timers have reason to celebrate stereo with the 3-D Archive's steady release of restored golden age titles like _3-D Rarities_ and _It Came from Outer Space_. The native versus post-conversion debate rolls on but even the post-conversion haters have to admit that the tech has improved greatly since the days of Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Clash of the Titans.


*Yes, there's still a steady flow of 3D films hitting the theaters. I hope I'm wrong but things like this (LG dropping 3D on flat panels) have a way of creating a domino effect. Think HD DVD. It all starts with one company and starts a trickle down effect. I noticed Best Buy no longer has a dedicated 3D section. It was replaced with UHD discs. The 3D titles are now mingled with the 2D blu rays. I wonder how much longer they'll be stocking them at all? Now of course, most of us here don't buy at Best Buy. I actually do if it's a new release because it's the same cost as Amazon and I don't have to wait. Mostly, I pick up later used either locally at a trade post or on eBay or Amazon, but lack of retail support won't help either. 
Netflix has never supported Blu ray 3D unless it was a title that was 2D/3D on same disc only release. 

This news will likely influence Sony and Panasonic to cease production too. And what effect will that have on studios to spend the extra dollars to produce a 3D version on Blu ray if they aren't selling displays to view them? We already know Disney doesn't care about the US market for Blu ray 3D. Ben-Hur was spared a Blu ray 3D release, granted the film bombed but that's the reality that it does cost the studio more to produce and distribute the extra format.

So if the trend continues Blu ray 3D will be the next to die and what effect will that have on studios to release in 3D for theaters? I would think some effect but if tickets are still selling 3D may linger on in the theaters for years to come.

Yes, I have a negative attitude here, but we've seen how retail and manufacturers effect products before.

Native vs. post, the one thing that irks me about post is it seems it's only done to charge a couple more bucks for tickets, not for artistic reasons and that's not good for love of 3D. Post converted has gotten really good and I think for those big budget special effects heavy films, they're fine. I just would like to see more native work which has been in a decline since 2012 and almost entirely replaced with converted. Michael Bay seems to have ditched native now, Peter Jackson has a new project, not sure if it's live action or animated. Scott seems to be the only consistent Hollywood director with native 3D movies and Ang Lee, very progressive thinking but hampered by the current technology limits to simply show his film natively either in the theater or in the home. James Cameron, whenever that happens...will have the same problem. Blu ray 3D will be 7 or 8 years old then, he'll want to film in 4K120 too, 3D will be limited to 1080p24, UHD will need an update for 120fps then everyone will have to go out and buy new equipment with HDMI 2.1 and round and round we go.*


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> The chair of the Ultra HD committee from the BDA, Matsuda (or something???), was qouted as saying there is no current UHD support for 3-D because there isn't any films shot natively in UHD 3-D. That is now no longer the case. BTW. If what you're saying is that we should be happy with 3-D from TV apps on 1080p smart panels, I say humbug. I have consistently seen noise and other artifacts when viewing streamed 3-D content not to mention the inability to simultaneously enjoy pristine lossless surround sound.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not both? With the right film, the 3-D, ghost-free, 1080p-to-both-eyes, image produced by the 940C is nothing short of mindblowing. With 3-D, it's always been about the equipment. IMO, many people who diss the format have done so after watching content on 46" active/frame sequential panels while sitting 15 feet or more away in a living room with lamps turned on at their sides (causing distracting flicker) while texting on their phones. All in all, a recipe for an unpleasant experience.
> 
> 
> 
> I have yet to read a quote from any panel manufacturer that engineering a 4K panel is made more difficult by the inclusion of 3-D support. AFAIK, the lack of it is due to waning support by a majority of consumers at the expense of us enthusiasts.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that while Blu-ray 3-D was heavily marketed, equipment manufacturers failed to properly support it. This was worsened by the fact that many consumers couldn't afford more expensive gear that produced a better image and who approached the tech naively without a proper understanding of what was necessary to better enjoy 3-D in the home.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you're wrong. According to a recent announcement by Stereoscopy News, Cars 3 is set to hit cinemas on June 16, 2017 in 3-D (with Stewart Pomeroy as stereoscopic technical director). That means a possible 3-D Blu-ray in early 2018. I believe James Cameron has said that all 3 of the forthcoming Avatar sequels will be filmed in 3-D. If that's the case then we'll potentially be virtually guaranteed 3-D Blu-ray releases well into 2020. Even the old timers have reason to celebrate stereo with the 3-D Archive's steady release of restored golden age titles like _3-D Rarities_ and _It Came from Outer Space_. The native versus post-conversion debate rolls on but even the post-conversion haters have to admit that the tech has improved greatly since the days of Deathly Hallows Part 1 and Clash of the Titans.


Unfortunately Cars is from Disney. Which means if it is released on BD in 3D. It probably won't be released in the US in 3D. Just over seas.


----------



## aaronwt

I thought I read that Sony also dumped 3D with their 2017 UHD TVs?


----------



## Rudy1

aaronwt said:


> I thought I read that Sony also dumped 3D with their 2017 UHD TVs?


Steve Withers from AVForums reported yesterday that none of the TV manufacturers at CES showed new 3D models.


----------



## dhvsfan

Rudy1 said:


> Steve Withers from AVForums reported yesterday that none of the TV manufacturers at CES showed new 3D models.


That is what I read on another forum. LG, Sony, etc all dropped 3D from their 2017 sets.  The only exception is LeEco which supposedly still has it on their 85 inch, top of the line model.


----------



## marcuslaw

dhvsfan said:


> That is what I read on another forum. LG, Sony, etc all dropped 3D from their 2017 sets.  The only exception is LeEco which supposedly still has it on their 85 inch, top of the line model.


Well I'll be damned. An 2017 85" UHD FALD (448 zones) LCD TV, w/active shutter 3-D, and Dolby Vision that costs less than my 940C!?!? I'm going to have to look into that monster. Only, I've never heard of the company and don't know how it's TV's have stood up to reviews.


----------



## 3DBob

The success of Dealpool in 2D is going to make Marvel and others rethink the need for 3D I think.


----------



## aaronwt

3DBob said:


> The success of Dealpool in 2D is going to make Marvel and others rethink the need for 3D I think.


The second Deadpool is supposed to be in 3D. I thought I read that they didn't budget for it with the first one.

What really matters is the percentage of ticket sales for 3D showings in the theater. As long as that is healthy they should continue having them in 3D.

But for me, after going to the Dolby Atmos theater, at two of the local AmC locations. I will be choosing that over the Real 3D and IMAX 3D showings from now on. Since AMC isn't showing 3D in those theaters around here.


----------



## nitro1max1

marcuslaw said:


> Well I'll be damned. An 2017 85" UHD FALD (448 zones) LCD TV, w/active shutter 3-D, and Dolby Vision that costs less than my 940C!?!? I'm going to have to look into that monster. Only, I've never heard of the company and don't know how it's TV's have stood up to reviews.


Holly cow that looks 85 looks good. Never heard of this LeEco company before. I would like to look at one of these 3D TV's.


----------



## NorthSky

tomtastic said:


> At this point, I don't look forward to really any 3D movies and haven't for awhile since converted method has taken over (greed by studios), so I say let it die. 3D needs to die and those that want to do it right can make their films without pressure from big studio greed. The other thing is 4K and everyone has their nose up in the air on 3D because 4k is the thing right now which is purely a manufacturing dilemma because the next evolution is simply 4K 3D because 3D can be 4K too, it's just held up by the fascination of 4K 2D right now.


I think you hit the spot on the hat above. 



NorthJersey said:


> after watching SW:TFA in 3D about 3 or 4 weeks ago, this news truly makes me sad. LG and Sony were the last of the 3D stragglers, and it looks like both will drop support. The TFA 3D bluray release was so good. I wasn't planning on ditching my 2016 LG UH8500 model anytime soon, but definitely won't change my mind after reading that 3D is no longer available in newer models


That 3D Blu-ray title - *Star Wars: The Force Awakens* - I too was impressed, very. 
_______

The next 3D revolution is 4D without 3D glasses. When and if they can develop the technology, it will give an immense boost to 16K. 
...And better TV sales...PJs...Blu-ray discs...Cinema ticket sales...IMAX Real (((3D)))...Disney's coffins...Hollywood's vaults...La La Land...all that 3D jazz. 

2017 starts on a sour/sad note for 3D immersive cinema art form. Life's not so Good anymore.


----------



## derrickdj1

The title interested me so, I will give a comment or two without reading most of the thread. I recently got into 3D in my HT. I have it for the TV and the projector. On the TV i rearely watched 3D. On the projector, I really like 3D movies. The larger screen may be the difference.

I also enjoy a good action flick at the theater. Yes, the glasses are not natural because I don't wear glasses. Long story cut short, 3D is not dead and I think it will stay alive due to the home market as more people get large screen displays, TV or Projector. The 3D movies actually appear for natural than there 2D version to me. Most of my future BD purchases will be 3D.


----------



## tezster

If 3D is dying, then I'm going down with the ship... I'm not going to give it up. I just ordered a 2016 model LG primarily for its 3D capability.


----------



## marcuslaw

tezster said:


> If 3D is dying, then I'm going down with the ship... I'm not going to give it up. I just ordered a 2016 model LG primarily for its 3D capability.


Nice! Be sure to also e-mail LG with your support of the format. BTW. The releases keep coming with Disney announcing Moana for 3-D Blu-ray (available at Best Buy incl. a steelbook) and Twilight Time with a restoration of The Mad Magician for Blu-ray 3-D (limited to 3,000)


----------



## rushfan2112

*Me Too!*



tezster said:


> If 3D is dying, then I'm going down with the ship... I'm not going to give it up. I just ordered a 2016 model LG primarily for its 3D capability.


Doing the same. We have a Panasonic ST60 Plasma (last year of the plasmas) that is still going strong but we always said that if we had to replace it we would get an OLED.
Well as big fans of 3D (which we only discovered after buying the Panny) and hearing the news that 2016 is the last of the 3D sets we buying the LG C6P. We are not getting rid of the plasma, just adding this to the line-up.


----------



## dew42

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...gn-here-if-you-d-like-see-oled-3d-future.html

2,600+ signatures in a week.


----------



## rushfan2112

dew42 said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...gn-here-if-you-d-like-see-oled-3d-future.html
> 
> 2,600+ signatures in a week.


Signed it a few days ago


----------



## marcuslaw

*Terminator 2 (3-D) in 2017*

The Terminator Fans page is reporting that along with StereoD and Lightstorm Entertainment, James Cameron has, not surprising to me, been very involved in the conversion of Terminator 2 to 3-D. In adddition, the conversion team:



Utilized advanced 3D stereo conversion technology (possibly developed for the Avatar sequels);
used of the original T2 film elements; and 
used of the original T2 CGI files by ILM.

They also speculate why the conversion might have been delayed from its planned 2016 (the year of T2's 25th Anniversary) debut in China. Here's Cameron with the original announcement about the film's conversion:


----------



## tomtastic

Been waiting for a release date on Terminator 2, any news yet? Is this overseas only? Wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## marcuslaw

AFIK, it will see a theatrical release first in China. No word whether it will include anywhere else. No word on a subsequent BD release.


----------



## marcuslaw

New post from flatpanelsHD:

3D fans ask LG to revive 3D on a 2018 OLED TV


----------



## Bandyka

3D will only be truly dead when the disc players will stop supporting it.
I am quite certain they will revive it on 4K discs based on the fact that 3D is most effective on large screens and if statistics are to go by TVs are getting bigger and projectors are more affordable and better. The only reason why 3D is on it's death bed is because on tiny TVs it's useless and that "used to" make up the vast majority of sales.

It will survive mark my words


----------



## 5mark

Anyone notice that Trolls doesn't look like it has a U.S. 3d release? Not really a movie I'm that interested in, but it would be very concerning if Fox/Dreamworks drops 3d. Dreamworks has had some of the best animated 3d over the years.


----------



## marcuslaw

5mark said:


> Anyone notice that Trolls doesn't look like it has a U.S. 3d release? Not really a movie I'm that interested in, but it would be very concerning if Fox/Dreamworks drops 3d. Dreamworks has had some of the best animated 3d over the years.


It appears as though Dreamworks and/or 20th Cent. Fox might have caught the 4K UHD bug opting instead to release this in the new format rather than Blu-ray 3-D. I suppose we won't know if this a permanent move or merely a trend until The Boss Baby, hitting theaters on 3/31 also to be distributed by 20th Century Fox, is released on home video later this year. It could also be a result of change of leadership at the company with 3-D advocate Katzenberg no longer at the helm. Whatever the reason, no 3-D, no purchase from me.


----------



## tomtastic

http://www.avsforum.com/3d-and-curved-screen-tvs-fade-away/

So the 3D haters can now relax that their display doesn't have this feature that got in their way.


----------



## marcuslaw

An update from the LG - Please revive 3D on a 2018 OLED TV model petition. Nearly 10,000 signatures collected!



> Feb 9, 2017 — Hello folks, I hope you're all well?
> 
> I just wanted to send out another quick update as it has been a while now and various things have been going on in the background.
> 
> I have been sending over emails to LGE as we hit various milestones and there is still no response at all from any of them - slightly worrying seeing as one of the addresses was the UK helpdesk although they probably have no idea what to do with my query!
> 
> I have been getting good email addresses as I have been getting various out of offices as people have had holiday / vacation so they're definitely reaching the right people in the organisation.
> 
> Things are slowing down slightly as we approach the 10k mark so please keep sharing information of this - I'm sure we'll hit the 10k mark in the next few weeks or so.
> 
> When we do hit 10k I'm going to print out all of the signatures and comments and send them over to various LGE offices around the world, just to make sure someone actually has these in hand there.
> 
> I assume most of you will have seen but Sony have added 3D Blu-ray support to the PSVR headset in their latest beta software and initial reports are that it is good and it is again creating new fans who are buying 3D disks.
> 
> Also ATSC 3.0 is on the way in the USA and this also has a standard created in there for broadcast 3D content as well as UHD content.
> 
> I don't know if any of you have any knowledge of Russian or South Korean AV forums but if so please spread the word there and wherever else you can think of as that is one area where we don't have many signatures from currently.
> 
> Thanks again to you all so far for getting this as far as it has so far and enjoy your 3D content, whether it be movies, gaming or stuff you have created yourselves
> 
> If there is anything you can think of that may help please just let me know on here or via Twitter - I'm @revaido on there.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> 
> Aidan


----------



## kwok lau

Since the large TV makers are dropping the production line to manufacture 3d TV sets. They focus on HDV 4k sets as shown on the recent shows. I feel the 3d is dying for sure in a year or 2 eventually. For those who have +100 3d discs already, better ensure their 3d player, projector or TV set are kept clean and workable. Do not want to use the 3d disc as tea cup plates.


----------



## ekaaaans

kwok lau said:


> Since the large TV makers are dropping the production line to manufacture 3d TV sets. They focus on HDV 4k sets as shown on the recent shows. I feel the 3d is dying for sure in a year or 2 eventually. For those who have +100 3d discs already, better ensure their 3d player, projector or TV set are kept clean and workable. Do not want to use the 3d disc as tea cup plates.


Damn shame to see technology taking a backward step. Especially when it's improved by leaps and bounds in just a few years.

I don't blame LG and Sony though. Most consumers don't care about 3D...because most movies don't have amazing 3D. The potential for a mind blowing stereo experience is always there, but most filmmakers just aren't interested.


----------



## tomtastic

kwok lau said:


> Since the large TV makers are dropping the production line to manufacture 3d TV sets. They focus on HDV 4k sets as shown on the recent shows. I feel the 3d is dying for sure in a year or 2 eventually. For those who have +100 3d discs already, better ensure their 3d player, projector or TV set are kept clean and workable. Do not want to use the 3d disc as tea cup plates.


UHD players can play 3D too. I'm sure there's a wealth of second hand equipment that could be bought for years to come. After all, Laserdisc has been dead a long time now and you can still play those if you really want to.


----------



## Almonzo Wilder

*3D - Will not go away and will never be good.*

Of course in the 50s we had the red and green glasses 3-D. Then remember in the 80s?? Polarized glasses and the "Adventures in the Forbidden Zone," "Comin' at Ya!", Friday the Thirteenth 3 in 3-D., Jaws 3, etc. Then all these movies disappeared. Cut to the present and we have the latest generation. I saw "Gravity" in 3-D and apart from being one of the lousiest movies I've EVER seen, it was made MUCH worse by 3-D. It just made the movie harder to see and it adds nothing to the realism or the movement or the experience in general. At this point, 3-D TAKES AWAY from a beautifully filmed movie. I feel that 2-D does much better at bringing the viewer in to the movie. This latest iteration will quickly fade and then they'll come up with the next thing in a few years. Will anyone want to watch their 3D TVs in a few years? My brother hasn't watched a 3-D movie on his since the first month he got it. Also, as some people have discovered, 3-D is being used to entice people to see otherwise bad movies (in some cases). And about Gravity ... beautifully filmed, fantastic space imagery and fully realized zero gravity space walking. But what a crappy movie: here comes the debris ... lets leave ... here comes ... more debris! ... run away. No plot! Trust me when I say this movie is overrated. NO ONE will even mention this movie in five years. It is finished. In any event I wish I could SEE it better than I did. 3-D is like trying to watch a movie while someone keeps waving a towel in front of your eyes. Just let me SEE the beauty!


----------



## Almonzo Wilder

Almonzo Wilder said:


> Of course in the 50s we had the red and green glasses 3-D. Then remember in the 80s?? Polarized glasses and the "Adventures in the Forbidden Zone," "Comin' at Ya!", Friday the Thirteenth 3 in 3-D., Jaws 3, etc. Then all these movies disappeared. Cut to the present and we have the latest generation. I saw "Gravity" in 3-D and apart from being one of the lousiest movies I've EVER seen, it was made MUCH worse by 3-D. It just made the movie harder to see and it adds nothing to the realism or the movement or the experience in general. At this point, 3-D TAKES AWAY from a beautifully filmed movie. I feel that 2-D does much better at bringing the viewer in to the movie. This latest iteration will quickly fade and then they'll come up with the next thing in a few years. Will anyone want to watch their 3D TVs in a few years? My brother hasn't watched a 3-D movie on his since the first month he got it. Also, as some people have discovered, 3-D is being used to entice people to see otherwise bad movies (in some cases). And about Gravity ... beautifully filmed, fantastic space imagery and fully realized zero gravity space walking. But what a crappy movie: here comes the debris ... lets leave ... here comes ... more debris! ... run away. No plot! Trust me when I say this movie is overrated. NO ONE will even mention this movie in five years. It is finished. In any event I wish I could SEE it better than I did. 3-D is like trying to watch a movie while someone keeps waving a towel in front of your eyes. Just let me SEE the beauty!


Oh, I forgot the stereo-opticons at the turn of the 20th century. Those are actually pretty cool.


----------



## aaronwt

Don't forget the Polarized lenses for 3D that were first used in the 1930's.


----------



## tomtastic

Almonzo Wilder said:


> Of course in the 50s we had the red and green glasses 3-D. Then remember in the 80s?? Polarized glasses and the "Adventures in the Forbidden Zone," "Comin' at Ya!", Friday the Thirteenth 3 in 3-D., Jaws 3, etc. Then all these movies disappeared. Cut to the present and we have the latest generation. I saw "Gravity" in 3-D and apart from being one of the lousiest movies I've EVER seen, it was made MUCH worse by 3-D. It just made the movie harder to see and it adds nothing to the realism or the movement or the experience in general. At this point, 3-D TAKES AWAY from a beautifully filmed movie. I feel that 2-D does much better at bringing the viewer in to the movie. This latest iteration will quickly fade and then they'll come up with the next thing in a few years. Will anyone want to watch their 3D TVs in a few years? My brother hasn't watched a 3-D movie on his since the first month he got it. Also, as some people have discovered, 3-D is being used to entice people to see otherwise bad movies (in some cases). And about Gravity ... beautifully filmed, fantastic space imagery and fully realized zero gravity space walking. But what a crappy movie: here comes the debris ... lets leave ... here comes ... more debris! ... run away. No plot! Trust me when I say this movie is overrated. NO ONE will even mention this movie in five years. It is finished. In any event I wish I could SEE it better than I did. 3-D is like trying to watch a movie while someone keeps waving a towel in front of your eyes. Just let me SEE the beauty!


Well I loved Gravity. I love the movie itself and Sandra Bullock was impressive. I rank the 3D among the best ever too. I will still be talking about this movie 20 years from now, that's for sure.


----------



## Bandyka

tomtastic said:


> Well I loved Gravity. I love the movie itself and Sandra Bullock was impressive. I rank the 3D among the best ever too. I will still be talking about this movie 20 years from now, that's for sure.


Agree here just watched it on my new JVC on a 120" (3D) ultra deep blacks, it was amazing.

What amazed me even more 3D wise was Pacific Rim, one of the best I've seen.

IMO the bigger the screen the more amazing 3D is.


----------



## DaMacFunkin

The Jungle Book was amazing in 3D, you see much more detail than the normal blu ray, i also love The Force Awakens and i truly hope Rouge One gets a 3D release.
My current machine of choice for 3D is a Zidoo X9S, the MVC presentation on it is excellent.
I also have the Oppo 203, i haven't watched any 3D on it yet because i haven't had time to do a 3D calibration on it.
I sincerely hope when my current TV is ready for change that TV Manufacturers have reintroduced 3D, when done correctly it is a real added bonus.


----------



## Bandyka

DaMacFunkin said:


> The Jungle Book was amazing in 3D, you see much more detail than the normal blu ray, i also love The Force Awakens and i truly hope Rouge One gets a 3D release.
> My current machine of choice for 3D is a Zidoo X9S, the MVC presentation on it is excellent.
> I also have the Oppo 203, i haven't watched any 3D on it yet because i haven't had time to do a 3D calibration on it.
> I sincerely hope when my current TV is ready for change that TV Manufacturers have reintroduced 3D, when done correctly it is a real added bonus.


Yes those are good too. The oppo is great for 3D.


----------



## Almonzo Wilder

aaronwt said:


> Don't forget the Polarized lenses for 3D that were first used in the 1930's.


Oh I didn't realize the polarized lens technique was being used in the 30's. I'm going to have to read up about that. Thanks.


----------



## steam engine

Almonzo Wilder said:


> Of course in the 50s we had the red and green glasses 3-D. Then remember in the 80s?? Polarized glasses and the "Adventures in the Forbidden Zone," "Comin' at Ya!", Friday the Thirteenth 3 in 3-D., Jaws 3, etc. Then all these movies disappeared. Cut to the present and we have the latest generation. I saw "Gravity" in 3-D and apart from being one of the lousiest movies I've EVER seen, it was made MUCH worse by 3-D. It just made the movie harder to see and it adds nothing to the realism or the movement or the experience in general. At this point, 3-D TAKES AWAY from a beautifully filmed movie. I feel that 2-D does much better at bringing the viewer in to the movie. This latest iteration will quickly fade and then they'll come up with the next thing in a few years. Will anyone want to watch their 3D TVs in a few years? My brother hasn't watched a 3-D movie on his since the first month he got it. Also, as some people have discovered, 3-D is being used to entice people to see otherwise bad movies (in some cases). And about Gravity ... beautifully filmed, fantastic space imagery and fully realized zero gravity space walking. But what a crappy movie: here comes the debris ... lets leave ... here comes ... more debris! ... run away. No plot! Trust me when I say this movie is overrated. NO ONE will even mention this movie in five years. It is finished. In any event I wish I could SEE it better than I did. 3-D is like trying to watch a movie while someone keeps waving a towel in front of your eyes. Just let me SEE the beauty!


Other than THE MASK, I would like to know which of the 50's movies used the red and green glasses


----------



## golfster

Bandyka said:


> IMO the bigger the screen the more amazing 3D is.


And that in a nutshell is the reason 3D is virtually dead on home TVs while surviving in the theaters.


----------



## Jamie Goldsmith

tezster said:


> If 3D is dying, then I'm going down with the ship... I'm not going to give it up. I just ordered a 2016 model LG primarily for its 3D capability.


So did I. Mine is on oder and I can't wait to revisit my 3D collection on this beauty!


----------



## Bandyka

golfster said:


> And that in a nutshell is the reason 3D is virtually dead on home TVs while surviving in the theaters.


Pretty much, however more and more of us are opting for projectors in our homes and TVs are getting bigger and bigger so on that argument it should be definitely re-visited by manufacturers.


----------



## DavidinCT

tomtastic said:


> Well I loved Gravity. I love the movie itself and Sandra Bullock was impressive. I rank the 3D among the best ever too. I will still be talking about this movie 20 years from now, that's for sure.



Interesting, I enjoyed the movie but, never saw the 3-D version of it. I might have to grab it to take a peak.


I've seen about 10 movies in 3D Blu-ray on my 4K LG tv. Never was over all impressed, about the only one that kind of freaked me out was "The Walk" the movie itself was meh, kind of stupid at times but, when he looked over the edge of a high building I was getting a little dizzy. I actually heard people were leaving the theater because they were puking !


I know you started this thread and are pretty big into 3-D and if you think Gravity is really good, I might run out and grab it tonight


----------



## Bandyka

Definitely grab Gravity.


----------



## golfster

Bandyka said:


> Pretty much, however more and more of us are opting for projectors in our homes and TVs are getting bigger and bigger so on that argument it should be definitely re-visited by manufacturers.


That will be the salvation for home 3D. As far as I know, there are no plans for projectors to drop 3D. If manufactures left it on their largest screens as a premium feature it would be nice. It may be a niche market, but somebody should take advantage of it.


----------



## Bandyka

golfster said:


> That will be the salvation for home 3D. As far as I know, there are no plans for projectors to drop 3D. If manufactures left it on their largest screens as a premium feature it would be nice. It may be a niche market, but somebody should take advantage of it.


Some new projectors already dropped it unfortunately


----------



## dhvsfan

Bandyka said:


> Some new projectors already dropped it unfortunately


I am curious. Who are the manufacture's dropping it ?


----------



## Bandyka

dhvsfan said:


> I am curious. Who are the manufacture's dropping it ?


Optoma, Benq, Acer so far in their new 4K models. So basically the budget range that most peeps buy.


----------



## 3DBob

Bandyka said:


> Optoma, Benq, Acer so far in their new 4K models. So basically the budget range that most peeps buy.


Optoma said at CES they will still have 3D in their 4K projector. It will be 1080p 3D, though, since there is no 4K 3D spec. Benq and Acer have definitely said they are not implementing it for 4K models.


----------



## Patriot666

I'll have to look into Optoma's 4k pj then...


----------



## Bandyka

3DBob said:


> Optoma said at CES they will still have 3D in their 4K projector. It will be 1080p 3D, though, since there is no 4K 3D spec. Benq and Acer have definitely said they are not implementing it for 4K models.


I thought Optoma was out of the game too but it's good news then. Yes 3D has only 1080p support however native 4K projectors can upscale and it looks awesome, I had two Sony 4K PJ they did a great job.


----------



## tomtastic

At least one new Benq model supports 3D, the HT 1070, it's just 1080p.


----------



## hamsterhuey

golfster said:


> And that in a nutshell is the reason 3D is virtually dead on home TVs while surviving in the theaters.


disagree. i think 3D looks MUCH better on my 65" 4k OLED than it does in the theater. AND i get to lounge around in my underwear and take potty breaks without missing anything.

3D is dying at home because manufacturers didn't get the hardware right until the last couple years, and after 5+ years of ****ty/mediocre home 3D, consumers gave up. i guarantee if everyone's first home 3D experience was on my OLED, home 3D would be doing just fine.


----------



## Bandyka

tomtastic said:


> At least one new Benq model supports 3D, the HT 1070, it's just 1080p.


I am was talking about the top of the range latest 4K models of the budget manufacturers, they seem to be dropping 3D.


----------



## Bandyka

hamsterhuey said:


> disagree. i think 3D looks MUCH better on my 65" 4k OLED than it does in the theater. AND i get to lounge around in my underwear and take potty breaks without missing anything.
> 
> 3D is dying at home because manufacturers didn't get the hardware right until the last couple years, and after 5+ years of ****ty/mediocre home 3D, consumers gave up. i guarantee if everyone's first home 3D experience was on my OLED, home 3D would be doing just fine.


It looks good on your OLED because of the extreme dynamic range and it looks crap in the cinema because of the poor contrast and general setup. Try it on a JVC projector, nothing beats size when it comes to 3D (that is if it's done right).


----------



## tomtastic

Bandyka said:


> I am was talking about the top of the range latest 4K models of the budget manufacturers, they seem to be dropping 3D.


Yes, I would expect them to be gone by this year. But you really only need a 1080p PJ for 3D which you can still get those new.


----------



## Bandyka

tomtastic said:


> Yes, I would expect them to be gone by this year. But you really only need a 1080p PJ for 3D which you can still get those new.


Yes luckily all of the premium ones still support it for years to come.


----------



## RoadLizard

Bandyka said:


> Definitely grab Gravity.


Its certainly a treat in 3D but the movie itself tries a little too hard to make us care about Bullocks character and I just dont. The forced "my daughter died hitting her head" backstory seems pulled out of thin air. Her struggles, while sometimes tense seem extremely improbable too. Her character clearly was not ready the mission either. Its an OK film and has plenty of 3D wow - so for that alone its worth it.

The film itself is a little light though, IMO.


----------



## hamsterhuey

Bandyka said:


> It looks good on your OLED because of the extreme dynamic range and it looks crap in the cinema because of the poor contrast and general setup. Try it on a JVC projector, nothing beats size when it comes to 3D (that is if it's done right).


in the context of why it failed at home, my points still stand. 

and active glasses are a big part of why it failed in the home.


----------



## jamietre

hamsterhuey said:


> i guarantee if everyone's first home 3D experience was on my OLED, home 3D would be doing just fine.


Hi - new here, but just dropping in because -- this. I just splurged on a 55E6P entirely because of 3D. A friend recently got a 65 and I was blown away by how much better the 3D was than on my Panasonic ST30 plasma. Which I still love - it's still better than just about every other non-OLED TV -- but the E6P blows it away, and without active glasses. I had always been fond of 3D but honestly didn't watch it too much because it required putting in my contacts, a dark room, -- basically a commitment. 

After my friend got the TV I actually went out and bought some better active glasses for my panasonic so I could wear them over glasses at least. Picked up a few new 3D films on blu ray and I was instantly re-hooked on it. Before long I broke down and decided to get the LG after I read that they were not going to be made with 3D any more.

Anyway ... I couldn't agree more. The passive tech on a 4K oled is stunning. It's too bad LG didn't just hang on a couple years until the OLED tech came down to a price point where more people would consider it. My hope is that if 3D cinema is still alive in a few years they will reconsider it.


----------



## Bandyka

RoadLizard said:


> Its certainly a treat in 3D but the movie itself tries a little too hard to make us care about Bullocks character and I just dont. The forced "my daughter died hitting her head" backstory seems pulled out of thin air. Her struggles, while sometimes tense seem extremely improbable too. Her character clearly was not ready the mission either. Its an OK film and has plenty of 3D wow - so for that alone its worth it.
> 
> The film itself is a little light though, IMO.


Sort of agree I was only recommending it for the visuals.



hamsterhuey said:


> in the context of why it failed at home, my points still stand.
> 
> and active glasses are a big part of why it failed in the home.


Yes might be a part of it but for me and many I know they couldn't care less if it was active or passive as long as it works fine. The latest active glasses are pretty good but agree the first ones were a bit of a pain.

Just look at VR it is highly vomit inducing and require huge a thing on your head the resolutions and graphics are nowhere near the TV/PJ screen yet it is a huge hit because it fills your field of vision and so it's immersive which brings us back to size matters in this case and people put up with the pain when it's worth it.


----------



## Worf

If glasses were the issue,then 3d would have failed globally. In fact, it was the English speaking world that took offence - 3d is huge in Asia and a lot of 3d releases are Asia only. 

The only difference is that their media didn't care about glasses - while over here every 3d thing is prefaced with "glasses suck". 

Heck, how is VR supposed to be big, when you need expensive headsets that are worse than glasses, expensive computer gear, and more space than Kinect? It's just the media decided to not deride VR gear on those aspects. Heck, smartphone VR isn't even derided as crappy even though everyone in the VR business wants them gone.


----------



## Bandyka

Worf said:


> If glasses were the issue,then 3d would have failed globally. In fact, it was the English speaking world that took offence - 3d is huge in Asia and a lot of 3d releases are Asia only.
> 
> The only difference is that their media didn't care about glasses - while over here every 3d thing is prefaced with "glasses suck".
> 
> Heck, how is VR supposed to be big, when you need expensive headsets that are worse than glasses, expensive computer gear, and more space than Kinect? It's just the media decided to not deride VR gear on those aspects. Heck, smartphone VR isn't even derided as crappy even though everyone in the VR business wants them gone.


Exactly.


----------



## hamsterhuey

Worf said:


> If glasses were the issue,then 3d would have failed globally. In fact, it was the English speaking world that took offence - 3d is huge in Asia and a lot of 3d releases are Asia only.
> 
> The only difference is that their media didn't care about glasses - while over here every 3d thing is prefaced with "glasses suck".
> 
> Heck, how is VR supposed to be big, when you need expensive headsets that are worse than glasses, expensive computer gear, and more space than Kinect? It's just the media decided to not deride VR gear on those aspects. Heck, smartphone VR isn't even derided as crappy even though everyone in the VR business wants them gone.


active glasses DO suck. the media coverage has nothing to do with that opinion. i can't speak as to why other cultures may or may not feel the same, (nor do i necessarily take your statement as fact,) but i seriously doubt it's because the media is telling them how to feel about them. more than likely Americans/westerners just have a lower tolerance for discomfort, or they're more prone to socializing or multitasking when the TV is on and thus glasses are too limiting.

likewise i don't think VR is going to catch on until the tech is convenient and unobtrusive. i don't give a crap if the media spin is negative or positive, i know i don't want to wear those things on my head.


----------



## aaronwt

hamsterhuey said:


> active glasses DO suck. the media coverage has nothing to do with that opinion. i can't speak as to why other cultures may or may not feel the same, (nor do i necessarily take your statement as fact,) but i seriously doubt it's because the media is telling them how to feel about them. more than likely Americans/westerners just have a lower tolerance for discomfort, or they're more prone to socializing or multitasking when the TV is on and thus glasses are too limiting.
> 
> likewise i don't think VR is going to catch on until the tech is convenient and unobtrusive. i don't give a crap if the media spin is negative or positive, i know i don't want to wear those things on my head.


I've typically liked active glasses over passive. At least for home use. The times I've used passive, I got eye fatigue very quickly. While with the active glasses I use with my DLP or UHD TV , I can use them for many hours without issues. I don't have a problem with passive in the theater yet I've always had a problem with them from home setups fro some reason.


----------



## marcuslaw

Active vs. Passive is an age old debate that if someone still feels the need, is better suited to another thread.


----------



## cakefoo

Worf said:


> If glasses were the issue,then 3d would have failed globally. In fact, it was the English speaking world that took offence - 3d is huge in Asia and a lot of 3d releases are Asia only.
> 
> The only difference is that their media didn't care about glasses - while over here every 3d thing is prefaced with "glasses suck".
> 
> Heck, how is VR supposed to be big, when you need expensive headsets that are worse than glasses, expensive computer gear, and more space than Kinect? It's just the media decided to not deride VR gear on those aspects. Heck, smartphone VR isn't even derided as crappy even though everyone in the VR business wants them gone.


VR companies did a great job managing expectations for this generation's hardware. What's important is that these headsets nailed the basics and provide a significant leap in immersion and computer interaction that nothing else can compare to.


----------



## dlinsley

I wish more 4k discs included the 3D version, but I'm picking up Sing in 3D as it also includes the Atmos track


----------



## skipfreely

I see Target and BB have added pre-orders for SW Rogue One 3d combo packs!


----------



## evoll88

Yes i put in a order for the target 3d digibook package. Good to see they are releasing the 3d instead of doing like they did with FA.


----------



## marcuslaw

Interesting video from HDTVTest advocating 3 reasons why you should buy an LG C6 OLED TV over a B6 series, and one reason why you shouldn't. Guess what the first reason is . . .


----------



## MLXXX

marcuslaw said:


> Interesting video from HDTVTest advocating 3 reasons why you should buy an LG C6 OLED TV over a B6 series, and one reason why you shouldn't.


I'm a supporter of viewing 3D on a passive screen with low crosstalk, but have begun to doubt whether the technology is good enough for today's HDR screens that combine high brightness with deep blacks.

I've noticed that crosstalk performance can receive different reports _for the same model._ It could be there is variation in performance from set to set depending on how the film-type patterned retarder has been affixed to the screen. 

For example the review at https://reviews.lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lg-lcd-tv/lg-b6p.html states "Crosstalk at times during 3D viewing (C6P)". However the review at https://www.avforums.com/review/lg-c6-oled55c6v-uhd-4k-tv-review.12713 states:



> When we reviewed the LG EF950 OLED TV last year, we were rather disappointed by the 3D performance. The image suffered from the kind of crosstalk we were not expecting from a passive 3D display, although it might have been specific to our review sample – perhaps due to a slightly misaligned polarised filter. Thankfully the 3D performance on the C6 was absolutely stunning and amongst the best we have ever seen. The use of a passive polarised filter allowed a Full HD image to be delivered to each eye, with absolutely no crosstalk visible. We used the various 3D torture tests on the Spears & Munsil Blu-ray and the C6 passed with flying colours.


I have had three passive 3D TVs, one where the 3D was almost unusable because of severe ghosting (a cheap 2012 year Soniq), one where ghosting was apparent at times but on the whole the performance was satisfying (a 2013 year Sony), and one where the ghosting was somewhere in between (a 2015 year Sony).

I sincerely hope that the LG have good quality control over the OLED65C6P model such that the good 3D performance reported in the review video for the particular unit under test can be replicated and enjoyed when someone buys one of these sets out of a local retailer's stock. It really is a serious issue to switch on a new passive 3D set and be faced with noticeable ghosting/crosstalk!

_Note: with film-type patterned retarder technology, correct vertical viewing angle is important for minimizing visible crosstalk. If you notice crosstalk, this is the first thing to check: is the TV at an appropriate height for the viewing position? _


----------



## JMCurtis

I have an older 42" LG 1080P 3D TV which has excellent 3D and have kept it for use in my bedroom. I have a 4K 55" LG 3D TV in the living room, and it has evidence of ghosting. It sits on a TV entertainment center. But I think that it's tilt angle may be off slightly which is causing the ghosting issue.


----------



## AlanAbby

tomtastic said:


> I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years. That being said, can 3D survive? It seems like there's just been too much post converted 3D, or lack of content to begin with. Haven't seen much released on Blu ray that's been decent 3D in awhile, all seems to just be post converted or just lame depth only stuff. If they don't make 3D standard on TV's I just don't see it continuing much longer.
> 
> 
> I was really excited about a year ago, now I'm thinking about getting a 3D camcorder but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. Is 3D once again, just another passing fad? I really hope not because there is a lot of potential with movies like Gravity and documentaries just doesn't seem to be gaining steam now. If you look at TV content it will probably disappear altogether in the next year. There's what, 2 channels left? ESPN's gone, which I never understood why that was 3D anyway if they weren't going to show live content, there's nothing new on 3D TV.
> 
> 
> So are manufactures backing off 3D? Or is it still going forward like it was a few years ago? I noticed there's not much in the way of 3D camcorders.


3D is alive and well just ordered Ghost in The Shell 3D blu-ray. sorry to disappoint the haters.


----------



## tomtastic

AlanAbby said:


> 3D is alive and well just ordered Ghost in The Shell 3D blu-ray. sorry to disappoint the haters.


Ordered? Or _Pre_-ordered? It doesn't appear to come out on Blu ray until Aug.


----------



## marcuslaw

tomtastic said:


> Ordered? Or _Pre_-ordered? It doesn't appear to come out on Blu ray until Aug.


And from where? I don't believe there is a 3-D version destined for the States.


----------



## tomtastic

Tried to pick up Rogue One the other day in store but the 3D version was nowhere to be seen. Checked BB and Target, appears to be online only now for 3D. Picking up in store was nice for release day content because cost the same as online but they don't appear to be stocking Blu ray 3D's in-store any more. I don't know if this is the case everywhere. Best Buy has removed their 3D sections awhile back and mingled the 3D copies into the regular Blu rays, but my guess is they're not stocking them any more.

I looked to see if there were any other recent 3D releases at Best Buy but I didn't see any. So it's online only now, not going to waste my time looking in stores. It's been awhile since I picked anything up in store, about 3 months or so, the market has shifted to UHD or streaming.


----------



## Actionable Mango

tomtastic said:


> Best Buy has removed their 3D sections awhile back and mingled the 3D copies into the regular Blu rays, but my guess is they're not stocking them any more.


It depends on the BB. I have two near me. One has no 3D titles except kids movies and they are mixed in. The other has some 3D titles and the employee told me they are changing their 3D positioning from mixed in with normal titles to mixed in with a dedicated 4K/3D section. I just bought The Martian 3D there.

In my area, Fry's is the best in-store for 3D. They have a dedicated 4k section and a dedicated 3D section, right next to each other.


----------



## EVERRET

tomtastic said:


> Tried to pick up Rogue One the other day in store but the 3D version was nowhere to be seen. Checked BB and Target, appears to be online only now for 3D. Picking up in store was nice for release day content because cost the same as online but they don't appear to be stocking Blu ray 3D's in-store any more. I don't know if this is the case everywhere. Best Buy has removed their 3D sections awhile back and mingled the 3D copies into the regular Blu rays, but my guess is they're not stocking them any more.
> 
> I looked to see if there were any other recent 3D releases at Best Buy but I didn't see any. So it's online only now, not going to waste my time looking in stores. It's been awhile since I picked anything up in store, about 3 months or so, the market has shifted to UHD or streaming.


*Availability *

Location:67206









Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - SteelBook [Digital Copy] [3D] [Blu-ray/DVD] [Only @ Best Buy] 2016 

*Store Pickup*

Available Today - ready in 1 hour
*NORTHWEST WICHITA KS*

2441 N MAIZE RD, WICHITA, KS 67205


----------



## tomtastic

Yeah, it wasn't there and I looked. Target didn't have it either I asked and they said it wasn't being stocked. Checked BB online didn't show it in stock when I got home too so I ordered from target.com.


----------



## AlanAbby

tomtastic said:


> Ordered? Or _Pre_-ordered? It doesn't appear to come out on Blu ray until Aug.


I consider it the same, It won't ship till August but I ordered it, call it pre-order if you like.


----------



## tomtastic

AlanAbby said:


> I consider it the same, It won't ship till August but I ordered it, call it pre-order if you like.


Considering it's 4 months before release, yeah, I would. Someone says "ordered" on a 3D release I don't have and I'm ready to add it to cart but I'll hold off awhile, got some time. Maybe a US release will make it, or maybe not.


----------



## Locotl

Anyone done a test between 4K 3D and regular 3D on a 65E6P.
Is there any difference? Would the TV upscale the regular 3D?


----------



## tomtastic

Locotl said:


> Anyone done a test between 4K 3D and regular 3D on a 65E6P.
> Is there any difference? Would the TV upscale the regular 3D?


On any 4K screen it should upscale 1080p to fill the screen so you're technically looking at a 4K image (3840x2160) but the source is still 1080p, if it didn't upscale of course you would have black bars. Blu ray 3D players only output 3D at 1080p resolution (1920x2205 frame packing signal) so the upscale would be done inside the display.

There is no commercial 4K3D right now, however you can send a passive screen top/bottom 3840x1080p and that will be _half_ resolution 4K per eye. It will still have to scale to 2160p height but it has the width 3840 of 4K so no upscaling is needed for width only height. Least that's been my experience with it. This is just with my own cameras and I tested the left 2D image in full 4K and then compared that to the 3840x1080p top/bottom 3D file and it is just as detailed so I know for sure it's higher than 1920x1080 and looks 4K. 

Also, I'm not sure if the built in YT app on the display will allow higher than 720p at least my 2014 model doesn't because it only uses HTML 5. I have TV hooked up with HDMI from my mac pro with 3840x2160 30hz signal, if you're not sending a 4K signal of course it won't work. From what I've read, Sony models it won't work with top/bottom but you can use different mode like odd/even. LG's should work fine. Might work from USB stick I haven't tried it, I do have one USB 3.0 port I could try but it seems to play fine with no stuttering through HDMI. Also, I don't think any PJ's will work either. Samsung models from 2014-15 I've read here from some they will work in 4K in side by side so you'd have to feed it a 1920x2160p file instead but same resolution. Not for sure because I haven't tested on those.

Here's a sample video I did last year:





And a macro sample with same 4K camera rig:





YT of course compresses the files down so it's not as good as raw files.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

A LG OLED 65 e6p will display a blu-ray 3D movie which requires active shutter glasses with passive lenses. This is what I learned with David Attenborough's Kingdom of Plants 3D blu-ray. It produced a very nice 3D image but I cannot tell if the image was upscaled to 4K.


----------



## tomtastic

Postmoderndesign said:


> A LG OLED 65 e6p will display a blu-ray 3D movie which requires *active shutter glasses with passive lenses*. This is what I learned with David Attenborough's Kingdom of Plants 3D blu-ray. It produced a very nice 3D image but I cannot tell if the image was upscaled to 4K.


That model would be just passive glasses, active has the shutters which require batteries.

It _is_ upscaled to UHD, it has to do that to fill the screen otherwise you would only be viewing 1/4 of your screen. It still isn't 4K resolution though because it wasn't native 4K to begin with from the disc. The original footage likely was captured at 4K in production but the Blu ray is just HD. It's about like taking DVD upscaled to 1080p. Did that look much better on a 1080p screen vs 480? A little maybe, but not as good as 1080p on a 1080p screen.


----------



## Actionable Mango

I don't know if anyone has thought about this yet, but with all the major manufacturers dropping 3D in their 2017 lineup, what happens if your TV breaks or you need a new one for any reason? At that point your entire 3DBD collection is dead. So what then?

Buy an old used 3D TV off of Craigslist?
Buy some Chinese off-brand crappy LCD that's still making 3DTVs?
Hope that _Avatar_ sequels bring back a 3D resurgence?


----------



## tomtastic

Actionable Mango said:


> I don't know if anyone has thought about this yet, but with all the major manufacturers dropping 3D in their 2017 lineup, what happens if your TV breaks or you need a new one for any reason? At that point your entire 3DBD collection is dead. So what then?
> 
> Buy an old used 3D TV off of Craigslist?
> Buy some Chinese off-brand crappy LCD that's still making 3DTVs?
> Hope that _Avatar_ sequels bring back a 3D resurgence?


Yep, plan on adding another 4K LG at some point, if nothing else I'll just put it away for when it's needed. But for movies I prefer my DLP PJ and they're cheap, they made enough of them and they're selling 2017 models for 3D still so no worries. 3D goes on. But even if there are no more movies or 3DTVs or PJ's just because a format ends doesn't mean it's over. I still have HD DVD's that get played once and awhile. I have two players incase one goes down and I'm sure I could find another one if I need to. Have some laserdiscs too but they don't get played much, that's been dead awhile.


----------



## Phil Tomaskovic

Postmoderndesign said:


> A LG OLED 65 e6p will display a blu-ray 3D movie which requires active shutter glasses with passive lenses. This is what I learned with David Attenborough's Kingdom of Plants 3D blu-ray. It produced a very nice 3D image but I cannot tell if the image was upscaled to 4K.


The movie doesn't care if tv is active or passive, video output is the same. Only the tv does determines what glasses it requires. Lg oled is passive.


----------



## unretarded

I think tv manufactures have seen that people who are serious about 3-d are just getting projectors.

They are cheaper and provide the size needed for immersive 3-d.



Thats my take on it......

We had a 55 inch 3-d tv and while it looked great, the immersion factor was not the same as a 100 inch plus screen.

I am now running a wall to wall 11 foot wide screen on a 600 dollar PJ and the 3-d is incredible.

There is no way any TV can compete with that on price or size.

A 80 inch flat screen can not compete with a 150 inch screen..........even if price was disregarded.

A 600 dollar PJ,benq ht-2050, and a 100 dollar 150 inch screen is a crazy value and great 1080 picture quality. A 75 inch panel can not even compare no matter if it was the same price.

For under 1000 bucks you can get the PJ,pull down screen,mount and hdmi to put it in any room...plus a few sets of glasses.


I am not sure the flat panels will be able to compete with this for a long time,...if ever.

Thats my take on why 3-d is vanishing from flat panels, at best it is novelty or a introduction to 3-d. I think 3-d is still alive and well, with almost all blockbusters in the theaters having a 3-d version.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

unretarded said:


> I think tv manufactures have seen that people who are serious about 3-d are just getting projectors.
> 
> They are cheaper and provide the size needed for immersive 3-d.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my take on it......
> 
> We had a 55 inch 3-d tv and while it looked great, the immersion factor was not the same as a 100 inch plus screen.
> 
> I am now running a wall to wall 11 foot wide screen on a 600 dollar PJ and the 3-d is incredible.
> 
> There is no way any TV can compete with that on price or size.
> 
> A 80 inch flat screen can not compete with a 150 inch screen..........even if price was disregarded.
> 
> A 600 dollar PJ,benq ht-2050, and a 100 dollar 150 inch screen is a crazy value and great 1080 picture quality. A 75 inch panel can not even compare no matter if it was the same price.
> 
> For under 1000 bucks you can get the PJ,pull down screen,mount and hdmi to put it in any room...plus a few sets of glasses.
> 
> 
> I am not sure the flat panels will be able to compete with this for a long time,...if ever.
> 
> Thats my take on why 3-d is vanishing from flat panels, at best it is novelty or a introduction to 3-d. I think 3-d is still alive and well, with almost all blockbusters in the theaters having a 3-d version.


While many of these statements are true my opinion is that the picture quality of every projector I have seen is abysmal compared to an LG OLED65e6p. Better to sit closer to the OLED panel, not get a headache but get high quality fully immersive 3D in a setting not as dark as a cave.

However, if you have seen projector 3D and you are happy with it that is fine with me.


----------



## tomtastic

If I sit in the same relative seating position to my Lg as my 140" screen I get crosstalk which is the worse problem for 3D there is as it's basically _not_ 3D with visible bleeding of left/right streams.

I agree that PJ's are the way to go with 3D but I do like the color and brightness of my LG flat panel, there's tradeoffs on both.


----------



## marcuslaw

So happy to keep disappointing haters. Good news. It now appears T2 3-D will not see a limited theatrical release in just China.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

T2 is the best of the Terminator series. I hope it is released on disc in 3D. T1 is good, T3 is a reprise which mainly pokes fun at how old Arnold is.


----------



## aaronwt

Postmoderndesign said:


> T2 is the best of the Terminator series. I hope it is released on disc in 3D. T1 is good, T3 is a reprise which mainly pokes fun at how old Arnold is.


I thought T5(the most recent) poked fun at how old he was. T3 came out in 2003. And is actually one of my favorites.


----------



## javanpohl

I 3D still thriving overseas? I am finally starting to feel that 3D might actually be on its deathbed here in the States. It's been leaving the home theater market for some time now but I always felt that, as long as it was continuing on in theaters, it wouldn't be going anywhere. However, with checking out Guardians of the Galaxy 2 this past weekend, I'm starting to think the end is nigh. It's been getting consistently harder to find a decent 3D theater near me. My most recently favorited theater, on the other end of town, just very recently did a renovation which included getting a Dolby theater and assigned seats in all of their auditoriums. I know that not a whole lot of people like 3D these days but I was still rather shocked to see that the 9:00 3D showing was in an EXTREMELY small auditorium (after getting there it was probably the smallest I have ever been in) but it was, on a percentage basis, far less booked than the giant 2D, high-priced Dolby theater. Unfortunately, the screen was disproportionately small even for that tiny theater and the 3D projection had issues. I found myself kind of wanting to throw in the towel on searching out theatrical 3D viewings.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

aaronwt said:


> I thought T5(the most recent) poked fun at how old he was. T3 came out in 2003. And is actually one of my favorites.


You are correct, I misidentified Terminator 5 as Terminator 3 because I thought incorrectly there were only 3. And Terminator 5, Genisys is the only one released in 3D. Having not seen Terminator 3 I cannot rate it.


----------



## tomtastic

T3 is a mess of a movie, almost no care in writing it.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> T3 is a mess of a movie, almost no care in writing it.


Yes but for some reason I've always liked it.

Sent from my Galaxy S6 using Tapatalk


----------



## 8mile13

A great action movie..lots of balls...even has a 70 rating on Rotten Tomatoes.


----------



## tomtastic

So many scenes are laughable and not because they're funny, it's just because you watch them and just shake your head "really?" Like when the T-X takes control of 2003 era cars by remote. Not remotely possible, how would you move the steering wheel or push the gas pedal? They set up several scenes similar to T2 but this time they're altered to be opposite or different like the gay bar scene, "talk to the hand". T3 is like a parody of T2 to some extent.

James Cameron even agrees that Genisys is the real T3 as it's respectful of the first 2 films but stands on its own. Genisys was a complete turnaround for the franchise. When I saw it I was shocked it didn't do as well at theater. I find it's the best one since T2.


----------



## NorthJersey

tomtastic said:


> So many scenes are laughable and not because they're funny, it's just because you watch them and just shake your head "really?" Like when the T-X takes control of 2003 era cars by remote. Not remotely possible, how would you move the steering wheel or push the gas pedal? They set up several scenes similar to T2 but this time they're altered to be opposite or different like the gay bar scene, "talk to the hand". T3 is like a parody of T2 to some extent.
> 
> James Cameron even agrees that Genisys is the real T3 as it's respectful of the first 2 films but stands on its own. Genisys was a complete turnaround for the franchise. When I saw it I was shocked it didn't do as well at theater. I find it's the best one since T2.


yes it was definitely in the B-movie category


----------



## 8mile13

tomtastic said:


> So many scenes are laughable and not because they're funny, it's just because you watch them and just shake your head "really?" Like when the T-X takes control of 2003 era cars by remote. Not remotely possible, how would you move the steering wheel or push the gas pedal? They set up several scenes similar to T2 but this time they're altered to be opposite or different like the gay bar scene, "talk to the hand". T3 is like a parody of T2 to some extent.
> 
> James Cameron even agrees that Genisys is the real T3 as it's respectful of the first 2 films but stands on its own. Genisys was a complete turnaround for the franchise. When I saw it I was shocked it didn't do as well at theater. I find it's the best one since T2.


 Cameron ''Jonathon [Mostow, director] has made a great movie. Arnold's in great form. I really like what he's done with it."
http://www.indiewire.com/2014/04/ja...says-prometheus-didnt-add-up-logically-87165/


----------



## tomtastic

Speaking about T3/Salvation: 

"Well, I have to be objective, or as objective as possible about that. I’m not big fans of the films, I think that the big ideas of the first movies – I didn’t make the second film until I had an idea as big as the first film, and it had to do with the moral complexity of the story, and asking the audience by the end of the film to cry for a Terminator. I don’t think that the 3rd or 4th film lived up to that potential. Sarah Connor Chronicles, I never really watched much of it, so I never gave it a chance… to get hooked, like you have to with a TV series." James Cameron

And Genisys: "I start to see things I recognize. It’s being very respectful of first two films. Then all of the sudden, it just swerves. And now I’m going on a journey. I feel like the franchise has been reinvigorated, like this is a renaissance.

If you look at why the films became classics, they had characters that you liked. The new film, which, in my mind, I think of as the *third* film, we see Arnold take the character even farther."

Pretty much sums it up here: 
http://downfallofterminator.blogspot.com/2013/04/all-that-is-wrong-with-terminator-3.html


----------



## marcuslaw

Still not dead . . .

Premiering at the Annual Film Market in Cannes, _Wonders of the Sea 3-D_ might someday best IMAX's _Under the Sea_ or _Deep Sea_ as the best ocean life documentary.


----------



## tomtastic

The Last Reef is better than Under the Sea, at least _visually_. The story and score are also very well put together.


----------



## marcuslaw

Hollywood still loves 3-D. So should the Bluray Disc Association.


----------



## marcuslaw

tomtastic said:


> The Last Reef is better than Under the Sea, at least _visually_. The story and score are also very well put together.


I always avoided that film because of Jeff Kauffman's review and what he effectively described to be mediocre 3-D.


----------



## tomtastic

marcuslaw said:


> I always avoided that film because of Jeff Kauffman's review and what he effectively described to be mediocre 3-D.


I found it anything but mediocre, I pretty much have all 3D documentaries and I rank this one in the top 5 or so, not just underwater. Other IMAX underwater features that are really good: Into the Deep (the original underwater 3D feature) and Galapagos (not Attenborough). Also recommend Ghosts of the Abyss, I had seen it in 2D then picked up the Blu ray 3D and it's like a different film in 3D.


----------



## marcuslaw

tomtastic said:


> I found it anything but mediocre, I pretty much have all 3D documentaries and I rank this one in the top 5 or so, *not just underwater*. Other IMAX underwater features that are really good: Into the Deep (the original underwater 3D feature) and Galapagos (not Attenborough). Also recommend Ghosts of the Abyss, I had seen it in 2D then picked up the Blu ray 3D and it's like a different film in 3D. (Emphasis added)


Content and score are important, yes, but if the 3-D image quality is poor, or 3-D lite, then I'm not interested in owning what amounts to another 2-D nature doc. Of the Last Reef, Kauffman writes



> The 3D iteration never really is able to exploit much depth (no pun intended), *since so much of the documentary takes place under water*. (Emphasis added) Here, dimensionality is typically achieved pretty much solely through foreground elements like bubbles or dirt floating in front of whatever is ostensibly the focus of the scene. This achieves at least acceptable levels of planes of depth, but it's never really very overwhelming. Similarly, the above the water scenes provide decent if baseline levels of dimensionality.


One really good looking 3-D "underwater" doc worth importing is _Hidden Worlds - The Caves of the Dead 3-D_ which is a good view before watching _Sanctum 3-D_. Here's my review on Blu-ray.com (don't laugh too hard):



> A 3-D Dive into the Mayan Underworld
> Hidden Worlds 3D - The Caves of the Dead is about a team of German divers that go into the vast underwater caves and cenotes of Quintana Roo, Mexico. For the first time in 3D, we get to see the flooded cenotes of Mexico where it seems each one contains some trace of the past whether it be pottery or the remains of 125 people in Las Calaveras. Worshipped by the Mayans who believed they were Xibalba (which means "place of fear"), the gates to the underworld, the 3D camera reveal dark passages full of bizarre stalactite formations including the famous "Hells Bells" and even an actual submerged fire pit thought to be over 8,000 years old. Hidden Worlds isn't free of criticism though. Some sequences show parts of different cenotes seemingly combined together as one and the narrator, also available in English, tries to be a bit too dramatic and his narration is a bit disjointed at times. Those are minor gripes though and don't detract too much from visuals of this fascinating documentary.
> 
> The video itself was surprisingly sharp. I saw no artifacting, banding, ringing and other anomalies except in a few underwater scenes where light shines down from above. Filmed natively in 3D with a camera in a specially modified case that weighed over 170 pounds, the extra dimensional experience delivered solid and rather consistent depth and dimensionality and even a few pop out moments without any major mishaps. In one particular sequence, we're taken down into the cenote Angelita, a huge circular hole, that contains a 90 foot thick layer of freshwater over salt water. As we descend through a blanket of muddy clouds, tree branches protrude out towards the viewer like dead fingers. It's moments like these that make it easy to see why the Maya believed this to be Xibalba. Hidden Worlds is an informative and entertaining film that looks surprisingly well in 3-D which make it a worthwhile addition to your video library.


----------



## tomtastic

Well, I meant to say I disagree with him completely on 3D too. The 3D looked superb on my 140" screen. I don't have Hidden Worlds, I don't have all the import docs, only a few.


----------



## longhornsk57

Just pre ordered beauty and the beast 2017 in 3D from Amazon.co.UK

Comes to $24 shipped with prime. It says region B/2 but Disney movies always say that till release day then update to region free

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## unretarded

Contemplating fantastic beasts and Dr Strange 3d.............


----------



## longhornsk57

unretarded said:


> Contemplating fantastic beasts and Dr Strange 3d.............


Dr strange is legit, day one purchase for me.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

longhornsk57 said:


> Just pre ordered beauty and the beast 2017 in 3D from Amazon.co.UK
> 
> Comes to $24 shipped with prime. It says region B/2 but Disney movies always say that till release day then update to region free
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


Will they actually be region free though? I've purchased a couple of Disney 3D movies over the years, from Amazon UK, that were not region free.


----------



## longhornsk57

aaronwt said:


> Will they actually be region free though? I've purchased a couple of Disney 3D movies over the years, from Amazon UK, that were not region free.


They ALL were except ratatouille for rights purposes

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

longhornsk57 said:


> They ALL were except ratatouille for rights purposes
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


That was one and I thought Tron was another one. Not really sure though. I just ripped them anyway and use my media streamer to watch the BD ISOs of the 3D BDs. Since I strip the region lock for any discs not from my region.


----------



## longhornsk57

aaronwt said:


> That was one and I thought Tron was another one. Not really sure though. I just ripped them anyway and use my media streamer to watch the BD ISOs of the 3D BDs. Since I strip the region lock for any discs not from my region.


I own Tron 3D and it's region free.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

longhornsk57 said:


> I own Tron 3D and it's region free.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


Not sure what the title is then.


----------



## marcuslaw

I wonder if TV manufacturers are starting to feel like "hi-tech turkeys" now? Posted by High Def Digest yesterday: 


Studiocanal Prepping James Cameron's 'Terminator 2: Judgment Day' for Blu-ray 3D​
BTW. Hoping that Battle Across Time makes its way on as a 3-D bonus feature.
























I still enjoy that attraction whenever we go to Universal Orlando.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

tomtastic said:


> I found it anything but mediocre, I pretty much have all 3D documentaries and I rank this one in the top 5 or so, not just underwater. Other IMAX underwater features that are really good: Into the Deep (the original underwater 3D feature) and Galapagos (not Attenborough). Also recommend Ghosts of the Abyss, I had seen it in 2D then picked up the Blu ray 3D and it's like a different film in 3D.


The Last Reef: Cities Beneath the Sea 4K UHD HDR 10 and 3D two disc collection Shout SF16930 was filmed for IMAX in both versions. I think this set of two discs has great value in comparing 4K HDR10 to 3D. It is a 44 minute film, just short enough to watch both version in one sitting.

On my LG OLED65e6p I found the 3D version more immersive and visually pleasing.


----------



## rdarcy

http://www.inquisitr.com/4322065/av...re-3d-glasses-james-camerons-dream-come-true/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tomtastic

rdarcy said:


> http://www.inquisitr.com/4322065/av...re-3d-glasses-james-camerons-dream-come-true/
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Avatar 2 has been pushed back once again to late 2020, so that may give enough time for theaters to upgrade, but it could be like the Billy Lynn release where only a handful of theaters world-wide are capable of seeing it that way. 

I've been saying it: _glasses free is the next phase for 3D_. You can only do so much with resolution and color, you need dimension.


----------



## 3DBob

tomtastic said:


> I've been saying it: _glasses free is the next phase for 3D_. You can only do so much with resolution and color, you need dimension.


While that could be true, What I know about Christie Digital--who is creating the technology--it's mostly light field theory of projecting onto a screen of microlenses that disperse light of two images into Left and Right eye light beams. There is so much that can go wrong with this since the light will project out at an angle, it will limit seating to a specific width and depth, otherwise some people will see minimum depth and others will suffer eye turn out.

My guess is they will have a few set ups with limited seating around the US and the rest of us will see it in RealD 3D with polarized glasses as we do today. Problem with a 2020 release is that many theaters are dropping their RealD 3D showings because of viewer feedback that they don't want to pay extra for glasses, and also the maintenance on the projectors takes very specific skills that many theaters don't want to pay for. Many in the area here are only showing 3D on one screen now, where it used to be two.


----------



## Actionable Mango

Samsung's flagship 4K UHD BD player for 2017, the UBD-M9500, does not bother to support 3D BD.

This feels like another nail in the coffin.


----------



## aaronwt

Actionable Mango said:


> Samsung's flagship 4K UHD BD player for 2017, the UBD-M9500, does not bother to support 3D BD.
> 
> This feels like another nail in the coffin.


More nails will probably be coming with next years models from other manufacturers.


----------



## longhornsk57

aaronwt said:


> More nails will probably be coming with next years models from other manufacturers.


I dunno, the Oppo and Sony units still do, and 3D BR discs are still getting released pretty regularly...


----------



## aaronwt

longhornsk57 said:


> I dunno, the Oppo and Sony units still do, and 3D BR discs are still getting released pretty regularly...


Yes. But there are more manufactures than that. Plus the 2018 models won't be released until after CES. Although OPPo will keep their same models going for years. And some of the Sonys get two year life cycles.


----------



## JMCurtis

I'll buy 3D titles as long as they keep making them, or at least until my TV dies. Too bad manufacturers are so quick to jump to the next "latest and greatest big thing" push! What would it have hurt to keep the functionality going. You'd think, by their reasoning, if all of a sudden color was no longer widely or needed, that they'd drop that too!! Silly, I know, but that's the way it makes me feel. We've all sunk quite a lot of money into the format.


----------



## RolandL

marcuslaw said:


> I wonder if TV manufacturers are starting to feel like "hi-tech turkeys" now? Posted by High Def Digest yesterday:
> 
> 
> Studiocanal Prepping James Cameron's 'Terminator 2: Judgment Day' for Blu-ray 3D​
> BTW. Hoping that Battle Across Time makes its way on as a 3-D bonus feature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still enjoy that attraction whenever we go to Universal Orlando.




That Universal attraction has three screens - would be difficult to see all three on one TV. Six to one AR?


----------



## RLBURNSIDE

tomtastic said:


> Avatar 2 has been pushed back once again to late 2020, so that may give enough time for theaters to upgrade, but it could be like the Billy Lynn release where only a handful of theaters world-wide are capable of seeing it that way.
> 
> I've been saying it: _glasses free is the next phase for 3D_. You can only do so much with resolution and color, you need dimension.


I just saw that Avatar 2 news, I'm super stoked about it. Glasses-free 3D on both front projection and TVs, combined with high framerate, high brightness, and high dynamic range + gamut = this is video nirvana. W00t!

Once people start orgasming (they did over Avatar 1) over Avatar 2-4 I think we'll see more films support HFR + HDR + 3D. Or at least I hope. And in the era of VR and AR which is taking off in a big way, I think cinemas will need to compete with stereo personal displays and that means HFR + 3D. 

VR headsets should get HDR in the coming year or so as well (on top of insane boosts to resolution).


----------



## marcuslaw

RolandL said:


> That Universal attraction has three screens - would be difficult to see all three on one TV. Six to one AR?


I'm sure a technique could be used to merge them into one such as has been done with the 3 images recorded with Cinerama films. On the other hand, the absence of live actors used at the theme park might make it a bit awkward to watch.


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> Yes. But there are more manufactures than that. Plus the 2018 models won't be released until after CES. Although OPPo will keep their same models going for years. And some of the Sonys get two year life cycles.


I sincerely doubt OPPO will ever abandon 3-D from its players. Heck, they still support DVD-A. No one releases on that format much anymore.


----------



## King Vidiot

> many theaters are dropping their RealD 3D showings because of viewer feedback that they don't want to pay extra for glasses


I've noticed fewer 3D showings at theaters lately, and that's absolutely ridiculous- if people don't want to pay extra the answer is to LOWER THE PRICES, not drop the 3D showings! The upcharge is for the 3D itself, not just the glasses- if you could bring your own glasses and not pay the upcharge, that'd be great but I doubt they'd do that. There's so many other things wrong with theaters nowadays that I've just about given up on them anyways.


----------



## aaronwt

King Vidiot said:


> I've noticed fewer 3D showings at theaters lately, and that's absolutely ridiculous- if people don't want to pay extra the answer is to LOWER THE PRICES, not drop the 3D showings! The upcharge is for the 3D itself, not just the glasses- if you could bring your own glasses and not pay the upcharge, that'd be great but I doubt they'd do that. There's so many other things wrong with theaters nowadays that I've just about given up on them anyways.


No it's the same price. At least at the AMC and Regal theaters around here. My brother brings his own 3D glasses with him when he goes to those theaters. And the price is the same for him, even though he doesn't use their glasses.


----------



## JMCurtis

aaronwt said:


> No it's the same price. At least at the AMC and Regal theaters around here. My brother brings his own 3D glasses with him when he goes to those theaters. And the price is the same for him, even though he doesn't use their glasses.


In our theater [Atlas] its an upcharge of $2.00 for 3D presentations. I think they should be the same cost myself, as most theaters only make a small percentage of the ticket price per person anyway. Most theater money is made from stuff at the concessions stand. I know this because I got to know one of the managers at my local theater pretty well.


----------



## rxp91

It's a shame that the home market is running out of steam because the recent 3D block busters have been spectacular in 3D. Kong, Wonder Woman, Transformers and just got back from IMAX Laser for Spider Man. The depth adds so much more than HDR. Lets hope they continue the 3D blu-ray releases.


----------



## Bandyka

The biggest challenge I am facing these days often is to whether watch a movie in UHD HDR or 3D I feel both are very impressive but I couldn't live without either format. That is on the JVC RS 620.
I really do hope 3D UHD HDR will be a reality one day sooner then later that would be mighty impressive.


----------



## King Vidiot

They should have waited to bring out 4K until they could get it to do 3D. I don't care about slightly higher resolution if I'm losing 3D- this whole mishandling of 3D by the industry has got to be the biggest screw-up in its entire history!


----------



## Bandyka

I don't thinks it's got anything to with that, quite simply there isn't enough revenue in it, and at the end of the day that is what corporations care about not matter what we do.


----------



## Ruined

King Vidiot said:


> They should have waited to bring out 4K until they could get it to do 3D. I don't care about slightly higher resolution if I'm losing 3D- this whole mishandling of 3D by the industry has got to be the biggest screw-up in its entire history!


I think they are purposely killing 3D. 

Step 1: release 4k+hdr
Step 2: kill 3d
Step 3: get people to rebuy hardware and movies in 4k+hdr
Step 4: Once step 3 is milked, reintroduce 3d as "4K HDR Holographic 3D" using glasses-free technology
Step 5: get people to rebuy hardware and movies in 4k+hdr+3d
Step 1-5: Profit.


----------



## 3DBob

Step 4 never going to happen--way too expensive and fraught with eye parallax issues for a big audience--for personal projectors would require a very specific expensive screen. There will headset 3D VR, though, but not much for large audiences, my guess, except very specialized theater setups. Money does rule in the US, anyway. It might surprise us to see that foreign countries keep up the current 3D with glasses trend for much longer than the US does.


----------



## aaronwt

It's huge in China right now. That's why some movies only get released in 3D there.


----------



## Ruined

3DBob said:


> Step 4 never going to happen--way too expensive and fraught with eye parallax issues for a big audience--for personal projectors would require a very specific expensive screen. There will headset 3D VR, though, but not much for large audiences, my guess, except very specialized theater setups. Money does rule in the US, anyway. It might surprise us to see that foreign countries keep up the current 3D with glasses trend for much longer than the US does.


The tech is ready to go for TVs apparently:
Http://www.mashable.com/2016/01/05/glasses-free-3d-tv/

It doesn't need to even come to projectors if it arrives on TVs. People with pjs would be able to use the same discs with 3d glasses.

The idea being if TV manufacturers are planning to sell a new feature, they have to greatly separate it from the old feature - so killing regular 3d is one way to spur purchases of a new enhanced 3d down the line. 

This sort of thing could create a new market of content for 4K 3D. Electronics manufacturers are going to keep introducing new features, and given its evolution I think glasses free 4k 3d on TVs is inevitable and just a matter of time. It would be a perfect mid cycle feature to roll out to get people to rebuy 4k TV/BD/Receiver hardware before an 8k market is established.

I anticipate this to happen around 2020, well after hdmi 2.1 is prevalent.


----------



## bitJericho

The reason I stopped going to 3d movies in the theater is they are always miscalibrated in my area. Considering I have a 3DTV that looks amazing (Vizio E3D series), I get my 3d fix that way


----------



## 3DBob

The last 3D movie I went to at the theater had lots of kids in it, and guess what, I would say half the kids had their glasses off after 15 minutes, while parents had them on. They still laughed and enjoyed the movie, but it told me more than I needed to know about where 3D was going to end up. Kids just didn't see the need for 3D, or the misaligned images bothered them, and blurry images were okay with them. I can't imagine what was going on in their brains, but I could see it was the parents who wanted it without regard to what effect it had on the kids.


----------



## MrEmoto

I've never seen a 3D film in a theater. I just don't go to theaters for movies anymore. Too many noisy and rude people and phone screens lighting up, etc. I like to really lose myself in any movie I watch, and am constantly being yanked out of immersion by the hordes of bozos around me.

Oh, and get off my lawn!

LOL...


----------



## aaronwt

3DBob said:


> The last 3D movie I went to at the theater had lots of kids in it, and guess what, I would say half the kids had their glasses off after 15 minutes, while parents had them on. They still laughed and enjoyed the movie, but it told me more than I needed to know about where 3D was going to end up. Kids just didn't see the need for 3D, or the misaligned images bothered them, and blurry images were okay with them. I can't imagine what was going on in their brains, but I could see it was the parents who wanted it without regard to what effect it had on the kids.


In my area, I've never seen that. All the kids and adults keep their 3D glasses on. Although they are also paying $12 to $19 per person. Depending on the time in the 3D IMAX theater.

I don't go to the Real 3D showings any more. Those costs a little less. So maybe that happens in those theaters?


----------



## aaronwt

MrEmoto said:


> I've never seen a 3D film in a theater. I just don't go to theaters for movies anymore. Too many noisy and rude people and phone screens lighting up, etc. I like to really lose myself in any movie I watch, and am constantly being yanked out of immersion by the hordes of bozos around me.
> 
> Oh, and get off my lawn!
> 
> LOL...


I'm going to the theater more than I have in years now. Since the theaters near me now do reserve seating for the IMAX and Dolby theaters, I'm able to get there ten or 15 minutes after previews start. And it's extremely rare for me to run into any noisy people or people looking at their phones.

I only wish that the AMC theaters near me with the DOlby cinemas did 3D also. They only do 2D. There are a couple of Regal theaters in the area with Dolby Cinemas in 3D that my Brother goes to, but I stick with the AMC theaters since it costs me less with their rewards program. Plus those Regal locations alternate 2D and 3D showings, further limiting when you can see them


----------



## MrEmoto

aaronwt said:


> I'm going to the theater more than I have in years now. Since the theaters near me now do reserve seating for the IMAX and Dolby theaters, I'm able to get there ten or 15 minutes after previews start. And it's extremely rare for me to run into any noisy people or people looking at their phones.
> 
> I only wish that the AMC theaters near me with the DOlby cinemas did 3D also. They only do 2D. There are a couple of Regal theaters in the area with Dolby Cinemas in 3D that my Brother goes to, but I stick with the AMC theaters since it costs me less with their rewards program. Plus those Regal locations alternate 2D and 3D showings, further limiting when you can see them


That's cool. Sounds like you have some nice options in your area.


----------



## puddy77

Just saw this article - IMAX Is Moving Away From 3-D: ‘Consumers Have Shown a Strong Preference’: http://www.thewrap.com/imax-moving-away-3d-consumers-shown-strong-preference/


----------



## SteveCaron

puddy77 said:


> Just saw this article - IMAX Is Moving Away From 3-D: ‘Consumers Have Shown a Strong Preference’: http://www.thewrap.com/imax-moving-away-3d-consumers-shown-strong-preference/


They should blame the movies and not the 3d process. Funny I recall no mention of this when Rogue One came out last Christmas.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

https://www.change.org/p/lg-please-revive-3d-on-a-2018-oled-tv-model


----------



## cakefoo

SteveCaron said:


> They should blame the movies and not the 3d process. Funny I recall no mention of this when Rogue One came out last Christmas.


Well, that's precisely what they're saying via their actions: They're not killing 3D screenings entirely- just being more selective.


----------



## longhornsk57

FYI my beauty and the beast 3D came in yesterday from Amazon UK. Region unlocked plays fine in my US player.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

puddy77 said:


> Just saw this article - IMAX Is Moving Away From 3-D: ‘Consumers Have Shown a Strong Preference’: http://www.thewrap.com/imax-moving-away-3d-consumers-shown-strong-preference/




I have been choosing IMAX 3D over DOlby Vision 2D at the AMC theaters here. But typically if it's just in 2D, I will choose the Dolby Cinema over IMAX. So I guess I won't be seeing as many movies in the IMAX theaters if they cut out 3D.

The article says “Blade Runner 2049” will be shown in 2-D exclusively at IMAX theaters when it opens in October. I definitely won't be seeing Blade Runner 2049 in IMAX then.


----------



## Boxozaxu

Record number of 3d movies and yet 8% drop in attendance. 

No one is killing the 3d cash cow because in reality it's a dog business unit. Divestiture, which is what's really happening, is what businesses do every day with products that perform poorly with consumers. There is no evil CEO with a vandetta against 3d.


----------



## dhvsfan

aaronwt said:


> I have been choosing IMAX 3D over DOlby Vision 2D at the AMC theaters here. But typically if it's just in 2D, I will choose the Dolby Cinema over IMAX. So I guess I won't be seeing as many movies in the IMAX theaters if they cut out 3D.
> 
> The article says “Blade Runner 2049” will be shown in 2-D exclusively at IMAX theaters when it opens in October. I definitely won't be seeing Blade Runner 2049 in IMAX then.


My wife and I saw one 2D movie in IMAX and decided it wasn't worth the surcharge of $4/ticket. Seeing things in 3D IMAX is even a greater surcharge. Real 3D is what we like and we do pay the surcharge.

Saddened by another decline in 3D options though. I don't want 3D to disappear


----------



## Actionable Mango

dhvsfan said:


> My wife and I saw one 2D movie in IMAX and decided it wasn't worth the surcharge of $4/ticket.


I'm curious, _real _IMAX or the watered down IMAX that's just a slightly bigger screen in an otherwise normal theater?

There is a *huge *difference in both size and aspect ratio:


----------



## dhvsfan

Actionable Mango said:


> I'm curious, _real _IMAX or the watered down IMAX that's just a slightly bigger screen in an otherwise normal theater?
> 
> There is a *huge *difference in both size and aspect ratio:


As some call it, liemax, the watered down IMAX in normal theater. It wouldn't be worth the $8 total surcharge for IMAX & 3D in the normal theater.

We do go see _real _IMAX , couple of times a year and 3D is great on that.


----------



## Jeff Barthel

My guess is, in a few years when the 8k tv's come out, 3d will return as a glasses-free option and coincide with the UHD 3d release of Avatar 2. By that time they will have worked out details to provide glasses-free 3d in 4k.


----------



## King Vidiot

Thanks for the link to the LG petition, but don't forget this one for Samsung too- it NEEDS a LOT more signatures! 

https://www.change.org/p/please-bri...agship-4k-televisions?source_location=minibar

I knew 3D wouldn't last in theaters as long as they were charging extra for it, but for them to drop 3D shows rather than stop upcharging shows how stupid and greedy that business really is. (I can say that because I worked in it for 10 years, mostly projecting 35mm; I got out before digital took over.) I hardly go to theaters at all anymore because it's just not worth the money and the hassle; theaters should give you an experience better than what you can get at home and they just haven't been doing that. Digital IMAX looks awful, you can REALLY see the pixel grid on that.


----------



## animeking

Actionable Mango said:


> I'm curious, _real _IMAX or the watered down IMAX that's just a slightly bigger screen in an otherwise normal theater?
> 
> There is a *huge *difference in both size and aspect ratio:


How many theatres have a screen as big as Lincoln Center's IMAX?


----------



## tomtastic

Looks like mine is an 82ft screen, (maybe that's the diagonal measurement?). I've been once or twice. I actually left once after buying tickets because the theater was full and only a handful of seats on the sides so got a refund and saw it the next Sunday afternoon in a regular theater and we were the only ones in the theater. Much better experience.


----------



## dhvsfan

King Vidiot said:


> Thanks for the link to the LG petition, but don't forget this one for Samsung too- it NEEDS a LOT more signatures!
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/please-bri...agship-4k-televisions?source_location=minibar


I did my part quite awhile ago, signing both and posting both on my Facebook page.

I'd like to have a Sony petition, since I prefer Sony over LG & Samsung. But I'll support whoever provides 3D.

I suspect that only LG has a chance as Samsung is dropping 3D support in their UHD players.


----------



## Bandyka

animeking said:


> How many theatres have a screen as big as Lincoln Center's IMAX?


The old Sydney IMAX was the largest, that was an experience...


----------



## Worf

dhvsfan said:


> I did my part quite awhile ago, signing both and posting both on my Facebook page.
> 
> I'd like to have a Sony petition, since I prefer Sony over LG & Samsung. But I'll support whoever provides 3D.
> 
> I suspect that only LG has a chance as Samsung is dropping 3D support in their UHD players.


LG is more important as LG panels are what was used in Sony's OLED sets. If this years panels don't support it (probably they made them cheaper - supporting 48/60 Hz rather than 120/240 Hz, thus making 3D impossible)


----------



## King Vidiot

I don't get how these online petitions work and how people even find out about them- it's great that the one for LG has gotten over 12,000 signatures but the one for Samsung still can't even get to 200! That's why I'm afraid to start any myself for the other companies, because they could end up just getting a handful of signatures and cause the companies to say "See? Nobody really wants 3D!" I think LG has gotten the most attention because they did it so much BETTER than anyone else, and then were the last to drop it right when they had it perfected. Meanwhile they did NOTHING to promote it, I only heard through word of mouth how good the 3D was on their 4K screens and couldn't even find any 3D material displayed in the stores. Best I could do was bring in some glasses and look at the 3D test image built into it and a bit of sports in the fake-converted 3D mode; wasn't til I got the TV home that I could see how good it REALLY was.


----------



## Worf

The thing with the petitions is you have to market it. That's how the LG one got so many signatories - it was promoted heavily. The others aren't, so are unlikely to get many signatures.


----------



## marcuslaw

Worf said:


> The thing with the petitions is you have to market it. That's how the LG one got so many signatories - it was promoted heavily. The others aren't, so are unlikely to get many signatures.


It was promoted heavily and successfully IMO by fans of the format. What does that tell you or more importantly LG?


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> It was promoted heavily and successfully IMO by fans of the format. What does that tell you or more importantly LG?


I'm guessing it tells LG that a small portion of people want 3D. Didn't the petition have around 13K signatures? That doesn't sound like very much. Certainly not enough for LG to really care about it. Unfortunately.


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> I'm guessing it tells LG that a small portion of people want 3D. Didn't the petition have around 13K signatures? That doesn't sound like very much. Certainly not enough for LG to really care about it. Unfortunately.


If I'm not mistaken, the idea for the petition was grounded in a prior one to the company which it did respond to. I can't remember what it was for.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

marcuslaw said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the idea for the petition was grounded in a prior one to the company which it did respond to. I can't remember what it was for.


HDR gaming mode fix.


----------



## King Richard

King Vidiot said:


> Thanks for the link to the LG petition, but don't forget this one for Samsung too- it NEEDS a LOT more signatures!
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/please-bri...agship-4k-televisions?source_location=minibar



Thanks for sharing!

Signed!

:smile:

Richard


----------



## tomtastic

James Cameron discussion on 3D. This is from mid 2014, right when 4K TV's were coming out.

On 3D depth: "Don't be conservative, just go nuts! I was probably _too_ conservative on Avatar, and I'm going to open up my depth more on the Avatar sequels."

Discusses how consumer electronics jumped the gun on rushing out 3D to the home and how 3D will have a resurgence once the technology is there for better glasses-free experience.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/deepsea-challenge-3d-story-behind-723595


----------



## aaronwt

I guess I will be getting the Guardians of the Galaxy 3D BD. Since I ordered the UHD BD version that also includes the 2D BD and 3D BD. Since it was only $5 more I figured what the Heck. Plus some BestBuy reward zone dollars helped with lowering the cost.


----------



## film113

aaronwt said:


> I'm guessing it tells LG that a small portion of people want 3D. Didn't the petition have around 13K signatures? That doesn't sound like very much. Certainly not enough for LG to really care about it. Unfortunately.


Actually, that is quite a lot, considering most people don't know of such things. And many more don't even know they stopped making 3D sets for this year. Each signature is actually representative of hundreds of others. (And that doesn't even include any e-mails, snail mail, tweets, and whatever else went towards LG.

To put it another way, if tomorrow they decided to dump Atmos or even UHD discs, there would be nowhere near 13,000 signatures. They might get 1 or 2 thousand,. maybe 3 thousand TOPS. So the amount is significant and still growing. Not to mention that the 2016 65E OLED had its price jacked up by $1000!!! (usually, they _cut_ the price on previous models to clear them out. But, as is usualy the case with anything 3D, the demand outstrips the supply. And that's a pretty big increase.) 

Whether LG gives a damn about customer demand is something we don't know as of yet...and won't until we hear about the 2018 models. In the mean time, they lose sales to the projector market. (Not to mention a lot of good will getting lost.)


----------



## dew42

I bet LG is more interested in the metrics that their TVs are reporting back as to how many times the TV is switched to 3D mode than the petition. Thought I saw something about data gathering in the terms I agreed to without really reading them. Anyone else notice?

Every time you watch a 3D movie you are signing the petition again. Watch more 3D!


----------



## King Vidiot

Yep, I bought an LG TV with 3D when I heard they were dropping it, since I've loved 3D for a long time and have bought just about every 3D Blu-Ray disc that's been out. I normally wouldn't have bought a new TV for a few more years, but the 3D on the Sharp I had wasn't very good and the screen was on the small side, so this'll be the last TV I ever buy if 3D really does go away. It really makes no sense to drop it either as there's so many 3D discs out there that there needs to be SOME way to still watch them, even if no more are ever made. I sent a letter to Tim Alessi, one of the honchos at LG who said "3D is just not a major factor in selecting a TV" and have been sending out more to others in the industry as well. As I said, this is the biggest screw-up in the history of consumer electronics!

Most of how this TV works is pure genius too, it even shows 3D via the web browser if you bring up a video that uses it! I have the thing turned on to send stats to the company as well so hopefully they'll see that I watch a lot of 3D, though I don't really know what they actually do with that info. This is the first LG product I've owned and am very impressed with it, but just that they even CONSIDERED dropping 3D let alone left it out of this year's TVs shows that someone there doesn't really know what they're doing and I won't have as positive an impression of their company if this continues. Also means I won't buy an LG washing machine or anything else they make.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

King Vidiot said:


> Yep, I bought an LG TV with 3D when I heard they were dropping it, since I've loved 3D for a long time and have bought just about every 3D Blu-Ray disc that's been out. I normally wouldn't have bought a new TV for a few more years, but the 3D on the Sharp I had wasn't very good and the screen was on the small side, so this'll be the last TV I ever buy if 3D really does go away. It really makes no sense to drop it either as there's so many 3D discs out there that there needs to be SOME way to still watch them, even if no more are ever made. I sent a letter to Tim Alessi, one of the honchos at LG who said "3D is just not a major factor in selecting a TV" and have been sending out more to others in the industry as well. As I said, this is the biggest screw-up in the history of consumer electronics!
> 
> Most of how this TV works is pure genius too, it even shows 3D via the web browser if you bring up a video that uses it! I have the thing turned on to send stats to the company as well so hopefully they'll see that I watch a lot of 3D, though I don't really know what they actually do with that info. This is the first LG product I've owned and am very impressed with it, but just that they even CONSIDERED dropping 3D let alone left it out of this year's TVs shows that someone there doesn't really know what they're doing and I won't have as positive an impression of their company if this continues. Also means I won't buy an LG washing machine or anything else they make.


I have an Oppo UDP 203 player and a LG OLED65e6p 3D TV.

HDR can give an impressive sense of depth. My movies of the week were the 2005 King Kong HDR extended version and King Kong: Skull Island 3D. In my opinion these two movies were close in terms of showing spatial relations of objects. However, Skull Island is an adequate but not the best example of 3D. It is a fun movie. But it does not utilize pop outs which can make a movie more immersive. Pop Outs are 3D's special sauce.

Viewers are entitled to not care for pop outs and some don't.

It appears to me HDR can replace without glasses some by not all of 3D's magic.


----------



## cky2354

King Vidiot said:


> Yep, I bought an LG TV with 3D when I heard they were dropping it, since I've loved 3D for a long time and have bought just about every 3D Blu-Ray disc that's been out. I normally wouldn't have bought a new TV for a few more years, but the 3D on the Sharp I had wasn't very good and the screen was on the small side, so this'll be the last TV I ever buy if 3D really does go away. It really makes no sense to drop it either as there's so many 3D discs out there that there needs to be SOME way to still watch them, even if no more are ever made. I sent a letter to Tim Alessi, one of the honchos at LG who said "3D is just not a major factor in selecting a TV" and have been sending out more to others in the industry as well. As I said, this is the biggest screw-up in the history of consumer electronics!
> 
> Most of how this TV works is pure genius too, it even shows 3D via the web browser if you bring up a video that uses it! I have the thing turned on to send stats to the company as well so hopefully they'll see that I watch a lot of 3D, though I don't really know what they actually do with that info. This is the first LG product I've owned and am very impressed with it, but just that they even CONSIDERED dropping 3D let alone left it out of this year's TVs shows that someone there doesn't really know what they're doing and I won't have as positive an impression of their company if this continues. Also means I won't buy an LG washing machine or anything else they make.



I was on the same boat. I bought a inferior TV to last me awhile till bigger Oleds with 3D would be in market but upon hearing that all TV manufacturers were going to drop 3D had me spend the money now on the best 3D TV available. I wish I could have gotten the 77" but 65" will do for now and very happy with my set... got the Oled65C6P. On that note, I have two friends who's going to go work for LG in Korea in their marketing department. Not sure exactly what they will be doing but I will definitely bring this topic up with them as soon as they get settled in.


----------



## King Vidiot

Speaking of marketing, LG did absolutely NOTHING to market their latest generation of 3D. I went with an active 3D set a few years ago because of the resolution loss on passive sets, but 4K has basically fixed that problem. The 3D on my new LG is brighter and infinitely better than it was on my previous TV, plus the glasses cost next to nothing (instead of $50 each for the active ones), all of this could've been marketed BIG by LG but I only heard about the improved 3D through word of mouth! It's practically a hidden feature, and then they remove it due to "lack of interest"??? They didn't do much marketing for some of the other features this TV has either (like the web browser), but they're leaving those in the new ones, even though most of those can be done with external equipment but you can't add polarized 3D to a TV that doesn't have it!


----------



## aaronwt

I prefer active glasses.The six pairs I have for my DLP set and Sony UHD TV averaged under $25 each.


----------



## JMCurtis

I knew years ago about passive 3D on a 4k TV, and even before that on a 1080p set. I pay absolutely nothing for my glasses as the ones from Real 3D theater and the like presentations are fully compatible. I must have close to 200 pairs of them since I never return them to the theater. Heck, I guess I kinda paid for them with the upcharge for 3D movies, but that's also why I keep them. I personally think that if theaters would give you a credit if you brought them back [recycled] you'd have more patrons going to 3D movies!! I think it's the upcharge that people don't like to pay for. Let's face it, if a family of 5 were to see a 3D flick, it costs them $15 to $20 more!!


----------



## aaronwt

People not going to 3d theaters have nothibg to do with getting a credit for return .
Most people have no desire to wear the glasses.

I wish the 3D spec was in the UHD BD specs, but unfortunately it isn't. Unfortunately 3D is slowing dying.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> People not going to 3d theaters have nothibg to do with getting a credit for return .
> Most people have no desire to wear the glasses.
> 
> I wish the 3D spec was in the UHD BD specs, but unfortunately it isn't. Unfortunately 3D is slowing dying.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


As 3-D Blu-ray after 3-D Blu-ray continue to get announced and released.


----------



## aaronwt

marcuslaw said:


> As 3-D Blu-ray after 3-D Blu-ray continue to get announced and released.


??? Releases are decreasing. Of course they will continue to announce them. But the number of releases are decreasing and sales are decreasing. And availability is less.

And Imax recently announced they will start forgoing 3D screenings in favor of 2D. Box office revenue is also decreasing for 3D. of course the number of 3D showings are also decreasing which in turn decreases the revenue even more.

I really like 3D. But there is no question that it is waning.

For me, I now typically purchase the UHD BD over the 3D version. But if there is a 3D/UHD version, then I will pick that that up if there isn't a big price difference. Like with the Guardians of the Galaxy 2 UHD BD/3D BD/2D BD version that Best Buy has.


----------



## Supermans

aaronwt said:


> ??? Releases are decreasing. Of course they will continue to announce them. But the number of releases are decreasing and sales are decreasing. And availability is less.
> 
> And Imax recently announced they will start forgoing 3D screenings in favor of 2D. Box office revenue is also decreasing for 3D. of course the number of 3D showings are also decreasing which in turn decreases the revenue even more.
> 
> I really like 3D. But there is no question that it is waning.
> 
> For me, I now typically purchase the UHD BD over the 3D version. But if there is a 3D/UHD version, then I will pick that that up if there isn't a big price difference. Like with the Guardians of the Galaxy 2 UHD BD/3D BD/2D BD version that Best Buy has.


For me, I am now purchasing only the 3D version and forgoing the UHD BD version as it is far more immersive in my opinion. In a way, I am getting tired of all these fluorescent highlights showing up in every scene from Ultra HD. Don't get me wrong, UHD4K looks awesome at times, however a good 3D presentation in 1080p is more immersive without a doubt. 

Avatar for example in UHD Ultra 4K will probably look like a cartoon when it gets released. Life of Pi is the perfect example of this annoying trend of releasing movies. It is great in 3D, and now more colorful in UHD4K but lacking depth. 

Sure, Life of Pi in HDR makes lush Indian green fields a more vibrant shade of green, regal red hues of buildings look more red. In night scenes, candles look brighter, also the luminosity of jellyfish in the ocean look brighter. Flamingos feathers are more flourescent pink. However it is distracting to me and too much color added is taking away from the film because I notice the HDR too much. 

Having seen both versions I still prefer the original 3D version bar none. Also, on my LG TV, I can turn on HDR mode and make the 3D version look very similar colorwise to the 4K UHD version and to me it looks almost as perfect during normal seating distance. Would it be nice to have 4K 3D...sure...But that will have to wait until Avatar 2 or 3 comes out and we get glasses free 8K OLED TV's that can offer passive 4K output.  

Until then, I am glad to still support 3d and will continue to buy as much 3D content as possible. Even if it is only sold in the UK.


----------



## dew42

3D Blu-ray Releases - Feature films

2010 17
2011 67
2012 59
2013 56
2014 58
2015 41
2016 57
2017 30 + TBD

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blu-ray_3D_releases


----------



## marcuslaw

aaronwt said:


> ??? Releases are decreasing. Of course they will continue to announce them. But the number of releases are decreasing and sales are decreasing. And availability is less.


I don't shop B&M so don't see them disappearing off store shelves but from my standpoint, Blu-ray 3-D still enjoys healthy sales online. And as someone posted above, there are 3-D films scheduled for theatrical release for the foreseeable future. The Hollywood suits will determine whether and how many make their way to Blu-ray 3-D.



> And Imax recently announced they will start forgoing 3D screenings in favor of 2D. Box office revenue is also decreasing for 3D. of course the number of 3D showings are also decreasing which in turn decreases the revenue even more.


AFAIK, IMAX's decision was based on self-preservation rather than a reaction to a lack of consumer demand for 3-D. 



> But there is no question that it is waning.


Apparently James Cameron, Lucasfilm, Marvel, the 3-D Film Archive and many, many others, haven't gotten that message. The classics continued to get restored including Gun Fury, Cease Fire, and The Maze to name a few.



> For me, I now typically purchase the UHD BD over the 3D version. But if there is a 3D/UHD version, then I will pick that that up if there isn't a big price difference.


UHD will always be my second choice as long as the option between the two continues to exist to the point that I will import a region locked 3-D BD if necessary.


----------



## aaronwt

dew42 said:


> 3D Blu-ray Releases - Feature films
> 
> 2010 17
> 2011 67
> 2012 59
> 2013 56
> 2014 58
> 2015 41
> 2016 57
> 2017 30 + TBD
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blu-ray_3D_releases


That is worldwide. I'm only concerned with the US. Some of those were not released in 3D in the US. Unfortunately less disc titles are being released in 3D in the US and less theatrical movies. And the ones that are being released theatrically in the US are bringing in less money.

I know in my area, DC area, the theaters have been reducing the 3D showings by alternating between 2D and 3D. And then many of the AMC locations are only showing 3D in Real 3D, which don't look anywhere as good as 3D in an IMAx or Dolby theater(Which is where I prefer to see 3D showings)

Initially I really liked the Sony UHD BD releases because they would include the 3D BD with many of them. But then they had two releases(The last Underworld and Resident Evil movies) where they initially were going to release the 3D BD with it but then changed their minds. So people with pre-orders thinking they were also getting the 3D version got screwed. And now Sony is even having releases without the digital streaming rights. Like with Resident Evil vendetta.


----------



## GordonTV

marcuslaw said:


> It was promoted heavily and successfully IMO by fans of the format. What does that tell you or more importantly LG?


I get at least 50% or even more of those signatures are from hardcore devotees to 3D that signed the petition multiple times using different email addresses and user names.


----------



## marcuslaw

GordonTV said:


> I get at least 50% or even more of those signatures are from hardcore devotees to 3D that signed the petition multiple times using different email addresses and user names.


Fake news.


----------



## GordonTV

marcuslaw said:


> Fake news.


Exactly, as in fake sigs.


----------



## film113

aaronwt said:


> ??? Releases are decreasing. Of course they will continue to announce them. But the number of releases are decreasing and sales are decreasing. And availability is less.


The _only_ reason for decreased sales is decreased availability. When equally available and priced, 3D usually outsells UHD. Industry-driven across the board, bouyed by the usuall BS press releases. For example, this hype job from Home Media Magazine.

_'Ghost in the Shell' Sets First-Week Mark for UHD Blu-ray Sales Share!

According to NPD VideoScan data, the ultra-high-definition version of the film accounted for 11.4% of its total first-week unit sales.

“This is an outstanding performance for 4K UHD", said Steve Siskind, president of worldwide marketing, home media, for Paramount Pictures. "...Feedback from our retail partners, coupled with strong sales like this, underscore the positive outlook for 4K UHD." _

Yep, you read that right...11% is considered a major deal in UHD-Land. You see, when 3D market shares for titles were 20% to 25% to sometimes even over 30%(!), you didn't hear a peep about how well 3D was doing. No, all you heard was "3D is dying!" But 11% for a new title is considered spectacular. (Talk about "fake news"!!!!) And of course, HMM didn't mention that on Amazon (where both versions were equally available and relatively-priced), the 3D disc out-sold the UHD by a strong margin.

If ever there were indicators that the fix is in, and that 3D has to go because it's interfering with sluggish UHD sales, this is just one more.


----------



## marcuslaw

GordonTV said:


> Exactly, as in fake sigs.


Source(s)? Proof?


----------



## GordonTV

Just a hunch, but odds are it's closer to being true than not. Considering how rabid some of the niche 3D crowd is. 

In the end it did nothing though, LG never responded that I've seen and probably never will.


----------



## film113

GordonTV said:


> Just a hunch, but odds are it's closer to being true than not. Considering how rabid some of the niche 3D crowd is.
> 
> In the end it did nothing though, LG never responded that I've seen and probably never will.


In other words, you're making it up. (There are some recently vacated positions in the U.S. administration that might interest you.) And there is nothing more niche than UHD discs and many of those folks would rave over spilt ink.

NEWS FLASH!!! Companies do not usually reply publicly to consumer complaints or wishes. LG will either take it into account and perhaps have a 2018 model or two with 3D or they won't. We won't know until next year (and that includes you).


----------



## marcuslaw

GordonTV said:


> Just a hunch, but odds are it's closer to being true than not. Considering how rabid some of the niche 3D crowd is.
> 
> In the end it did nothing though, LG never responded that I've seen and probably never will.


So your "bet" that approximately 6,350 of the 12,700 signatures for the "LG - Please revive 3D on a 2018 OLED TV mode" petition are fake is based on nothing other than a hunch? That's great work Inspector Clouseau. It's posts like yours that often form the beginning of fake news - a hunch or an unnamed source. Keep up the great work newbie. 

You apparently are ignorant of the fact that a previous petition to LG to fix an HDR input lag problem is credited as having convinced the company to provide a fix.  Here's my sources:

Angry Gamers Start Petition Against LG OLED TVs
LG Promises HDR Gaming Fix 'Soon' For Its OLED And LCD TVs

In the end, if the 3-D petition isn't also successful, at least LG knows there are at least 6,350  consumers who may look elsewhere for their next TV.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

marcuslaw said:


> UHD will always be my second choice as long as the option between the two continues to exist to the point that I will import a region locked 3-D BD if necessary.


Mine too, it would be prefered to have a UHD and 3D combo, but 3D wins my wallet.


----------



## GordonTV

marcuslaw said:


> So your "bet" that approximately 6,350 of the 12,700 signatures for the "LG - Please revive 3D on a 2018 OLED TV mode" petition are fake is based on nothing other than a hunch? That's great work Inspector Clouseau. It's posts like yours that often form the beginning of fake news - a hunch or an unnamed source. Keep up the great work newbie.
> 
> You apparently are ignorant of the fact that a previous petition to LG to fix an HDR input lag problem is credited as having convinced the company to provide a fix.  Here's my sources:
> 
> Angry Gamers Start Petition Against LG OLED TVs
> LG Promises HDR Gaming Fix 'Soon' For Its OLED And LCD TVs
> 
> In the end, if the 3-D petition isn't also successful, at least LG knows there are at least 6,350  consumers who may look elsewhere for their next TV.


Ha! Yep, I'm sure the 6,350 signatures will speak volumes to LG who sells what, millions ++ non-3D TV's?


----------



## GordonTV

film113 said:


> In other words, you're making it up. (There are some recently vacated positions in the U.S. administration that might interest you.) And there is nothing more niche than UHD discs and many of those folks would rave over spilt ink.
> 
> NEWS FLASH!!! Companies do not usually reply publicly to consumer complaints or wishes. LG will either take it into account and perhaps have a 2018 model or two with 3D or they won't. We won't know until next year (and that includes you).


Now now let's not get our panties in too much of a wad here snowflakes. it's just a TV.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

film113 said:


> In other words, you're making it up. (There are some recently vacated positions in the U.S. administration that might interest you.) And there is nothing more niche than UHD discs and many of those folks would rave over spilt ink.
> 
> NEWS FLASH!!! Companies do not usually reply publicly to consumer complaints or wishes. LG will either take it into account and perhaps have a 2018 model or two with 3D or they won't. We won't know until next year (and that includes you).


I would be ok with a couple high end OLED models sporting 3D. 
After all us enthusiasts are willing to splurge on this kind of technology.


----------



## marcuslaw

GordonTV said:


> Ha! Yep, I'm sure the 6,350 signatures will speak volumes to LG who sells what, millions ++ non-3D TV's?


Well, Inspector, it worked with fewer signatures before so why not? Time will tell. Plus, if the company sells so many units, it must be quite profitable. If I'm right, what's the harm in reintroducing 3-D? It was alleged that LG engineering said their decision to drop 3-D in their 2017 TVs was not based on a technical issue. 



GordonTV said:


> Now now let's not get our panties in too much of a wad here snowflakes. it's just a TV.


Snowflake? Don't be misled by my avatar Inspector. I'm a card carrying member of the NRA and awfully far from being anything near to a snowflake. But then again, it wouldn't be the first time one of your posts contained inaccuracies. Oh, and in case you didn't notice, many of us in this forum view televisions as more than something pretty to look at. We're passionate about them. If your non-3-D TV is "just a TV", maybe you should be looking to start fake news elsewhere.


----------



## film113

GordonTV said:


> marcuslaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your "bet" that approximately 6,350 of the 12,700 signatures for the "LG - Please revive 3D on a 2018 OLED TV mode" petition are fake is based on nothing other than a hunch? That's great work Inspector Clouseau. It's posts like yours that often form the beginning of fake news - a hunch or an unnamed source. Keep up the great work newbie.
> 
> You apparently are ignorant of the fact that a previous petition to LG to fix an HDR input lag problem is credited as having convinced the company to provide a fix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my sources:
> 
> Angry Gamers Start Petition Against LG OLED TVs
> LG Promises HDR Gaming Fix 'Soon' For Its OLED And LCD TVs
> 
> In the end, if the 3-D petition isn't also successful, at least LG knows there are at least 6,350
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> consumers who may look elsewhere for their next TV.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha! Yep, I'm sure the 6,350 signatures will speak volumes to LG who sells what, millions ++ non-3D TV's?
Click to expand...

 you sound like the snowflake who lost a presidential election by millions of votes and cried that they were all illegal.

Years back, when companies would receive mail from consumers, they would measure each mail as equal to 1000 people who don't bother to write. Those nearly 13000 are indicative of many more... who have never heard of the site or petitions. And millions more who don't even know yet that they stopped maki,ng 3D televisions. Not to mention all of the emails, snail mails, postings, etc.

The petition sigs are actually a sampling or barometer, just as national polling is. Or as tv program ratings have been

The amount of signatures this petition has received is significant. If HDR was dropped tomorrow, a similar petition would gather maybe 2 or 3 thousand TOPS. 

Even Forbes took notice of the LG petition. Whether LG does anything about the consumer outcry remains to be seen


----------



## King Vidiot

Can anyone name ONE other technology that was dropped by manufacturers that this many people were upset about? Nobody cared when DIVX went under, for example. (Existing DIVX discs are now unplayable, except for the generic message that says you need a player with "The DIVX Feature.") BD-Live was a promising technology but that seems just about dead now, though at least new players still support it so if someone wanted to put a good use to that, they could. (I recently checked out the BD-Live portals on some older Fox discs and saw they hadn't been updated in a LONG time, with stuff "coming to theaters" that's now hit the bargain bins.) There were some who were passionate about plasma TVs and bought those up before they went away, but there's no material out there that was made specifically for plasma screens and won't display at least close to how they should look on other types of TVs. Best you can get from a 3D disc on a non-3D display is the left side being shown, though most will just give you the "You need a 3D display to watch this disc, stupid!" message.

For a long time I thought the HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray format war was the biggest screw-up in the history of consumer electronics, since it was obvious that only one of them would survive in the end, but that honor now goes to 3D, an incredible technology with "rabid" fans being discontinued due to perceived "lack of interest" after being marketed poorly.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

film113 said:


> you sound like the snowflake who lost a presidential election by millions of votes and cried that they were all illegal.
> 
> Years back, when companies would receive mail from consumers, they would measure each mail as equal to 1000 people who don't bother to write. Those nearly 13000 are indicative of many more... who have never heard of the site or petitions. And millions more who don't even know yet that they stopped maki,ng 3D televisions. Not to mention all of the emails, snail mails, postings, etc.
> 
> The petition sigs are actually a sampling or barometer, just as national polling is. Or as tv program ratings have been
> 
> The amount of signatures this petition has received is significant. If HDR was dropped tomorrow, a similar petition would gather maybe 2 or 3 thousand TOPS.
> 
> Even Forbes took notice of the LG petition. Whether LG does anything about the consumer outcry remains to be seen


Are you talking about the 3D petition and that Forbes took notice of it, or are you referencing the HDR LG petition?

To be honest the only reason I was buying LG TVs was because they were the last to offer 3D capable displays. 
I really hope 3D comes back, and I'm thinking it will, but if it doesn't this is the last LG TV I will own, probably gonna look to a SONY or PANNY OLED display for my future purchase.


----------



## film113

I was referring to the 3D petition. I don't believe there are any HDR petitions. I was just using it as a "what if."


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

film113 said:


> I was referring to the 3D petition. I don't believe there are any HDR petitions. I was just using it as a "what if."


There also was a LG HDR petition that was out last year where people took notice of HDR gaming mode being broken. 
CNET and then LG took notice of that one and fixed it with a firmware update.
That is why I was asking.


----------



## film113

Gotcha. Forgot about that one. It was the 3d petition that was mentioned by Forbes. 

While we may not know what LG will do, that doesn't mean that other companies aren't aware of the demand. Some new 4k
PJs don't have 3D, but reportedly one company (either BenQ or Optima...maybe even both) will be adding 3D to those via firmware update this fall. Making your voices heard is never a bad thing.


----------



## Frank714

film113 said:


> PJs don't have 3D, but reportedly one company (either BenQ or Optima...maybe even both) will be adding 3D to those via firmware update this fall. Making your voices heard is never a bad thing.



The latest 4K DLP projectors don't support 3D, but supposedly Vivitek may implement it (DLP-Link) it via a firmware update in its upcoming HK2299.


I'd believe it when I see it. Vivitek wanted to release two 4K DLP projectors (listed in their 2017 catalogue) which now seem to have been abandoned in favor of the 2299.


----------



## Ryan1

King Vidiot said:


> ... but that honor now goes to 3D, an incredible technology with "rabid" fans being discontinued due to perceived "lack of interest" after being marketed poorly.


An "outsider's" perspective: While I enjoy 3D from time to time in the movie theater, at home, on a smaller screen, it just doesn't work as well.

And as long as you need to wear glasses to watch it, 3D will remain a niche. It reappears every decade or so, as a "new, must-have" feature to get the current year's product off the shelves, only to fade away again after a while. The marketing appears to have been fine, since it obviously made some into die-hard fans, but for the rest of the public, it's kind of a curiosity to be experienced only occasionally.


----------



## Supermans

Ryan1 said:


> An "outsider's" perspective: While I enjoy 3D from time to time in the movie theater, at home, on a smaller screen, it just doesn't work as well.
> 
> And as long as you need to wear glasses to watch it, 3D will remain a niche. It reappears every decade or so, as a "new, must-have" feature to get the current year's product off the shelves, only to fade away again after a while. The marketing appears to have been fine, since it obviously made some into die-hard fans, but for the rest of the public, it's kind of a curiosity to be experienced only occasionally.





Ryan1 said:


> An "outsider's" perspective: While I enjoy 3D from time to time in the movie theater, at home, on a smaller screen, it just doesn't work as well.
> 
> And as long as you need to wear glasses to watch it, 3D will remain a niche. It reappears every decade or so, as a "new, must-have" feature to get the current year's product off the shelves, only to fade away again after a while. The marketing appears to have been fine, since it obviously made some into die-hard fans, but for the rest of the public, it's kind of a curiosity to be experienced only occasionally.


It took off with Avatar as the main driving force for selling Panasonic Viera plasma's, especially with the exclusivity they had for a couple years. However the rest of the movie industry instead of going for quality 3D released terrible 3D conversions to movie theaters and then to blu-ray hurting the industry in the process. After Avatar came out, I remember going to see Clash of the Titans in 3D and it was horrible quality. Hades hair was popping out in such a funny way compared to his head I remember cringing when I saw that. Couple that with it being a horrible remake with stale acting made me want to go revisit the original which is by far superior. 

3D still has an active community of buyers, which is still far greater than 4K UHD sales around the word but not in the US, however many in the movie industry have decided to actively kill it off due to its poor US sales. Furthermore TV salesman are coming up with many ways to convince people that the loss of 3D is not a downgrade on the 2017 sets and seem to perpetuate the lie that studios don't make 3D movies anymore and none are coming out in 2017. I had multiple Best Buy floor salesman tell me the same thing when I told them I was looking for a 3D HDTV. It is a sad state of affairs but it is the reality. 

Like you, I do believe it will come back at some point. I have stated that my belief is that Avatar 2 or 3 will usher in the new era of 3D somehow as it did before. Perhaps when the UHD Ultra 4K push dies down and they need something new to attract them to buying expensive premium HDTV's. "Come and buy the new 8K Ultra 3DUHD glasses free 3D set!!" That is when it will come back


----------



## aaronwt

3D might outsell UHD BDs in the rest of the world, but unfortunately in the US, UHD BD sales trounce 3D sales. Of course disc sales here in the US overall are decreasing. The good UHD BD sales numbers are not enough to compensate for the lower DVD, 2K BD, and 3D BD sales. At least according to the Videoscan sales numbers.


----------



## Freddy Ford

3D as a mass market retail format is in a death spiral, as indicated by almost all tv manufacturers dropping support for the format this year. It will be like vinyl, a specialty niche that only a select few will enjoy. It will never disappear because of this, but the failure of it as a home format is still stinging with manufacturers.


----------



## Supermans

Freddy Ford said:


> 3D as a mass market retail format is in a death spiral, as indicated by almost all tv manufacturers dropping support for the format this year. It will be like vinyl, a specialty niche that only a select few will enjoy. It will never disappear because of this, but the failure of it as a home format is still stinging with manufacturers.


If it is still released in 3D format at the movie theaters means it may very well end up just being a niche product that is priced higher than everything else and limited quantities. I would be fine with that as long as it is still profitable at the movie theaters it will ensure it not to die completely. It is a shame IMAX format in 3D is truly dying. Not to mention the large IMAX screens have now become on average smaller sized screens compared to what they all used to be.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Supermans said:


> It took off with Avatar as the main driving force for selling Panasonic Viera plasma's, especially with the exclusivity they had for a couple years. However the rest of the movie industry instead of going for quality 3D released terrible 3D conversions to movie theaters and then to blu-ray hurting the industry in the process. After Avatar came out, I remember going to see Clash of the Titans in 3D and it was horrible quality. Hades hair was popping out in such a funny way compared to his head I remember cringing when I saw that. Couple that with it being a horrible remake with stale acting made me want to go revisit the original which is by far superior.
> 
> 3D still has an active community of buyers, which is still far greater than 4K UHD sales around the word but not in the US, however many in the movie industry have decided to actively kill it off due to its poor US sales. Furthermore TV salesman are coming up with many ways to convince people that the loss of 3D is not a downgrade on the 2017 sets and seem to perpetuate the lie that studios don't make 3D movies anymore and none are coming out in 2017. I had multiple Best Buy floor salesman tell me the same thing when I told them I was looking for a 3D HDTV. It is a sad state of affairs but it is the reality.
> 
> Like you, I do believe it will come back at some point. I have stated that my belief is that Avatar 2 or 3 will usher in the new era of 3D somehow as it did before. Perhaps when the UHD Ultra 4K push dies down and they need something new to attract them to buying expensive premium HDTV's. "Come and buy the new 8K Ultra 3DUHD glasses free 3D set!!" That is when it will come back


You are correct, while it may be a niche market for 3D at the moment, it will be back. 
3D has been around in television and movies in one form or another for the last 100 years. 
Depth is the next step and when you can shed the added gear and have one format, passive vs active 3D it will take flight.

James Cameron wants to introduce glasses free 3D in the theaters and correspond it with the Avatar 2 release. 
He and a company are working on it together developing the tech. 
This means that TV manufacturers will soon follow after the theaters and add the technology to their panels.
Then you will see UHD 3D players as well. 
Capitalism and profit is king here, if they can market it and sell you a new unit, trust me, they will. 
I'm ok with that, glasses free OLED... umm yes please.
My LG E6P is one of the best 3D TV I have owned, the 3D on this is perfect. 
I've owned 3x 3D TVs now and this one takes the crown.
I kind of fell into a 3D TV by accident as well, and I'm glad I did.


----------



## Supermans

Exist_To_Resist said:


> You are correct, while it may be a niche market for 3D at the moment, it will be back.
> 3D has been around in television and movies in one form or another for the last 100 years.
> Depth is the next step and when you can shed the added gear and have one format, passive vs active 3D it will take flight.
> 
> James Cameron wants to introduce glasses free 3D in the theaters and correspond it with the Avatar 2 release.
> He and a company are working on it together developing the tech.
> This means that TV manufacturers will soon follow after the theaters and add the technology to their panels.
> Then you will see UHD 3D players as well.
> Capitalism and profit is king here, if they can market it and sell you a new unit, trust me, they will.
> I'm ok with that, glasses free OLED... umm yes please.
> My LG E6P is one of the best 3D TV I have owned, the 3D on this is perfect.
> I've owned 3x 3D TVs now and this one takes the crown.
> I kind of fell into a 3D TV by accident as well, and I'm glad I did.


Let's hope both of our predictions about James Cameron ushering the revival of 3D at the theaters comes true. Because it won't be too far until that trickles back down to TV manufacturers that want to tie in with that glasses free 3d gold. Until then I am happy with my OLED65G6P and its perfect passive 3D that to me is more pleasing than the unnaturaly bright color pallete that comes with most UHD. Dolby Vision makes peoples faces look bright orange sometimes. If I want to see Oompa Loompa's, I can just put on Charlie and Chocalate factory for Pete's sake. I can't wait until we start seeing a more natural use of the color tones for UHD and DB material. And also I look forward to glasses free 3D Avatar 2 playing at home.


----------



## MrEmoto

Exist_To_Resist said:


> You are correct, while it may be a niche market for 3D at the moment, it will be back.
> 3D has been around in television and movies in one form or another for the last 100 years.
> Depth is the next step and when you can shed the added gear and have one format, passive vs active 3D it will take flight.
> 
> James Cameron wants to introduce glasses free 3D in the theaters and correspond it with the Avatar 2 release.
> He and a company are working on it together developing the tech.
> This means that TV manufacturers will soon follow after the theaters and add the technology to their panels.
> Then you will see UHD 3D players as well.
> Capitalism and profit is king here, if they can market it and sell you a new unit, trust me, they will.
> I'm ok with that, glasses free OLED... umm yes please.
> My LG E6P is one of the best 3D TV I have owned, the 3D on this is perfect.
> I've owned 3x 3D TVs now and this one takes the crown.
> I kind of fell into a 3D TV by accident as well, and I'm glad I did.


I just hope there's backward compatibility so I can still watch my current 3D BR library!


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Supermans said:


> Let's hope both of our predictions about James Cameron ushering the revival of 3D at the theaters comes true. Because it won't be too far until that trickles back down to TV manufacturers that want to tie in with that glasses free 3d gold. Until then I am happy with my OLED65G6P and its perfect passive 3D that to me is more pleasing than the unnaturaly bright color pallete that comes with most UHD. Dolby Vision makes peoples faces look bright orange sometimes. If I want to see Oompa Loompa's, I can just put on Charlie and Chocalate factory for Pete's sake. I can't wait until we start seeing a more natural use of the color tones for UHD and DB material. And also I look forward to glasses free 3D Avatar 2 playing at home.


I agree Dolby Vision is utter trash, 10 bit panels I get, but HDR has so little benefit.
Removing 3D and adding HDR, IMO was two steps back one step forward. 




MrEmoto said:


> I just hope there's backward compatibility so I can still watch my current 3D BR library!


I don't see why not, stereoscopic vision hasn't really changed much over the decades, all that has changed were the display technologies.


----------



## dianebrat

Ryan1 said:


> And as long as you need to wear glasses to watch it, 3D will remain a niche. It reappears every decade or so, as a "new, must-have" feature to get the current year's product off the shelves, only to fade away again after a while. The marketing appears to have been fine, since it obviously made some into die-hard fans, but for the rest of the public, it's kind of a curiosity to be experienced only occasionally.


I'm always mystified by this comment and I wear glasses normally, needing to put on a pair of light weight passive 3D glasses has never bothered me, so I don't understand why it's an issue for folks, but obviously YMMV.


----------



## film113

Ryan1 said:


> An "outsider's" perspective: While I enjoy 3D from time to time in the movie theater, at home, on a smaller screen, it just doesn't work as well.
> The marketing appears to have been fine, since it obviously made some into die-hard fans, but for the rest of the public, it's kind of a curiosity to be experienced only occasionally.



What marketing? Unlike UHD, 3D popularity is in spite of zero marketing. If anything, for the past several years. the industry has been doing everything possible to hide it from consumers.


----------



## film113

Exist_To_Resist said:


> I agree Dolby Vision is utter trash, 10 bit panels I get, but HDR has so little benefit.
> Removing 3D and adding HDR, IMO was two steps back one step forward.



Thank you. Most people agree but on sites like this, one feels like a Luddite if one makes note of the format's numerous shortcomings.


----------



## film113

Supermans said:


> 3D still has an active community of buyers, which is still far greater than 4K UHD sales around the word but not in the US, however many in the movie industry have decided to actively kill it off due to its poor US sales. Furthermore TV salesman are coming up with many ways to convince people that the loss of 3D is not a downgrade on the 2017 sets and seem to perpetuate the lie that studios don't make 3D movies anymore and none are coming out in 2017. I had multiple Best Buy floor salesman tell me the same thing when I told them I was looking for a 3D HDTV. It is a sad state of affairs but it is the reality.
> 
> Like you, I do believe it will come back at some point. I have stated that my belief is that Avatar 2 or 3 will usher in the new era of 3D somehow as it did before. Perhaps when the UHD Ultra 4K push dies down and they need something new to attract them to buying expensive premium HDTV's. "Come and buy the new 8K Ultra 3DUHD glasses free 3D set!!" That is when it will come back



And if it's not as good as with glasses (and right now, it's very not!), I'll pass.


But the "poor US sales" aspect is a false narrative. 3D has sold quite well in the U.S. And, until availability was held back in order to force people to go for UHD discs, it's market share was higher than UHD discs (and it did so without zero hype, promotion, or marketing...all things that UHD discs have in spades.


When a UHD and 3D disc is equally available and priced, 3D outsells it. To reiterate an example, even now, weeks after its release, GHOST IN THE SHELL Amazon is listed as #264 for 3D. For UHD...#333. Of course, overall sales will favor UHD because...you can't go to Best Buy, Target, etc., and buy GitS. And, as someone else noted, even GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY 3D pre-orders are sold-out on-line already. (And that IS due to the 3D more than the UHD in the combo, especially since there will be a stand-alone UHD disc.)


A UHD title that gets an 11% market share is considered big news! But 3D selling 20% - 30% market share...not a word. When THE FORCE AWAKENS 3D disc opened to a 76% (!) market share, what you heard was..."Well, of course, because many people already bought the stand-alone 2D version months earlier so there wasn't a big TFA market by then...making it easier to get that high market share." That is certainly true...but if that collector's release was UHD instead of 3D, there would have been articles everywhere (especially here on AVS and similar sites) screaming about what a MAJOR accomplishment that was for UHD and is proof-positive that UHD is a big success. (Heck, they'd be putting out full-page ads in the Bible hyping that, if they could.)


Just saying, don't mistake the industry's concerted and purposeful attempt to kill a format as poor sales. The problem really is...3D sales take away from UHD sales. (I'm sure you've noticed that the vast majority who have the capability for both formats always opt for 3D over UHD if they have to choose one or the other. The industry knows this as well...that's why WONDER WOMAN 3D has no Atmos or even 7.1. That's why trade ads for retailers make no mention of the 3D release for the new TRANSFORMERS (which was actually SHOT with 3D IMAX cameras! Michael Bay said he wanted to keep 3D alive but I guess the industry didn't get that memo.). Some retailers are just not going to order or carry titles that they think don't exist. I know my local Target said that they had no idea that there was a KING ARTHUR or BOSS BABY. It's not that they want to lose sales, they just want those sales to be applied to what they are pushing now.


In the meantime, high-demand 3D titles will continue to sell out at retail outlets wherever they are carried while the UHD versions will be sitting there past Black Friday. (In case anyone was wondering why Best Buy has to have UHD "fire sales" every several weeks.) 


As for overseas sales, we should also remember that some of those sales are from North Americans. If U.S. countries don't want the dollars, we have to give our bucks to foreign agencies. 


Again, the point is that if 3D disc sales poorly, it should be noted that it is the industry creating that in hopes of boosting the struggling UHD format and _not _consumers. If the business gave equal-time to both formats, 3D would trounce UHD sales (as it often has, even with no marketing)...and that is_ not_ what they want.


----------



## film113

dianebrat said:


> I'm always mystified by this comment and I wear glasses normally, needing to put on a pair of light weight passive 3D glasses has never bothered me, so I don't understand why it's an issue for folks, but obviously YMMV.



Even better are the clip-on lenses! The issue is that people can't text, tweet, or wash dishes while wearing 3D glasses or lenses.


----------



## cky2354

Or they can just include the 3D version with the 4K UHD like some of the Sony releases before. I thought that's where Sony was headed till they stopped. I just wish some of these marketing geniuses would see that when it comes to the 4K/3D combo discs or the rare 3D exclusives... things run out of stock and people are price gouging like crazy on ebay because there is so much demand for them. I'm glad to get both Kong:SI and Guardians of Galaxy 2 in this format. Hope Best Buy continues with this stuff... I mean... come one studios.. you have to know that these are selling out right? 

I had to change gears myself as well.. I was getting the 4K UHD version of all new releases and not the 3D when it was released separately but now I'm just getting the 3D version for now because 4K UHD version will become cheaper since they will have surplus of them later down the road and have to clear them out. So.. buy 3D now... get 4K later. Of course if they release it as a combo, then it's no-brainer just to get that even if it is priced a little higher from day one.

But what frustrates me more is that they somehow price some 3D version higher than the 4K UHD version! WTF is up with that... if 3D is the inferior version just like the blu-ray version is, then why not price it accordingly? I haven't bought King Arthur 3D yet because they want $37 for it. I don't know why WB is so quick in trying to kill off 3D... higher prices... lack of Atmos track.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

film113 said:


> When a UHD and 3D disc is equally available and priced, 3D outsells it. To reiterate an example, even now, weeks after its release, GHOST IN THE SHELL Amazon is listed as #264 for 3D. For UHD...#333. Of course, overall sales will favor UHD because...you can't go to Best Buy, Target, etc., and buy GitS. And, as someone else noted, even GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY 3D pre-orders are sold-out on-line already. (And that IS due to the 3D more than the UHD in the combo, especially since there will be a stand-alone UHD disc.)


Ghost in the Shell has horrible 3D, I own both the UHD and the 3D version of the movie and I actually prefer the UHD.
The 3D rendering has terrible convergence issues. 
But that is on the studio, they dropped the ball on the 3D conversion.
Kong Skull Island is also a 3D converted movie, but they did such a stellar job doing it that it looks like it was filmed in 3D.



film113 said:


> A UHD title that gets an 11% market share is considered big news! But 3D selling 20% - 30% market share...not a word. When THE FORCE AWAKENS 3D disc opened to a 76% (!) market share, what you heard was..."Well, of course, because many people already bought the stand-alone 2D version months earlier so there wasn't a big TFA market by then...making it easier to get that high market share." That is certainly true...but if that collector's release was UHD instead of 3D, there would have been articles everywhere (especially here on AVS and similar sites) screaming about what a MAJOR accomplishment that was for UHD and is proof-positive that UHD is a big success. (Heck, they'd be putting out full-page ads in the Bible hyping that, if they could.)


They need to push new technologies, they need more money. 
The only reason I bought a UHD TV is because I wanted it as a monitor and needed 444 chroma for my PC, if it wasn't for that I would still own my 1080P Television.


----------



## Ryan1

Exist_To_Resist said:


> I agree Dolby Vision is utter trash, 10 bit panels I get, but HDR has so little benefit.
> Removing 3D and adding HDR, IMO was two steps back one step forward.
> ...


Hm, I certainly see noticeable benefit from Dolby Vision and HDR10. Not earth-shattering, but the increased depth is noticeable.

I enjoy 3D in the theater occasionally, but even there it's more appropriate for certain content. While it works for something like Avatar or Despicable Me, I find it too weird for adult dramas like The Great Gatsby.



dianebrat said:


> I'm always mystified by this comment and I wear glasses normally, needing to put on a pair of light weight passive 3D glasses has never bothered me, so I don't understand why it's an issue for folks, but obviously YMMV.


I am not sure why it bugs me, but it does (I don't wear glasses). Even if I didn't mind dealing with glasses, things appear a little weird in 3d, at least with current technology.

Also, 3D works less well on a smaller screen, which is anything up to 100", IMO (I can see some benefit from UHD above 70" or so, depending on viewing distance, and such benefit becomes more noticeable as the screen size increases).


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Ryan1 said:


> Hm, I certainly see noticeable benefit from Dolby Vision and HDR10. Not earth-shattering, but the increased depth is noticeable.
> 
> I enjoy 3D in the theater occasionally, but even there it's more appropriate for certain content. While it works for something like Avatar or Despicable Me, I find it too weird for adult dramas like The Great Gatsby.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure why it bugs me, but it does (I don't wear glasses). Even if I didn't mind dealing with glasses, things appear a little weird in 3d, at least with current technology.
> 
> Also, 3D works less well on a smaller screen, which is anything up to 100", IMO (I can see some benefit from UHD above 70" or so, depending on viewing distance, and such benefit becomes more noticeable as the screen size increases).


HDR10 yes, Dolby Vision no. I find that Dolby Vision has inaccurate colours and actually washes/crushes shadows too much. 
HDR10 is subtle and it works, but not enough to warrant a whole new setup just to get it. 

I have a 65" sitting at about 9 ft, 3D looks great. 
As far as UHD resolution on larger screens, yes and no. Depends at your sitting distance.


----------



## film113

Exist_To_Resist said:


> Ghost in the Shell has horrible 3D, I own both the UHD and the 3D version of the movie and I actually prefer the UHD.
> The 3D rendering has terrible convergence issues.
> But that is on the studio, they dropped the ball on the 3D conversion.
> Kong Skull Island is also a 3D converted movie, but they did such a stellar job doing it that it looks like it was filmed in 3d.
> They need to push new technologies, they need more money.


I don't begrudge the promotion of new technology. what I take issue with is the fact that they believe the new technology cannot succeed unless another technology is eliminated. That, to me, would say a lot about the new technology.

As for GitS, I have not yet seen either version so I can't make a judgement. But every online review and comparison I have read has given the edge to the 3D version over the UHD. I have not come across a single comment on any convergence issues. Not saying that you are wrong, only that it is the first I've heard of it. Too bad that AVS no longer reviews 3D movies. Would have been interesting to hear what Mr. Potts' take on it would have been.


----------



## Ryan1

Exist_To_Resist said:


> HDR10 yes, Dolby Vision no. I find that Dolby Vision has inaccurate colours and actually washes/crushes shadows too much.
> HDR10 is subtle and it works, but not enough to warrant a whole new setup just to get it.
> ...


Yes, the effect of HDR is subtle, but it is noticeable. I actually find DV better than HDR10, but it may be a placebo effect, or a matter of original encoding.

Here is what Rtings says about Dolby Vision vs. HDR10:

_"Bit depth describes the amount of graduations of colors in an image. SDR content is typically mastered at 8-bit which allows for 16.7 million colors, in the world of HDR this is changing. For more information, have a look at our article on gradients.

Dolby Vision content allows for up to 12 bit color; HDR10 is only 10 bit. It might not sound like a lot of difference, but you have to remember that the difference of 2 bits here is the difference between 1.07 billion colors and 68.7 billion. This means much smoother graduations between colors and no color banding in skies.

12 bit is simply better than 10. With that said, though, don't think bit depth makes content displayed more colorful. Its importance is when displaying different tones of the same color in a gradient. The higher the bit depth, the smoother it will be.

Winner: Dolby Vision. However, even if Dolby Vision is capable of 12 bit, today's TV panels are a maximum of 10 bit. You would be hard-pressed to see a difference in current TVs. HDR10 will probably be updated to 12 bit by the time a TV that supports it appears."_

http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/hdr10-vs-dolby-vision


----------



## King Richard

Ryan1 said:


> 3D works less well on a smaller screen, which is anything up to 100"



...up to 100"???

When I see comments like this, it's very obvious to me that the person making these kinds of comments do not watch very much (if any) 3D at home.

I have a lowly 65" 3D TV on which I view all my 3D movies at home. The 3D on it looks amazing!

Would I prefer a larger screen? Absolutely! Would the movie be more "immersive"? Of course!

However, the 3D on a 65" TV looks totally fine. Additionally, moving my chair up closer to the screen makes the TV look a lot bigger than 65".

So I call "BS" on this.


----------



## RS3771

King Richard said:


> ...up to 100"???
> 
> When I see comments like this, it's very obvious to me that the person making these kind of comments do not watch very much (if any) 3D at home.
> 
> I have a lowly 65" 3D TV on which I view all my 3D movies at home. The 3D on it looks amazing!
> 
> Would I prefer a larger screen? Absolutely! Would the movie be more "immersive"? Of course!
> 
> However, the 3D on a 65" TV looks totally fine. Additionally, moving my chair up closer to the screen makes the TV look a lot bigger than 65".
> 
> So I call "BS" on this.


My projection display is 14-ft wide and I totally enjoy 3D and skip the UHD version altogether (1080p 3D is waaaaaay better than UHD 2D hands down). I recently watched Lightmond 3D disc - and I'd call it the mother of all 3D discs out there - it is shockingly immersive. The 3D Rarities disc I got has 3D video clips from the 1950s that are way more immersive than today's UHD material. I regularly import many Hong Kong movie 3D blurays that are incredibly good.


----------



## Ryan1

King Richard said:


> ...up to 100"???
> 
> When I see comments like this, it's very obvious to me that the person making these kind of comments do not watch very much (if any) 3D at home.
> 
> I have a lowly 65" 3D TV on which I view all my 3D movies at home. The 3D on it looks amazing!
> 
> Would I prefer a larger screen? Absolutely! Would the movie be more "immersive"? Of course!
> 
> However, the 3D on a 65" TV looks totally fine. Additionally, moving my chair up closer to the screen makes the TV look a lot bigger than 65".
> 
> So I call "BS" on this.
> ...


I am glad that you are enjoying your 3D experience and that moving your "chair up closer to the screen makes the TV look a lot bigger than 65"," however that works.

But for me, it doesn't look right. My (admittedly occasional) 3D viewing has been on a 65" and it feels smaller than it should be. It does not feel as immersive or pleasant to watch as a regular movie on the same size screen.

To each his own, but the market seems to have spoken....


----------



## film113

Ryan1 said:


> I am glad that you are enjoying your 3D experience and that moving your "chair up closer to the screen makes the TV look a lot bigger than 65"," however that works.
> 
> But for me, it doesn't look right. My (admittedly occasional) 3D viewing has been on a 65" and it feels smaller than it should be. It does not feel as immersive or pleasant to watch as a regular movie on the same size screen.
> 
> To each his own, but the market seems to have spoken....


The industry has spoken, not the market. But they're speaking now.


----------



## aaronwt

Exist_To_Resist said:


> HDR10 yes, Dolby Vision no. I find that Dolby Vision has inaccurate colours and actually washes/crushes shadows too much.
> HDR10 is subtle and it works, but not enough to warrant a whole new setup just to get it.
> 
> I have a 65" sitting at about 9 ft, 3D looks great.
> As far as UHD resolution on larger screens, yes and no. Depends at your sitting distance.


For UHD and 3D I sit four feet away from my 65" set. I enjoy that much better than the nine feet away I sit from my 82" 1080P TV.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

film113 said:


> I don't begrudge the promotion of new technology. what I take issue with is the fact that they believe the new technology cannot succeed unless another technology is eliminated. That, to me, would say a lot about the new technology.
> 
> As for GitS, I have not yet seen either version so I can't make a judgement. But every online review and comparison I have read has given the edge to the 3D version over the UHD. I have not come across a single comment on any convergence issues. Not saying that you are wrong, only that it is the first I've heard of it. Too bad that AVS no longer reviews 3D movies. Would have been interesting to hear what Mr. Potts' take on it would have been.


Yes I think the 3D version is better. But that is because they used a 2K DCI for the UHD transfer. If they would have used a 4K DCI then I probably would have liked the UHD version better.

In the theater I saw it in 3D Imax. It looked really good in the theater.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Worf

AVS doesn't review 3d movies because the studios don't send 3d movies for review. They send the UHD version because obviously they want to promote it. But the few UHD combos that include the 3d version, it does get reviewed.


----------



## Ryan1

film113 said:


> The industry has spoken, not the market. But they're speaking now.


"Walter Murch, hailed by legendary film writer Roger Ebert as “the most respected film editor and sound designer in modern cinema,” described 3D movies as “dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating [and] expensive. The question is,” Murch asked in 2011, “how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?” Not long, apparently; the following graph shows that fewer people are opting for 3D when a 2D version of the same film is available. Benjamin Swinburne, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, expects that ratio to fall to a seven-year low in 2014."

http://cloud.highcharts.com/embed/ebigoq

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ollywood-needs-to-forget-about-3D-movies.html


----------



## Postmoderndesign

The LG OLED65e6 solved “dark, small, stroby, headache inducing...

Lucky you if you have a e6 and if we get real lucky LG, or another electronics company) will recognize what it has and produced and manufacture new 3D models.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

aaronwt said:


> Yes I think the 3D version is better. But that is because they used a 2K DCI for the UHD transfer. If they would have used a 4K DCI then I probably would have liked the UHD version better.
> 
> In the theater I saw it in 3D Imax. It looked really good in the theater.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


I honestly have no idea how you can praise the GitS 3D rendering, it is utter trash. 
When I saw it in theater it had major convergence issues and they even transferred those on to the 3D Blu Ray disc.
GitS is one of the worst 3D movies I own in my collection, there is no depth, just layers. 
This is an instance where the actual UHD version of this movie is better than the 3D version, I use the term 3D very loosely in this case.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Postmoderndesign said:


> The LG OLED65e6 solved “dark, small, stroby, headache inducing...
> 
> Lucky you if you have a e6 and if we get real lucky LG, or another electronics company) will recognize what it has and produced and manufacture new 3D models.


Yup have the same TV, the 3D on it is superb, one of the best around.


----------



## Agent 7100

I think 3D should continue but there are not many interesting titles out there.
I have seen Avatar/ GI Joe/ Transformers/ StarTrek in 3D and a few more I can't remember. Transformers/ Avatar the most impressive 3D titles for me while the rest was mediocre. 

Biggest fun spoiler are those tiny/flimsy 3D glasses made for kid heads but for an adult a pain on the nose...

Perhaps one day we have screens that can produce 3D without glasses? would be optimal!


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Agent 7100 said:


> I think 3D should continue but there are not many interesting titles out there.
> I have seen Avatar/ GI Joe/ Transformers/ StarTrek in 3D and a few more I can't remember. Transformers/ Avatar the most impressive 3D titles for me while the rest was mediocre.
> 
> Biggest fun spoiler are those tiny/flimsy 3D glasses made for kid heads but for an adult a pain on the nose...
> 
> Perhaps one day we have screens that can produce 3D without glasses? would be optimal!


The Martian, Kubo, Pacific Rim, and Kong Skull Island has some of the best 3D IMO.


----------



## Agent 7100

Exist_To_Resist said:


> The Martian, Kubo, Pacific Rim, and Kong Skull Island has some of the best 3D IMO.


*The Martian?*
I have the 2-disc set here and watch the 2D version every now n then coz the 7.1 sound is impressive in NeuralX mode. However, I never watched the 3D disc coz I can't imagine what can there be worth watching in 3D, hmm? Perhaps I try it next time..


----------



## aaronwt

Exist_To_Resist said:


> I honestly have no idea how you can praise the GitS 3D rendering, it is utter trash.
> When I saw it in theater it had major convergence issues and they even transferred those on to the 3D Blu Ray disc.
> GitS is one of the worst 3D movies I own in my collection, there is no depth, just layers.
> This is an instance where the actual UHD version of this movie is better than the 3D version, I use the term 3D very loosely in this case.


I didn't see the convergence issues in the IMAX theater I saw it in. It was no more or no less than any other movie I've seen in 3D in the IMAX theater.

And at home I liked it better from the 3D BD on my DLP set and UHD TV than from the UHD BD in UHD on my UHD TV and in 1080P on my DLP set.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

aaronwt said:


> I didn't see the convergence issues in the IMAX theater I saw it in. It was no more or no less than any other movie I've seen in 3D in the IMAX theater.
> 
> And at home I liked it better from the 3D BD on my DLP set and UHD TV than from the UHD BD in UHD on my UHD TV and in 1080P on my DLP set.


Pay attention to the lights in some of the scenes. 
They converge incorrectly, saw this both in theater and at home.
Also the 3D effect is just layers, out side of that there is a lack of depth to the movie.


----------



## aaronwt

Exist_To_Resist said:


> Pay attention to the lights in some of the scenes.
> They converge incorrectly, saw this both in theater and at home.
> Also the 3D effect is just layers, out side of that there is a lack of depth to the movie.


That's what I see with the majority of 3D movies. It's very rare I actually see something that looks like it's coming out of the screen.

EDIT: I see Transformers: The Last Knight is the only real 3D release this year. That wasn't post converted to 3D.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

aaronwt said:


> That's what I see with the majority of 3D movies. It's very rare I actually see something that looks like it's coming out of the screen.
> 
> EDIT: I see Transformers: The Last Knight is the only real 3D release this year. That wasn't post converted to 3D.


Yeah, hence why majority of 3D is so terrible, except for Kong Skull Island, I thought it was filmed in 3D when I saw it. 
They did a really exceptional job in post with the 3D.


----------



## Johndoe4454

Ghost in the Shell does NOT have horrible 3d. Seriously, go watch brass tax. He reviews 4k and 3d movies. Gits is reference quality and I watched it with no issues whatsoever. It's doctor strange level.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

I bought the Guardians Vol 2. case and I keep going to 3D any day over UHD on my JVC520.. UHD looks amazing but the 3D is at another level.. It's crazy amazing!

I think they should just be selling UHD and 3D in one package.. I think for most people that went out and bought a 4k TV is because they want to see a better image so why include a DVD and a blu-ray copy.. If they had a package with just UHD and 3D perhaps the 3D category would had grown more.. You know that most people who have a 4k tv and a 4k player are not going to watch the DVD and the blu-ray copy..


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Johndoe4454 said:


> Ghost in the Shell does NOT have horrible 3d. Seriously, go watch brass tax. He reviews 4k and 3d movies. Gits is reference quality and I watched it with no issues whatsoever. It's doctor strange level.


I would not call that reference in any regard to 3D, this "brass tax" you talk about needs a little education about 3D.
While the 3D isn't as bad as other fils I've seen, it is not 3D. 
The 3D in this movie is just layers, there is no actual depth between these said layers. 
This is one of these cases where the UHD with HDR is actually better than the 3D rendering of the movie and I prefer the non-3D version of this movie.



jorgebetancourt said:


> I bought the Guardians Vol 2. case and I keep going to 3D any day over UHD on my JVC520.. UHD looks amazing but the 3D is at another level.. It's crazy amazing!
> 
> I think they should just be selling UHD and 3D in one package.. I think for most people that went out and bought a 4k TV is because they want to see a better image so why include a DVD and a blu-ray copy.. If they had a package with just UHD and 3D perhaps the 3D category would had grown more.. You know that most people who have a 4k tv and a 4k player are not going to watch the DVD and the blu-ray copy..


Yes I generally do prefer the 3D to the UHD version of any movie out there. 
I have bought several movies in both and it would be nice to have both the UHD, 3D, and regular Blu-Ray in one package.
I do not know of anyone that still watches DVD quality movies, especially if you buy them in the same package.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

Exist_To_Resist said:


> I would not call that reference in any regard to 3D, this "brass tax" you talk about needs a little education about 3D.
> While the 3D isn't as bad as other fils I've seen, it is not 3D.
> The 3D in this movie is just layers, there is no actual depth between these said layers.
> This is one of these cases where the UHD with HDR is actually better than the 3D rendering of the movie and I prefer the non-3D version of this movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I generally do prefer the 3D to the UHD version of any movie out there.
> I have bought several movies in both and it would be nice to have both the UHD, 3D, and regular Blu-Ray in one package.
> I do not know of anyone that still watches DVD quality movies, especially if you buy them in the same package.


Probably 95 percent of the people who buy and UHD movie will not watch the DVD or the blu ray copy but I bet they would consider maybe watching the 3d version one day.. That's how you gain costumers.. 

Besides how much can it actually cost a manufacture to add 3D on their TV displays.. 100 bucks at most? If i was a TV manufacture I would add 3D back into my line and steal all the costumers that can't buy the other brands because they don't have 3D.. Someone should had kept 3D.


----------



## Johndoe4454

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ghost-in-the-Shell-3D-Blu-ray/177667/

Here's another review. The depth is awesome, no layering here. He even mentions how great the depth is. Maybe you got a bad disk, but you're in the minority on people who don't like the 3D on. Gits


----------



## film113

Exist_To_Resist said:


> aaronwt said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I see with the majority of 3D movies. It's very rare I actually see something that looks like it's coming out of the screen.
> 
> EDIT: I see Transformers: The Last Knight is the only real 3D release this year. That wasn't post converted to 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, hence why majority of 3D is so terrible, except for Kong Skull Island, I thought it was filmed in 3D when I saw it.
> They did a really exceptional job in post with the 3D.
Click to expand...

Ok, but imagine if the hack who directed Kong had one shot (Just one!) of Kong reaching out into the audience. The movie is little more than a theme park advertisement anyway, and that scene would probably have ended up being the most talked- about sequence in the movie. Problem is, most "directors" of todays big-budget releases don't have an ounce of visual imagination.


----------



## aaronwt

jorgebetancourt said:


> I bought the Guardians Vol 2. case and I keep going to 3D any day over UHD on my JVC520.. UHD looks amazing but the 3D is at another level.. It's crazy amazing!
> 
> I think they should just be selling UHD and 3D in one package.. I think for most people that went out and bought a 4k TV is because they want to see a better image so why include a DVD and a blu-ray copy.. If they had a package with just UHD and 3D perhaps the 3D category would had grown more.. You know that most people who have a 4k tv and a 4k player are not going to watch the DVD and the blu-ray copy..


I did get the UHD/3D version. It only comes with three discs. The UHD BD, 3D BD and 2D BD. I watched the UHD BD of GOTGV2 last night and it was superb. Reference quality. I plan on watching the 3D version tonight. I saw it in IMax 3D at the theater and enjoyed it. So I'm curious how I'll like it in 3D at home. Especially since the UHD BD seemed like a reference disc for video and audio.

If I remember correctly, most of the Disney 3D releases I've purchased over the last few years did not include a DVD. Just the 3D BD and 2D BD. The last one I purchased was Captain America Civil War. And that one did not have a DVD in it. That was one of the things I liked about the DIsney releases. No DVD. And Since I stopped watching DVDs at the end of 2005, I certainly have no intention of watching them in 2017, twelve yeras later.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

Hahah i like your last sentence.. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## GordonTV

We still watch and enjoy DVD's still to this day, no issues at all and most new discs look great (compared to the early DVD days). And I started watching since the first days that DVD's arrived on store shelves.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Johndoe4454 said:


> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ghost-in-the-Shell-3D-Blu-ray/177667/
> 
> Here's another review. The depth is awesome, no layering here. He even mentions how great the depth is. Maybe you got a bad disk, but you're in the minority on people who don't like the 3D on. Gits


Cool story, clearly that guy has no clue what he's talking about. 
Fortunately Blu-ray.com is not where I go for my movie reviews, also a reason for that.
I actually asked Ralph to do a review of the 3D version of this movie to see if he came to the same conclusion as me.
Unfortunately he never did, I think he is afraid of bad mouthing any product and goes by the philosophy of; if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all.
For the fear of alienating companies from sending him samples and products.

Also I did actual testing on the 3D version of that movie and that is not the case, there is no depth.
I'm not talking about just watching the movie, actually measuring the convergence between layers. 
In order for there to exist depth there will be a variable distance between layers as you move between objects in the fore or background, here it is not the case.
Not only that but the convergence issues that existed in the theater were also present in the 3D Blu-Ray transfer.
I can tell you where the convergence issues exists if you really want to know, however once it has been seen it can not be unseen.

Think what you will but math doesn't lie.
I enjoyed the movie, but the 2D version is much more enjoyable than the 3D version.


----------



## film113

Ryan1 said:


> "Walter Murch, hailed by legendary film writer Roger Ebert as “the most respected film editor and sound designer in modern cinema,” described 3D movies as “dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating [and] expensive. The question is,” Murch asked in 2011, “how long will it take people to realize and get fed up?” Not long, apparently; the following graph shows that fewer people are opting for 3D when a 2D version of the same film is available. Benjamin Swinburne, an analyst at Morgan Stanley, expects that ratio to fall to a seven-year low in 2014."
> 
> http://cloud.highcharts.com/embed/ebigoq
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ollywood-needs-to-forget-about-3D-movies.html


Murch is in his 70s and, aside from Return to Oz, he's a sound guy and NOT a video guy. He's not a even a DP. I'm sure if I asked my grandfather what he preferred, he'd go along with the Murch comments. 

So excuse me if I put more credence behind the words of people such as Ang Lee, James Gunn, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorcese, James Cameron, Kevin Feige...heck, even Michael Bay.

As for your chart, there is no context. Is it theatrical? Disc? TV sales? Regardless, I see that it relates to England and not the U.S. so I won't comment. Over here, lessening TV sales are directly attributable to actions by the industry and manufacturers. However, one can check Amazon U.S. and see that 3D disc titles outsell UHD.

WONDER WOMAN
*3D: * Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #3 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
#2 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure

*UHD:* Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #10 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
#6 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure

TRANSFORMERS
*3D*: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #114 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)

#33 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure

*UHD*: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=177]#177 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
#90 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray

KONG: SKULL ISLAND
*3D* Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #303 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
[URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=66 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure

[B]UHD[/B]: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=482][URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=48]#482 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
#94 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure

SPIDER-MAN
*3D*: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #62 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
[URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#39 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray

*UHD*: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=81]#81 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
#48 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray

The fact that 3D is in more demand than UHD is why companies are trying to kill it by making them as unavailable as they possibly can. 

That's what they are hoping for with GotG V2: With only a token 3D release that is basically unavailable to 99% of consumers (my local BB is same-day soldout), they hope to raise sales of 4K (the fact that the 3D is packaged with the 4K also ensures sales that will ignore 3D and be added to artificially bump sales #s for UHD). That is the game they are playing. Prior to the 4K release, the Marvel movies were available in 3D editions nearly everywhere and were major sellers, selling triple what most UHDs sell. But now with a 4K release, no 3D edition anywhere (after the steelbook sellout). So now...you just watch. There will be a big B.S. hype press release in a couple weeks praising the spectacular sales of GotG as "another" big success for UHD! Just recently, HMM (I think) published a piece celebrating that GHOST IN THE SHELL had an 11% market share in its first week. I couldn't stop laughing! WOW!!! 11%! 3D titles used to sell 25% - 30%! If GHOST 3D was available everywhere the UHD version was, sales would have been double (or more) than 11%! Hmmm...wonder how that's doing on Amazon...

*3D*: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #342 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
[URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#31 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Drama
[URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=73]#73 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure

*UHD*: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=46]#468 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
#46 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Drama
#90 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

film113 said:


> The fact that 3D is in more demand than UHD is why companies are trying to kill it by making them as unavailable as they possibly can.
> 
> That's what they are hoping for with GotG V2: With only a token 3D release that is basically unavailable to 99% of consumers (my local BB is same-day soldout), they hope to raise sales of 4K (the fact that the 3D is packaged with the 4K also ensures sales that will ignore 3D and be added to artificially bump sales #s for UHD). That is the game they are playing. Prior to the 4K release, the Marvel movies were available in 3D editions nearly everywhere and were major sellers, selling triple what most UHDs sell. But now with a 4K release, no 3D edition anywhere (after the steelbook sellout). So now...you just watch. There will be a big B.S. hype press release in a couple weeks praising the spectacular sales of GotG as "another" big success for UHD! Just recently, HMM (I think) published a piece celebrating that GHOST IN THE SHELL had an 11% market share in its first week. I couldn't stop laughing! WOW!!! 11%! 3D titles used to sell 25% - 30%! If GHOST 3D was available everywhere the UHD version was, sales would have been double (or more) than 11%! Hmmm...wonder how that's doing on Amazon...
> 
> *3D*: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #342 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
> [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=3]#31 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Drama
> [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=73]#73 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure
> 
> *UHD*: Amazon Best Sellers Rank: [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=46]#468 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
> #46 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Drama
> #90 in Movies & TV > Blu-ray > Action & Adventure


Disney has a tendency to release 3D version a few months after the initial release. 
Look at Star Wars and Rogue One, the initial releases lacked 3D except for the collectors steel books. 
Big Hero 6 was the same, I picked up the 3D a year after the initial Blu Ray release.
I have faith that GotGv2 will be out on 3D in a few months time. 
If not I will import it from Hon Kong, don't really care who gets my money, as long as I have a copy. 
One of the exceptions to UHD for me was the BB Ghost In the Shell release, I'm a big fan of the franchise so I ended up picking that one up twice.
Albeit the 3D version of that movie is very bad.

UHD is less desirable to most than 3D, and the average consumer with a 1080P TV has no use for it. 
The immersion of 3D movies is something that trumps HDR for me, and most in this forum as well.
Especially when the 3D is done right like on the LG 2016 OLED line.
With UHD and a 65" screen I do not see enough benefit to start buying everything up in UHD again. 
Also with the hardware upscalers in modern UHD TVs, there is very little benefit to moving to this format. 
To be honest if I want something in UHD except the few must see titles I will pirate it, but go out of my way to buy it on 3D.
My 3D blu ray collection has grown quite a bit over the last few months and I'm continuing to buy up more every week.


----------



## Johndoe4454

Exist_To_Resist said:


> Johndoe4454 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ghost-in-the-Shell-3D-Blu-ray/177667/
> 
> Here's another review. The depth is awesome, no layering here. He even mentions how great the depth is. Maybe you got a bad disk, but you're in the minority on people who don't like the 3D on. Gits
> 
> 
> 
> Cool story, clearly that guy has no clue what he's talking about.
> Fortunately Blu-ray.com is not where I go for my movie reviews, also a reason for that.
> I actually asked Ralph to do a review of the 3D version of this movie to see if he came to the same conclusion as me.
> Unfortunately he never did, I think he is afraid of bad mouthing any product and goes by the philosophy of; if you have nothing nice to say don't say it at all.
> For the fear of alienating companies from sending him samples and products.
> 
> Also I did actual testing on the 3D version of that movie and that is not the case, there is no depth.
> I'm not talking about just watching the movie, actually measuring the convergence between layers.
> In order for there to exist depth there will be a variable distance between layers as you move between objects in the fore or background, here it is not the case.
> Not only that but the convergence issues that existed in the theater were also present in the 3D Blu-Ray transfer.
> I can tell you where the convergence issues exists if you really want to know, however once it has been seen it can not be unseen.
> 
> Think what you will but math doesn't lie.
> I enjoyed the movie, but the 2D version is much more enjoyable than the 3D version.
Click to expand...

Sure, go ahead. Not that it matters since nobody but you knows anything about 3D or can tell the difference between good depth and the pop-up book effect. Even someone who's reviewed hundreds of 3D movies. Your opinion is the only one that matters.


----------



## MLXXX

Johndoe4454 said:


> Sure, go ahead. Not that it matters since nobody but you knows anything about 3D or can tell the difference between good depth and the pop-up book effect. Even someone who's reviewed hundreds of 3D movies. Your opinion is the only one that matters.


I don't wish to take sides here, as I haven't seen _Ghost in the Shell_ (2017). However the review of the 3D quality on the following site is not flattering: 
http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1642080/to-3d-or-not-to-3d-buy-the-right-ghost-in-the-shell-ticket

As a broad comment, parts of a 3D movie that are entirely done with CGI can have very impressive 3D, because the computer generated objects are synthesized in full detail in terms of their exact shapes and exact locations, once for a virtual camera positioned for the left eye and again and separately for a virtual camera positioned for the right eye. However the 3D quality in the rest of the movie if it is post-production 3D conversion (as Ghost in the Shell was) is an entirely separate matter. What is achieved in those parts of the movie will depend on the skill and time devoted to the conversion.


----------



## longhornsk57

@zombie10k didn't you see ghost in the shell 3D and 4K?

I feel like a read a post by you about this, I'd like some real feedback since I can choose either version and usually prefer 3D when possible.

Can you give any thoughts here?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## zombie10k

longhornsk57 said:


> @*zombie10k* didn't you see ghost in the shell 3D and 4K?
> 
> I feel like a read a post by you about this, I'd like some real feedback since I can choose either version and usually prefer 3D when possible.
> 
> Can you give any thoughts here?



Hi, yes I thought it was a great 3D presentation and preferred it over the UHD version. I watched it on the JVC RS600 and the Sharp 30K 3D DLP and it looked great on both projectors. 

King Arthur 3D is another high recommend, really enjoyed the 3D on this title. 

Terminator 2 3D in the theater this thursday night and have 2 copies pre-ordered from UK for the 3D BD. Then Star Wars 3D in the winter...

this is a great thread.. longest death ever of a format.. 



edit: plenty of positive feedback from folks on the 3D GITS title

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=284762&page=31


Underworld Blood Wars 3D > UHD as well


----------



## longhornsk57

zombie10k said:


> Hi, yes I thought it was a great 3D presentation and preferred it over the UHD version. I watched it on the JVC RS600 and the Sharp 30K 3D DLP and it looked great on both projectors.
> 
> King Arthur 3D is another high recommend, really enjoyed the 3D on this title.
> 
> Terminator 2 3D in the theater this thursday night and have 2 copies pre-ordered from UK for the 3D BD. Then Star Wars 3D in the winter...
> 
> this is a great thread.. longest death ever of a format..
> 
> 
> 
> edit: plenty of positive feedback from folks on the 3D GITS title
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=284762&page=31


ikr.

Thanks for the input, that is what i was hoping for. I haven't even heard of king arthur, need to check that out!

Will look forward to your review of T2 in 3D, I don't see any reason why I won't be preordering that. I typically watch 3D on my Optoma 1080p with zf2300 glasses and enjoy it a lot, actually really liked Beauty and the Beast 2017 in 3D as well (had to get the movie for the wife).


----------



## Johndoe4454

MLXXX said:


> Johndoe4454 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, go ahead. Not that it matters since nobody but you knows anything about 3D or can tell the difference between good depth and the pop-up book effect. Even someone who's reviewed hundreds of 3D movies. Your opinion is the only one that matters.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't wish to take sides here, as I haven't seen _Ghost in the Shell_ (2017). However the review of the 3D quality on the following site is not flattering:
> http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1642080/to-3d-or-not-to-3d-buy-the-right-ghost-in-the-shell-ticket
> 
> As a broad comment, parts of a 3D movie that are entirely done with CGI can have very impressive 3D, because the computer generated objects are synthesized in full detail in terms of their exact shapes and exact locations, once for a virtual camera positioned for the left eye and again and separately for a virtual camera positioned for the right eye. However the 3D quality in the rest of the movie if it is post-production 3D conversion (as Ghost in the Shell was) is an entirely separate matter. What is achieved in those parts of the movie will depend on the skill and time devoted to the conversion.
Click to expand...

That's not a review of the 3d Blu-ray. That's a review of the theater version. It's pretty obvious gits is a great 3d Blu-ray from people who've seen the Blu-ray version. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=284762&page=31
Post conversation can be great gotg and doctor strange already proved that and recently gotg2.


----------



## longhornsk57

Johndoe4454 said:


> That's not a review of the 3d Blu-ray. That's a review of the theater version. It's pretty obvious gits is a great 3d Blu-ray from people who've seen the Blu-ray version. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=284762&page=31
> Post conversation can be great gotg and doctor strange already proved that and recently gotg2.


I'll vouch for gotg1 and Dr strange. Awesome 3D.

Gotg2 is on order. They can do amazing things post conversion. 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## golfster

film113 said:


> The fact that 3D is in more demand than UHD is why companies are trying to kill it by making them as unavailable as they possibly can.


HUH?? There goes that supply and demand theory.


----------



## MLXXX

Johndoe4454 said:


> That's not a review of the 3d Blu-ray. That's a review of the theater version.


A Blu-ray 3D version is not going to be significantly different from a theatrical Blu-ray version in terms of 3D aspects of depth. To create the 3D master for the Blu-ray you use the master used to create the theatrical version. There might be some tweaking of depth for particular scenes but the two versions will be essentially the same. The only exception I can think of is if a theatrical 3D version were so poor that the original 3D conversion had to be scrapped and a new conversion done. 

It seems that views are polarised on the 3D quality of the movie. Certainly some scenes in the movie have received high praise.


----------



## longhornsk57

MLXXX said:


> A Blu-ray 3D version is not going to be significantly different from a theatrical Blu-ray version in terms of 3D aspects of depth. To create the 3D master for the Blu-ray you use the master used to create the theatrical version. There might be some tweaking of depth for particular scenes but the two versions will be essentially the same. The only exception I can think of is if a theatrical 3D version were so poor that the original 3D conversion had to be scrapped and a new conversion done.
> 
> It seems that views are polarised on the 3D quality of the movie. Certainly some scenes in the movie have received high praise.


Well also sometimes the theater PJs aren't calibrated properly or some other issue and the 3D BR looks better to some people.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## RS3771

golfster said:


> HUH?? There goes that supply and demand theory.


In the last few years, I've gone to Best Buy on release date to see most of the 3D bluray versions gone except one or two (from their stacked shelves) - and I'd actually be surprised people were buying them - but they were. Why only people in the U.S. are more averse towards 3D and not in Europe/Asia defies me. If one thinks about it, a lot of the thrill rides at the Orlando parks have a 3D element in them. Granted, the rides only last for a couple of mins but if 3D was that hated, why would so many rides have a 3D element?


----------



## Worf

Easy, people in North America are exposed to lots if negative press about 3d. Some of the biggest loudmouths complain bitterly about the glasses.

Heck, some people are also so vehemently opposed for some reason, judging by some of the negative comments you see on these forums. It's like 3d killed their mother or their dog or something. You don't see such opposition with 4k, for example. About the worst you hear about is disappointment when something fails to ship with dolby vision.


----------



## Ryan1

film113 said:


> Murch is in his 70s and, aside from Return to Oz, he's a sound guy and NOT a video guy. He's not a even a DP. I'm sure if I asked my grandfather what he preferred, he'd go along with the Murch comments.
> 
> So excuse me if I put more credence behind the words of people such as Ang Lee, James Gunn, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorcese, James Cameron, Kevin Feige...heck, even Michael Bay....


Fine, but you are also ignoring industry decision makers, analysts and market demands. Notice that all of the movies you list are summer blockbusters, driven by special effects, not story or visual artistry. These are movies which work best in the theater, and even there Wonder Woman in 2D made 60% of its tickets sales.

Anyway, I am really not sure what is the argument here. Is it that there is some anti-3D conspiracy by the industry, which is trying to kill the format for home theater for some unknown reason, despite strong market demand (which they are not only ignoring, but actively hiding from the public)?


----------



## Peternz1

In terms of video content I would consider myself a typical non serious consumer. Am I interested in 3D? No. Why? Because I don't see the point and why would I spend money on something pointless?

What about 4K? 4K is different since it is becoming a new standard, backwards and forwards compatible and there is nothing extra that needs to be done or paid for. 

What about 3D without glasses? Sure, but only if a TV with that feature costs the same or close to the price of a TV without it and the content does not come with any extra charge.

Would I make some effort such as paying more, putting on glasses and searching for and paying for special content to get 3D? No way.


----------



## tomtastic

Peternz1 said:


> What about 4K? 4K is different since it is becoming a new standard, backwards and forwards compatible and there is nothing extra that needs to be done or paid for.


The content for 4K costs more. 4K displays have come down in cost but they keep selling you premium displays at premium prices so they cost the same as they did 5 years ago. And 4K cameras, storage is certainly going to cost you more as well as the cameras. So basically 4K isn't something that would interest you either, if you're not willing to pay extra for it.


----------



## aaronwt

I enjoyed the 3D version of GOTGV2 last night. The previous night I watched the UHD version.
But the audio of the 3D version is only DTS-HD MA. The Atmos mix on the UHD BD was much better.
I really liked both the UHD and 3D versions. Each one had their own merits.
One thing with the 3D version they would shift the aspect ratio for the IMAX scenes. While the UHD version kept a constant aspect ratio. So for me, that was a better feature of the 3D version. And then the UHD version had much more detail from the higher resolution. Since a 4K DCI was used.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Johndoe4454 said:


> That's not a review of the 3d Blu-ray. That's a review of the theater version. It's pretty obvious gits is a great 3d Blu-ray from people who've seen the Blu-ray version. http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=284762&page=31
> Post conversation can be great gotg and doctor strange already proved that and recently gotg2.


Because production companies go out of their way to master a movie separately for both theatrical and home releases. LOL
Production companies have a master copy from which both theatrical and home releases are derived from.
Unless they do a remaster later down the road it is very unusual to have a different master copies of the same film.
I really suggest you research how the movie industry operates.



MLXXX said:


> I don't wish to take sides here, as I haven't seen _Ghost in the Shell_ (2017). However the review of the 3D quality on the following site is not flattering:
> http://www.cinemablend.com/news/1642080/to-3d-or-not-to-3d-buy-the-right-ghost-in-the-shell-ticket
> 
> As a broad comment, parts of a 3D movie that are entirely done with CGI can have very impressive 3D, because the computer generated objects are synthesized in full detail in terms of their exact shapes and exact locations, once for a virtual camera positioned for the left eye and again and separately for a virtual camera positioned for the right eye. However the 3D quality in the rest of the movie if it is post-production 3D conversion (as Ghost in the Shell was) is an entirely separate matter. What is achieved in those parts of the movie will depend on the skill and time devoted to the conversion.


Don't try and convince a fan boy. Clearly some guys subjective comment on youtube is proof that he purchased the right disc copy of the movie. 
Yet when someone actually does the leg work to see hot the 3D effect actually stacks up technically... you know he's full of ****.



MLXXX said:


> A Blu-ray 3D version is not going to be significantly different from a theatrical Blu-ray version in terms of 3D aspects of depth. To create the 3D master for the Blu-ray you use the master used to create the theatrical version. There might be some tweaking of depth for particular scenes but the two versions will be essentially the same. The only exception I can think of is if a theatrical 3D version were so poor that the original 3D conversion had to be scrapped and a new conversion done.
> 
> It seems that views are polarised on the 3D quality of the movie. Certainly some scenes in the movie have received high praise.


It's actually not, like I said it was a direct transfer from theater to Blu-Ray version. Issues that existed in the Cinema version are also present in the Blu-Ray version.


----------



## zombie10k

^^ one of the few that didn't think GITS 3D had good 3D... many others disagree and it looked excellent on my 142" 16:9. time to move on. 




aaronwt said:


> And then the UHD version had much more detail from the higher resolution. Since a 4K DCI was used.


This movie only had a 2K DI, it's a shame because it had a lot more potential given it was filmed at 8K.


----------



## film113

Ryan1 said:


> Fine, but you are also ignoring industry decision makers, analysts and market demands. Notice that all of the movies you list are summer blockbusters, driven by special effects, not story or visual artistry. These are movies which work best in the theater, and even there Wonder Woman in 2D made 60% of its tickets sales.


There were certainly many more than 60% of 2D showings, so it should have been higher. Guess the 3D attendance was stronger than expected. And OF COURSE summer blockbusters are big sellers...it's just that one format is more preferred over the other. (And I also disagree that story/visual artistry don't work as well in theaters. Scorcese's SILENCE, for example, is one that I'm glad I saw on the big screen.(Even though few others did...sad state of affairs.) But yes, the kids come out for the big explosions, CGI action figures, etc. etc. over
anything with a strong story and characterizations.

Anyway, If you believe that those "decision makers/analysts" have even a slight clue about marketing or the consumer, then we may have a job in the White House for you. I'll go on record as saying that there is no more incompetent marketing squad than found in the A/V biz...and one can go all the way back to laserdisc (or even S-VHS) to see evidence of that. To these guys, having some people who may not even know what 3D is fill out a questionnaire is about as much research as they are willing to put in.

Q: Would you buy a TV with 3D?
A: What's 3D? Or, you mean like in the theater where you put on glasses and see a dim picture cause it's not projected properly? No, I wouldn't want that.

Q: If you had a choice, would you prefer active or passive glasses?
A: Huh?
Q: One is like wearing a light pair of sunglasses, the other requires that the glasses be plugged in to be charged.
A: No, don't need something else to have to plug into the wall. I'll go with whatever that first thing was.

Q: Have you ever seen 3D at home?
A: No, but I live in the park across the street.

To be honest, the above is more elaborate than the industry would even bother with.

Here's a more real-life example: Some of those who purchased KONG: SKULL ISLAND were invited to take a survey (via an insert, I believe. Don't own the disc myself yet.) And one thing they are asked is in what format they purchased KONG...Blu-Ray or UHD? That's right, no option to answer for those who bought the 3D. One user posted that he sent an e-mail to tech support saying he couldn't complete the survey due to the format he purchased not being an option to answer (even though the insert was in the 3D disc.) One can see how much stronger Amazon sales were for 3D over the UHD version...but Warners either don't care or would rather not know. And it also shows the grammar-school level used to gauge "interest."

Most of the marketing people I've interacted with over the years of have little knowledge of product and even less when it comes to consumers, relying more on inefficient/biased "analytics/diagnostics" than anything real-world. That seems to be more evident than ever when it comes to 3D. And, just as UHD is more about being noticed than accuracy, today's "research" is more about agenda over accuracy. 

And we wonder why the industry gets it so wrong so often!


----------



## Johndoe4454

Gotg2 has really strong 3D. I'd say it's even better than doctor strange and gits. The 4k version is okay, less immersive but the HDR looks nice. The 3d blows it out of the water.


----------



## Supermans

Johndoe4454 said:


> Gotg2 has really strong 3D. I'd say it's even better than doctor strange and gits. The 4k version is okay, less immersive but the HDR looks nice. The 3d blows it out of the water.


Agreed. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 is right up there with Avatar as a top 3D performer. Way more immersive than the UHD 4K without a doubt.


----------



## AudioQuestions

Exist_To_Resist said:


> I would not call that reference in any regard to 3D, this "brass tax" you talk about needs a little education about 3D.
> While the 3D isn't as bad as other fils I've seen, it is not 3D.
> The 3D in this movie is just layers, there is no actual depth between these said layers.
> This is one of these cases where the UHD with HDR is actually better than the 3D rendering of the movie and I prefer the non-3D version of this movie.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I generally do prefer the 3D to the UHD version of any movie out there.
> I have bought several movies in both and it would be nice to have both the UHD, 3D, and regular Blu-Ray in one package.
> I do not know of anyone that still watches DVD quality movies, especially if you buy them in the same package.


I don't watch DVD quality movies, but I appreciate the DVD to stick in the built in player of an SUV for the kids. It's the only possible reason to still have them around in my opinion.


----------



## aaronwt

zombie10k said:


> ^^ one of the few that didn't think GITS 3D had good 3D... many others disagree and it looked excellent on my 142" 16:9. time to move on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This movie only had a 2K DI, it's a shame because it had a lot more potential given it was filmed at 8K.



If it's really only a 2K DI then this release is even more impressive. Since it looked as good or better than other UHD BD releases with a 4K DI. There were tons of detail from the UHD BD. GOTGV2 is easily a reference UHD BD title.


----------



## GordonTV

AudioQuestions said:


> I don't watch DVD quality movies, but *I appreciate the DVD to stick in the built in player of an SUV for the kids. It's the only possible reason to still have them around in my opinion.*


That and MILLIONS of folks still actually watch DVD's on a regular basis in their homes.


----------



## Worf

film113 said:


> Here's a more real-life example: Some of those who purchased KONG: SKULL ISLAND were invited to take a survey (via an insert, I believe. Don't own the disc myself yet.) And one thing they are asked is in what format they purchased KONG...Blu-Ray or UHD? That's right, no option to answer for those who bought the 3D. One user posted that he sent an e-mail to tech support saying he couldn't complete the survey due to the format he purchased not being an option to answer (even though the insert was in the 3D disc.) One can see how much stronger Amazon sales were for 3D over the UHD version...but Warners either don't care or would rather not know. And it also shows the grammar-school level used to gauge "interest."


Funny enough, they must've heard since I also got a survey about Blu-Ray combo packs, and I kept selecting "other". As for why, I kept saying "I buy 3d combo packs" over and over again because they asked about blu-Ray/DVD combos and UHD combos. The next survey I got, they asked about my buying habits for DVDs, blu-rays, UHD and 3d Blu-Ray. 

I'm guessing they didn't believe the number of people who cared about 3d that their surveys was turned useless as everyone selected other and answers that really don't make sense.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Worf said:


> Funny enough, they must've heard since I also got a survey about Blu-Ray combo packs, and I kept selecting "other". As for why, I kept saying "I buy 3d combo packs" over and over again because they asked about blu-Ray/DVD combos and UHD combos. The next survey I got, they asked about my buying habits for DVDs, blu-rays, UHD and 3d Blu-Ray.
> 
> I'm guessing they didn't believe the number of people who cared about 3d that their surveys was turned useless as everyone selected other and answers that really don't make sense.


Didn't know there was a survey in Kong. 
Will have to open up the package and look for that insert now.


----------



## RoadLizard

My OLED has made my interest in 3D skyrocket due to the exceptional performance it delivers. That being said, I worry that eventually there will be NO way to play my 3D library of titles at some point when my 65" OLED either gives out or I feel the need to upgrade. That won't be anytime soon, I hope, but it is a cloud hanging over everyone's 3D picnic so to speak. To me, certain titles are no brainer 3D purchases like good nature documentaries, sci-fi, good action flicks, etc. 

So the dilemma is that I'm scared in a way to buy the 3D versions of these newer films over the 4K version only because down the road I don't want to be stuck with discs I can't play and/or only have the standard bluray version. I'll feel compelled to rebuy them in 4K. Ugh. This is why I'm so mad that there aren't more combo packs offered where you get the 4K, 3D, and bluray version in one disc set. Those are the best of all worlds. 

We shall see how this plays out but it's still nerve racking. I hope and pray LG gets back to 3D at least as an option on their high end sets since their implementation is literally perfect. Damnit!


----------



## cky2354

RoadLizard said:


> My OLED has made my interest in 3D skyrocket due to the exceptional performance it delivers. That being said, I worry that eventually there will be NO way to play my 3D library of titles at some point when my 65" OLED either gives out or I feel the need to upgrade. That won't be anytime soon, I hope, but it is a cloud hanging over everyone's 3D picnic so to speak. To me, certain titles are no brainer 3D purchases like good nature documentaries, sci-fi, good action flicks, etc.
> 
> So the dilemma is that I'm scared in a way to buy the 3D versions of these newer films over the 4K version only because down the road I don't want to be stuck with discs I can't play and/or only have the standard bluray version. I'll feel compelled to rebuy them in 4K. Ugh. This is why I'm so mad that there aren't more combo packs offered where you get the 4K, 3D, and bluray version in one disc set. Those are the best of all worlds.
> 
> We shall see how this plays out but it's still nerve racking. I hope and pray LG gets back to 3D at least as an option on their high end sets since their implementation is literally perfect. Damnit!


My exact sentiment as well. I just don't understand why offer on some titles and not others. If they are selling that well, just keep releasing them as 4K/3D combos. They should know there is definitely high demand for them. I will pay the premium for them as well since they go for $35 or $40 but I don't mind since that's still cheaper than buying separately.


----------



## AlanAbby

Love these 3D is dead threads. I have bought or am buying 11 3D films this year, that's no where close to a dead format for me. My Panasonic Plasma GT50 3D is going strong as is my LG C6 65 so I'll be immersed in 3D for quiet a while.


----------



## RoadLizard

cky2354 said:


> My exact sentiment as well. I just don't understand why offer on some titles and not others. If they are selling that well, just keep releasing them as 4K/3D combos. They should know there is definitely high demand for them. I will pay the premium for them as well since they go for $35 or $40 but I don't mind since that's still cheaper than buying separately.


I'm with ya. Happy to pay extra for the full blown combo sets. So mad these are hard to get or don't exist. Very close to ordering the Wonder Woman combo from Amazon France. Just concerned about region coding even though WB is usually region free. 



AlanAbby said:


> Love these 3D is dead threads. I have bought or am buying 11 3D films this year, that's no where close to a dead format for me. My Panasonic Plasma GT50 3D is going strong as is my LG C6 65 so I'll be immersed in 3D for quiet a while.


Totally agree here but there is still a concern that down the road we will end up at a crossroads where our content won't have a way to be enjoyed if the hardware available doesn't support it. Wish I had the cash laying around to grab a second E6! I dunno. I guess the key is to enjoy what we have and not worry about it. But, part of me does worry. I don't want a huge library of titles that end up being basically drink coasters.


----------



## cockatiel

AlanAbby said:


> My Panasonic Plasma GT50 3D is going strong as is my LG C6 65 so I'll be immersed in 3D for quiet a while.


Since you seem to use both, how big of a difference do you see quality-wise for 3d between your active GT50 and passive C6? I love 3d on my VT60, I could get an E6 but that would mainly/only be a 3d upgrade for me since I don't do HDR and love SDR the way it is on the plasma. Not sure it's worth it.


----------



## JCP1740

Being that many projectors have 3D available, you could always go to projection if TV's quit featuring it.


----------



## AudioQuestions

I have an old 65" sony 4K 3D LED, I just ordered a LG G6 Oled 3d 77" for relatively cheap compared to retail, and I'm considering moving to a projector anyway. 
I was going to sell the old sony, now it'll be stored as my 3D backup. 

As much as I love 3D it's nearly dead since only Transformers is the only one shooting in 3D this year, and it's only 80-90% shot in 3D. A lot of 3D movies are coming out, but they're conversions. 3D isn't going to die on it's own merit, it's dying from the death of a thousand cuts over hollywood's crap production. Eventually a fan of 3D like myself will eventually fatigue of mediocre conversions and prefer 4K. 

Today I still prefer 3D, but if the 3D isn't adding to the story it's just giving me a dim picture with muted colors.


----------



## JMCurtis

We have a small older home and have a 55" LG TV currently in it. It's not HDR as it was bought before that standard was set. I don't have need of another TV just yet myself, and because of the shortness of our living room, I'm not sure if a projector would even be an option. The room is 12' by 20' with a stairway behind where the 3D TV currently sits, and a picture window on the left side. I did put in a 7.1 surround system though.

I'll see if I can find a way to get a pic up here to show if needed.

What do others posting here think?.


----------



## longhornsk57

You can do a PJ for sure with that space. Put a blackout curtain over the window, do a 120" or so screen, sit about 10' back or so...


----------



## zombie10k

AlanAbby said:


> Love these 3D is dead threads. I have bought or am buying 11 3D films this year, that's no where close to a dead format for me. My Panasonic Plasma GT50 3D is going strong as is my LG C6 65 so I'll be immersed in 3D for quiet a while.



3D isn't dead on the bluray forums, there is a huge following here with tons of daily conversation.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/forumdisplay.php?f=134

We just watched GOTG 2 UHD HDR and then again in 3D, the 3D was a much preferred presentation they did an excellent job with this movie in 3D.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

AudioQuestions said:


> I have an old 65" sony 4K 3D LED, I just ordered a LG G6 Oled 3d 77" for relatively cheap compared to retail, and I'm considering moving to a projector anyway.
> I was going to sell the old sony, now it'll be stored as my 3D backup.
> 
> As much as I love 3D it's nearly dead since only Transformers is the only one shooting in 3D this year, and it's only 80-90% shot in 3D. A lot of 3D movies are coming out, but they're conversions. 3D isn't going to die on it's own merit, it's dying from the death of a thousand cuts over hollywood's crap production. Eventually a fan of 3D like myself will eventually fatigue of mediocre conversions and prefer 4K.
> 
> Today I still prefer 3D, but if the 3D isn't adding to the story it's just giving me a dim picture with muted colors.


No it's not, the problem is not many want to film in 3D only do 3D in post. 
Which isn't always bad, and KONG Skull Island is proof of that.


----------



## danlshane

JCP1740 said:


> Being that many projectors have 3D available, you could always go to projection if TV's quit featuring it.


Projectors are not always practical for some homes. I like front projection, but it doesn't suit every room layout.


----------



## aaronwt

danlshane said:


> Projectors are not always practical for some homes. I like front projection, but it doesn't suit every room layout.


Yes. i would have gone to front projection over a decade ago. But even with current projectors that are supposedly quiet. They are too loud for me. Since I would have to place it above or slightly behind the seating position. It would drive me crazy if I had to hear that.


----------



## AudioQuestions

Exist_To_Resist said:


> No it's not, the problem is not many want to film in 3D only do 3D in post.
> Which isn't always bad, and KONG Skull Island is proof of that.


So where am I wrong?


----------



## film113

AudioQuestions said:


> So where am I wrong?


Personally, I'd say " if the 3D isn't adding to the story it's just giving me a "_dim picture with muted colors_."

Might want to check those settings. Kong was quite brilliant. And if GotG 2 got any brighter...well, I'd like to keep my eye sockets. (And yes, I've seen the UHD version...looked too fluorescent for my tastes but I know others enjoy that alteration. )


----------



## AudioQuestions

film113 said:


> Personally, I'd say " if the 3D isn't adding to the story it's just giving me a "_dim picture with muted colors_."
> 
> Might want to check those settings. Kong was quite brilliant. And if GotG 2 got any brighter...well, I'd like to keep my eye sockets. (And yes, I've seen the UHD version...looked too fluorescent for my tastes but I know others enjoy that alteration. )


Which setting shall I check into? (not being sarcastic, I'll need to check)
When I take the glasses off I instantly notice a brighter more colorful yet out of focus picture. 
I bought guardians of the galaxy to compare in 3D against 4K, and Avatar 3D to purchase a projector. I'm not going to say GOTG2 was bad in 3d, it's just brighter, more colorful, and easier to focus (even if it's minimal). I haven't watched the whole film, but only a couple scenes. I'm saving this movie for later to watch with my son. I'm going to watch it in 3D first, and I may watch it in 4K later on. I did notice it was hard to find scenes before the window (popping out into the living room), but when I took my glasses off all the faces are still in focus. I'm still watching mostly a 2D movie from a 3D disc. I hope I'm proven wrong when I watch in entirety. 

3D glasses need to be more clear, they have a tint to them.


----------



## DavidinCT

zombie10k said:


> 3D isn't dead on the bluray forums, there is a huge following here with tons of daily conversation.
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/forumdisplay.php?f=134
> 
> We just watched GOTG 2 UHD HDR and then again in 3D, the 3D was a much preferred presentation they did an excellent job with this movie in 3D.


Hmm... it's not dead because of a forum of mega fans talk about it all the time? Many things like that. Every mass produced product tends to have a lot of fans, and if you look at where they all hang out, it's the best thing from sliced bread. Crap, go look at Windows Phone fans.... see what I mean ?

Anyway. 3D is not dead by any means but, the market is trending like it will be dead at some point. With newer higher end TVs losing the feature, less and less movies with 3D, the trend is showing that it's fading away. Not dead but, in 10 years, it could be forgotten if this trend keeps going the way it is. The producers will never say it's dead, as if they say that, no one would ever buy anything with the feature in it. Instead they will keep it alive and floating along till it just fades away.. Microsoft does this type of thing all the time.

Some movies that it's done right is nice, too many are a gimmick and that will kill the market.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

AudioQuestions said:


> So where am I wrong?


In several aspects, saying that 3D is dead because studios are not filming in 3D. 
There are plenty great 3D movies that were not shot in 3D. 
3D cameras are not required as there is proof that 3D in post can be just as good as shooting in 3D. 

Also you saying that 3D is giving you muddy dark picture, well having moved to a 3D OLED TV this is a non issue. 
The OLED E6P from LG is the pinnacle of passive 3D technology, it looks amazing, a 1000% improvement over my previous 3D televisions. 
Also with modern LG TVs you can calibrate the input source with several separate ways, 3D, 2D, and HDR these can and so all have individual picture/brightness settings. 
UHD 3D screens are great for 3D as you no longer receive half the resolution as some like to think.
So your dark and muddy point is moot.

I suggest getting or calibrating your set. 
Professional calibrators calibrate each signal separately for this purpose. 
They set the glasses in front of the calibration unit so they can compensate for your "dark and muddy" picture as you put it.


----------



## AudioQuestions

While calibrating the unit with 3D glasses may just solve the trick, it's a bit extreme for a casual user. Most of the time I'm not watching 3D. 

No matter what, 3D glasses are tinted. It's not quite as bad as wearing sunglasses at night but it's enough to rob you from some color and brightness, unless of course I hire a guy to come to my house and calibrate my TV to my pair of passive glasses. My old Sony 4K upsamples too so I don't notice a problem in resolution.


----------



## AudioQuestions

Exist_To_Resist said:


> In several aspects, saying that 3D is dead because studios are not filming in 3D.
> There are plenty great 3D movies that were not shot in 3D.
> 3D cameras are not required as there is proof that 3D in post can be just as good as shooting in 3D.


I'm not saying it is dead, I'm saying it's dying. 
Look at the list of 3D films shot natively in 3D in 2017 vs 2016 and prior years. http://realorfake3d.com/ 
I have a hard time remembering but I've seen more poorly implemented 3D than great 3D recently. 
Is GOTG2 a good 3D convert? I've read so. I bought it for my 3D demo in store so I have a glimpse of it. The faces are all still 2D. I rewatched some avatar and the 3D disc still has a lot of 2D scenes. When I have the chance I'll buy a 3D film over the 4K. I'm still a fan of the tech, but I'll quickly concede it can use some help. I bought the 2016 LG G6 just so I can have the best 3D TV on the market before I won't have the chance again, I wasn't even in the market for a TV.


----------



## aaronwt

Exist_To_Resist said:


> In several aspects, saying that 3D is dead because studios are not filming in 3D.
> There are plenty great 3D movies that were not shot in 3D.
> 3D cameras are not required as there is proof that 3D in post can be just as good as shooting in 3D.
> 
> Also you saying that 3D is giving you muddy dark picture, well having moved to a 3D OLED TV this is a non issue.
> The OLED E6P from LG is the pinnacle of passive 3D technology, it looks amazing, a 1000% improvement over my previous 3D televisions.
> Also with modern LG TVs you can calibrate the input source with several separate ways, 3D, 2D, and HDR these can and so all have individual picture/brightness settings.
> UHD 3D screens are great for 3D as you no longer receive half the resolution as some like to think.
> So your dark and muddy point is moot.
> 
> I suggest getting or calibrating your set.
> Professional calibrators calibrate each signal separately for this purpose.
> They set the glasses in front of the calibration unit so they can compensate for your "dark and muddy" picture as you put it.


Amateur calibrators do the same thing. It's nothing new and has been done for many years. Starting in 2001 I got my HDTV professionally calibrated at least one a year(one year I got three professional calibrations on the same HDTV). I typically purchased new equipment right before the calibration. But after ten years or so I finally got the tools to do it myself. So I could also calibrate my other TVs instead of just my primary one. And of course to save some money.

But obviously if a 3D picture is dark and muddy something is seriously not right with the settings. I've never seen that with my passive LG 1080P set. Or my 1080P DLP set with active 3D. Or with active 3D on my UHD TV.


----------



## JMCurtis

On 3D viewing (at least with my LG 3D TV) the image is quite good and bright. I think the TV automatically adjusts the brightness, color, and contrast levels to accommodate the fact that the 3D glasses affect the brightness slightly. Not 100% sure if this actually is the case, but it seems like it is.


----------



## Ruined

RoadLizard said:


> My OLED has made my interest in 3D skyrocket due to the exceptional performance it delivers. That being said, I worry that eventually there will be NO way to play my 3D library of titles at some point when my 65" OLED either gives out or I feel the need to upgrade. That won't be anytime soon, I hope, but it is a cloud hanging over everyone's 3D picnic so to speak. To me, certain titles are no brainer 3D purchases like good nature documentaries, sci-fi, good action flicks, etc.
> 
> So the dilemma is that I'm scared in a way to buy the 3D versions of these newer films over the 4K version only because down the road I don't want to be stuck with discs I can't play and/or only have the standard bluray version. I'll feel compelled to rebuy them in 4K. Ugh. This is why I'm so mad that there aren't more combo packs offered where you get the 4K, 3D, and bluray version in one disc set. Those are the best of all worlds.
> 
> We shall see how this plays out but it's still nerve racking. I hope and pray LG gets back to 3D at least as an option on their high end sets since their implementation is literally perfect. Damnit!


You'll likely always have the option of viewing 3D with a good old DLP projector IMO, so consider that.


----------



## Deja Vu

The four year anniversary is coming up for this thread -- 3D wasn't "about dead" four years ago but is definitely struggling now. Here's hoping it survives long enough for everyone to wake up and realize what a waste of time, expense and how overhyped 4K HDR actually is - properly set up 3D is soooo much better (IMO).


----------



## film113

Exist_To_Resist said:


> AudioQuestions said:
> 
> 
> 
> So where am I wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> In several aspects, saying that 3D is dead because studios are not filming in 3D.
> There are plenty great 3D movies that were not shot in 3D.
> 3D cameras are not required as there is proof that 3D in post can be just as good as shooting in 3D.
> 
> Also you saying that 3D is giving you muddy dark picture, well having moved to a 3D OLED TV this is a non issue.
> The OLED E6P from LG is the pinnacle of passive 3D technology, it looks amazing, a 1000% improvement over my previous 3D televisions.
> Also with modern LG TVs you can calibrate the input source with several separate ways, 3D, 2D, and HDR these can and so all have individual picture/brightness settings.
> UHD 3D screens are great for 3D as you no longer receive half the resolution as some like to think.
> So your dark and muddy point is moot.
> 
> I suggest getting or calibrating your set.
> Professional calibrators calibrate each signal separately for this purpose.
> They set the glasses in front of the calibration unit so they can compensate for your "dark and muddy" picture as you put it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They are encoded at a brighter rate to compensate. So of course it will appear brighter when you remove the glasses, but that doesn't mean that is how it's supposed to appear. The glasses are a "correction" and not a dimming, per se.


----------



## Bandyka

Deja Vu said:


> The four year anniversary is coming up for this thread -- 3D wasn't "about dead" four years ago but is definitely struggling now. Here's hoping it survives long enough for everyone to wake up and realize what a waste of time, expense and how overhyped 4K HDR actually is - properly set up 3D is soooo much better (IMO).


Disagree. Give me 4K HDR 3D now!


----------



## Frank714

Deja Vu said:


> Here's hoping it survives long enough for everyone to wake up and realize what a waste of time, expense and how overhyped 4K HDR actually is - properly set up 3D is soooo much better (IMO).



I was going to keep my Optoma HD 83(00) as a 3D projector anyway, unfortunately I'm missing approx. 10 vertical pixels in the center of the image (the other halfs converge in the center) but my friend will see if he can fix that (a very skilled electrotechnician).


If he can't I'll give 4K a pass and probably sidestep towards a Vivitek H1188. Anyway, there are not yet enough 4K UHD titles I'm interested in, on the other side there is plenty of 3D content I still want to watch and experience.


----------



## scarabaeus

Bandyka said:


> Disagree. Give me 4K HDR 3D now!


I would be OK with HD 3D HDR.

HDR looks great, even in 1080p. I wish the industry would drop this idiotic marketing scheme of tying HDR to UHD, there is no need for that. This would make the proliferation of HDR much easier, since the bandwidth hit is minimal compared to SDR, and we can have 3D with great colors!


----------



## RoadLizard

scarabaeus said:


> I would be OK with HD 3D HDR.
> 
> HDR looks great, even in 1080p. I wish the industry would drop this idiotic marketing scheme of tying HDR to UHD, there is no need for that. This would make the proliferation of HDR much easier, since the bandwidth hit is minimal compared to SDR, and we can have 3D with great colors!


Great point and I agree. ALL content can benefit from expanding the dynamic range of the image. Bring it on. Please!


----------



## tomtastic

So with the Disney purchase of 20th Cent. Fox I think Disney has positioned themselves to make or break 3D home entertainment at least in the US but also rest of world if they wanted since they own such a major amount of entertainment industry. Disney has steadily removed Blu ray 3D from the US release market.

A look at some of the titles that is Disney Studios or Disney owned with no US Blu ray 3D release:

Ratatouille (Pixar Disney Owned, no US release)
Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast (Disney, Vudu only no Blu ray 3D release anywhere)
Big Hero 6 (Disney No US release)
Maleficent (Disney No US release)
Beauty and the Beast (2017) (Disney, no US release)
Cars 3 (Pixar, Disney owned no US release)
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (Marvel, Disney owned, Best Buy exclusive with 4K bundle, overpriced, no regular 3D+blu ray edition)
Star Wars Ep 1-3, conversions are done, no Blu ray 3D release scheduled
Star Wars TFA (Disney, delayed nearly a year before a Blu ray 3D release.

And the biggest movie of all time and now up-coming franchise owned by Disney now: 
Avatar (20th Century Fox, released in late 2009 and didn't get a non-exclusive release until Oct. 2012)
Avatar 2-5 are scheduled to release starting in 2020.

Typically Disney studios were hit and miss on 3D releases but Disney-ownded studios like Pixar and Marvel received US releases, now Cars 3, no US release, Guardians other than an expensive limited BB exclusive, no US release. And with 20th Century Fox which has Avatar, could effect more studios and 3D titles.


----------



## marcuslaw

So what? We keep importing. Defeating region coding is getting as easy as easy as plugging in a new cell phone for the first time. Otherwise, Avatar II-IV will all be released on Blu-ray 3-D guaranteeing releases on the format at least into 2021.


----------



## tomtastic

marcuslaw said:


> So what?


You can _for now_, but I was referring to Disney owning a larger share of the industry and their ability to control 3D releases. If they wanted, they could stop 3D Blu ray releases altogether which would be the next logical step as what's happened with the flat panel market. If you look at 3D tv's they're dead everywhere aside from a few Panasonic models they kept around for 2017 for Europe. Without any 3D flat panel market I wonder how long they'll keep releasing titles? And that could mean no Avatar in 3D since they would distribute it.

I guess that's the big question, how long will they continue to release on a format with no hardware market? Granted the projector market is still going but those aren't big numbers like flat panels.


----------



## unretarded

I think they will keep 3d in the theaters, but if that translates into ready for BR or not recordings I know not .... ?


----------



## dew42

tomtastic said:


> You can _for now_, but I was referring to Disney owning a larger share of the industry and their ability to control 3D releases. If they wanted, they could stop 3D Blu ray releases altogether which would be the next logical step as what's happened with the flat panel market. If you look at 3D tv's they're dead everywhere aside from a few Panasonic models they kept around for 2017 for Europe. Without any 3D flat panel market I wonder how long they'll keep releasing titles? And that could mean no Avatar in 3D since they would distribute it.
> 
> I guess that's the big question, how long will they continue to release on a format with no hardware market? Granted the projector market is still going but those aren't big numbers like flat panels.


The Hong Kong release of Rogue One was done by Intercontinental Video (HK) and there also was a Deltamac (Taiwan) Co. Ltd (TW) release. I wonder what kind of control Disney has on these releases.


----------



## kis3dhc

tomtastic said:


> You can _for now_, but I was referring to Disney owning a larger share of the industry and their ability to control 3D releases. If they wanted, they could stop 3D Blu ray releases altogether which would be the next logical step as what's happened with the flat panel market. If you look at 3D tv's they're dead everywhere aside from a few Panasonic models they kept around for 2017 for Europe. Without any 3D flat panel market I wonder how long they'll keep releasing titles? And that could mean no Avatar in 3D since they would distribute it.
> 
> I guess that's the big question, how long will they continue to release on a format with no hardware market? Granted the projector market is still going but those aren't big numbers like flat panels.


Damn !Damn! Damn!
Every time I see this thread pop up, I'm wondering why there's no forum fans request to change the OP title from "Dead" to "Being revived".(No pun intended)
With so many smart people in AVSForum I believe someone can organise a committee by using the public discussion thread to brain storming some ideas or factual solutions to bring back the choice of entertainment that once we all cheered.
Rather than bring up a recent toxic poll that drums up a lot of conflict opinions that lead to no result instead some insults,though there're few creditable debates. I prefer solutions and actions than wishful polling chats. 
The way I look at Disney acquire Fox movie is a smart move, as Disney is a global conglomerate that needs to expand their Asian market where the 3D and Dolby Atmos just scratch their surface and still has years to flourish there. Imax has increased their partnership with Fox meanwhile Atmos is gaining more footprint with Disney,just by checking these company stocks one may see its strength, contrary to what we see and hear in this continent.
Movie industries have shifted to Asia market as we'd seen more big budgets movie sponsored by Asian corporations and numbers of movies they require their famous actors be part of leading roles so they can sell more tickets. 3D movies are more popular there.
So 3D is going to come back in a better way, just looking at the recent released 3D BD, the PQ has raised the bar substantially.

3D and Dolby Atmos are niche products, period. Problems are consumers being mislead and misinform by the main street big box outlets. Those stores should have certified product demonstrators, so consumers can take their proper gears home and set it up right the first time.


----------



## golfster

tomtastic said:


> I guess that's the big question, how long will they continue to release on a format with no hardware market? Granted the projector market is still going but those aren't big numbers like flat panels.


They will continue to distribute them as long as there is a market for them to make a profit. Same reason flat panels dropped it-not enough demand to warrant the extra cost and consumers not interested enough to pay a premium. Onward to 4k, HDR and whatever comes next to make us buy new equipment.


----------



## tomtastic

kis3dhc said:


> Every time I see this thread pop up, I'm wondering why there's no forum fans request to change the OP title from "Dead" to "Being revived".(


Yeah, maybe it could be changed but I think it's great as it is, because after four years we're still asking the same question: Is 3D About Dead?, and if we're still asking that question that should be enough answer that it's not dead.

Disney, though sort of worries me since they own such a large catalog. They've been anti-3D here in US, it wouldn't surprise me if they ended 3D releases at some point, but no point worrying about it I guess, enjoy it while it lasts.


----------



## aaronwt

Well in the US, for home releases, 3D is almost dead. But there are still a fair amount of 3D releases in the theater.

But in other parts of the world, 3D is thriving. At both the theater and on Disc.


----------



## tribunal88

I think Disney is going to put the last nail in the coffin. Thor Ragnarok is not shipping 3D stateside. Had to order my copy regionless from an outlet in Texas off eBay. I'm hopeful this pipeline will hold up long enough to get the 3rd SW movie and both Infinity Wars in 3D. After that, just try to keep my LG 3D TV up and running as long as I can.


----------



## aaronwt

tribunal88 said:


> I think Disney is going to put the last nail in the coffin. Thor Ragnarok is not shipping 3D stateside. Had to order my copy regionless from an outlet in Texas off eBay. I'm hopeful this pipeline will hold up long enough to get the 3rd SW movie and both Infinity Wars in 3D. After that, just try to keep my LG 3D TV up and running as long as I can.


Wow!! Won't that be the first one not released in 3D from Marvel? That sucks. And truly sounds like the beginning of the end of 3D from Marvel/Disney in the US. 

I like the 3D but I refuse to import any more and pay a lot more than my UHD BDs. My ideal solution would be like what they did with GotG2. Where they had a 3D BD and UHD BD in one set. That will get me to pay more money to Disney.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## unretarded

The money maker and only combo needed other than stand alone disks is........4K-3D-BR.........


----------



## MagnumX

aaronwt said:


> Wow!! Won't that be the first one not released in 3D from Marvel? That sucks. And truly sounds like the beginning of the end of 3D from Marvel/Disney in the US.
> 
> I like the 3D but I refuse to import any more and pay a lot more than my UHD BDs. My ideal solution would be like what they did with GotG2. Where they had a 3D BD and UHD BD in one set. That will get me to pay more money to Disney.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


How are you paying MORE for 3D? Disney doesn't hardly even do 4K the last time I looked. Regardless, I find most 3D BDs from Zavvi.com are $16 US on average. Most US 3D BDs seemed to cost $20-30. I've even bought 2D sets from the UK because sometimes it's a LOT cheaper. I got the Harry Potter box set from Zavvi for like $25 awhile back and it included digital copies (that you could redeem for US via VPN to Flixster UK and tie it back to the US Ultraviolet Account. iTunes even then upgraded them all to 4K to boot). The box set from the UK also has the true title/dialogue for the "Philosopher's Stone". The US box set was $35-55 depending on where you got it and had no digital copies included. I just got T2 3D from Amazon UK for $19 shipped US (think it would have been $17 if I had used my credit card's currency conversion instead). UK imports rock.

I also just got the Captain America 3D box set for $35 from the UK a couple of weeks ago. I think that's less than two single titles in 2D in the US!


----------



## aaronwt

MagnumX said:


> How are you paying MORE for 3D? Disney doesn't hardly even do 4K the last time I looked. Regardless, I find most 3D BDs from Zavvi.com are $16 US on average. Most US 3D BDs seemed to cost $20-30. I've even bought 2D sets from the UK because sometimes it's a LOT cheaper. I got the Harry Potter box set from Zavvi for like $25 awhile back and it included digital copies (that you could redeem for US via VPN to Flixster UK and tie it back to the US Ultraviolet Account. iTunes even then upgraded them all to 4K to boot). The box set from the UK also has the true title/dialogue for the "Philosopher's Stone". The US box set was $35-55 depending on where you got it and had no digital copies included. I just got T2 3D from Amazon UK for $19 shipped US (think it would have been $17 if I had used my credit card's currency conversion instead). UK imports rock.
> 
> I also just got the Captain America 3D box set for $35 from the UK a couple of weeks ago. I think that's less than two single titles in 2D in the US!


Any 3D title I buy now would be a brand new release. Which is going to be more expensive for an import than the 2D version here in the US. I used to buy them years ago and bought many dozens of 3D BD titles from the US and overseas. But not any more. And I'll definitely pick a UHD BD over the 3D version since they are typically less expensive

But for instance the newer 3D BD of Despicable Me 3 is currently around $24 US imported from Amazon UK. Yet the UHD BD version in the US is around $20. Plus I can't use the digital code from the UK version here in the US. WHile I can still use the digital code from the US and get the UHD streaming rights. And stream it in UHD/HDR if I want.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

MagnumX said:


> How are you paying MORE for 3D? Disney doesn't hardly even do 4K the last time I looked. Regardless, I find most 3D BDs from Zavvi.com are $16 US on average. Most US 3D BDs seemed to cost $20-30. I've even bought 2D sets from the UK because sometimes it's a LOT cheaper. I got the Harry Potter box set from Zavvi for like $25 awhile back and it included digital copies (that you could redeem for US via VPN to Flixster UK and tie it back to the US Ultraviolet Account. iTunes even then upgraded them all to 4K to boot). The box set from the UK also has the true title/dialogue for the "Philosopher's Stone". The US box set was $35-55 depending on where you got it and had no digital copies included. I just got T2 3D from Amazon UK for $19 shipped US (think it would have been $17 if I had used my credit card's currency conversion instead). UK imports rock.
> 
> I also just got the Captain America 3D box set for $35 from the UK a couple of weeks ago. I think that's less than two single titles in 2D in the US!


Great find for Zavvi.com thanks.


----------



## aaronwt

I just looked at Zavvi for the 3D BD of Despicable Me 3. They are even more expensive than Amazon UK. It would cost me over $28 (US currency) to get it from Zavvi. While only $24 (US currency) from Amazon UK. While the UHD BD is only $20 here in the US.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

aaronwt said:


> I just looked at Zavvi for the 3D BD of Despicable Me 3. They are even more expensive than Amazon UK. It would cost me over $28 (US currency) to get it from Zavvi. While only $24 (US currency) from Amazon UK. While the UHD BD is only $20 here in the US.


The prices are slowly going up, it's a niche market at the moment.
It's $65 CAD on Amazon.ca, I would wait the prices always drop.


----------



## GordonTV

Well I guess LG has spoken...

https://www.androidcentral.com/lg-tv-announcement-thinq-alpha-9-processor-ces


Not seeing 3D mentioned anywhere in these new models. Seems picture quality and web integration/automation is key now (as in Google Assistant).


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

aaronwt said:


> My ideal solution would be like what they did with GotG2. Where they had a 3D BD and UHD BD in one set.


I bought this one as well. I don't even have a UHD player yet, but I own 2 4K TVs. Eventually I'll use the UHD media so to me it was a good deal.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

GordonTV said:


> Well I guess LG has spoken...
> 
> https://www.androidcentral.com/lg-tv-announcement-thinq-alpha-9-processor-ces
> 
> 
> Not seeing 3D mentioned anywhere in these new models. Seems picture quality and web integration/automation is key now (as in Google Assistant).


As far as I recall, nobody has "mentioned" 3D in any models since the 2016 model year.

I was able to get a 3D projector recently and still have two 3D LEDs but yeah.....it sucks. This isn't news though.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

tomtastic said:


> Disney, though sort of worries me since they own such a large catalog. They've been anti-3D here in US, it wouldn't surprise me if they ended 3D releases at some point, but no point worrying about it I guess, enjoy it while it lasts.


I agree that the latest in process Disney acquisition of basically every other producer of MCU movies means they will essentially control it all when it comes to superhero movies worth watching. (with the exception of Wonder Woman of course!)

If they are still making them on BD for foreign markets though what will happen is that piracy will increase. This seems entirely stupid on their part because they are already producing the content and in 3D. It costs them nothing to ALSO sell it in the states. If they only sold 1000 copies who cares? It doesn't cost them anything extra to do it.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

aaronwt said:


> I just looked at Zavvi for the 3D BD of Despicable Me 3. They are even more expensive than Amazon UK. It would cost me over $28 (US currency) to get it from Zavvi. While only $24 (US currency) from Amazon UK. While the UHD BD is only $20 here in the US.


What's the deal with Zavvi? I have been on the website but couldn't tell if it was legit or not. Is it US based? Do they take the money and run? No idea....


----------



## MagnumX

KaraokeAmerica said:


> What's the deal with Zavvi? I have been on the website but couldn't tell if it was legit or not. Is it US based? Do they take the money and run? No idea....


Zavvi is an online store based in the UK (London I believe). I've purchased probably a dozen 3D discs from them since last summer. None have failed to arrive (sooner or later; got some in 9 days; others took as long as 5 and a half weeks). They also have a US store, but you aren't going to get UK imports from the US store. The UK store will gladly ship anything to the US for $3 per ORDER (yeah, buy a bunch at once for low shipping) and they will convert to US dollars automatically for you as well if you want. Amazon UK has three shipping methods (T2 3D took 2 weeks to get here and arrived one day sooner than they predicted with the cheapest option) and who has the best deal varies. It's not a bad idea to check both. If you use Amazon in the US, your account will work automatically for Amazon UK once you sign in and transfer everything over (save Prime) for that location (and most locations save Japan and one other from what I've read, although not all countries will ship to the US directly). Amazon Germany worked fine as well (and even has English translation available if you don't read German.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

MagnumX said:


> Zavvi is an online store based in the UK (London I believe). I've purchased probably a dozen 3D discs from them since last summer. None have failed to arrive (sooner or later; got some in 9 days; others took as long as 5 and a half weeks). They also have a US store, but you aren't going to get UK imports from the US store. The UK store will gladly ship anything to the US for $3 per ORDER (yeah, buy a bunch at once for low shipping) and they will convert to US dollars automatically for you as well if you want. Amazon UK has three shipping methods (T2 3D took 2 weeks to get here and arrived one day sooner than they predicted with the cheapest option) and who has the best deal varies. It's not a bad idea to check both. If you use Amazon in the US, your account will work automatically for Amazon UK once you sign in and transfer everything over (save Prime) for that location (and most locations save Japan and one other from what I've read, although not all countries will ship to the US directly). Amazon Germany worked fine as well (and even has English translation available if you don't read German.


I didn't know they made a 3D version of T2!!!

Do they have access to different titles than Amazon.uk does or is it just another buying option from the same pool of products?

I have already purchased from them before, but I also have seen Zavvi advertising pre-orders for Thor-Ragnarock. Here in the states Best Buy also does I think, but no 3D version of course.....


----------



## MagnumX

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I didn't know they made a 3D version of T2!!!
> 
> Do they have access to different titles than Amazon.uk does or is it just another buying option from the same pool of products?
> 
> I have already purchased from them before, but I also have seen Zavvi advertising pre-orders for Thor-Ragnarock. Here in the states Best Buy also does I think, but no 3D version of course.....


Yes, they re-released Terminator 2 in 3D back in August at select theaters (not widely advertised and not in that many cities). They've since released the 3D Blu-Ray in the UK and Germany, but Studio Canal decided there's no interest for 3D in the USA and didn't release it here in 3D (just in 1080p 2D and 4K 2D). Unfortunately, the disc is region B (as in UK/Europe/Africa) LOCKED and will not play on US Blu-Ray players. You need a region B or region free player or a way to convert it (I've been attempting the latter, but thus far DVDFab (Mac version) has done nothing but turn out unusable/ruined BD-Rs (despite claiming it can make 3D region free copies) so I think I wasted $19 US on the UK disc I can't play. 

MOST 3D Blu-Rays are not region locked, however and therefore they play directly just fine on any BD player.

As for the disc pool, it's hard to say. Zavvi does get some exclusive releases (particularly steelbooks). I just check both.


----------



## wildbill722

KaraokeAmerica said:


> As far as I recall, nobody has "mentioned" 3D in any models since the 2016 model year.
> 
> I was able to get a 3D projector recently and still have two 3D LEDs but yeah.....it sucks. This isn't news though.


It may not be news to you, but for the 16,000+ hardcore 3d fans who begged lg to bring just one 3d model out, and I suspect that is 9/10s of the 3d audience, and for whom projectors are clearly not a possibility, it is gigantic news. Now you can, without a doubt, be assured that your only access to 3d is blu rays from across the ocean and with a region free player, and only as long as your tv continues to work. Doesn't get much bigger than that. That was effectively for most people the last hope for 3d in the home, for the long run. Whistling past the graveyard.


----------



## wildbill722

tribunal88 said:


> I think Disney is going to put the last nail in the coffin. Thor Ragnarok is not shipping 3D stateside. Had to order my copy regionless from an outlet in Texas off eBay. I'm hopeful this pipeline will hold up long enough to get the 3rd SW movie and both Infinity Wars in 3D. After that, just try to keep my LG 3D TV up and running as long as I can.


This says it all better than my last post with real examples for you.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

wildbill722 said:


> It may not be news to you, but for the 16,000+ hardcore 3d fans who begged lg to bring just one 3d model out, and I suspect that is 9/10s of the 3d audience, and for whom projectors are clearly not a possibility, it is gigantic news. Now you can, without a doubt, be assured that your only access to 3d is blu rays from across the ocean and with a region free player, and only as long as your tv continues to work. Doesn't get much bigger than that. That was effectively for most people the last hope for 3d in the home, for the long run. Whistling past the graveyard.


Well, I didn't mean to insult anyone, but I'm one of those 16K 3D fans. I own close to 100 3D Blu-Rays and with my projector, now three, 3D capable TVs.

I don't know what you mean by "for whom projectors are clearly not a possibility". Of course you need more, minimum room than a flat screen, but a 1080/3D projector, active glasses and screen are cheaper than the last 3D LEDs you could buy in 2016 and unlike LEDs, you can STILL buy 3D projectors new. I can fill my 120" screen from my projector at about 12 feet. Not that you want to sit less than that from a projector, but most people have a room that big where they watch TV, so unless you are really space limited I don't understand that sentiment.

There was an article posted about 3 years ago I read that talked about the "new" 2016 models from each manufacturer. The number of 3D models was noticeably less than in 2015 and in fact in 2016 I think ONLY Samsung and LG made any at all. It also said that no manufacturer had plans to make ANY 3D LEDs after the 2016 model year.

Why anyone, 3 years later, would be surprised that nobody announced a new 3D model this year I don't understand. Did you hear something last year that made you think someone might bring them back?

Like I mentioned I have two 3D-LEDs now and a projector. The oldest one is about 6 years old. I know they don't last forever. I am already planning: I'm monitoring Craigslist, local Facebook marketplace groups etc. I found a 50" 3D for sale recently. When I asked for the model number I found out it was a plasma so no go, but sometimes you can find good deals on used ones. Many people were like me and bought a TV that had 3D even though they weren't looking for 3D. I found a great deal on a Toshiba 5-6 years ago, bought it and tried one 3D movie. I was addicted. That may not happen for everyone though. They just buy a TV that is the best deal that fits their needs and the 3D thing was just a bonus.



wildbill722 said:


> This says it all better than my last post with real examples for you.


I don't even know what this means. Do you think I don't understand that 3D content and TVs are getting harder to find?

My point with all this was that if you like it find a way. Posting in a forum saying you don't like it won't change the fact nobody is making new 3D TVs and I'm quite sure Disney isn't listening to our concerns regarding 3D releases.


----------



## marcuslaw

I can't believe this thread is still going on. I've been buying 3-D Blu-ray title after 3-D Blu-ray title. Granted, I'm importing about a 1/3 of them, but the flow hasn't subsided since the fomat's death was declared months ago.


----------



## unretarded

wildbill722 said:


> , and for whom projectors are clearly not a possibility, .



Projectors are usable in almost every imaginable situation and preferable ...........to mount it, which is not required, takes a couple drywall anchors which even rental contracts allow.


----------



## unretarded

The Japanese market is hot.......almost all new releases at 4K/3D/BR...........the only combo that makes sense, sure there is a premium price to be paid as with any top tier entertainment.


The last top tier movie I went to see a couple years ago was like 18 bucks a ticket, so I a credit of 36 bucks by skipping that and then use 36 bucks balance what a movie costs to own, if a 4k/3d/BR set from over seas is 46 bucks, then I am only paying a 10 buck premium to own it in formats that I would not have seen at a movie theater........much less a double dip at the movie theater or you bought popcorn and a drink or some sweets.


Plus it is hard to recoup any money if you decide to sell used movie tickets.......


I just received Gravity and Warcraft in the mail today.....I think it was approx. 26 bucks total for both and they are both new......


----------



## MagnumX

unretarded said:


> The Japanese market is hot.......almost all new releases at 4K/3D/BR...........the only combo that makes sense, sure there is a premium price to be paid as with any top tier entertainment.


Where do you shop for them at online? I believe Japan is Region A so their discs should all work in US players without needing a region free player. I haven't heard of an Asian release of T2 3D yet, for example (Hong Kong or otherwise) like Valerian is available in where the region doesn't matter for the US. The only scheduled region free release of T2 3D was for India and it's been delayed. Do they think the Japanese don't like Terminator 2?

I've seen very few 4K/3D/BR combos in the US (think I own 3). UK 3D discs are actually cheaper most of the time than US releases. Either way, if the market is so "hot" for 3D movies there, WTF have all the TV manufacturers ditched 3D support save projectors? Or does Japan and other places get TV models we can't buy in the US that still support 3D?


----------



## unretarded

MagnumX said:


> Where do you shop for them at online?



https://www.amazon.co.jp/X-Men-Days...65953&creativeASIN=B01E7BLAXI&m=AN1VRQENFRJN5



Here is a search link, you can set it to English if not so already....

https://www.amazon.co.jp/s/ref=nb_s...タカナ&url=search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=4k+3d


You have to dig all over the internet as they pop up all over the place.




PS....A used region B and a used region C 3d BR player is like 30 or 40 bucks from one of those countries....well more like 10 bucks and 20-25 shipping...LOL Then you need a power converter / Plug. Most stuff will run 110/220........


----------



## aaronwt

unretarded said:


> Projectors are usable in almost every imaginable situation and preferable ...........to mount it, which is not required, takes a couple drywall anchors which even rental contracts allow.


True, but for instance in my main setup, any projector would be too close to where I sit. And there is no projector out there that is quiet enough to put several feet from where I sit. I can hear the fan in a DVR from twenty feet away. I can't stand the sound of a fan near my head. Every projector I've ever looked at was too loud. Which sucks because I have a nice wall where I could put a 150" screen. Of course there are options for projectors that are right under the screen and away from the seating area. But those are much more expensive.

I would have loved to have purchased projectors starting in 2005. It would have saved me money over the buying of all the RP DLP sets I used over the years.


----------



## unretarded

aaronwt said:


> True, but for instance in my main setup, any projector would be too close to where I sit. And there is no projector out there that is quiet enough to put several feet from where I sit. I can hear the fan in a DVR from twenty feet away. I can't stand the sound of a fan near my head. Every projector I've ever looked at was too loud. Which sucks because I have a nice wall where I could put a 150" screen. Of course there are options for projectors that are right under the screen and away from the seating area. But those are much more expensive.
> 
> I would have loved to have purchased projectors starting in 2005. It would have saved me money over the buying of all the RP DLP sets I used over the years.



A hush box is popular for people who are sensitive to fan noise or the PJ location has to be super close to the seats and it can be anything from mild to wild.......from a simple baffle box, to sealing it off from the rest of the house.


You are not supposed to listen to the fan, you need the movie cranked up to reference with 10, 18 inch subs going behind the seat....then you cant hear the fan..... 


You though we were all bass heads, we are just trying to block fan noise.....


----------



## MagnumX

unretarded said:


> A hush box is popular for people who are sensitive to fan noise or the PJ location has to be super close to the seats and it can be anything from mild to wild.......from a simple baffle box, to sealing it off from the rest of the house.


To think of all those years watching 35mm film movies at the cinema. If it was quiet and/or you sat in the back of the theater you could bloody well hear the film projector itself making loads of noise (far worse than a fan). I think you just tuned it out after awhile or it even reminded you that you were at the cinema. I don't recall getting upset about it.

But just think of all the money that could be made if someone could make a nice sampling noise cancellation microphone/speaker setup that attaches to or sits next to the projector and can sample JUST that fan noise. You could keep the fan on HIGH and you wouldn't hardly hear a darn thing. 



> You are not supposed to listen to the fan, you need the movie cranked up to reference with 10, 18 inch subs going behind the seat....then you cant hear the fan.....


Hell, I can't hardly hear the fan on my projector on HIGH for 3D even though it's just behind and above my head during most of the movie due to the sound levels drowning it out in spades most of the time. You also just sort of "tune it out" after awhile, but then I play a bedroom noise maker while I sleep so outside noises don't wake me up, etc. so I'm used to brown noise (reminds me of staying next to Niagara Falls, really). With the projector on ECO with 2D, I can barely hear it even when it's dead quiet and it's only a few feet away.



> You though we were all bass heads, we are just trying to block fan noise.....


My half bathroom off the back of the room is downright SCARY when the sub is doing really loud/low stuff. It's about 10x louder (sounds at least twice as loud) in there and the sub is already flat to 20Hz in the main room. Sometimes I worry about my floors and walls (nails coming loose, etc. and even the window seals for that matter) They really do shake quite a lot.


----------



## aaronwt

MagnumX said:


> To think of all those years watching 35mm film movies at the cinema. If it was quiet and/or you sat in the back of the theater you could bloody well hear the film projector itself making loads of noise (far worse than a fan). I think you just tuned it out after awhile or it even reminded you that you were at the cinema. I don't recall getting upset about it.
> 
> But just think of all the money that could be made if someone could make a nice sampling noise cancellation microphone/speaker setup that attaches to or sits next to the projector and can sample JUST that fan noise. You could keep the fan on HIGH and you wouldn't hardly hear a darn thing.
> 
> Hell, I can't hardly hear the fan on my projector on HIGH for 3D even though it's just behind and above my head during most of the movie due to the sound levels drowning it out in spades most of the time. You also just sort of "tune it out" after awhile, but then I play a bedroom noise maker while I sleep so outside noises don't wake me up, etc. so I'm used to brown noise (reminds me of staying next to Niagara Falls, really). With the projector on ECO with 2D, I can barely hear it even when it's dead quiet and it's only a few feet away.
> 
> My half bathroom off the back of the room is downright SCARY when the sub is doing really loud/low stuff. It's about 10x louder (sounds at least twice as loud) in there and the sub is already flat to 20Hz in the main room. Sometimes I worry about my floors and walls (nails coming loose, etc. and even the window seals for that matter) They really do shake quite a lot.


No I never tuned it out in the theater. I could always hear the projector several rows away from the back of the theater. And this is where my GF always wants to sit. I have never been able to tune it out. To me it's like the sound of running water or an ocean. I can't stand those and fan noise. To me, its close to the same thing as finger nails scraping a chaulk board. 

So back with film, I would always try to see a movie that was in the larger theaters. Those had multiple sections. So we could sit at the back of the middle section and not anywhere near the projector in the back section.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## GordonTV

marcuslaw said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going on. I've been buying 3-D Blu-ray title after 3-D Blu-ray title. Granted, I'm importing about a 1/3 of them, but the flow hasn't subsided since the fomat's death was declared months ago.


How many brick and mortar stores (BB, WM, Target, similar outlets) can the general public walk into and find shelves full of 3D movies to buy today? Last I walked into these store, all they stock is 2D Blu, DVD, and now a decent (still small) selection of 4K. If you're lucky you may find 1 or 2 combo discs that have 3D, but it's rare. So from the standpoint of the general public, which pretty much rules the electronics/media world, they see it like it is, 3D is pretty much dead and gone and they probably won't jump back in if it ever digs itself out of the grave because many I'm sure got burned by the 3D fiasco or see how it couldn't survive this past go round. So now they are locked into 4K and streaming and it's plenty good for them.


----------



## GordonTV

unretarded said:


> *Projectors are usable in almost every imaginable situation* and preferable ...........to mount it, which is not required, takes a couple drywall anchors which even rental contracts allow.


Yeah no, not even near a true statement. There is a LOT more factors to deal with when it comes to projector vs. a 55" LCD in an average everyday house. You have to deal with wiring, layout of room, screen material, WIF, configuration issues, and most important of all, LIGHT issues. You can't just plunk down a projector in a living room in Joe Sixpacks living room and fire it up and say "there ya go!! watch HD and 3D in crystal clear BRIGHT color!" 

Projectors are a true niche product that only select households can set up and set up properly for best image quality. 

You and I know cheaper LCD TV's tossed in an entertainment center are the way of the world. Projectors, not so much.


----------



## longhornsk57

GordonTV said:


> How many brick and mortar stores (BB, WM, Target, similar outlets) can the general public walk into and find shelves full of 3D movies to buy today? Last I walked into these store, all they stock is 2D Blu, DVD, and now a decent (still small) selection of 4K. If you're lucky you may find 1 or 2 combo discs that have 3D, but it's rare. So from the standpoint of the general public, which pretty much rules the electronics/media world, they see it like it is, 3D is pretty much dead and gone and they probably won't jump back in if it ever digs itself out of the grave because many I'm sure got burned by the 3D fiasco or see how it couldn't survive this past go round. So now they are locked into 4K and streaming and it's plenty good for them.


I don't know a single person who buys movies from a B&M anyways.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## GordonTV

longhornsk57 said:


> I don't know a single person who buys movies from a B&M anyways.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


You must live a sheltered life. I see a bunch of folks still grabbing up a bunch of bargain bin movies at their local Targets, BB, WM's. Many here (and similar sites)even scramble to get to Best Buy on release day to snag their prized movies, be it 3D exclusive or other movie. Not to mention BB and Target price match Amazon, who can be cheaper than local. So yes, B&M for movies is still alive and well. Not nearly as booming as it was in the early 2000's but still shelves are fully stocked today.


----------



## MagnumX

marcuslaw said:


> How many brick and mortar stores (BB, WM, Target, similar outlets) can the general public walk into and find shelves full of 3D movies to buy today? Last I walked into these store, all they stock is 2D Blu, DVD, and now a decent (still small) selection of 4K. If you're lucky you may find 1 or 2 combo discs that have 3D, but it's rare. So from the standpoint of the general public, which pretty much rules the electronics/media world, they see it like it is, 3D is pretty much dead and gone and they probably won't jump back in if it ever digs itself out of the grave because many I'm sure got burned by the 3D fiasco or see how it couldn't survive this past go round. So now they are locked into 4K and streaming and it's plenty good for them.


Do many people buy movies from Best Buy? I know you can't find a CD to save your life there anymore their selection is so poor. I gave up and just buy everything online and don't have to trudge out in crowds and crap weather only to find they don't carry it anyway. Best Buy dug their own grave when they decided selection doesn't matter anymore. Just try and find a computer game or application. Even they assume everyone buys it online in digital downloads. Well no deals there anymore since they sell almost nothing so why even go to browse? It's all TVs and phones and small appliances. I used to browse software and CDs all the time. Now there's no 3D movies either so frack them. They can go out of business too. If I want appliances I'll go to a department store not an electronics one.


----------



## longhornsk57

GordonTV said:


> You must live a sheltered life. I see a bunch of folks still grabbing up a bunch of bargain bin movies at their local Targets, BB, WM's. Many here (and similar sites)even scramble to get to Best Buy on release day to snag their prized movies, be it 3D exclusive or other movie. Not to mention BB and Target price match Amazon, who can be cheaper than local. So yes, B&M for movies is still alive and well. Not nearly as booming as it was in the early 2000's but still shelves are fully stocked today.


It's not about sheltered, it's about the age we live in.

Pretty much anything in the "bargain bin" is on Netflix or Prime. You said shelves, which told me new release stuff.

B&M is always more expensive than online prices. Why price match Amazon instead of buying from Amazon? Everyone has Prime or friend with Prime.

Amazon.co.uk often has sales on region free 3D.

When we talk new releases, 3D, and 4K, we're not talking about very poor people here. For release day, preorder is king. It's at your door on release day from the cheapest outlet, either Prime or Target (5% red card) or BB, and they all credit if you find a lower price.

People who buy 3D and 4K are tech savvy consumers who know how to shop online, or maybe it's just a regional thing.

I found the people who buy B&M here don't even know what 4K is.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## GordonTV

Our Best Buys are always busy so they must be offering up enough decent stuff to keep folks coming in. Sure they aren't as booming as in their heyday, but they are my go to place when I need a gadget or other similar items. Heck last week they had a Harmony Smart Control on sale for $75 (almost half off) that you sure couldn't get for that price on Amazon. So I went down and snagged one. No sitting around waiting for UPS, no worrying about porch pirates stealing it. I had it same day and had it set up soon after I got home. 

So yes, B&M still serves a purpose.


----------



## GordonTV

longhornsk57 said:


> It's not about sheltered, it's about the age we live in.
> 
> Pretty much anything in the "bargain bin" is on Netflix or Prime. You said shelves, which told me new release stuff.
> 
> B&M is always more expensive than online prices. *Why price match Amazon instead of buying from Amazon*? Everyone has Prime or friend with Prime.
> 
> Amazon.co.uk often has sales on region free 3D.
> 
> When we talk new releases, 3D, and 4K, we're not talking about very poor people here. For release day, preorder is king. It's at your door on release day from the cheapest outlet, either Prime or Target (5% red card) or BB, and they all credit if you find a lower price.
> 
> People who buy 3D and 4K are tech savvy consumers who know how to shop online, or maybe it's just a regional thing.
> 
> I found the people who buy B&M here don't even know what 4K is.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


That makes zero sense. 

I can walk into a BB today at lunch lets say and walk out with a disc price matched with Amazon and be watching it same day. If you decided you wanted the same movie, you'd be waiting a couple of days to have it show up. Not to mention you'd have to be sure you don't have porch pirates cruising around your neighborhood. 

For me it's a win win to grab it locally. Best price and I have the item same day to use. 

For the record I don't buy movies on disc anymore but if I did I'd still grab it at my local store. Oh and yes I do have Prime.

Also, we have Netflix, Hulu, Amazon streaming, and I can tell you (you should know as well), none of these streaming services have a fraction of the movies you find in the "bargain bins", many of which came out in the last year or two.


----------



## marcuslaw

There's no arguing 3-D is dead at B&M's which like other's commenting before me have said, is of little consequence to disk collectors. 95% the 3-D BD I buy is done online and, because my setup is region free, from all over the world. Otherwise, I think 3-D will see another resurgence and probably sooner than it did after the 1980's era. It won't surprise me one bit if Samsung, LG, and Sony, all announce TV's that support the format just in time for the home video release of Avatar II.


----------



## GordonTV

Anything is possible of course, but like I said the general public, who basically guides the market, spoke loud and clear that they don't care for 3D at home and those who got burned by this last few years 3D fiasco will most likely never jump on that bandwagon again so I don't see manufacturers scrambling to put 3D into TV's other than maybe some expensive high end sets "collectors" will open their wallets for.


----------



## marcuslaw

An LG TV engineer was quoted in a thread for saying that the reason 3-D support was dropped from their TV's had nothing to do with engineering for 4K. If that's true, I don't see why it was dropped in the first place. There's probably not one piece of equipment I own that supports some legacy tech that I never use. So, why not just add it with their 8K sets? If you're not a fan of 3-D, just don't use it.


----------



## GordonTV

I agree it could conceivably be added "easily" (as some say it is) but why add any extra costs when you make thin margins and when you know that 98% of the buyers won't use the tech anyway? It would be like manufacturers saying *"I know my parents still have S-Video or component video equipment, we might as well add those back in since it's easy to do still". *


----------



## aaronwt

longhornsk57 said:


> I don't know a single person who buys movies from a B&M anyways.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


I do a lot since Best buy started price matching Internet retailers a few years ago. I'll order before I leave work and pick up the disc on the way home.

Prior to Best buy price matching I was mostly using the internet. But I also have a 45 day return period with Best buy. So I also have 45 days to price match a lower price too.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## GordonTV

I'm an Elite Plus member of BB and almost all my home gadgets and phones have come from BB. Almost all were price matched with online retailers. Sweet deal. Best of all I don't have to go out of my way to get to one of the 4 BB's we have near us.


----------



## marcuslaw

GordonTV said:


> I agree it could conceivably be added "easily" (as some say it is) but why add any extra costs when you make thin margins and when you know that 98% of the buyers won't use the tech anyway? It would be like manufacturers saying *"I know my parents still have S-Video or component video equipment, we might as well add those back in since it's easy to do still". *


You think the TV manufacturer will eat that cost? No, they add into the price of the TV. It would make more sense to add it into their flagships which typically feature higher end components supportive of a broader swath of features anyhow. BTW, what source do you have that only 2% of consumers still view 3-D? I know it's a niche, but I cannot believe it is less than 15-20%. What percentage of consumers purchase flagships? 15-20%.


----------



## GordonTV

Oh that was just a wild guess. Who really knows what the true numbers are now since many folks who bought 3D TV's might have ditched them, or they broke down or who know what else and moved on to 4K smart TV's But you're right, it's a niche market at best and 10% might be a generous amount as far as actual users goes.


----------



## marcuslaw

GordonTV said:


> Oh that was just a wild guess. Who really knows what the true numbers are now since many folks who bought 3D TV's might have ditched them, or they broke down or who know what else and moved on to 4K smart TV's But you're right, it's a niche market at best and 10% might be a generous amount as far as actual users goes.


You do know that there are 4K OLED, 4K FALD LCD panels, and 4K projectors that support 3-D, right? Am I correct to assume that your go to display doesn't support 3-D?


----------



## GordonTV

Yes, and how many of those are sitting on a shelf ready to buy at local Walmarts, Targets, Best Buys and other local retailers that J6P shops at? Those sets do what they do best, cater to the niche market 3D collectors.


----------



## marcuslaw

GordonTV said:


> Yes, and how many of those are sitting on a shelf ready to buy at local Walmarts, Targets, Best Buys and other local retailers that J6P shops at? Those sets do what they do best, cater to the niche market 3D collectors.


As a member of that niche, including the feature on flagships is all I'm advocating for. Flagships aren't sold at B&M's (unless you include Magnolia stores in that category) so I could care less what is found on shelves there. You didn't answer my question about your display.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

marcuslaw said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going on. I've been buying 3-D Blu-ray title after 3-D Blu-ray title. Granted, I'm importing about a 1/3 of them, but the flow hasn't subsided since the fomat's death was declared months ago.


Yeah, to me this is evidence that's it's not really dead. It just looks different than it did 5 years ago.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

unretarded said:


> Projectors are usable in almost every imaginable situation and preferable ...........to mount it, which is not required, takes a couple drywall anchors which even rental contracts allow.


I actually have a plan I'm hatching for this purpose that will make the shelf even more hidden. I use my projector in 3 locations in my house and don't want to have a permanent shelf on the wall when it's not in that room!


----------



## GordonTV

marcuslaw said:


> As a member of that niche, including the feature on flagships is all I'm advocating for. Flagships aren't sold at B&M's (unless you include Magnolia stores in that category) so *I could care less* what is found on shelves there. You didn't answer my question about your display.


So you actually *COULD* care less but chose not to right now. 

My main TV is a 9 month old 4K Roku, and the balance of my TV's are basics Roku TV's. 

Flagships are great avenue to get 3D but if the market isn't supporting them (which I suspect will happen sooner rather than later) even the flagships with 3D may die off in favor of the go to set up of highest end 4K and Roku or similar built in.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

unretarded said:


> Here is a search link, you can set it to English if not so already....
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.jp/s/ref=nb_s...タカナ&url=search-alias=dvd&field-keywords=4k+3d


This link should open directly to the translated, English version although it doesn't translate 100% of the screen you can get by:

https://www.amazon.co.jp/s/ref=nb_s...d&ie=UTF8&language=en_US&url=search-alias=dvd


----------



## brazen1

This thread was introduced 5 years, 2 days ago and still you try to convince us how miserable and dead 3D is? That we should move on to UHD only. Why should I give up 3D included with my UHD HDR display? You go on to state that a Roku with a paid substandard low bitrate stream is for the 'in' crowd like yourself. As if a built-in app, if you're into that crap, isn't sufficient. Have you seen the new Benq UHD HDR 3D PJ for $1500 available for pre-order? Yeah, I know. Only a small niche of nobody's will ever care and you'll estimate it will be DOA. Keep up the good work. See ya' in another 5 years, 2 days.


----------



## GordonTV

LOL! 

You are so off the mark with your comments it's comical.


----------



## brazen1

I was just looking at Nasdaq ROKU shares over the last couple days compared to the rest of the market. Now that's comical. I understand your motives now. LoL. Really


----------



## GordonTV

Lol!

How many Roku based TV's do you see flying off store shelves (and online) now vs. 3D TV's?


----------



## AlanAbby

These hate filled threads about 3D just keep on coming.


----------



## GordonTV

Point to this supposed "hate" you are speaking of? I just see folks trying to discuss the demise of 3D at home, be it for better or worse. Sure some are very angry posters who have thin skin, but most seem be able to act like rational adults. I see no "hate" posted anywhere here.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

GordonTV said:


> How many brick and mortar stores (BB, WM, Target, similar outlets) can the general public walk into and find shelves full of 3D movies to buy today? Last I walked into these store, all they stock is 2D Blu, DVD, and now a decent (still small) selection of 4K. If you're lucky you may find 1 or 2 combo discs that have 3D, but it's rare. So from the standpoint of the general public, which pretty much rules the electronics/media world, they see it like it is, 3D is pretty much dead and gone and they probably won't jump back in if it ever digs itself out of the grave because many I'm sure got burned by the 3D fiasco or see how it couldn't survive this past go round. So now they are locked into 4K and streaming and it's plenty good for them.


I don't know where youa re, but Fry's Electronics has both a 4K and 3D section in their stores.

Granted, it's not what it used to be and Amazon has a way better selection because they sell virtually every 3D released in the US (barring niche licensing BS) but there are still stores that carry them.

Even my local Family Video store used to get them for rental. They stopped last year, replacing them with 4K versions instead, but they still have the older titles on the shelf. I have purchased many a used, 3D movie from them over the years!


----------



## brazen1

All I know is I like my 3D  I will select a 3D before a UHD every time  For titles with no 3D, I prefer UHD over BD but a BD upscaled ain't bad  Nice to have it all


----------



## GordonTV

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I don't know where youa re, but Fry's Electronics has both a 4K and 3D section in their stores.
> 
> Granted, it's not what it used to be and Amazon has a way better selection because they sell virtually every 3D released in the US (barring niche licensing BS) but there are still stores that carry them.
> 
> Even my local Family Video store used to get them for rental. They stopped last year, replacing them with 4K versions instead, but they still have the older titles on the shelf. I have purchased many a used, 3D movie from them over the years!


No Fry's here. Just WM, Target, BB are the main players. We too have Family Video and yeah they do sell off a lot of dead stock for sure pretty cheap too. I haven't seen any 3D stuff there in quite a while. I think now they are even selling movies via streaming now. You grab the cardboard "gift card " like hanger off the shelf and load the code at home. Looks like another new option to keep up with the times.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

marcuslaw said:


> There's no arguing 3-D is dead at B&M's which like other's commenting before me have said, is of little consequence to disk collectors. 95% the 3-D BD I buy is done online and, because my setup is region free, from all over the world. Otherwise, I think 3-D will see another resurgence and probably sooner than it did after the 1980's era. It won't surprise me one bit if Samsung, LG, and Sony, all announce TV's that support the format just in time for the home video release of Avatar II.


I have thought the same thing about Avatar II creating a resurgence. Everyone will want to recreate that experience at home.

However........I read an article that said the forthcoming movies are being done with an as yet unavailable, glasses-free 3D technology that Cameron is helping fund/create. I would not be surprised at all if the next time 3D TV's are made available they will be "glasses free".


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

marcuslaw said:


> You do know that there are 4K OLED, 4K FALD LCD panels, and....


I know about all the projectors, but are you saying that someone still makes a 3D flat panel, even if it's high-end?


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

brazen1 said:


> Have you seen the new Benq UHD HDR 3D PJ for $1500 available for pre-order?


You can certainly get 3D projectors new. I have a BenQ HT2050 myself.

However, I'm confused about the new BenQ one you are referring to. Is it this one?

http://www.benq.us/product/projector/HT2550/
https://www.amazon.com/BenQ-HT2550-Projector-Audiovisual-Enhancer/dp/B077PP4S93/

I can't find a single reference to 3D on this one. It would be bad-ass, but where did you hear that? When I searched on BenQ's website and filtered for "3D Ready" not a single 4K projector came up.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

GordonTV said:


> How many Roku based TV's do you see flying off store shelves (and online) now vs. 3D TV's?


I bought a 50" ROKU UHD for Christmas and we love it!

How do you compare it to 3D models though since you can't buy a 3D flat panel anymore?


----------



## marcuslaw

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I know about all the projectors, but are you saying that someone still makes a 3D flat panel, even if it's high-end?


Other than projectors, no panels I'm aware of. The 2017 flagship Sony LCD TV still had 3D capability and supports HDR. There was suppose to have been the LeEco uMAX85 which was 4K with HDR and Dolby Vision. Here's a qoute from a comment to an article from engadget:



> [The LeEco] also had full 3D support with passive glasses. At CES in January 2017 they even had a version with quantum dots called the uMAX85q. Retail price was around $5000. Vizio was going to purchase the company and discovered that the LeEco CEO had screwed the company's financials and backed out of the deal. This effectively sank LeEco because there has been little to no talk of them since. It is a damn shame because they were offering a mighty large 85" TV with HDR, Dolby Vision, and full 3D support.


----------



## flaquito

After suffering some slight damage to my LG 3D TV, I ended up getting an amazing deal on a 4k 3D LG off of Craigslist. I wanted to make sure I could get one before they become impossible to find. I'm way too hooked on the 3d Pixar/Dreamworks stuff. But hey, new titles are still coming out in 3d, and Vudu still has 3d streaming. As long as I can import 3d Blu-rays from the UK, I'm happy.


----------



## flaquito

My dream setup would be dual 4k projectors with polarization filters, in order to be able to do passive 3D projection. (Something like what Epson did with the W16SK stack, but with better projectors.) However, given that we now have an almost-1-year-old, this is going to have to remain a dream.


----------



## aaronwt

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I know about all the projectors, but are you saying that someone still makes a 3D flat panel, even if it's high-end?


Sony top of the line Z series UHD LCD sets still support 3D. But that is only because they are carry overs from the previous model year.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

aaronwt said:


> Sony top of the line Z series UHD LCD sets still support 3D. But that is only because they are carry overs from the previous model year.


Still a shock to me. I haven't seen a single 3D flat panel since 2016 model year when disappeared sometime mid-2016 when the 2017 models came out. Even then it was only Samsung and LG. I know Sony made 3D panels at one point, but thought they stopped the year before.

I guess I don't make enough to shop in THOSE stores......


----------



## longhornsk57

GordonTV said:


> LOL!
> 
> You are so off the mark with your comments it's comical.


These idiotic type comments are what keep this thread from having actual civil conversation going. The last refuge of the ignorant is always "well you're just wrong and that is that" type sentiment. Ok fine so you personally have not been seeing B&M stores stock 3D blurays. Have you ever? I have NEVER seem them stock them. Nobody I know shops at B&M stores, and even people on here admit the they have to use price matching and online ordering, that's not the same thing at all.

You're acting like some dude who walks in to a B&M store and just looks around and then doesn't see BR3D on the shelf. When you or anyone here walks into a B&M store, it's to pick up an online order. You've already had to do tons of research to price match stuff at Best Buy, so pretty much all of your actual BB shopping is online, you just walk in to grab it. Yeah I have GCU, and I buy a lot of my PS4 games that way, that stuff is all done online, just walking into the store to pick it up because i want to play today doesn't make me a B&M shopper at all. These are two very distinct categories. Let's look at Best Buy.

Best buy online right now has 331 3D blurays to select from or 336 4K blurays. Yes we all know since 4K bluray has an actual industry standard and 3D is still shifting it would overtake it, but I don't see it dying at all, and the lame argument that you personally haven't seen them on B&M shelves doesn't really mean anything.

Do you have actual sales figures of 3D Bluray discs for that last 5 years showing some drastic decline?


----------



## GordonTV

Some folks are really coming unhinged over the silliest things.


----------



## SteveCaron

On my 3rd LG 3D TV and pulled the trigger last year for the OLED C6 model (incredible 3D) and definitely an enthusiast for some movies released in the format but I'm also not going to be too disappointed if we see fewer theatrical release in the future. The main reason I feel this way is I'm kind of getting tired of the concern over when we will see the last release or how long my panel will last. Those were the days when we had releases like WWII in 3D (terrible blu ray by the way) where they were plugging the format with just about every other word of dialog. We thought it would be around forever!


----------



## Bill Shenefelt

*Keep 3D alive!*



brazen1 said:


> All I know is I like my 3D  I will select a 3D before a UHD every time  For titles with no 3D, I prefer UHD over BD but a BD up-scaled ain't bad  Nice to have it all


I try to wait and pay more to get even older titles in 3d. The depth of field is great. As for 4K, I have a Sony VPL-VW365 4K projector that does 3d as well as 4k. I use a good 119 inch diagonal 16:9 screen that is "4K compatible", meaning very smooth. I watched "Baby Driver" last weekend on a DVD rented from Red box at a grocery store. Not a Blu ray or 4k disk. Looked great.  I will admit some films that are real dark like "The Revenant" need the HDR of 4k disks to reveal some of the low light contrast material, but I really cannot why people pay extra for the 4K but not 3D and on standard size big screen TV's to boot. To me the "4K" thing is like the old 100 times oversampling CD players, more sales pitch than real usable quality.


----------



## flaquito

SteveCaron said:


> On my 3rd LG 3D TV and pulled the trigger last year for the OLED C6 model (incredible 3D) and definitely an enthusiast for some movies released in the format but I'm also not going to be too disappointed if we see fewer theatrical release in the future. The main reason I feel this way is I'm kind of getting tired of the concern over when we will see the last release or how long my panel will last. Those were the days when we had releases like WWII in 3D (terrible blu ray by the way) where they were plugging the format with just about every other word of dialog. We thought it would be around forever!


I thought about an OLED model, but found a used 55UB8500 for $350. (Am I allowed to say the price? If not, I'll remove it.) It needed to be disassembled and given a thorough cleaning -- smoking household with kids that had drawn on the screen with crayon -- but is actually in amazingly good condition, with a perfect screen.


----------



## longhornsk57

GordonTV said:


> Some folks are really coming unhinged over the silliest things.


Yeah you were getting pretty unhinged about the whole thing. It's all good.

So I just nabbed Ghost in the Shell 3D for $20 which seems to be a good price (can sell the digital code) and I'm really excited about this title as well as having Valerian and the City 3D... On the way to me.

Can't wait to check them out.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## GordonTV

No unhinging here. If anything found it all quite amusing. 

Good luck with Valerian, tried to sit through it and it was a flat out dog, my youngest watched and made it all the way through and his review was "that was pretty dumb". LOL Glad I didn't pay to watch it.


----------



## SteveCaron

flaquito said:


> I thought about an OLED model, but found a used 55UB8500 for $350. (Am I allowed to say the price? If not, I'll remove it.) It needed to be disassembled and given a thorough cleaning -- smoking household with kids that had drawn on the screen with crayon -- but is actually in amazingly good condition, with a perfect screen.


I have the 65 inch UB9500 model so yeah they are also great TVs and perfect 3D. Really didn't need a new TV it was just that I wanted HDR and Dolbyvision and 3d.


----------



## flaquito

SteveCaron said:


> I have the 65 inch UB9500 model so yeah they are also great TVs and perfect 3D. Really didn't need a new TV it was just that I wanted HDR and Dolbyvision and 3d.



LG consistently has the best 3D I've ever seen. I have friends who won't watch 3D anywhere besides my house, because they get headaches or nausea elsewhere. My 47LM7600 had a run-in with a rogue bottle of beer that splashed on the screen. I got it cleaned up, but there's now a vertical band of uneven backlighting. It's only visible in bright scenes, and doesn't bother most people, but it sure drove me nuts. So now it's the upstairs tv.


----------



## 3DBob

flaquito said:


> My 47LM7600 had a run-in with a rogue bottle of beer that splashed on the screen. I got it cleaned up, but there's now a vertical band of uneven backlighting. It's only visible in bright scenes, and doesn't bother most people, but it sure drove me nuts. So now it's the upstairs tv.


MY LG 60" 3D TV had a vertical band problem when I first set it up out of the box (covered in plastic and Styrofoam. A lot of people have complained about this. I then moved it around, and it went away. In the process, I had wiped the back with my hands several time removing some Styrofoam beads. Then realized that there must be static build up. So I wiped the screen and back with a static-free cloth, and I think that was the problem. You probably built up static due to wiping the beer off the screen with a cloth I presume. Just a thought...worked for me.


----------



## flaquito

3DBob said:


> MY LG 60" 3D TV had a vertical band problem when I first set it up out of the box (covered in plastic and Styrofoam. A lot of people have complained about this. I then moved it around, and it went away. In the process, I had wiped the back with my hands several time removing some Styrofoam beads. Then realized that there must be static build up. So I wiped the screen and back with a static-free cloth, and I think that was the problem. You probably built up static due to wiping the beer off the screen with a cloth I presume. Just a thought...worked for me.


Unfortunately, the beer actually got between the panel and the bezel, and caused some short-circuiting on the chip (buffer chip, maybe?) on one of the ribbon cables driving the panel. I had unfortunately run the tv for a few minutes before realizing that liquid had actually gotten into the panel. I fully disassembled it, cleaned up the corrosion that formed from the short circuit, cleaned up all of the beer, and reassembled it. It's not nearly as bad as before I cleaned it, but I think it's probably permanent: https://i.imgur.com/mgmbGXs.png


----------



## 3DBob

Ahh, yup...probably had one of the moments where someone said, "here, hold my beer while I try this..." lol.


----------



## flaquito

3DBob said:


> Ahh, yup...probably had one of the moments where someone said, "here, hold my beer while I try this..." lol.


Not even that interesting. I just briefly set it down on the tv stand while we got settled on the couch to watch a show with dinner, and bumped the bottle when I set it down.  At least I have no one to blame but myself.


----------



## MagnumX

GordonTV said:


> Our Best Buys are always busy so they must be offering up enough decent stuff to keep folks coming in. Sure they aren't as booming as in their heyday, but they are my go to place when I need a gadget or other similar items. Heck last week they had a Harmony Smart Control on sale for $75 (almost half off) that you sure couldn't get for that price on Amazon. So I went down and snagged one. No sitting around waiting for UPS, no worrying about porch pirates stealing it. I had it same day and had it set up soon after I got home.
> 
> So yes, B&M still serves a purpose.


I used to go there when I wanted something the same day, but the problem is I've often been disappointed to find out they don't have what I'm looking for there whether it be a good computer keyboard for my Mac (none were sufficient; I ended up buying a Logitech USB cord model that lights up and has very high quality keys online once again as the ones at Best Buy were gaming boards or crap and/or didn't have numeric keypads, etc.) Certainly, I prefer to buy items that might need returned there, but that's often not an option either (when I bought my first HD projector, Best Buy didn't even carry projectors period and NO ONE in this area carried the Panasonic model I wanted. Now they carry some, but you can't try them out and they didn't have the model I wanted once again. What good is that? 

I _am_ sad that many of the REAL HIFI stores that went out of business (many BECAUSE of places like Best Buy and then Circuit City) are no longer around so there's virtually nowhere to go listen to high-end speakers anymore, etc. It's hard to even find high quality car audio products locally anymore because car makers have everything custom and tied into the main computer now, making the market for after-market products diminished. Apparently, there aren't enough people that care about quality for places like that to survive outside of very large cities anymore. 

When I was in Phoenix, Arizona recently, the Metrocenter Mall (which is in the middle of a massively populated city and right off a heavily traveled freeway exit) had over half its stores closed since 2008 and they aren't coming back. This air-conditioned mall (who doesn't like that in the Arizona summer?) has a nice Harkins (I think 14-plex) movie theater on-site (I saw Blade Runner 2049 in 3D while I was there), a once huge food court inside (over half empty now) and sits right across from Castles'n'Coasters (the ONLY amusement park with a roller coaster in Arizona an one hell of a nice mini-golf course, not to mention an entire WALL of pinball machines on the second floor of the building) and they were talking about tearing it down (it's been there since the 1960s) and putting in a senior center, apartments, a hospital and crematorium (yeah, live here and then be cremated!) due to a lack of stores. Then Wal-Mart moved in and they're hoping that might bring some traffic back to the mall, but based on what I saw (it had been open a few weeks at most when I was there, though) I wouldn't hold my breath.... This is a city with over 1.6 MILLION people in it! I know it's a big valley, but they don't have enough people to support one large mall??? WTF. I live in a rabbit hole by comparison and our mall (admittedly half that size) is 90% full still, although if Sears/Macys/JC Penny go, who knows....

I certainly used to stop at Best Buy when a new album came out by someone I wanted as I could get it on release day, but it seems there are very few "big" artists I listen to anymore that they would bother to carry on CD (and I DO prefer buying music on CD since it's simple to make a digital copy and they STILL don't generally sell UNCOMPRESSED/LOSSLESS music to this very day online for unknown reasons! My god, hard drive and even USB sticks are CHEAP in sizes that can hold hundreds if not thousands of WAV or losslessly compressed albums (let alone songs) and iTunes is still selling AAC (and Amazon even worse with MP3!!!) This is because they know most people DON'T CARE and those that care enough about quality still buy CDs or even SACDs when available.

But you can find almost any album on CD online or even LPs for that matter. For goodness sake, I was able to buy Wild Cherry LPs (as in the group that did "Play That Funky Music (White Boy)" that have never been released on CD to this day BRAND NEW still in their shrink wrap for $11-18 ($11 is less than it cost new when released once inflation is considered!) Who the heck holds onto brand new unopened ancient LPs that haven't gone up in value since the 1970s all this time to sell them below cost? I don't know, but it wasn't hard to find multiple offers online! It's the beauty of the Internet (when it's not being used for propaganda and crime) and online shopping in particular. I wanted some 1960s Avon colognes that came in collectable bottles they don't make anymore (e.g. Spicy) at one point and BAM! There they are on eBay unopened for a few bucks. Unreal. It's like going to garage sales without having to leave the house or do any real work! Brick and mortar? They'd charge a FORTUNE to sell something they stored since the 1960s!!! I paid less than they cost new back then even without inflation (really is like a garage sale).

Porch pirates? What kind of neighborhood do you live in? I'd consider moving if there were that many thieves around here.


----------



## Johndoe4454

Zavvi is legit. I've bought probably about 40 3d movies from them.


----------



## King Vidiot

Any sales figures for how well (or poorly) 3D titles have been selling in other countries? Have they been any better or worse than the US? Wondering if they're noticing an uptick in sales when a title doesn't come out in the US- I've imported so many now I hardly think anything of it, though if I could just pick them up at Target instead I'd do that. If these ARE still selling decently, it seems like there should be at least a few more TVs that can do 3D out in those countries, and I'd import one if that happened.

If there's any hope in getting the "general public" interested in 3D again, there needs to be at least a few movies made that REALLY take advantage of it- and actually shoot it in real 2-camera 3D, none of that post-conversion crap. Don't make it overly gimmicky like "Comin At Ya" but also don't be afraid to have some fun with it and make it a real EXPERIENCE, one that gives a sense of really missing something if watched in 2D.

I'm still waiting to see if glasses-free 3D can actually work on a big screen. It works OK on the Nintendo 3DS, but that's a very small screen. I've never had a problem with 3D glasses but if that's the main thing turning people off and they can make it work, go for it.


----------



## Johndoe4454

Bill Shenefelt said:


> brazen1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I know is I like my 3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will select a 3D before a UHD every time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For titles with no 3D, I prefer UHD over BD but a BD up-scaled ain't bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to have it all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to wait and pay more to get even older titles in 3d. The depth of field is great. As for 4K, I have a Sony VPL-VW365 4K projector that does 3d as well as 4k.
Click to expand...

Hey, I have the same projector. The 3d is amazing. I don't even bother with 4k anymore. 99% of the time the 3D blows it out of the water. 

I'm at a point after buying a few 4k movies that if I can't get a movie in 3D I just won't buy it. If they stop making 3D movies, I'll just stop buying movies altogether or get the ones I'm missing from my collection. Watching action movies in 2d feels as though I'm watching them with the sound off. It just kills about 80% of the enjoyment. Vr and 3d are the only media entertainment I'll pay money for.


----------



## snpanago

Blown away by Hugo 3D, 2011 a sweet homage to movies by Martin Scorsese on an 85 inch LeEco UMax. One of the finest uses of 3D I’ve experienced in my home theater.


----------



## unretarded

King Vidiot said:


> Any sales figures for how well (or poorly) 3D titles have been selling in other countries? Have they been any better or worse than the US? Wondering if they're noticing an uptick in sales when a title doesn't come out in the US- I've imported so many now I hardly think anything of it, though if I could just pick them up at Target instead I'd do that. If these ARE still selling decently, it seems like there should be at least a few more TVs that can do 3D out in those countries, and I'd import one if that happened.
> 
> If there's any hope in getting the "general public" interested in 3D again, there needs to be at least a few movies made that REALLY take advantage of it- and actually shoot it in real 2-camera 3D, none of that post-conversion crap. Don't make it overly gimmicky like "Comin At Ya" but also don't be afraid to have some fun with it and make it a real EXPERIENCE, one that gives a sense of really missing something if watched in 2D.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see if glasses-free 3D can actually work on a big screen. It works OK on the Nintendo 3DS, but that's a very small screen. I've never had a problem with 3D glasses but if that's the main thing turning people off and they can make it work, go for it.


I think the biggest killer of home 3d was they put it on small TV`s.....it should have been reserved for only the biggest panels. Watching 3d on a 50 inch screen is like watching a movie at the theater thru a key hole or a straw.


----------



## Bill Shenefelt

*Keep 3D alive!*



unretarded said:


> I think the biggest killer of home 3d was they put it on small TV`s.....it should have been reserved for only the biggest panels. Watching 3d on a 50 inch screen is like watching a movie at the theater thru a key hole or a straw.


I agree, but why are 4K selling? I think you would need a magnifying glass at the screen to pick out the extra resolution.. HDR may be a different matter.It really helps on dark scenes.


----------



## MagnumX

My brother claims to enjoy 3D on 50 inch TVs with built in speakers no less. He saw 3D on my 93" screen (at 7 feet viewing distance) with 6.1 surround flat to 20Hz and said size and sound doesn't matter to him. He watches the MOVIE not the picture...yeah so why does he want the 3D then? I think he's just cheap. Plus his wife and kids hate 3D so he has to watch it by himself yet he doesn't want to drive an hour to visit me and watch it on a big screen. Go figure.

There's no reason they couldn't have added HDR to the 3D standard and even 2D regular Blu-ray. They added it to 4K only because no one could see any difference once they got their 4K set home and sat 8-20 feet away from it instead of standing 2 feet in front of it at Best Buy... It's to try and trick you into thinking 4K is worth it when HDR is really a separate thing. Just wait and see what gimmick they have in store to make you think you need 8K....


----------



## marcuslaw

longhornsk57 said:


> Yeah you were getting pretty unhinged about the whole thing. It's all good.
> 
> So I just nabbed Ghost in the Shell 3D for $20 which seems to be a good price (can sell the digital code) and I'm really excited about this title as well as having Valerian and the City 3D... On the way to me.


Ghost in the Shell is a sight to behold in stereo. Definitely my favorite Blu-ray 3-D of 2017.


----------



## EyElouPeS

longhornsk57 said:


> Yeah you were getting pretty unhinged about the whole thing. It's all good.
> 
> So I just nabbed Ghost in the Shell 3D for $20 which seems to be a good price (can sell the digital code) and I'm really excited about this title as well as having Valerian and the City 3D... On the way to me.
> 
> Can't wait to check them out.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk




Hey Hey, 


As I was discussing with "wildbill722" ( now known as MR. Bill...Ohhh Nooo !!!)....Best Buy was selling off 3-D 1080p blu-rays for $10 over the holidays.


If any of you can help with my crosstalk issue, Please refer to the thread below...I was waiting for Bill, But he seems to be reluctant...THANKS !!!


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/191-3d-displays/2933648-lg-oled-77-g6p-end-near.html#post55279170


----------



## MagnumX

The amazing thing is that some people would buy the 2D version even if it was more because they don't have 3D, even though it comes with the 2D disc also....


----------



## longhornsk57

marcuslaw said:


> Ghost in the Shell is a sight to behold in stereo. Definitely my favorite Blu-ray 3-D of 2017.


Can't wait to see it!

I saw BB had it for $10 but they sold out..

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

Bill Shenefelt said:


> I agree, but why are 4K selling? I think you would need a magnifying glass at the screen to pick out the extra resolution.. HDR may be a different matter.It really helps on dark scenes.


No you just need to sit close enough. With my 65" UHD TV I sit three to four feet away when watching UHD content. But I also sit that distance away when watching 3D content. With 2k, 2D BDs and broadcast content I sit five or six feet away.


----------



## MagnumX

Definitely not normal to sit 3 feet away from a TV (let a alone 65" one) unless you're at a computer. I can't see most women putting up with that. In other words, you can't sell 4K on that. Well, they try to sell it that way, but most are disappointed when they get home and see it from 7-20 feet away that most living rooms are set up to accommodate.


----------



## tomtastic

Must not be an LG because 3 feet and 3D, no way. Crosstalk hell.


----------



## GordonTV

MagnumX said:


> I used to go there when I wanted something the same day, but the problem is I've often been disappointed to find out they don't have what I'm looking for there whether it be a good computer keyboard for my Mac (none were sufficient; I ended up buying a Logitech USB cord model that lights up and has very high quality keys online once again as the ones at Best Buy were gaming boards or crap and/or didn't have numeric keypads, etc.) Certainly, I prefer to buy items that might need returned there, but that's often not an option either (when I bought my first HD projector, Best Buy didn't even carry projectors period and NO ONE in this area carried the Panasonic model I wanted. Now they carry some, but you can't try them out and they didn't have the model I wanted once again. What good is that?
> 
> I _am_ sad that many of the REAL HIFI stores that went out of business (many BECAUSE of places like Best Buy and then Circuit City) are no longer around so there's virtually nowhere to go listen to high-end speakers anymore, etc. It's hard to even find high quality car audio products locally anymore because car makers have everything custom and tied into the main computer now, making the market for after-market products diminished. Apparently, there aren't enough people that care about quality for places like that to survive outside of very large cities anymore.
> 
> When I was in Phoenix, Arizona recently, the Metrocenter Mall (which is in the middle of a massively populated city and right off a heavily traveled freeway exit) had over half its stores closed since 2008 and they aren't coming back. This air-conditioned mall (who doesn't like that in the Arizona summer?) has a nice Harkins (I think 14-plex) movie theater on-site (I saw Blade Runner 2049 in 3D while I was there), a once huge food court inside (over half empty now) and sits right across from Castles'n'Coasters (the ONLY amusement park with a roller coaster in Arizona an one hell of a nice mini-golf course, not to mention an entire WALL of pinball machines on the second floor of the building) and they were talking about tearing it down (it's been there since the 1960s) and putting in a senior center, apartments, a hospital and crematorium (yeah, live here and then be cremated!) due to a lack of stores. Then Wal-Mart moved in and they're hoping that might bring some traffic back to the mall, but based on what I saw (it had been open a few weeks at most when I was there, though) I wouldn't hold my breath.... This is a city with over 1.6 MILLION people in it! I know it's a big valley, but they don't have enough people to support one large mall??? WTF. I live in a rabbit hole by comparison and our mall (admittedly half that size) is 90% full still, although if Sears/Macys/JC Penny go, who knows....
> 
> I certainly used to stop at Best Buy when a new album came out by someone I wanted as I could get it on release day, but it seems there are very few "big" artists I listen to anymore that they would bother to carry on CD (and I DO prefer buying music on CD since it's simple to make a digital copy and they STILL don't generally sell UNCOMPRESSED/LOSSLESS music to this very day online for unknown reasons! My god, hard drive and even USB sticks are CHEAP in sizes that can hold hundreds if not thousands of WAV or losslessly compressed albums (let alone songs) and iTunes is still selling AAC (and Amazon even worse with MP3!!!) This is because they know most people DON'T CARE and those that care enough about quality still buy CDs or even SACDs when available.
> 
> But you can find almost any album on CD online or even LPs for that matter. For goodness sake, I was able to buy Wild Cherry LPs (as in the group that did "Play That Funky Music (White Boy)" that have never been released on CD to this day BRAND NEW still in their shrink wrap for $11-18 ($11 is less than it cost new when released once inflation is considered!) Who the heck holds onto brand new unopened ancient LPs that haven't gone up in value since the 1970s all this time to sell them below cost? I don't know, but it wasn't hard to find multiple offers online! It's the beauty of the Internet (when it's not being used for propaganda and crime) and online shopping in particular. I wanted some 1960s Avon colognes that came in collectable bottles they don't make anymore (e.g. Spicy) at one point and BAM! There they are on eBay unopened for a few bucks. Unreal. It's like going to garage sales without having to leave the house or do any real work! Brick and mortar? They'd charge a FORTUNE to sell something they stored since the 1960s!!! I paid less than they cost new back then even without inflation (really is like a garage sale).
> 
> *Porch pirates? What kind of neighborhood do you live in? I'd consider moving if there were that many thieves around here.*


Porch pirates don't target certain income neighborhoods. They hit all kinds of neighborhoods be them rich, middle, poor. As long as they see a UPS truck, or Fed-X truck dropping off, they target them. It's like a job to many of them. Did you not watched the nation news at all over the holidays? It's been a big news story and has gotten bigger as more folks opt to have Amazon deliver to their houses vs. buying local.


----------



## SteveCaron

Watched my Creature of the Black Lagoon again last night, really wish we could have got the 2nd one in 3d as well. We came so close to getting all of the classic 3D films put on blu ray.


----------



## danlshane

SteveCaron said:


> Watched my Creature of the Black Lagoon again last night, really wish we could have got the 2nd one in 3d as well. We came so close to getting all of the classic 3D films put on blu ray.


The sequel is purportedly in the works to be released on 3-D Blu-ray.


----------



## Kb Cool

Got my first 3d TV (65z9d) ever a couple weeks ago. Watched avatar for the first time in 3d and it blew me away. Much more of a impact than the 4k HDR stuff going on now. Is there a reason why we can't watch 4k 3d HDR? Besides not having the disc?


----------



## SteveCaron

danlshane said:


> The sequel is purportedly in the works to be released on 3-D Blu-ray.


I wonder if this is why when they finally released the rest of the Universal Monster films last year the Creature films were left out of that. Never seen the sequel in 3D but the original is definitely one of the best even if its in BW.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> Must not be an LG because 3 feet and 3D, no way. Crosstalk hell.


I have a Sony UHD TV. Which works very well with it's active 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

Kb Cool said:


> Got my first 3d TV (65z9d) ever a couple weeks ago. Watched avatar for the first time in 3d and it blew me away. Much more of a impact than the 4k HDR stuff going on now. Is there a reason why we can't watch 4k 3d HDR? Besides not having the disc?


It's not in the UHD BD spec.


----------



## brazen1

aaronwt said:


> I have a Sony UHD TV. Which works very well with it's active 3D.


I have a Samsung UHD HDR TV. It works very well with it's active 3D also. 3 feet, 13 feet, 23 feet, it doesn't matter. No crosstalk or any other distortion except flash lighting during credit rolls or HTPC boots.


----------



## SteveCaron

During 3D's high point 5 to 6 years ago I honestly thought Disney would do a 3rd Fantasia naturally called Fantasia 3D. I really thought the series was a natural for the medium.


----------



## flaquito

SteveCaron said:


> During 3D's high point 5 to 6 years ago I honestly thought Disney would do a 3rd Fantasia naturally called Fantasia 3D. I really thought the series was a natural for the medium.


I'd buy that in a heartbeat.


----------



## marcuslaw

I'm pretty sure the answer is "no", but any 2018 TV's announced with 3-D support?


----------



## NorthJersey

marcuslaw said:


> I'm pretty sure the answer is "no", but any 2018 TV's announced with 3-D support?


none at all
MAYBE in next year's line where HDMI 2.1, 8k and glasses-free 3D (autostereoscopic) become available

but since studios appear to no longer releasing new movies on 3D bluray media (except Disney) who knows if we will see 3d on media get resurrected if/when autosteroscopic 3D becomes real at home

James Cameron is big on this for his Avatar sequels (IF they ever get released  ) but who knows if 3D media will be still around by the time it's released on home media


----------



## marcuslaw

NorthJersey said:


> none at all
> MAYBE in next year's line where HDMI 2.1, 8k and glasses-free 3D (autostereoscopic) become available
> 
> but since studios appear to no longer releasing new movies on 3D bluray media (except Disney) who knows if we will see 3d on media get resurrected if/when autosteroscopic 3D becomes real at home
> 
> James Cameron is big on this for his Avatar sequels (IF they ever get released  ) but who knows if 3D media will be still around by the time it's released on home media


3-D Blu-ray appears only to have been eliminated domestically in the U.S. where studios have prioritized 4K UHD Blu-ray (at the moment). It's an entirely different story elsewhere. I just recently ordered Jumanji 2 and Thor: Ragnorak 3-D's from amazon.co.uk. I've got 3 different Blade Runner 2049 3-D Blu-ray on preorder - with one from the UK and the another Japan. Second, Avatar II-IV are in production right now. Why would they not get released on Blu-ray?


----------



## MagnumX

NorthJersey said:


> none at all
> MAYBE in next year's line where HDMI 2.1, 8k and glasses-free 3D (autostereoscopic) become available
> 
> but since studios appear to no longer releasing new movies on 3D bluray media (except Disney) who knows if we will see 3d on media get resurrected if/when autosteroscopic 3D becomes real at home


*
Most* studios are still releasing 3D Blu-Rays, just not necessarily in the US (I do seem to recall buying Wonder Woman not very long ago in the US and it's Warner Brothers, not Disney). Other than Valerian (which had an Asian Region 1 release and India that had a region free release) and Terminator 2, nearly all other titles are REGION FREE. Thus, you can buy them from Amazon UK or Zavvi and play them on your US player just fine. Blade Runner 2049 will be released in 3D at Best Buy on January 16th or thereabouts in the US. I'd hardly call that Disney (Warner Brothers in association with Sony).


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

MagnumX said:


> *
> Most* studios are still releasing 3D Blu-Rays, just not necessarily in the US (I do seem to recall buying Wonder Woman not very long ago in the US and it's Warner Brothers, not Disney). Other than Valerian (which had an Asian Region 1 release and India that had a region free release) and Terminator 2, nearly all other titles are REGION FREE. Thus, you can buy them from Amazon UK or Zavvi and play them on your US player just fine. Blade Runner 2049 will be released in 3D at Best Buy on January 16th or thereabouts in the US. I'd hardly call that Disney (Warner Brothers in association with Sony).


I got Bladerunner 2049 on pre-order from Amazon.ca.
With all those examples and Disney's 3D Superheroes movies, and now Disney owning Fox hopefully they will keep the trend going. 
I think 3D will keep going for a while and in the near future there will be a push for glasses free 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

Exist_To_Resist said:


> I got Bladerunner 2049 on pre-order from Amazon.ca.
> With all those examples and Disney's 3D Superheroes movies, and now Disney owning Fox hopefully they will keep the trend going.
> I think 3D will keep going for a while and in the near future there will be a push for glasses free 3D.


Disney doesn't own Fox yet. And there is no guarantee they will. The sale needs regulatory approval first. But assuming they get approval, they were hoping that the sale would go through at the end of June, 2018.


----------



## MagnumX

Regulatory approval? What regulations? The dumpster got rid of them all. We're back to the age of coal and robber barons.


----------



## SteveCaron

Unless we see a deluxe edition down the road as we did with "The Force Awakens" the only 3D option for "The Last Jedi" is going to be Amazon UK. Same thing with "Thor Ragnorok". I actually don't care as I've purchased so much from Amazon in Europe its not even funny and thats not just 3D. They just really seem to care more about Cinema over there.


----------



## MagnumX

Who cares. Disney RUINED Star Wars (George didn't even come close with the prequels; at least they didn't just reuse the same damn plots over and over) and turned Luke Skywalker into a pessimistic, crony Anti-Luke caricature of himself who apparently thinks about killing people in their sleep like a Sith would rather than the optimistic "I can still save fracking DARTH VADER even!" guy we all knew and loved. Frack Star Wars. Frack George Lucas and Frack Walt Disney Corp. They SUCK. They can keep their Star Wars Blu-Rays. Star Wars ENDED at Episode VI as far as I'm concerned and with the happy sounding YUB YUB song dammit!'' This is Terminator 3-5 ALL OVER AGAIN (only about MONEY) except those moves weren't half as stupid as the new "Star Wars" sequels.


----------



## drunkpenguin

MagnumX said:


> Who cares. Disney RUINED Star Wars (George didn't even come close with the prequels; at least they didn't just reuse the same damn plots over and over) and turned Luke Skywalker into a pessimistic, crony Anti-Luke caricature of himself who apparently thinks about killing people in their sleep like a Sith would rather than the optimistic "I can still save fracking DARTH VADER even!" guy we all knew and loved. Frack Star Wars. Frack George Lucas and Frack Walt Disney Corp. They SUCK. They can keep their Star Wars Blu-Rays. Star Wars ENDED at Episode VI as far as I'm concerned and with the happy sounding YUB YUB song dammit!'' This is Terminator 3-5 ALL OVER AGAIN (only about MONEY) except those moves weren't half as stupid as the new "Star Wars" sequels.


You might be my doppelganger!

Also I would like to add that I called 3D a fad several years ago and everybody made fun of me on this forum. So neener neener neener! 

To this day, I have still never seen a 3D movie, not at home, not in the cinema.


----------



## MagnumX

drunkpenguin said:


> You might be my doppelganger!
> 
> Also I would like to add that I called 3D a fad several years ago and everybody made fun of me on this forum. So neener neener neener!
> 
> To this day, I have still never seen a 3D movie, not at home, not in the cinema.


It probably *is* a "fad" in that its popularity with the general public has been waning since the initial "wow" has worn off. However, I think you do a disservice to judge it without seeing it. I can't be your doppelganger because unlike the new Star Wars, I really enjoy 3D at home. It comes with 2D also so it's a win-win for me if the 3D conversion is bad or whatever. The problem, of course is they are drying it up on purpose at home, but not at the theater. So those that don't want the best screens showing are still screwed at many theaters (IMAX does seem to be largely dropping it, though) and the studios can't be bothered to plonk down the ALREADY MADE digital 3D versions onto a disc or streaming format for US viewers (but apparently can for most other countries/regions). Yay crappy studios!


----------



## SteveCaron

MagnumX said:


> Who cares. Disney RUINED Star Wars (George didn't even come close with the prequels; at least they didn't just reuse the same damn plots over and over) and turned Luke Skywalker into a pessimistic, crony Anti-Luke caricature of himself who apparently thinks about killing people in their sleep like a Sith would rather than the optimistic "I can still save fracking DARTH VADER even!" guy we all knew and loved. Frack Star Wars. Frack George Lucas and Frack Walt Disney Corp. They SUCK. They can keep their Star Wars Blu-Rays. Star Wars ENDED at Episode VI as far as I'm concerned and with the happy sounding YUB YUB song dammit!'' This is Terminator 3-5 ALL OVER AGAIN (only about MONEY) except those moves weren't half as stupid as the new "Star Wars" sequels.


The final act will determine exactly what I think of this Trilogy. I have a Starlog magazine when Empire was released and some of the reaction then to that film was not too different from what Last Jedi received. I have enjoyed both films but I've very concerned that we aren't going to get some kind of bookend story telling or characters aside connectivity between all 9 films. Should that fall into place I'll be happy with this trilogy, should it not then I'll feel my time was wasted.


----------



## drunkpenguin

I really don't want to even see The Last Jedi. I probably will get the BD because my daughter really wants to see it. I really enjoyed Rogue One, but TFA was by far the worst one yet. IMO it was worse than the worst case scenario I could have dreamed up. I guess Ron Howard is taking on Solo, that one might work. I like Ron Howard for the most part.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

drunkpenguin said:


> I really don't want to even see The Last Jedi. I probably will get the BD because my daughter really wants to see it. I really enjoyed Rogue One, but TFA was by far the worst one yet. IMO it was worse than the worst case scenario I could have dreamed up. I guess Ron Howard is taking on Solo, that one might work. I like Ron Howard for the most part.


TFA set the lowest bar for movies for me. 
It is the low bar I compare all other movies to.


----------



## drunkpenguin

Technically I lied earlier. I just remembered we saw a 3D documentary about space exploration while on board an aircraft carrier in the gulf a couple years ago. When it first started I thought "wow this is cool" and thought I would be upgrading when I got home, but after about 15 minutes the effect kinda wore off and by the end of the movie I didn't consider it life changing.


----------



## MagnumX

I'm pretty curious what George Lucas had in mind for the trilogy that Disney threw into the trash can. All I read was that it only lightly used the old cast (i.e. pass the torch in the first movie and then move on) and moved in new directions, not rehashing old plot lines (yet ANOTHER "Death Star"). I wanted more old cast, but not if they're going to MOCK the characters and make ABSURD plots developments like a PLANET turned into a Death Star (the costs would be literally unimaginable and so the only possible explanations would need to be mind blowing (like Darth Plagieus being Stoke who was head of the galactic bank, but no No NO they wouldn't want anything INTERESTING in the plot.... LOL. 

Instead put stupid crap like the Republic being able to see the death star shot coming at them. It's faster than light to travel so fast to another star system yet it's visible like it's moving SLOWER than the speed of light. Makes sense, right? Yeah, that's the sort of GARBAGE LOGIC pushed in The Force Awakens. But hey, it had Han Solo being murdered by his own son and there's no scene with him and Mark Hamill and never will be ever, but hey, that's OK. It's JJ Abrams baby! He saved Star Trek from being geeky and made it all Apple-like and glassy and sucked Vulcan into a flipping black hole baby!!! YEAH!! He's the Michael Bay of "Star" prefix movies, apparently....

Shouldn't they be remaking Logan's Run or something about now? Or was that too distant? How about ANOTHER reboot of Spiderman for the 4th time in less than 15 years....


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

MagnumX said:


> I'm pretty curious what George Lucas had in mind for the trilogy that Disney threw into the trash can. All I read was that it only lightly used the old cast (i.e. pass the torch in the first movie and then move on) and moved in new directions, not rehashing old plot lines (yet ANOTHER "Death Star"). I wanted more old cast, but not if they're going to MOCK the characters and make ABSURD plots developments like a PLANET turned into a Death Star (the costs would be literally unimaginable and so the only possible explanations would need to be mind blowing (like Darth Plagieus being Stoke who was head of the galactic bank, but no No NO they wouldn't want anything INTERESTING in the plot.... LOL.
> 
> Instead put stupid crap like the Republic being able to see the death star shot coming at them. It's faster than light to travel so fast to another star system yet it's visible like it's moving SLOWER than the speed of light. Makes sense, right? Yeah, that's the sort of GARBAGE LOGIC pushed in The Force Awakens. But hey, it had Han Solo being murdered by his own son and there's no scene with him and Mark Hamill and never will be ever, but hey, that's OK. It's JJ Abrams baby! He saved Star Trek from being geeky and made it all Apple-like and glassy and sucked Vulcan into a flipping black hole baby!!! YEAH!! He's the Michael Bay of "Star" prefix movies, apparently....
> 
> Shouldn't they be remaking Logan's Run or something about now? Or was that too distant? How about ANOTHER reboot of Spiderman for the 4th time in less than 15 years....


Movies leave something to be desired these days, for the most part they're the same crap over, and over, and over again. 
Look at UHD right now, everyone is re releasing all their old stuff in UHD. 
Good luck with that, the sales will be really disappointing. 
I bought 2 UHD movies to look at the difference in resolution between 1080P and UHD.
I don't see the difference between them on a 65" screen, I will be skipping this format all together.
I still own 100s of HDDVD movies, 1080P, Dolby Digital... good enough.
I only buy 3D movies these days, everything else I opt for the Pirate Edition.


----------



## Edllguy

Blade Runner 2049 3D Best Buy Online is sold out here is Canada. I got the last one.

I don't think 3D is dead in my opinion.


----------



## MagnumX

You got the last one in all of Canada even though it wasn't even released to stores until this morning (now 10:25 AM), eh? What's that all aboat? Or did they only release 10 copies, one for each province?


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Edllguy said:


> Blade Runner 2049 3D Best Buy Online is sold out here is Canada. I got the last one.
> 
> I don't think 3D is dead in my opinion.


Amazon.ca has tons of stock, mine is getting delivered today.


----------



## SteveCaron

Exist_To_Resist said:


> Amazon.ca has tons of stock, mine is getting delivered today.


Odd, in the US Blade Runner 3D was a Best Buy exclusive. Couldn't decide on 3D or UHD so picked up both. Then again I'm still deciding on this beast of a set that has all versions.


----------



## brazen1

UH OH 


http://www.avsforum.com/stream-tv-glasses-free-3d-ces-2018/


----------



## unretarded

MagnumX said:


> Regulatory approval? What regulations? The dumpster got rid of them all. We're back to the age of coal and robber barons.



Don`t believe the Hype........


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

SteveCaron said:


> Odd, in the US Blade Runner 3D was a Best Buy exclusive. Couldn't decide on 3D or UHD so picked up both. Then again I'm still deciding on this beast of a set that has all versions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIx-kGmzy1A


I watched the 3D last night. 
The 3D reproduction is near perfect IMO. 
Great move too, I'm glad I waited to watch it at home.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

brazen1 said:


> UH OH
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/stream-tv-glasses-free-3d-ces-2018/


I agree this is the next evolutionary step in 3D and more than likely in a few years you will see this in consumer homes, but they have to over come multiple viewing angles first.


----------



## brazen1

120 degree viewing angle from 1st hand reports by distinguished users here. Imagine clock hands at 10 and 2. Within my requirements. Xmas may be full of surprises this year.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

brazen1 said:


> 120 degree viewing angle from 1st hand reports by distinguished users here. Imagine clock hands at 10 and 2. Within my requirements. Xmas may be full of surprises this year.


Yeah 120 is alright, and users are reporting that past that you see a 2D image without ghosting. 
Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## tezster

My next-gen requirements for the future of 3D: glasses free, no ghosting/cross-talk, and *affordable*.

I'd love if the stream 3D concept can actually deliver a viable product - an 80" set for around $3-4k would be a nice target price.


----------



## SteveCaron

I've enjoyed 3D from a blu ray perspective but did anyone in here happen to try it on an XBOX 360? I had the Arkham games and I think it was COD Black Ops 2 that had a 3d Option. It truly was impressive and a natural for the format.


----------



## golfster

3D as we know it may soon be dead if this works out
http://www.avsforum.com/stream-tv-glasses-free-3d-ces-2018/


----------



## MagnumX

golfster said:


> 3D as we know it may soon be dead if this works out
> http://www.avsforum.com/stream-tv-glasses-free-3d-ces-2018/


OR it might save 3D as we know it since it can convert MVC sources to its own "Ultra D" format. As long as the studios release their traditional 3D Blu-Rays from the theatrical releases (which probably would NOT go to "Ultra D") then at least those with existing 3D TVs and projectors can keep using them. In fact, if it picks up, you might see sets that offer BOTH options at some point.

Personally, I don't see much value in "depth only" (it's worth putting on glasses to see things come out of the TV towards me), but obviously a LOT of people don't feel the same. Having to wear glasses is like a death sentence or something to them. I hope their vision never goes bad.... I've had to wear them since 1st grade and it's not a big deal.


----------



## tomtastic

tezster said:


> My next-gen requirements for the future of 3D: glasses free, no ghosting/cross-talk, and *affordable*.
> 
> I'd love if the stream 3D concept can actually deliver a viable product - an 80" set for around $3-4k would be a nice target price.


What 80" 4K screen can you get for 3-4k? I would not expect 80" screen sizes for awhile anyway until the price of 55-65" glasses free have been out awhile and those will likely be in $3-5K or more likely $5-10k which is where they're at right now.


----------



## aaronwt

MagnumX said:


> OR it might save 3D as we know it since it can convert MVC sources to its own "Ultra D" format. As long as the studios release their traditional 3D Blu-Rays from the theatrical releases (which probably would NOT go to "Ultra D") then at least those with existing 3D TVs and projectors can keep using them. In fact, if it picks up, you might see sets that offer BOTH options at some point.
> 
> Personally, I don't see much value in "depth only" (it's worth putting on glasses to see things come out of the TV towards me), but obviously a LOT of people don't feel the same. Having to wear glasses is like a death sentence or something to them. I hope their vision never goes bad.... I've had to wear them since 1st grade and it's not a big deal.


For me, it's extremely rare I see anything look like it's popping out of the screen at home or in the theater. 99.9% of the time it just looks like depth to me. Which looks great.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> What 80" 4K screen can you get for 3-4k? I would not expect 80" screen sizes for awhile anyway until the price of 55-65" glasses free have been out awhile and those will likely be in $3-5K or more likely $5-10k which is where they're at right now.


??? DUring the holidays the prices were even better than right now. Right now I could pick up an 82" UHD Samsung set for under $3300 at Best Buy.

And you can find a Sony 85" UHD set for under $3800 at some online retailers.


----------



## tomtastic

aaronwt said:


> ??? DUring the holidays the prices were even better than right now. Right now I could pick up an 82" UHD Samsung set for under $3300 at Best Buy.
> 
> And you can find a Sony 85" UHD set for under $3800 at some online retailers.


With 3D? The only 75" plus screens I've seen were all retailed for over 5K and last I checked which was yesterday, the few remaining ones still are.


----------



## tomtastic

There's one LG 86UH9500 on Amazon and it's _used_ price is 7999.00. One 75" model used price for 3999.00. If these were OLED they'd be more money as well but just LED. Yeah, I wouldn't expect anything over 80" right away. IZON's 65" glasses-free screen when they had the price up was $6k and that one isn't 8k, only 4k. I have a feeling that these Stream TV's will be priced similarly to those so look above 5K for 55-65" models right away. Although, because I would like to buy one, I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## MagnumX

aaronwt said:


> For me, it's extremely rare I see anything look like it's popping out of the screen at home or in the theater. 99.9% of the time it just looks like depth to me. Which looks great.


Most newer movies limit the amount of popouts (negative parallax) effects present as many "reviewers" HATE the effect for BIZARRE reasons unknown. Every time that furry creature flew out above the audience in Captain EO at Disney or the opening credits to Magic Journeys the audience OOOOOHHED! And AAAAAHHED! They didn't do it for depth effects. Yet trade publications portray the effect as "cheesy" or "gimmicky" which is absurd. The entire movie shouldn't be like that, but it should have SOME moments or else it's just not "real" 3D, IMO. Most that DO use it tend to limit to to snow or explosions or a quick effect coming at the screen (e.g. snowball thrown in Emma Watson version of Beauty and the Beast) and some put some effects just in front of the screen ("floating" window) to make the depth more extreme.

But in the "golden" days, it was perfectly NORMAL to put all kinds of things in front of the screen. Watch Jaws 3D or Comin At Ya (on second thought, don't watch the latter; it's a horrible story) or Creature From The Black Lagoon. They all have things coming out of the screen regularly.


----------



## longhornsk57

Will that ultra D work for projectors? I feel like most of is who love 3D don't want it on tiny 70" screen...

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## tomtastic

longhornsk57 said:


> Will that ultra D work for projectors? I feel like most of is who love 3D don't want it on tiny 70" screen...
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


No, it's only for flat panels. I see it as for more casual 3D use. Imagine folks walking into your living room and they can see the 3D without putting on glasses. But yes, I too prefer the large format immersive effect for movies.


----------



## MagnumX

tomtastic said:


> No, it's only for flat panels. I see it as for more casual 3D use. Imagine folks walking into your living room and they can see the 3D without putting on glasses. But yes, I too prefer the large format immersive effect for movies.


Imagine your guests without glasses? *WTF CARES???

*I have to wear glasses every day constantly regardless. My sympathy for the "awfulness" of having to wear lightweight thin glasses to see 3D is non-existent. People don't know what a real PITA is. Most people don't know what daily pain is for that matter (I have neuropathy problems as well). I find most people (particularly younger people) don't know how good they have it and won't know until they get older how much life can REALLY SUCK. Suddenly, wearing 3D glasses to see 3D doesn't seem like it matters...AT ALL. 

This depth only thing is a step BACKWARD for "real 3D" effects (i.e. option for both positive and negative parallax effects). The ONLY "good" thing about is that due to the whiny said people above, 3D in general might catch on again and MOVIES, at least may continue to be made in TRUE 3D not this "delta" *GARBAGE* and thus let those Delta sets convert it while we with the true 3D systems get to see the real deal. But sadly, it will probably also mean even LESS popouts in movies than we already get and that does SUCK. 3D without popouts is kind of like donuts without sugar.... They may look similar in some regards, but the overall experience is lost somehow.


----------



## longhornsk57

I think he makes a good point.

I mean watching NFL games in ultra D without glasses would be cool.

Especially most of us have active, so you need to buy expensive glasses and charge and store them.

For casual TV watching I think it's really cool.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> With 3D? The only 75" plus screens I've seen were all retailed for over 5K and last I checked which was yesterday, the few remaining ones still are.


3D? No? The only 3D sets are holdovers from 2016. 

Sent from my Tab S 10.5 using Tapatalk


----------



## tomtastic

MagnumX said:


> Imagine your guests without glasses? *WTF CARES???
> 
> *I have to wear glasses every day constantly regardless. My sympathy for the "awfulness" of having to wear lightweight thin glasses to see 3D is non-existent. People don't know what a real PITA is. Most people don't know what daily pain is for that matter (I have neuropathy problems as well). I find most people (particularly younger people) don't know how good they have it and won't know until they get older how much life can REALLY SUCK. Suddenly, wearing 3D glasses to see 3D doesn't seem like it matters...AT ALL.
> 
> This depth only thing is a step BACKWARD for "real 3D" effects (i.e. option for both positive and negative parallax effects). The ONLY "good" thing about is that due to the whiny said people above, 3D in general might catch on again and MOVIES, at least may continue to be made in TRUE 3D not this "delta" *GARBAGE* and thus let those Delta sets convert it while we with the true 3D systems get to see the real deal. But sadly, it will probably also mean even LESS popouts in movies than we already get and that does SUCK. 3D without popouts is kind of like donuts without sugar.... They may look similar in some regards, but the overall experience is lost somehow.


I wear glasses too. I even put active glasses on over my prescription lenses and they don't bother me. I have lots of family that wear glasses. But having to go around and hand out glasses to everyone and then the focus isn't always on the TV but conversation or whatever...You have to understand that most people really don't care for watching 3D, I even know some that don't like it personally. Just the way it is. But glasses-free, all you have to do is turn it on and they don't have a choice to see it in 3D, it just is. Depth only? Who said that?

This is the reason why 3D failed to catch on. Having to use glasses. And one thing I do find hard to do with active glasses is eat and watch 3D at least with the active glasses. Yeah, doesn't work too good. Or watch 3D and use an iPad. Or changing your view from the screen to something else, up and down from chair to kitchen, etc. That's why I think it would be great for casual 3D viewing. I'm telling you, most people don't want to bother because of the glasses. That's just a fact. You don't have to like it but I completely understand where it's a hassle. When I watch 3D, I get ready for it, limit my other activities and just focus on the movie. But that's not casual viewing either. When I'm doing all those other things, I'm watching 2D.


----------



## tomtastic

aaronwt said:


> 3D? No? The only 3D sets are holdovers from 2016.
> 
> Sent from my Tab S 10.5 using Tapatalk


Yeah, 2D 4K screens probably. They have 50" screens now for 250.00 so wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## MagnumX

tomtastic said:


> Depth only? Who said that?


That's what this new "Ultra D" screen that doesn't need glasses is all about. It's depth behind the screen ONLY and that's all so-called "glasses free" 3D will EVER be as far as I know. That means no more popouts and conversions of existing titles will do god knows what with negative parallax events on such a set, but it won't be in front of it.



> This is the reason why 3D failed to catch on. Having to use glasses.


Then 3D will NEVER catch on in the sense that some of us want to watch it. It also mean virtual reality will NEVER catch on either as I dare say a VR headset is ONE HELL OF A LOT WORSE than wearing a pair of glasses! I guess until we have a Star Trek TNG holodeck, people won't like anything. 

But then, there's this mindset that if you can't sell 9 BILLION worth of something, we shouldn't bother with it! My god, how did they manage in the past when there were far fewer people on the Earth? Why do they have to sell 500 million TV sets for it to make money? It's kind of ridiculous, really. With 9 BILLION on the planet, there ought to be enough 3D fans to make existing 3D worthwhile/profitable. 

How many short runs of things like special editions or steelbook productions do they bother with? How many re-releases with extras? I simply don't buy that 3D isn't popular enough. I still think it's a decision to PUSH 4K by killing off 3D in the US, thus forcing "high-end" fans to go with 4K instead of 3D, knowing full well that home theater enthusiasts aren't exactly likely to go back to mere DVD at this point. No, they want the BEST there is and if they remove 3D, then that means 4K is a MUST BUY for these types and they KNOW IT. They got you by the proverbial sacks and there's NOTHING you can do about it except NOT BUY IT. 

Gauging by the "RABIDITY" of 4K OLED fans, you know that's not going to happen with very many. Bye Bye 3D. Hello 4K. They knew 4K would NOT sell by itself, though (and wasn't) so they invented HDR/WCG to tack onto it since 4K by itself is non-existent on small sets at normal seating distances (i.e. >6 feet). Yeah, I don't know if a bit more contrast and fluorescent colors are worth the bother. Look how long they took to get a 4K projector out that costs less than $8000. They only care about the MASSES. The problem is the MASSES don't give a crap about high-end features. Good luck selling them on 8K when they can't even see 4K.



> And one thing I do find hard to do with active glasses is eat and watch 3D at least with the active glasses.


Why are you eating dinner while watching a 3D movie? If you can't manage popcorn, there is definitely something wrong. Frankly, I kind of enjoy walking around my house with 3D enabled on the glasses. I've changed the entire house over to LED lightning and it's like a flipping FUN HOUSE with 3D glasses on (lights fade in/out at different rates for different lights and fluorescent displays on stereo equipment do weird things like dot left to right at high speed, etc.)



> Yeah, doesn't work too good. Or watch 3D and use an iPad. Or changing your view from the screen to something else, up and down from chair to kitchen, etc. That's why I think it would be great for casual 3D viewing. I'm telling you, most people don't want to bother because of the glasses. That's just a fact. You


I don't quite get what you're saying. WTF are you trying to use an iPad while watching a 3D movie? If you're not interested in watching the movie, then don't watch it! There's no such thing (or shouldn't be such a thing) as casual 3D viewing. It's not like you're watching CNN in 3D. Either you watch a movie or you don't. There's no in-between (or there shouldn't be). I don't know what you mean by up/down from chair to kitchen. Are you able to watch 2D out of the back of your head or something? My 93" screen works whether I'm standing or sitting. Yeah, if i go upstairs to the kitchen, I can't see 2D or 3D any longer. 




> don't have to like it but I completely understand where it's a hassle. When I watch 3D, I get ready for it, limit my other activities and just focus on the movie. But that's not casual viewing either. When I'm doing all those other things, I'm watching 2D.


It doesn't sound like you're watching 2D at all. It sounds like you're shopping on your iPad or eating chips or something and happen to look up when a loud commercial comes on or something. What you call "casual" viewing, I call not watching at all while someone else has the TV on or just listening to the news and looking up when some hot actress comes on or something. Whatever it is, it's not something that needs to be in 3D, IMO.

Yeah, I might like an option to watch sports in 3D (they did do the Olympics the one year, but apparently no one watched it in 3D, but that was very early on when most people didn't have access to a 3D set). But otherwise, I don't need everything in 3D. I just want to watch movies in 3D. And I have no issue with this Delta D thing to add depth to what you call more "casual" viewing, but I don't want it killing traditional 3D for things like movies. No popouts means it's not real 3D, IMO.


----------



## snpanago

MagnumX said:


> That's what this new "Ultra D" screen that doesn't need glasses is all about. It's depth behind the screen ONLY and that's all so-called "glasses free" 3D will EVER be as far as I know. That means no more popouts and conversions of existing titles will do god knows what with negative parallax events on such a set, but it won't be in front of it.
> 
> Then 3D will NEVER catch on in the sense that some of us want to watch it. It also mean virtual reality will NEVER catch on either as I dare say a VR headset is ONE HELL OF A LOT WORSE than wearing a pair of glasses! I guess until we have a Star Trek TNG holodeck, people won't like anything.
> 
> But then, there's this mindset that if you can't sell 9 BILLION worth of something, we shouldn't bother with it! My god, how did they manage in the past when there were far fewer people on the Earth? Why do they have to sell 500 million TV sets for it to make money? It's kind of ridiculous, really. With 9 BILLION on the planet, there ought to be enough 3D fans to make existing 3D worthwhile/profitable.
> 
> How many short runs of things like special editions or steelbook productions do they bother with? How many re-releases with extras? I simply don't buy that 3D isn't popular enough. I still think it's a decision to PUSH 4K by killing off 3D in the US, thus forcing "high-end" fans to go with 4K instead of 3D, knowing full well that home theater enthusiasts aren't exactly likely to go back to mere DVD at this point. No, they want the BEST there is and if they remove 3D, then that means 4K is a MUST BUY for these types and they KNOW IT. They got you by the proverbial sacks and there's NOTHING you can do about it except NOT BUY IT.
> 
> Gauging by the "RABIDITY" of 4K OLED fans, you know that's not going to happen with very many. Bye Bye 3D. Hello 4K. They knew 4K would NOT sell by itself, though (and wasn't) so they invented HDR/WCG to tack onto it since 4K by itself is non-existent on small sets at normal seating distances (i.e. >6 feet). Yeah, I don't know if a bit more contrast and fluorescent colors are worth the bother. Look how long they took to get a 4K projector out that costs less than $8000. They only care about the MASSES. The problem is the MASSES don't give a crap about high-end features. Good luck selling them on 8K when they can't even see 4K.
> 
> Why are you eating dinner while watching a 3D movie? If you can't manage popcorn, there is definitely something wrong. Frankly, I kind of enjoy walking around my house with 3D enabled on the glasses. I've changed the entire house over to LED lightning and it's like a flipping FUN HOUSE with 3D glasses on (lights fade in/out at different rates for different lights and fluorescent displays on stereo equipment do weird things like dot left to right at high speed, etc.)
> 
> I don't quite get what you're saying. WTF are you trying to use an iPad while watching a 3D movie? If you're not interested in watching the movie, then don't watch it! There's no such thing (or shouldn't be such a thing) as casual 3D viewing. It's not like you're watching CNN in 3D. Either you watch a movie or you don't. There's no in-between (or there shouldn't be). I don't know what you mean by up/down from chair to kitchen. Are you able to watch 2D out of the back of your head or something? My 93" screen works whether I'm standing or sitting. Yeah, if i go upstairs to the kitchen, I can't see 2D or 3D any longer.
> 
> 
> It doesn't sound like you're watching 2D at all. It sounds like you're shopping on your iPad or eating chips or something and happen to look up when a loud commercial comes on or something. What you call "casual" viewing, I call not watching at all while someone else has the TV on or just listening to the news and looking up when some hot actress comes on or something. Whatever it is, it's not something that needs to be in 3D, IMO.
> 
> Yeah, I might like an option to watch sports in 3D (they did do the Olympics the one year, but apparently no one watched it in 3D, but that was very early on when most people didn't have access to a 3D set). But otherwise, I don't need everything in 3D. I just want to watch movies in 3D. And I have no issue with this Delta D thing to add depth to what you call more "casual" viewing, but I don't want it killing traditional 3D for things like movies. No popouts means it's not real 3D, IMO.


I like it that you’re passionate about 3D. It also pains me that the industry “hooked” a percentage of us with 3D tvs (remember Avatar 3D Blu-ray incentives?), players, and 3D movies in theaters, only to remove 3D capabilities in new tvs since 2016. What a complete middle finger to the consumers who adopted and invested in this format. 

I approach 3D viewing in the home as a special occasion. Lights dimmed, phones and iPads off, glasses, cleaned and charged, and press play. Best entertainment in the home theater ever. Unfortunately, you can’t fight human nature. Casual tv viewing parallels the short attention spans that has spawned texting, Snapchat, gaming, and everything else people do with their eyes looking down while the programming is on. I’m also not looking forward to glasses free 3D if it isn’t as good and immersive as the present tech.


----------



## magnification

snpanago said:


> I approach 3D viewing in the home as a special occasion. Lights dimmed, phones and iPads off, glasses, cleaned and charged, and press play.


You forgot with popcorn and soda in hand.  Same here though. I only ever use my projector when I'm in the mood to go to a theater and only 3D for a title if it's in 3D.
I've watched all my 3D movies in their 2D versions and never go back to 2D. In fact, I sit there watching older movies that were long before the new 3D wishing
they were in 3D as well.

When I first heard about these new no glasses 3D TVs I thought it was going to be something like this


----------



## longhornsk57

snpanago said:


> I like it that you’re passionate about 3D. It also pains me that the industry “hooked” a percentage of us with 3D tvs (remember Avatar 3D Blu-ray incentives?), players, and 3D movies in theaters, only to remove 3D capabilities in new tvs since 2016. What a complete middle finger to the consumers who adopted and invested in this format.
> 
> I approach 3D viewing in the home as a special occasion. Lights dimmed, phones and iPads off, glasses, cleaned and charged, and press play. Best entertainment in the home theater ever. Unfortunately, you can’t fight human nature. Casual tv viewing parallels the short attention spans that has spawned texting, Snapchat, gaming, and everything else people do with their eyes looking down while the programming is on. I’m also not looking forward to glasses free 3D if it isn’t as good and immersive as the present tech.


Exactly how I approach 3D

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## snpanago

magnification said:


>


I’m mesmerized by this image. If I pause this, definitely looks 2D, but the shaky cam looks 3D. Haven’t seen something like this before. Cool.


----------



## snpanago

longhornsk57 said:


> Exactly how I approach 3D
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


If we go to the trouble to pay good money and go out to the movie theater for a 3D film, it’s unlikely that a casual viewing experience will ensue. Home theater can be as good or better than a public showing of any movie if it’s given a chance of similar attention.


----------



## longhornsk57

snpanago said:


> If we go to the trouble to pay good money and go out to the movie theater for a 3D film, it’s unlikely that a casual viewing experience will ensue. Home theater can be as good or better than a public showing of any movie if it’s given a chance of similar attention.


Yep.

We don't go to movies anymore.

For good 3D films I have some people over and we get our beer, wine, and Bombay Sapphire (for me) put on the glasses and watch in 3D on 150" screen with good speakers and seat shaking subs.

For other viewing it's just relaxing on the couch on the 70" with ambient light on bull****ting etc..

Works perfect, where 3D movies are more an event.

That ultra D would be cool for casual TV viewing tho.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## snpanago

longhornsk57 said:


> Yep.
> 
> We don't go to movies anymore.
> 
> For good 3D films I have some people over and we get our beer, wine, and Bombay Sapphire (for me) put on the glasses and watch in 3D on 150" screen with good speakers and seat shaking subs.
> 
> For other viewing it's just relaxing on the couch on the 70" with ambient light on bull****ting etc..
> 
> Works perfect, where 3D movies are more an event.
> 
> That ultra D would be cool for casual TV viewing tho.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


That sounds awesome! I wish I had a big screen like that at my house, but my 85inch UHD, 3D tv still provides an immersive viewing experience that is super fun.


----------



## tomtastic

MagnumX said:


> That's what this new "Ultra D" screen that doesn't need glasses is all about. It's depth behind the screen *ONLY* and that's all so-called "glasses free" 3D will EVER be as far as I know. That means no more popouts and conversions of existing titles will do god knows what with negative parallax events on such a set, but it won't be in front of it.


Incorrect. It's already been stated there _is_ popout on glasses-free screens, not just depth into screen.



MagnumX said:


> Then 3D will NEVER catch on in the sense that some of us want to watch it. It also mean virtual reality will NEVER catch on either as I dare say a VR headset is ONE HELL OF A LOT WORSE than wearing a pair of glasses! I guess until we have a Star Trek TNG holodeck, people won't like anything.
> 
> But then, there's this mindset that if you can't sell 9 BILLION worth of something, we shouldn't bother with it! My god, how did they manage in the past when there were far fewer people on the Earth? Why do they have to sell 500 million TV sets for it to make money? It's kind of ridiculous, really. With 9 BILLION on the planet, there ought to be enough 3D fans to make existing 3D worthwhile/profitable.
> 
> How many short runs of things like special editions or steelbook productions do they bother with? How many re-releases with extras? I simply don't buy that 3D isn't popular enough. I still think it's a decision to PUSH 4K by killing off 3D in the US, thus forcing "high-end" fans to go with 4K instead of 3D, knowing full well that home theater enthusiasts aren't exactly likely to go back to mere DVD at this point. No, they want the BEST there is and if they remove 3D, then that means 4K is a MUST BUY for these types and they KNOW IT. They got you by the proverbial sacks and there's NOTHING you can do about it except NOT BUY IT.
> 
> Gauging by the "RABIDITY" of 4K OLED fans, you know that's not going to happen with very many. Bye Bye 3D. Hello 4K. They knew 4K would NOT sell by itself, though (and wasn't) so they invented HDR/WCG to tack onto it since 4K by itself is non-existent on small sets at normal seating distances (i.e. >6 feet). Yeah, I don't know if a bit more contrast and fluorescent colors are worth the bother. Look how long they took to get a 4K projector out that costs less than $8000. They only care about the MASSES. The problem is the MASSES don't give a crap about high-end features. Good luck selling them on 8K when they can't even see 4K.


Right, the problem is they marketed 3D like it was supposed to take over as the new viewing format across the board but that was never going to happen. 4K in 2D is just the natural progression of resolution, nothing more. Granted 4K is about it as far as averaged-sized screens go, this is really the end, unless you just want something you can walk right up to once and awhile and see the fine detail.



MagnumX said:


> *Why are you eating dinner while watching a 3D movie?* If you can't manage popcorn, there is definitely something wrong. Frankly, I kind of enjoy walking around my house with 3D enabled on the glasses. I've changed the entire house over to LED lightning and it's like a flipping FUN HOUSE with 3D glasses on (lights fade in/out at different rates for different lights and fluorescent displays on stereo equipment do weird things like dot left to right at high speed, etc.)


Because I eat while I watch TV sometimes, is that a good enough reason? But much harder to do in my pitch dark theater room with dark active glasses, but I _can_ with 2D, which I can also turn on overhead ambient LED lighting on. Can't do that with 3D, one it makes the image too dark and two it interrupts the shutter glasses and causes them to loose sync, so would have to use different lighting. Again, I pretty much don't with 3D where I can with 2D. Hope that makes sense.



MagnumX said:


> I don't quite get what you're saying. WTF are you trying to use an iPad while watching a 3D movie? If you're not interested in watching the movie, then don't watch it! There's no such thing (or shouldn't be such a thing) as casual 3D viewing. It's not like you're watching CNN in 3D. Either you watch a movie or you don't. There's no in-between (or there shouldn't be). I don't know what you mean by up/down from chair to kitchen. Are you able to watch 2D out of the back of your head or something? My 93" screen works whether I'm standing or sitting. Yeah, if i go upstairs to the kitchen, I can't see 2D or 3D any longer.


I didn't say I was viewing an iPad while watching a 3D movie, what I said was there are many devices we use while a TV may be on. This is what I referred to as "casual viewing". When I have company over it's the same thing, conversation and devices and we might have the TV on too. Either you're stuck in the past or you're just naive about modern times. Now when you go to throw a movie on and let's just say it's 3D, some are going to watch it, some are going to divide their attention between other things. That's what I've noticed first hand and that's just the way it is. Now yes, of course they can simply watch it or not, that's not the point obviously. They can stare at a blurry screen for all I care, as long as I can see it. The point is with a glass-free screen as it doesn't take glasses to see 3D, it just is 3D. And by up and down from chair, really??? You can't see 3D or 2D from the kitchen? You must be blind then, lol. I can just fine. Yeah, pretty dumb comment right back at you. I take my glasses off, of course and have to put back on each time, guess what? You don't have to do that with glasses-free, just like 2D screens. 



MagnumX said:


> It doesn't sound like you're watching 2D at all. It sounds like you're shopping on your iPad or eating chips or something and happen to look up when a loud commercial comes on or something. What you call "casual" viewing, I call not watching at all while someone else has the TV on or just listening to the news and looking up when some hot actress comes on or something. Whatever it is, it's not something that needs to be in 3D, IMO.


Ever hear of multi-tasking? So you've never done anything while the TV was on and done something else at same time? If you're really into something, focus just on that. If you need to do something else and you don't mind dividing your attention, do both. Quite simple. But not really great for 3D, at least glasses kind. But again, glasses-free, makes it easier.



MagnumX said:


> Yeah, I might like an option to watch sports in 3D (they did do the Olympics the one year, but apparently no one watched it in 3D, but that was very early on when most people didn't have access to a 3D set). But otherwise, I don't need everything in 3D. I just want to watch movies in 3D. And I have no issue with this Delta D thing to add depth to what you call more "casual" viewing, but I don't want it killing traditional 3D for things like movies. No popouts means it's not real 3D, IMO.


They're not taking your pop outs away.

The reality is, other than my dedicated theater room, we don't watch 3D much even though I have a 3D tv upstairs. What I find, is everyone would rather just watch it in 2D. I also find because I have 3D movies ripped and everyone can play them, that when they do, they're just watching with the glasses off. Yeah, odd but I'm not going to bother buying the animated 3D movies any more. What would get me to replace that screen is if it was glasses-free, because then when you do put on a 3D movie, so much simpler. No handing out glasses, no cleaning glasses, no broken glasses. Yes, I've gone thru over 50 pairs of passive glasses so far, glad they're cheap. 

You can get up and down and not have to take them off, multi-task do all those things you claim you've never heard of. Yes, I see it as a perfect 3D screen for that room. But in my theater room, I'd rather have it dark, big and loud, and glasses don't really bother me.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

Edllguy said:


> Blade Runner 2049 3D Best Buy Online is sold out here is Canada. I got the last one.
> 
> I don't think 3D is dead in my opinion.


Hi, I'm about to order coco 3d from amazon.co.uk. When you buy these movies do they also come with a UV code I don't seem to see it on their cover.. Here is where I'm looking at if you can help.. I've never gone outside our amazon US to order anything this is my first time..


https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0793KC...liid=I1Z14OHK3W0GNQ&colid=1J21TK4ZTP982&psc=0


Thanks


----------



## AndreHD

It's amazing how retailers can dictate the marketplace. The stores have basically forced 4K on consumers, by shutting out 3D. So I was going the online route to get 3D blu rays. Now ...Amazon, Best Buy, and Walmart's online sites have become undependable. I was gonna spend about $150 to catch up on the 3DSs. Pirates 5 and Valerian...two of my favorite 3D films in the theaters...can't find 'em...anywhere...oh, if you want the 4K version it's right there . Pirates 5 and Valerian are high effects 3D movies, I don't want flat picture, 3k, 4k, whatever! They're 3D movies! Saw something about a Hong Kong version...first of all, I'm not sure it's compatible with my player, and it was triple the price.

It's incredible how the retailers can "reboot" the consumers. Going from 3D HD to 4K-just 4K-is a downgrade ! You're going backwards to LESS interactivity! Less immersion! Going back in time and starting over, like that Happy Death Day movie ! I'm in no hurry to go back in time to a 4K set up, I'm staying with the present!


----------



## 3DBob

The only way to "survive" is to go off Region and get a player that will do that. Then your options are all over Amazon.uk and other sites.


----------



## AudioQuestions

3DBob said:


> The only way to "survive" is to go off Region and get a player that will do that. Then your options are all over Amazon.uk and other sites.


True. It's what I've been doing based on recommendations here. I've been burned by Zavvi which stated some of these movies are all zones, and in reality it came in as zone B. I had to order a device to swap the zone on my Oppo player which I haven't installed yet. Do you have an advice on a player that does all zones without any tinkering?


----------



## dew42

AndreHD said:


> It's amazing how retailers can dictate the marketplace. The stores have basically forced 4K on consumers, by shutting out 3D. So I was going the online route to get 3D blu rays. Now ...Amazon, Best Buy, and Walmart's online sites have become undependable. I was gonna spend about $150 to catch up on the 3DSs. Pirates 5 and Valerian...two of my favorite 3D films in the theaters...can't find 'em...anywhere...oh, if you want the 4K version it's right there . Pirates 5 and Valerian are high effects 3D movies, I don't want flat picture, 3k, 4k, whatever! They're 3D movies! Saw something about a Hong Kong version...first of all, I'm not sure it's compatible with my player, and it was triple the price.
> 
> It's incredible how the retailers can "reboot" the consumers. Going from 3D HD to 4K-just 4K-is a downgrade ! You're going backwards to LESS interactivity! Less immersion! Going back in time and starting over, like that Happy Death Day movie ! I'm in no hurry to go back in time to a 4K set up, I'm staying with the present!


I agree with you. I think the studios have a heavy hand in this also. Locking Europe to Region B for Valerian is a good example (even though 4K is region free). Limiting supply of Rogue One is another.

Hong Kong Blu-rays are region A so they will work with North American Blu-ray players as they are also region A. Definitely more expensive.

*Valerian 3D - Region A*
https://www.yesasia.com/us/valerian...-ray-2d-3d-hong/1063207651-0-0-0-en/info.html

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3d-content/2929424-valerian-city-thousand-planets-3d-blu-ray.html

*Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar's Revenge 3D - Region Free* (this is Pirates 5 Dead Men Tell No Tales - named differently in the UK - same movie)
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B071FHHQVJ/ref=pe_3187911_189395841_TE_dp_1

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/196-3...tes-caribbean-dead-men-tells-no-tales-3d.html


----------



## MagnumX

3DBob said:


> The only way to "survive" is to go off Region and get a player that will do that. Then your options are all over Amazon.uk and other sites.


That's not really true. The vast majority of 3D Blu-Rays that aren't sold in the US are region free. I can count exactly two that aren't that I would want to own (Ratatouille and Terminator 2). I bought the latter anyway and did a SBS conversion for now (couldn't get the PS4 to recognize the burned copy for some odd reason, but I'm pretty sure if I got a stand-alone player it would work as my computer sees it just fine).

I've purchased probably 15 Blu-Rays in the past 8 months from the UK and all except T2 worked as-is. I got Valerian from India (there's a better Hong Kong version in terms of sound as well).


----------



## longhornsk57

Is it possible to buy a region B, rip it, burn it region free, but an exact iso burn?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## tomtastic

longhornsk57 said:


> Is it possible to buy a region B, rip it, burn it region free, but an exact iso burn?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Yes, but not those with Cinevia watermark.


----------



## longhornsk57

tomtastic said:


> Yes, but not those with Cinevia watermark.


I'm not sure what that means, I'm more specifically referring to T2.

Would that be possible and legal?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## EVERRET

AndreHD said:


> It's amazing how retailers can dictate the marketplace. The stores have basically forced 4K on consumers, by shutting out 3D. So I was going the online route to get 3D blu rays. Now ...Amazon, Best Buy, and Walmart's online sites have become undependable. I was gonna spend about $150 to catch up on the 3DSs. Pirates 5 and Valerian...two of my favorite 3D films in the theaters...can't find 'em...anywhere...oh, if you want the 4K version it's right there . Pirates 5 and Valerian are high effects 3D movies, I don't want flat picture, 3k, 4k, whatever! They're 3D movies! Saw something about a Hong Kong version...first of all, I'm not sure it's compatible with my player, and it was triple the price.
> 
> It's incredible how the retailers can "reboot" the consumers. Going from 3D HD to 4K-just 4K-is a downgrade ! You're going backwards to LESS interactivity! Less immersion! Going back in time and starting over, like that Happy Death Day movie ! I'm in no hurry to go back in time to a 4K set up, I'm staying with the present!


You can also try here , all region A 
https://www.play-asia.com/movies_tv/blu-ray/14/7113a#fc=q:3d,o:6


----------



## 4891ttt

Although 3D has it's places, I've always thought that for movies 2D is best because it's more cinematic (similar to 24 fps being more cinematic than HFR).


----------



## 3DBob

AudioQuestions said:


> True. It's what I've been doing based on recommendations here. I've been burned by Zavvi which stated some of these movies are all zones, and in reality it came in as zone B. I had to order a device to swap the zone on my Oppo player which I haven't installed yet. Do you have an advice on a player that does all zones without any tinkering?


Search Region Free Bluray Player. Check out 220-Electronics. All theirs have simple open disk drawer, press color button on remote for a region, put bluray in player, close drawer and you are in business. I prefer Sony players.


----------



## aaronwt

AndreHD said:


> It's amazing how retailers can dictate the marketplace. The stores have basically forced 4K on consumers, by shutting out 3D. So I was going the online route to get 3D blu rays. Now ...Amazon, Best Buy, and Walmart's online sites have become undependable. I was gonna spend about $150 to catch up on the 3DSs. Pirates 5 and Valerian...two of my favorite 3D films in the theaters...can't find 'em...anywhere...oh, if you want the 4K version it's right there . Pirates 5 and Valerian are high effects 3D movies, I don't want flat picture, 3k, 4k, whatever! They're 3D movies! Saw something about a Hong Kong version...first of all, I'm not sure it's compatible with my player, and it was triple the price.
> 
> It's incredible how the retailers can "reboot" the consumers. Going from 3D HD to 4K-just 4K-is a downgrade ! You're going backwards to LESS interactivity! Less immersion! Going back in time and starting over, like that Happy Death Day movie ! I'm in no hurry to go back in time to a 4K set up, I'm staying with the present!


Actually those two movies are not real 3D movies. They were shot in 2 D and converted to 3D.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## magnification

aaronwt said:


> Actually those two movies are not real 3D movies. They were shot in 2 D and converted to 3D.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


Indeed. There's an online list of this as well.


http://realorfake3d.com

Youtube link below start at 0:32


----------



## tomtastic

aaronwt said:


> Actually those two movies are not real 3D movies. They were shot in 2 D and converted to 3D.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


They _are_ real 3D movies. The conversion process is considered real 3D. It's a different approach but the result is the same in that you have a stereoscopic view. Traditional method is with dual cameras but that's pretty much non-existent now with as much VFX shots that are used in the movies that are slated for 3D. Now we can get into what looks better, I like native 3D more of course myself but converted has reached a very decent level of native 3D-level quality. If all we had were native 3D movies, 3D would have died about 3 years ago. Have to accept it.


----------



## MagnumX

4891ttt said:


> Although 3D has it's places, I've always thought that for movies 2D is best because it's more cinematic (similar to 24 fps being more cinematic than HFR).


That's really just saying "it's what I"m used to seeing." It's the same thing holding back higher FPS movies (instead of horrible looking 24fps JUDDER VISION). It looks too real! That's no cinematic! Yeah, who would want movies to look "real" ??? 3D even more so.



tomtastic said:


> They _are_ real 3D movies. The conversion process is considered real 3D. It's a different approach but the result is the same in that you have a stereoscopic view.


Oh please. He means that the 3D cameras capture the real world. A conversion is 100% ARTIFICIAL. It's why there's a giant Star Destroyer floating in your living room in the Force Awakens. That's not what a real 3D camera would present if you could film a ship that size in space for real, but hey, it looks "cool" in the living room! Every choice in artificial 3D conversion is made by a human and humans make mistakes. The fence in Jumper 3D at the Roman Coliseum is 2D still because they either didn't notice it or couldn't be bothered or the software couldn't handle that effect (same with a windshield reflection that is FLAT). A real 3D camera only sees what's there. Artificial conversion can make things as weird or as distant as they want them to be (Wizard of Oz converted to 3D puts painted backdrops in the distance when in fact they're not in the distance at all; they're matte paintings on the same stage).


----------



## tomtastic

MagnumX said:


> Oh please. He means that the 3D cameras capture the real world. A conversion is 100% ARTIFICIAL. It's why there's a giant Star Destroyer floating in your living room in the Force Awakens. *That's not what a real 3D camera would present if you could film a ship that size in space* for real, but hey, it looks "cool" in the living room! Every choice in artificial 3D conversion is made by a human and humans make mistakes. The fence in Jumper 3D at the Roman Coliseum is 2D still because they either didn't notice it or couldn't be bothered or the software couldn't handle that effect (same with a windshield reflection that is FLAT). A real 3D camera only sees what's there. Artificial conversion can make things as weird or as distant as they want them to be (Wizard of Oz converted to 3D puts painted backdrops in the distance when in fact they're not in the distance at all; they're matte paintings on the same stage).


Conversion is 100% as real as native 3D. Calling converted fake 3D like that self-published website is saying 3D isn't 3D. It either is or it isn't. If it produces two stereoscopic views then it is real 3D. It isn't derived from native 3D, but it doesn't have to be. 

3D also doesn't have to be what 2 eyes see from a certain point in space, that's just your assumption that it has to be. And yes, you could achieve the same effect with two camera system, simply zoom in with sufficient focal length until you have the subject in view while widening the stereo base, where you put the parallax barrier is up to the stereographer and director and can be adjusted further in post. Keep in mind that stereoscopic 3D is an allusion of 3D, not specifically how we see 3D off-screen.


----------



## brazen1

MagnumX said:


> It's the same thing holding back higher FPS movies (instead of horrible looking 24fps JUDDER VISION). It looks too real! That's no cinematic! Yeah, who would want movies to look "real" ??? 3D even more so.




24fps movies have nothing to do with judder when viewed on a display with a perfect multiple of 24. There simply isn't any judder.
Cheaper 60Hz displays do not handle 23.976 aka 24fps titles without using 3:2 pulldown to compensate which leads to judder. Unwatchable imo.
Decent 120 Hz displays are perfectly divisible and require no pulldown and produce perfectly fluid motion with no judder. Interpolated frames resulting in 240Hz or higher are even better depending how well the processing doing it actually is. Mine is very good imo.


----------



## MagnumX

tomtastic said:


> Conversion is 100% as real as native 3D.


Either you enjoy being purposely obtuse (it's been made perfectly clear what WE are talking about) or you have some self-deluded fantasy going on where someone sitting on a computer picking points for depth equates to the physics accurate views of an actual 3D camera. One is a real view from a camera and the other is whatever the programmer/software sets it to be. OOPS, they missed that section of reflection on the windshield which is still laughably in 2D. Watch Jumper 3D. That's exactly what you get in some scenes.

I think you are confusing "3D effect to the brain of stereoscopy" with filming in actual 3D as opposed to faked computer imaging (CGI). Or do you think Tatooine is a real planet as opposed to a special effect coupled with filming in Tunisia?



brazen1 said:


> 24fps movies have nothing to do with judder when viewed on a display with a perfect multiple of 24. There simply isn't any judder.


If you think filling in missing frames with duplicate information is "getting rid of judder" in a realistic way, you might as well start calling CGI planets "real" ones too.  

Saying 24fps has "nothing to do with judder" is either ignorance talking or bravado. Judder is what you get with a frame rate of 24frames per second. PERIOD. It's caused by the camera moving too fast for a 24fps rate to provide a realistic smooth motion to the human eye/brain. 

Yes, the electronics industry has created "workarounds" that attempt to fill in that missing data with copies of previous frames or interpolated points in-between and then running that information at a higher frame rate than 24fps. But then that's not running at 24fps! The judder is CAUSED by the low frame rate! I'm sorry, but there is no way getting around this no matter how much you want to claim is has "nothing to do with it." 

Unfortunately, while these do get rid of "judder" they are not "realistic" at all. They also tend to create visible artifacting problems at times. It's simply no substitute for filming at higher frame rates and making excuses for Hollywood using 24fps in an age where it's simply UNNECESSARY is ridiculous! 

We have the technology HERE AND NOW to make movies at 60fps or even 120fps with the REAL points in-between actually being captured and filmed, right? The studios aren't doing this because it's not technology possible (or even EASY to do now), but because they're TERRIFIED OF CHANGE. They're afraid the general public will scream "soap opera" and stop going to the movie theater! That is the ONLY reason they continue to use 24fps. 

Some directors even still use film, but these are OLD FOGIES that aren't comfortable using modern technology. Some are terrified of it and keep doing what they know. IMO, they should retire. Film sucks. It's grainy crap and it's no longer relevant. Fifteen years ago? Yeah, you could argue digital wasn't quite there yet. But no longer. 120fps 8K should be perfectly feasible.



> Cheaper 60Hz displays do not handle 23.976 aka 24fps titles without using 3:2 pulldown to compensate which leads to judder. Unwatchable imo.


It must suck to be you that you can't watch TVs that don't cost $5000 when you visit your friends house. 

I mean it's a far cry for me to say I don't like something and saying something is literally "unwatchable" for me. You probably wouldn't enjoy some of the really old movies I'm watching that are only available in really really bad quality from questionable sources. But it's either that or never get to see those movies at all since Hollywood doesn't see much market in movies from the 1920s, for example.


----------



## tomtastic

MagnumX said:


> Either you enjoy being purposely obtuse (it's been made perfectly clear what WE are talking about) or you have some self-deluded fantasy going on where someone sitting on a computer picking points for depth equates to the physics accurate views of an actual 3D camera. One is a real view from a camera and the other is whatever the programmer/software sets it to be. OOPS, they missed that section of reflection on the windshield which is still laughably in 2D. Watch Jumper 3D. That's exactly what you get in some scenes.
> 
> I think you are confusing "3D effect to the brain of stereoscopy" with filming in actual 3D as opposed to faked computer imaging (CGI). Or do you think Tatooine is a real planet as opposed to a special effect coupled with filming in Tunisia?


So much misinformation here, where to begin??? What is a _real_ 3D camera? Can you name one? I'll save you some time: there are no 3D cameras that represent _true_ 3D that we see, so you're statement that "real 3D cameras" makes no sense. Native 3D with two lenses or two cameras are not set in one position that set each frame in 3D. There are side by side rigs, over under, fixed I.A. even single lens with 3D, these all have adjustments to some degree to change the 3D viewpoint and distance of camera to subject, which can also be done in post on _any_ of them, which again is done in all native movies as well as converted. If you space the cameras apart 10" and add 400mm lenses, that's not how human vision works, it's setting up the frame for a longer distance shot so that the subject is 3D in the frame, the stereographer makes the decision where to place the subject in the 3D depth.

My original response that converted 3D movies are not real 3D movies is true. People visit that realorfake3d website and believe that crap, that converted isn't real 3D and I just laugh. It's incorrect and it's being said to bash conversion 3D films. It's _conversion_ 3D and _native_ 3D, not _real_ or _fake_. For that matter, Avatar has some conversion as well, is that film now not a real 3D movie? What about The Martian? Conversion in there too. Point is, what you're calling real 3D, isn't really real 3D either compared to how human vision works.

The Star Destroyer scene is fine, nothing wrong with it. You can achieve similar negative parallax with a two camera system which you claim is the only real 3D, and if you can achieve that same shot with native how is that now real 3D? 3D does not have to be from one specific point as if you're always seeing from two eyes spaced 2.5 inches apart. Take 3D images of the sun for instance. Obviously we can't see the sun in 3D on earth, however with two cameras positioned in space on opposite sides of the earth have captured 3D images of the sun.


----------



## MagnumX

tomtastic said:


> So much misinformation here, where to begin???


Save your breath. I'm done talking to you. Please put me on your ignore list (you are now on mine). I've got better things to do with my time than argue with people that are deliberately ignorant and make no apologies for it. You don't know what realism is. You don't know what true 3D is. You don't know that computer generated imagery is FAKE and you don't want to know because it suits your agenda to try and convince people that CGI is REAL and that setting distances on a computer program (that could be set intentionally as far from reality as one could imagine) is the same as a 3D camera rig designed to give the view of human vision. Yes, that's why there are FLAT images in Jumper 3D and Piranha 3D and others where there should be depth (when looking through glass windows or fences or wherever they overlooked and/or the software couldn't handle the minute details between chain link and what's behind it. End result? FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE looking. But according to YOU, nope, it's REAL. Sorry, but I can't take that level of ignorance any longer (putting it mildly) and I'm not going to waste my time with you any longer. Life is too damn short. Goodbye and good riddance.


----------



## tomtastic

MagnumX said:


> Save your breath. I'm done talking to you. Please put me on your ignore list (you are now on mine). I've got better things to do with my time than argue with people that are deliberately ignorant and make no apologies for it. You don't know what realism is. You don't know what true 3D is. *You don't know that computer generated imagery is FAKE and you don't want to know because it suits your agenda to try and convince people that CGI is REAL and that setting distances on a computer program (that could be set intentionally as far from reality as one could imagine) is the same as a 3D camera rig designed to give the view of human vision*. Yes, that's why there are FLAT images in Jumper 3D and Piranha 3D and others where there should be depth (when looking through glass windows or fences or wherever they overlooked and/or the software couldn't handle the minute details between chain link and what's behind it. End result? FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE looking. But according to YOU, nope, it's REAL. Sorry, but I can't take that level of ignorance any longer (putting it mildly) and I'm not going to waste my time with you any longer. Life is too damn short. Goodbye and good riddance.


The deliberately ignorant part, is that a self-revelation? You're done talking because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. And the text I quoted in bold, wow that's as about a far enough leap from anything I said that I've ever heard. I pretty much have already ignored your posts as they've come off rude and insulting, but you did respond to my post here, not the other way around this time. Most of your posts are complete nonsense only amounting to as little as about 1 out of 10 correct statements in everything you say. Most here should just have you on their ignore list.

There are various degrees of how well conversion 3D can be and we've seen how bad it can be early on and we've seen it get better over the years as the skill and technology improves. You list Jumper as an example which is not a great conversion of an older film and Piranha, another early conversion and the entire movie budget wouldn't even cover Titanic's conversion costs alone, less money and input equals less results. Surprised you didn't mention Clash of the Titans, another one that's not a great early conversion. But that's what people do when they want to bash conversions, they pick out the same ones. Speaking of more recent and better quality conversions, the 3D shows more 3D depth and realism and I will even go as far to say that _some_ have rivaled native-shot 3D films.

I make no claims that at this point in time do I find that conversion 3D as a tool is better than native, in fact I think that at least for scenes that don't have CGI, directors should use native 3D more. Conversion hasn't approached native 3D yet. However, I don't call it fake 3D. It _is_ 3D (and don't worry, your screen will see it as 3D too lol). You can generate 3D in more ways than with two cameras or two lenses. And this is coming from someone that actually films 3D natively with 3D cameras and dual cameras. 

3D cameras and the image on a 3D screen is not what we see in reality. Negative parallax for one, images coming out of the screen. Explain how that works in real human vision as you put it, doesn't really happen that way. A 3D camera will take 2 2D images and with a set distance of disparity (distance between the lenses) we arrive at a parallax that gives us depth. That part is similar to human vision, but you don't seem to get that how we interrupt those images on a screen in stereo isn't the same as real human vision. A native 3D camera rig can't actually do that! It's _artificial_ too. 3D on screen is an illusion, nothing more.

You mentioned setting unrealistic distances, and this is for anyone else as I know you're not reading but I'll post for everyone else anyway, that's again wrong. The scene in Star Wars with the ship popping out of the screen, that's stereographer's choice. Yes, he could have had it set back in the depth plane but that's not what he choose. And as I've already posted, you could do the same shot the same way with native-shot 3D, it involves widening the stereo base and zooming in, OK I'll go ahead and say it so there's no confusion on what I think is real: not a _real_ star destroyer but something of similar size. Stereographers have been taking 3D photos of mountains for awhile now. Can't exactly see those in 3D from a person's viewpoint 5 miles away, yet to achieve a 3D image, you space two cameras apart at the appropriate distance, in this case approx. 1000 ft. and there you go, a 3D image of a mountain.

Again, it's not fake, neither are _real_ either to be honest. It's an _illusion_. Both are tools for creating 3D, one is done entirely in post called conversion. The other is S3D (native stereoscopic) with dual cameras or dual lenses. Yes, some examples look better than others. I list Gravity, Guardians of the Galaxy, Mad Max as some really good conversions, among others.


----------



## Seilerbird

I have almost 100 3D movies and documentaries. I love almost every one of them. Whether or not they were shot in 3D originally or converted, it doesn't matter. Almost all of them look great. They all look much better than 2D.


----------



## 3DBob

Interesting discussion, and I think everyone can have a view of conversion and native. That said, I have a few earlier native 3D films that have horrible native 3D due to lack of attention to eye convergence or parallax range. It is a very detailed process to bring native 3D to life without eye disparity, ie. trying to manage the 3D window opening, which has the mages matched perfectly, vs. forcing objects through it or in front of it and managing infinity depth at the same time. Either one can cause infinity variations that really screw up your depth perception. For example in a closed room, the convergence is often set so that the walls, which are about 10-15 feet away behind the person are about 2.5 inches apart, when outside, infinity is set to 2.5 inches when the actors are up close. That doesn't always work. In conversion, that can actually be managed more easily. In native, each scene has to be thought out with precision, then in the dailies, they have to check convergence and parrallax range for each scene. I will have to go back and look at some of my early natives to point that out.

Probably the best example of native and conversion mashed together is Transformers: The Last Knight. In those types of movies it takes 100 hours of rendering using a huge computer farm to create one frame of film. Based on that characteristic alone, conversion makes much more sense economically. You can expect almost all 3D films in the future to be converted unless you have a director like Micheal Bay or James Cameron. This is interesting to watch: 



 Note the comments about how his use of twin Imax cameras for 3D has helped IMAX--yet IMAX in the US has mostly dropped the showing of 3D movies...https://www.fastcompany.com/3032185/can-imaxs-new-camera-make-big-movies-worth-big-money. Note the little box at the bottom of the twin lenses that adjusts the parallax range/convergence--that inward, outward eye-like movement adjustment. Consumer 3D cameras have fixed lenses pointing straight forward. Commercial 3D directors have cameras adjust like your eyes adjust. For those of you that don't know what I mean. Simply step in front of mirror and hold up a finger and note that your eyes point toward your finger, which comes into focus. Note the background goes out of focus (and you actually see a double background image behind a single finger)--ahh, now here is the rub with 3D on the screen where they try to adjust the near object focus, but also leave the distance in some focus that is still in 3D alignment without making your eyes bug out. That's why they have that adjustment. In a conversion, you don't have that issue. they correct depth through a contrast map and then fill in the missing holes behind objects through computer interpolation--false parallax/convergence conversion.

Why some directors didn't use native 3D--this in 2012: https://www.cbr.com/barry-sonnenfeld-on-diving-into-3d-and-the-past-in-men-in-black-3/ This conversion and reasons for it had a big impact on other directors, I think.

When the conversion process business exploded in 2012: http://www.postmagazine.com/Publications/Post-Magazine/2012/May-1-2012/2D-to-3D-Conversion.aspx. Note the number of people involved. I imagine many of these companies didn't make it into 2018.

This is a good writeup about what was going on in the industry in 2014. https://www.thecredits.org/2014/09/native-3d-the-future-of-spatial-movie-production/

Another read: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-3D-movies-not-filmed-in-native-3D-anymore

Another good read: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/is-golden-age-3d-officially-1025843

This is a good, but very simple, explanation of the 3D conversion process through using a contrast depth map. http://www.lifeis3d.com/2d-to-3d-conversion/

I understand that all of this is still arguable, but I think it's fair to educate the audience on what is driving this conflict. I'm just happy they are still making 3D movies, native or converted. It's sometimes science, more about art, and always about making money.


----------



## brazen1

@MagnumX


We are here responding to help you and others. We're not here to argue with you. We don't mind that you have opinions, and that you form opinions of us, but some of the things you state as factual are actually flat out wrong like your theories about judder and post processed 3D here in this thread. 


Judder has nothing to do with the camera moving too fast. It does make it easier to see it occurring though. Slow panning scenes as well. Judder is occurring on stationary objects too although you don't notice it as much. It's a simple math problem. If you can't accept that, I don't know what to tell you?


To combat judder, the math problem must be eliminated. So, higher display refresh rates are offered. This 120Hz tech costs more than the average low resolution of 60Hz that has been common in TV's since the beginning. Most folks know nothing about judder/blur and most all other abnormalities. They simply live with all the defects and accept them as normalcy as they have throughout the decades. When offered 120Hz, 240Hz, etc. they have no idea what that will gain them other than a higher price tag and walk out of the store with a 60Hz happy since the screen is larger for the same amount of money confident they made a wise decision. Once it's plugged in, they have a larger version of the same defects they've always turned a blind eye to.


Fortunately there is smoothing software available for file playback adding a bit of relief for 60Hz connoisseurs who have no choice but render a mismatched frame rate to avoid 3:2 pulldown. After testing this remedy, I determined it is better than nothing but far from the accuracy of matching a frame rate to a perfect divisible display rate such as 120Hz and that is my opinion. As is when viewing a 60Hz display with no remedy used making it unwatchable now for me since I've been spoiled by the perfection of motion using 120Hz with the added interpolation to 240Hz. It's like eating cold beans all your life and one day you get a hot serving. You will never want to eat cold beans again no matter how hungry you are. Some displays process interpolated frames terrible. I agree with you. They simply suck at it. However, some displays have it down to a perfected science and the processors they use and the algorithm to run them is well ahead of the pack and stands out and shines. You can exclaim fake, un-pure, and it doesn't work, all you want while I kick back and enjoy all this. To say the only cure for judder is that film makers need to wake up and film at higher frame rates (to satisfy the problems inherent with cheap displays) is ridiculous.


Same with post processed 3D. Some displays render 3D better than others. Only 3D filmed with dual cameras is tolerable on cheap displays. Introducing post processed to these cheap displays takes it over the edge and looks like junk. Then how the movie was filmed or not filmed is blamed. On the other side of the coin are displays that handle 3D well complete with CGI scenes. Dual camera, post processed, what ever, look terrific. Every frame renders as intended. I can't tell the difference between "real 3D" and "fake 3D" tbh. Some titles it is apparent, I admit, but it certainly isn't a rule of thumb that applies to all titles. In fact, I applaud many post processed 3D titles since they were not originally filmed using dual cameras when they were produced but the "fake" 3D re-mastered release looks like it was. I chalk it up to a good decent display and analyze/critique it fairly. I suppose using the "questionable" sources you use plus limiting the render to 60Hz, no amount of anything is going to help but to form an opinion based on them as factual across the board is ridiculous.


Again, digest others experiences vs yours rather than deflect them. Everything considered, you may learn something that could lead to better experiences for yourself. That's why we comment. To enlighten.


----------



## tomtastic

3DBob said:


> I understand that all of this is still arguable, but I think it's fair to educate the audience on what is driving this conflict. I'm just happy they are still making 3D movies, native or converted. It's sometimes science, more about art, and always about making money.


Yes, that's one important point I was trying to make. If we didn't have converted 3D movies, we wouldn't have much 3D to watch, as there was only one native 3D film last year: Transformers, but apparently conversion isn't _real_ 3D, it's fake. I guess all the animated 3D movies aren't real 3D either because they weren't filmed with _real_ 3D cameras. Creating 3D _is_ art, even with native S3D, that's what I've always thought. But art is subjective.

Early on I was in the camp that was against conversion 3D, but that was early on before they started getting better and after you compare movies like Gravity or Guardians of the Galaxy to native movies like the Martian, they really hold up well. There is also the cost factor and studios likely factor in a 15 million budget for the 3D conversion, especially with directors that aren't willing to film natively. Native 3D is expensive, I can't say more or less than conversion but it's a lot. Mission Impossible 6 was filmed in native 3D with Imax cameras, at least _partially_, releases this summer. These are the ones they should release in IMAX theaters in 3D, not a blow up of non-IMAX filmed movies.


----------



## MagnumX

brazen1 said:


> @*MagnumX*
> We are here responding to help you and others. We're not here to argue with you.


Life is too short to keep dealing with people trying to tell me that Ultraviolet tanning beds are the SAME THING as lying out under the real sun. Yes, both can give you a sun burn, but that's about all they have in common. Whether it's faking higher frame rates or faking 3D, it's still fake. CGI is also fake and it LOOKS IT in many movies (Star Wars prequels come to mind, but then the metal guy in T2 looks kind of cheesy today as well). Ah, for the days when the STORY was what was important and movies didn't cost so much that they could afford to try new ideas out instead of rebooting and remaking everything I've already seen. 

Hopefully, one day you'll realize 24fps is too low to film in period and that faking higher frame rates to fix the problems of 24fps is not the same as real life (faking it creates artifacts with interpolation and either way faking it creates the dreaded "soap opera effect". That is not an acceptable compromise to filming at higher frame rates let alone telling me that the 1926 based 24fps isn't the source of the problem when it's absurdly low (try playing a video game at 24fps and see how well you do turning at high speed).

Meanwhile, congratulations, you've been added to my ignore list as well! Have a nice life.


----------



## brazen1

MagnumX said:


> Life is too short to keep dealing with people trying to tell me that Ultraviolet tanning beds are the SAME THING as lying out under the real sun. Yes, both can give you a sun burn, but that's about all they have in common. Whether it's faking higher frame rates or faking 3D, it's still fake. CGI is also fake and it LOOKS IT in many movies (Star Wars prequels come to mind, but then the metal guy in T2 looks kind of cheesy today as well). Ah, for the days when the STORY was what was important and movies didn't cost so much that they could afford to try new ideas out instead of rebooting and remaking everything I've already seen.
> 
> Hopefully, one day you'll realize 24fps is too low to film in period and that faking higher frame rates to fix the problems of 24fps is not the same as real life (faking it creates artifacts with interpolation and either way faking it creates the dreaded "soap opera effect". That is not an acceptable compromise to filming at higher frame rates let alone telling me that the 1926 based 24fps isn't the source of the problem when it's absurdly low (try playing a video game at 24fps and see how well you do turning at high speed).
> 
> Meanwhile, congratulations, you've been added to my ignore list as well! Have a nice life.



You still aren't willing to accept that some displays are manufactured using a maximum of 60Hz and others are manufactured using 120Hz? That isn't fake. It's reality. It's also the cure for judder whether you want to accept that or not. Tried to enlighten you.....


----------



## tomtastic

brazen1 said:


> You still aren't willing to accept that some displays are manufactured using a maximum of 60Hz and others are manufactured using 120Hz? That isn't fake. It's reality. It's also the cure for judder whether you want to accept that or not. Tried to enlighten you.....


24hz and conversion 3D are fake news.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Doesn't matter if it's filmed in 3D or 3D is don in post production. 
Kong Skull Island and Blade Runner 2049 are examples of amazing 3D films that are done in post production and 99% to what they would look like if filmed in native 3D.


----------



## AudioQuestions

Exist_To_Resist said:


> Doesn't matter if it's filmed in 3D or 3D is don in post production.
> Kong Skull Island and Blade Runner 2049 are examples of amazing 3D films that are done in post production and 99% to what they would look like if filmed in native 3D.


I disagree. I still liked blade runner 2049 but there were times like at the end when Ryan Gosling was laying on the steps and it was a completely flat image, while the digital snow had some minimal pop out.

There were several times why I was even wearing 3D glasses at all. There were parts done very well though, so I'd still prefer it in 3d.


----------



## danlshane

AudioQuestions said:


> I disagree. I still lived blade runner 2049 but there were times like at the end when Ryan Gosling was laying on the steps and it was a completely flat image, while the digital snow had some minimal pop out.


The effectiveness of that scene may depend on your display. I agree that overall BR2049 does not take full advantage of 3D, but my experience with that scene on my LG 65" OLED was quite immersive. I almost wanted to stick my tongue out to catch the snowflakes. If it had been filmed in native 3D and the raw image projected I doubt that there would be snowflakes there at all.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

danlshane said:


> The effectiveness of that scene may depend on your display. I agree that overall BR2049 does not take full advantage of 3D, but my experience with that scene on my LG 65" OLED was quite immersive. I almost wanted to stick my tongue out to catch the snowflakes. If it had been filmed in native 3D and the raw image projected I doubt that there would be snowflakes there at all.


I had the same experience with my OLED. 
These are reference 3d displays though, and this being my 3rd 3D display I can comfortably say not all 3D displays are made the same.


----------



## everyperson

*One of the best "real" 3D movies-showoff your 3D setup*

"The Original 3D Movie remastered on Blu-ray 3D"..."Kiss Me Kate". The first time you view this film in 3D, you can tell that it was shot FOR 3D. It's a great musical and one of the best original 3D movies. If you want to showoff your 3D setup, this is the Blu-ray disk to do it.


----------



## snpanago

Another demo disc shot in 3D is Hugo 3D by Martin Scorcese. Beautiful and immersive, the 3D draws you in as if you are there.


----------



## Rudy1

*They're back....*

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/2955248-samsung-3d-cinema-led-wall-professional-ise-2018-a.html


----------



## scarabaeus

Rudy1 said:


> *They're back....*
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-sc...-cinema-led-wall-professional-ise-2018-a.html


That looks to be passive 3D, not active? The article does not say...


----------



## danlshane

scarabaeus said:


> That looks to be passive 3D, not active? The article does not say...


The glasses the couple are wearing look pretty thick to me.


----------



## Rudy1

*PRESS RELEASE*

https://news.samsung.com/global/worlds-first-introducing-the-ultimate-3-dimensional-experience-3d-cinema-led


----------



## scarabaeus

Rudy1 said:


> *PRESS RELEASE*
> 
> https://news.samsung.com/global/wor...timate-3-dimensional-experience-3d-cinema-led


Indeed, that looks like active 3D glasses. What a shame, a missed opportunity. At that pixel size, it should be easy to align the polarizer sheets for passive 3D.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

tomtastic said:


> I also find because I have 3D movies ripped and everyone can play them, that when they do, they're just watching with the glasses off.


Are you saying that you rip your 3D in a way that allows 2D or 3D watching?


----------



## tomtastic

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Are you saying that you rip your 3D in a way that allows 2D or 3D watching?


No, it's in 3D, but my kids don't bother putting the glasses on. So I don't bother with 3D any more on animated movies.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

tomtastic said:


> No, it's in 3D, but my kids don't bother putting the glasses on. So I don't bother with 3D any more on animated movies.


They watch it blurry??? What format are you ripping to? Is it MVC or TAB/SBS?


----------



## tomtastic

KaraokeAmerica said:


> They watch it blurry??? What format are you ripping to? Is it MVC or TAB/SBS?


Yeah, blurry, in t/b. They don't seem to mind. I ask them if they want glasses but they aren't that interested in 3D. So I just add the 2D version from now on.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

tomtastic said:


> Yeah, blurry, in t/b. They don't seem to mind. I ask them if they want glasses but they aren't that interested in 3D. So I just add the 2D version from now on.


LOL

My 7 year old son doesn't much like the glasses either, but I am in the habit of ripping movies into both formats at home because not everyone is as addicted to 3D as I am......


----------



## aaronwt

Or you just rip in the 3D format, and use a media player that can play it back in 2D.


----------



## cowboy85

Is there any chance of good glasses-free 3D televisions for the home consumer in the next 10-15 years?


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

aaronwt said:


> Or you just rip in the 3D format, and use a media player that can play it back in 2D.


Which ones do that?

I have an 3D LG Smart TV with WebOS3 - I usually use the built in Plex app on that one.

Toshiba 3D TV - I use the FireTV or Firestick for most watching (or my OpenElec Pi for 3D) on that one since it's my man cave.

BenQ 2050 3D projector - FireTV or OpenElec box

I have an HDMI Stick running Win10 and Plex PMP that is usually in my LG TV but I rarely use it because PMP is wonky.

Two Firesticks - functional but slow. Won't play most 3D even in TAB/SBS mode.

FireTV - Faster than the Firesticks, but still has issues with 3D often enough

RokuTV - I LOVE this TV! It's 4K but not 3D though so 3D isn't an issue. I just have no idea how well a Roku would play TAB/SBS since I don't have a seperate one to plug into a 3D TV.

I know that if you play an MVC 3D file on a 2D TV it will of course only play in 2D. However, nothing plays 3D-MVC except a Pi with OpenElec and Kodi, therefore, defeating the purpose.

I know there are specialty players expensive that can deal with 3D-MVC like I think some of the Popcorn players will do it. However, they are expensive and don't run Plex. That could theoretically give me 2D and 3D in one rip, but the file size would be massive. I'd live with it, if that was a Plex solution, but I'm with Plex at this point as my primary media consumption platform. DVR, home sharing etc.

I'm trying to standardize my media interface on all TVs/PCs so my non-techie family members can handle it. Right now I have a different solution on every TV it seems.


----------



## Bandyka

Rudy1 said:


> *They're back....*
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/23-screens/2955248-samsung-3d-cinema-led-wall-professional-ise-2018-a.html


Hearing more and more about 3D making a comeback due to new display tech, this looks promising.


----------



## 3DBob

tomtastic said:


> No, it's in 3D, but my kids don't bother putting the glasses on. So I don't bother with 3D any more on animated movies.


 Interesting statement. I think this one of the reasons 3D is waning in US. The last couple of 3D movies at a theater that I've seen had a lot of parents with kids, and most of the kids refused to wear the glasses for more than a couple of minutes. I could see that some didn't like the sense of reality and that made them afraid or nauseous. Others complained the glasses made them look stupid. It was really funny. I started watching the kids' reactions vs. watching the movie. In my cave in the basement, when we have company over and I put on a 3D movie and turn down the lights, the kids run upstairs after a few minutes. They don't like the sensation and being in the dark.


----------



## NorthJersey

Bandyka said:


> Hearing more and more about 3D making a comeback due to new display tech, this looks promising.


possibly showing up in next gen 8k models, with auto-stereoscopic 3D (no glasses). But makes you wonder if there will be a sweet spot for seating positioning for it to work.
the nintendo 3ds uses that, but the effect works when viewing straight on, no angles


----------



## snpanago

NorthJersey said:


> possibly showing up in next gen 8k models, with auto-stereoscopic 3D (no glasses). But makes you wonder if there will be a sweet spot for seating positioning for it to work.
> the nintendo 3ds uses that, but the effect works when viewing straight on, no angles


A few pages back, someone who sounded knowledgeable about this tech stated that 3D depth would look good from a proper viewing angle but pop out 3D wouldn't be anywhere as good as the present tech using glasses. 

Glasses never have bothered me, but the more I read others' posts this seems like the main decider, more than the number who experience side effects.


----------



## aaronwt

KaraokeAmerica said:


> Which ones do that?
> 
> I have an 3D LG Smart TV with WebOS3 - I usually use the built in Plex app on that one.
> 
> Toshiba 3D TV - I use the FireTV or Firestick for most watching (or my OpenElec Pi for 3D) on that one since it's my man cave.
> 
> BenQ 2050 3D projector - FireTV or OpenElec box
> 
> I have an HDMI Stick running Win10 and Plex PMP that is usually in my LG TV but I rarely use it because PMP is wonky.
> 
> Two Firesticks - functional but slow. Won't play most 3D even in TAB/SBS mode.
> 
> FireTV - Faster than the Firesticks, but still has issues with 3D often enough
> 
> RokuTV - I LOVE this TV! It's 4K but not 3D though so 3D isn't an issue. I just have no idea how well a Roku would play TAB/SBS since I don't have a seperate one to plug into a 3D TV.
> 
> I know that if you play an MVC 3D file on a 2D TV it will of course only play in 2D. However, nothing plays 3D-MVC except a Pi with OpenElec and Kodi, therefore, defeating the purpose.
> 
> I know there are specialty players expensive that can deal with 3D-MVC like I think some of the Popcorn players will do it. However, they are expensive and don't run Plex. That could theoretically give me 2D and 3D in one rip, but the file size would be massive. I'd live with it, if that was a Plex solution, but I'm with Plex at this point as my primary media consumption platform. DVR, home sharing etc.
> 
> I'm trying to standardize my media interface on all TVs/PCs so my non-techie family members can handle it. Right now I have a different solution on every TV it seems.


I use the Popcorn hour media players. 

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

aaronwt said:


> I use the Popcorn hour media players.


I take it you like them? Their website doesn't even have pricing. How do you buy them?

I found this on Amazon but all sold via 3rd party:

https://www.amazon.com/Popcorn-Digital-Media-Player-Jukebox/dp/B01F1GWV7W

Since it's just a player does it have the add-on functionality for stuff like DVR or live TV?


----------



## MagnumX

3DBob said:


> Interesting statement. I think this one of the reasons 3D is waning in US. The last couple of 3D movies at a theater that I've seen had a lot of parents with kids, and most of the kids refused to wear the glasses for more than a couple of minutes. I could see that some didn't like the sense of reality and that made them afraid or nauseous. Others complained the glasses made them look stupid. It was really funny. I started watching the kids' reactions vs. watching the movie. In my cave in the basement, when we have company over and I put on a 3D movie and turn down the lights, the kids run upstairs after a few minutes. They don't like the sensation and being in the dark.


Wow, what a bunch of whimps we have today (and how the hell would they KNOW if they looked stupid? Selfies in the movie theater??? WTF.... It does seem strange they can't manage to make 3D glasses look more like a pair of sunglasses. Nobody complains about looking stupid in those. 

My brother and I could not get enough of Magic Journeys when we were kids at Disney World and couldn't wait to see more 3D. Jaws 3D, Metalstorm and then Captain EO at Epcot, Honey I shrunk the audience and finally Muppets 4D. 3D at home is like a dream come true. But then my generation (and earlier) had plenty of violent cartoons to grow up with instead of Barney and Teletubbies and now smart phones and Facebook where even stepping outdoors must seem scary when you live your life in a virtual bubble.



KaraokeAmerica said:


> Toshiba 3D TV - I use the FireTV or Firestick for most watching (or my OpenElec Pi for 3D) on that one since it's my man cave.


Man cave? That would be my entire house.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

MagnumX said:


> Man cave? That would be my entire house.


You single and divorced guys just THINK you have it all figured out. I may not get to control the whole house, but the trade-off is worth it......


----------



## magnification

scarabaeus said:


> Indeed, that looks like active 3D glasses. What a shame, a missed opportunity. At that pixel size, it should be easy to align the polarizer sheets for passive 3D.


It's definitely Active 3d going by the glasses. Looks like there's an low lit led on the one glass the guy is holding


----------



## aaronwt

KaraokeAmerica said:


> I take it you like them? Their website doesn't even have pricing. How do you buy them?
> 
> I found this on Amazon but all sold via 3rd party:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Popcorn-Digital-Media-Player-Jukebox/dp/B01F1GWV7W
> 
> Since it's just a player does it have the add-on functionality for stuff like DVR or live TV?


I've been using them since 2009. When I first started ripping my BDs to ISOs. But things changed last year since Sigma no longer makes the chips that were used in PCH and Dune players. or at least something like that.


----------



## KaraokeAmerica

aaronwt said:


> I've been using them since 2009. When I first started ripping my BDs to ISOs. But things changed last year since Sigma no longer makes the chips that were used in PCH and Dune players. or at least something like that.


So does that mean buy Popcorn no more?


----------



## danlshane

3DBob said:


> Interesting statement. I think this one of the reasons 3D is waning in US. The last couple of 3D movies at a theater that I've seen had a lot of parents with kids, and most of the kids refused to wear the glasses for more than a couple of minutes. I could see that some didn't like the sense of reality and that made them afraid or nauseous. Others complained the glasses made them look stupid. It was really funny. I started watching the kids' reactions vs. watching the movie. In my cave in the basement, when we have company over and I put on a 3D movie and turn down the lights, the kids run upstairs after a few minutes. They don't like the sensation and being in the dark.


I love that story.

I wonder how well kids would accept polarized contact lenses. It might not be healthy, but many don't seem to let that worry them when they stick colored plastic discs on their eyebulbs each Halloween.


----------



## aaronwt

Sounds like there are other issues going on if a child is afraid of the dark.


----------



## MagnumX

aaronwt said:


> Sounds like there are other issues going on if a child is afraid of the dark.


Probably watched Monsters Inc. Be afraid. Be VERY afraid!

Now Killer Klowns from outer space....now THAT is a funny movie.


----------



## scarabaeus

aaronwt said:


> I've been using them since 2009. When I first started ripping my BDs to ISOs. But things changed last year since Sigma no longer makes the chips that were used in PCH and Dune players. or at least something like that.


Yes, Sigma seems to be going the way of the dodo, unfortunately. Dune apparently switched to MediaTek, not sure about Popcorn Hour. The WD TV boxes also used Sigma, but WD stopped them altogether.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

tomtastic said:


> No, it's in 3D, but my kids don't bother putting the glasses on. So I don't bother with 3D any more on animated movies.


Do you rip full frame packed, or HSBS or HOU?


----------



## SteveCaron

Well looks like Black Panther is going to need to be another UK 3D blu Ray purchase.


----------



## tomtastic

Pretty sure anything released or owned by Disney will now be on import list.


----------



## MagnumX

Why act so surprised at this point? Be glad it's available SOMEWHERE.


----------



## Actionable Mango

tomtastic said:


> Yeah, blurry, in t/b. They don't seem to mind. I ask them if they want glasses but they aren't that interested in 3D. So I just add the 2D version from now on.


Don't you have an LG? I have an LG and you can play 3D movies in 2D by hitting the 3D Mode button on the remote. So no need to store two different versions.


----------



## tomtastic

Actionable Mango said:


> Don't you have an LG? I have an LG and you can play 3D movies in 2D by hitting the 3D Mode button on the remote. So no need to store two different versions.


Why would I want to halve the resolution? I make both 2D and 3D versions.


----------



## Actionable Mango

tomtastic said:


> Why would I want to halve the resolution? I make both 2D and 3D versions.


I am talking about full resolution. Full resolution 3D TAB, SBS, and Frame Sequential rips all play fine in the TV's Plex app. It even starts 3D in the right mode automatically.

What I am talking about is playing that, but manually turning on the 3D-to-2D mode for the kids. Then you don't need two versions.


----------



## tomtastic

I don't have any t/b full resolution files right now only half. I tested them and didn't really see much difference except the file size and they didn't play back smooth enough on my current hardware. I'm switching now to Plex on PS4 but finding other issues with that setup so not sure if that's going to work to replace my older Mac mini's. That, and I have so many I really don't want to think about re-ripping all of them right now, that's probably over 400 titles now.


----------



## marcuslaw

Hopefully this news from Samsung might mean it and other TV manufacturers could someday reintroduce support for the format in future televisions. My biggest fear is that my Sony FALD will die and take my 3-D Blu-ray library with it. 

*Samsung Debuts World’s First 3D Cinema LED Screen Theater in Switzerland*


----------



## wildbill722

marcuslaw said:


> Hopefully this news from Samsung might mean it and other TV manufacturers could someday reintroduce support for the format in future televisions. My biggest fear is that my Sony FALD will die and take my 3-D Blu-ray library with it.
> 
> *Samsung Debuts World’s First 3D Cinema LED Screen Theater in Switzerland*


And glasses are optional. Now that is cool!


----------



## 3DBob

marcuslaw said:


> Hopefully this news from Samsung might mean it and other TV manufacturers could someday reintroduce support for the format in future televisions. My biggest fear is that my Sony FALD will die and take my 3-D Blu-ray library with it.
> 
> *Samsung Debuts World’s First 3D Cinema LED Screen Theater in Switzerland*


Just so there is no misunderstanding. This TV will require glasses for 3D, probably active-shutter, which by itself will be fraught with issues such as higher ticket cost, bad battery, poor fit, reverse sync, foggy lenses due to poor cleaning, etc.--you know, all those things that drive us nuts when the family is over to watch our 3D projectors or LEDs that use active-shutter glasses.


----------



## MagnumX

3DBob said:


> Just so there is no misunderstanding. This TV will require glasses for 3D, probably active-shutter, which by itself will be fraught with issues such as higher ticket cost, bad battery, poor fit, reverse sync, foggy lenses due to poor cleaning, etc.--you know, all those things that drive us nuts when the family is over to watch our 3D projectors or LEDs that use active-shutter glasses.


So you're blaming ACTIVE shutter on people NOT cleaning their glasses? What if people don't clean their passive glasses? Or do you just buy new ones for every viewing??? How is that cheaper in the long run? Bad battery? No idea, guy. I've got 3 brands and 4 pairs and all last over 10 movies each charge and if one really was low, it only takes 5 minutes to charge for one movie; one brand allows 2D viewing of 3D as well. Poor fit? How do you make passive glasses fit better? They're usually cheaper made than active. Sorry, but most of your beefs against "active" glasses sound like nonsense since they typically apply to passive too.


----------



## Kenbar

3DBob said:


> Just so there is no misunderstanding. This TV will require glasses for 3D, probably active-shutter, which by itself will be fraught with issues such as higher ticket cost, bad battery, poor fit, reverse sync, foggy lenses due to poor cleaning, etc.--you know, all those things that drive us nuts when the family is over to watch our 3D projectors or LEDs that use active-shutter glasses.


No clue what they are saying...


----------



## 3DBob

MagnumX said:


> So you're blaming ACTIVE shutter on people NOT cleaning their glasses? What if people don't clean their passive glasses? Or do you just buy new ones for every viewing??? How is that cheaper in the long run? Bad battery? No idea, guy. I've got 3 brands and 4 pairs and all last over 10 movies each charge and if one really was low, it only takes 5 minutes to charge for one movie; one brand allows 2D viewing of 3D as well. Poor fit? How do you make passive glasses fit better? They're usually cheaper made than active. Sorry, but most of your beefs against "active" glasses sound like nonsense since they typically apply to passive too.


 Actually, passive glasses are cheap to replace and they get cleaned by the theater or discarded (see link below)--at least they are supposed to be. Active glasses would require a slightly different cleaning process as to not damage the crystals. Plus, a theater would have to recharge them all after a few showings to make sure no one gets a bad one. Then there is the sync problem and the crosstalk problem. These people would have to get up, go to the lobby to get a different pair and that might not solve their problem. People grabbing the crystal and squeezing slightly are going to damage it and kids handling them could easily cause that. I watched the video above and there is a few seconds of people putting on their glasses and trying to adjust them. Just watch if you can in full screen, it's funny. All I'm saying is that shutter glasses add another level of irritation over use of passive glasses in expense, use and maintenance. Sure at home it's easy to recharge and clean the glasses, but multiply that by a couple hundred and you've got a nightmare waiting to happen.

This is an old link, but still current: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/01/are_these_3d_glasses_dirty.html

Note that RealD, which is in most of the theaters now, uses throwaway glasses, which you are going to pay for, of course, in your ticket price. Shutter glasses have to be cleaned, and although it talks about dishwashers, I can't see any glasses that have batteries, surviving a dishwasher. They probably get cleaned by hand, someone has to do this and get paid to do it, which along with recharging is going to be problematic in a bigger theater environment. Anyway I'm not trying to discourage this by any means. I'm just saying that if this is supposed to be a move forward for 3D, it's not going to be. For 2D viewing it's probably going to be a wow experience due to contrast and image pop versus projector viewing, though.


----------



## Kenbar

3DBob said:


> Actually, passive glasses are cheap to replace and they get cleaned by the theater or discarded (see link below)--at least they are supposed to be. Active glasses would require a slightly different cleaning process as to not damage the crystals. Plus, a theater would have to recharge them all after a few showings to make sure no one gets a bad one. Then there is the sync problem and the crosstalk problem. These people would have to get up, go to the lobby to get a different pair and that might not solve their problem. People grabbing the crystal and squeezing slightly are going to damage it and kids handling them could easily cause that. I watched the video above and there is a few seconds of people putting on their glasses and trying to adjust them. Just watch if you can in full screen, it's funny. All I'm saying is that shutter glasses add another level of irritation over use of passive glasses in expense, use and maintenance. Sure at home it's easy to recharge and clean the glasses, but multiply that by a couple hundred and you've got a nightmare waiting to happen.
> 
> This is an old link, but still current: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/01/are_these_3d_glasses_dirty.html
> 
> Note that RealD, which is in most of the theaters now, uses throwaway glasses, which you are going to pay for, of course, in your ticket price. Shutter glasses have to be cleaned, and although it talks about dishwashers, I can't see any glasses that have batteries, surviving a dishwasher. They probably get cleaned by hand, someone has to do this and get paid to do it, which along with recharging is going to be problematic in a bigger theater environment. Anyway I'm not trying to discourage this by any means.* I'm just saying that if this is supposed to be a move forward for 3D, it's not going to be*. For 2D viewing it's probably going to be a wow experience due to contrast and image pop versus projector viewing, though.


If they are indeed using active, you are right. Might even prove to be another nail in the coffin.


----------



## MagnumX

Yes, but you said the same things that drive you nuts at home. Thus, I was referring to home where most of those things apply to passive as well and you have some level of control over who comes to visit. 

Even used passive glasses are inappropriate for theaters because cleaning won't remove scratches and every theater I've ever been to that cleans them have scratches. It's inevitable over time. People are generally pigs. 

Crosstalk is not unique to active either. The sad thing is that it could easily be eliminated if either the TV/projector or the glasses had a calibration mode to adjust the timing of either the images or the shutter sync. Some early models could be adjusted on the glasses and would fully eliminate the issue. They probably figured it would be too complicated for most people to figure out (most people couldn't even set their VCR clocks back in the day).

Passive crosstalk issues are completely dependent on the quality of the polarization filters used both on the TV and the glasses. Hell, tilt your head to the side slightly and you have instant crosstalk as you are changing the polarization alignment.


----------



## The_Forth_Man

marcuslaw said:


> Hopefully this news from Samsung might mean it and other TV manufacturers could someday reintroduce support for the format in future televisions. *My biggest fear is that my Sony FALD will die and take my 3-D Blu-ray library with it. *
> 
> *Samsung Debuts World’s First 3D Cinema LED Screen Theater in Switzerland*



If this ever happens feel free to pm me. I'll gladly pay the shipping from your house to mine.


----------



## golfster

marcuslaw said:


> Hopefully this news from Samsung might mean it and other TV manufacturers could someday reintroduce support for the format in future televisions. My biggest fear is that my Sony FALD will die and take my 3-D Blu-ray library with it.
> 
> *Samsung Debuts World’s First 3D Cinema LED Screen Theater in Switzerland*


What this should prompt is a forum titled "Are projectors about dead for home theater?" or "Finally a screen big enough to justify 4k"


----------



## timmo

Actionable Mango said:


> I am talking about full resolution. Full resolution 3D TAB, SBS, and Frame Sequential rips all play fine in the TV's Plex app. It even starts 3D in the right mode automatically.
> 
> 
> 
> What I am talking about is playing that, but manually turning on the 3D-to-2D mode for the kids. Then you don't need two versions.




I could never figure out how to rip my 3D blu-rays for Plex. I just rip the 2D versions, but would love to have the 3D version as well in a separate library. Is there an easy tutorial on how I do this with makemkv and handbrake? Thanks.


----------



## tomtastic

And some 3D versions are not the same as 2D versions so better to rip from the 2D version vs. converting 3D to 2D, and I have more than one screen type so it's not a universal standard for every device which won't convert or handle the files.


----------



## Actionable Mango

timmo said:


> I could never figure out how to rip my 3D blu-rays for Plex. I just rip the 2D versions, but would love to have the 3D version as well in a separate library. Is there an easy tutorial on how I do this with makemkv and handbrake? Thanks.


I don’t know if there are tutorials out there. I couldn’t find anything. Problem is that every TV is different for making 3D work correctly, and so no one single process works. Even among different model LG 4K 3D TVs there are differences in a single setting during encoding that will make a file incompatible on one LG but compatible on another. 

Most people seem to settle on an HTPC, special media player, or use half resolution files, because these methods are widely compatible solutions. But I didn’t want to do any of that. I just wanted my existing Plex setup with 2D movies to have full resolution 3D movies too, and I’m okay with it only working on my one TV.


----------



## brazen1

Imo, rather than special custom tailor your pristine original disc so that it will be compatible with a certain player or other software, rip your original disc 1:1 frame packed - how it was created in the first place. If your player and/or software can't handle the real deal, replace it with something that can. Half the reason 3D fails/failed at home and is condemned is because folks were taught to mangle the original source so that popular software that is/was inferior could then play it back, usually at less than desirable quality and questionable versatility. The war cry to fuel this ignorance was usually content filtering to reduce file size and widespread compatibility both coveted to shield the real problem - incapable inferiority.


----------



## MagnumX

From what I've seen, hardly anything will play frame packed 3D (MVC) as-is. You need a special custom version of Kodi, for example and it only works with a few specialized hardware players (mostly Windows based) and nearly all have some kind of issue the last time I checked. This will not likely change any time soon. FFMPEG will not support hardware decoded playback directly and 3D is now a dying/dead format so it won't likely be supported in the future at all. If there are other players out there I'm unaware of that will play these files, someone should please provide a list and the hardware it will run on as well. I've heard also of stereoscopic player, but that's pretty much it for frame packed support. I believe a Raspberry Pi can handle it (OpenElec + custom Kodi), but it's a pretty slow computer for general HTPC use of the GUI. I'd probably use one just for 3D playback. I don't think it can handle all the audio formats either.


----------



## aaronwt

A Popcorn Hour or Dune media player should be able to play it back. My Popcorn Hour Players can.


----------



## brazen1

MPC-HC and MPC-BE both play frame packed 3D. They are free players. I use them with KODI and have zero issues. So do scores of others. You don't need a special custom version. I've been using official versions for years. I also use PowerDVD. It too plays frame packed 3D and with full menus. It's $5 on Ebay and $39 on the website. I haven't had a problem with that either. All of these use hardware decoding. FFMPEG was employed for an attempt at hardware decoding using an NUC. They never did work right and still don't. None of this requires any special hardware. My HTPC is 10 years old. All of them play all audio formats. The 3D format doesn't look too dying or dead to me. Titles continue to release and plenty are scheduled for release. The furthest future release dates I can see at this time are through 2021 but I'm sure there are others slated to begin production now that manufactures are actually reintroducing 3D as part of this years and next years models with more advanced features. I would gamble more will follow. Not sure where you get your info but as I stated in my post above yours, what you were taught and what it is are two different things, usually discredited out of ignorance. Consider yourself enlightened.


----------



## MagnumX

And one wonders why I put _certain_ people on ignore.... The real question is why would I click to see what it has to say. That part is my fault.... BTW, Hardly any NONE.

MPC-HC will *not* run on Linux/Unix based boxes like FireTV, Nvidia Shield, AppleTV, etc. that MOST people use for an all-around playback instead of having to depend on a Windows computer in a home theater where it doesn't integrate worth squat (unless you enjoy using a mouse and/or keyboard in your home theater and running numerous other programs instead of a fully integrated GUI that looks like crap to be mousing around Windows instead of having a fully integrated KODI + CinemaVision that displays everything and then looks and behaves like a real movie theater). Newer Windows 10 builds caused some issues awhile back with some drivers and Windows 10 uses forced updates (fun fun fun). You know, Windows 10 that newer computers you buy use NOT "TEN YEAR OLD" computers running god knows what.... WTF buys a ten year old computer to run a home theater??? Yeah, that's a GREAT SOLUTION there for people buying NEW equipment.... There's also the matter of 4K playback with support for both HDR and Dolby Vision (AppleTV being one of the few that support it, but doesn't like Atmos currently and sure as hell can't run this stuff). I said the Raspberry Pi doesn't have full audio output support (but does do 3D MVC), but certain liars around here LOVE to misquote me. Some other devices have had issues with full audio output support (including Amazon and Apple devices. Something as simple as 44.1kHz output for CD music doesn't work (upsamples to 48kHz). Yeah, but I'm the ignorant one here.... 

PowerDVD? How well does that integrate into a remote based home theater? Full menus? You mean the entire reason I rip Blu-Rays in the first place to get AROUND having to see those menus, annoying previews, warnings and other annoying as HELL crap that Blu-Rays shove in your face? I might as well play it off the disc.... The entire reason to use something like KODI in the first place is to present media in an organized manner that can be run from a simple remote. 

I already said most of the solutions out there require Windows and buying a new computer means Windows 10 (crap hole of an OS that forces updates at inconvenient times which may or may not break things). What few options that don't use Windows have issues. One can look at the hardware lists over at the Kodi forums to see the truth of the matter and what problems each "solution" has shown for people. (https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=266316 ; https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=252916 ) Hell your own link shows what a PITA it is to set up 3D in KODI (https://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=229692). Get those Nvidia drivers installed; put in Stereoscopic player support, etc. (previously mentioned). Sorry, these things just won't run straight out of the box and if that player doesn't work on your hardware/OS, they won't run at all.

As for 3D dying, these are not made up things. Go to the Blu-Ray forums if you think no one is worried about 3D dying (no new TVs except some projectors support 3D anymore period and perhaps maybe 90% of all 3D Blu-Ray releases aren't available in the USA anymore, forcing 3D fans to import newer titles from Europe, India and Asia and even then there's less than half the releases there were a couple of years ago, but some genius here says 3D isn't dying _just_ to contradict what I say even though it's true.....  No, it's more like purposely killed off. Consider yourself *unenlightened*...


----------



## tomtastic

I'm currently testing a KDLinks box just for 3D iso files got it for cheap, so far it seems to work pretty well but the downside is a fairly basic and outdated file based menu system, not at all as nice as what I normally use. But playback is really good, handles 3D MVC, HD audio just fine. I'm still learning this setup and have questions on it like selecting other titles in the blu ray setlist. Testing a TV show blu ray it didn't show other episodes, but I won't be using it for that purpose, it was just for testing. I use Plex for everything else, I might use the KDlinks box for 3D though since it handles 3D frame packing and I already have an extra 4 bay enclosure to attach. Another downside is the 10/100 network no 1000, hmm, pretty gimped here if you ask me so I think just for attached storage use.


----------



## Actionable Mango

timmo said:


> I could never figure out how to rip my 3D blu-rays for Plex. I just rip the 2D versions, but would love to have the 3D version as well in a separate library. Is there an easy tutorial on how I do this with makemkv and handbrake? Thanks.


I forgot to mention, if you DO happen to have the same type of TV as I do (2016 LG OLED 4K 3D) then I would be willing to write a tutorial for ripping full resolution 3D MKVs that the TV's Plex application can detect and play back correctly. But the steps are essentially guaranteed to not work on other TVs at all, so if you have a different TV there is no point.

Outside of that, you can do what most people do which is a special media player attached to the TV, either a standalone box like Popcorn Hour or a PC with the right Windows software, like the few posts above this one are discussing.


----------



## brazen1

Let me enlighten you a little more. I'm not limited to using a keyboard and a mouse? I use one remote control from my couch. It turns my HTPC on and off and everything in between. I don't limit myself to boxes and devices, none of which are capable of accomplishing everything a Windows HTPC does so, to revel in the fact that many of these devices can't utilize software and players an HTPC can, speaks for itself not to mention the original discussion, most can't handle frame packed 3D with any efficiency or quality either and if they just so happen to, many other caveats come into play not worth discussing here or now. Unlike what you assume, KODI and these players coexist seamlessly and provide a wonderful experience including the GUI's. What's wrong with forced updates? Another assumption you make is that updates and/or notifications become a problem during playback or any other usage like computing on the computer. Turn off updates and notifications. Anything that takes place is done when rebooting. And that's the only notification you get that something occurred; you see it occur when you log out. To insinuate anything different is complete lack of knowledge, simple on or off customization skills, and laziness filled with all kinds of gum flap knowledge. You are lazy btw. You demand you take something out of a box, plug it in, and it goes without any setup. Good luck with that. To abolish my guide as too hard for you so it is going to be others further states your skills. You're right. You need to buy something out of a box, polish it and put it right in front of your TV and tell your friends "look what I did". When they hand you a real frame packed 3D iso and say here plug this in, you can talk out of the side of your mouth and educate them on the finer points of excusing. As I stated earlier, nothing special is required for a fully functional unlimited home theatre experience with zero errors or caveats. For example, I built my HTPC 10 years ago. Aside from adding more HDD storage and updating the video card once 2 or 3 years ago for $120, I'm state of the art and then some. Anyone with an old PC or a new one can follow suit should they choose. Why you would have anyone believe different listening to your gum flap can only be assumed but it certainly isn't derived from proper education much less dedication, talent, or an open mind to discover new and wonderful things. Moving on in your rant of nonsense, you proclaim PDVD is a terrible experience and not as enriched as KODI. The facts keep flying over your head evidently. As I stated earlier, PDVD is seamlessly integrated with KODI (your chosen front end of wonderfulness and guess what... mine too) WITH the benefits PDVD offers over the KODI internal videoplayer (which btw I also integrate as a default for some formats along with 3 other players assigned to shine where they shine best). In case your ignorance precedes you further than what you reveal, that means we browse the KODI library and press play from our remote controls and the appropriate player is assigned and begins. While in that player, complete control of it is also fully available from that same control. When finished, the player closes and returns to KODI in focus awaiting its next command. For you to proudly announce what a waste menus are for you isn't a waste for everyone else. As I stated originally, most folks, you included, aren't mangling your original disc to rid yourself of those pesky menus. You're doing it mainly because your educated choice of the ultimate home theatre can't handle the real deal. You are left with no choice but mangle your original format to something so basic, to me it's comical. Different strokes for different folks. I just happen to want it all. You on the other hand are happy to suffice with less and proclaim less is better yet you demand an add-on to provide that full cinema experience. You know, trailers and actor comments and so on that drive you up the wall when viewed straight from the disc or a perfect backup of one. Moving on in your list of intelligence... your proof to confirm how poorly HTPC's, especially W10 HTPC's perform backed by all your discoveries like notifications and updates are inquired at the KODI forums. These are naïve folks like yourself. Yep, each and everyone of your type assume this doesn't work or that doesn't work.... in the end those users are always educated and their problems are found to be things unrelated to what they were convinced where the problem lay. I answer them every day and if they follow instructions properly, they realize where they actually went wrong which is usually something simple like a bad cable or a wrong setting advised elsewhere, or an AVR that can't pass HDR, or etc. Folks like you tend to pull something out of the hat and run with the sheeple exclaiming everyone knows W10 update broke this or that or everybody knows an mkv is the only file to ever use and anything else means your blowin' it and to trust you on this because you've been around the block. I have no use for visiting forums that want to convince me 3D is a waste of time. It's alive and well here. I know this annoys you but no matter how many times you tell me to go read forums and I'll be informed, I disagree because of the facts: I agree and have stated 3D discs are no longer widely available like they were in their heyday in the USA but they are available. This is part of MAGA imo because the rest of the world has them. Right to my mail box they are delivered. New titles never released. New movies released that finally made it to disc. They just keep comin' and the calendar says more are comin'. Manufactures are adding 3D to displays again and you can buy them today. Sneak peaks at the various shows previewing next years anticipated models on full display for you to review with 3D. I think these facts say a lot for the future of 3D. You on the other hand....... LoL.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

Actionable Mango said:


> I forgot to mention, if you DO happen to have the same type of TV as I do (2016 LG OLED 4K 3D) then I would be willing to write a tutorial for ripping full resolution 3D MKVs that the TV's Plex application can detect and play back correctly. But the steps are essentially guaranteed to not work on other TVs at all, so if you have a different TV there is no point.
> 
> Outside of that, you can do what most people do which is a special media player attached to the TV, either a standalone box like Popcorn Hour or a PC with the right Windows software, like the few posts above this one are discussing.


I do have an e6p and LG plex is installed. I would like to get your tutorial and thanks for the offer. I have added you as a friend and you can private message me directly should you want to.


----------



## MagnumX

brazen1 said:


> Let me enlighten you a little more. I'm not limited to using a keyboard and a mouse? I use one remote control from my couch. It turns my HTPC on and off and everything in between. I don't limit myself to boxes and devices, none of which are capable of accomplishing everything a Windows HTPC does so, to revel in the fact that many of these devices can't utilize software and players an HTPC can, speaks for itself not to mention the original discussion, most can't handle frame packed 3D with any efficiency or quality either and if they just so happen to, many other caveats come into play not worth discussing here or now. Unlike what you assume, KODI and these players coexist seamlessly and provide a wonderful experience including the GUI's. What's wrong with forced updates? Another assumption you make is that updates and/or notifications become a problem during playback or any other usage like computing on the computer. Turn off updates and notifications. Anything that takes place is done when rebooting. And that's the only notification you get that something occurred; you see it occur when you log out. To insinuate anything different is complete lack of knowledge, simple on or off customization skills, and laziness filled with all kinds of gum flap knowledge. You are lazy btw. You demand you take something out of a box, plug it in, and it goes without any setup. Good luck with that. To abolish my guide as too hard for you so it is going to be others further states your skills. You're right. You need to buy something out of a box, polish it and put it right in front of your TV and tell your friends "look what I did". When they hand you a real frame packed 3D iso and say here plug this in, you can talk out of the side of your mouth and educate them on the finer points of excusing. As I stated earlier, nothing special is required for a fully functional unlimited home theatre experience with zero errors or caveats. For example, I built my HTPC 10 years ago. Aside from adding more HDD storage and updating the video card once 2 or 3 years ago for $120, I'm state of the art and then some. Anyone with an old PC or a new one can follow suit should they choose. Why you would have anyone believe different listening to your gum flap can only be assumed but it certainly isn't derived from proper education much less dedication, talent, or an open mind to discover new and wonderful things. Moving on in your rant of nonsense, you proclaim PDVD is a terrible experience and not as enriched as KODI. The facts keep flying over your head evidently. As I stated earlier, PDVD is seamlessly integrated with KODI (your chosen front end of wonderfulness and guess what... mine too) WITH the benefits PDVD offers over the KODI internal videoplayer (which btw I also integrate as a default for some formats along with 3 other players assigned to shine where they shine best). In case your ignorance precedes you further than what you reveal, that means we browse the KODI library and press play from our remote controls and the appropriate player is assigned and begins. While in that player, complete control of it is also fully available from that same control. When finished, the player closes and returns to KODI in focus awaiting its next command. For you to proudly announce what a waste menus are for you isn't a waste for everyone else. As I stated originally, most folks, you included, aren't mangling your original disc to rid yourself of those pesky menus. You're doing it mainly because your educated choice of the ultimate home theatre can't handle the real deal. You are left with no choice but mangle your original format to something so basic, to me it's comical. Different strokes for different folks. I just happen to want it all. You on the other hand are happy to suffice with less and proclaim less is better yet you demand an add-on to provide that full cinema experience. You know, trailers and actor comments and so on that drive you up the wall when viewed straight from the disc or a perfect backup of one. Moving on in your list of intelligence... your proof to confirm how poorly HTPC's, especially W10 HTPC's perform backed by all your discoveries like notifications and updates are inquired at the KODI forums. These are naïve folks like yourself. Yep, each and everyone of your type assume this doesn't work or that doesn't work.... in the end those users are always educated and their problems are found to be things unrelated to what they were convinced where the problem lay. I answer them every day and if they follow instructions properly, they realize where they actually went wrong which is usually something simple like a bad cable or a wrong setting advised elsewhere, or an AVR that can't pass HDR, or etc. Folks like you tend to pull something out of the hat and run with the sheeple exclaiming everyone knows W10 update broke this or that or everybody knows an mkv is the only file to ever use and anything else means your blowin' it and to trust you on this because you've been around the block. I have no use for visiting forums that want to convince me 3D is a waste of time. It's alive and well here. I know this annoys you but no matter how many times you tell me to go read forums and I'll be informed, I disagree because of the facts: I agree and have stated 3D discs are no longer widely available like they were in their heyday in the USA but they are available. This is part of MAGA imo because the rest of the world has them. Right to my mail box they are delivered. New titles never released. New movies released that finally made it to disc. They just keep comin' and the calendar says more are comin'. Manufactures are adding 3D to displays again and you can buy them today. Sneak peaks at the various shows previewing next years anticipated models on full display for you to review with 3D. I think these facts say a lot for the future of 3D. You on the other hand....... LoL.


Jeebus, learn WTF a paragraph is for god's sake.... (I had to give up after so many lines as it's a nightmare to look at). Sorry, but if all you can manage is stupid advice and name calling, back on the list you go (and defending the OS horror that Windows 10 is...well enough said).


----------



## Actionable Mango

Postmoderndesign said:


> I do have an e6p and LG plex is installed. I would like to get your tutorial and thanks for the offer. I have added you as a friend and you can private message me directly should you want to.


Other people might be able to make use of it, so I've made a new thread here.

I would appreciate it, after you've successfully completed the process, if you could provide corrections to make the instructions better. I value criticism, provided it is constructive.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

Actionable Mango said:


> Other people might be able to make use of it, so I've made a new thread here.
> 
> I would appreciate it, after you've successfully completed the process, if you could provide corrections to make the instructions better. I value criticism, provided it is constructive.


Thanks and when I have some time I will give it a try.


----------



## Jeff Morrissette

Anyone thnk there could be a last min attempt by lg to add 3d back? Everytime I call they state they will not release final specs till in production and the show models are prototypes and subject to change. Every year they release specs right away...this seems new? Could they be afraid of killing the sales of 2017 oled if they announce 3d return too soon? Am I dreaming?


----------



## Jeff Morrissette

Actionable Mango said:


> Other people might be able to make use of it, so I've made a new thread here.
> 
> I would appreciate it, after you've successfully completed the process, if you could provide corrections to make the instructions better. I value criticism, provided it is constructive.




Wait you have plex runnng 3d?


----------



## tomtastic

Using the built in Plex app you won't get HD audio out last I knew on the LG TV's. I've been using the Plex app on the PS4 Pro which is the same Plex app version. So I've unhooked my Mac Mini which I've used for years with Plex and have solely been using the PS4 since it handles 4K files too. Overall, it's not too bad. My main complaint is that the Plex _app_ version requires internet to run the app which could be a problem vs Plex Home Theater doesn't, only for log in. Also menu navigation is really slow compared to Plex on my Mac Mini, not unusable but noticeably slower. One other thing I don't like on the Plex app vs. PHT is when you pause, the pause menu doesn't disappear and show the image only which it does on PHT so would be nice if this would get updated and change that. The internet requirement can be bypassed if you use the media player app (which you have to download first). It is the same DLNA feature on the PS3 and you can access your Plex server from there too, offline. So if your internet is down, this is another option.

3D works just fine on both, I've test some 4K3D files and they work fine on the Plex app and since the PS4 Pro is 4K it delivers that to the screen just fine where my Mac Mini is HD max. I haven't tested TB full files yet (ripped from Blu ray 3D), tested those on the LG built in app awhile back and they worked fine, but need to rip again to test on PS4, actually testing out a KDlinks box with Blu ray iso files which handles framepacking but so far I don't really like that setup as far as menu, it's basically file based navigation, but an older box. I guess the newer boxes will run current version of Kodi but those are 300.00, not spending that much. I'll buy another PS4 first.


----------



## Actionable Mango

Jeff Morrissette said:


> Anyone thnk there could be a last min attempt by lg to add 3d back? Everytime I call they state they will not release final specs till in production and the show models are prototypes and subject to change. Every year they release specs right away...this seems new? Could they be afraid of killing the sales of 2017 oled if they announce 3d return too soon? Am I dreaming?


I've been through the demise of Laser Disc and HD-DVD. These days 3D feels a lot like those times. Declining store presence, declining hardware support, spotty stock of titles, resorting to importing titles that don't release domestically, nothing but bad news in tech articles, and lingering hope of a resurgence.

What really gets my goat is Disney. We know from UK imports of certain major titles (like _Thor Ragnarok_ and _The Last Jedi_) that they've taken the time to master some discs that would work perfectly in the USA (region free, English menus, English sound track, and English subtitles). So all the time, effort, and cost are already sunk for a product that is completely appropriate for domestic market. What's left to do, a different cover? And yet they don't even bother to sell those here. I take it as a particularly bad sign because previous _Thor _and _Star Wars_ titles were released domestically--if sales were fine, are costs are already sunk, why not sell them?

So personally I don't think 3D is dead, but I do see signs that it is in its last throes. What I would like to see is some manufacturer occasionally throwing us a bone with at least one of their models in 3D at least once every couple of years. They would have a huge competitive advantage because literally every 3DTV fan would buy that TV instead of a competitor's TVs. I think that such a "monopoly" effect would easily pay back the R&D. Heck, there are people so dedicated that they buy _backup_ TVs.



Jeff Morrissette said:


> Wait you have plex runnng 3d?


In the specific scenario of an LG 4K 3D TV, yes. The instructions are extremely unlikely to work for any other TV.


----------



## krauley

i have a backup 3Dtv, my LG 60lm7200 now sits in standby in case my newer LG OLED ever has a problem. I hope to look stupid doing this for years to come


----------



## Jeff Morrissette

Actionable Mango said:


> I've been through the demise of Laser Disc and HD-DVD. These days 3D feels a lot like those times. Declining store presence, declining hardware support, spotty stock of titles, resorting to importing titles that don't release domestically, nothing but bad news in tech articles, and lingering hope of a resurgence.
> 
> What really gets my goat is Disney. We know from UK imports of certain major titles (like _Thor Ragnarok_ and _The Last Jedi_) that they've taken the time to master some discs that would work perfectly in the USA (region free, English menus, English sound track, and English subtitles). So all the time, effort, and cost are already sunk for a product that is completely appropriate for domestic market. What's left to do, a different cover? And yet they don't even bother to sell those here. I take it as a particularly bad sign because previous _Thor _and _Star Wars_ titles were released domestically--if sales were fine, are costs are already sunk, why not sell them?
> 
> So personally I don't think 3D is dead, but I do see signs that it is in its last throes. What I would like to see is some manufacturer occasionally throwing us a bone with at least one of their models in 3D at least once every couple of years. They would have a huge competitive advantage because literally every 3DTV fan would buy that TV instead of a competitor's TVs. I think that such a "monopoly" effect would easily pay back the R&D. Heck, there are people so dedicated that they buy _backup_ TVs.
> 
> 
> 
> In the specific scenario of an LG 4K 3D TV, yes. The instructions are extremely unlikely to work for any other TV.


Sweet that’s the tv I haves


----------



## Actionable Mango

tomtastic said:


> Using the built in Plex app you won't get HD audio out last I knew on the LG TV's.


Yes, this is correct. I am taking care to include all of the audio tracks so that if I ever get a media player that does support HD audio, I won't have to re-rip or re-convert.




Jeff Morrissette said:


> Sweet that’s the tv I haves


Please let me know if it work or not, and if it needs any correction.


----------



## Lurker123

Actionable Mango said:


> Jeff Morrissette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait you have plex runnng 3d?
> 
> 
> 
> In the specific scenario of an LG 4K 3D TV, yes. The instructions are extremely unlikely to work for any other TV.
Click to expand...

I ran a 3D version through Plex HTC on my mini in full resolution a little over 2 years ago. I will say that while it was OK, the 3D effect seemed less sharp than that played via the disk. I've not tried since then as time hasn't permitted playing with the settings. I have a reason to do so now. Lionsgate, who hates their customers, made the 3D version (and only the 3D version) of Valerian Region B!!! While I could make 1 player Region B, I'd rather not, and having the entire set of 3D movies in Plex is something I've been wanting for years now. 

I'll give it another go with the further details from the writeup. I have a feeling that my for my needs I'll be pushing PQ to 20 or better.


----------



## MagnumX

Lurker123 said:


> I ran a 3D version through Plex HTC on my mini in full resolution a little over 2 years ago. I will say that while it was OK, the 3D effect seemed less sharp than that played via the disk. I've not tried since then as time hasn't permitted playing with the settings. I have a reason to do so now. Lionsgate, who hates their customers, made the 3D version (and only the 3D version) of Valerian Region B!!! While I could make 1 player Region B, I'd rather not, and having the entire set of 3D movies in Plex is something I've been wanting for years now.
> 
> I'll give it another go with the further details from the writeup. I have a feeling that my for my needs I'll be pushing PQ to 20 or better.


There are two other versions of Valerian 3D available that will play on a Region A player. One is the Asia version which IS Region A and the other is the India version which has no region protection on it. Of the two, the Asian version is superior in that it has 7.1 Master Sound DTS. The India version is only 5.1 and has a censor bit on a word that makes no sense (one scene). If I could order it over again, I'd go with the Asian version (you have to be careful there too as I think there is more than one version floating around in Asia, one of which is not 7.1 audio). Even so, other than the one annoying censor audio cut-out (bleeps on the 2D disc), the 5.1 mix is still good and the 3D is excellent (should be the same there on both versions).


----------



## Lurker123

MagnumX said:


> There are two other versions of Valerian 3D available that will play on a Region A player. One is the Asia version which IS Region A and the other is the India version which has no region protection on it. Of the two, the Asian version is superior in that it has 7.1 Master Sound DTS. The India version is only 5.1 and has a censor bit on a word that makes no sense (one scene). If I could order it over again, I'd go with the Asian version (you have to be careful there too as I think there is more than one version floating around in Asia, one of which is not 7.1 audio). Even so, other than the one annoying censor audio cut-out (bleeps on the 2D disc), the 5.1 mix is still good and the 3D is excellent (should be the same there on both versions).


While I didn't know about either of these when I purchased the UK version, the India version would be a no-go for me given the audio and censoring, and the Asian one seems like a lot of extra confirmation work, given that I wanted to be able to make these available via my plex server anyways. I just needed a reason to dive back into the process, and considering the AviSynth was 1105x.. I'm guessing some of the issues I came across have been rectified, per the previously linked howto article which uses version 2.6.0... Note that I had 3D playing back, it just wasn't of a quality I was happy with. There are also some howtos out there to replace the 3D audio with the Dolby Atmos audio, should you have copies with Dolby Atmos available.


----------



## longhornsk57

I have the Indian 3D and have a 5.2 system and it sounded awesome, and I didn't notice any censoring..

But yeah I guess if you need 7.1 you can take your chances with the Asian version.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## Lurker123

longhornsk57 said:


> I have the Indian 3D and have a 5.2 system and it sounded awesome, and I didn't notice any censoring..
> 
> But yeah I guess if you need 7.1 you can take your chances with the Asian version.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


The UK version has a TrueHD 7.1 audio track. I'd prefer a Dolby Atmos track though.


----------



## longhornsk57

Lurker123 said:


> The UK version has a TrueHD 7.1 audio track. I'd prefer a Dolby Atmos track though.


Well I'm talking about versions that run on US players.

I've never seen a non 4K release with Atmos, does that even exist?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## dew42

Lurker123 said:


> The UK version has a TrueHD 7.1 audio track. I'd prefer a Dolby Atmos track though.





longhornsk57 said:


> Well I'm talking about versions that run on US players.
> 
> I've never seen a non 4K release with Atmos, does that even exist?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets 3D + 2D. Sound mix: English Dolby ATMOS (under Product Information). Region A. 

https://www.yesasia.com/us/valerian...-disc-character/1065061202-0-0-0-en/info.html


----------



## longhornsk57

dew42 said:


> Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets 3D + 2D. Sound mix: English Dolby ATMOS (under Product Information). Region A.
> 
> https://www.yesasia.com/us/valerian...-disc-character/1065061202-0-0-0-en/info.html


I don't know how much I trust that, and I definitely wouldn't pay $63 for it

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## dew42

longhornsk57 said:


> I don't know how much I trust that, and I definitely wouldn't pay $63 for it
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


It is a new Korean release for April 6. Korea is region A. Here are another three stores that all say Atmos. Yes, the price is crazy, but then this is a specialty item. Although the $29 (edit: it is actually $42 for 3D. $29 for the 2D) at KimchiDVD is interesting.

I have not bought from any of these stores.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/VALERIAN-AND-THE-CITY-OF-A-THOUSAND-PLANET-Blu-ray-2DISC-2D-3D/222861920896
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Valerian-A...-Blu-ray-Full-Slip-Lenticular-3D/323165060531
https://kimchidvd.com/en/21755/v.kimchi


----------



## SteveCaron

Though there is a lot of mourning going on in the Oppo threads (including myself) I fear that us 3D enthusiasts may have also lost what could have been the only company that would continue to support 3D long into the future. Just another shot across the bow against physical media.


----------



## MagnumX

SteveCaron said:


> Though there is a lot of mourning going on in the Oppo threads (including myself) I fear that us 3D enthusiasts may have also lost what could have been the only company that would continue to support 3D long into the future. Just another shot across the bow against physical media.


They might as well just erase history while they're at it.... And to think there are those still trying to save old 3D films before they disintegrate while Hollywood and the electronics industry fight desperately to keep you from being able to watch them...ever.


----------



## Lurker123

longhornsk57 said:


> Well I'm talking about versions that run on US players.
> 
> I've never seen a non 4K release with Atmos, does that even exist?


There's a ton of non 4K Atmos releases you don't even have to look too hard. That will flip slowly to various releases, but gives you an inkling that many more exist. It's why Dolby Atmos has been a thing for at least 3 years now in HT.


----------



## Kenbar

As long as projectors continue to be made with 3D capability I'm sure home 3D will continue to limp along. And perhaps, just possibly, James Cameron's Avatar 2 might spark a little renewed interest in 3D.


----------



## rxp91

HDMI 2.1 is going to help for the legacy titles. HD Fury had a product out that enabled you to convert any TV into 3D. With the frame rates available to it with HDMI 1.4 the product flickered a lot though. The higher frame rates of HDMI 2.1 mean a good version of that can be created. It'll be Active Shutter though and if they stop releasing 3D for the home it'll just be for legacy titles.

As long as it continues to be released in theatres at least we can enjoy it. I hope that long continues. I don't mind having to watch 3D at the cinema and 2D/HDR at home. But if they remove it from the cinema and stop creating the content when they just got so good at it - it'll be a big loss.


----------



## SteveCaron

I was really hoping that when the other Universal Monster movies came to Blu Ray we might have seen the other 2 "Creature" movies come in Blu Ray 3D. Creature from the Black Lagoon was such a big deal for me when that was released in 3d for home viewing.


----------



## Bandyka

So this thread was started five years ago yet 3D isn't dead yet


----------



## dfa973

The beginning of the death of 3D was started in 2016-2017 when 3D was removed from 99% of TV's.
So, let's see 5 years from now, in 2021-2022, what is the state of 3D in home cinema...


----------



## Don Landis

5 years from now, in 2021-2022,what is the state of 3D in home cinema... ?

Immersive 3D in 360VR plus Augmented Reality. Not that traditional 2D cinema will be dead, but 3D will be the way of the future in Virtual Reality video.


----------



## MrEmoto

Don Landis said:


> 5 years from now, in 2021-2022,what is the state of 3D in home cinema... ?
> 
> Immersive 3D in 360VR plus Augmented Reality. Not that traditional 2D cinema will be dead, but 3D will be the way of the future in Virtual Reality video.


I just hope there is backwards compatibility for my 3D BR library.


----------



## MagnumX

Personally, I don't think VR will EVER be a "big thing" because of the stupid headsets, goggles and absolutely NO WAY to convey walking properly (i.e. for video games) short of having a huge space to be tracked in "blind" (i.e. otherwise you're always in a "powered wheelchair" or whatever). It could do interesting things for movies, but it will never be used for that in quantity because it's uncomfortable, particularly these current onerous relatively heavy headsets. How comfortable would it be after 2-3 hours with those headsets on? The smallest you could EVER hope to get them down to is goggle sized and they would still be uncomfortable if they are to seal out all outside light (ever wear swimming goggles for hours and hours? You get circles around your eyes). 

No, I think you will have to wait for plugs on the back of your head like in the Matrix. Of course, then you will never want to LEAVE VR because it could be 10,000x better than your real life.


----------



## MrEmoto

MagnumX said:


> Personally, I don't think VR will EVER be a "big thing" because of the stupid headsets, goggles and absolutely NO WAY to convey walking properly (i.e. for video games) short of having a huge space to be tracked in "blind" (i.e. otherwise you're always in a "powered wheelchair" or whatever). It could do interesting things for movies, but it will never be used for that in quantity because it's uncomfortable, particularly these current onerous relatively heavy headsets. How comfortable would it be after 2-3 hours with those headsets on? The smallest you could EVER hope to get them down to is goggle sized and they would still be uncomfortable if they are to seal out all outside light (ever wear swimming goggles for hours and hours? You get circles around your eyes).
> 
> No, I think you will have to wait for plugs on the back of your head like in the Matrix. Of course, then you will never want to LEAVE VR because it could be 10,000x better than your real life.


Heck, some claim that 3D's lack of success in the home TV market is because of the glasses. VR headsets have to be worse than that, right?


----------



## Deja Vu

Five months from now this thread will be five years old! Man, is 3D stubborn or what? This is like an overextended death scene in a bad movie -- why won't you just die!

Anyway, I still love 3D in spite of all the roadblocks and continued complaining by all the haters. It is what it is.


----------



## R Harkness

I haven't been buying a lot of discs for the last couple years, though I really enjoy 3D on my JVC projector.

I was wondering about the state of 3D.

Are we seeing as many movies released in 3D in the theaters as, say, several years ago (or even when this thread started)?

And how about 3D blu-rays? Are they coming out at a similar rate as before, or is that dying off?


----------



## Timothy Varlack

In the US depending on the studio, 3D Blu Ray is dead, but if you're like me and love it enough to forgo 4k and import them you can get just about every film released in theaters in 3d on 3d bluray. You might have to buy a region free player to do it but it can be done. What I truly despise is that they will only put the Atmos sound track on 4k releases. 3D from 9 ft away from a 100" screen is amazing!


----------



## dew42

R Harkness said:


> I haven't been buying a lot of discs for the last couple years, though I really enjoy 3D on my JVC projector.
> 
> I was wondering about the state of 3D.
> 
> Are we seeing as many movies released in 3D in the theaters as, say, several years ago (or even when this thread started)?
> 
> And how about 3D blu-rays? Are they coming out at a similar rate as before, or is that dying off?


Here's a graph for you. Looks like it has leveled off, but there is not an obvious decline yet, so I'd say it is holding steady.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/243303/number-of-3d-films-released-in-north-america/

(You may only get one chance to look at that graph for free.)

I've been following this list of 3D movies that is in chronological order starting from January 2005 and going all the way to November 2019. I've had no problems finding the 3D Blu-ray's for this year's 3D movies including Disney/Marvel/Star Wars and Sony. See the threads in this forum for where-to-buy links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005_onwards)

Here's another graph showing the number of 3D cinema screens worldwide. Looks like linear growth, including 2017. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/271863/number-of-3d-cinema-screens-worldwide/


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

R Harkness said:


> I haven't been buying a lot of discs for the last couple years, though I really enjoy 3D on my JVC projector.
> 
> I was wondering about the state of 3D.
> 
> Are we seeing as many movies released in 3D in the theaters as, say, several years ago (or even when this thread started)?
> 
> And how about 3D blu-rays? Are they coming out at a similar rate as before, or is that dying off?


3D was still outselling UHD discs a few months ago. 

Having said this James Cameron is working on new 3D tech for theaters, brighter and glasses free projectors/screens. 
Avatar 3D is coming out in 2020 and James Cameron wants it to be the first film to be released in glasses free theaters. 
He will revolutionize the 3D industry once again, then TV manufacturers will jump on board and implement 3D once more, this time it will be glasses free. 
How do I know this, well it's simple TV manufacturers always want to sell you something new in the name of profit. 
Disc Player manufacturers want to do the same thing. 
Don't worry 3D is coming back.

Here is an interview with Cameron on 3D, all things I have been saying for years in regards to the industry. 
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2428530/the-problem-3d-has-had-according-to-james-cameron


----------



## danlshane

Exist_To_Resist said:


> 3D was still outselling UHD discs a few months ago.
> 
> Having said this James Cameron is working on new 3D tech for theaters, brighter and glasses free projectors/screens.
> Avatar 3D is coming out in 2020 and James Cameron wants it to be the first film to be released in glasses free theaters.


Cameron is indeed working on getting autostereoscopic displays in theaters, but the next AVATAR won't be the one to reveal that new tech. His recent interview admits that we're still several years away from glasses-free 3D, but AVATAR 2 will be shown using projection techniques at least four times brighter than the first AVATAR film. This will remove the barrier of overly dark 3D on the screen, but you'll still be wearing glasses.


----------



## SteveCaron

Timothy Varlack said:


> In the US depending on the studio, 3D Blu Ray is dead, but if you're like me and love it enough to forgo 4k and import them you can get just about every film released in theaters in 3d on 3d bluray. You might have to buy a region free player to do it but it can be done. What I truly despise is that they will only put the Atmos sound track on 4k releases. 3D from 9 ft away from a 100" screen is amazing!


Amazon UK makes it pretty painless to keep getting 3D titles.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

SteveCaron said:


> Amazon UK makes it pretty painless to keep getting 3D titles.


Indeed and a lot of their titles are region free.


----------



## aaronwt

Exist_To_Resist said:


> Indeed and a lot of their titles are region free.


Even if they aren't region free, I just rip them to one of my unRAIDs. And use a media player to play it back in 3D. Much easier than messing with the disc.


----------



## R Harkness

Thanks for the replies on 3D, folks!


----------



## robsis

Still buying 3D on certain titles from Amazon.UK (and many times double-dipping with 4k) and enjoy watching them on my LG C6. Interesting to see how people who are selling their 55 and 65 C6 and E6 with 3D capabilities are getting premium prices selling the units used......

OTOH, I'm keeping mine....best 3D TV out there.....maybe some manufacturer will decide to niche market a 3D unit again.....only time will tell.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

aaronwt said:


> Even if they aren't region free, I just rip them to one of my unRAIDs. And use a media player to play it back in 3D. Much easier than messing with the disc.


What do you use for the Rips, also do you do full ISO rips, or HSBS/HOU?



robsis said:


> Still buying 3D on certain titles from Amazon.UK (and many times double-dipping with 4k) and enjoy watching them on my LG C6. Interesting to see how people who are selling their 55 and 65 C6 and E6 with 3D capabilities are getting premium prices selling the units used......
> 
> OTOH, I'm keeping mine....best 3D TV out there.....maybe some manufacturer will decide to niche market a 3D unit again.....only time will tell.


I'm keeping my 65 E6 till it bites the dust.


----------



## MagnumX

Timothy Varlack said:


> 3D from 9 ft away from a 100" screen is amazing!


I'm sitting 7 feet from a 93" screen. It's great for ratios close to 16:9, but I think a 118" 2.35:1 screen would be better for the ultrawide stuff, although the changing ratios films wouldn't be the same as before, stuck zoomed in or whatever or the projector trying to adjust in the middle of a scene?


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

robsis said:


> Still buying 3D on certain titles from Amazon.UK (and many times double-dipping with 4k) and enjoy watching them on my LG C6. Interesting to see how people who are selling their 55 and 65 C6 and E6 with 3D capabilities are getting premium prices selling the units used......
> 
> OTOH, I'm keeping mine....best 3D TV out there.....maybe some manufacturer will decide to niche market a 3D unit again.....only time will tell.


Just ordered Jumanji from the UK.
Waiting on the Infinity War to be released next.


----------



## aaronwt

Exist_To_Resist said:


> What do you use for the Rips, also do you do full ISO rips, or HSBS/HOU?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm keeping my 65 E6 till it bites the dust.


I use Any DVD HD. And I do full ISO rips with my 3D BD titles.


----------



## robsis

Exist_To_Resist said:


> I'm keeping my 65 E6 till it bites the dust.


I feel the same about my 65 C6. Amazing 3D and passive, too! I bet 3D wouldn't be as down if people had discovered this type of 3D earlier. My first experience was with heavy, active glasses with a Samsung...OK; however, the 6 series OLED just blows it away....


----------



## sathron

robsis said:


> I feel the same about my 65 C6. Amazing 3D and passive, too! I bet 3D wouldn't be as down if people had discovered this type of 3D earlier. My first experience was with heavy, active glasses with a Samsung...OK; however, the 6 series OLED just blows it away....



I agree...I bought a 65C6 last year, and though I love 4k HDR, I have been buying a LOT of 3D movies lately. Can't believe how great passive 3D is on a great set like this!


----------



## brazen1

Let me guess? You're comparing tech that is separated by 10 years or so. Your Samsung was 1080p and your LG is 2160p.

When passive was introduced, it only produced half the resolution to that of active tech. Being the cheap junk that it was, people flocked to buy it not knowing anything about 3D other than the box said so. One glance at it and 3D was laughable and labeled selling gimmick of the decade. The better active sets by Samsung were more expensive but no one educated themselves why and the extra dollars didn't add up next to the cheap passive items. 


Active tech was hunted down and fake news labeled to the point it was no better and would join the same club as the passive instigators. The obvious passive 3D defect was pushed to the side and PLASMA took front and center to vie for the bigger bucks. Once burn-in and half resolution 3D killed the average buyers interest, the industry came up with a new solution, 4k. 


Thank certain money hungry models and pricing for impacting 3D as it is known today. To suggest active tech by Samsung caused a 3D distaste is ridiculous imo. It was without a doubt, superior in the 1080p era. Change a few words around and you'll see history is repeating itself. 

After my due diligence, I made my own informed decision what I would replace my old 1080p Samsung active 3D with as 4k was realized. I think my first inclination was to avoid the panel lottery with OLED rumored. I'm simply unlucky. I would get one and burn an image into it making it useless since I refuse to baby my TV and just want to use it as I've done with every other TV I've ever owned in the past. Crossing my fingers and thinking maybe I'll be lucky and the extra baby sitting I can adjust to although I knew I was kidding myself but willing to try. So I went and checked them out. 


First thing I noticed was every scene and every image looked like plastic. Like some extra processing that just didn't belong was present. Subsequent views at different environments including neighbors homes with setting change privileges didn't improve anything. Then there was the crushed blacks. Yes, they were very black, like ink. Only problem was those inky blacks were also crushed and nothing revived the detail lost in the darkness. I proceeded to check out 3D. 


The crosstalk on these OLED's was unforgettable, something I'd never noticed before even on my old 1080p. I was instructed to stand directly in front of the screen with no up or down deviation after finding 'the sweet spot' to eliminate the crosstalk. I was also instructed not get too close to the screen even though I was just checking out every other line of vertical resolution being dead lines of unused pixels. Groovy, half resolution still. After a bunch of Wi moves, and my butt extended in a way it doesn't belong, I finally found the elusive 'sweet spot' there on the isle with other shoppers looking at me like a nut job. So I checked out the motion. 


It was a blurry stutter job although when not panning, things looked pretty good. I tend not to watch stationary stuff with little to no movement so the impression quickly wore off when things started moving again. Besides, the warranty said never to do this anyway or the burn in thing could occur and it wasn't warrantied. Internet searches suggested emissive tech of OLED also ages the pixels producing a dimmer and dimmer picture over time starting from the moment you turn it on. The pixels simply decay. That didn't impress me too much either. Now I see rtings doing age progression tests over and over trying to achieve satisfactory results by easing the tests but still OLED fails. This alone would have saved me the diligence I did on my own earlier as there would have been nothing else to convince me OLED was a game changer even if they didn't self destruct.


Further diligence led me to purchasing the Samsung 65JS8500 since it experienced none of the above and those are things important to me. I don't care for the edge lit blooming I only notice during credit roles or booting my HTPC. I use the display as a PC monitor too. It's on 16 hours a day, every day, for 3 years now. The price helped too compared to similar sized OLED's. $1500 out the door, a fully warrantied new open box with zero hours (checked in service menu) returned because the original owner broke the glasses upon opening the box somehow. The display wasn't even removed evidenced by the protective film still in tact. I exchanged the glasses under warranty. They weigh exactly 0.81 oz, probably less than most passive glasses. I find the native 120Hz and the interpolated 240Hz leaving the most impression of these Samsung gems especially when 3D frame packed MVC is upscaled. So much so, if the 3D spec standard wasn't limited to 1080p and was included to 2160p, the difference would be negligible to what I view now.


I think many manufactures pushing for 3D again agree since all the tech they offer, are previewing, and are further developing is active. In the distant future, glassless but that distance is light years away and personally, I don't mind glasses at all. Once better refinements are released, the nail in the OLED coffin will probably be hammered with one swift stroke and eBay will be filled with ads. Just my opinion.


----------



## Seilerbird

Sorry to hear of your negative opinions. My 3D OLED is incredible on every level.


----------



## danlshane

Seilerbird said:


> Sorry to hear of your negative opinions. My 3D OLED is incredible on every level.


Mine too, and I have owned all variations of 3D sets (except plasma). Brazen1 likes to bang his drum every now and then to justify his purchase to himself, but he seems to be the only one who reports negative experiences with OLED 3D. I certainly have never seen the odd behavior he claims to be plagued with when sampling OLED.

I believe the most important line in his posts is always the last one: "Just my opinion." Certainly nothing else in his posts have any bearing on the reality of OLED technology. There is a reason that nearly every respected AV site rates OLED at or near the top when it comes to picture quality. 

Active 3D is certainly usable, but its disadvantages cannot be dismissed. My passive glasses never worry about a pet wandering through line-of-sight to the infrared transmitter used on some active sets (Bluetooth has definitely made an improvement there), my brain never begins to send subconscious complaints about fatigue from flicker, and my glasses never lose a charge in the middle of a show because someone forgot to switch batteries or plug them in.

Active 3D works when all planets are aligned, but to make the assertion that it beats passive OLED on every count ignores the inconveniences I have listed. For me there is no comparison, and until I sold my active set and replaced it with passive OLED my wife would never watch a 3D program of any kind without my begging. Now she will come into the room after I have already started a 3D show and ask, "Where are my glasses? I want to watch it too!" The WAF alone makes OLED the hands-down winner in our home. I no longer have to view 3D by myself.


----------



## Seilerbird

danlshane said:


> Mine too, and I have owned all variations of 3D sets (except plasma). Brazen1 likes to bang his drum every now and then to justify his purchase to himself, but he seems to be the only one who reports negative experiences with OLED 3D. I certainly have never seen the odd behavior he claims to be plagued with when sampling OLED.
> 
> I believe the most important line in his posts is always the last one: "Just my opinion." Certainly nothing else in his posts have any bearing on the reality of OLED technology. There is a reason that nearly every respected AV site rates OLED at or near the top when it comes to picture quality.
> 
> Active 3D is certainly usable, but its disadvantages cannot be dismissed. My passive glasses never worry about a pet wandering through line-of-sight to the infrared transmitter used on some active sets (Bluetooth has definitely made an improvement there), my brain never begins to send subconscious complaints about fatigue from flicker, and my glasses never lose a charge in the middle of a show because someone forgot to switch batteries or plug them in.
> 
> Active 3D works when all planets are aligned, but to make the assertion that it beats passive OLED on every count ignores the inconveniences I have listed. For me there is no comparison, and until I sold my active set and replaced it with passive OLED my wife would never watch a 3D program of any kind without my begging. Now she will come into the room after I have already started a 3D show and ask, "Where are my glasses? I want to watch it too!" The WAF alone makes OLED the hands-down winner in our home. I no longer have to view 3D by myself.


Nicely stated, Dan. I felt his comments were way out of line. If my LG was not incredible I would have never bought it. Watching all the TVs for sale last year it was obvious that the LG had the best PQ and awesome 3D. The LG line of OLEDs were the highest rated on every single web site that rated RV PQ. Every person who visits me is amazed at my system.


----------



## longhornsk57

danlshane said:


> Mine too, and I have owned all variations of 3D sets (except plasma). Brazen1 likes to bang his drum every now and then to justify his purchase to himself, but he seems to be the only one who reports negative experiences with OLED 3D. I certainly have never seen the odd behavior he claims to be plagued with when sampling OLED.
> 
> I believe the most important line in his posts is always the last one: "Just my opinion." Certainly nothing else in his posts have any bearing on the reality of OLED technology. There is a reason that nearly every respected AV site rates OLED at or near the top when it comes to picture quality.
> 
> Active 3D is certainly usable, but its disadvantages cannot be dismissed. My passive glasses never worry about a pet wandering through line-of-sight to the infrared transmitter used on some active sets (Bluetooth has definitely made an improvement there), my brain never begins to send subconscious complaints about fatigue from flicker, and my glasses never lose a charge in the middle of a show because someone forgot to switch batteries or plug them in.
> 
> Active 3D works when all planets are aligned, but to make the assertion that it beats passive OLED on every count ignores the inconveniences I have listed. For me there is no comparison, and until I sold my active set and replaced it with passive OLED my wife would never watch a 3D program of any kind without my begging. Now she will come into the room after I have already started a 3D show and ask, "Where are my glasses? I want to watch it too!" The WAF alone makes OLED the hands-down winner in our home. I no longer have to view 3D by myself.


I've got active 3D on a 150" screen with an RF emitter. Of course my opinion but this is the best way to do it. Never lose sync, zero crosstalk on DLP, it's perfect, and to me a much better experience than 4K, the depth just makes it so immersive.

I'll be buying 3D blurays as long as they sell them.


----------



## PCummins

Seilerbird said:


> Nicely stated, Dan. I felt his comments were way out of line. If my LG was not incredible I would have never bought it. Watching all the TVs for sale last year it was obvious that the LG had the best PQ and awesome 3D. The LG line of OLEDs were the highest rated on every single web site that rated RV PQ. Every person who visits me is amazed at my system.


The 4K OLED LG TV's are pretty much the best of passive 3D technology people are likely to see. There's a few new glasses free technologies out there (like Ultra-D or the Red Hydrogen One) that may be able to take over once they become more mainstream to replace it, I think Ultra-D's plan of having it as advertising panels would work well for retail. However, if you needed 3D today I'd still say picking up a Series 6 OLED is the best bet overall unless a cheaper Active TV or 3D projector system was available that made sense to purchase.

The whole Active vs Passive issue basically is an older hash of any two competing technologies (just look at QLED vs OLED or PS4 vs Xbox One X and all the people promoting or detracting from it with sensationalised click-bait videos converting mountains out of molehills). I'll be the first to state that OLED with the potential IR/BI issues are not suitable for PC monitor replacements or non-stop single channel playback so it's a matter of picking the right tool or technology for what you want to watch most of the time.

In any case I'm hoping the content keeps being produced for 3D (particularly animated films from Dreamworks, Illumination or Pixar/Disney) but think without new glasses free technology it may not continue past 2025 or so. VR works in a different market so we'll still see 3D content being produced such as games but probably won't overlap with existing film content.


----------



## SteveCaron

Seilerbird said:


> Nicely stated, Dan. I felt his comments were way out of line. If my LG was not incredible I would have never bought it. Watching all the TVs for sale last year it was obvious that the LG had the best PQ and awesome 3D. The LG line of OLEDs were the highest rated on every single web site that rated RV PQ. Every person who visits me is amazed at my system.


Typically I will make the effort to see movies in IMAX 3D however Solo was not showing in that format so I had to settle for the Real 3D presentation. Anyhow I bring this up because I do think I get a vastly superior 3d experience at home with my LG C6.... better color, inkier blacks etc... just an incredible panel.


----------



## snpanago

robsis said:


> Still buying 3D on certain titles from Amazon.


I received Coco 3D from Amazon UK yesterday....awesome movie and 3D makes it so much more fun to watch. I am gratified that Europe still embraces 3D so much so that studios continue to press copies of U.S. movies that play first run in 3D here in theaters; the conscious decision to not sell 3D discs in America is discouraging.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

brazen1 said:


> Let me guess? You're comparing tech that is separated by 10 years or so. Your Samsung was 1080p and your LG is 2160p.
> 
> When passive was introduced, it only produced half the resolution to that of active tech. Being the cheap junk that it was, people flocked to buy it not knowing anything about 3D other than the box said so. One glance at it and 3D was laughable and labeled selling gimmick of the decade. The better active sets by Samsung were more expensive but no one educated themselves why and the extra dollars didn't add up next to the cheap passive items.
> 
> 
> Active tech was hunted down and fake news labeled to the point it was no better and would join the same club as the passive instigators. The obvious passive 3D defect was pushed to the side and PLASMA took front and center to vie for the bigger bucks. Once burn-in and half resolution 3D killed the average buyers interest, the industry came up with a new solution, 4k.
> 
> 
> Thank certain money hungry models and pricing for impacting 3D as it is known today. To suggest active tech by Samsung caused a 3D distaste is ridiculous imo. It was without a doubt, superior in the 1080p era. Change a few words around and you'll see history is repeating itself.
> 
> After my due diligence, I made my own informed decision what I would replace my old 1080p Samsung active 3D with as 4k was realized. I think my first inclination was to avoid the panel lottery with OLED rumored. I'm simply unlucky. I would get one and burn an image into it making it useless since I refuse to baby my TV and just want to use it as I've done with every other TV I've ever owned in the past. Crossing my fingers and thinking maybe I'll be lucky and the extra baby sitting I can adjust to although I knew I was kidding myself but willing to try. So I went and checked them out.
> 
> 
> First thing I noticed was every scene and every image looked like plastic. Like some extra processing that just didn't belong was present. Subsequent views at different environments including neighbors homes with setting change privileges didn't improve anything. Then there was the crushed blacks. Yes, they were very black, like ink. Only problem was those inky blacks were also crushed and nothing revived the detail lost in the darkness. I proceeded to check out 3D.
> 
> 
> The crosstalk on these OLED's was unforgettable, something I'd never noticed before even on my old 1080p. I was instructed to stand directly in front of the screen with no up or down deviation after finding 'the sweet spot' to eliminate the crosstalk. I was also instructed not get too close to the screen even though I was just checking out every other line of vertical resolution being dead lines of unused pixels. Groovy, half resolution still. After a bunch of Wi moves, and my butt extended in a way it doesn't belong, I finally found the elusive 'sweet spot' there on the isle with other shoppers looking at me like a nut job. So I checked out the motion.
> 
> 
> It was a blurry stutter job although when not panning, things looked pretty good. I tend not to watch stationary stuff with little to no movement so the impression quickly wore off when things started moving again. Besides, the warranty said never to do this anyway or the burn in thing could occur and it wasn't warrantied. Internet searches suggested emissive tech of OLED also ages the pixels producing a dimmer and dimmer picture over time starting from the moment you turn it on. The pixels simply decay. That didn't impress me too much either. Now I see rtings doing age progression tests over and over trying to achieve satisfactory results by easing the tests but still OLED fails. This alone would have saved me the diligence I did on my own earlier as there would have been nothing else to convince me OLED was a game changer even if they didn't self destruct.
> 
> 
> Further diligence led me to purchasing the Samsung 65JS8500 since it experienced none of the above and those are things important to me. I don't care for the edge lit blooming I only notice during credit roles or booting my HTPC. I use the display as a PC monitor too. It's on 16 hours a day, every day, for 3 years now. The price helped too compared to similar sized OLED's. $1500 out the door, a fully warrantied new open box with zero hours (checked in service menu) returned because the original owner broke the glasses upon opening the box somehow. The display wasn't even removed evidenced by the protective film still in tact. I exchanged the glasses under warranty. They weigh exactly 0.81 oz, probably less than most passive glasses. I find the native 120Hz and the interpolated 240Hz leaving the most impression of these Samsung gems especially when 3D frame packed MVC is upscaled. So much so, if the 3D spec standard wasn't limited to 1080p and was included to 2160p, the difference would be negligible to what I view now.
> 
> 
> I think many manufactures pushing for 3D again agree since all the tech they offer, are previewing, and are further developing is active. In the distant future, glassless but that distance is light years away and personally, I don't mind glasses at all. Once better refinements are released, the nail in the OLED coffin will probably be hammered with one swift stroke and eBay will be filled with ads. Just my opinion.



Active 3D was a failure from the start, heavy glasses, batteries, sync issues, and a lot of people experienced headaches from the active shutters. 
Prices were also an issue, price is always an issue. Glasses would cost over $100 and presented unreliable for most users. 
Passive 3D failed when it first came out as well, most 3D movies weren't being rendered at 120 Hz or rather 60 Hz for each eye. 
Once the 120 became standard for passive 3D majority of viewers could neither perceive nor notice half the resolution due to the 3D filter. 
Dim picture in passive 3D also presented users with problems. 

Passive or Active both had their issues, except that with passive most of those had workarounds and could be mitigated.
With active you needed tech support on stand by each time you wanted to watch a 3D movie. 
That does not surprise me though Samsung generally backs the wrong horse, this is why outside of my first LCD TV I've never owned a Samsung product in my life. 
QLED is another cluster **** on the part of Samsung, they ****ed up backing the wrong OLED tech and now they use marketing gimmicks for their ****ty televisions. 
MicroLED will be a reality by the time QLED becomes an emissive technology and OLED will have matured to the point where QLED will be irrelevant. 

Having said this OLED Television have the best fidelity at the moment, for 3D and non 3D content, they are not without issues however.
BI is one of the gigger issues that are being experienced by users, but these like passive 3D can be mitigated. 
UHD BR is a gimmick, having performed several tests at 65" it is an unnecessary upgrade. 
HDR is another bull**** gimmic that most users aren't interested in, myself included. 

As for crosstalk on 3D OLED sets this could be an issue, with either, your seating position, the filter being misaligned, and sometimes even the 3D render of the movie. 
I have several movies in 3D where crasstalk is a result of the 3D post production of the film. Ghost in the Shell and Justice League being some of the most recent ones. 
These are 3D post production issues. There are movies like Kong Skull Island and The Hobbit that do no exhibit any of this on my televison. 
Active 3D is not the future of 3D at all, it's passive glasses free 3D. Which is already available in the market. 

As for image processing on OLEDs store demos, there are two options for these TVs store and home. 
Store has usually all picture processing on and saturated colours. 
Even when I get my TV home, I have to turn off all that bull**** processing off, especially frame interpolation, that stuff is absolute garbage. 
120Hz TVs being advertised as 240Hz because they do frame interpolation, lol, looking at you Samsung. 
Then when you have your TV all setup and all picture processing turned off you should be calibrating your set for your environment, during the day and at night. 
If you don't do this, you're doing TV wrong. 

Also OLED is far superior to LCD when it comes to response time, LCD pixels ghost, OLED pixels do not, and the refresh rates are better on these. 
So I'm sorry you bought a crappy active Samsung and backed the wrong horse. 
You're just simply wrong and completely misinformed. 

Thanks for coming out champ.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

snpanago said:


> I received Coco 3D from Amazon UK yesterday....awesome movie and 3D makes it so much more fun to watch. I am gratified that Europe still embraces 3D so much so that studios continue to press copies of U.S. movies that play first run in 3D here in theaters; the conscious decision to not sell 3D discs in America is discouraging.


I was thinking about that title, I might have to grab it, will be grabbing it in the next month or so with others. 
Bless the UK and their Region Free Blu-Rays.


----------



## MagnumX

Talk about exaggerating the ills of active 3D...bunch-o-BS, IMO. $35 a pair (have 3 different brands here; all work fine. One even does 2D for the viewer if they don't want 3D that everyone else is using). Not heavy. No issues. No one I know gets sick from it except one guy that gets sick from ALL 3D even at the theater. Even my technically impaired mother can get the active glasses working just fine.


----------



## Worf

And Sony made some of the cheapest active 3d glasses ever - granted they were not the best, but they were $20 and Sony claimed they worked on practically all major brands. The only problem were the lenses were smaller than others. And when they see closed out, you could get them for $10 and finally, $5.


----------



## dew42

RealD cinema uses active shutter 3D, not passive. A single projector alternately projects right-eye frames and left-eye frames, switching 144 times per second (24 x 2 x 3) to reduce flicker. The glasses are polarized like passive panels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealD_3D

A 4K passive panel is capable of providing a full resolution image to both eyes simultaneously.

I switched from a Panasonic Plasma to an LG OLED and noticed a surprisingly significant improvement to 3D.


----------



## tomtastic

dew42 said:


> RealD cinema uses active shutter 3D, not passive. A single projector alternately projects right-eye frames and left-eye frames, switching 144 times per second (24 x 2 x 3) to reduce flicker. The glasses are polarized like passive panels.


RealD is a _passive_ system, not active shutter. It's a circular polarized system with passive glasses. Active shutter is like most home projectors, flat panels with sync glasses, Nvidia 3D system, welding helmets (which are pretty cool, I've tried them). I know one theater near me uses the Xpand glasses which are active shutter, those can be passive system too though.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

MagnumX said:


> Talk about exaggerating the ills of active 3D...bunch-o-BS, IMO. $35 a pair (have 3 different brands here; all work fine. One even does 2D for the viewer if they don't want 3D that everyone else is using). Not heavy. No issues. No one I know gets sick from it except one guy that gets sick from ALL 3D even at the theater. Even my technically impaired mother can get the active glasses working just fine.


Cool story bro, except that is not the case when active glasses came out they were close to and some over $100 CAD. 
Why would anyone pay that when you can get passive glasses free from the theater.
Also not the case for the weight of the active glasses when they first came out.
Furthermore tell me how great those active shutter glasses sync with your projector when the batteries are low.
The first iterations of active glasses had terrible sync issues in general. 
Passive, well you just put them on your face aaaaaand done.


----------



## MagnumX

Exist_To_Resist said:


> Cool story bro, except that is not the case when active glasses came out they were close to and some over $100 CAD.
> Why would anyone pay that when you can get passive glasses free from the theater.
> Also not the case for the weight of the active glasses when they first came out.
> Furthermore tell me how great those active shutter glasses sync with your projector when the batteries are low.
> The first iterations of active glasses had terrible sync issues in general.
> Passive, well you just put them on your face aaaaaand done.


I wouldn't call them "free" from the theater given the high cost of seeing a 3D movie at the theater. Plus passive were half resolution when 3D first came out (if we're only going to talk about "first came out" instead of the past year or two. You can still get active 3D projectors. You can't get a single TV set that isn't used from two years ago with passive or active or anything else but 4K. My active glasses last about 40 hours or 16-20 3D movies. I tend to plug them in when not in use (have a USB hub just for that purpose in the room) so that just never happens. More to the point, if my 3D projetor fails, I can still get a new one with 3D (even 4K + 3D).


----------



## brazen1

Yep, "done". Complete with crosstalk and half resolution. What a great trade off vs any low battery situation that might rear it's ugly head! And the weight of the glasses... one could barely raise their head and often broke into cold sweats and headaches. I particularly loved having to shove your face into the sweet spot to see anything half way clearly like the thing at the optometrist.  Oh so comfortable with the chin support and all. And real glasses costing thousands and all when you could just swipe a pair of the cheapos from the theatre. Brilliant! No wonder 3D haters rejected so harshly. The cheap pieces of junk ruined 3D as we knew it. Thanks for supporting it to death, literally. WTG!


----------



## EytanBer

brazen1 said:


> Yep, "done". Complete with crosstalk and half resolution. What a great trade off vs any low battery situation that might rear it's ugly head! And the weight of the glasses... one could barely raise their head and often broke into cold sweats and headaches. I particularly loved having to shove your face into the sweet spot to see anything half way clearly like the thing at the optometrist. Oh so comfortable with the chin support and all. And real glasses costing thousands and all when you could just swipe a pair of the cheapos from the theatre. Brilliant! No wonder 3D haters rejected so harshly. The cheap pieces of junk ruined 3D as we knew it. Thanks for supporting it to death, literally. WTG!


Just watched Solo Monday night in 3D. Was great.
Used to own a Samsung HD Active. Glasses were expensive, heavy, and dark.
Now I have an LG 4K 3D. 4K means the 3D is no longer half res but full HD.
Not dark because no shutters closing...
Glasses are cheap to expensive, depending on quality you want (I have a bunch of $1-$2 glasses, and a couple of nice over glasses 3d glasses. $15 pairs)

Love it. Only thing I hate is how hard and expensive it now is to get 3D movies. we need Avatar 2-4 to come out to touch off the craze again...


----------



## wildbill722

*We all love 3d*

I am so glad not to have to pick up a sword and battle everyone who hates active/loves active, hates passive/loves passive anymore. Whatever anyone owned was what was the best in most cases in most arguments. 

Thank goodness it no longer matters. What you chose, whether active or passive, is what you will live with for at least the next 5 years, and possibly much longer as far as 3d goes. If you chose active congratulations. If you chose passive also congratulations. It really doesn't have any effect who wins the argument now. Neither one exists anymore except as used tvs(except for the soon to be replaced z9d). Either way we are a very very small group who have very good 3d today. And for many years to come we will be the last group to say this. 

It is time to throw away the "mine is bigger than yours" arguments and realize we can enjoy the new 3d blu rays still to come and the almost 750 3d blu rays already out, in whatever format we have chosen.

It is truly time to relish our good fortune. I think we can all agree we share one thing in common: we all have the ability to watch something we love in breathtaking splendor, 3d. 

And this takes us back to the original question, "is 3d about dead." And for the first time I am at ease and can say confidently with no doubt, no, 3d is alive and well, for me. For the general population, not only is 3d dead, for them it was a flash in the pan. 

And finally, for the thousandth time in my life another reason for not following the crowd. They always get it wrong.


----------



## PCummins

brazen1 said:


> Yep, "done". Complete with crosstalk and half resolution. What a great trade off vs any low battery situation that might rear it's ugly head! And the weight of the glasses... one could barely raise their head and often broke into cold sweats and headaches. I particularly loved having to shove your face into the sweet spot to see anything half way clearly like the thing at the optometrist. Oh so comfortable with the chin support and all. And real glasses costing thousands and all when you could just swipe a pair of the cheapos from the theatre. Brilliant! No wonder 3D haters rejected so harshly. The cheap pieces of junk ruined 3D as we knew it. Thanks for supporting it to death, literally. WTG!


DisplayMate already did a good article refuting the "half resolution" argument in tests they did here as well as their opinions on the 2 technologies, circa 2011. LG also was awarded certifications of "Full HD" for their 3D TVs mid-2011 in Europe and China, see here.

You appear to be glossing over early Active glasses issues like light loss, IR/RF sync interruptions, flicker (from 120 Hz or ambient lights), incompatibility between TV models (even from the same manufacturer) and battery issues (a lot used CR style batteries in the early days vs rechargeable glasses). So I don't think Active was the all encompassing solution for 3D, even back then. It would have definitely improved since then (standard 240 Hz refresh, better transmissive LCD shutter panels), same as Passive migrating to 4K and better glasses/films to process it.

3D lives and dies according to content that exists for 3D - the technology used to show it is not as important. The dwindling number of people actually going to the cinema to watch movies in 3D is probably a bigger indicator to content producers and manufacturers about the health of the 3D market, not whether they were using Active or Passive 3D at home. I suspect a lot of people had 3D TV's but basically didn't know or care enough to watch content in 3D, and probably didn't care much what technology it used. Only people who were enthusiasts would have done their due diligence into 3D and then evaluated and picked which TV they'd like to watch it on since they knew they were going to be buying content for it.


----------



## dew42

tomtastic said:


> RealD is a _passive_ system, not active shutter. It's a circular polarized system with passive glasses. Active shutter is like most home projectors, flat panels with sync glasses, Nvidia 3D system, welding helmets (which are pretty cool, I've tried them). I know one theater near me uses the Xpand glasses which are active shutter, those can be passive system too though.


There is an active LCD shutter, called a ZScreen, to switch polarization for each frame, on the projector. The glasses are passive. The end result is you only get an image for one eye at a time. Whether you call RealD active, passive, or hybrid I don't know. They seemed to have just moved the shutter from one end to the other.

"... RealD uses a sophisticated one-projector scheme ... Images then pass through the ZScreen, which is a *liquid-crystal screen* placed in front of the projector lens. The ZScreen acts as a *fast-switching polarizing filter* (also called a push-pull modulator). Each time it switches, it alternates between images meant for your left and right eyes. It syncs precisely with the movie projector thanks to the help of an electronic controller."

https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/reald-3-d3.htm


----------



## MagnumX

wildbill722 said:


> Thank goodness it no longer matters.


So you believe.



> What you chose, whether active or passive, is what you will live with for at least the next 5 years, and possibly much longer as far as 3d goes. If you chose active congratulations. If you chose passive also congratulations. It really doesn't have any effect who wins the argument now. Neither one exists anymore except as used tvs(except for the soon to be replaced z9d). Either way we are a very very small group who have very good 3d today. And for many years to come we will be the last group to say this.


3D is still present in almost every major 3D projector on the market including the new 4K models (save one or two models). To say it's not available is either ignorance or willful deceit. I bought my Epson 3100 less than a year ago. I now have approximately 111 3D movies since last August (Amityville 3D just arrived today from Spain; Black Panther 3D is on the way shortly and Best Buy in the US is going to release Pacific Rim Uprising in both a 3D/2D disc set and a Combo 4K/3D/2D/Digital set in a couple of weeks with Atmos sound on 3D/2K as well as the 4K disc. That's nearly 1 out of 7 movies I own are in 3D. There's no sign of them being stopped released anywhere but the US. Why no TV manufacturer would like the market advantage of providing 3D sets to those that still want them, I don't know. It's not like it took a lot of extra electronics to support it at the end.


----------



## robsis

snpanago said:


> I received Coco 3D from Amazon UK yesterday....awesome movie and 3D makes it so much more fun to watch. I am gratified that Europe still embraces 3D so much so that studios continue to press copies of U.S. movies that play first run in 3D here in theaters; the conscious decision to not sell 3D discs in America is discouraging.



I agree....Ordered Coco from the UK and it is fantastic in 3D. Definitely re-watchable!


----------



## tomtastic

dew42 said:


> There is an active LCD shutter, called a ZScreen, to switch polarization for each frame, on the projector. The glasses are passive. The end result is you only get an image for one eye at a time. Whether you call RealD active, passive, or hybrid I don't know. They seemed to have just moved the shutter from one end to the other.
> 
> "... RealD uses a sophisticated one-projector scheme ... Images then pass through the ZScreen, which is a *liquid-crystal screen* placed in front of the projector lens. The ZScreen acts as a *fast-switching polarizing filter* (also called a push-pull modulator). Each time it switches, it alternates between images meant for your left and right eyes. It syncs precisely with the movie projector thanks to the help of an electronic controller."
> 
> https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/reald-3-d3.htm


Generally, active shutter and passive are generally described how the glasses work, not the projector. Active shutter: which happens in the glasses by shutting on/off and need to be synced. Passive by blocking light that reaches the glasses. Based on the basic definition I'd call RealD passive 3D. But it's a circular polarized system to be exact.


----------



## dew42

I guess for RealD to eliminate the flicker of a one-eye-at-a-time projection they would have to use two projectors.

IMAX advertises two projectors, I assume they don't use a ZScreen, just linear polarized lenses. Does anyone know if two projectors are mandatory? I discovered that screen size is not mandatory. We just got new IMAX screens that are ~ half the size of what I'm used to. (Google: Saskatoon LieMAX.)

Seems the active-passive terminology lumps different 3D technologies together causing a misunderstanding of what you are getting.

I still wonder if it is the strobing that causes headaches. Has anyone had issues with a passive OLED panel (or maybe IMAX but excluding LCD/LED which have slower response times)?


----------



## aaronwt

dew42 said:


> I guess for RealD to eliminate the flicker of a one-eye-at-a-time projection they would have to use two projectors.
> 
> IMAX advertises two projectors, I assume they don't use a ZScreen, just linear polarized lenses. Does anyone know if two projectors are mandatory? I discovered that screen size is not mandatory. We just got new IMAX screens that are ~ half the size of what I'm used to. (Google: Saskatoon LieMAX.)
> 
> Seems the active-passive terminology lumps different 3D technologies together causing a misunderstanding of what you are getting.
> 
> I still wonder if it is the strobing that causes headaches. Has anyone had issues with a passive OLED panel (or maybe IMAX but excluding LCD/LED which have slower response times)?


I typically have issues viewing passive on TVs. It is typically fatiguing to my eyes. But with active glasses I have none of that fatigue. And can watch for more than twice as long without having any issues.


----------



## MagnumX

It seems like any passive system could have issues with polarization, either on the projection/emitter/reflection or the lenses or even the angle of your head. No filter is 100% effective. It's more a question whether you can detect the stray light (not that active is perfect either).


----------



## tomtastic

dew42 said:


> I guess for RealD to eliminate the flicker of a one-eye-at-a-time projection they would have to use two projectors.
> 
> IMAX advertises two projectors, I assume they don't use a ZScreen, just linear polarized lenses. Does anyone know if two projectors are mandatory? I discovered that screen size is not mandatory. We just got new IMAX screens that are ~ half the size of what I'm used to. (Google: Saskatoon LieMAX.)
> 
> Seems the active-passive terminology lumps different 3D technologies together causing a misunderstanding of what you are getting.
> 
> I still wonder if it is the strobing that causes headaches. Has anyone had issues with a passive OLED panel (or maybe IMAX but excluding LCD/LED which have slower response times)?


I'm not aware of RealD having flicker, it's the same as passive 3D at home which is flicker free. I'm planning on visiting a RealD theater soon, haven't had a chance yet.


All the different theater 3D formats that I can think of:
*RealD 3D* (passive, circular polarized method, glasses work on passive flat panels at home), 
*Imax 3D*, (linear polarized, two projectors, also passive.)
*Dolby 3D* (one projector color wheel has two sets of RGB filters, one set for each eye and the glasses filter out the correct set for each eye. This is passive too, no shuttering.
*XpanD 3D*, can be passive or active. I've only seen this 3D in theaters so far and I found mine was active shutter. Near as I can tell it's the only active shutter 3D in theaters, that I know of. Overall, I find the glasses are too heavy, especially for longer movies. They are heavier than my DLP link glasses. Also, since they're reused, always dirty. I need to check out RealD next. I contacted RealD awhile back because my local theater was advertising they used RealD and in fact they were using XpanD, they located the nearest RealD equipped theater for me and also sent me a pair of RealD glasses in a nice case.

Which one's best? RealD you can get more head movement. IMAX, generally bigger screen, bigger glasses but less off-axis movement. Dolby 3D, brighter/sharper and can be used for 2D or 3D movies without changing out projector or screen. XpanD, I find it was dark at times, but no more than home viewing on my active projector. The glasses are just bulky and heavy.


----------



## MLXXX

dew42 said:


> I guess for RealD to eliminate the flicker of a one-eye-at-a-time projection they would have to use two projectors.


Public cinema screens are huge and traditionally operate at quite low light levels, so much so that the irises of our eyes fully dilate to admit as much light as possible. Even then, our retinas are not presented with particularly bright images. The viewing experience is nothing like what is available these days with a 65" High Dynamic Range flat panel display in the home.

Under these dim lighting levels, the 144Hz alternation rate at RealD cinemas is fast enough not to result in noticeable flicker. Very, very occasionally I myself notice a slight mirage effect because of the timing disparity between presentation of the Left and Right views, but I am particularly sensitive to 3D timing disparities.

The dimness of the screen helps to keep crosstalk hardly noticeable, and to make the 24fps frame rate not appear too jerky.

______

For the 3D showings of The Hobbit movies at a high frame rate (48Hz), I understand the RealD alternation rate was increased to 192Hz.


----------



## MagnumX

My home theater room is just as dark, if not darker than a cinema (no exit signs or floor rope lights). I had to avoid too bright of a projector for this reason as there is no good way to evenly reduce brightness beyond the Eco setting.


----------



## dfa973

*3D TV Dies - Is it Really The End?*
https://www.lifewire.com/why-3d-tv-died-4126776

_Let's not beat around the bush: 3D TV is dead. It's sad news for those who were 3D fans, but it's time to face facts. No 3D TVs are being made.

The Bottom Line 
In consumer electronics, things come and go, such as BETA, Laserdisc, and HD-DVD, CRT, Rear-Projection, and Plasma TVs, with Curved Screen TVs now showing signs of fading away. Also, the future of VR (Virtual Reality), which requires bulky headgear, is still not cemented. However, if vinyl records can make an unexpected big comeback, who is to say that 3D TV won't revive at some point?_


----------



## dew42

dfa973 said:


> *3D TV Dies - Is it Really The End?*
> https://www.lifewire.com/why-3d-tv-died-4126776
> 
> _Let's not beat around the bush: 3D TV is dead. It's sad news for those who were 3D fans, but it's time to face facts. No 3D TVs are being made.
> 
> The Bottom Line
> In consumer electronics, things come and go, such as BETA, Laserdisc, and HD-DVD, CRT, Rear-Projection, and Plasma TVs, with Curved Screen TVs now showing signs of fading away. Also, the future of VR (Virtual Reality), which requires bulky headgear, is still not cemented. However, if vinyl records can make an unexpected big comeback, who is to say that 3D TV won't revive at some point?_


It amazes me that these articles are still being written. They just won't die. It's like they just can't seem to get the message out. Or perhaps they are for those that can't sleep at night because 3D may still be lurking in the shadows? 

Most of us here have accepted that and still enjoy the 3D screens we have. Why not enjoy them while we have them?

I guess the article ends with some hope for 3D. I'm just amused by the overuse of the "3D-Is-Dead" story.


----------



## longhornsk57

anyone know where one can find Ready Player One 3D for not $40?


----------



## tomtastic

longhornsk57 said:


> anyone know where one can find Ready Player One 3D for not $40?


Ready Player One

I take it that's the texas eBay seller's price. Releases in UK Aug. 6th, wait and save yourself some $$$.


----------



## SteveCaron

We are finally getting Creature from the Black Lagoon: Complete Legacy Collection. Finally have all 3 films in 3D.


----------



## danlshane

SteveCaron said:


> We are finally getting Creature from the Black Lagoon: Complete Legacy Collection. Finally have all 3 films in 3D.


Only the first two are in 3D. The final CREATURE film was shot and released in 2D, and that's how it will be in the collection.


----------



## MagnumX

dew42 said:


> It amazes me that these articles are still being written. They just won't die.


Never underestimate how much some people both hate 3D and want it to die so no one else can enjoy it either (look how much JOY some took when they read that IMAX 3D in the US is all but dead.) 

It is human nature to want everyone to agree with you all the time and to hate and despise those that don't. You see it every day. In most high schools, you were either in a clique or you were an outcast. Don't fit the mold? Too bad. When everyone else jumps off the bridge, you better jump too like a good little Lemming or be castigated. It's ridiculous, but that's how society works. It's Us vs Them and there is always a them. 

Here it's 2D vs 3D, but I've seen OLED vs everything else (no matter how good QLED gets and it's now pretty close to OLED with a brighter picture, more color and far less risk of burn in, there are people that want it and ALL forms of LED TVs to DIE. I ran into this on the Bluray forums. Blind hatred for LED even if in a few years micro-LED may blow OLED away. Let's just stop innovation and institute mob rules....


----------



## SteveCaron

danlshane said:


> Only the first two are in 3D. The final CREATURE film was shot and released in 2D, and that's how it will be in the collection.


I thought that may be the case. My only beef with Universal and they Monster Movie collections is that I wish they would have done a series of Box Sets like the very 1st one.... when they started doing individual collections it made that 1st one useless.


----------



## MrEmoto

danlshane said:


> Only the first two are in 3D. The final CREATURE film was shot and released in 2D, and that's how it will be in the collection.


Oh! Where are you seeing this?


----------



## SteveCaron

MrEmoto said:


> Oh! Where are you seeing this?


The Digital Bits had an article on the release.


----------



## MrEmoto

SteveCaron said:


> The Digital Bits had an article on the release.


Thanks. Will look for that!


----------



## danlshane

SteveCaron said:


> I thought that may be the case. My only beef with Universal and they Monster Movie collections is that I wish they would have done a series of Box Sets like the very 1st one.... when they started doing individual collections it made that 1st one useless.


I don't consider it useless, certainly not at the price I paid. Rather, it's sort of an introductory package. I do have a few duplicates in the exclusive monster sets that I bought later, but I view them as backup discs. When I add up the total paid for the collections and divide by the number of titles (counted only once), I still wind up with a very good deal -- less than $5 per individual movie.

That's not counting all of the extras in the packages. Pretty hard to complain.


----------



## MagnumX

SteveCaron said:


> We are finally getting Creature from the Black Lagoon: Complete Legacy Collection. Finally have all 3 films in 3D.


Is there a time frame on this? Do you have to buy them in the box set or will they also be available separately?


----------



## dew42

MagnumX said:


> Never underestimate how much some people both hate 3D and want it to die so no one else can enjoy it either (look how much JOY some took when they read that IMAX 3D in the US is all but dead.)
> 
> It is human nature to want everyone to agree with you all the time and to hate and despise those that don't. You see it every day. In most high schools, you were either in a clique or you were an outcast. Don't fit the mold? Too bad. When everyone else jumps off the bridge, you better jump too like a good little Lemming or be castigated. It's ridiculous, but that's how society works. It's Us vs Them and there is always a them.
> 
> Here it's 2D vs 3D, but I've seen OLED vs everything else (no matter how good QLED gets and it's now pretty close to OLED with a brighter picture, more color and far less risk of burn in, there are people that want it and ALL forms of LED TVs to DIE. I ran into this on the Bluray forums. Blind hatred for LED even if in a few years micro-LED may blow OLED away. Let's just stop innovation and institute mob rules....


And then IMAX 3D came back. Seems far too stressful to live like that.

I understand avoiding LED but not blind hatred. QLED/LED is an LCD filter with an LED backlight. QLED adds Quantum Dots to create the color. Micro-LED, on the other hand, eliminates the LCD filter and acts just like OLED, in that it is direct drive. Eliminating LCD means faster response times (fixing ghosting) and less power as you are not filtering light but only generating the light you need (nice for future smartphones). You can use Quantum Dots with OLED and supposedly Samsung is exploring this.


----------



## MagnumX

My mother watches a lot of CNN (don't ask) and so OLED seemed a bad fit for her due to burn in risk. I was amazed how much QLED improved since last year, though. Blacks aren't quite OLED, but it's night and day closer than the cheap LG regular LED she first got and traded back in towards the 2018 QLED. 

She had all kinds of WiFi issues (slowing down or disconnecting) with the LG as well and some bug with detecting her receiver, although that might have been a bad HDMI cable as it seemed to go away after changing it. The Samsung seems solid so far. The lack of 3D sucks, though.

I keep hoping to find a 4K projector with 3D support that will work in my room (using lens shift now). I see rainbows with DLP too so it's been slim pickings short of one pricey Sony.


----------



## SteveCaron

MagnumX said:


> Is there a time frame on this? Do you have to buy them in the box set or will they also be available separately?


My guess is fall.


----------



## kheiden

3D is definitely not dead at my house. 

I hate that there's an apparent grudge against this technology, yet every seat is filled on 3D releases at the cinemas. I'm starting to buy form the UK now, since US releases are becoming scarce. Unfortunately, I'm also wanting the 4K versions and digital copy so I end up buying the same movie twice. Maybe this is their plan to double dip the die hards. LOL!

Now I just need to find a native 4K projector with 3D and memory presets for less than the cost of a new engine for my car.


----------



## SteveCaron

kheiden said:


> 3D is definitely not dead at my house.
> 
> I hate that there's an apparent grudge against this technology, yet every seat is filled on 3D releases at the cinemas. I'm starting to buy form the UK now, since US releases are becoming scarce. Unfortunately, I'm also wanting the 4K versions and digital copy so I end up buying the same movie twice. Maybe this is their plan to double dip the die hards. LOL!
> 
> Now I just need to find a native 4K projector with 3D and memory presets for less than the cost of a new engine for my car.


It must be popular overseas because I've even picked up 3D titles that never saw the light of day in theater over here like Disney's Ratatouille. With a couple of Oppo's on hand, a 3D LG LCD and OLED in the house and the ability to pick up titles from the other side of the pond I'm hoping this will seamlessly bridge me between its return to the home experience.


----------



## Worf

3D is extremely popular in Asia, especially China. There's a sense that you must release in 3d over there, so even movies that didn't have a 3d theatrical release in North America often has a 3d release over there.

I suspect the intense hatred of 3d is limited to just North America...


----------



## MagnumX

Worf said:


> 3D is extremely popular in Asia, especially China. There's a sense that you must release in 3d over there, so even movies that didn't have a 3d theatrical release in North America often has a 3d release over there.
> 
> I suspect the intense hatred of 3d is limited to just North America...


I've been under the impression that the "hatred" in North America for 3D is limited _mostly_ to pretentious film critics, that especially despise the dreaded "pop-outs" (that the rest of us love in moderation). Growing up, I always did the opposite of what the film critics said. If they hated it, it was probably fantastic. If they loved it, it was probably awful. In reality, it was more of a mixed bag as tastes are pretty subjective. I stil think many older movies always seem to get higher ratings than they deserve just because they're "classics" (unless you're a monster movie). I've watched almost every Bogart movie ever made (I have 72 here) and they were not all gold....


----------



## snpanago

MagnumX said:


> I've been under the impression that the "hatred" in North America for 3D is limited _mostly_ to pretentious film critics, that especially despise the dreaded "pop-outs" (that the rest of us love in moderation). Growing up, I always did the opposite of what the film critics said. If they hated it, it was probably fantastic. If they loved it, it was probably awful. In reality, it was more of a mixed bag as tastes are pretty subjective. I stil think many older movies always seem to get higher ratings than they deserve just because they're "classics" (unless you're a monster movie). I've watched almost every Bogart movie ever made (I have 72 here) and they were not all gold....


This is an interesting take. For example, I revered Roger Ebert and would enjoy his movie reviews and analysis, but I distinctly remember being slightly pissed off at his attitude toward 3D. https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed
http://www.newsweek.com/roger-ebert-why-i-hate-3d-movies-70247
I don’t know if there was a more popular and influential film critic in America than Ebert, and at the time, I just dismissed his opinion as a personal preference, like hating colorization of B&W films. Maybe some critics planted the seed of 3D hatred that did have an impact on the movie going public.


----------



## MagnumX

This is the line that bothers me most: 



> The biggest problem with 3D, though, is the "convergence/focus" issue. A couple of the other issues -- darkness and "smallness" -- are at least theoretically solvable. But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.
> 
> But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before.


600 Million years of evolution has NEVER presented that problem before??? WTF!?!? First of all, our alien ancestors created us as a hybrid species only several thousand years ago so this "evolution" he speaks of is pure poppycock!  Secondly, it's called REAL LIFE!!!! Your eyes focus at different distances in the real world all the time and they do so AUTOMATICALLY! I'm sorry, but that complaint is absolute poppycock! 

Most of the complaints are trivial. 3D films made in post-production are not one full stop darker. Horizontal movement is pretty damn smooth with 3D films here if I turn on interpolation on the projector. A smaller picture even with a giant screen? He means that the entire screen is now "seen" within the confines of the 3D lens frames. Well gee, I wear glasses and so ALL movies are seen within those confines. The screen does NOT look one iota smaller with 3D glasses on than without. It does look bigger if I wear contact lenses due to the lack of refraction around my eyes compared contact lenses resting directly on them. But 3D glasses on people who have good vision do not refract the screen like that. It's only due to a high prescription. 

I'm aware some people can't see the 3D effect PERIOD. Their eyes are either at a distance apart that won't converge the image or something is working differently in their brains. I read Johnny Depp is one such person who cannot see the 3D effect in movies period. I can see why people like him would hate 3D. But otherwise, complaints about having to wear glasses? My god, try wearing them almost full time (save sleeping) since 1st grade and see how much you LIKE glasses then! (that's me) 

The alternative is risky surgery (I personally know two people that had retinal detachments 4 years each after the surgery and a dozen more that get things like "halos" at night now and/or have constant dry eyes due to nerves being cut during the procedure so NO, blindness is not the only RISK associated with having your eyes corrected surgically, no matter how much cheaper it is today than in the past) or contact lenses (I have a high protein issue that makes anything but disposables intolerable over time (which are still not exactly comfortable), but large retinas so disposables were hard to find for nearly two decades that would even fit and THEN they cause my sinus problems to get 3x worse since they dump tons of tears into the ductwork compared to not wearing them, so yeah, they're pretty miserable. Yeah, I both hate and appreciate my glasses at the same time. 3D glasses are MOOT by comparison.

... (next link) ...

OK, I just read Ebert's article. We can't respond and it wouldn't matter if we could since he's no longer with us. But yeah, I can see why that article would irritate any 3D fan. It adds "nothing" ??? Really? Would life be better if we all lived in Flatland? Were the paintings made hundreds of years ago without perspective (e.g. railroad tracks appear to come together in the real world and drawing them that way looks "three dimensional" on paper to us). Are those "better" without even a hint of the 3rd dimension? Is the addition of perspective "good enough" ? Would you prefer a 3D statue or a drawing of one? 3D movies aren't a statue, but they look more like one than a drawing or 2D photograph.

The other complaints (it costs more!) are more of a complaint against greed than 3D itself and thus are not 'reasons' to do with 3D itself AT ALL. Frankly, it's a very poor article from a logistical perspective from someone that made a living writing criticisms of film. Yes, people who get headaches or can't see the effect aren't going to "like" 3D. The great thing about ALL 3D blu-rays is you can turn them back into 2D with a click on your TV/Projector's menu (I even have a set of 3D glasses that will also show 2D while everyone else sees 3D so you can both enjoy the same movie at the same time). With 9+ BILLION people on the planet, there ought to be room for 2D and 3D both. Its so short-sighted to screw EVERYONE just because everyone doesn't like the effect. It would be like having a simple majority where as soon as you hit 51%, the other side of the argument is wiped out of existence as if 49% doesn't mean a darn thing. All or nothing. Watch out when the pendulum swings the other way again. People never learn anything from history. This is why 3D comes and goes.


----------



## aaronwt

kheiden said:


> 3D is definitely not dead at my house.
> 
> I hate that there's an apparent grudge against this technology, yet every seat is filled on 3D releases at the cinemas. I'm starting to buy form the UK now, since US releases are becoming scarce. Unfortunately, I'm also wanting the 4K versions and digital copy so I end up buying the same movie twice. Maybe this is their plan to double dip the die hards. LOL!
> 
> Now I just need to find a native 4K projector with 3D and memory presets for less than the cost of a new engine for my car.


Just the opposite here with 3D at the theater. It's very easy to get a seat for the 3D showings while it's more difficult to get one from the 2D showings. Which is probably why AmC theaters in my area have decreased the number of 3D showings they have.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

I'm going to see the 3D IMAX showing for Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom tonight. No problem getting a reserved seat since less than a dozen seats were reserved. But the 2D Dolby showing around the same time was almost sold out.

Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB) using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

aaronwt said:


> I'm going to see the 3D IMAX showing for Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom tonight. No problem getting a reserved seat since less than a dozen seats were reserved. But the 2D Dolby showing around the same time was almost sold out.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB) using Tapatalk


I think people are just cheap. I wonder how it would be if they were the same price? Maybe they could conduct a few tests in this regard to find out before they write off 3D entirely? But then if they were the same relative price, why would they bother?


----------



## aaronwt

MagnumX said:


> I think people are just cheap. I wonder how it would be if they were the same price? Maybe they could conduct a few tests in this regard to find out before they write off 3D entirely? But then if they were the same relative price, why would they bother?


They are the same price. Both the 3D IMAX and 2D Dolby tickets are $19.32


Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## snpanago

aaronwt said:


> I'm going to see the 3D IMAX showing for Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom tonight. No problem getting a reserved seat since less than a dozen seats were reserved. But the 2D Dolby showing around the same time was almost sold out.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB) using Tapatalk


I still go out to the movies every couple of weeks and I've definitely noticed that at a multiplex, several screenings of the same movie are shown in 2D and maybe only one showing in 3D (when available). The 3D showings are a few dollars more, but they are rarely sold out during the first weekend release. I love 3D and have a good collection for home viewing. However, I think there's a noticeable malaise toward 3D; my wife and kids would rather see 2D blockbusters over 3D. Personally, I'd rather see most action films, and all animated films in 3D....but I get outvoted by the family.


----------



## PCummins

snpanago said:


> I still go out to the movies every couple of weeks and I've definitely noticed that at a multiplex, several screenings of the same movie are shown in 2D and maybe only one showing in 3D (when available).


It's definitely slowing down, in Australia only big budget titles are out in 3D (like Jurassic World Lost Kingdom, Black Panther, Infinity War, Solo, The Incredibles 2) so it's usually limited to 1 or 2 screenings a day for 2 (or 3) weeks before it's put aside for the next title or 2D only screenings. So as an example, there's 24 screenings of Jurassic World 2D vs 2 3D ones today at a local complex. When I headed to watch it recently (along with The Incredibles 2 3D) the cinema is usually only about 1/4 full so seems a lot of people aren't super interested in watching films in 3D nowadays (or don't realise they could). I expect companies would weigh up the interest including Blu-Ray sales and gauge that to determine whether they handle a conversion to 3D or not in the long term.


----------



## MagnumX

God, people must be nuts to not want to see big action films in 3D.... I don't get it. I guess we better hope the Chinese (and to whatever lesser extent, Europe) doesn't get sick of 3D too or it's all over.

OTOH, if theaters are offering 4K Dolby Vision and they're hyping 4K at home, what are they going to think? Hey, what's 3D in? Oh, it's 2K? 1080p!??! That's what my PARENTS watched for god's sake! Give me the 4K tickets! 8K if you got 'em!


----------



## danlshane

MagnumX said:


> With 9+ BILLION people on the planet, there ought to be room for 2D and 3D both. Its so short-sighted to screw EVERYONE just because everyone doesn't like the effect. It would be like having a simple majority where as soon as you hit 51%, the other side of the argument is wiped out of existence as if 49% doesn't mean a darn thing. All or nothing. Watch out when the pendulum swings the other way again. People never learn anything from history. This is why 3D comes and goes.


"Short people got no reason to live." -- Randy Newman

Ebert simply substituted "short people" with 3D. Same casual dismissal that reflects an elitist prejudice against a feature that many people don't just tolerate -- they love it! Some kids never learn how to share.


----------



## danlshane

PCummins said:


> When I headed to watch it recently (along with The Incredibles 2 3D) the cinema is usually only about 1/4 full so seems a lot of people aren't super interested in watching films in 3D nowadays (or don't realise they could). I expect companies would weigh up the interest including Blu-Ray sales and gauge that to determine whether they handle a conversion to 3D or not in the long term.


I don't frequent the cinema as I used to thanks to superior home theater tech, but when I do I very seldom pay the up-charge for 3D. I gave up on that due to improper projection on too many titles. 

The last 3D film I watched on the silver screen was BLADERUNNER 2049, and while 3D was not strong in that film it seemed all but invisible at the cinema due to too-dark projection. When I bought and viewed the 3D Blu-ray I was astonished at home effective even the modest use of 3D was compared with my cinema experience. Same deal with the 3D HFR HOBBIT trilogy; cinema screening not that great -- home viewing spectacular.

I remember great 3D in the theaters during the 1980s 3D revival, but then they had actual unionized projectionists who knew how to calibrate the equipment for those special showings. And we didn't even have to pay extra to see those films over the 2D counterparts. It isn't just the technology itself that turns people against 3D.


----------



## MagnumX

danlshane said:


> I don't frequent the cinema as I used to thanks to superior home theater tech, but when I do I very seldom pay the up-charge for 3D. I gave up on that due to improper projection on too many titles.
> 
> The last 3D film I watched on the silver screen was BLADERUNNER 2049, and while 3D was not strong in that film it seemed all but invisible at the cinema due to too-dark projection. When I bought and viewed the 3D Blu-ray I was astonished at home effective even the modest use of 3D was compared with my cinema experience. Same deal with the 3D HFR HOBBIT trilogy; cinema screening not that great -- home viewing spectacular.
> 
> I remember great 3D in the theaters during the 1980s 3D revival, but then they had actual unionized projectionists who knew how to calibrate the equipment for those special showings. And we didn't even have to pay extra to see those films over the 2D counterparts. It isn't just the technology itself that turns people against 3D.


I guess I got lucky with Blade Runner 2049 3D. It looked pretty good when I saw it in Phoenix last October. No Atmos, but the picture was great. It looks great at home too. I saw the first Hobbit movie in 48fps 3D. It wasn't dark at the theater I was at. I did think some of the camera movements (particularly the part spinning around that castle in the woods) looked rather CGI at that speed, though. Oddly, I haven't gotten around to watching it at home (buying 115 titles in less than 9 months means very little time to watch them all). 

But the '80s? I'm not sure about Jaws 3D (I just remember some the effects being cool), but when I saw Metalstorm....OMG. That had to be one of the worst films I've ever seen and there was something wrong with the projection as well. It was blurry and dark and hard to see the 3D effect properly and the story and acting were just awful. I just watched it at home to see if I had missed something back then. Some of the 3D was way better than anything I remembered despite some film flaws and a few bits where I couldn't converge the picture with my eyes right, but the story and acting was just as bad as it was the first time. What a waste of Kelly Preston in that movie....


----------



## PCummins

danlshane said:


> I don't frequent the cinema as I used to thanks to superior home theater tech, but when I do I very seldom pay the up-charge for 3D. I gave up on that due to improper projection on too many titles.


I find my home setup better than most of the cinema setups for similar reasons. The only issue is if people stop going to the cinemas to watch films in 3D this is a pretty big signal to the content creators that people aren't interested in 3D, so they are less likely to create additional 3D content. Probably worth talking to your local cinema to see if they can fix the issues for you, they're probably completely unaware there's any major problems.


----------



## Worf

I go to the theatre to be wowed - I never go for the boring 2d showings. After all, it's just home theatre. So yes, I go for the 3d, Atmos, DBOX showing - if you're making me go out, I'm going to make sure I get the showing that I can't afford to have at home.


----------



## dstarlin

MagnumX said:


> ...
> 
> I keep hoping to find a 4K projector with 3D support that will work in my room (using lens shift now). I see rainbows with DLP too so it's been slim pickings short of one pricey Sony.


Hi MagnumX, have you considered the Epson HC4000? I was considering the the BenQ TY800 (I think), but decided to go for the Epson. I was worried about rainbow effect on the BenQ as I heard it was quite noticeable, and the 3LCD on the Epson works nicely, also it has great flexibiility in placement with both horizontal and verticle lens shift and focus, all powered and through the remote. The 3d looks fantastic as well. Just a suggestion, perhaps you don't want a pixel shifter.


----------



## MagnumX

dstarlin said:


> Hi MagnumX, have you considered the Epson HC4000? I was considering the the BenQ TY800 (I think), but decided to go for the Epson. I was worried about rainbow effect on the BenQ as I heard it was quite noticeable, and the 3LCD on the Epson works nicely, also it has great flexibiility in placement with both horizontal and verticle lens shift and focus, all powered and through the remote. The 3d looks fantastic as well. Just a suggestion, perhaps you don't want a pixel shifter.


I originally looked at the Epson HC5040 (better black levels; slightly higher light output), but between it being 12 pounds heavier than my previous projector (the mount is hollow wall anchored and so I have no idea how much weight it can actually take; in 11 years it's been rock solid for 12 pounds and then 14 pounds for the Epson 3100, but I figured around 25 pounds was pushing my luck so I'd have to cut into the box around the main house beam and put a more secure mount in plus it was $1500 more than the 3100 and I still want to upgrade sound to Atmos/X (still looking at the best approach there) so there's 5+ more speakers to add an a receiver in the $1200-2200 range or thereabouts (having a hell of a time making a decision there; I liked the Denon units with Auro3D as the Auro3D layout works much better for my room layout and works with DTS:X too, but Dolby's robber-baron announcement of demanding manufacturers not allow rival upmixers be used with Atmos killed that). I was hoping something smaller and lighter would come out (well I guess something did; new DLP 4K units that don't do 3D or have rainbows or both). There was also the question of how much sharper it would really be, being a lens shifter (i.e. some reviews weren't kind). Also, I didn't really have much in the way of 4K titles (Apple seemed to turn that around; it seems I have around 50 now, most courtesy free upgrades for purchases and/or digital copies registered through them, although half are the James Bond series (4K, no HDR).


----------



## Mr.G

MagnumX said:


> I originally looked at the Epson HC5040 (better black levels; slightly higher light output), but between it being 12 pounds heavier than my previous projector (the mount is hollow wall anchored and so I have no idea how much weight it can actually take; in 11 years it's been rock solid for 12 pounds and then 14 pounds for the Epson 3100, but I figured around 25 pounds was pushing my luck so I'd have to cut into the box around the main house beam and put a more secure mount in plus it was $1500 more than the 3100 and I still want to upgrade sound to Atmos/X (still looking at the best approach there) so there's 5+ more speakers to add an a receiver in the $1200-2200 range or thereabouts (having a hell of a time making a decision there; I liked the Denon units with Auro3D as the Auro3D layout works much better for my room layout and works with DTS:X too, but Dolby's robber-baron announcement of demanding manufacturers not allow rival upmixers be used with Atmos killed that). I was hoping something smaller and lighter would come out (well I guess something did; new DLP 4K units that don't do 3D or have rainbows or both). There was also the question of how much sharper it would really be, being a lens shifter (i.e. some reviews weren't kind). Also, I didn't really have much in the way of 4K titles (Apple seemed to turn that around; it seems I have around 50 now, most courtesy free upgrades for purchases and/or digital copies registered through them, although half are the James Bond series (4K, no HDR).


You may want to wait to see what Epson comes out with later this year. The Epson 5040 and 4000 are interim 4K faux projectors which give a great picture but are not true 4K plus they are limited by their 10.2 Gbps chipset versus 18.2 Gbps you get on some DLP 4K projectors. I own the Epson HC4000 and am quite pleased with it's performance in spite of not being the equal of the 5040 since I bought it with the intention of replacing it when true 4K becomes affordable. The $700 difference between the 5040 and the 4000 also weighed in on my decision.

I'm doubting that Epson will down-size the bulk and weight of their new projectors so you will still have to deal with upgrading your mounting solution. The mounts used for ceiling fans only require a 4 1/4" hole in the ceiling to install a support so maybe something like that would work. Food for thought.


----------



## MagnumX

Mr.G said:


> You may want to wait to see what Epson comes out with later this year.


Yes, I'll be waiting for awhile. I'm working on some audio upgrades at the moment anyway (dialog lift at the least with my existing receiver for 2.0-5.1 movies since I have a Yamaha receiver and didn't realize it even had the capability until recently since it was only mentioned under DSP settings in the manual); full Atmos/X a real possibility with a receiver upgrade and some more speakers.


----------



## wildbill722

*Ebert and spatial recognition*

I had never read Ebert's comments before today, but he confirms what I have thought for a little while now.

I published this thought on another forum about a week ago:

"I have never been able to understand the often hate of 3d by some persons.

Possibly this is the real reason 3d never is able to get off the ground for very long and the disdain by so many of the feature:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/05/23/iq-vision-brain/2354273/

and this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recognizing-spatial-intel/

And indeed the utter disbelief as to how everyone does not love 3d."

Ebert is living proof of my hypothesis. Don't get me wrong. I loved Ebert, most of the time, and he was a straight-shooter. But he couldn't accept, didn't know, or didn't believe the above facts.


----------



## snpanago

wildbill722 said:


> I had never read Ebert's comments before today, but he confirms what I have thought for a little while now.
> 
> I published this thought on another forum about a week ago:
> 
> "I have never been able to understand the often hate of 3d by some persons.
> 
> Possibly this is the real reason 3d never is able to get off the ground for very long and the disdain by so many of the feature:
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/05/23/iq-vision-brain/2354273/
> 
> and this:
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/recognizing-spatial-intel/
> 
> And indeed the utter disbelief as to how everyone does not love 3d."
> 
> Ebert is living proof of my hypothesis. Don't get me wrong. I loved Ebert, most of the time, and he was a straight-shooter. But he couldn't accept, didn't know, or didn't believe the above facts.


I read these links you’ve provided and no where is there an association between IQ and 3D appreciation. Or more precisely, there is no correlation mentioned let alone demonstrated, between spatial intelligence and 3D appreciation. If you’ve taken IQ tests, you’ll notice that geometric shapes and pattern recognition is at the core of testing the individual’s capabilities to score well and answer the questions correctly. I don’t think there are facts here to support your hypothesis as major assumptions are being made. I didn’t read your other thread so maybe I’m not following your reasoning properly. Was Ebert of low or high IQ in your hypothetical proof?


----------



## scarabaeus

wildbill722 said:


> I had never read Ebert's comments before today, but he confirms what I have thought for a little while now.
> ...



So, you are saying: "3D haters are stupid!".


I love it!


----------



## wildbill722

snpanago said:


> I read these links you’ve provided and no where is there an association between IQ and 3D appreciation. Or more precisely, there is no correlation mentioned let alone demonstrated, between spatial intelligence and 3D appreciation. If you’ve taken IQ tests, you’ll notice that geometric shapes and pattern recognition is at the core of testing the individual’s capabilities to score well and answer the questions correctly. I don’t think there are facts here to support your hypothesis as major assumptions are being made. I didn’t read your other thread so maybe I’m not following your reasoning properly. Was Ebert of low or high IQ in your hypothetical proof?


The second article deals with spatial intelligence, which is about as close to 3d as you are going to get in comparison to 3d. It will be rather hard to find a study on 3d appreciation and IQ tests, I admit. But the proof is here that 3d may not be for everyone. It may take a certain type of mind to enjoy 3d and comprehend it. Your own post from a few days ago attests to my theory:

"I think there's a noticeable malaise toward 3D; my wife and kids would rather see 2D blockbusters over 3D. Personally, I'd rather see most action films, and all animated films in 3D....but I get outvoted by the family". 

To me and apparently you, 3d is the bomb. But just the opposite for most. Why do you think that is?

ps You state: "If you’ve taken IQ tests, you’ll notice that geometric shapes and pattern recognition is at the core of testing the individual’s capabilities to score well and answer the questions correctly." Indeed, that's the point of the second article; to point out that the IQ tests are 2d, not 3d, and there is no testing for 3d spatial cognition ability, but that it does indeed exist in a small smart subset of people.

Bottom line is, all who love 3d have searched endlessly for the answer: from conspiracies, to too dark screens, to having to wear glasses, etc. but basically have no reason as to why 3d failed for almost all who watch it. We watch a 3d movie and are mesmerized. Most others go, it's gimmicky and different, so what, and move on quickly. My belief is that there is more at work here than just malaise. It is almost as if those who don't feel this love of 3d are afraid of why they don't. It is, "why am I not seeing what these people are seeing?" Unfortunately they make up the clear majority. As in history, the witch hunt came next for 3d.


----------



## snpanago

wildbill722 said:


> The second article deals with spatial intelligence, which is about as close to 3d as you are going to get in comparison to 3d. It will be rather hard to find a study on 3d appreciation and IQ tests, I admit. But the proof is here that 3d may not be for everyone. It may take a certain type of mind to enjoy 3d and comprehend it. Your own post from a few days ago attests to my theory:
> 
> "I think there's a noticeable malaise toward 3D; my wife and kids would rather see 2D blockbusters over 3D. Personally, I'd rather see most action films, and all animated films in 3D....but I get outvoted by the family".
> 
> To me and apparently you, 3d is the bomb. But just the opposite for most. Why do you think that is?


I don’t know the reason why 3D isn’t loved by the majority. My only reason for following up on your post is that the references you cite aren’t convincing of your hypothesis. My friends, loved ones, and strangers (like Ebert was) report anecdotal and varied reasons for not liking 3D that we’ve all heard before. My wife and I were tested for IQ, and without being self-serving , I can say that we have IQ results that are nearly identical. Why don’t we share the same affinity for 3D? The answer most likely is that there are many reasons for such disparate 3D preferences.


----------



## snpanago

Besides, if spatial intelligence and appreciation prove to be the core reason the majority don't like or want 3D programming, then there really is no hope and 3D is dead. The technological push for glasses-free 3D wouldn't be a wise investment for manufacturers if it turns out that it wouldn't matter to the majority anyway.


----------



## wildbill722

snpanago said:


> I don’t know the reason why 3D isn’t loved by the majority. My only reason for following up on your post is that the references you cite aren’t convincing of your hypothesis. My friends, loved ones, and strangers (like Ebert was) report anecdotal and varied reasons for not liking 3D that we’ve all heard before. My wife and I were tested for IQ, and without being self-serving , I can say that we have IQ results that are nearly identical. Why don’t we share the same affinity for 3D? The answer most likely is that there are many reasons for such disparate 3D preferences.


Yes, I agree with you. I know our wive's are smart or they wouldn't have married us, right? Ha.ha. And there is no doubt that my wife is smarter than me and does well on existing IQ tests. My only point is, and the article goes to this argument, is that current IQ tests do not truly test for spacial intelligence and in that area different persons will score very differently, and would have even higher IQ scores. I was not trying to impugn anyone's intelligence. It just makes no sense otherwise for so many people not loving 3d, when there is so much to love. This is not just a personal preference argument. I could understand an argument with brussel sprouts; they are not good tasting, but some people love them.

This is a life-changing way of being entertained on so many levels for me and a few others, that really has no rival. But to most others it is a take it or leave it, I really don't care attitude. There must be more here. 

I do thank you for taking the time to respond and I do agree I wish I had more to go on, but hopefully others can prove me wrong or right, in the future. Hopefully, you might agree it is something we should look at in the future, and not disregard because we don't have all the answers.


----------



## snpanago

wildbill722 said:


> Yes, I agree with you. I know our wive's are smart or they wouldn't have married us, right? Ha.ha. And there is no doubt that my wife is smarter than me and does well on existing IQ tests. My only point is, and the article goes to this argument, is that current IQ tests do not truly test for spacial intelligence and in that area different persons will score very differently, and would have even higher IQ scores. I was not trying to impugn anyone's intelligence. It just makes no sense otherwise for so many people not loving 3d, when there is so much to love. This is not just a personal preference argument. I could understand an argument with brussel sprouts; they are not good tasting, but some people love them.
> 
> This is a life-changing way of being entertained on so many levels for me and a few others, that really has no rival. But to most others it is a take it or leave it, I really don't care attitude. There must be more here.
> 
> I do thank you for taking the time to respond and I do agree I wish I had more to go on, but hopefully others can prove me wrong or right, in the future. Hopefully, you might agree it is something we should look at in the future, and not disregard because we don't have all the answers.


We do agree 3D is awesome and we search for reasons why all don't agree with us so maybe these reasons can be identified and possibly fixed with better technology. Like I posted just before yours here, if spatial intelligence and spatial ability inequalities are the basis for the majority of 3D disfavor, then glasses-free 3D is not going to make a difference.


----------



## wildbill722

snpanago said:


> We do agree 3D is awesome and we search for reasons why all don't agree with us so maybe these reasons can be identified and possibly fixed with better technology. Like I posted just before yours here, if spatial intelligence and spatial ability inequalities are the basis for the majority of 3D disfavor, then glasses-free 3D is not going to make a difference.


I fear so, although I cannot speak to glasses less 3d as I have yet to see how the final version will work.

My theory would go along with why 3d pops up about every 30 years and then disappears. Someone with spatial ability discovers how well it works for them, thinks wow!, I am on to something, only to find out at some point that it only works for a small group of people. 

Otherwise I am at a total loss as to why 3d is not seen for what I see it as: the end all and be all of entertainment. I have never seen ANYTHING that remotely compares to it.

It was interesting to talk to you and share ideas. Maybe one day we will definitely know the answer to the question why 3d comes and goes every 30 years.


----------



## talon95

It's the glasses and the limitations they bring. If you could get good 3D by just sitting down in front of a screen like we do for 2D, then everyone would like it. Well assuming it didn't cause them eye fatigue anyway.


----------



## Worf

OTOH it doesn't explain why 3d is still quite hot outside of North America, or why it's especially popular in Asia to the point where non-3d can be derided as worthless, assuming the population distribution of intelligence is similar. 

It could be the more general acceptance of glasses (since Asians, especially Chinese, seem predisposed to nearsightedness) so 3d glasses are no big deal. If this is the case, glasses free 3d is what is required.

Even more puzzling is VR which seems to combine the worst of 3d with even heavier and bulkier headgear, but no general opposition. Perhaps the relative rarity if VR products and experiences is holding opposition at bay?


----------



## aaronwt

VR is even more a niche product than 3D.

Personally I don't have a problem with VR. It's just the low resolution screens they use. With the low screen resolution and it being so close to the eyes, I can see the pixels. WHich is annoying to me.


----------



## dfa973

Not to mention of the "screen door" effect...
I see even less traction for VR than 3D.


----------



## wildbill722

Worf said:


> OTOH it doesn't explain why 3d is still quite hot outside of North America, or why it's especially popular in Asia to the point where non-3d can be derided as worthless, assuming the population distribution of intelligence is similar.
> 
> It could be the more general acceptance of glasses (since Asians, especially Chinese, seem predisposed to nearsightedness) so 3d glasses are no big deal. If this is the case, glasses free 3d is what is required.
> 
> Even more puzzling is VR which seems to combine the worst of 3d with even heavier and bulkier headgear, but no general opposition. Perhaps the relative rarity if VR products and experiences is holding opposition at bay?


I am still skeptical of the numbers coming out of China. They have a bad habit of inflating numbers on everything. I do see many less movies coming out in 3d in China. And I do wonder if you could have sold the Chinese rice if they were told it was American rice during the last 10 years. I see many articles on the internet showing empty theaters that show 3d in China. 

I have no statistics on 3d in Europe but know the number of blu ray players is quite a bit smaller than the US numbers. 

VR suffers from the same problems in my opinion as to spatial issues. I really don't see it catching on in mass numbers, but I hope I am wrong. Please no hate mail from VR lovers. I really like VR myself but that is not the point. I believe VR will assist me in my argument at some point as it fails to catch on.

I did think about these counterpoints to my argument and they have validity. Good issues that must be answered for my hypothesis to hold water.


----------



## MagnumX

I just tried to pick up the "Best Buy exclusive" of Pacific Rim Uprising "Ultimate" 4K/3D/2D at the local Best Buy. I saw none. I got help. Their inventory system said they had 5 copies in stock. I had 6 people searching the store for an HOUR trying to find the damn copies of this 3D movie. They could not locate it. I saw 3 different Pacific Rim Uprising displays in the store. NONE had it nor did the regular aisles. They said they were "sorry" and that they should be getting more copies in on Monday (today). I stopped by. They got like 10 more copies of the 4K/2D only version ($32) and had ZERO 4K/3D/2D version (on sale for $27.99). Yeah. There's a problem right there. Even if people didn't want 3D, they would buy the 3D version because it cost less than the 4K version without 3D. So either they sold out or they didn't get any in because their inventory system said they already had 5 copies (that from the computer's point of view weren't selling). Either way, I STILL don't have a copy.  Since it's a Best Buy Exclusive, I can't get it ANYWHERE ELSE. And people wonder why brick and mortar stores are dying.... let alone 3D. If you can't buy it for ANY PRICE, it's going to die die die, which is what I hope happens to Best Buy so they can't get any more "exclusives" that keep me from getting it PERIOD from other sources like Amazon. Best Buy is run by IDIOTS. They won't hold a copy anymore even if they do have it and they won't let you buy it over the phone and then go pick it up either (same as holding it from their POV). Lovely Store....


----------



## aaronwt

MagnumX said:


> I just tried to pick up the "Best Buy exclusive" of Pacific Rim Uprising "Ultimate" 4K/3D/2D at the local Best Buy. I saw none. I got help. Their inventory system said they had 5 copies in stock. I had 6 people searching the store for an HOUR trying to find the damn copies of this 3D movie. They could not locate it. I saw 3 different Pacific Rim Uprising displays in the store. NONE had it nor did the regular aisles. They said they were "sorry" and that they should be getting more copies in on Monday (today). I stopped by. They got like 10 more copies of the 4K/2D only version ($32) and had ZERO 4K/3D/2D version (on sale for $27.99). Yeah. There's a problem right there. Even if people didn't want 3D, they would buy the 3D version because it cost less than the 4K version without 3D. So either they sold out or they didn't get any in because their inventory system said they already had 5 copies (that from the computer's point of view weren't selling). Either way, I STILL don't have a copy. Since it's a Best Buy Exclusive, I can't get it ANYWHERE ELSE. And people wonder why brick and mortar stores are dying.... let alone 3D. If you can't buy it for ANY PRICE, it's going to die die die, which is what I hope happens to Best Buy so they can't get any more "exclusives" that keep me from getting it PERIOD from other sources like Amazon. Best Buy is run by IDIOTS. They won't hold a copy anymore even if they do have it and they won't let you buy it over the phone and then go pick it up either (same as holding it from their POV). Lovely Store....


Just get it shipped to you from BestBuy. Then you don't have to mess with going to the store and wasting a bunch of time.


----------



## MagnumX

aaronwt said:


> Just get it shipped to you from BestBuy. Then you don't have to mess with going to the store and wasting a bunch of time.


Sure, for $4 extra shipping (plus the wait assuming it actually is already at the store). What sucks here is that they claim they have 5 copies at the store, but they cannot locate a single one.


----------



## talon95

Worf said:


> OTOH it doesn't explain why 3d is still quite hot outside of North America, or why it's especially popular in Asia to the point where non-3d can be derided as worthless, assuming the population distribution of intelligence is similar.
> 
> It could be the more general acceptance of glasses (since Asians, especially Chinese, seem predisposed to nearsightedness) so 3d glasses are no big deal. If this is the case, glasses free 3d is what is required.
> 
> Even more puzzling is VR which seems to combine the worst of 3d with even heavier and bulkier headgear, but no general opposition. Perhaps the relative rarity if VR products and experiences is holding opposition at bay?


Glasses on top of glasses is even more annoying. That's my only option. It works, but it's annoying. Note I agree that when done right with the right equipment, 3D is impressive from a visual standpoint. I have a good front projection setup at home that I feel works better than the commercial theaters for 3D.


----------



## sathron

MagnumX said:


> Sure, for $4 extra shipping (plus the wait assuming it actually is already at the store). What sucks here is that they claim they have 5 copies at the store, but they cannot locate a single one.


I had the same issue with GOTG 2 in 4K/3D…per a BB employee, he stated that what happens is employees buy them or “reserve” them and they don’t allow them to be put on the shelves…some of them buy 4 or 5 copies and sell them on eBay. I would assume in your case , they were taken off the shelf and not purchased yet.


----------



## Worf

Yeah, if there are copies in stock but no one can find them, they've been hidden by other staff. The store has to sell to customers first before staff so the staff often hides their own copies so they can buy them off shift. Usually they're hidden in the back, and sometimes other customers hide them elsewhere in the store to reserve them.

Short of turning the entire store upside down, no one would find it.

In Canada the best buy special edition completely sold out by lunch. The only reason I got a copy was I plopped down $10 and preordered it a month earlier. It took a while for the guy to find it but they found it - it was tagged for me so it wasn't that they could've sold it.


----------



## wildbill722

Worf said:


> Yeah, if there are copies in stock but no one can find them, they've been hidden by other staff. The store has to sell to customers first before staff so the staff often hides their own copies so they can buy them off shift. Usually they're hidden in the back, and sometimes other customers hide them elsewhere in the store to reserve them.
> 
> Short of turning the entire store upside down, no one would find it.
> 
> In Canada the best buy special edition completely sold out by lunch. The only reason I got a copy was I plopped down $10 and preordered it a month earlier. It took a while for the guy to find it but they found it - it was tagged for me so it wasn't that they could've sold it.


Anone getting these with slipcovers?


----------



## jorgebetancourt

snpanago said:


> I don’t know the reason why 3D isn’t loved by the majority. My only reason for following up on your post is that the references you cite aren’t convincing of your hypothesis. My friends, loved ones, and strangers (like Ebert was) report anecdotal and varied reasons for not liking 3D that we’ve all heard before. My wife and I were tested for IQ, and without being self-serving , I can say that we have IQ results that are nearly identical. Why don’t we share the same affinity for 3D? The answer most likely is that there are many reasons for such disparate 3D preferences.


I tend to think its the bad setup at some theaters.. Everyone thats seen 3d at my house is impressed and obviously it has to be a good movie.. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## snpanago

jorgebetancourt said:


> I tend to think its the bad setup at some theaters.. Everyone thats seen 3d at my house is impressed and obviously it has to be a good movie..
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Could be. I personally don't know enough to say anything about 3D setups at the theaters. Usually, I've seen 3D at IMAX or Real3D showings, using passive glasses and I have never thought that my enjoyment (or not) was a result of the setup. I assumed it was the movie shot in native 3D vs. post production that determined how good it looked.
My HT setup uses active technology and on my 85in LED display, 3D looks better than at the theaters, usually. IMAX 3D is hard to beat imo, generally speaking, as an experience.


----------



## aaronwt

MagnumX said:


> Sure, for $4 extra shipping (plus the wait assuming it actually is already at the store). What sucks here is that they claim they have 5 copies at the store, but they cannot locate a single one.


I don't get charged anything for shipping from Best buy. Whether I get it in the store or shipped it's the same price.

I've had that happen several times from Best buy and other stores. Where the system shows multiple copies of an item yet they can't find one. Its one reason I get things shipped more often.

In the instances where that has happened at Best buy for a store pickup, I usually get a $10 or $20 gift card if they screw up like that.

Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB) using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

aaronwt said:


> I don't get charged anything for shipping from Best buy. Whether I get it in the store or shipped it's the same price.


That means you either have ELITE or ELITE PLUS status through the Best Buy membership card or you have spent $35 minimum each time you've ordered something. Normal memberships *DO* *NOT* get "free" shipping unless they pay $35 or more per order.


----------



## dfa973

jorgebetancourt said:


> I tend to think its the bad setup at some theaters.. Everyone thats seen 3d at my house is impressed and obviously it has to be a good movie..


I believe that are many reasons that people are not very fond of the 3D...

I remember seeing the Avatar in 2009. In that time, the active glasses systems were king in cinema... It was a 3D showing with XPAND 3D active glasses, with coin batteries inside them. God, as long as the camera did no pan left/right too much is was OK, but with fast frames, the judder/stutter was awful. I was dizzy at the end. And the wife too.

In about 1-2 years after that, all the cinemas were dropping the active glasses and changed to the passive system. What a relief..., there are still some problems with panning, but not that bad. There are still problems with low brightness and low contrast at the cinema, even with the passive system.

At home, I have an LG 3D Cinema TV with passive glasses. Much better than the cinema, even with the half resolution per eye (the TV is 2K, not 4K), the brightness and contrast are better than in cinema. When I enable 3D on TV, the brightness increases, as the power consumption, 33 Watts for 2D goes to 75 Watts for 3D.

So yes, the setup in the cinema counts very much for the quality of the showing. Why would one accept a dimmed image with glasses on their nose, mild 3D effects and some stutter instead of a much better image, more bright and contrast?


----------



## Worf

wildbill722 said:


> Anone getting these with slipcovers?


Mine came with the slipcover. I suspect if you can find them, they will still have the slip covers.

Though if you don't want the 4k, I did see 3d copies at Walmart.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

snpanago said:


> Could be. I personally don't know enough to say anything about 3D setups at the theaters. Usually, I've seen 3D at IMAX or Real3D showings, using passive glasses and I have never thought that my enjoyment (or not) was a result of the setup. I assumed it was the movie shot in native 3D vs. post production that determined how good it looked.
> My HT setup uses active technology and on my 85in LED display, 3D looks better than at the theaters, usually. IMAX 3D is hard to beat imo, generally speaking, as an experience.


I dont know enough either about theater setups but I know I've been left dizzy before.. I also remember my mom and brothers complaining when watching a 3d movie how it bothered their eyes or it gave them a slight headache..

At home with our jvc projector its been a smooth ride..

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

I guess if I had saved all my slip covers I could have made some money on them. But they go right in the trash as soon as I receive any 2D BD, 3D BD, or UHD BD.


----------



## MagnumX

I don't get judder on 3D active, but then I use interpolation with 3D. It can look odd with 2D, but I think it looks very realistic with 3D. The Hobbit was nice and smooth at 48fps 3D at the theater.

As for slip covers, I don't really care about them, which is why I always seem to get them on mail orders (e.g. I got a Black Panther 3D slip cover from Amazon UK when it seems like most did not on the bluray forums.)


----------



## SteveCaron

Its odd Ready Player One 3D pre-order is already sold out on Best Buy's Website and Amazon has it for $48 but the good news is WB website has it for $34.99. Just went ahead and ordered it with Supergirl since that comes out the same day.


----------



## SteveCaron

RobKnapp said:


> I found a link from @Drew from Amazon France . Ready Player One - Limited Edition Steelbook - Blu-ray 4K HDR + Blu-Ray 3D + Blu-ray + Digital copy $ 41.16 USD I have never ordered from a foreign Amazon site but it seemed like a great deal . 3-D is great even with the minor issues glasses , cross talk . I hope it keeps going . Hell 2018 was a great year in theaters for 3-D films .
> 
> https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B07BQPXRV6/ref=pe_3044141_185740131_TE_item


That is tempting. I order from Amazon UK mostly but have ordered from France, Germany and Spain and aside from slightly longer shipping they are all the same experience as the US. What I do find odd though is shipping from France Germany seems to be much faster than from the UK.


----------



## longhornsk57

The Amazon UK one is up too,


----------



## SteveCaron

RobKnapp said:


> I found a link from @Drew from Amazon France . Ready Player One - Limited Edition Steelbook - Blu-ray 4K HDR + Blu-Ray 3D + Blu-ray + Digital copy $ 41.16 USD I have never ordered from a foreign Amazon site but it seemed like a great deal . 3-D is great even with the minor issues glasses , cross talk . I hope it keeps going . Hell 2018 was a great year in theaters for 3-D films .
> 
> https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B07BQPXRV6/ref=pe_3044141_185740131_TE_item


Ended up cancelling my WB direct order and pulling the trigger on this one. Kind of hard to pass up. Good Find!


----------



## SteveCaron

RobKnapp said:


> That is awesome . When I ordered the translate failed . I don't speak french lol . I hope I (we) get what was shown Ready Player One - Edition limitée Steelbook - Blu-ray 4K HDR + Blu-Ray 3D + Blu-ray + Digital copy. My only concern is that I mainly want the 3-D Blu-Ray. It states "Version 2 disques"
> So if it states " Blu-ray 4K HDR + Blu-Ray 3D + Blu-ray" my math = (3) disc's not (2).maybe the the blu-ray is actually the Digital copy ? I guess I will find out . Peace .


Were good... in addition to the 4k and 3D being on the package my translate works and this is how it looks. 


Comments on the advertisement 
Ready Player One - Limited Edition Steelbook - Blu-ray 4K HDR + Blu-Ray 3D + Blu-ray + Digital copy






Ready Player One - Limited Edition Steelbook - Blu-ray 4K HDR + Blu-Ray 3D + Blu-ray + Digital copy


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

aaronwt said:


> I use Any DVD HD. And I do full ISO rips with my 3D BD titles.


I recently bought Jurassic World in 3D and my player Panasonic DMP-UB900 has a problem switching to the 2ND layer on the disc, 
even the Xbox One can not handle the disc for some reason. 
So I ripped the movie to an ISO in my PC and tried playing it in KODI, but KODI doesn't recognize the Frame Packed 3D.
The full 3D ISO rips that you watch what player you watch them in?


----------



## brazen1

MPC-HC/BE both play 3D Frame Packed MVC iso rips provided you install LAV External Filters and madVR renderer and adjust a few settings. It's much easier than it sounds.


PowerDVD too. There is also DVDFab Player v.5 although you must set resolution to 1080p prior to playback unless an update has fixed this recently. A free one year license is available starting a week ago.


There is a forked version of KODI that also plays them revolving around NUC's and Intel Graphics. Some have had success and others haven't. Somehow it converted to TAB before playback last version I tried and didn't look too good compared to other players but I use nVidia. Once I 4k upgraded, it no longer worked at all due to HDMI 1.4 vs HDMI 2.0b limitations.


I'm aware of no other players or methods you might try.


I use MPC and PDVD for 3D iso's. MPC can be infinitely adjusted for high quality playback but menus are not supported. PDVD offers menus with fewer adjustments and the picture looks very good despite. 


All the players auto switch into the proper 3D mode perfectly provided all settings are harmonious and complaints usually generate when they aren't.


YMMV depending on the GPU you use, and perhaps display resolution conflicts especially via PJ's. This isn't to say other GPU's other than nVidia coupled with various PJ's don't work perfectly too.


----------



## MagnumX

KODI needs special hardware and a modified version of Kodi to play frame packed 3D. There's a page/thread on their site devote to it.


----------



## Exist_To_Resist

Gonna return the disc and see if it was just a defective pressing. 
Can't see both and Xbox One and a $1K UHD player have issues reading the disc.

Managed to get it working, skipped a chapter ahead, and then when I went back it witched layers just fine. 
Super weird.


----------



## aaronwt

Exist_To_Resist said:


> I recently bought Jurassic World in 3D and my player Panasonic DMP-UB900 has a problem switching to the 2ND layer on the disc,
> even the Xbox One can not handle the disc for some reason.
> So I ripped the movie to an ISO in my PC and tried playing it in KODI, but KODI doesn't recognize the Frame Packed 3D.
> The full 3D ISO rips that you watch what player you watch them in?


I have some Popcorn Hour Players I use. A VTEN and a couple of A400 models that work with the 3D BD ISOs and play them back properly in Frame Packed 3D.

And I think my PCH Rockbox Basic will also play back the 3D BD ISOs. But I don't really use that one. I need to pull it out of my system because even though it handles HDR, it is very slow in dealing with the UHD files.


----------



## SteveCaron

Little behind on watching my Marvel Movies but just viewed Dr. Strange in 3D this past weekend. Just WOW on the the 3D. This LG C6 was the best of all worlds....


----------



## MrEmoto

SteveCaron said:


> Little behind on watching my Marvel Movies but just viewed Dr. Strange in 3D this past weekend. Just WOW on the the 3D. This LG C6 was the best of all worlds....


Haven't seen that one yet, but will!

I did just see The Black Panther in 3D (blu-ray sourced from the UK) over the weekend, and my reaction to that was also WOW. Really good 3D and a fun and engaging film as well.


----------



## MrEmoto

SteveCaron said:


> Little behind on watching my Marvel Movies but just viewed Dr. Strange in 3D this past weekend. Just WOW on the the 3D. This LG C6 was the best of all worlds....


Haven't seen that one yet, but will!

I did just see The Black Panther in 3D (blu-ray sourced from the UK) over the weekend, and my reaction to that was also WOW. Really good 3D and a fun and engaging film as well. My 3D experience is nowhere near as much as many here, but Black Panther may have the best 3D I have seen so far.


----------



## MagnumX

I liked Thor: Ragnarok better for its amusing combo of humor and action. Black Panther had some odd plot inconsistencies that bugged me. It wasn't really bad, I just thought it wasn't as good as some people made it out to be. The 3D was pretty good in both. T2 3D was better for popouts as was virtually anything from the 1980s or earlier.


----------



## MrEmoto

MagnumX said:


> I liked Thor: Ragnarok better for its amusing combo of humor and action. Black Panther had some odd plot inconsistencies that bugged me. It wasn't really bad, I just thought it wasn't as good as some people made it out to be. The 3D was pretty good in both. T2 3D was better for popouts as was virtually anything from the 1980s or earlier.


I'll have to find a copy of T2 3D and check it out.


----------



## dhvsfan

MrEmoto said:


> I'll have to find a copy of T2 3D and check it out.


You will have to have either region-free or region B player. The Region A versions of Terminator 2 3D were produced in extremely limited numbers. Region B T2 3D versions are readily available.


----------



## MrEmoto

dhvsfan said:


> You will have to have either region-free or region B player. The Region A versions of Terminator 2 3D were produced in extremely limited numbers. Region B T2 3D versions are readily available.


Hmm. Ok. Thanks!


----------



## MagnumX

dhvsfan said:


> You will have to have either region-free or region B player. The Region A versions of Terminator 2 3D were produced in extremely limited numbers. Region B T2 3D versions are readily available.


Once can also rip/burn a region free version from a UK version (didn't work with my PS4, but my LG BD player would play them).


----------



## MrEmoto

MagnumX said:


> Once can also rip/burn a region free version from a UK version (didn't work with my PS4, but my LG BD player would play them).


Now, that is an interesting thought! Thanks for the idea. Of course, I don't own any problematic BRs yet, but this is all food for thought. An extra buck or two for a blank BR is certainly an affordable option.


----------



## dew42

MrEmoto said:


> I'll have to find a copy of T2 3D and check it out.


Nova Media and KimchiDVD both had region free releases of the Terminator 2 3D Blu-ray. Looks like they are sold out but I found a Nova Media release selling on ebay for $150  

http://novamnm.com/product/blu-ray-terminator-2-judgment-day-3d-lenticular-full-slip-le/1281/
https://kimchidvd.com/en/21806/v.kimchi


----------



## MrEmoto

dew42 said:


> Nova Media and KimchiDVD both had region free releases of the Terminator 2 3D Blu-ray. Looks like they are sold out but I found a Nova Media release selling on ebay for $150
> 
> http://novamnm.com/product/blu-ray-terminator-2-judgment-day-3d-lenticular-full-slip-le/1281/
> https://kimchidvd.com/en/21806/v.kimchi


Thanks. No worries. Amazon.uk has it for relatively short money and I can make a back-up that will play, so I'm good.


----------



## edo101

MagnumX said:


> I liked Thor: Ragnarok better for its amusing combo of humor and action. Black Panther had some odd plot inconsistencies that bugged me. It wasn't really bad, I just thought it wasn't as good as some people made it out to be. The 3D was pretty good in both. T2 3D was better for popouts as was virtually anything from the 1980s or earlier.


What movies from the 80s would you recommend? I just got my C6 and would like to bask in those movies especially since I wasn't born in this country and have some catching up to do?


----------



## MagnumX

edo101 said:


> What movies from the 80s would you recommend? I just got my C6 and would like to bask in those movies especially since I wasn't born in this country and have some catching up to do?


2D or 3D? 

The 1980s...lots of movies. I'll name a few of my favorites:

3D - Jaws 3D, Amityville 3D (both cheesy, but great 3D).

2D - Indiana Jones Trilogy, Back to the Future Trilogy, Lethal Weapon 1 & 2 (3 & 4 are OK; the first two are great); Die Hard 1 & 2, Ghostbusters, Crocodile Dundee 1 & 2, The Lost Boys, Predator, Top Gun, Hellraiser 1 & 2, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Commando, Blade Runner, TRON, The Beastmaster, Fast Times At Ridgemont High, The Living Daylights.


----------



## edo101

MagnumX said:


> 2D or 3D?
> 
> The 1980s...lots of movies. I'll name a few of my favorites:
> 
> 3D - Jaws 3D, Amityville 3D (both cheesy, but great 3D).
> 
> 2D - Indiana Jones Trilogy, Back to the Future Trilogy, Lethal Weapon 1 & 2 (3 & 4 are OK; the first two are great); Die Hard 1 & 2, Ghostbusters, Crocodile Dundee 1 & 2, The Lost Boys, Predator, Top Gun, Hellraiser 1 & 2, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Commando, Blade Runner, TRON, The Beastmaster, Fast Times At Ridgemont High, The Living Daylights.


Looking for 3D but those are all movies I have to watch. I never seen much of anything past 2000s


----------



## MagnumX

edo101 said:


> Looking for 3D but those are all movies I have to watch. I never seen much of anything past 2000s


There's not a lot of 3D titles from 1980s, unfortunately. I don't like Metalstorm (even though I have it here in 3D). Friday the 13th Part 3 was in 3D, but it hasn't been released in true 3D yet.


----------



## aaronwt

dhvsfan said:


> You will have to have either region-free or region B player. The Region A versions of Terminator 2 3D were produced in extremely limited numbers. Region B T2 3D versions are readily available.


Or just rip the other region Bd and watch it from a media player. Like do with any discs I get from other regions.

I haven't owned any type of region free disc playr in over a dozen years.

Sent from my Tab S 10.5 using Tapatalk


----------



## MagnumX

aaronwt said:


> Or just rip the other region Bd and watch it from a media player. Like do with any discs I get from other regions.
> 
> Sent from my Tab S 10.5 using Tapatalk


Very few media players handle MVC 3D playback, although oddly, one of the cheapest (Raspberry Pi) does. He can do a SBS encode, but you lose half the horizontal resolution.


----------



## Marc Alexander

Many 3D Blu-ray players will play ripped 3D titles over USB.


----------



## MagnumX

I've been wondering if my LG Ultra player would play them, but unfortunately for me, it only reads NTFS file systems (no ExFat and no HFS) so I haven't been able to try it. I'll need to get a second drive and transfer to a PC over the network or something.


----------



## dfa973

edo101 said:


> What movies from the 80s would you recommend? I just got my C6 and would like to bask in those movies especially since I wasn't born in this country and have some catching up to do?


There are not a lot of 3D movies made in 80's, and only 4 of them are good but all 4 are unreleased on digital mediums...



Code:


[B]Year		Title					Format				3D BD
[/B]1981		Comin' at Ya!								ian.16
1982		Friday the 13th Part III						unreleased
1982		Parasite								unreleased
1983		Amityville 3-D				ArriVision 3-D (ss3-D)		oct.13
1983		Jaws 3-D								iun.16
1983		Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn				sept.16
1983		Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone				unreleased
1983		The Man Who Wasn't There						unreleased
1983		Treasure of the Four Crowns						unreleased
1984		Silent Madness								unreleased
1985		Starchaser: The Legend of Orin						unreleased
1985		We Are Born of Stars			IMAX-3D				unreleased
1986		Captain EO								unreleased
1986		Transitions				IMAX-3D				unreleased


----------



## Marc Alexander

MagnumX said:


> I've been wondering if my LG Ultra player would play them, but unfortunately for me, it only reads NTFS file systems (no ExFat and no HFS) so I haven't been able to try it. I'll need to get a second drive and transfer to a PC over the network or something.


Just use a thumb drive to test.


----------



## aaronwt

MagnumX said:


> Very few media players handle MVC 3D playback, although oddly, one of the cheapest (Raspberry Pi) does. He can do a SBS encode, but you lose half the horizontal resolution.


I've never had any issue with my media players I use for 3D BD rips. Personally I would never use SBS for 3D since you lose so much resolution. I would watch it in 2D before watching that. But I dont have an issue. 

All my 3D BD titles are ripped 1:1 into an ISO. And my Popcorm hour media players have no problem playing back the titles in 3D. The 3D video and audio is identical to playing the title from the disc.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## brazen1

No issues here either. I too use 1:1 iso frame packed MVC rips and wouldn't consider using SBS or TAB encodes given the choice. I also prefer file playback via my HTPC not only for selection convenience using a front end and backup, but for higher quality control than dedicated players offer. There are many software media players capable of 3D in its native unaltered form - 1:1 frame packed. Some cost and some are free. That said, many are duped into butchering their rips in order to meet the limited capabilities of 'pumped' players and devices which has sadly become the norm.


----------



## Steve P.

Several more 3-D movies from the 1980's not mentioned include:

Emmanuelle IV
Venus
Super Girls in 3-D Stereo Vision
Sexcalibur
Rottweiler (Dogs of Hell)
Chain Gang
Hit the Road Running
Hyperspace
Hot Heir (The Great Balloon Chase)
Tales of the Third Dimension
Tiger Man

Some 1970's films were also in regional re-issue at this time under original or new titles:

Dynasty
13 Nuns (Revenge of the Shogun Women
Magnificent Bodyguards
Frankenstein (Flesh for Frankenstein, Andy Warhol's Frankenstein)

Even 1950's films like House of Wax and Dial M for Murder were re-released in single strip format.


----------



## MagnumX

Marc Alexander said:


> Just use a thumb drive to test.


What part of I can't write to NTFS didn't come across? I can't even format NTFS, let alone write to it.


----------



## wontwa

MagnumX said:


> What part of I can't write to NTFS didn't come across? I can't even format NTFS, let alone write to it.


Assuming you have a Mac, you can use software like Mounty or Tuxera to work with NTFS on OS X.


----------



## MagnumX

wontwa said:


> Assuming you have a Mac, you can use software like Mounty or Tuxera to work with NTFS on OS X.


That's a good idea. I'll have to try that.


----------



## MagnumX

Sadly, after setting up Tuxera to write to the USB stick in NTFS, the LG Ultra player doesn't play back 3D MVC MKVs in 3D. The only play back in 2D. I'd need another hardware player.


----------



## Marc Alexander

MagnumX said:


> Sadly, after setting up Tuxera to write to the USB stick in NTFS, the LG Ultra player doesn't play back 3D MVC MKVs in 3D. The only play back in 2D. I'd need another hardware player.


Don't package as MKV. Write the folder structure.


----------



## MagnumX

Marc Alexander said:


> Don't package as MKV. Write the folder structure.


I'm sorry, but I don't think that is an option here. I use MakeMKV. That's all it does (hence the name MakeMKV). I did test out the incredibly overpriced DVDFab10 and it can write ISO files, but it can't read/see those at all (tested it with T2). Even if I were to find another program that can just write the folder structure, there is no way in hell I'm going to re-dump 120+ 3D movies all over again when I know there are players out there that can play 3D MKVs. It's just too much work to do all over again, even if it did work. I've already filled a 4TB drive with these MKV backups so anything that takes up even more space is a non-starter, IMO. Besides, there is nothing in the LG manual to make me think it can play MVC files through the USB port anyway. It advertises its capabilities an plays almost every format known to man (so long as it's on NTFS), but 3D appears to be limited to SBS/TBT only (there's a 3D bar that appears with the movie and it shows SBS/TBT (or whatever the top/down variation is called). In other words, if I have to buy another device to play 3D files off a hard drive or network, I might as well just get one that plays what I already have. A Raspberry Pi running a special version of KODI would work (currently out of HDMI ports on my external switcher, though so it will have to wait one way or the other until I get a new receiver). It would have been nice if NVidia would have just enabled MVC support on the Shield. It literally supports everything else out there format-wise, EXCEPT 3D MVC. They don't care because they think 3D is dead.


----------



## Marc Alexander

MagnumX said:


> It would have been nice if NVidia would have just enabled MVC support on the Shield. It literally supports everything else out there format-wise, EXCEPT 3D MVC.


This will play everything, locally and over the network. 

https://www.duneplayer.com/dune-4k-android.html


----------



## MagnumX

Marc Alexander said:


> This will play everything, locally and over the network.
> 
> https://www.duneplayer.com/dune-4k-android.html


Thanks. I've been comparing it and the Zidoo X9S (apparently made in the same factory according to one review). The Dune can even read HFS+ formatted drives (apparently Zidoo cannot, at least stock), but the review claimed the Dune couldn't even do multi-channel output with KODI (you have to use their media player). The Zidoo has a custom version of KODI included that launches the external player for 3D or something to that effect, so you get the familiar interface, at least so I'm not sure which to go with. They have similar (within $50) prices and similar hardware. I wish I hadn't bought the NVidia Shield at this point. It seems rather moot given I have duplicate apps on most (other than gaming support).


----------



## xsrsmithx

MagnumX said:


> Thanks. I've been comparing it and the Zidoo X9S (apparently made in the same factory according to one review). The Dune can even read HFS+ formatted drives (apparently Zidoo cannot, at least stock), but the review claimed the Dune couldn't even do multi-channel output with KODI (you have to use their media player). The Zidoo has a custom version of KODI included that launches the external player for 3D or something to that effect, so you get the familiar interface, at least so I'm not sure which to go with. They have similar (within $50) prices and similar hardware. I wish I hadn't bought the NVidia Shield at this point. It seems rather moot given I have duplicate apps on most (other than gaming support).



You might take a look at the HiMedia Q5 or Q10. I have both and they play just about everything you can throw at it including ISO files. https://www.geekbuying.com/item/Him...&utm_term=4575411481778281&utm_content=US All


----------



## docajay

I second the Himedia product. I have a 10. Use it mostly for 4k mkv with hdr10 support, 3d and 1080p mkv. It plays isos and pretty much anything you throw at it. The only negative is bo dolby vision support buy my proj cant do that anyway.

I came from a micca product for last 5 y and they work just like those

Ajay


----------



## tomtastic

*Mission Impossible: Fallout with no Blu ray 3D release could be a sign of things to come.*

There have been a few releases that have not gone to Blu ray 3D at least in some region of the world even if not released in the US but like it or not this will be a new precedent if a successful movie with a 3D release is not given a Blu ray 3D distribution in some region of the world.

Up till now there has been Tinkerbell: Legend of the Neverbeast, which was only given a Vudu 3D release (half resolution 3D), The Colony (2013) which was converted to 3D but never shown in 3D in theaters or on home media, and Ben-Hur (2016, also by Paramount) which was shown in theaters in 3D but not given a Blu ray 3D release. Ben-hur was also a box office bomb so the lack of 3D release is justifiable but in the case of MI:VI, what is the explanation? Other titles include the Star Wars prequels Ep 1-3 which were all fully converted for 3D for theatrical 3D re-release starting in 2012. Episode 1 brought in over 100 million with it's 3D release but was never given a 3D release and episodes 2 and 3 were cut from theater release and never shown as well as no Blu ray 3D releases, just collecting dust in some digital vault.

The current trend, started by Disney to forgo a US Blu ray 3D release goes back to 2012 for Star Wars Ep 1 and 2014 with the new release of Frozen and rerelease of Ratatouille in 2014. Big Hero Six followed, Maleficent and many others that are on a list maintained here.

Pixar films are now excluded from US release as well as Marvel which are both owned by Disney. Thor Ragnarok, Cars 3, Coco, Pirates of the Caribbean and now even Star Wars major blockbusters are now excluded from a Blu ray 3D US release. Avengers: Infinity War will go on the list as well. The trend to not release in US can be attributed to Disney. There are other releases by other studios like Seventh Son, Despicable Me 3, The Great Wall, The Mummy (Universal), Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, Jumanji (Sony) as well as a few others by other studios but largely the trend was set by Disney.

Disney has a whopping 16 titles on the list out of a total of 35 total. Then there are a few movies that should be considered non US that are not on the list, in part because of a very limited Blu ray 3D release that was sold out on or before release day. Titles like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (Best Buy exclusive) (Marvel, Disney), and Geostorm (Warner Bros.) both of which you can get overseas. And it should be noted too that costs are either a fair equivalent to the US release or in fact cheaper than the US release as was the case I saw recently with Rampage and upcoming Skyscraper. Rampage is listed for 48.00 in US (Amazon) and approx. 23.00 in UK, that plus shipping is a lot cheaper than the US version.

Getting back to MI:VI, this is a new trend altogether to not release a Blu ray 3D as currently there are no plans to release it in 3D in any market, when in fact it was a successful movie. The only case and point I would say with this movie is no previous MI movies were released for the home market (or theatrical) in 3D, but that's a lame excuse if you ask me. Do we not release theatrical versions any more? Straight to a Director's Cut, for example? Isn't 3D part of the theatrical experience? That should be included for Blu ray release as well. Then there's the multi-mapped audio hampering on Blu ray 3D releases which is another discussion altogether but it should be noted here because it's only the 3D releases it seems to be affecting.

And by the way, Disney now owns 20th Century Fox, which studio Avatar was released under, so now Disney will control the fate of a 3D release of the Avatar sequels.

A sign of things to come?


----------



## marcuslaw

The only thing I thought was dead about 3-D was this thread. Regardless of the back and forth in here, the trolling, and the stereo haters, I go on enjoying Blu-ray 3-D and theatrical shows in stereo when they come around (I hoped for MJ's Thriller remaster in 3-D but it wasn't shown in my area). The curtain might once again be closing on 3-D but rest assured, it will be back. With my large catalog of discs, we'll go on enjoying it as long as my 940C and OPPO players function.


----------



## MagnumX

Nothing lasts forever and the studios have been wanting to kill off 3D quite badly for some time (the TV makers already did) as it just represents added cost and bother to them. They'd much rather just sell "sharper" which doesn't actually have to be one bit sharper since no one on Earth will even notice at 8K one way or another. But they will use it as an excuse to charge more and to kill off the disc format. What they really want is a monthly rental service (vis a vie Netflix only at MUCH HIGHER prices and this will start soon with Disney as they believe ALL their content is "premium" and deserves Amigo-Money(tm). Just look how much more their Blu-Rays are with much worse sound (both in Atmos channels and beleaguered content with all kinds of dynamic range and volume problems). Now 20th Century Fox's titles are going to be farked up too? Terrific.... Let's all pay through the nose for crap sound quality and no 3D.  

I used to like Disney and Disney World for that matter once upon a time. But they got greedier and greedier (starting with that Eisner fellow). Park prices are now so high that you really don't hear hardly any English language at any of the parks anymore as mostly rich tourists from places like China and Kuwait can really afford to pay over $100 per ticket per person per day. Soak 'em! is the new Disney policy. Offer Motel 6 quality at Hilton prices. Offer Hilton quality at Waldorf Astoria prices.... As Darth once said, "Search your feelings! You KNOW it to be true!"


----------



## Seilerbird

MagnumX said:


> I used to like Disney and Disney World for that matter once upon a time. But they got greedier and greedier (starting with that Eisner fellow). Park prices are now so high that you really don't hear hardly any English language at any of the parks anymore as mostly rich tourists from places like China and Kuwait can really afford to pay over $100 per ticket per person per day. Soak 'em! is the new Disney policy. Offer Motel 6 quality at Hilton prices. Offer Hilton quality at Waldorf Astoria prices.... As Darth once said, "Search your feelings! You KNOW it to be true!"


I still love Disney World and it is a bargain. A Disney Weekday Select Annual pass is only $289 for Florida residents. And it is good for about 180 days of the year. I get one and visit many many times. Don't spend any money while I am there, just go on the rides, view the attractions and oggle the women.


----------



## MagnumX

So I have to move to Florida to get a good price at Disney World???  

The last time I went to Disney World was in January 2000, right after I graduated college in December. I went to Disneyland in California in 2009, though (still reasonable for a 3-day pass then). But I remember in the 1980s, the tickets never expired (without paying EXTRA for the feature), all the waterparks were included with the 5-day pass for x amount of days after you used the first day, etc. Now it's all extra $$$$. 

GREED. It might work for Gomez Adams, but given the BILLIONS Disney rakes in, I think they could be a little more reasonable. But then I'd say the same about most of these big companies. Unfortunately, the shareholders _never_ see it that way as their _only_ interest in any company is how much $$$ it can make them as quickly as possible. They couldn't care less about anything else or anyone else. It's why I'm not a fan of unchecked (as in unregulated) Capitalism. All the humanity/morality is missing from purely legal entities designed entirely for profit's sake (at least after they incorporate).

All I know is there is reasonable profit and there is fleecing (e.g. Look at the price of a flipping hot dog at Disney World these days; it was ridiculous 18 years ago...a HOT DOG. The cheapest meat you can get, made from spare parts of other meat...yuck. Casey's Corner shows $9.99 for a regular all beef hot dog. Hot Dog at Sheetz? $0.79 McDonalds large fries? $1.79. Total value cost of Disney Hot Dog "meal"? $2.58. And that's at prices that generate PROFIT for those two companies. Disney's _magic_ hot dogs are clearly worth a 500% markup ). Disney seems to be all about the latter (fleecing) these days. I wonder how Walt would feel if he were still around (although given the tactics they used to gather the land in Florida at rock bottom prices, I dunno; maybe he'd be all for it). I know Roy wasn't entirely happy about the direction Eisner took.

So given all that, no, I'm not the least bit surprised that Disney Blu-Ray and DVDs before them cost 20-50% more than everyone else's and rarely go on any meaningful sale, whereas a pretty good movie like Looper is now $4.99 on Blu-Ray. Don't expect to see The Little Mermaid at that price...EVER. Justify it any way you want, but it's still highway robbery.


----------



## marcuslaw

The Rock's _Skyscraper 3-D_ is available for pre-order at the big box killer ($27.99) or at Best Buy ($29.99).


----------



## aaronwt

I do miss my 82" Mitsubishi for 3D watching. But I had to get rid of it when I bought a new UHD TV to replace my 2015 one. So at least I can still watch 3D on two TVs. They are just much smaller. A 65" Sony UHD TV and a 47" LG HDTV.


----------



## obveron

I'm a big fan of 3D at home and the theaters, but my friends usually want to go to the 2d version if possible. Funny thing, in my town, 3d has all the best showtimes and availability. The 2d version is usually only one theater one showtime a day, in the mid afternoon.

So we usually see it in 3d despite my friends' objections. Thing is, sometimes they're right. The movie will be a poor conversion, the projector demonstrates a lot of crosstalk, and the action is blurry, and there's no 3d effects to write home about.


Honestly, most movies now have pretty weak 3d, a great 3d movie is the exception not the rule anymore. Most Marvel movies the 3d is of zero consequence except for maybe one token pop-out scene. I came out of Han Solo thinking it would have been better in 2d, because the 3d was mostly unnoticeable except for the negative annoyances mentioned above.


I say this as a massive 3d fan who cherishes every *good* 3d presentation. I wish the high frame rate thing took off, I think 3d gets a massive boost in clarity with a high frame rate.

My favorite 3d experiences are video games because I can push them to 60 frames per second.


----------



## Seilerbird

You can complain all you want to about Disney's prices but it won't do you any good. They charge those prices because they can. I personally wish they would double their prices. It would help to filter out some of the lower class. I love Disney World and feel like the place is worth every penny that they charge. All you need to do is walk around Disney World and observe the looks on the kids faces to understand they are worth every penny.


----------



## tomtastic

Seilerbird said:


> You can complain all you want to about Disney's prices but it won't do you any good. They charge those prices because they can. I personally wish they would double their prices.* It would help to filter out some of the lower class*. I love Disney World and feel like the place is worth every penny that they charge. All you need to do is walk around Disney World and observe the looks on the kids faces to understand they are worth every penny.


I think we can do without remarks like these. Children shouldn't have to come from well-off families to be entitled to Disney World. That kind of elitist crap makes me sick!


----------



## MagnumX

Filter out the lower class? I was born in a poor family and my dad left when I was two, but my mother was practically a saint. I got a full honors scholarship and two degrees in Electronic Engineering and while I'm not lower class anymore, I have to say the idea that you would have wanted me kept out of Disney World when I was a kid (my dad did take me when I was 9 and again 13 and 15) pretty abhorrent.


----------



## longhornsk57

Got avengers 3 in 3D. Holy **** is it amazing!


----------



## JMCurtis

longhornsk57 said:


> Got avengers 3 in 3D. Holy **** is it amazing!



Have to agree with you there!!


----------



## Frank714

As I'm currently hamstering 3D Blu-ray titles, I reluctantly seem to have to find out, that getting third party 3D glasses and support becomes an increasing problem.


Got myself two XPAND X105-Rf-X1 glasses, unpacked and charged one, paired it with my RF-emitter but it now switches back and forth between 3D and 2D - and forces the other glasses to do the same, unless I switch the XPAND off.
Contacted their customer support and got a notifiation that my request couldn't be forwarded (now the seller in the UK has to help me or these go back).

Another large supplier here in Germany is "Hi-Shock" (I assume they are also using an OEM product). E-mail address doesn't work anymore, got an alternative one from a German message board, but sellers address isn't the same anymore as indicated on website. Ordered his items via Amazon to be on the safe side.

It almost seems that third party 3D glasses sellers have gone bankrupt or are in dire straits. It's almost like you should get your spare glasses while you can, but don't expect much support any longer.


----------



## MagnumX

That's an issue since the rechargeable batteries won't last forever. I don't know if they're removable offhand.

It just seems strange they want to kill 3D so bad. How much would that have added to a newer model TV in mass? $5? It's ridiculous, really as it's just a chip function. They certainly didn't lower the price of TVs when they ditched it. You'd think it would help differentiate one TV from another.


----------



## Worf

I think it's a refresh rate thing. Modern display panels don't need to be the 120Hz or 240Hz anymore - they make panels that support any refresh rate from 48-60Hz. And those panels means they support both the 24/30/60 Hz of NTSC countries as well as 24/25/50 of PAL countries. But 3D would require at least a 120Hz panel to give 60 Hz per eye.


----------



## PCummins

MagnumX said:


> It just seems strange they want to kill 3D so bad. How much would that have added to a newer model TV in mass? $5? It's ridiculous, really as it's just a chip function. They certainly didn't lower the price of TVs when they ditched it. You'd think it would help differentiate one TV from another.


From memory passive 3D required some surface area compromises for the pixels (basically smaller pixels) to reduce crosstalk + have the FPR film over the top that would limit peak luminance output. So my guess is 3D was removed to enable better HDR support since manufacturers are beating the drum about peak luminance. Though, you could argue that the faster response rate of OLED would have been able to switch over to Active 3D easily but there could be some other technological limitations stopping it. Not too sure if there were any limits on LCD technology given they can run at 120 Hz already, it's possible again there's some obscure tech reason (less quality/HDR?) that could be limiting it that is in conflict with their HDR ambitions.


----------



## dfa973

Stop searching for technical explanations for the 3D demise! There are none! 3D is gone because the vast majority of buyers did not cared about the 3D! It's very simple! When the interest will grow again we will see 3D rise again!


----------



## Seilerbird

dfa973 said:


> Stop searching for technical explanations for the 3D demise! There are none! 3D is gone because the vast majority of buyers did not cared about the 3D! It's very simple! When the interest will grow again we will see 3D rise again!


This is very true. It is simply a marketing decision. 3D is not selling in quantities to keep the bean counters happy so they simply eliminate it. 3D makes a reappearance every twenty years or so, so it will be back. Meanwhile I have no problem finding used 3D titles for cheap on Amazon.


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> Stop searching for technical explanations for the 3D demise! There are none! 3D is gone because the vast majority of buyers did not cared about the 3D! It's very simple! When the interest will grow again we will see 3D rise again!


Sorry, but that's not an explanation. They didn't remove support for 720p because it was unpopular.... The 20 year thing is horse crap too. One cycle isn't enough to make a theory (i.e. 3D never stuck around this long either previous "cycle" and it was never on home video and it's still in theaters). The 120Hz thing... 120Hz and 240Hz are better period. Need has nothing to do with it. Again, you can explain away cheap sets, but the fact they wiped them all seems to have more to do with trying to cram 4K down our throats (as opposed to offering an alternative that 4K can't compete with on its own since there is not 4K 3D standard). But that's stupid and short-sighted too, IMO. My point is only that keeping 3D around for just a niche crowd doesn't actually hurt 4K sales much (people tend to want both that want 3D) and keeping a couple of TV models (even at larger sizes) that support it wouldn't cost much either. It's more like some dim-wits at the top are idiots. There's no other "good" explanation. Morons do moronic things.


----------



## dfa973

MagnumX said:


> Sorry, but that's not an explanation. They didn't remove support for 720p because it was unpopular....


You compare apples with oranges...

Every 3D generation was better than previous and superseded the old one. As I said above, the reasons are not technical and not about the implementation price of the 3D feature.



MagnumX said:


> The 20 year thing is horse crap too. One cycle isn't enough to make a theory (i.e. 3D never stuck around this long either previous "cycle" and it was never on home video and it's still in theaters).


There is more that one cycle... We have 3 cycles (50', 80' and 00'). We are at the end of the third.




MagnumX said:


> The 120Hz thing... 120Hz and 240Hz are better period.


Nope, not a technical reason!



MagnumX said:


> Need has nothing to do with it. Again, you can explain away cheap sets, but the fact they wiped them all seems to have more to do with trying to cram 4K down our throats (as opposed to offering an alternative that 4K can't compete with on its own since there is not 4K 3D standard). But that's stupid and short-sighted too, IMO. My point is only that keeping 3D around for just a niche crowd doesn't actually hurt 4K sales much (people tend to want both that want 3D) and keeping a couple of TV models (even at larger sizes) that support it wouldn't cost much either. It's more like some dim-wits at the top are idiots. There's no other "good" explanation. Morons do moronic things.


Nope, just the balance between the demand and the offer was unsustainable. Since very, very, very few customers requested 3D TV's, the offer was lower and lower, and during the 2015-2016 years the 3D TV's were gone. The same for curved TV's.


----------



## SteveCaron

Seilerbird said:


> This is very true. It is simply a marketing decision. 3D is not selling in quantities to keep the bean counters happy so they simply eliminate it. 3D makes a reappearance every twenty years or so, so it will be back. Meanwhile I have no problem finding used 3D titles for cheap on Amazon.


One thing is for certain that with 2 3D LG 65 Inch panels (including a glorious OLED C6) finally I won't be so tempted to upgrade every 3 or 4 years so as to keep enjoying 3D. I really hope I can keep these panels going for the next 10 years and perhaps 3D will have returned by then. Keeping a TV for 10 years??? God I'm becoming my parents!


----------



## MagnumX

dfa973 said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that's not an explanation. They didn't remove support for 720p because it was unpopular....
> 
> 
> 
> You compare apples with oranges...
Click to expand...

And you wax philosophic.  It's not an explanation. 

There's only been ONE so-called "cycle". A cycle requires something to repeat and it requires intervals. I addressed both already, but apparently some don't catch on.

50s + 80s supposes a cycle and one that lasts about 5 years each time. Neither had a home format. You suppose "this cycle" but 3D movies haven't disappeared from theaters. Other than IMAX in the US alone, I see no signs of 3D disappearing from theaters. To presuppose the home market (which they seem to want to purposely kill off) represents the theatrical is an error, IMO. At the very least, if there is a cycle, it has already gone nearly twice the length of the previous ones and perhaps 30x the movies combined.



> Nope, just the balance between the demand and the offer was unsustainable. Since very, very, very few customers requested 3D TV's, the offer was lower and lower, and during the 2015-2016 years the 3D TV's were gone. The same for curved TV's.


I disagree. Some of us were waiting for prices to come down and/or 4K combined sets or projectors. I didn't buy my projector until last year for that reason. Hell, Bluray didn't even saturate before 4K came out. No, its obvious they purposely killed 3D to push the failing 4K format that no one asked for and few wanted. HDR was added after the fact specifically because 4K by itself is utterly pointless on 55-65" sets. They sell 4K sets because that's all there is above tiny sizes, but the Ultra discs are another story. 

A friend of mine can't tell 2K from SD DVDs even on his 55" 4K set. He couldn't care less about Blurays, let alone Ultra ones. No one had trouble telling 3D from 2D by comparison, but they priced the players and discs out of the stratosphere early on and made them separate from 2D players, etc. That put people off. If there's a cycle this time, its because they made one. Cinema itself is in danger now. I go twice a year on average. I'd rather watch at home for reasons that should be obvious (high prices, rude patrons, etc.)


----------



## tomtastic

More signs of Blu ray 3D decline:

IMAX releases of A Beautiful Planet and Journey to the South Pacific both remove the Blu ray 3D option and only offer UHD and regular 2D Blu ray.

A Beautiful Planet was filmed in 2D and converted for IMAX 3D screens so I can forgive that one but MacGillivray Freeman's Journey to the South Pacific were filmed with IMAX 3D cameras. This is a first for IMAX 3D films not to release in 3D for the home market since the current 3D boom emerged back in 2009.

Other signs of Blu ray 3D decline include Mission Impossible: Fallout with no scheduled Blu ray 3D anywhere in the world. Also, Hotel Transylvania 3 and Alpha currently do not have a Blu ray 3D release scheduled. If the trend to not release 3D films on the Blu ray 3D format continues 3D content could disappear by 2020.


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> More signs of Blu ray 3D decline:
> 
> IMAX releases of A Beautiful Planet and Journey to the South Pacific both remove the Blu ray 3D option and only offer UHD and regular 2D Blu ray.
> 
> A Beautiful Planet was filmed in 2D and converted for IMAX 3D screens so I can forgive that one but MacGillivray Freeman's Journey to the South Pacific were filmed with IMAX 3D cameras. This is a first for IMAX 3D films not to release in 3D for the home market since the current 3D boom emerged back in 2009.
> 
> Other signs of Blu ray 3D decline include Mission Impossible: Fallout with no scheduled Blu ray 3D anywhere in the world. Also, Hotel Transylvania 3 and Alpha currently do not have a Blu ray 3D release scheduled. If the trend to not release 3D films on the Blu ray 3D format continues 3D content could disappear by 2020.


I see those IMAX titles are the first ones to include HDR10+.


----------



## brazen1

I think there are no 3D sets anymore for a couple reasons: Everyone that wanted one... bought one during the 7 years they were plentiful. Those that dragged their feet are not enough to keep production going. I don't mind they don't sell em' anymore as long as when mine doesn't serve me well any longer, they start releasing them again.
One of those reasons is when panels commonly exceed the 65" models in their heyday without breaking the bank. 


I've always felt that once the public is milked on purchasing 4k and 8k exclusively, 3D will be reintroduced so we can be milked all over again. But the problem is, the cart is in front of the horse. Without 3D titles plentiful, there is no reason to offer 3D sets and without 3D sets available, there isn't much incentive to film in 3D. This is probably why many 3D titles are post produced which in turn didn't wow the public especially at the theatre vs at a home theatre done right. One or the other has to make the first move. In 2009, it was James Cameron with Avatar. Suddenly everyone wanted to offer 3D. Some were just horrible enough to leave a bad taste in consumers mouths be it the sets or the movies and were improperly and unfairly judged. I think it's going to take another wow factor introduction again and the Avatar sequels isn't it imo, glasses free or not. Tbh, I hope I'm wrong.


As for the US rarely selling any 3D titles that are widely available anywhere else except here, I have no idea? I will bet dimes to dollars that manipulation and greed are involved somehow though. I mean honestly, how much could it cost to add a few 3D titles on the shelf next to the UHD's at Best Buy or Frys? How much of a setback would it be for US Amazon to add some to stock along with the millions of other items they sell including UHD's?


----------



## MagnumX

Imax Enhanced makes no bones about the fact it's about 4K, not 3D. They never once mentioned 3D. No one said 3D BDs weren't in decline (it almost has to be given the only 3D "sets" made are projectors now. You can't make 3D forever for something that has no way to buy a new display screen!) That does not indicate 3D is about to disappear from movie theaters in general. MI: Fallout was in 3D at the theater (first of the MI to be in 3D ever). I just got a brand new National Parks disc over the summer hosted by Robert Redford. It came with 3D, 2K and 4K discs all with Atmos. That was THIS year and released in the USA.


----------



## 3DBob

Really nothing to do with 3D, but everything to do with making money. 3D conversions cost millions. 4K costs too. Which one are you going to eliminate if everyone in the US has a 4K TV in their living room? I have several friends that bought 3D TVs, and I swear that none have watched a 3D movie all the way through. They hate the glasses, and couldn't get them charged correctly, or they just couldn't figure out how to set the 3D up correctly on their TV (and trust me I've tried to educated them--it's just too dang complicated for them).

3D isn't the problem, it's the general user just couldn't figure out how to set it up correctly. Gees, most of my friends still watch DVDs, not Blurays. Very few have 4K streaming and don't even know what I'm talking about. All this technology is going to waste to a few of us that know what it is and how to use it. 3D TVs are NEVER going to come back unless you simply turn it on, and boom, it's in 3D and all I need to do is get a beer to watch it.

And when I talk to them about going to a theater to watch a 3D movie, they just say, "no way am I going to pay extra for those stupid glasses." UGH!

Go ahead and ask anyone a general question about what is the resolution of an HD movie. Or what is the resolution of a 4K movie. "Ahh, it's just sharper than the old TV was, that I know." And 3D, they will tell you that the family doesn't like it because they can't sit there watching while they also want to glance at their phones every few mintues---the glasses drive them nuts (been there). UGH...save yourselves...


----------



## MagnumX

3DBob, what you really seem to be saying is that 'many' or even possibly 'most' people are are largely ignorant, possibly of low intelligence (it's always hard to tell when people don't even try to learn) and thus not just 3D, but Atmos, etc. goes to waste as well. How many are even going to put speakers on the ceiling? How many even have 5.1 set up "correctly" (and by correctly I mean in the right relative positions instead of where they can fit a speaker willy-nilly. I've seen people's houses that had the mains in the back and the surrounds in the front just because that's where they "fit" in the room and the small speakers could sit on top of the TV whereas the big floor standing speakers could not). I've asked them about it and they thought it sounded "good" that way. 

The simple truth is I don't have a high opinion of soundbars, but I'm glad they exist anyway since it might be the only thing that keeps Atmos/X being created soundtrack-wise. Otherwise, it could easily end up another "costs too much to bother" tech that almost no one actually uses and therefore disappears. To me, I think it's probably even less popular than 3D in "reality" (in terms of people actually having a system where they can really hear the sounds where they're supposed to be), but as long as there's an ILLUSION that people have/want it then there's a chance it will still be included into the future (Apple adopting Atmos for streaming is a good thing).

The thing with 3D, though is that as long as they're still making it for the theater, they can release it on home video. There is NO difference between the two. That's what's more disturbing about MI:Fallout and even things like the first Incredibles which was converted into 3D, but never released ANYWHERE. Why spend so much money to convert it to 3D and then not release it? WTF is the point of that? Europe at least sells enough to make it worth their while to print a 3D disc (so far) and thank goodness they normally don't region encode the 3D discs (Amazon UK has to be making a lot of shipments to the US in recent years that they never had before). I know people want more 3D titles, but I have to say I've purchased more Blu-Rays in the past year (probably over 200 total with about 130 being 3D and only 6 being 4K) than ever before and it's mostly due to 3D and immersive sound (more lately).


----------



## Deja Vu

SteveCaron said:


> One thing is for certain that with 2 3D LG 65 Inch panels (including a glorious OLED C6) finally I won't be so tempted to upgrade every 3 or 4 years so as to keep enjoying 3D. I really hope I can keep these panels going for the next 10 years and perhaps 3D will have returned by then. Keeping a TV for 10 years??? God I'm becoming my parents!


I bought 2 65" E6 OLEDs for the 3D. BTW the 2D to 3D conversion with these sets is really, really good! Just go into settings and set point-of-view to -6 and depth to +12and enjoy all 2D programming in 3D -- that's how I'll watch the latest Mission Impossible movie.


----------



## 3DBob

MagnumX said:


> 3DBob, what you really seem to be saying is that 'many' or even possibly 'most' people are are largely ignorant, possibly of low intelligence.


 Ignorance is the issue here, not low intelligence. My neighbor can take any car apart and put it back together, but can't understand how a TV works. I'm also into photography and most of my friends can barely use their phone cameras--I told one that he could get a better, wider picture to capture the whole scene by turning his phone sideways. He looked at me and laughed. He said he did that once and sent it to a friend, and the friend wanted to know why the picture was sent sideway, and why did he have to tilt his phone to see it.


----------



## MagnumX

3DBob said:


> Ignorance is the issue here, not low intelligence. My neighbor can take any car apart and put it back together, but can't understand how a TV works.


Is there perceptual difference from a third party viewpoint between one who is stupid or ignorant when they don't even _try_ to learn? What I'm saying is that if you don't know how to set up 3D correctly or your home theater sound system correctly, you should FIND OUT how to do it. In this day and age, that is easier than ever with a virtual library and more at your fingertips on the Internet. I only have so much patience for people who don't know and either don't care to know or don't want to bother to know. I don't generally like doing things half-arsed unless I really don't _care_ about it (e.g. lawn maintenance).



> I'm also into photography and most of my friends can barely use their phone cameras--I told one that he could get a better, wider picture to capture the whole scene by turning his phone sideways. He looked at me and laughed. He said he did that once and sent it to a friend, and the friend wanted to know why the picture was sent sideway, and why did he have to tilt his phone to see it.


I am (was more in the past) into photography too and started with an original Canon Rebel "S" 35mm kit. I won't buy a camera that doesn't have manual override controls and light metering (other than whatever comes with a phone, etc.) I have moved to a pocket sized camera for most trips, though as I can fit it in my pocket. I don't like carrying around a camera bag and tripod as much these days. I used to drag them everywhere, though. Night photography was always my favorite as you had to know what you were doing to get good results even with camera automation (slowly changing too with ever increasing light sensitive sensors and stabilized lenses). I also liked using medium density filters to make the exposure slower for things like moving water (smoke-like appearance, etc.) But then I got into playing more instruments and writing music, home theater and even recreating pinball games in computer software simulations. There's only so much time for so many hobbies, unfortunately. I still do make an effort to take nice photos when I'm on vacation, though.

Yeah, I love all those videos taken in vertical mode. They look GREAT on CNN in breaking news footages of cops doing something wrong, etc. It's like, turn your phone sideways so we can actually see something going on other than the sky and road....


----------



## Frank714

MagnumX said:


> I just got a brand new National Parks disc over the summer hosted by Robert Redford. It came with 3D, 2K and 4K discs all with Atmos. That was THIS year and released in the USA.



Still keeping my fingers crossed for AIRCRAFT CARRIER: GUARDIAN OF THE SEAS that was (mostly) shot in native 3D but my optimism is wavering.


Since you mentioned Robert Redford, he was collaborating with another, lesser known 3D Project entitled CATHEDRALS OF CULTURE: https://www.amazon.com/Cathedrals-o...9614852&sr=1-1&keywords=Cathedrals+of+Culture


Just got myself the 3D Blu-ray a few days ago but still have to watch and listen to its English track. 


https://www.amazon.de/gp/product/B00R5WV8B6/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## AudioQuestions

MagnumX said:


> 3DBob, what you really seem to be saying is that 'many' or even possibly 'most' people are are largely ignorant, possibly of low intelligence (it's always hard to tell when people don't even try to learn) and thus not just 3D, but Atmos, etc. goes to waste as well.


Here is the definition of ignorant that I'm going to guess 3DBob meant, for those trying to argue semantics. 



> ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about a particular thing.


----------



## AudioQuestions

Here is where I stand on 3D. 
I *love* 3D, and I confess it's dead. I make a personal policy of only buying 3D movies, otherwise I'll just amazon prime it later. 
3D titles are seldom released, and most 3D movies are poor conversions. I have a great 77" 4K LG OLED TV. 

The last 2 movies that left an impression of good 3D were miss peregrine's home for peculiar children and the new blade runner. I did like/prefer the new king kong movie and ready player one in 3D but wasn't wowed by the use of 3D. More often though, I'm wondering why I'm bothering with glasses: shallow depth of field, no pop out, have to clean kids fingerprints off my glasses, and my wife won't watch 3d since it quickly fatigues her eyes. 

Most of the time my wife won't watch a movie with me and my son (who also prefers 3d). She'd rather stay home than watch in 3D. Even if 3D made improvements of fatigue, the mass population already made up their mind. 

Besides, most 3d content is like the green lantern, we needed more like the avatar.


----------



## 3DBob

AudioQuestions said:


> Here is where I stand on 3D.
> I *love* More often though, I'm wondering why I'm bothering with glasses: shallow depth of field, no pop out, have to clean kids fingerprints off my glasses, and my wife won't watch 3d since it quickly fatigues her eyes.


I scratched my head over the "shallow depth of field" comment. I have both my 60" LG TV and my projector setup so that it has lots of depth. My Sony bluray players also have a screen size feature in setup. This forces the depth to max of what the 3D is intended by the conversion. If you are seeing shallow depth, then adjust the 3D separation in your 3D setup. I think you will be amazed at the depth you can get out of most movies these days. The rest of your comments, I agree with. I'm the only one in my family that watches 3D these days.


----------



## Mamasboy

Generally, if given the choice at the movie theater I'll watch the 2D version - 2D is just less work to watch. It seems the best thing 3D works well with is movies set in space or maybe animated pixar type movies - for example in the OP Gravity was mentioned, that was fun in 3D, having people floating in the vastness of space works well.. Not sure how well it would work on a tiny home TV though. The Demos I have seen in video stores did not make me feel it was something I had to have.

Mostly, give me a well filmed 2D movie with that beautiful film grain goodness and the director focusing the film and us on what is important.

What confuses me is 3D still blurs out certain things in various scenes almost as much as 2D. I would think true 3D would allow for the eye to focus on any part of any scene like real life. 

I never thought about it, but I figure I'll need to upgrade my plazma in 3 - 5 years so I have been keeping up various high end TVs and their technology, but the TVs I have looked at did not have 3D or it was not prominently advertised. A few years back, it seemed every TV but the cheapest had 3D. I guess it was a feature to get people to upgrade TVs sooner. But now they have 4K as the must have feature so 3D is not needed to sell TVs.

Given a choice, same price, I wouldn't object to 3D capability on my next TV for the occasional space film in 3D but not having it would not be a deal breaker.





tomtastic said:


> I saw Gravity .... probably the best movie in the last 20 years.


It was a fun movie, but best movie in last 20 years?


----------



## MagnumX

Mamasboy said:


> What confuses me is 3D still blurs out certain things in various scenes almost as much as 2D. I would think true 3D would allow for the eye to focus on any part of any scene like real life.


3D doesn't magically change the rules of photography with various lenses at various exposures and depth of field. In order to see "everything" in 3D, you need to maintain a very small aperture, which in turns lets LESS light in when 3D needs MORE light in general (with real 3D cameras). This means you either need REALLY bright lighting or you have t compromise the ability to see everything in focus. In 2D, seeing everything in focus is considered less attractive in terms of depth perception (flattens it). Blurry indicates you're not to focus on that point. The camera focuses on what's important in a shot. Portraits, in photography tend to blur the background, for instance because you are supposed to be focused on the person, not what's behind them. But if you want to see both, you need a smaller aperture (higher f-stop) which again, needs more light in general.


----------



## 3DBob

Mamasboy said:


> What confuses me is 3D still blurs out certain things in various scenes almost as much as 2D. I would think true 3D would allow for the eye to focus on any part of any scene like real life. :


Most directors still film for a 2D audience, and it's always been a trick to blur out the background for close-ups to focus on the actors. Look at an object up close, and the objects behind it are out of focus in real life--right? In 3D movies, though, we like to see all parts of the scene to help us get context for the 3D.

We see more and more of the focus blur now, because rarely movies are being filmed in Native 3D these days--thus we are watching almost all conversions. And frankly, I'm okay with that as the conversions are getting better and better, and at least we still have some 3D movies to watch.


----------



## liffie420

I think there are multiple problems that lead to the downfall of 3D in the home. First glasses, people HATE having to wear the glasses, and generally I think there is a fairly narrow sweet spot where in works. I confess I have never owned or used a 3d tv, although my mom does have one she never once used the 3d aspect. Second people were unwilling to pay the price premium for the player's and movies. Lets be honest for a good period of time it was almost impossible to buy a tv that wasn't 3d, kind of like 4k is now. But the 3d bur ray players and movies cost more than the standard versions, which is obvious for many reasons, but people were not willing to fork over that extra money, I have no idea what the premium was, just for 3d. There is also the issue that MOST 3d movies are fake 3d, its all done in post on 90% of movies. There are few movies that were shot in native 3d, the Hobbit comes to mind as one of the few I can remember, and I do not count fully CGI movies since those are stupid easy to make look good in 3D since there is no "real" camera, which is why Avatar set the standard for 3d in movies. Also all the studio's had to do is look at sales standard versions outsold 3d versions all day long. I like 3d in the theater, and I still tend to see most in 3d when I go, but at home it's just not something I could be bothered with. There is also the problem, although I am sure i am wrong, but I believe that when displaying 3d movies, the resolution is halved, so it looks worse than a standard version. But that could also depend on the way the 3d is being presented.


----------



## MagnumX

AudioQuestions said:


> Here is the definition of ignorant that I'm going to guess 3DBob meant, for those trying to argue semantics.


I understand what he meant. My point is that it's not always easy to tell the difference, particularly when people are "purposely" ignorant, as in they CHOOSE not to bother to learn. Is that actual low intelligence or simply disinterest in making oneself less ignorant? It's not always easy to tell. You do have to figure half the population is less than the "average" of 100 so yes, there are a lot of lower intelligence people out there and they may have trouble learning even if they try. We often excuse "ignorance" because they simply are unaware of something, but IMO we should be excusing low intelligence more because these people have a true difficulty in learning even if they apply themselves and genetically speaking cannot help the cards they were dealt, so-to-speak whereas _ignorance_ is often a result of simply being too lazy to bother to make oneself aware of various topics in the world. 

It's true that you can't be an expert in everything, but in my experience, most people don't want to learn anything. They'd rather spend their time watching stupid reality TV or eating or having sex or whatever. Learning isn't of interest because it requires effort/work to learn. Admittedly, those of exceptionally high intelligence don't have to try very hard to learn so they are probably less ignorant without expending as much effort, but it's still a question of whether it's worth one's time to read a book on string theory or to watch Jerry Springer. People I know at work LOVE Jerry Springer. These are co-workers, whereas I bought a book on string theory because I'd like to understand the current theories on how the Universe works. Do I have a higher IQ or are these people simply lazy? I have no idea. What I do know is that refusing to learn even the basics about setting up a home theater is probably laziness as it's not very difficult to comprehend the basics.


----------



## Mamasboy

MagnumX said:


> They'd rather spend their time watching stupid reality TV or eating or having sex or whatever.


I'd much rather spend an evening having great sex than learn anyday! Big Brother, Survivor, and a tasty ribeye steak isn't bad either.


----------



## 3DBob

liffie420 said:


> There is also the problem, although I am sure i am wrong, but I believe that when displaying 3d movies, the resolution is halved, so it looks worse than a standard version. But that could also depend on the way the 3d is being presented.


 Ahh, no.
Movies on bluray are in frame packed 3d with two HD 1080 frames, thus full resolution. There is also Side-by-side and top/bottom 3D, that do halve the resolution. These are sometimes found on 3D cable channels and youtube.

Actually, there is a phenomenon with 3D that is rarely discussed. When watching 2D each eye fuses the same image pixel per pixel maintaining the exact resolution of the image. When watching 3D, though, the left eye and right eye see two different images and two pixels are combined into more apparent resolution. This results in an apparent boost in reality and resolution. It's another reason I like to watch 3D movies rather than their 3D counterpart.


----------



## tomtastic

Actually, I missed some other IMAX titles that were released in 3D at some point recently yet didn't receive a 3D Blu ray so the last post I made above aren't the first IMAX titles to not receive a Blu ray 3D but are the first bundles with 4K and Blu ray to not receive 3D which makes me think this is a financial distribution call.

Prior titles include: Hidden Universe, Tornado Alley, Antartica On the Edge, Titans of the Ice Age and Great White Shark which have been released on 4K and regular 2D blu ray but not Blu ray 3D. I haven't seen most of these yet accept "Titan" which I saw in Dome theater when it first came out in 2013 and have been eagerly waiting for the Blu ray 3D, but I will have to settle for the 2D version. As for the 4K versions I don't have a UHD player or a HDCP compliant AVR to view them yet, not to mention I really just wanted 3D so I'm not in a rush.

This is really unfortunate, I think the IMAX titles have been great on 3D, at least most of them. A few weren't the best use of 3D some being partially converted, but I've always enjoyed them anyway. I would say this is the end of 3D on the IMAX titles for the home market. Someone at IMAX needs to look into getting these on 3D. IMAX was a big pursuer of large format 3D in the early days. The first IMAX 3D title was We Are Born of Stars in 1985, the first underwater 3D film was Under the Sea in 1994, it would be a shame to not continue distributing them in 3D for the home market.

The total list of _current_ IMAX features without a Blu ray 3D include: (there are older titles as well but not included here)

Hidden Universe, Tornado Alley, Antartica on the Edge, Titans of the Ice Age, Great White Shark, A Beautiful Planet and Journey to the South Pacific.


----------



## MagnumX

Mamasboy said:


> I'd much rather spend an evening having great sex than learn anyday! Big Brother, Survivor, and a tasty ribeye steak isn't bad either.


Watch Hellraiser I & II sometime.


----------



## liffie420

3DBob said:


> Ahh, no.
> Movies on bluray are in frame packed 3d with two HD 1080 frames, thus full resolution. There is also Side-by-side and top/bottom 3D, that do halve the resolution. These are sometimes found on 3D cable channels and youtube.
> 
> Actually, there is a phenomenon with 3D that is rarely discussed. When watching 2D each eye fuses the same image pixel per pixel maintaining the exact resolution of the image. When watching 3D, though, the left eye and right eye see two different images and two pixels are combined into more apparent resolution. This results in an apparent boost in reality and resolution. It's another reason I like to watch 3D movies rather than their 3D counterpart.


Well like I said I was probably wrong lol. I just remember hearing, I think, one of the benefits of 4k was being able to do 3d at full 1080p resolution or something like that, I don't know. Truthfully I was never that into he whole 3d thing at home anyway, I don't mind it in theater. I just wish it was actually filmed in 3d which most movies are not. That was one of the reasons I REALLY liked the Hobbit in 3d HFR, best 3d I had ever seen, never saw Avatar in theaters, and without question the most detailed movie I have ever seen. UHD disc doesn't even do it justice, but I know many people hated the HFR, its kind of like the whole SOE doesn't bother me either.


----------



## MagnumX

3DBob said:


> Actually, there is a phenomenon with 3D that is rarely discussed. When watching 2D each eye fuses the same image pixel per pixel maintaining the exact resolution of the image. When watching 3D, though, the left eye and right eye see two different images and two pixels are combined into more apparent resolution. This results in an apparent boost in reality and resolution. It's another reason I like to watch 3D movies rather than their 3D counterpart.


This is the first I've _ever_ heard of that. Where did you hear/read of this supposed phenomenon?


----------



## AudioQuestions

3DBob said:


> I scratched my head over the "shallow depth of field" comment. I have both my 60" LG TV and my projector setup so that it has lots of depth. My Sony bluray players also have a screen size feature in setup. This forces the depth to max of what the 3D is intended by the conversion. If you are seeing shallow depth, then adjust the 3D separation in your 3D setup. I think you will be amazed at the depth you can get out of most movies these days. The rest of your comments, I agree with. I'm the only one in my family that watches 3D these days.


My oppo 205 is set to max on the 3d effect. It's capable of a lot of depth. 3D movies don't always utilize it.


----------



## AudioQuestions

AudioQuestions said:


> My oppo 205 is set to max on the 3d effect. It's capable of a lot of depth. 3D movies don't always utilize it.


I mean shallow depth compared to what the technology allows, not shallow depth of field as in a photographer with a very low F-stop life f/1.4 used in low light or to intentionally blur the background. I misspoke.


----------



## wildbill722

MagnumX said:


> This is the first I've _ever_ heard of that. Where did you hear/read of this supposed phenomenon?


Hello MagnumX and 3DBob:

I have often been left confused on why I love 3D so much and many others I talk to just cannot comprehend my feelings. I came up with a different theory that explains this and why 3D comes to life and "dies" every 30 years or so. There is an assumption by us that love 3D that everybody else will to. This is what apparently happens in hollywood when a group of people see 3D for the first time, and this small group is overwhelmed thinking "how can this not catch on"? Unfortunately for most people it is a no-go from the beginning and they simply state "what's the big deal", "I just don't see the attraction" because they really don't. We just assume this is such a great technology how can anyone not love it. Many person's brains just can't get there. (And please, no Kanye jokes).

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=307268

I don't mean to sound elitist but I am afraid most of the population is just not capable of really enjoying 3D the way we do. I could also be sexist while I am offending people as it seems to be a male-oriented "love affair." Please don't flame me if your wife loves 3D. Mine does, but many women I have shown 3D to, seem to have an attitude of I can take it or leave it. I on the other hand for use of better words, get a ****-eating grin every time I see 3D. It simply amazes me. 

How do I explain China's love affair in such mass? Look to the reality of their numbers as to viewers and movie theaters and the fact that 3D was really thrust upon a population that has nothing else. I am not sure this is a valid argument that there is a large part of a population anywhere on this planet that really enjoys 3D. 

And unfortunately this is why no matter what you do, go glassesless, etc. will not make this any better. 3D will always be a niche environment. I don't frankly give a damn, as I have plenty of 3D tvs, and over 800 3D blu rays, but I have felt on many occasions at a loss as to why I was so "different" in my love of 3D. 

Did Hollywood help kill off 3D for their own ulterior motives, to advance 4k? Probably. But I am afraid the bigger problem was just a lack of interest in 3D by the general public. I am just thankful to have seen 3D come to fruition and to get as far as it did on this round. This may be looked back on as the truly golden age of 3D.


----------



## tomtastic

One thing is certain: 2009-Present is the new Golden Age of 3D. But it's time is running out and I feel like we're on the downward slope now. Seems to me that 3D is being forced out by manufacturers in favor of 4K. I'm starting to wonder how much longer we'll see 3D in theaters and home releases. 

There's also been a number of movies in the last 2 or 3 years that were not released in theaters for 3D that I think would have been in years prior. It's hard to know for certain how many. 

Ones I can think of right now: Alien: Covenant, Dead Pool, Logan, Pete's Dragon, just to name a few. I think the new First Man film would have been 3D five years ago.

More on Alien: Covenant I've been meaning to say this for awhile, I suppose I may be in the minority but I'm gonna say it anyway


Spoiler



A note about Alien: Covenant, I say it was _not_ as good as Prometheus despite many raving comments on here about how it was so much better than its predecessor, it just wasn't. Prometheus was 3D for one (and beautiful in 3D I might add) and two the story was better. I was let down by their choice to skip ahead and kill off the main character from the prior movie. They skipped the movie I wanted to see and showed it in a brief flashback. Plus Noomi Repace is awesome and it was a mistake to not continue off from Prometheus with her story. Covenant was an ok movie overall but not really anything we haven't seen before, not awful, but it wasn't Prometheus.


----------



## noob00224

tomtastic said:


> Ones I can think of right now: Alien: Covenant, Dead Pool, Logan, Pete's Dragon, just to name a few. I think the new First Man film would have been 3D five years ago.



Hardcore Henry would have been nice, and that was 2015.


----------



## Kenbar

wildbill722 said:


> Hello MagnumX and 3DBob:
> 
> I have often been left confused on why I love 3D so much and many others I talk to just cannot comprehend my feelings. I came up with a different theory that explains this and why 3D comes to life and "dies" every 30 years or so. There is an assumption by us that love 3D that everybody else will to. This is what apparently happens in hollywood when a group of people see 3D for the first time, and this small group is overwhelmed thinking "how can this not catch on"? Unfortunately for most people it is a no-go from the beginning and they simply state "what's the big deal", "I just don't see the attraction" because they really don't. We just assume this is such a great technology how can anyone not love it. Many person's brains just can't get there. (And please, no Kanye jokes).
> 
> https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=307268
> 
> I don't mean to sound elitist but I am afraid most of the population is just not capable of really enjoying 3D the way we do. I could also be sexist while I am offending people as it seems to be a male-oriented "love affair." Please don't flame me if your wife loves 3D. Mine does, but many women I have shown 3D to, seem to have an attitude of I can take it or leave it. I on the other hand for use of better words, get a ****-eating grin every time I see 3D. It simply amazes me.
> 
> How do I explain China's love affair in such mass? Look to the reality of their numbers as to viewers and movie theaters and the fact that 3D was really thrust upon a population that has nothing else. I am not sure this is a valid argument that there is a large part of a population anywhere on this planet that really enjoys 3D.
> 
> And unfortunately this is why no matter what you do, go glassesless, etc. will not make this any better. 3D will always be a niche environment. I don't frankly give a damn, as I have plenty of 3D tvs, and over 800 3D blu rays, but I have felt on many occasions at a loss as to why I was so "different" in my love of 3D.
> 
> Did Hollywood help kill off 3D for their own ulterior motives, to advance 4k? Probably. But I am afraid the bigger problem was just a lack of interest in 3D by the general public. I am just thankful to have seen 3D come to fruition and to get as far as it did on this round. This may be looked back on as the truly golden age of 3D.


Much simpler than all that. You just have a taste for the finer things in life. You know...your a classy guy. And your wife too.











While the majority...are happy watching a DVD on the cheapest tv they could find at Walmart.










Hmm...actually those chips look pretty good...


----------



## 3DBob

MagnumX said:


> This is the first I've _ever_ heard of that. Where did you hear/read of this supposed phenomenon?


 This was kicked around in the forums back when 3D was beginning to take off. The conclusion was that unlike 2D, 3D contains twice the information for your brain and that added information tends to show more detail based on depth ques.

You might try watching a 2D bluray of a movie, then the 3D version, then the 4K UHD version and see the difference. The 3D version looks closer to the 4K version to me. I did this with Passengers and was amazed at how the 3D version and 4K version looked the same to me in detail.

This is all subjective of course. You won't find any scientific studies on this that I know of. I asked my eye doctor and he said, "what is a 3D movie?" lol


----------



## 3DBob

This is a good read from 2014 that serves as a warning to all those that try to predict the future of any technology. The future is a fickle …….(fill in the blank, lol).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhu...l-dominate-cinema-in-the-future/#7d482fd6e89e

The rise of 4K TVs wiped it out, or did it. People were buying 3D TVs like crazy, but watched little 3D content on them, so they were meaningless to most people.


----------



## blazar

I just can't sacrifice brightness from my projector just to get 3D at home. My throw distance would require a serious light cannon or some double projector setup. I can't even get the projector I have to stay perfectly lined up I think... I'm not sure I want to imagine dual projector setups.

On top of that, I barely want to see most movies at all and am even willing to to just rent-stream them vs paying for a full disc. The idea of paying even more for a crappy movie to get the full 3D presentation does not sit well with me.

As long as I have HDR4kUHD, I'm pretty happy...


----------



## MrEmoto

Please allow me to display my ignorance. 

3DBob and others have mentioned setting up your tv for 3D. Although I spent considerable time doing a seat-of-the-pants calibration on my Panasonic plasma, based on various recommended calibration setting starting points from knowledgeable folks, I have never touched any of the 3D settings. Is there a thread for that, or can you guys tell me what you did to set your tv up for 3D? FWIW, except for how mild the 3D is on many discs, I am pretty happy with the 3D on my set. Thanks!


----------



## 3DBob

blazar said:


> I just can't sacrifice brightness from my projector just to get 3D at home. My throw distance would require a serious light cannon or some double projector setup. I can't even get the projector I have to stay perfectly lined up I think... I'm not sure I want to imagine dual projector setups.
> 
> On top of that, I barely want to see most movies at all and am even willing to to just rent-stream them vs paying for a full disc. The idea of paying even more for a crappy movie to get the full 3D presentation does not sit well with me.
> 
> As long as I have HDR4kUHD, I'm pretty happy...


What is your throw distance? There are light canons out there--I have one, the Benq TK800, that can handle a long throw and ambient light, with bright 3D to boot.


----------



## PCummins

3DBob said:


> This was kicked around in the forums back when 3D was beginning to take off. The conclusion was that unlike 2D, 3D contains twice the information for your brain and that added information tends to show more detail based on depth ques. You might try watching a 2D bluray of a movie, then the 3D version, then the 4K UHD version and see the difference. The 3D version looks closer to the 4K version to me. I did this with Passengers and was amazed at how the 3D version and 4K version looked the same to me in detail. This is all subjective of course. You won't find any scientific studies on this that I know of. I asked my eye doctor and he said, "what is a 3D movie?" lol


I think that's "potentially" up to twice the pixels used on a frame packed 3D movie. So if you have shot the film natively in 3D you potentially have up to double the information pixel wise over just shooting in 2D since you have 2 FHD images being shown which could be significantly different in micro detail at a pixel level. If it was post-converted 3D it would be potentially less as there's less data to begin with depending on what resolution the film was shot at.

So if in production you carefully merged 2 FHD video streams together to maximise detail retention and tuned the resulting 3D frame packed output (probably for passive 3D?), or as part of the conversion starting at 4K -> 3D tried to retain as much data as you could in theory you could get a 3D image quality improvement over 2D. I think the closest similar idea technology wise is the pixel shifting in cameras to try and capture the same scene but obviously just pixel shifted slightly to improve the final image quality output (mostly due to Bayer filter limitations), obviously with 3D there's a lot more shifting involved but the potential is there to improve the final frame packed 3D video output if done correctly.


----------



## wildbill722

3DBob said:


> This is a good read from 2014 that serves as a warning to all those that try to predict the future of any technology. The future is a fickle …….(fill in the blank, lol).
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhu...l-dominate-cinema-in-the-future/#7d482fd6e89e
> 
> The rise of 4K TVs wiped it out, or did it. People were buying 3D TVs like crazy, but watched little 3D content on them, so they were meaningless to most people.


Hey Bob:

Telling quote I think:

"However, I believe that once UHD, 3D and HDR find themselves in the home, theatrical exhibition will be significantly impacted for the first time in history. The bottom line is, the home entertainment experience will eventually establish a new quality bar that theatrical exhibition cannot compete with given their current installed base of technology."

Love me some 4k 3d blu-rays. Wait a minute.....

ps Thank you Bob. Great article.


----------



## Kenbar

3DBob said:


> This is a good read from 2014 that serves as a warning to all those that try to predict the future of any technology. The future is a fickle …….(fill in the blank, lol).
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhu...l-dominate-cinema-in-the-future/#7d482fd6e89e
> 
> The rise of 4K TVs wiped it out, or did it. People were buying 3D TVs like crazy, but watched little 3D content on them, so they were meaningless to most people.


Small chance the prediction might be right in the longer term. We just might be in a temporary downward spiral. As we know 8K TV's will make true passive 4K 3D possible. Add HDR...higher frame rates. Might finally be the public WOW!!! effect needed to make 3D stick. 

Would require folks to buy all new equipment. 8K 3D TV...8K 3D bluray player...and, at least at the start, expensive ($100+?) 8K 3D HDR/Dolby Vision movie disc's. Might be some profits to be made. And in the end, that's what really matters.

But, yea...I see it as a very low probability. But...8K is here...Avatar 2 soon. Chance?


----------



## jorgebetancourt

3DBob said:


> This was kicked around in the forums back when 3D was beginning to take off. The conclusion was that unlike 2D, 3D contains twice the information for your brain and that added information tends to show more detail based on depth ques.
> 
> You might try watching a 2D bluray of a movie, then the 3D version, then the 4K UHD version and see the difference. The 3D version looks closer to the 4K version to me. I did this with Passengers and was amazed at how the 3D version and 4K version looked the same to me in detail.
> 
> This is all subjective of course. You won't find any scientific studies on this that I know of. I asked my eye doctor and he said, "what is a 3D movie?" lol


You know I've always felt the same way when I watch a 3D movie to me it looks just as sharp or sharper than 4K this is on a JVC rs520....Always amassed me...
I just wish it was a bit brighter.. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Kenbar

Avatar 2 is being shot with 6K Sony Venice cameras using stereoscopic rigs. I don't know if there are 8K cameras for cinema use.

“The Venice camera delivers the most astonishing image I’ve ever seen," the director said in a statement. "The blacks are rich, deep and velvety, the highlights and source lights are amazingly bright. *For the first time, we truly appreciate what the term 'high dynamic range' means.”*

"Sony said it worked closely with Lightstorm to customize the Venice camera — Sony's first full-frame digital motion picture camera, which was unveiled last September — for the production's specific needs, with regular meetings taking place between Cameron, his production teams and Sony’s engineering group.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...equels-production-sony-venice-cameras-1116600

About the Venice camera...

"Sony have done an outstanding job with the new sensor in the VENICE, which is capable of producing some lovely skin tones and true to life tonality coupled with organic texture that cinematographers are looking for. With 6K Full-frame capture to boot, the package all of a sudden gets even more appealing.

https://www.4kshooters.net/2018/05/06/sony-venice-full-frame-6k-camera-real-world-tests/


----------



## bootster

I think I walked past a 3D television screen in Costco once, but I'm not quite sure if that's what it was. 

I believe that Sony Betamax will enter into this conversation soon. 

Seriously, if it's taken this long to get on it's feet, it's usually crippled and not quite ready for prime time. The format is restrictive, having to wear those funny glasses and having to be limited to the scant few 3D content movies. As a disclaimer, I am not as into movies as the group of posters here. I do enjoy, and am interested in, technology. The 3D format is pretty much a niche that is not going to be perceive as mainstream unless there is a breakthrough to get more titles in circulation. I would liken it to SACD's. It was a great idea, but it wasn't mainstream enough to really catch on to the point of being profitable. If it's not profitable, it's not going to move. Period. My personal opinion is that I like SACD, and/or the technology of high resolution audio, and the introduction of these new high res audio formats may get a revival of 3D visuals to step up to the plate, and provide the entertainment world some new toys to examine.

Nothing will be produced in 2018 or later that is not extremely profitable, and at the introduction of 3D would have been the time to move the technology, but it has sort of given the term, "Betamax" a new revival. It would take a group of (oh I forgot how morbidly rich entrepreneurs such as Jeff Bezos are),or a wealthy individual, to take interest in reviving this technology for it to be profitable enough to be revived. 

I would suspect that the revival of 3D will happen, but it will be geared more towards headwear. The allure of alternate reality has been the most popular temptation in mankind's history, and it will never wane. We are going to be looking at goggles and helmets to realize the full 3D experience. Maybe it will evolve into entire rooms being a part of the experience, but I am, of course describing my own personal opinion here, and if I say something that looks definitive, it is just a personal opinion, unless stated as a fact.

I will dare say that Dennis Hof (RIP) of the Moonlite Bunny Ranch would be a mover and a shaker of this revival, if he hadn't passed away so suddenly. There will always be a need for new forms of entertainment, and I believe that there will be a place for improvement of the 3D format in certain arenas.


----------



## Kenbar

Higher frame rate "takes the glass out of the window to reality" But...how many theaters will be able to take advantage of it. *How far would you be willing to drive to see Avatar 2 maxed out?*

"Cameron confirmed that he wanted to shoot the film in higher frame rate which, as he stated, takes the glass out of the window to reality. Possible frame rates of interest are 48fps or even 60fps. *This would imply that either a downgraded version would be required for release in the majority of theaters across the world or this movie would be a pioneer in the attempts to get HFR into cinemas worldwide.*

http://www.animationboss.net/james-camerons-avatar-2/


----------



## snpanago

I'd rather wear "funny" glasses than ridiculous headwear. Yes, I have VR headwear and for me, the cool factor doesn't last long and I no longer even know where in the house I left it.

James Cameron is one of those wealthy advocates of 3D and it was indeed Avatar 3D that jump started the most recent "craze" in 3D. I bought my first HD, 3D LCD from Samsung right then and there. With no new, flat panel 3D offerings, I don't think his Avatar sequels will revive 3D, except in movie theaters.


----------



## MagnumX

bootster said:


> I think I walked past a 3D television screen in Costco once, but I'm not quite sure if that's what it was.
> 
> I believe that Sony Betamax will enter into this conversation soon.
> 
> Seriously, if it's taken this long to get on it's feet, it's usually crippled and not quite ready for prime time. The format is restrictive, having to wear those funny glasses and having to be limited to the scant few 3D content movies.


No offense, but you don't sound like you have any idea what you're talking about. Funny little glasses? They've been funny since the 1950s, I suppose. I have to wear "funny glasses" all the time just to see clearly so I don't find them so "funny", personally. What "scant few" titles? There are nearly 1000 3D Blu-Rays out there now. I bought 130 in just over the past year. Almost every major action movie was available in 3D from Marvel/Disney/Universal/Warner/Sony at least if I ordered it from the UK. 

Betamax never had ANY real commercial support. Slightly better quality than VHS, it had time constrictions early on that made it utterly unusable for movie playback (i.e. 1 hour to start, 2 hours later; if the movie was over that do you want to change cassettes?) Movies are still made in 3D. Other than IMAX (purely in the US as they made the decision), movies are still released in the theater in 3D. It's only the home version that seems the industry is bound and determined to kill off. Based on how many 3D titles are still released in the UK, I'd say they're having a hard time doing that even with the industry stop selling 3D regular TVs.


----------



## bootster

MagnumX said:


> No offense, but you don't sound like you have any idea what you're talking about. Funny little glasses? They've been funny since the 1950s, I suppose. I have to wear "funny glasses" all the time just to see clearly so I don't find them so "funny", personally. What "scant few" titles? There are nearly 1000 3D Blu-Rays out there now. I bought 130 in just over the past year. Almost every major action movie was available in 3D from Marvel/Disney/Universal/Warner/Sony at least if I ordered it from the UK.
> 
> Betamax never had ANY real commercial support. Slightly better quality than VHS, it had time constrictions early on that made it utterly unusable for movie playback (i.e. 1 hour to start, 2 hours later; if the movie was over that do you want to change cassettes?) Movies are still made in 3D. Other than IMAX (purely in the US as they made the decision), movies are still released in the theater in 3D. It's only the home version that seems the industry is bound and determined to kill off. Based on how many 3D titles are still released in the UK, I'd say they're having a hard time doing that even with the industry stop selling 3D regular TVs.


Thanks for the treatise on Betamax, but I still say that the 3D, as far as a successful platform, hasn't been a success. Just to humor myself, I did some research on Blu-Ray and 4K movies, and the subject of the 3D platform never came up. It wasn't mentioned a single time. Apparently you don't appreciate snark, but the "funny little glasses" remark was just to poke fun, and wasn't meant as a declaration of "any idea what you're talking about". I appreciate constructive comments, but to come out of the gate with an insult that assumes I am just plain dumb, isn't going to score any one any Brownie Points. I really don't know where some posters get off with the detraction from the subject at hand, just to muddy the waters with snide comments. That being said, the total of movies that are out in 3D format, and I'll take your word for it, that it is around one thousand titles, isn't something that the 3D promoters can pat themselves on the back for. That's not something I would call a stellar number, by far. If you are invested in the 3D format, I guess that's a high enough number to have some fun watching them.


Just to finish, I'll refer to your definitive comment, that I was assuming we were referring to in this conversation, is "It's only the home version that seems the industry is bound and determined to kill off." I must have missed where we were going to include commercial theater in this conversation. I thought that 3D was "3D". Then it's, "I'd say they're having a hard time doing that even with the industry stop selling 3D regular TVs." Again, I must have missed the part where we were not talking about the decline of 3D in ANY market in this conversation. 3D just didn't take off. That's a fact. I didn't have to look that up either. It's a shame, as I like competition, and there would be room for a competitive 3D market.

I didn't think that this "3D decline" conversation excluded the fact that they aren't even manufacturing these home use devices anymore. Then I stumbled upon this article while wasting some more time on something I already know, but humored myself to reassure the topic anyway. It is entitled, "The Slow Demise of Blu-ray 3D". Here is the link, for anyone who seems to join me in "not know(ing) what they are talking about"  Here is the link," http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/269249/the-slow-demise-of-blu-ray-3d "

So maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I seem to have a feel for what sells and what doesn't, and the 3D format just isn't selling like the promoters had envisioned. I patted myself on the back for not jumping on the Betamax format, and did the same with 3D. But what do I know?


----------



## aaronwt

Kenbar said:


> Small chance the prediction might be right in the longer term. We just might be in a temporary downward spiral. As we know 8K TV's will make true passive 4K 3D possible. Add HDR...higher frame rates. Might finally be the public WOW!!! effect needed to make 3D stick.
> 
> Would require folks to buy all new equipment. 8K 3D TV...8K 3D bluray player...and, at least at the start, expensive ($100+?) 8K 3D HDR/Dolby Vision movie disc's. Might be some profits to be made. And in the end, that's what really matters.
> 
> But, yea...I see it as a very low probability. But...8K is here...Avatar 2 soon. Chance?


It also requires the BD association to add UHD 3D to the BD spec. Without that, it isnt happening.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

Kenbar said:


> Avatar 2 is being shot with 6K Sony Venice cameras using stereoscopic rigs. I don't know if there are 8K cameras for cinema use.
> 
> “The Venice camera delivers the most astonishing image I’ve ever seen," the director said in a statement. "The blacks are rich, deep and velvety, the highlights and source lights are amazingly bright. *For the first time, we truly appreciate what the term 'high dynamic range' means.”*
> 
> "Sony said it worked closely with Lightstorm to customize the Venice camera — Sony's first full-frame digital motion picture camera, which was unveiled last September — for the production's specific needs, with regular meetings taking place between Cameron, his production teams and Sony’s engineering group.
> 
> https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/b...equels-production-sony-venice-cameras-1116600
> 
> About the Venice camera...
> 
> "Sony have done an outstanding job with the new sensor in the VENICE, which is capable of producing some lovely skin tones and true to life tonality coupled with organic texture that cinematographers are looking for. With 6K Full-frame capture to boot, the package all of a sudden gets even more appealing.
> 
> https://www.4kshooters.net/2018/05/06/sony-venice-full-frame-6k-camera-real-world-tests/


There must be 8k cameras somewhere. Because Lost in Space was done in 8K and then down converted to 4K for Netflix broadcast.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## 3DBob

8K is here now: https://www.samsung.com/us/televisi...r-qled-smart-8k-uhd-tv--2018--qn85q900rafxza/ -- the price!

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/ihs-8k-set-shipments-to-reach-2-million-by-2020

Ahhh, no...Will be like getting a 4K TV to watch HD cable, ie. getting an 8K TV to watch 4K content. This is madness.

Most cable is still 720p converted to 1080i, depending on channel and compression requirements for total cable content throughput. True in 2016 and still true today.

https://www.quora.com/When-TV-channels-are-broadcast-in-HD-are-they-720p-or-always-1080i Hah, and you thought you were getting 1080p HD TV. Even 1080p TVs are beyond the requirements of most cable stations today.


----------



## MagnumX

bootster said:


> Thanks for the treatise on Betamax, but I still say that the 3D, as far as a successful platform, hasn't been a success.


It all depends on what you're looking at and comparing something to. Betamax was around from 1975 until 2002 for home recorders (27 years) and the blank tapes were made until 2016 (41 years!). They introduced Extended Resolution Betamax (500 line resolution) in 1988, long after VHS supposedly "killed" the format (by killed, the "media" means anything that isn't the defacto STANDARD as they apparently believe niche markets and smaller markets CANNOT and DO NOT exist, it seems). "Dead" is a relative term. As long as projectors with 3D are still being made and movies are still being released on Blu-Ray, the format isn't actually "dead". In that sense, Betamax wasn't "dead" until 2016. So despite a niche market, Betamax is a rounding success compared to 3D Blu-Ray, which has only been around for less than 8 years.



> Just to humor myself, I did some research on Blu-Ray and 4K movies, and the subject of the 3D platform never came up. It wasn't mentioned a single time. Apparently you don't appreciate snark, but the "funny little glasses" remark was just to poke fun, and wasn't meant as a declaration of "any idea what you're talking about".


It never came up because it was never added to the 4K standard. As to what's supposed to be humorous, excuse me, but it's hard to tell what emotion is being extended over the Internet and hence the Emoticon concept. Personally, I've seen the "must wear awful glasses" argument many times before and it was NEVER meant to be humorous. Many truly believe it is the glasses requirement that makes 3D so unappealing in general plus the fact that how "well" you can see the 3D effect depends on how far apart your eyes are (the same applies to binaural "3D" headphone sound) and possibly how your brain interprets the images as well. Some cannot even see the 3D effect at all (Johnny Depp has said as much in interviews; he literally cannot see 3D at all from stereoscopic images). So one can see where the format would have little or even zero appeal if the viewer is not seeing the same thing or anything at all compared to others with more "typical" head dimensions. It has been shown with binaural sound that you can customize the effect to the person's head and people who could not hear it at all suddenly then can hear it. I don't know if that would be true with 3D as well or not. Crosstalk and dimmer output has also turned people against 3D. Some simply don't see it as relevant to telling the story and just a pain to bother with it. What bothers many of us that do like it is how the industry decided to simply not bother AT ALL based on reduced sales instead of offering niche products to a niche market. It's far more popular in China. Do they still have 3D TVs for sale? Perhaps not from Samsung, etc. that claims they stopped making them entirely, but whether they have their own homemade brands, I can't say. China is very secretive in some respects. Certainly, 3D cinema is very popular over there. But then Resident Evil: The Final Chapter was a gangbuster hit there and did terrible in the US (I liked how it tied everything up; otherwise it was just average and the whole series probably went on a bit too long, but China ate it up!)



> I appreciate constructive comments, but to come out of the gate with an insult


I said with no disrespect. If you want to be insulted anyway, I can't help that. From my perspective, you come into a thread and give an opinion based on literally no statistical knowledge and proceed to explain to us why 3D isn't a huge success and then are upset when someone doesn't find the Beta comparison apt in any way, shape or form due to the sheer differences in longevity (Betamax stuck around a LOT longer in hardware support and yet had far LESS commercial movie support).



> that assumes I am just plain dumb


I assumed no such thing. I assumed you are not well informed on the topic and therefore the conclusions are neither here nor there. We all know 3D in the home market is dying (some say dead). We don't need someone to point it out as if it were something new to consider. There are some here that clearly hope it will be reintroduced again at some point to the home market, but _unless_ numbers start ticking up at the theaters or we see a new technological development (e.g. glasses free 3D), I find this unlikely, personally. I like 3D very much, but I can't make other people like it. My brother loves it, but his wife and kids hate it. He has to watch by himself at home or come to my house and watch a movie with me.



> isn't going to score any one any Brownie Points.


I really don't care about such things.



> I really don't know where some posters get off with the detraction from the subject at hand, just to muddy the waters with snide comments. That being


To be honest, I find your post and attitude entirely negative for all the wrong reasons. I KNOW 3D is dying at home. I'm not happy about it in the slightest. Having people come here regularly in droves to laugh at our expense is about as "snide" as it gets. Declaring it "dead" while new movies are still being release seems like nothing else BUT taking delight in its demise. So while you may find offense at me suggesting you are clearly not well informed on the topic, I find it extremely snide when people show up here to piss on 3D simply because they don't like it and are downright happy, if not giddy that 3D is finally out of the way (dead) so that 4K can be crammed down our throats (what most of these people are interested in and saw 3D as something to muddy the waters and just get in the way of faster 4K adoptions. They want more 4K titles FASTER, not the industry suggesting 3D as an alternative to 4K. Their feelings are misplaced, IMO as 4K movie adoption isn't terribly fast either (seeing as most cannot even see the difference outside HDR on a smaller set) and thus both markets are "small" except that the industry is still PUSHING 4K and had largely abandoned 3D.



> said, the total of movies that are out in 3D format, and I'll take your word for it, that it is around one thousand titles, isn't something that the 3D promoters can pat themselves on the back for.


You see, that sounds utterly snide to me. If you look at the previous cycles of 3D (1950s and 1980s), there were only ever a few dozen titles EVER made during BOTH of those runs. The fact there are closer to 1000 movies released at home this time (let alone more cinematic titles) says to me this cycle was a bit different and nowhere NEAR the "failure" it was in the 1950s and 1980s. It's STILL in the theaters even the USA (where supposedly there is less interest than Europe and China) so this idea NO ONE likes it is absurd. Some like it on a 200 foot screen that don't like it at home on a 55" screen and that's the size TV they have at home. I don't want to watch 3D on a 55" TV at home. If I didn't have a 92" screen with a projector, I wouldn't have bothered with 3D as 3D is very different when it fills your vision than when it comes out of a tiny picture frame sized object. But this is my opinion. Some here are perfectly happy with a smaller sized screen. My brother watches it on a 46" screen even.



> That's not something I would call a stellar number, by far. If you are invested in the 3D format, I guess that's a high enough number to have some fun watching them.


Part of the reason the numbers aren't higher is they largely aren't bothering with converting older movies into 3D since they figure there's not enough market to bother. Most of the numbers in that 1000 figure are NEWER movies made only since 2008. When you figure out the total number of "big" movies made since then, 1000 isn't such a terrible figure, IMO. I have almost every Marvel movie made since then in 3D, for instance. I have four Star Wars Universe films in 3D (out of 10 total; in other words EVERY SINGLE ONE made since 2008 has been available in 3D somewhere on Blu-Ray). 



> Just to finish, I'll refer to your definitive comment, that I was assuming we were referring to in this conversation, is "It's only the home version that seems the industry is bound and determined to kill off." I must have missed where we were going to include commercial theater in this conversation.


Do you see anywhere in this thread where the topic says, "Is 3D about dead AT HOME" ???

If you don't specify, it's not clear in your comments. Besides, out of all the titles available in 3D at the cinema since 2008, how many are NOT on Blu-Ray somewhere on the planet? It's probably a smaller figure than you might think.



> So maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I seem to have a feel for what sells and what doesn't, and the 3D format just isn't selling like the promoters had envisioned. I patted myself on the back for not jumping on the Betamax format, and did the same with 3D. But what do I know?


Betamax was a direct competitor to VHS (i.e. 2D home playback/recording of video). 3D is a totally different experience than say 4K. They are not really competitors. They COULD have made 4K 3D format. They chose not to. But if you pat yourself on the back for not experiencing 3D at home, all that really means is that you missed out on 3D at home and don't mind. I have around 130 3D movies on Blu-Ray. Some of them are so much better than the 2D version (2K or 4K) it's not even funny, but then that's my perception. YMMV.


----------



## bjones8103

They are playing with VR movies now, mainly 2D but VR lends itself well to 3D 



. Maybe holographics soon? 3D maybe out for now but it's not gone. I have about 150 3d movies to fall back on, four 3D TVs and two 3D projectors. Bring on the long winter.


----------



## MagnumX

Would anyone actually want to watch holographic movies (at least Star Wars style with transparent type images)? Short of Star Trek style holodecks, the idea of holograms always seemed moot to me. I don't really want to watch ghosts move around my living room, at least not as a movie.


----------



## bjones8103

It would have to be on a 180 degree stage. I agree that it would really be creepy to have a werewolf stalking around behind you in your own living room. But, then again, there are a number of celebrities I would love to view as full sized holograms. I let it rest at that before I get myself kicked off this board.


----------



## aaronwt

bjones8103 said:


> It would have to be on a 180 degree stage. I agree that it would really be creepy to have a werewolf stalking around behind you in your own living room. But, then again, there are a number of celebrities I would love to view as full sized holograms. I let it rest at that before I get myself kicked off this board.


I would love that. It would be sweet to have the holograms walking around you. It would make you feel like you are in the movie.


----------



## blazar

3DBob said:


> What is your throw distance? There are light canons out there--I have one, the Benq TK800, that can handle a long throw and ambient light, with bright 3D to boot.


I'm at about 24 feet and 162" screen.


----------



## 3DBob

blazar said:


> I'm at about 24 feet and 162" screen.


 Any reason why your throw has to be that far back? The TK800 will fill that size screen at about 17.25 feet (assuming that 162" is the diagonal width of the screen). It's always best for brightness to have the projector as close as possible to the screen. If you have a 1.0 gain screen or less, 162" is pushing it for brightness. 2D will be OK, but 3D will suffer. I have a 160" 2.5 high gain screen, which I get about 1.8 gain because of where I sit, and it's definitely bright enough for both 2D and 3D viewing.


----------



## Mr.G

3DBob said:


> Any reason why your throw has to be that far back? The TK800 will fill that size screen at about 17.25 feet (assuming that 162" is the diagonal width of the screen). It's always best for brightness to have the projector as close as possible to the screen. If you have a 1.0 gain screen or less, 162" is pushing it for brightness. 2D will be OK, but 3D will suffer. I have a 160" 2.5 high gain screen, which I get about 1.8 gain because of where I sit, and it's definitely bright enough for both 2D and 3D viewing.


Bob, doesn't a 2.5 high gain screen lead to hotspotting?


----------



## 3DBob

Mr.G said:


> Bob, doesn't a 2.5 high gain screen lead to hotspotting?



Yes, some reflective screens can hot spot, but usually ok if the gain is around 1.3. My screen is a retro-reflective screen developed years ago by Dalite. The light tends to reflect back to it's source instead of on an angle like normal reflective screens. It was made for projectors set up on tables that reflected back to the audience for day light viewing in conference rooms. Since the projector is mounted on the ceiling and about 4 feet above where I sit, I see only about 1.8 gain. People are using 150" screens with the Tk800 with success for gaming and 2D viewing, but again, 3D tends to be marginally bright then.

Once in a while, Dalite Highpower screens do show up on ebay, but hard to find these days.
If you are looking for a big screen, then review the screen forum. Lots of suggestions there.


----------



## blazar

3DBob said:


> Any reason why your throw has to be that far back? The TK800 will fill that size screen at about 17.25 feet (assuming that 162" is the diagonal width of the screen). It's always best for brightness to have the projector as close as possible to the screen. If you have a 1.0 gain screen or less, 162" is pushing it for brightness. 2D will be OK, but 3D will suffer. I have a 160" 2.5 high gain screen, which I get about 1.8 gain because of where I sit, and it's definitely bright enough for both 2D and 3D viewing.


i have a roll down screen, non-perforated 1.0 gain. making changes to that system is a serious headache. otherwise my projector bay is fixed into my back wall and serves as a hush box as well. moving the projector in my particular room will look quite bad unfortunately.

My only options are to get light cannons or forego 3d in my current arrangement. 3d capable light cannon projectors are pricey as heck.


----------



## 3DBob

blazar said:


> i have a roll down screen, non-perforated 1.0 gain. making changes to that system is a serious headache. otherwise my projector bay is fixed into my back wall and serves as a hush box as well. moving the projector in my particular room will look quite bad unfortunately.
> 
> My only options are to get light cannons or forego 3d in my current arrangement. 3d capable light cannon projectors are pricey as heck.


Actually, there are two 4k light canons that are under $2k that do 3D. The Benq TK800 and the Optoma UHD51ALV. You can get some really nice 1080p light canon projectors for under $1k these day.

With your size 162" screen and 1 gain, you probably would be do better with a 1080p projector like the Optoma HD39Darbee.


----------



## blazar

3DBob said:


> Actually, there are two 4k light canons that are under $2k that do 3D. The Benq TK800 and the Optoma UHD51ALV. You can get some really nice 1080p light canon projectors for under $1k these day.
> 
> With your size 162" screen and 1 gain, you probably would be do better with a 1080p projector like the Optoma HD39Darbee.


I actually have the optoma uhd60 at the moment which I bought about a year ago. I definitely love 4kuhd so I'm never going back to 1080p. On my size screen the resolution difference and overall clarity is pretty obvious.

I might keep an eye out for 3D in the future, but I would like to see more of the 3d content coming to streaming too. With the very reasonable picture quality of 4kUHD on apple TV with Atmos available, I am really enjoying the convenience for most movies. I am rarely buying a disc now and my Oppo blu ray is getting much less actual usage. With streaming I can also save money again by renting movies that I have no intention of watching more than once. 

Since I wear glasses, it would be nice to be able to get rudimentary prescription lenses (like I do with swimming goggles fairly cheaply) to watch 3D. I have to admit, wearing bulky active 3d glasses on my face on top of my glasses is not something I enjoyed with my epson 3d unit in the past. Contact lenses don't work for me because my eyelids react to them and give me trouble.


----------



## 3DBob

blazar said:


> I actually have the optoma uhd60 at the moment which I bought about a year ago. I definitely love 4kuhd so I'm never going back to 1080p. On my size screen the resolution difference and overall clarity is pretty obvious.
> 
> I might keep an eye out for 3D in the future, but I would like to see more of the 3d content coming to streaming too. With the very reasonable picture quality of 4kUHD on apple TV with Atmos available, I am really enjoying the convenience for most movies. I am rarely buying a disc now and my Oppo blu ray is getting much less actual usage. With streaming I can also save money again by renting movies that I have no intention of watching more than once.
> 
> Since I wear glasses, it would be nice to be able to get rudimentary prescription lenses (like I do with swimming goggles fairly cheaply) to watch 3D. I have to admit, wearing bulky active 3d glasses on my face on top of my glasses is not something I enjoyed with my epson 3d unit in the past. Contact lenses don't work for me because my eyelids react to them and give me trouble.


The Optoma UHD 51ALV or the TK800 probably match the UHD60 in brightness. As for streaming, the only streaming of frame-packed HD 3D I know of right now is VUDU. They have a nice selection. I use them. You simply need to search for "3D" to find them. You can rent them or buy them and keep them in your online library.
Also, bluray rental--https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/ has almost all the 3D movies available on disc to rent. I use them as well. They have a quick turn-around.

Glasses are a pain, I admit. Some fit over glasses better than others--I have glasses. I'm not too upset by them as I only have them on for the movie.


----------



## tomtastic

3DBob said:


> The Optoma UHD 51ALV or the TK800 probably match the UHD60 in brightness. *As for streaming, the only streaming of frame-packed HD 3D I know of right now is VUDU*. They have a nice selection. I use them. You simply need to search for "3D" to find them. You can rent them or buy them and keep them in your online library.
> Also, bluray rental--https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/ has almost all the 3D movies available on disc to rent. I use them as well. They have a quick turn-around.
> 
> Glasses are a pain, I admit. Some fit over glasses better than others--I have glasses. I'm not too upset by them as I only have them on for the movie.


Actually, Vudu is side by side half resolution AFAIK, there is no frame-packed full HD 3D that I know of.


----------



## 3DBob

tomtastic said:


> Actually, Vudu is side by side half resolution AFAIK, there is no frame-packed full HD 3D that I know of.


 Hmm. mine show up as frame-packed in my info. I guess I need to look again.


Dang, I just looked it up, and others say that too. I have to admit, it looks great on my projector. Hmmm.


----------



## tomtastic

I just read what I wrote, I meant to write: "there is no _streaming_ frame-packed full HD 3D that I know of."


----------



## King Vidiot

If that's the case, then why does only CERTAIN hardware support Vudu in 3D? I only recently got a TV that supports it. If they ever consider dropping it due to lack of use, it's likely because hardly any devices (such as any Roku box) can even access Vudu's 3D content.


----------



## Frank714

3DBob said:


> Once in a while, Dalite Highpower screens do show up on ebay, but hard to find these days.



It's literally easier to find the proverbial needle in the haystack. 


I have a small High Power 2.8, it has no hot-spotting whatsoever and definitely reinvigorated my interest in 3D program content because the 2.8 gain greatly compensated the brightness loss of the shutter glasses.


I'm currently hamstering a lot of Blu-ray titles, especially IMAX ones. I didn't know that Cameron's GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS (Titanic) was apparently only released in Australia. Looking there for extra titles I discovered JERUSALEM in IMAX 3D (US or Code A) which had slipped under my radar previously.


----------



## MagnumX

Frank714 said:


> I'm currently hamstering a lot of Blu-ray titles, especially IMAX ones. I didn't know that Cameron's GHOSTS OF THE ABYSS (Titanic) was apparently only released in *Australia*.


Say what? I see it on Amazon USA right now for a reasonable price (https://www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Abyss...540411904&sr=8-2&keywords=ghosts+of+the+abyss)

I picked it up myself several months ago. It was pretty good in 3D (real 3D cameras).

The only disc I had to order from Australia was Dan Brown's INFERNO in Auro-3D.


----------



## Frank714

Good to know, I'm pretty certain it didn't show up on my Amazon search "IMAX 3D".


Is there - by any chance - an overview of IMAX titles released on 3D Blu-ray?


----------



## ScottAvery

snpanago said:


> I'd rather wear "funny" glasses than ridiculous headwear. Yes, I have VR headwear and for me, the cool factor doesn't last long and I no longer even know where in the house I left it.
> 
> James Cameron is one of those wealthy advocates of 3D and it was indeed Avatar 3D that jump started the most recent "craze" in 3D. I bought my first HD, 3D LCD from Samsung right then and there. With no new, flat panel 3D offerings, I don't think his Avatar sequels will revive 3D, except in movie theaters.


Last night I watched most of Avatar in 3D then switched over to the live action Beauty and the Beast and thought Beauty and the Beast looked so much better. It was like looking in a window and seemed so much more detailed than I expected of a blu ray. I was so impressed I watched the credits through (almost). Funny that that release had to be imported as it is not available here. Avatar suffers from a great many pop-out effects that are cut off at the edge of the screen. I will say the climb up to the banshee rookery was intense, but overall Beauty and the beast impressed me more and would be more likely to be demoed to friends. I may take another look at Avatar zoomed out to 2.37 to see if the size helps. This was the first time I really felt my CIH setup may have let me down.


----------



## Sea3

3DBob said:


> Hmm. mine show up as frame-packed in my info. I guess I need to look again.
> 
> 
> Dang, I just looked it up, and others say that too. I have to admit, it looks great on my projector. Hmmm.



I just compared 3D Toy Story 3 trailer on Vudu using Sony Blu-ray player and Roku. Sony Blu-ray allows me to see the Vudu 3D collection and played the trailer as frame-packed on my projector. When I used Roku, the 3D collection was not displayed and I had to explicitly search for it. When I played it from the Roku, it was played side by side and I had to manually set side by side on the projector to see it correctly in 3D. I have not checked any other 3D titles for Vudu.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

Sea3 said:


> I just compared 3D Toy Story 3 trailer on Vudu using Sony Blu-ray player and Roku. Sony Blu-ray allows me to see the Vudu 3D collection and played the trailer as frame-packed on my projector. When I used Roku, the 3D collection was not displayed and I had to explicitly search for it. When I played it from the Roku, it was played side by side and I had to manually set side by side on the projector to see it correctly in 3D. I have not checked any other 3D titles for Vudu.


How does the resolution look on Vudu for 3D .. Last time I tried it on my JVC 520 projector I thought it looked pretty damn bad compare to when I play it off a disc.. It was so bad I had to turn it off.. If they could do 1080p 3D I would be all over it...

Is there a reason why they can't do 1080p.. Isn't it much harder to stream 4K..

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## 3DBob

Sea3 said:


> I just compared 3D Toy Story 3 trailer on Vudu using Sony Blu-ray player and Roku. Sony Blu-ray allows me to see the Vudu 3D collection and played the trailer as frame-packed on my projector. When I used Roku, the 3D collection was not displayed and I had to explicitly search for it. When I played it from the Roku, it was played side by side and I had to manually set side by side on the projector to see it correctly in 3D. I have not checked any other 3D titles for Vudu.


 Yup, my Sony pushes it as frame-packed from Vudu. Maybe Vudu sends out video format based on device and not just limited to SBS video.

I might add that I don't really see a difference between Vudu 3D and my bluray 3D.


----------



## tomtastic

Some Vudu titles are top/bottom 1920x540/eye some are SbS 960x1080/eye, both are just half resolution. I'm not sure how they would send you frame packing nor would it make sense to use the extra bandwidth, not cost effective.

Avatar- I viewed it recently again. I think the 3D is way overrated. It's been incorrectly touted as the pinnacle of 3D (maybe back in 2010) but it's only average at best by today's standards. There are a number of flat scenes in space with not even any pushback of 3D just a flat 2D image. Most of the 3D throughout isn't revolutionary at all. It's just decent depth and a clean image, so it looks good but they could have done better with the 3D. I've seen so many other 3D films since that are better and most of them are converted and that use more out of screen effects.


----------



## 3DBob

tomtastic said:


> Some Vudu titles are top/bottom 1920x540/eye some are SbS 960x1080/eye, both are just half resolution. I'm not sure how they would send you frame packing nor would it make sense to use the extra bandwidth, not cost effective.
> 
> Avatar- I viewed it recently again. I think the 3D is way overrated. It's been incorrectly touted as the pinnacle of 3D (maybe back in 2010) but it's only average at best by today's standards. There are a number of flat scenes in space with not even any pushback of 3D just a flat 2D image. Most of the 3D throughout isn't revolutionary at all. It's just decent depth and a clean image, so it looks good but they could have done better with the 3D. I've seen so many other 3D films since that are better and most of them are converted and that use more out of screen effects.


Not sure what's going on with Vudu, but T/B might be the cause of the projector saying it's frame packed. I have watched UHD movies from Vudu and they come through as UHD with HDR, but so compressed they look like 1080p to me. 

As for Avatar. It wowed me back then, because I had never seen a 3D movie at a theater since the 60s. Plus the CGI creating the giant Navis was so new and different. Yes, by today's standards, conversions are actually better. I thought that Avatar had way too much judder for some of the wild animal scenes, then I watched with an older projector about three years ago that had frame interpolation, and my jaw dropped--what a difference that made to the movie and feeling of being there.


----------



## MagnumX

I don't care for interpolation with 2D beyond "low" on my Epson as it just looks odd somehow (so-called soap opera effect) plus after low you get terrible blur-based glitches on fast moving objects. But with 3D, I can't stand NOT having interpolation on at least medium if not high. There's still a bit of blur glitches, but instead if the soap opera effect, it just looks like real life for the most part. Somehow, the 3rd dimension changes how my brain interprets the effect.

What I'd really like to see is movies move to at least 60fps native. The soap opera effect simply doesn't look anywhere near as "fake" with real motion as the "too perfect" in-between frames seem on interpolation. 

I'm afraid the reaction to The Hobbit at 48fps is delaying the move. Hollywood is terrified people won't accept the change. I think the problem with The Hobbit is the use of CGI. It looked perfectly fine with actual filmed events, but every time a CGI spider or something like the rotating camera castle flyby would occur, it would look too darn smooth in terms of the computer generated motion and therefore "fake" (back to the soap opera effect again which is really just a descriptive adjective for fake looking/acting, IMO.)

Until CGI is improved, it will probably continue to look bad at higher frame rates. Somehow, choppier motion looks better, probably because your brain has to fill in the missing frames and it assumes reality, not some overly cheesy smooth video game motion that CGI dies because it's designed by flawed humans with flawed simulations of real world mechanical motion.


----------



## Frank714

tomtastic said:


> Avatar- I viewed it recently again. I think the 3D is way overrated. It's been incorrectly touted as the pinnacle of 3D (maybe back in 2010) but it's only average at best by today's standards. * There are a number of flat scenes in space* with not even any pushback of 3D just a flat 2D image.





Which is one of the reasons why I prefer Cameron's understanding that beyond 200 yards objects inevitably have to look "flat" unless you want your subconsciousness whispering "It looks fake". 


Frankly, I couldn't stand the fake 'beyond-200-yards' artificial 3D I had to experience both in Ridley Scott's PROMETHEUS or THE MARTIAN. IMHO a good 3D film consists of a healthy mix of '2D' images (objects far away) and real 3D closeups.


----------



## Seilerbird

3DBob said:


> Glasses are a pain, I admit. Some fit over glasses better than others--I have glasses. I'm not too upset by them as I only have them on for the movie.


I bought a package of a bunch of clip on glasses and they work great. Just like putting on sunglasses which I use whenever I am out of doors. So I don't even notice the clip on 3D glasses. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01CMJ5N76/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## danlshane

Frank714 said:


> Which is one of the reasons why I prefer Cameron's understanding that beyond 200 yards objects inevitably have to look "flat" unless you want your subconsciousness whispering "It looks fake".
> 
> 
> Frankly, I couldn't stand the fake 'beyond-200-yards' artificial 3D I had to experience both in Ridley Scott's PROMETHEUS or THE MARTIAN. IMHO a good 3D film consists of a healthy mix of '2D' images (objects far away) and real 3D closeups.


I prefer a compromise when it comes to projected 3D. 

I don't want the backgrounds in macro-stereo such that we get a giant's-eye view of the world, but at the same time I do feel that 100% duplication of human inter-ocular distance tends to defeat the purpose of stereo-vision on the screen; depth needs to be slightly exaggerated to be noticed as different from the natural world so that our synapses are awakened to the heightened reality.

Just as Glorious Technicolor tickles our senses with an amplified palette I believe that 3D imagery needs a modest "push" to be effective. 3D video is somewhat of a "trick" process anyway, so I appreciate a bit of 3D "enhancement" when used sparingly to achieve the effect of pulling me into the action or environment. The classic 3D films of the early 1950s did this very well, and I still enjoy those movies on 3D Blu-ray more than any others.

But since stereo-vision differs from one person to another I can understand how others might feel differently about this effect.


----------



## dfa973

danlshane said:


> .......... depth needs to be slightly exaggerated to be noticed as different from the natural world so that our synapses are awakened to the heightened reality.


I concur to your opinion, there are lots of modern 3D movies, native or converted that although are stereoscopic have a "flat" - through a window - weak 3D look, this puts me off, as the movie potential is lost right from the beginning. 
This weak stereoscopy I believe is one of the reasons that people are not attracted to 3D shows since they do not bring anything for the spectator, no wow, no ahhs, no nothing, the 3D space is there just for the sake of being 3D...


----------



## snpanago

One of my favorite 3D blurays ever is Martin Scorsese's 2011, Hugo. An homage to the history of film, Hugo is like a Charles Dickens' adventure that is family friendly yet with immersive 3D. Wonder if anyone else has seen it?
https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6320/hugo_3d.ht


----------



## 3DBob

snpanago said:


> One of my favorite 3D blurays ever is Martin Scorsese's 2011, Hugo. An homage to the history of film, Hugo is like a Charles Dickens' adventure that is family friendly yet with immersive 3D. Wonder if anyone else has seen it?
> https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6320/hugo_3d.ht


Yes, I watch it every now and then. Always fascinates me. 3D was excellent, especially as a follow-up to Avatar when 3D was catching on.


----------



## Seilerbird

snpanago said:


> One of my favorite 3D blurays ever is Martin Scorsese's 2011, Hugo. An homage to the history of film, Hugo is like a Charles Dickens' adventure that is family friendly yet with immersive 3D. Wonder if anyone else has seen it?
> https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/6320/hugo_3d.ht


I bought Hugo and it really surprised me. One of the best movies I have seen lately. And the 3D is superb.


----------



## ScottAvery

Frank714 said:


> Which is one of the reasons why I prefer Cameron's understanding that beyond 200 yards objects inevitably have to look "flat" unless you want your subconsciousness whispering "It looks fake".
> 
> 
> Frankly, I couldn't stand the fake 'beyond-200-yards' artificial 3D I had to experience both in Ridley Scott's PROMETHEUS or THE MARTIAN. IMHO a good 3D film consists of a healthy mix of '2D' images (objects far away) and real 3D closeups.


Another question on Avatar, if I may. Before viewing it on my projector this week I have not seen it in 3D since it was in theaters, so I am working from memory. The strongest memory of the theatrical presentation was not the flying or the action, but a scene in the forest where it felt like the whole environment in the theater was suddenly lit up with flecks of pollen, or possibly the sacred seeds, not sure which. It was very exaggerated extension in front on the screen of small objects that really looked like they were all over the theater. In seeing it at home with a similar field of view, I didn't see that at any point. It is possible I fell asleep, but I want to ask is that effect actually missing from the bluray content or do I need to do some calibration to make it work. I also have no idea which scene it was exactly, as I am remembering it from so many years ago. Any thoughts?

If it is an adjustment, is there anything to change other than the value for image size that is entered in the player? It seems to me all the other settings are about artificially generating 3d from a 2d source.


----------



## tomtastic

Frank714 said:


> Which is one of the reasons why I prefer Cameron's understanding that beyond 200 yards objects inevitably have to look "flat" unless you want your subconsciousness whispering "It looks fake".
> 
> 
> Frankly, I couldn't stand the fake 'beyond-200-yards' artificial 3D I had to experience both in Ridley Scott's PROMETHEUS or THE MARTIAN. IMHO a good 3D film consists of a healthy mix of '2D' images (objects far away) and real 3D closeups.


Accept that images shouldn't look flat at all in 3D which is what Cameron did, and that should _never_ be the case with a 3D movie. There should be at least depth, a push back of 3D into the screen. The images in Avatar in space are as flat as 2D but this is supposed to be a 3D movie. Having large objects in the background in the 3D plane or negative parallax is really a matter of preference.

Like the star destroyer scene in Star Wars Ep. 7. Now say we were just floating there seeing the ship entire at that distance, there's no way you could get the entire ship in view and have any negative parallax (or diverging your eyes inward). But this is a movie, not real life from human vision, it's being filmed from a god cam or whatever you want to call it. The cameras aren't meant to exist in the movie so the perspective doesn't need to reflect human vision either. Now if you're standing on some ledge looking out at a valley, and say the camera shows the individual panning the scene beyond, then it makes sense to view the horizon from a person's perspective and keep the 3D plane flat in the background. But you could also show mountains in 3D too, which isn't possible from human vision. It's hyper stereo and it's common with 3D stereography.


----------



## tomtastic

ScottAvery said:


> Another question on Avatar, if I may. Before viewing it on my projector this week I have not seen it in 3D since it was in theaters, so I am working from memory. The strongest memory of the theatrical presentation was not the flying or the action, but a scene in the forest where it felt like the whole environment in the theater was suddenly lit up with flecks of pollen, or possibly the sacred seeds, not sure which. It was very exaggerated extension in front on the screen of small objects that really looked like they were all over the theater. In seeing it at home with a similar field of view, I didn't see that at any point. It is possible I fell asleep, but I want to ask is that effect actually missing from the bluray content or do I need to do some calibration to make it work. I also have no idea which scene it was exactly, as I am remembering it from so many years ago. Any thoughts?
> 
> If it is an adjustment, is there anything to change other than the value for image size that is entered in the player? It seems to me all the other settings are about artificially generating 3d from a 2d source.


Size and distance to the screen are big factors into the negative parallax effect. Smaller screen you can focus on the entire screen better and this will better achieve the entire 3D image from the negative parallax (out of screen) to positive parallax (into the screen). Larger screens enhance the 3D effect so objects seem to jump out more (I actually find myself flinching a lot when stuff is flying out of screen with the 115" screen) but it's also harder to focus on the entire image and it becomes harder to realize the entire depth map. Somewhere in the middle is likely the best of both worlds. It's an interesting topic and I have both setups in the same room. 1 with a 115" screen and an 65" OLED behind that. Very different experiences, not just with 3D but with image quality too between projector and flat screen.


----------



## Don Landis

I spent last week at Disney World and I must say 3D is well represented in all the theaters. Actually is is 4 and 5 D with motion, wind and water spray to go along with the 3D images. But the best experience I have ever had is the newest attraction in the land of Pandora. Speaking of Avatar, it is the most popular attraction in all of Disney. You have to run to the event line as soon as the they let you into the Park to get to see it. The attraction is called the Flight of Passage. I found a video of the someone did but it is not like being in the environment. lack of 3D, motion, the wind in your face and the water spray all add to the experience. I did my own video but a staff security confiscated my GoPro during the actual ride and returned it after I finished. I felt the 2D would not do justice anyway. The best way to describe the 3D screen is the same as with an HMD since you are surrounded by 3D environment similar to what you see in a 3D 360 VR. When you sit on the Banshi it grabs you by the legs, the small of your back and into your chest to keep you from falling off during the aerobatics. If you love 3D and virtual reality on a massive scale, it is worth the effort to see this Flight of Passage attraction. Even though we got into the theme Park an hour early the line from other early entries was already 30 minutes. By the time we got out, the line was 2 hours long so get in early

Older YT video done by another GoPro owner:


----------



## Frank714

tomtastic said:


> Like the star destroyer scene in Star Wars Ep. 7. Now say we were just floating there seeing the ship entire at that distance, there's no way you could get the entire ship in view and have any negative parallax (or diverging your eyes inward). But this is a movie, not real life from human vision, it's being filmed from a god cam or whatever you want to call it.


 
Thanks for mentioning that. As a matter of fact (true story) it was the Star Destroyer opening scene in _Star Wars (A New Hope aka Episode IV) _I had the ambivalent pleasure to watch in 3D many years ago at IFA, that made me fully aware of the issue:












When I saw the above scene in its 3D conversion I somewhat had to giggle (had NEVER happened before) and had to sleep the night over it to figure out why.


I had visited the first public Lucasfilm exhibit back in 1988 during the Marin County Fair and the actual VFX model of Vader's Star Destroyer _Devastator_ is only 4 feet long (curiously smaller than the VFX model of the _Tantive IV_ it pursues).


As the Star Destroyer now appeared in 3D (several miles away from the spectator "in-universe") it _looked exactly like what it was, a small VFX miniature _(except that no strings were attached to it).


Interestingly, the ILM crew was very uneasy before the premiere of _Star Wars_ back in 1977. They were scared that the audience might not buy the visual effect and start laughing. The opposite happened and the rest is history.


_However, had Star Wars premiered in 3D like above, probability would have been high that the audience would have laughted as the fake 3D conversion highlighted the nature of a small VFX model. _


Therefore I'm somewhat relieved I didn't yet have the opportunity to watch the OT in 3D. Considering that the Death Star will probably look like a basketball-sized miniature (although it has a horizontal diameter of 101 miles "in-universe") this is an experience I rather forego.


----------



## 3DBob

Of course, us 3D nuts know that taking 3Ds of scenics requires that you have the cameras far apart. This causes distant objects to have depth, but the depth cues also cause you to see the objects as miniatures. In the latest Star Wars movies, they are not using miniature space ships, but cgi spaceships that have the dimensions of the real thing. In a cgi world, you can place two cameras far apart to get depth in the scene, but the space ships look miniature then. I see the 3D miniaturization in a lot of cgi movies lately, but somehow my mind says that it's ok.

It's an interesting quandary for 3D movies, and of course conversions make it even more possible to create more depth. The perfect example is the 3D movies of traveling to the planets. The planets look like small models, but somehow you have to let your mind see it differently.


----------



## tomtastic

Also, 3D imaging of real planets has practical applications. 3D images of the sun taken with cameras on opposite sides of the earth's orbit provide a view of our star in 3D where normal viewing at any distance would not result in a 3D image.

I would say there are many scenes used in 3D movies that are not filmed with the depth cue of human perspective. Where they place the window in the scene, isn't always from human perspective either, maybe the camera is 50ft in the air. Since the conversion and VFX process is digital they can correct from miniaturization effect too.

Telephoto stereo can eliminate miniaturization effect. By widening the stereo base and using zoom on a particular object, you enlarge the subject and keep the relative size normal. Note: you have to be careful not to have objects in the foreground of each camera shot or the images will not be usable for 3D.

Filming everything from a baseline of 62-65mm (ortho stereo) is possible but not practical. For native filmed movies they move the cameras together for closer shots. That would not be the case if you were shooting human perspective, you would have excessive negative parallax.

Stereoscopy isn't direct reflection of human vision always, —it can be if that's your intent and preference but it would be very restrictive, it's all to create the illusion of depth. There's many tools and tricks, sticking to just one method seems restricting. When I first bought a 3D camera I thought that 3D cameras that were closer to human eye spacing were the best cameras to use. I realized shortly after that isn't really true. They can be for the working distance they're designed for but closer (macro 3D) isn't possible as well as distance shots. And fixed baseline cameras are nice but they have a limited range. There isn't one baseline distance that's good for all shots, for 3D it gets really complex with camera position and the position of desired subject and where you place the window.


----------



## 3DBob

Top Gun comes to mind when watching the airplane dogfights in 3D.


----------



## MagnumX

3DBob said:


> Top Gun comes to mind when watching the airplane dogfights in 3D.


But it's grainy so it's no good....


----------



## 3DBob

MagnumX said:


> But it's grainy so it's no good....


Up the noise reduction on the bluray player. Actually, the grain didn't bother me. I was just happy it was in 3D, like all my 3D movie conversion. Same for Predator. Did it need to be in 3D? Nope, but I still like it in 3D.


----------



## MagnumX

3DBob said:


> Up the noise reduction on the bluray player. Actually, the grain didn't bother me. I was just happy it was in 3D, like all my 3D movie conversion. Same for Predator. Did it need to be in 3D? Nope, but I still like it in 3D.


I was being facetious. The grain didn't bother me that much. I don't think my BD player has noise reduction and I plan on getting a Zidoo in the near future at which point I won't be needing a disc player any longer except for 4K discs.


----------



## King Vidiot

The next Avatar movie is supposed to be shot in high frame rate. While I didn't think too much of the first movie, I still hope the sequel does well just so people get interested in 3D again and we get more equipment that can show it. A limitation of the current system though is that it can only do high frame rate (30fps) in 720 resolution, in 1080 it can only do 24 which is why the Hobbit movies were released on disc in the lower frame rate- and they are among the few 3D Blu-Ray titles that I haven't bought for that reason. I will just wait until they can do those in the right frame rate.


----------



## Seilerbird

Don Landis said:


> I spent last week at Disney World and I must say 3D is well represented in all the theaters. Actually is is 4 and 5 D with motion, wind and water spray to go along with the 3D images. But the best experience I have ever had is the newest attraction in the land of Pandora. Speaking of Avatar, it is the most popular attraction in all of Disney. You have to run to the event line as soon as the they let you into the Park to get to see it. The attraction is called the Flight of Passage. I found a video of the someone did but it is not like being in the environment. lack of 3D, motion, the wind in your face and the water spray all add to the experience. I did my own video but a staff security confiscated my GoPro during the actual ride and returned it after I finished. I felt the 2D would not do justice anyway. The best way to describe the 3D screen is the same as with an HMD since you are surrounded by 3D environment similar to what you see in a 3D 360 VR. When you sit on the Banshi it grabs you by the legs, the small of your back and into your chest to keep you from falling off during the aerobatics. If you love 3D and virtual reality on a massive scale, it is worth the effort to see this Flight of Passage attraction. Even though we got into the theme Park an hour early the line from other early entries was already 30 minutes. By the time we got out, the line was 2 hours long so get in early
> 
> Older YT video done by another GoPro owner:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEPQpbyyo


I have lived close to DW for the last five years. Two of which I had an annual pass (very cheap for Florida residents) and I went four times a week, one to each park. Every day you are allowed three fast passes right off the bat. Fast passes allow you to get to the head of the line quicker. After riding most every ride in the park I always chose the 3D (actually 4D and 5D) rides every time. It was because of these rides that convinced me to get an LG OLED 3D TV. Thank you Disney.


----------



## PCummins

King Vidiot said:


> The next Avatar movie is supposed to be shot in high frame rate. While I didn't think too much of the first movie, I still hope the sequel does well just so people get interested in 3D again and we get more equipment that can show it. A limitation of the current system though is that it can only do high frame rate (30fps) in 720 resolution, in 1080 it can only do 24 which is why the Hobbit movies were released on disc in the lower frame rate- and they are among the few 3D Blu-Ray titles that I haven't bought for that reason. I will just wait until they can do those in the right frame rate.


I expect by then we should have easy access to 4K TV's with HDMI 2.0 that can do [email protected], Ultra-HD Blu-Ray also supports [email protected] as well so HFR should be supported.


----------



## 3DBob

By 2020 when the first Avatar sequel is to come out, there will likely be only a few theaters that can handle it if not shown in RealD 3D. Cameron wants it shown in glasses-free theaters, but probably not going to happen--sadly.. And since very few homes will have 3D TVs, except us projector people, it will be a mute exercise in 3D revival IMHO.


----------



## tomtastic

King Vidiot said:


> The next Avatar movie is supposed to be shot in high frame rate. While I didn't think too much of the first movie, I still hope the sequel does well just so people get interested in 3D again and we get more equipment that can show it. A limitation of the current system though is that it can only do high frame rate (30fps) in 720 resolution, in 1080 it can only do 24 which is why the Hobbit movies were released on disc in the lower frame rate- and they are among the few 3D Blu-Ray titles that I haven't bought for that reason. I will just wait until they can do those in the right frame rate.


I highly doubt a 48fps 3D version (or even a 2D version) will ever happen. One, 3D Blu ray doesn't support that frame rate and neither does 3D (note: 3D Blu ray supports 720p60/50 not 30) and two UHD blu ray doesn't support 48fps. And then of course existing 3D screens are not directly 48hz compatible so on a 60hz screen every 4th frame would last twice as long. Add the fact that HFR in The Hobbit received mixed reviews.


----------



## aaronwt

PCummins said:


> I expect by then we should have easy access to 4K TV's with HDMI 2.0 that can do [email protected], Ultra-HD Blu-Ray also supports [email protected] as well so HFR should be supported.


That is basically every UHD TV. My UHD TV from 2015 has four HDMI inputs that are HDMi 2.0 and handle 2160P60. My newer lower budget TCL TV also has all HDMI 2.0 inputs that can handle [email protected]


----------



## aaronwt

tomtastic said:


> I highly doubt a 48fps 3D version (or even a 2D version) will ever happen. One, 3D Blu ray doesn't support that frame rate and neither does 3D (note: 3D Blu ray supports 720p60/50 not 30) and two UHD blu ray doesn't support 48fps. And then of course existing 3D screens are not directly 48hz compatible so on a 60hz screen every 4th frame would last twice as long. Add the fact that HFR in The Hobbit received mixed reviews.


I hated the HFR Hobbit version. I went again just to see it in the normal framerate.


----------



## 3DBob

I just posted a thread about Frame Interpolation and frame rates that might be of interest based on the previous discussion here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-d...90-frame-interpolation-soap-opera-effect.html


----------



## tomtastic

aaronwt said:


> I hated the HFR Hobbit version. I went again just to see it in the normal framerate.


I'm not really sure myself. When I first saw it, it looked odd, especially the still scenes but the fast action did improve with HFR. Ultimately what turns me off with it is that we can't have it at home yet which is where I could make a better judgement so to me it seems pointless to offer it for theater when you can't have the same experience at home.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

3DBob said:


> I just posted a thread about Frame Interpolation and frame rates that might be of interest based on the previous discussion here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/68-d...90-frame-interpolation-soap-opera-effect.html


Hi Bob.. Whats the reason why Vudu can't steam 3d in 1080p.. Isn't harder to stream 4k?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## 3DBob

jorgebetancourt said:


> Hi Bob.. Whats the reason why Vudu can't steam 3d in 1080p.. Isn't harder to stream 4k?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


 I always thought they did until Tom explained they don't. My guess is bandwidth. They probably want to save as much bandwidth for 4K, than wasting it on 3D, which few people watch. Even their 4K is compressed, though to avoid buffering.


----------



## tomtastic

The signal type for frame packing would be a big issue as well as compatibility over IP. In order for you to get frame packing at home, you need the disc, player and HDMI connection and everything in the path to the screen must be hdmi 1.4 compatible (or a PS3). To get frame packing _off_ the disc at home you would either need the raw ISO file or encode into a MVC MKV container and also have a player and GPU that can handle the file. That gets complex already when you have all the data at home, let alone trying to do it over internet.

So in order to send frame packing over network, you would need to have enough bandwidth for up to 40mbps data which many VUDU users would not, then what format for frame packing? ISO, MVC MKV ? there are only so many options. How would users play back the ISO file? Streaming companies encode everything similar to what those of us that rip our content to discs do using a universal codec like h.264 avc or now h.265 or VP9 but their big concern is getting maximum data compression to limit bandwidth usage.

One other option for full quality format would be to encode into a top/bottom full format which is similar to frame packing. However, aside from the fact that this would also equate to larger file sizes and require more bandwidth, the files would not be compatible with all screens, only screens that can accept a 3D input of 4k resolution because you would need 1920x2160 to feed both full left/right views.

Yes, compatibility is the first hurdle which you really can't solve right now for full 3D quality. It's hard enough getting it done right at home without the disc, let alone streaming it. Then bandwidth would be an issue for many as well. It would be easier to use top/bottom full but then it would only work on LG 4K screens.


----------



## Mr.G

3DBob said:


> I always thought they did until Tom explained they don't. My guess is bandwidth. They probably want to save as much bandwidth for 4K, than wasting it on 3D, which few people watch. Even their 4K is compressed, though to avoid buffering.


Bob, isn't this pretty much academic now since VUDU has no apparent 3D listing. If you do a search for 3D about 4 titles come up and only for sale.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

3DBob said:


> I always thought they did until Tom explained they don't. My guess is bandwidth. They probably want to save as much bandwidth for 4K, than wasting it on 3D, which few people watch. Even their 4K is compressed, though to avoid buffering.


Yeah but the 4k looks insane sharp..

Has to be something else it's not like they have tons of people streaming 3d that they have to save it for 4k..

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## 3DBob

Mr.G said:


> Bob, isn't this pretty much academic now since VUDU has no apparent 3D listing. If you do a search for 3D about 4 titles come up and only for sale.


They have 330 available--though some are just movies that have 3D in the title, but not 3D. I don't know if you need to be signed in, but it helps. Go to search, then enter 3D in upper left. A few titles will show up, a little below the search box you will see the number (330). Click on it and you will see just about every 3D movie you'd ever want in your collection.

You had me worried there for a minute  .


----------



## Mr.G

3DBob said:


> They have 330 available--though some are just movies that have 3D in the title, but not 3D. I don't know if you need to be signed in, but it helps. Go to search, then enter 3D in upper left. A few titles will show up, a little below the search box you will see the number (330). Click on it and you will see just about every 3D movie you'd ever want in your collection.
> 
> You had me worried there for a minute  .


Aha! So that's the trick. 

I also forgot about the _Showcases_ in their Movies index that takes you to their 3D library, plus other things.


----------



## Brian Hampton

I pre-ordered the Meg 3D.

So ... it's not dead yet. 

(I don't actually want the 3D .. I want this in 4K instead. I'm hoping I can redeem the DC code in iTunes for the 4K so I don' have to buy it again. My neighbor wants the 3D. I think after I play it for her I may put my own 3D stuff away and just simplify my system. So,... maybe it's almost dead)


----------



## PCummins

aaronwt said:


> That is basically every UHD TV. My UHD TV from 2015 has four HDMI inputs that are HDMi 2.0 and handle 2160P60. My newer lower budget TCL TV also has all HDMI 2.0 inputs that can handle [email protected]


Pretty much - the main issue is getting retail content to play at 60fps, think there was only a couple of Ultra-HD discs that had HFR on them. The second problem is everyone seems polarised on HFR, so filmmakers seem to not bother (why cause issues if 24fps is fine?) so that's less content being available in retail channels (there's no Hobbit Trilogy on Ultra-HD Blu-Ray with HFR yet either to my knowledge). It may be possible some large movie finally cracks it (or user supplied content on say YouTube picks up significantly), but you can say pretty much everyone would be ready for it given the number of 4K TV's that are available now.

Probably the biggest obstacle are all the HFR opponents who were scarred (?) from seeing HFR in the cinemas (like the Hobbit Trilogy) and deciding it wasn't for them. It's effectively a repeat of how people treated 3D these days, the same tired subjective arguments come out which pretty much should have just devolved down to "if you don't like HFR/3D, don't see it in HFR/3D - but let other people choose for themselves".


----------



## obveron

Hobbit HFR 3d could be released on Ultra bluray in a 3d half sbs or tab format telecined to 60fps. Half 4k is still pretty good. I'd suggest half tab for the most ideal resolution for 4k passive displays.


Of course this won't happen. How many people have a 4k 3d TV. How many of those want to watch The Hobbit and Avatar 2 3d HFR at home?


----------



## noob00224

obveron said:


> Hobbit HFR 3d could be released on Ultra bluray in a 3d half sbs or tab format telecined to 60fps. Half 4k is still pretty good. I'd suggest half tab for the most ideal resolution for 4k passive displays.
> 
> 
> Of course this won't happen. How many people have a 4k 3d TV. How many of those want to watch The Hobbit and Avatar 2 3d HFR at home?


 Couldn't they try a 3D [email protected] version of SBS/TAB? Or a 60fps on displays capable of 120hz. All you would need is glasses.


----------



## PCummins

noob00224 said:


> Couldn't they try a 3D [email protected] version of SBS/TAB? Or a 60fps on displays capable of 120hz. All you would need is glasses.


I doubt it, the main challenge you have is getting people (filmmakers, studios, distributor and customers) to even accept HFR to begin with; the problem is that there is not much content available at this point in time even though the Ultra-HD Blu-Ray & HDMI 2.0 specifications support [email protected] Couple that with the necessary SBS/OU custom image formats (outside the standard, ie not frame packed) to make it 3D on top of HFR would probably sink like a lead balloon given the hostility to HFR -and- 3D.

However, having said that if a 4K (with or without HFR) Hobbit release happened some enterprising person could literally reinterpolate a 3D HFR 4K edition of it on their own with enough computing power and work for their own enjoyment. Commercially it seems the best chance is to start a KickStarter to assess the interest + funding requirements to license & produce the media as a super limited batch run along with trying to convince companies to release other 3D converted/generated films (ie Mission Impossible: Fallout and others) for people willing to pay a premium to get it.


----------



## noob00224

PCummins said:


> I doubt it, the main challenge you have is getting people (filmmakers, studios, distributor and customers) to even accept HFR to begin with; the problem is that there is not much content available at this point in time even though the Ultra-HD Blu-Ray & HDMI 2.0 specifications support [email protected] Couple that with the necessary SBS/OU custom image formats (outside the standard, ie not frame packed) to make it 3D on top of HFR would probably sink like a lead balloon given the hostility to HFR -and- 3D.
> 
> However, having said that if a 4K (with or without HFR) Hobbit release happened some enterprising person could literally reinterpolate a 3D HFR 4K edition of it on their own with enough computing power and work for their own enjoyment. Commercially it seems the best chance is to start a KickStarter to assess the interest + funding requirements to license & produce the media as a super limited batch run along with trying to convince companies to release other 3D converted/generated films (ie Mission Impossible: Fallout and others) for people willing to pay a premium to get it.



They could start just with some HFR material. 
There is already some out there: gaming, video blogging (youtube &others), sports, the use of interpolation, etc. But nothing major from hollywood (exept for the hobbit) . I would love to see some official converted/filmed big hollywood movies in HFR. 

Anime fans have been wanting the industry standard changed from the choppy @24, so US firms should invest/start their own anime series (like netflix has) with HFR. Not just anime, any animation would be a good place to start.

Most displays can achieve 60hz so the hardware is already available.


----------



## obveron

I believe there could be some room in the Bluray 3d framepacking spec for improved temporal resolution. IE a 48 FPS source like the hobbit could be spread out across left and right frames.

I'll try to explain. Typically 3d cameras capture left and right frames simultaneously. However 3DTV display them frame alternating.

So a 24fps 3d movie would display Left Frame A then Right Frame A, then Left Frame B then Right Frame B.
A 48fps movie could be chopped to 24 fps for the same treatment (as is done presently with The Hobbit 3d Blurays). Left Frame A, Right Frame A, Left Frame C, Right Frame C (Frame B has been completely removed).
This gives you a full stereo pair at 24hz.

but it could be done differently for an improved temporal resolution
Left Frame A, Right Frame B, Left Frame C, Right Frame D

You are still tossing half the frames away but you're maintaining half a stereo pair at 48hz (which is ofcourse telecined to 120hz for 3dtvs)


----------



## Worf

Or cut down the resolution to 720p. 720p 3D is 60fps per eye and is mandatory in the 3d spec for support. For 50hz countries it would be 720p50 per eye. 

Yes, I have a Blu-Ray 3d disc that uses 720p60 3d frame packed as its resolution.


----------



## noob00224

Worf said:


> Or cut down the resolution to 720p. 720p 3D is 60fps per eye and is mandatory in the 3d spec for support. For 50hz countries it would be 720p50 per eye.
> 
> Yes, I have a Blu-Ray 3d disc that uses 720p60 3d frame packed as its resolution.


I don't think from a marketing perspective 720p will sound appealing to customers when by the time this would be released 8K might be a thing .
Live tests would be required to demonstrate then.


What is the name of the 720p60 3d frame packed disc? Documentary?


----------



## obveron

I don't think there is anything stopping a studio (besides lack of profit) from releasing a HFR 3D movie on a streaming service like Netflix. They will be not limited by the Bluray 3d spec or framepacking limitations. Half SBS or TAB has more pixels than 720p and will work up to 60fps. I prefer my 3d gaming at half SbS on my 1080p 3dtv. not only does it have more pixels than 720p, it's a perfect scaling into 1080p display where as 720p is a non-integer scale which creates more artifacts.

Actually I watch many of my 3d movies as half sbs. I really don't see the difference between it and full HD at my seating distance.


Of course this discussion is moot. No studio will see profit in a home theater treatment of HFR 3d. 3d is a niche. HFR 3d is a niche within a niche.


Best chance would be the cinema master getting leaked and some pirate ripping it on to the internet (not that I condone such a thing).


----------



## Worf

noob00224 said:


> What is the name of the 720p60 3d frame packed disc? Documentary?


It's the 2010 FIFA World Cup Blu-Ray in 3d - https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Official-2010-FIFA-World-Cup-Film-in-3D-Blu-ray/17152/

The reason we have it in 720p60 is because of sports - fast action requires high frame rates, so this low resolution mode is designed for things where 24 frames per second is too slow. Because of bandwidth limitations, you can only do 1080p24 frame packed,mor you can drop it down to 720p and do 60 frame packed frames. It's the same reason why broadcast tv has to choose between 1080i or 720p - you use the latter for sports, the former for when you want resolution over frame rate.


----------



## bjones8103

I went to see The Nutcracker and the Four Realms in Real D 3D at the local Cinemark 12 today. Out of 224 seats; 223 were empty. Granted it was a matinee, but still, it was depressing.


----------



## MagnumX

bjones8103 said:


> I went to see The Nutcracker and the Four Realms in Real D 3D at the local Cinemark 12 today. Out of 224 seats; 223 were empty. Granted it was a matinee, but still, it was depressing.


That sounds like when I saw Blade Runner 2049 in 3D in Phoenix, AZ at the theater across from Castles'n'Coasters. There were three people in the theater including the person that was with me (we're talking about a 4:30 PM showing). That movie didn't do too well at the theater despite being the best movie of 2017. People don't want quality. They want live action cartoons.... A world full of big selfish kids. Welcome to the 21st Century!


----------



## jorgebetancourt

MagnumX said:


> That sounds like when I saw Blade Runner 2049 in 3D in Phoenix, AZ at the theater across from Castles'n'Coasters. There were three people in the theater including the person that was with me (we're talking about a 4:30 PM showing). That movie didn't do too well at the theater despite being the best movie of 2017. People don't want quality. They want live action cartoons.... A world full of big selfish kids. Welcome to the 21st Century!


Well I saw it in 2d and it was empty I say maybe 10 people at the showing around 330 on a weekday.. I liked it but some parts where a but slow for me.. Now the second and third time I saw it at home I liked it way more.. Need to see it in 3d still haven't seen it..

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## bjones8103

jorgebetancourt said:


> Well I saw it in 2d and it was empty I say maybe 10 people at the showing around 330 on a weekday.. I liked it but some parts where a but slow for me.. Now the second and third time I saw it at home I liked it way more.. Need to see it in 3d still haven't seen it..
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


IMHO, 3D made this movie. The steampunk machinery, the castles, and the scenery were all greatly enhanced by the 3D which extended deep into the backgrounds. Pop outs were few but well timed. Others more qualified than myself may pick it apart, but to me this was a clear case of no 3D equals to a lame movie. 

On the down side, the movie was shot in dark settings which may not lend themselves well to a Bluray 3D transfer; that is, if Disney decides to release it in 3D.


----------



## bjones8103

MagnumX said:


> That sounds like when I saw Blade Runner 2049 in 3D in Phoenix, AZ at the theater across from Castles'n'Coasters. There were three people in the theater including the person that was with me (we're talking about a 4:30 PM showing). That movie didn't do too well at the theater despite being the best movie of 2017. People don't want quality. They want live action cartoons.... A world full of big selfish kids. Welcome to the 21st Century!


I'm glad you brought Blade Runner 2049 up. I've seen the 2D version and rated as slow but ok. I've heard the 3D version, which I bought six months ago, never watched, and forgot about, is a whole different story. I'll dig it out and it will be the first complete movie I watch on my new Optoma UHD51ALV.


----------



## MagnumX

I dunno. If you don't like it in 2D, 3D will only do so much (I think the 3D looks quite natural; some have said it's too shallow, but on my 92" screen it looked just right. I thought it looked good in the theater as well.) Both Blade Runners are somewhat slow paced. Either you like them or you don't. Personally, I thought this one was much better overall than the first, but I must admit Ana de Armas may have a lot to do with it. She's magnificent.


----------



## 3DBob

MagnumX said:


> I dunno. If you don't like it in 2D, 3D will only do so much (I think the 3D looks quite natural; some have said it's too shallow, but on my 92" screen it looked just right.


 A note about shallow 3D. This is a common complaint from those who sit too close to the screen for both TVs and projectors. Some movies have a different parallax separation and this can sometimes be adjusted in the Bluray player, the TV or projector, but not always. There is a sweet spot to depth. Sit too close and the 3D depth will look flat and shallow. Sit too far back and the 3D looks elongated and unnatural. The suggested sitting distance for 3D is often said to be 3 times the TV height or 2.1 times the width, but always at least 10 feet.


----------



## MagnumX

I guess I'm sitting too close, then as I'm at 9 feet with a 92" screen for my front row. 3D looks great there. Move further back and it sticks out a bit more, but not at an even ratio. Things are far closer to me relatively speaking in the first row.


----------



## bjones8103

MagnumX said:


> I guess I'm sitting too close, then as I'm at 9 feet with a 92" screen for my front row. 3D looks great there. Move further back and it sticks out a bit more, but not at an even ratio. Things are far closer to me relatively speaking in the first row.


I have the same problem. I have projectors in two rooms that sit 9 ft away from 100" screens. In one I can back through the door to a second room and see the if the extra distance enhances the picture. I find that many of my problems arise from the bluray transfer and not my setup. I'm stuck with the second setup, the only fix is to knock a wall out. That, however, may not be a bad solution, because then I could set on the john while watching a movie.

3D Tom; if you'll publish a book on this stuff, I'll buy it.


----------



## bjones8103

MagnumX said:


> That sounds like when I saw Blade Runner 2049 in 3D in Phoenix, AZ at the theater across from Castles'n'Coasters. There were three people in the theater including the person that was with me (we're talking about a 4:30 PM showing). That movie didn't do too well at the theater despite being the best movie of 2017. People don't want quality. They want live action cartoons.... A world full of big selfish kids. Welcome to the 21st Century!


Your point has been substantiated. I was planning to catch a movie this morning so I checked showtimes for today at the local Cinemax. Dr Suess' The Grinch has 5 time slots in Real D 3D and 22 slots in Digital Cinema. The movie I wanted to see, Hunter Killer, was no longer playing though it had been advertised to play thru next week. It was probably deleted to free a 2nd theater for The Grinch. Alternate movies for me, which are new movies this week, were OverLord with 5 time slots and Girl in the Spiders Web which also had 5 time slots. I've already missed the early showings so guess I'll wait until Monday. Hence, I adhere to The Retiree's Creed: "Never do today that which can be put off until tomorrow."

Big week for me next week with 3 Blu Ray releases: The Meg 3D, Mile 22, and Alpha. I'm still having suicidal thoughts over missing Alpha in 3D.:frown:


----------



## rxp91

IMAX in the UK has really cut back 3d screenings. I was looking forward to seeing Venom in 3D at the IMAX Laser in London and there were no 3D screenings, only 2D. And the new Fantastic Beasts only has one 3D screening a day in the evening at the Laser.

They are still showing their regular digital 3D screenings though - but I really hate watching 3D on those because it's just so dull.


----------



## 3DBob

IMAX announced a year ago, that they are phasing out showing movies in 3D. https://qz.com/1039936/imax-says-no-too-the-reign-of-3d-movies-is-over-in-us-cinemas/


----------



## tomtastic

Well, not really ending 3D showings but certainly cutting back.


----------



## Brian Hampton

I have to thank my neighbor. She insisted I get the 3D version of the Meg.

So,.. preparing to show this 3DBD to her I did some tuning of my Sony VW285ES.

In the process I fell in love all over again. I just watched Underworld Awakening 3D and was stunned.

I just could not believe I had assembled a system capable of what I was seeing. 

I guess 3D isn't something everyone likes but I have always enjoyed it ... I put it away for a while .. thought I was going to "move on" but man I am back into it like never before.

Helps that my current PJ does it quite a lot better than my previous Pj. 

-Brian


----------



## bjones8103

Worf
AVS Forum Special Member

Worf's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,893
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 700 Post(s)
Liked: 438
Probably sold out? My best buy (Canada) had 3-4 on the shelf and they do sell out because they import only a few of them. Then the tag looks forlorn for pricing a set that's now sold out.

The Meg 3D appears to be sold out everywhere right now and yet there is no demand for 3D. "Me thinks something smells fishy."


----------



## Worf

There's plenty of demand for 3d. A look at the theatre listings proves it - you can still watch movies in 3d. Even Disney ones (and Disney looks to have stopped doing 3d home releases)

The entertainment executives however want us to move to their next pet project (4k) to rejuvenate movie sales by buying all the movies again.

Or perhaps that's how they intend for people to return to theatres - by making 3d one of the few technologies you can only experience there (alongside others out of range of most people like DBOX).


----------



## bjones8103

Here's a trip up on 4K. I have a mid range Sony 900E TV which I paid $850 for. It or my Oppo UHD 203, will upscale a 1080p disc to 4K and have it look as good as 4K. Put it under a microscope and place it beside the same TV playing a native 4K disc in the 203 and I'm sure you'll see a difference, maybe a big difference, but how many people will do that. Now I have a projector, the Optoma UHD51ALV, that will do the same thing. Personally, I'll save the 5 to 10 bucks on a 4k disc and buy 1080p, at least while the opportunity is still there. Maybe I'm old and my eyes aren't what they used to be, but native 1080p looks pretty good to me, even on a 100" screen sitting 9' away.


----------



## MagnumX

Given real film supposedly was somewhere between 720p and 1080p in actual playback on the 3rd gen prints at best (there was a test for this used during the digital transition to find what was needed to replace film on a practical level), it's not surprising 1080p looks good on similar scaled screen sizes relative to your vision. 4K is closer to the original negative quality so it's a real step up, but you obviously need an appropriate screen size and viewing distance to appreciate it. 

On my 92" screen at 9 feet with 20/20 it supposedly would only look about 25% sharper than 1080p. If you have 20/10 (including corrected lenses) it would look up to 50% sharper than 1080p. You'd need to sit like 4-5 feet away with a 55-65" screen for a similar improvement or up 2x the distance for 20/10. 

This is why HDR is important to Hollywood. You can see its effects at any reasonable distance.


----------



## longhornsk57

35MM film translates to much higher than 4K resolution. At this point it depends on the scanner quality. So yes 4K in some movies looks a lot crisper than 1080p even with upscaling.

Also 1080p discs don't have HDR and most don't have atmos tracks so the 4K disc would still be preferred.

BUT I still prefer the 3D version of almost any movie to the 4K /HDR counterpart.

Movies like Valerian, Ghost in the Shell etc are so much better in 3D. Even if the medium dies I'll still have the hundreds of 3D movie library to always fall back on.


----------



## MagnumX

All the evidence I've seen indicates 4K is pretty close to the usable limit of 35mm film (Panavision lenses may net a bit more for 2.40:1 movies). It's not a hard limit but the tests done for the movie industry were pretty conclusive. 

Negatives topped out around the 2000-2400 line range while 1st gen prints were typically around 1500 lines and 3rd gen (the ones they used in theaters) were closer to 1000-1100 lines vertical, but achieved about 775 lines at best once projected in real theaters on actual screens and not across all areas if the picture (lens distortion). That's above 720p, at least in the vertical and it's a soft transition (not pixels) like untreated digital but clearly not the 6K-8K+ some want us to believe. Maybe 35mm can achieve that level under some circumstances, but using real Hollywood equipment it doesn't appear likely with real already made movies. You can scan higher, but the results probably won't be very useful. I thought the same thing until I saw this study (best not to trust anecdotal and theoretical evidence I suppose).

See for yourself:
http://www.motionfx.gr/Files/35mm_resolution_english.pdf


----------



## bjones8103

MagnumX said:


> Given real film supposedly was somewhere between 720p and 1080p in actual playback on the 3rd gen prints at best (there was a test for this used during the digital transition to find what was needed to replace film on a practical level), it's not surprising 1080p looks good on similar scaled screen sizes relative to your vision. 4K is closer to the original negative quality so it's a real step up, but you obviously need an appropriate screen size and viewing distance to appreciate it.
> 
> On my 92" screen at 9 feet with 20/20 it supposedly would only look about 25% sharper than 1080p. If you have 20/10 (including corrected lenses) it would look up to 50% sharper than 1080p. You'd need to sit like 4-5 feet away with a 55-65" screen for a similar improvement or up 2x the distance for 20/10.
> 
> This is why HDR is important to Hollywood. You can see its effects at any reasonable distance.


I flew USAF fighters for 20yrs and on a good day, and only on a good day, I could read 20/15. I knew of only two pilots who could read 20/10, but those guys; those guys were magic. Lose sight; lose life.


----------



## MagnumX

bjones8103 said:


> MagnumX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given real film supposedly was somewhere between 720p and 1080p in actual playback on the 3rd gen prints at best (there was a test for this used during the digital transition to find what was needed to replace film on a practical level), it's not surprising 1080p looks good on similar scaled screen sizes relative to your vision. 4K is closer to the original negative quality so it's a real step up, but you obviously need an appropriate screen size and viewing distance to appreciate it.
> 
> On my 92" screen at 9 feet with 20/20 it supposedly would only look about 25% sharper than 1080p. If you have 20/10 (including corrected lenses) it would look up to 50% sharper than 1080p. You'd need to sit like 4-5 feet away with a 55-65" screen for a similar improvement or up 2x the distance for 20/10.
> 
> This is why HDR is important to Hollywood. You can see its effects at any reasonable distance.
> 
> 
> 
> I flew USAF fighters for 20yrs and on a good day, and only on a good day, I could read 20/15. I knew of only two pilots who could read 20/10, but those guys; those guys were magic. Lose sight; lose life.
Click to expand...

I'm very nearsighted, but my eyes can still correct to 20/10. In fact, my eyes have been getting better for the past decade for some reason (kind of glad I didn't get laser correction or I'd be about 1.5 diopters into farsighted by now (plus associated side effect risks) with additional corrections being thwarted at about 1/4 diopter a year. It's also greatly affected by sinus pressure.


----------



## MustangSVT

Do those of you that still cling on 3D, do you find that watching this content on a projector screen brings out the most "3D"/depth for movies? Or is something like the Sony Z9D (one of the last 3D tvs) available just as good? Obviously apples to oranges, but I've considered upgrading my TV at some point soon, and I looked at projectors for 3D support, but video games is a big part of my TV use, and in my (limited) experience projects tend to have high input lag. Wondering how 3D looks on a Z9D (expensive TV for a 75") to say a Sony ES295 projector.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

MustangSVT said:


> Do those of you that still cling on 3D, do you find that watching this content on a projector screen brings out the most "3D"/depth for movies? Or is something like the Sony Z9D (one of the last 3D tvs) available just as good? Obviously apples to oranges, but I've considered upgrading my TV at some point soon, and I looked at projectors for 3D support, but video games is a big part of my TV use, and in my (limited) experience projects tend to have high input lag. Wondering how 3D looks on a Z9D (expensive TV for a 75") to say a Sony ES295 projector.


I've never seen 3d on a tv but I can tell u that on my jvc rs520 and now 640 it just blows my mind how cool it is and it looks.. I just sold my 520 to my friend who never liked 3D because it gave him headaches. I told him I bet that was at the theaters wait till you try these projectors they are crazy cool. Now he's all over it and loves it. 

Anyways we also use the 3D enhancement on the player to give the film even more depth which makes the film even crazier.. My screen is 125 inches and I use the zoom option to make it a bit bigger to add more effect.. 





Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

bjones8103 said:


> Worf
> AVS Forum Special Member
> 
> Worf's Avatar
> 
> Join Date: Sep 2000
> Posts: 1,893
> Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
> Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
> Quoted: 700 Post(s)
> Liked: 438
> Probably sold out? My best buy (Canada) had 3-4 on the shelf and they do sell out because they import only a few of them. Then the tag looks forlorn for pricing a set that's now sold out.
> 
> The Meg 3D appears to be sold out everywhere right now and yet there is no demand for 3D. "Me thinks something smells fishy."


More like limited release of the 3D title. The fewer titles there are to sell, the easier it is to sell out.


----------



## tomtastic

Hmm, well last I checked The Meg was easily available but I don't see it on Amazon and Amazon UK it's pricey so I just ordered one off eBay. Don't think I'll wait on this one.

Still shows in stock on BB.


----------



## 3DBob

I got one at Best Buy, they had one 3D copy left. Other BB stores in the Detroit area have them as well.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

3DBob said:


> I got one at Best Buy, they had one 3D copy left. Other BB stores in the Detroit area have them as well.


I thought BB wasn't going to be carrying blu ray movies anymore.. Am I wrong?

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## 3DBob

jorgebetancourt said:


> I thought BB wasn't going to be carrying blu ray movies anymore.. Am I wrong?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


They have racks of 4K bluray movies. They don't carry a lot of 3D blurays, though


----------



## Kano3D

As I said on other posts 3D is about to reborn as holographic wich you can move your head or your device to see other angles of the image (even for 3D blind people!).
There are 2 technologies: Leia and Ultra-D.
Leia is already on one smartphone: Red Hydrogen One. It will arrive to TVs, computers and car HUDs later.
Ultra-D will arrive on a lot of TVs first and after mobile devices and computers.


----------



## aaronwt

I'll believe it when I see it as far as phones and TVs go. There were 3d models of phones years ago that actually worked very well. But they were never very popular. And that red hydrogen phone is not popular either.

Although it is also expensive and got bad reviews.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## tomtastic

Kano3D said:


> As I said on other posts 3D is about to reborn as holographic wich you can move your head or your device to see other angles of the image (even for 3D blind people!).
> There are 2 technologies: Leia and Ultra-D.
> Leia is already on one smartphone: Red Hydrogen One. It will arrive to TVs, computers and car HUDs later.
> Ultra-D will arrive on a lot of TVs first and after mobile devices and computers.


I wouldn't count on it, the Red Hydrogen One hype is already fading and the Ultra D screens are really for commercial digital signage, they do not display 3D as well as the 3D screens we already have as it's been reported by someone here who ordered one. Most see the 3D phones as 2012 tech and I have to say for recording, the specs aren't much better than what we had then. No 4K 3D recording on the Red and only 12mp sensors.


----------



## Kano3D

tomtastic said:


> I wouldn't count on it, the Red Hydrogen One hype is already fading and the Ultra D screens are really for commercial digital signage, they do not display 3D as well as the 3D screens we already have as it's been reported by someone here who ordered one. Most see the 3D phones as 2012 tech and I have to say for recording, the specs aren't much better than what we had then. No 4K 3D recording on the Red and only 12mp sensors.


Damn, 4K is very demanding and you want 4K 3D. In fact less MP is better because pixels are bigger and get more light.
Ultra-D have an agreement with panel makers including one that release 100 milion panel for year for different TV brands. And just made another factory for 8K panels and will integrate Ultra-D on ALL of them.
And about the Red Hydrogen One is not intended for hype. Is a long strategy for years. Damn if the first modules will arrive in 1 year after the device, and after that they will make the next perfected version.


----------



## Kano3D

Kano3D said:


> Damn, 4K is very demanding and you want 4K 3D. In fact less MP is better because pixels are bigger and get more light.
> Ultra-D have an agreement with panel makers including one that release 100 milion panel for year for different TV brands. And just made another factory for 8K panels and will integrate Ultra-D on ALL of them.
> And about the Red Hydrogen One is not intended for hype. Is a long strategy for years. Damn if the first modules will arrive in 1 year after the device, and after that they will make the next perfected version.


http://www.tridimensional.info/tag/holographic/


----------



## tomtastic

Kano3D said:


> Damn, 4K is very demanding and you want 4K 3D. In fact less MP is better because pixels are bigger and get more light.
> Ultra-D have an agreement with panel makers including one that release 100 milion panel for year for different TV brands. And just made another factory for 8K panels and will integrate Ultra-D on ALL of them.
> And about the Red Hydrogen One is not intended for hype. Is a long strategy for years. Damn if the first modules will arrive in 1 year after the device, and after that they will make the next perfected version.


Pixel size doesn't have much to do with handling low light better. _Sensor_ size and back end _processing_, yes.

All that glasses-free tech is dead in the water for now, the same tech they had 4 years ago when it was announced and where is it? It's not coming to LG, Sony, Samsung. They use proprietary software to convert 2D or native 3D to the display's glasses free image. Someone on here ordered a Stream TV glasses free model and he tested the display with native 3D content and 3D blu rays and it's not the same image quality you get from glasses 3D. I believe he said it might be fine as a display to attract people in walking by in a mall or something but to replace the 3D we have now with glasses 3D, it's not ready.

Yes, I know it's a modular system as most Red are but they haven't given any indication what those modules will be exactly, lenses and a 3D camera that was supposed to be released sometime this year, but I doubt that happens. I think tech people will shy away from this phone because it's already using year old processors and for 3D it only records 1080p. This is barely a step up from the HTC Evo which recorded 720p. The h4v codec is proprietary, there is no way currently to get the stereo pairs from pictures out of the h4v file only with video and yes only 12mp sensors which my 5 year old Galaxy can take 12mp stills. So as someone who is looking at this phone that wants it for 3D which costs a hefty 1300.00 it appears to be DOA.

Oh and the bitrate for 3D recording on the Red is only something like 11mbps. Reviews have not been kind to the Red phone.


----------



## Kano3D

tomtastic said:


> Pixel size doesn't have much to do with handling low light better. _Sensor_ size and back end _processing_, yes.
> 
> All that glasses-free tech is dead in the water for now, the same tech they had 4 years ago when it was announced and where is it? It's not coming to LG, Sony, Samsung. They use proprietary software to convert 2D or native 3D to the display's glasses free image. Someone on here ordered a Stream TV glasses free model and he tested the display with native 3D content and 3D blu rays and it's not the same image quality you get from glasses 3D. I believe he said it might be fine as a display to attract people in walking by in a mall or something but to replace the 3D we have now with glasses 3D, it's not ready.
> 
> Yes, I know it's a modular system as most Red are but they haven't given any indication what those modules will be exactly, lenses and a 3D camera that was supposed to be released sometime this year, but I doubt that happens. I think tech people will shy away from this phone because it's already using year old processors and for 3D it only records 1080p. This is barely a step up from the HTC Evo which recorded 720p. The h4v codec is proprietary, there is no way currently to get the stereo pairs from pictures out of the h4v file only with video and yes only 12mp sensors which my 5 year old Galaxy can take 12mp stills. So as someone who is looking at this phone that wants it for 3D which costs a hefty 1300.00 it appears to be DOA.
> 
> Oh and the bitrate for 3D recording on the Red is only something like 11mbps. Reviews have not been kind to the Red phone.


You don't understand the Red strategy, is not a device for the masses, is a device for creators, to holographic screens success they are selling a device intended for filmmakers and creators. Is like a prototype for what is coming in the future to start playing and making content for this new tech. When more holographic screens will start to appear in the future there will be already content for them and increasing (most of them are cinema professionals).


----------



## tomtastic

Kano3D said:


> You don't understand the Red strategy, is not a device for the masses, is a device for creators, to holographic screens success they are selling a device intended for filmmakers and creators. Is like a prototype for what is coming in the future to start playing and making content for this new tech. When more holographic screens will start to appear in the future there will be already content for them and increasing (most of them are cinema professionals).


I wouldn't expect it to be for the masses considering it has a 3D screen, that right there almost no one will buy it _because_ it has a 3D screen. But as someone who creates content in 3D, I wouldn't buy into this product for several reasons. I was hyped up at first when I heard about it almost a year ago, but now that they've released the specs on it, the only thing that's interesting about it is the screen but that isn't worth 1300.00.

As far as the modules and lenses that were hinted as coming down the road... that's not a selling point who knows if and when that will ever happen. They could end this product today or next week if they don't sell enough units. They unveiled a 3d camera that would pair with the phone but there's been nothing on it since may, wonder why. Probably a lot of technical problems and not a lot of interest.

Anytime you hear the words: "proprietary" that's not a good thing. It means closed-in system. The first questions I have about this phone are it's 3D recording specs which are now available. It records to h4v which can be changed to mp4 by simple file name for video, but not for stills. So maybe or maybe not you might be able to use the 3D stills out of this thing in the future.

For video it's 1080p only for 3D and a low 11mbps bitrate. That's laughable specs even for a phone. The fact this doesn't shoot in 4K30 minimum for 3D it's DOA. And for 2D it only shoots 4k30, no 4k60 like comparable phones. So who would buy this? I have no idea. Certainly not your average consumer because of price and it's 3D, yes to most 3D is a turnoff and actually would be a strike against this phone. You can turn off the 3D though but then what would be the point in buying it? 3D annoys most people. Someone like me, well I was really looking forward to this but now that they've released the specs, I would sooner use my smallest camera a Sony TD10 to film than this phone. Size wise it's only about 1.5lbs heavier and I would bet it has better image stabilization.

If the whole point of this phone is for content creators to film content just to be played back on this screen in some h4v content hub, what a joke, it's an utter fail which will never amount to much which is why I talk about the proprietary codec being an issue. If we can't film with this phone and then display it on a typical 3D screen then that's a major issue for anyone who films in 3D. I can tell you 11mbps is simply not enough. I would gather my Panasonic 3D1 is better than this phone for 3D video. It shoots 1920x1080i but it's small and fits in your pocket.

There was another company releasing a 3D phone with glasses-free 3D screen and 3D cameras but I haven't heard anything in a year or so now. All signs point to a decline in 3D interest. We've seen it with the demise of flat panels. Theaters are cutting back on 3D showings and now studios are not putting some movies on Blu ray 3D. 

*I like 3D but I have to be realistic too, we're nearing the end of the downward slope of this 3D wave. Enjoy it while you can and buy what you can for when it's no longer around.*


----------



## jaychatbonneau

Kano3D said:


> As I said on other posts 3D is about to reborn as holographic wich you can move your head or your device to see other angles of the image (even for 3D blind people!).
> There are 2 technologies: Leia and Ultra-D.
> Leia is already on one smartphone: Red Hydrogen One. It will arrive to TVs, computers and car HUDs later.
> Ultra-D will arrive on a lot of TVs first and after mobile devices and computers.


Ultra-D is not holographic. It is damn cool though.


----------



## jaychatbonneau

tomtastic said:


> Pixel size doesn't have much to do with handling low light better. _Sensor_ size and back end _processing_, yes.
> 
> All that glasses-free tech is dead in the water for now, the same tech they had 4 years ago when it was announced and where is it? It's not coming to LG, Sony, Samsung. They use proprietary software to convert 2D or native 3D to the display's glasses free image. Someone on here ordered a Stream TV glasses free model and he tested the display with native 3D content and 3D blu rays and it's not the same image quality you get from glasses 3D. I believe he said it might be fine as a display to attract people in walking by in a mall or something but to replace the 3D we have now with glasses 3D, it's not ready.
> 
> Yes, I know it's a modular system as most Red are but they haven't given any indication what those modules will be exactly, lenses and a 3D camera that was supposed to be released sometime this year, but I doubt that happens. I think tech people will shy away from this phone because it's already using year old processors and for 3D it only records 1080p. This is barely a step up from the HTC Evo which recorded 720p. The h4v codec is proprietary, there is no way currently to get the stereo pairs from pictures out of the h4v file only with video and yes only 12mp sensors which my 5 year old Galaxy can take 12mp stills. So as someone who is looking at this phone that wants it for 3D which costs a hefty 1300.00 it appears to be DOA.
> 
> Oh and the bitrate for 3D recording on the Red is only something like 11mbps. Reviews have not been kind to the Red phone.


Ultra -D needs at least an 8K panel to give acceptable picture quality. That is why it is not on the market yet for consumers.


----------



## Kano3D

tomtastic said:


> For video it's 1080p only for 3D and a low 11mbps bitrate. That's laughable specs even for a phone. The fact this doesn't shoot in 4K30 minimum for 3D it's DOA. And for 2D it only shoots 4k30, no 4k60 like comparable phones. So who would buy this? I have no idea. Certainly not your average consumer because of price and it's 3D, yes to most 3D is a turnoff and actually would be a strike against this phone. You can turn off the 3D though but then what would be the point in buying it? 3D annoys most people. Someone like me, well I was really looking forward to this but now that they've released the specs, I would sooner use my smallest camera a Sony TD10 to film than this phone. Size wise it's only about 1.5lbs heavier and I would bet it has better image stabilization.


You have to think holographic have less resolution than 3D. You need an 8K Leia TV for 4K H4V (or 3D or whatever). So still too early to capture in 4K.

You can't pretend the first device of a new tech will be massive. First 4K TV was massive? It had content? Actually, First 8K TV is massive? It have content? This time things are done right, not only by Red and Leia, but by A LOT of brands that are preparing holographic devices, believe me. A lot of people are on this. RH1 and The Looking Glass are only the firsts (and both intended for creators). And on cinema too, there will be light field cinemas soon, they will use depth maps to generate holographic images viewable from any viewpoint without glasses, light fields on cinema will be way better than Leia and Ultra-D screens. Only for that reason 3D has no disappeared from cinemas, because they're maintaining the pipelines to transition to holographic formats in the future, if there were no advancements on this light field cinemas the 3D were eliminated from cinemas some time ago.



> Ultra-D is not holographic. It is damn cool though.


You can see other angles of the image like in H4V, so effectively it is (even 3D blind people can see the depth through movement).


----------



## tomtastic

Someone purchased an Ultra D display on trial and posted about it here. The problem doesn't appear to be resolution, so I doubt an 8K version would help. The proprietary software is 2D plus depth information, not a traditional side by side image or top/bottom so you have to send your native content in and they will convert it to their format "for a fee".

On the image quality for 3D, as was reported by this user, which you can read at that link here on avs, there's some 3D going on but it's not crisp and detailed like an OLED. He reported waviness and blurring in one eye in the background, possibly this goes away about 20 feet away but that's much too far away to be useful in most setups for home.

And they're targeted at digital signage commercial use. Think in a lobby with people walking by, to catch your attention. So this user suggested that the only use for it would be to place it outside in lobby to get people's attention and then have a passive 3D setup inside viewing room for the actual 3D presentation. But to view 3D content for any length of time, no way.

So for content creation that would be far too expensive for me. I couldn't send in my work and have them convert that to their proprietary format and then play it back via USB stick only. I have no doubt the Hydrogen One's screen works for 3D, it's much easier to get auto-stereoscopic 3D to work on small format with one set of eyes like the 3DS and some 3D cameras that have been release over the years, but to take that to the next level with multiple viewing angles is a much more complex task. Just increasing resolution isn't going to fix that.


----------



## Kano3D

tomtastic said:


> Someone purchased an Ultra D display on trial and posted about it here. The problem doesn't appear to be resolution, so I doubt an 8K version would help. The proprietary software is 2D plus depth information, not a traditional side by side image or top/bottom so you have to send your native content in and they will convert it to their format "for a fee".
> 
> On the image quality for 3D, as was reported by this user, which you can read at that link here on avs, there's some 3D going on but it's not crisp and detailed like an OLED. He reported waviness and blurring in one eye in the background, possibly this goes away about 20 feet away but that's much too far away to be useful in most setups for home.
> 
> And they're targeted at digital signage commercial use. Think in a lobby with people walking by, to catch your attention. So this user suggested that the only use for it would be to place it outside in lobby to get people's attention and then have a passive 3D setup inside viewing room for the actual 3D presentation. But to view 3D content for any length of time, no way.
> 
> So for content creation that would be far too expensive for me. I couldn't send in my work and have them convert that to their proprietary format and then play it back via USB stick only. I have no doubt the Hydrogen One's screen works for 3D, it's much easier to get auto-stereoscopic 3D to work on small format with one set of eyes like the 3DS and some 3D cameras that have been release over the years, but to take that to the next level with multiple viewing angles is a much more complex task. Just increasing resolution isn't going to fix that.


Depth maps are not propietary. Are laargely used on the pipeline of a lot of enterprises. Even most dual lens phones (not 3D) use depth maps to calculate the bokeh. In Ultra-D are using an standard depth map format (2d image + b&w depth). You can even make or edit yours since 2013 in www.depthy.me (and you can make photos with depth metadata with google camera).
It seems you are very disconnected from the industry and the things are happening in the last 2 years. 
I recommend you to follow http://www.tridimensional.info


----------



## tomtastic

Kano3D said:


> Depth maps are not propietary. Are laargely used on the pipeline of a lot of enterprises. Even most dual lens phones (not 3D) use depth maps to calculate the bokeh. In Ultra-D are using an standard depth map format (2d image + b&w depth). You can even make or edit yours since 2013 in www.depthy.me (and you can make photos with depth metadata with google camera).
> It seems you are very disconnected from the industry and the things are happening in the last 2 years.
> I recommend you to follow http://www.tridimensional.info


I'm aware of 2D plus depth since these were first brought up here, but there are too many disadvantages to overcome listed here for more detail. Converting video from native 3D to 2D plus depth would be cost prohibitive (and not to mention because of those significant disadvantages of the format) a degraded image and yes it's proprietary in that sense that NO existing NLE that handles 3D renders to 2D plus depth for these screens. So be prepared to pony up the cost for sending out your work.

Ok, there's an After Effects plugin that's all I see and I don't use Adobe because they're subscription only. And from what I see it seems to just be 2D to 3D not native 3D to 2D plus depth.


----------



## Kano3D

tomtastic said:


> I'm aware of 2D plus depth since these were first brought up here, but there are too many disadvantages to overcome listed here for more detail. Converting video from native 3D to 2D plus depth would be cost prohibitive (and not to mention because of those significant disadvantages of the format) a degraded image and yes it's proprietary in that sense that NO existing NLE that handles 3D renders to 2D plus depth for these screens. So be prepared to pony up the cost for sending out your work.
> 
> Ok, there's an After Effects plugin that's all I see and I don't use Adobe because they're subscription only. And from what I see it seems to just be 2D to 3D not native 3D to 2D plus depth.


All the things you say (except capture) are being solved. And precisely for the reason of the capture there are no NLE supporting. But cameras with depth sensor will arrive soon to every camera sensor (from cinema to digital cameras), even smartphones with depth sensor integrated in the main lens (without having 2 lenses).,
Virtual and mixed reality, augmented reality and a lot of workflows will require NLE to support depth maps. Today depth maps is used only on software side, but video will be benefit soon too.

_Patience my friend, let's no pretend to 3D reborn as holographic in 1 month._

*You are as pessimistic as me 2 years ago.*


----------



## AlanAbby

tomtastic said:


> I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years. That being said, can 3D survive? It seems like there's just been too much post converted 3D, or lack of content to begin with. Haven't seen much released on Blu ray that's been decent 3D in awhile, all seems to just be post converted or just lame depth only stuff. If they don't make 3D standard on TV's I just don't see it continuing much longer.
> 
> 
> I was really excited about a year ago, now I'm thinking about getting a 3D camcorder but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. Is 3D once again, just another passing fad? I really hope not because there is a lot of potential with movies like Gravity and documentaries just doesn't seem to be gaining steam now. If you look at TV content it will probably disappear altogether in the next year. There's what, 2 channels left? ESPN's gone, which I never understood why that was 3D anyway if they weren't going to show live content, there's nothing new on 3D TV.
> 
> 
> So are manufactures backing off 3D? Or is it still going forward like it was a few years ago? I noticed there's not much in the way of 3D camcorders.


3D is alive! and well. I have Ant Man & The Wasp plus Incredibles 2 both in glorious 3D on the way.


----------



## tomtastic

Kano3D said:


> All the things you say (except capture) are being solved. And precisely for the reason of the capture there are no NLE supporting. But cameras with depth sensor will arrive soon to every camera sensor (from cinema to digital cameras), even smartphones with depth sensor integrated in the main lens (without having 2 lenses).,
> Virtual and mixed reality, augmented reality and a lot of workflows will require NLE to support depth maps. Today depth maps is used only on software side, but video will be benefit soon too.
> 
> _Patience my friend, let's no pretend to 3D reborn as holographic in 1 month._
> 
> *You are as pessimistic as me 2 years ago.*


So it seems Izon and Stream can input side by side or top/bottom 3D format plus frame packing, not sure on Rembrandt, might be 2D plus depth input only. But what's certain is these use 2D plus depth as their native processing so creating 3D content in that format would seem to be the best format from the start. If you send it other formats it would be converted to 2D plus depth in screen.

I can see some using these for digital signage in lobbies and such, specific needs where glasses are not an option and by creating native 2D plus depth content but for stereoscopic 3D I'll be sticking with existing NLE's and cameras and displays for the best 3D.

These things come and go. There was Lytro light field cameras but they're gone. Why? Not much use for 1 or 2 mp image quality focus changing images priced at same level as cameras at 20mp with more features. There's Raytrix but no prices posted so that means expensive.

I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic but I'm realistic on 3D and have been since about 2012.


----------



## Kano3D

tomtastic said:


> So it seems Izon and Stream can input side by side or top/bottom 3D format plus frame packing, not sure on Rembrandt, might be 2D plus depth input only. But what's certain is these use 2D plus depth as their native processing so creating 3D content in that format would seem to be the best format from the start. If you send it other formats it would be converted to 2D plus depth in screen.
> 
> I can see some using these for digital signage in lobbies and such, specific needs where glasses are not an option and by creating native 2D plus depth content but for stereoscopic 3D I'll be sticking with existing NLE's and cameras and displays for the best 3D.
> 
> These things come and go. There was Lytro light field cameras but they're gone. Why? Not much use for 1 or 2 mp image quality focus changing images priced at same level as cameras at 20mp with more features. There's Raytrix but no prices posted so that means expensive.
> 
> I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic but I'm realistic on 3D and have been since about 2012.


Lytro has made possible the light field and depth map advancements we will see soon


----------



## jorgebetancourt

Hi guys.. Besides gravity and the Martian what other good space or astronomy documentaries in 3D are they? 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Frank714

jorgebetancourt said:


> Hi guys.. Besides gravity and the Martian what other good space or astronomy documentaries in 3D are they?



Some IMAX 3D programs in space. As for the rest I give it mostly a wide berth as planetary sized objects can only be watched in 2D because these are out of our stereoscopic field of vision.


----------



## dfa973

jorgebetancourt said:


> Hi guys.. Besides gravity and the Martian what other good space or astronomy documentaries in 3D are they?


IMAX has some 3D space documentaries:

Space Station 3D
Hubble 3D
We Are Born of Stars
Echoes of the Sun
Fly Me To the Moon
Hidden Universe 3D

But not all are available for viewing at home.


----------



## Steve P.

FLY ME TO THE MOON is not an IMAX documentary, it is an animated feature aimed at very young children.


----------



## tomtastic

The Following are available on Blu ray 3D:

I have all of these and this is pretty much it.

Space Station
Hubble
Space Junk
Journey to Space
Imax Space Intelligence Series (shown as Unraveling the Cosmos in US, not really IMAX, I think it was Discovery Channel)
Also History Channel's The Universe (not Imax) which includes:
The Universe in 3D 3 Disc Set
The Universe 7 Wonders of the Solar System
The Universe A Whole New Dimension

We Are Born of Stars is the first Imax 3D film but it has not been released on Blu ray 3D (among many other 3D titles).

Hidden Universe was 3D in theaters but IMAX is no longer releasing these on Blu ray 3D, only releasing in 4K and regular Blu ray combo.

The list of 3D IMAX titles not released on Blu ray 3D in recent times so far includes:

Hidden Universe
Tornado Alley
Great White Shark
Antartica on the Edge
A Beautiful Planet
Journey to the South Pacific
Titan's of the Ice Age

Possibly theses were not released on Blu ray 3D format because of Universal distribution in triple pack 4K/2D combo packs and not Shout Factory which handled the last 6 or so IMAX solo releases in 4K/3D/2D Blu ray individual release combos. Time will tell if they ever see a Blu ray 3D release but I'm guessing not.

The last IMAX features to be released on Blu ray 3D are National Parks Adventure and Dream Big. This appears to be the end of Blu ray 3D releases for IMAX.


----------



## tomtastic

3D movies that are in space, I'll name a few that I can think of.

Avatar (though the space scenes are flat 2D, no 3D effects)
Gravity
The Martian
John Carter
Passengers
Prometheus
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Guardians of the Galaxy vol1. and 2.
Thor movies.
Jupiter Ascending
Star Wars Episode 7,8,9
Rogue One
Solo
Star Trek Into Darkness
Star Trek Beyond


----------



## longhornsk57

Valerian was ****ing amazing in 3D


----------



## jorgebetancourt

tomtastic said:


> The Following are available on Blu ray 3D:
> 
> I have all of these and this is pretty much it.
> 
> Space Station
> Hubble
> Space Junk
> Journey to Space
> Imax Space Intelligence Series (shown as Unraveling the Cosmos in US, not really IMAX, I think it was Discovery Channel)
> Also History Channel's The Universe (not Imax) which includes:
> The Universe in 3D 3 Disc Set
> The Universe 7 Wonders of the Solar System
> The Universe A Whole New Dimension
> 
> From this list which one would you say are the top 3...


----------



## jorgebetancourt

tomtastic said:


> 3D movies that are in space, I'll name a few that I can think of.
> 
> Avatar (though the space scenes are flat 2D, no 3D effects)
> Gravity
> The Martian
> John Carter
> Passengers
> Prometheus
> Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
> Guardians of the Galaxy vol1. and 2.
> Thor movies.
> Jupiter Ascending
> Star Wars Episode 7,8,9
> Rogue One
> Solo
> Star Trek Into Darkness
> Star Trek Beyond


Thank you.. Pretty much I have or seen all of these i need more lol... I guess I'm looking for documentaries but I don't think they are many or good ones?


----------



## Kano3D

tomtastic said:


> So it seems Izon and Stream can input side by side or top/bottom 3D format plus frame packing, not sure on Rembrandt, might be 2D plus depth input only. But what's certain is these use 2D plus depth as their native processing so creating 3D content in that format would seem to be the best format from the start. If you send it other formats it would be converted to 2D plus depth in screen.
> 
> I can see some using these for digital signage in lobbies and such, specific needs where glasses are not an option and by creating native 2D plus depth content but for stereoscopic 3D I'll be sticking with existing NLE's and cameras and displays for the best 3D.
> 
> These things come and go. There was Lytro light field cameras but they're gone. Why? Not much use for 1 or 2 mp image quality focus changing images priced at same level as cameras at 20mp with more features. There's Raytrix but no prices posted so that means expensive.
> 
> I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic but I'm realistic on 3D and have been since about 2012.


Another advancement to have depth cameras everywhere...

RedShark News - Turn your camera into a light field device, simply by adding a new lens!
https://www.redsharknews.com/produc...ght-field-device,-simply-by-adding-a-new-lens


----------



## tomtastic

tomtastic said:


> More signs of Blu ray 3D decline:
> 
> IMAX releases of A Beautiful Planet and Journey to the South Pacific both remove the Blu ray 3D option and only offer UHD and regular 2D Blu ray.
> 
> A Beautiful Planet was filmed in 2D and converted for IMAX 3D screens so I can forgive that one but MacGillivray Freeman's Journey to the South Pacific were filmed with IMAX 3D cameras. This is a first for IMAX 3D films not to release in 3D for the home market since the current 3D boom emerged back in 2009.
> 
> Other signs of Blu ray 3D decline include Mission Impossible: Fallout with no scheduled Blu ray 3D anywhere in the world. Also, Hotel Transylvania 3 and Alpha currently do not have a Blu ray 3D release scheduled. If the trend to not release 3D films on the Blu ray 3D format continues 3D content could disappear by 2020.


I'm quoting my own post so I can add a movie to this that I missed.

Monster Trucks (2017) Also Paramount. Forgot all about this one but it was 3D in theaters and no Blu ray 3D release. Is Paramount done with Blu ray 3D?


----------



## bjones8103

tomtastic said:


> I'm quoting my own post so I can add a movie to this that I missed.
> 
> Monster Trucks (2017) Also Paramount. Forgot all about this one but it was 3D in theaters and no Blu ray 3D release. Is Paramount done with Blu ray 3D?


BumbleBee is releasing in Real 3D. Will it make it to Blu-ray 3D is any ones' guess, but it just might answer your question.


----------



## tomtastic

tomtastic said:


> 3D movies that are in space, I'll name a few that I can think of.
> 
> Avatar (though the space scenes are flat 2D, no 3D effects)
> Gravity
> The Martian
> John Carter
> Passengers
> Prometheus
> Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
> Guardians of the Galaxy vol1. and 2.
> Thor movies.
> Jupiter Ascending
> Star Wars Episode 7,8,9
> Rogue One
> Solo
> Star Trek Into Darkness
> Star Trek Beyond


And: Geostorm !!! Just gave this another watch last night. Lot's of space junk, wonder if they have a plan to fix that?

I think the last Transformers had some space scenes also Independence Day Resurgence.


----------



## Kano3D

It's happening!
https://twitter.com/UltraD3/status/1067591581744664577?s=19


----------



## tomtastic

They should send me a screen to demo . I would give it real world test with blu ray 3D's as well as native 3D filmed from my multiple collection of 3D cameras so I can determine what's happening with the 3D. The biggest problem is not being able to see these in person to make a subjective evaluation on 3D performance and they're just too much to order and then decide you're not satisfied. These screens have big shoes to fill, so I'd be a tough critic. But if they're convincing, I'd give them a passing grade and provide a detailed report either way.

Maybe they'll start having more locations to view these. I'm skeptical that going from native side by side input to 2D plus depth conversion will provide as good or better 3D experience we already have with glasses 3D screens. But I'd love to be proven wrong.


----------



## bjones8103

tomtastic said:


> They should send me a screen to demo . I would give it real world test with blu ray 3D's as well as native 3D filmed from my multiple collection of 3D cameras so I can determine what's happening with the 3D. The biggest problem is not being able to see these in person to make a subjective evaluation on 3D performance and they're just too much to order and then decide you're not satisfied. These screens have big shoes to fill, so I'd be a tough critic. But if they're convincing, I'd give them a passing grade and provide a detailed report either way.
> 
> Maybe they'll start having more locations to view these. I'm skeptical that going from native side by side input to 2D plus depth conversion will provide as good or better 3D experience we already have with glasses 3D screens. But I'd love to be proven wrong.


Too bad they didn't turn this technology around and make glasses that would allow you to watch 2D panels in 3D. Then they could send us all glasses to demo.


----------



## 3DBob

Kano3D said:


> It's happening!
> https://twitter.com/UltraD3/status/1067591581744664577?s=19


This is basically old news. They were a hit at CES in 2017, and the technology disappeared after that. I think Morgus has one of these and they aren't all that great.


----------



## tomtastic

The last update was earlier this year when they announced 8k panels were coming later this year in that news post by Scott, and the latest announcement seems they're close to launch showing off an 8K model. But doesn't sound like they're launching those anytime soon.

Right, I've made a post on that thread, waiting to hear back if he returned that display or kept it and what his overall thoughts were on it. It didn't sound like resolution was the issue to me, reporting blurring and out of focus parts in the background in one eye.


----------



## Kano3D

3DBob said:


> This is basically old news. They were a hit at CES in 2017, and the technology disappeared after that. I think Morgus has one of these and they aren't all that great.


This tweet is from yesterday!


----------



## 3DBob

Kano3D said:


> This tweet is from yesterday!


 This is about the 8K version of the 4K version that bit the dust soon after CES 2017


----------



## Kano3D

3DBob said:


> This is about the 8K version of the 4K version that bit the dust soon after CES 2017


They didn't bit the dust, they even didn't put on sale because the module (the processing system that processes the depth) was external and they wanted to integrate inside the TV. This year they have been working to integrating a SoC (system-on-chip) into the screen itself. So they're ready to integrate on ALL 8K panels that BOE will make, and on 4K panels too (BOE make 100 milion panels/year for different brands).
All 8K tvs from BOE will have Ultra-D inside.


----------



## Worf

No, they has SoC processing modules for CES 2017 built into the display. I know because the deployed screens use it. Even the Izon displays were all integrated. Use of the external processing box was discontinued a few years ago.

I also know they use the integrated displays for demos. Granted, they have an external box for digital signage purposes - the box handles the downloading, updating and display of digital signage content, but that's because there are multiple providers and integrating them is like a smart tv - now you're going to have to handle the updates.


----------



## 3DBob

I'm not trying to down play the worthiness of Ultra-D, just that they are/were too late in bringing it to market. Plus, it's not a consumer-level product, but more of a point-of-interest/purchase marketing display, which given the internet, there is little need for companies to have a point-of-interest/purchase displays in their offices. Maybe for conferences and shows, like the major auto shows. However, retail stores aren't going to spend the money on it. Maybe some VR companies might to showcase their 3D products, but not enough to generate the income needed to continue manufacturing it. And, let's hope I'm wrong...


----------



## tomtastic

What I've suspected about these glasses free screens is that they're attention-getting with glasses-free 3D but there's a reason they sell these for commercial digital signage use, not the consumer market. They present decent 3D, at a generous distance but lack the true, clear and precise 3D image that traditional glasses displays provide. But, I've never seen one so I can't say first hand. It seems these are better at using 2D to glasses-free 3D or if you generate 2D plus depth information, not native 3D. However, they did have a showing on a Ultra D screen with a Blu ray 3D movie in their news announcements so I don't know what to make of their marketing expectations.

Examining what I have seen in the glasses-free portable range from the Fuji W3 to the 3DS (don't have the newer 3DS), the 3D isn't too bad but the main problem is viewing angles which lenticular screens always seems to have only 1, which is dead center, beyond that the 3D is lost and you just see a black wavy shimmer as you move the screen around. But for single-user purpose I think they work good enough. I'm interested in seeing the Hydrogen One and what they've accomplished.

They also claim that Ultra D only adds 5-6% cost, I find that hard to believe. Also, BOE manufacturing, seems to be limited to China. Yes, too late now to help 3D. But I don't think these would really help 3D, you need the best 3D image to keep someone entertained for very long. If these can't do that, you're better off sticking with glasses.

I think in order to be released into the consumer market to play Blu ray 3D's they really need to get something established with users to prove what they can do and determine if they are ready to replace or supplement your existing 3D hardware. Once you have a base established then you could get real-world experiences to draw from. And it wouldn't hurt to have these were you could see them in person. Probably, a ways off from having a demo model at BB but that's what you really need. I never bought my first 3D screen until I went to BB and viewed it in person and then I knew I wanted one.


----------



## PCummins

Out of interest The Looking Glass Factory is close to releasing their lightfield + volumetric display for design work in January 2019, so seems to be using 45 simultaneous views of the image to generate the display. Of course this isn't the same as what's required for a 3D TV but is good as a demonstration of how the technology is progressing. See it here: https://lookingglassfactory.com/


----------



## Kano3D

TLG offers 45 views, but Ultra-D still have multiple views of the images (and will improve) but in BIIIG sizes, so The Looking Glass is an small prototype of what Ultra-D and Leia screens will look in the future (long term).
There are BOE screens everywhere, is on some Apple products. And now the big news...:

*Ultra-D to be integrated on BOE’s entire series of product lines*
http://www.tridimensional.info/2018/12/ultra-d-to-be-integrated-on-boes-entire-series-of-product-lines/
:grin:


----------



## 3DBob

There will probably be an increase in VR screens and headsets for gaming, but for large consumer 3D TVs, it's going to be a tough market as the TV market has dropped 3D since 2016. I guess we sit back and wait for CES 2019.


----------



## PCummins

Kano3D said:


> TLG offers 45 views, but Ultra-D still have multiple views of the images (and will improve) but in BIIIG sizes, so The Looking Glass is an small prototype of what Ultra-D and Leia screens will look in the future (long term).
> 
> There are BOE screens everywhere, is on some Apple products. And now the big news...: *Ultra-D to be integrated on BOE’s entire series of product lines*


I see TLG as being more of a high(er)-resolution design/visualisation display, I expect future versions will simply feed 3D information to the display so it can generate as many layers as required (so it can expand past 45 layers). Of course, that's a different requirement to general 3D displays (where you have a a limited/fixed viewpoint in general). I'm looking forward to seeing what Ultra-D + BOE are able to create in the next few years, it's good to see that it's still on the roadmap for people who are keen on 3D. Glasses free 3D in commercial environments would be a good boost to the general interest, particularly if it eventually is available at home.



3DBob said:


> There will probably be an increase in VR screens and headsets for gaming, but for large consumer 3D TVs, it's going to be a tough market as the TV market has dropped 3D since 2016. I guess we sit back and wait for CES 2019.


If Ultra-D + BOE can get the interest back into 3D with commercial displays that may get interest back into 3D recording for VR & general display purposes. Again, all a matter of waiting to see what comes out and how people react. I think the home recording technology is now at a stage that it's ready to provide content if companies are willing to take the chance on it, it's just being able to adapt from 360/VR style recording to be 3D style recording (non-immersive) so it's better suited for standard TV displays. Without good quality content it's hard to keep the interest going I think.


----------



## longhornsk57

Anybody seen Venom in 3D?

I've heard not great things but they were from non 3D enthusiasts..

Wondering which bluray to pick up


----------



## MrEmoto

longhornsk57 said:


> Anybody seen Venom in 3D?
> 
> I've heard not great things but they were from non 3D enthusiasts..
> 
> Wondering which bluray to pick up


Where are you finding the 3D blu-ray of it? I see it on Amazon in Italy, Germany, and Spain, but not the US nor the UK.


----------



## longhornsk57

MrEmoto said:


> Where are you finding the 3D blu-ray of it? I see it on Amazon in Italy, Germany, and Spain, but not the US nor the UK.


I would get an import, I just wanted to see if it's worth it. I've got a region free player.

I never saw it in theaters so wanted 3D feedback from actual enthusiasts and not just haters.


----------



## Steve P.

I saw it in 3-D. It was an average conversion, nothing special, but not sub-par.


----------



## LeisureDave

Considering that one in the US can not purchase STAR WARS TLJ in 3D without importing, speaks volumes about the state of 3D 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

LeisureDave said:


> Considering that one in the US can not purchase STAR WARS TLJ in 3D without importing, speaks volumes about the state of 3D
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In the US anyway. Or I guess that region?

Because newer 3D titles seem to be more plentiful in other regions.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk


----------



## LeisureDave

aaronwt said:


> In the US anyway. Or I guess that region?
> 
> Because newer 3D titles seem to be more plentiful in other regions.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk




Do they make 3D TVs in Europe still? I assume the decline here is due to the abandoning of the technology. You literally can not buy a brand new 3D tv from a retail store in the US, in fact you haven’t been able to for over a year! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

LeisureDave said:


> Do they make 3D TVs in Europe still? I assume the decline here is due to the abandoning of the technology. You literally can not buy a brand new 3D tv from a retail store in the US, in fact you haven’t been able to for over a year!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You still can. I could get a Sony Z9D right now from BestBuy. But that 3D TV is a carry over from 2016. And it's not being made any more. But they seem to always have stock of the 65" and 75" in Best Buy. If the price would have been lower I would have loved to pick one up. Since the much lower cost TCL TV I got does not have 3D capability. And my last two sets with 3D capability are only a 47" passive LG HDTV and a 65" active Sony UHD TV. I certainly miss the 3D from my 82" Mitsubishi DLP I had. But I just did not have the room to keep it when I got the 65" TCL UHD TV.


----------



## tomtastic

Kano3D said:


> TLG offers 45 views, but Ultra-D still have multiple views of the images (and will improve) but in BIIIG sizes, so The Looking Glass is an small prototype of what Ultra-D and Leia screens will look in the future (long term).
> There are BOE screens everywhere, is on some Apple products. And now the big news...:
> 
> *Ultra-D to be integrated on BOE’s entire series of product lines*
> http://www.tridimensional.info/2018/12/ultra-d-to-be-integrated-on-boes-entire-series-of-product-lines/
> :grin:


I hope Ultra D is better than my experience with the Red Hydrogen One, the glasses free 3D screen from Leia. If you want the best 3D, don't expect glasses-free 3D to wow you. They will have to do much better than I've seen so far. Get a 3D screen now. Oled if you can find one, projector, the remaining Sony active displays, whatever you can find. Glasses-free just simply doesn't display 3D in the quality we have right now, it's very minimal 3D and can't show any effective pop out, just resulting in crosstalk.


----------



## danlshane

I never heard of BOE; it appears to be a Chinese brand, so its reach will be limited in the US. Certainly not enough exposure to prompt studios to take another look at 3-D in the home.


----------



## Worf

Well, 3d is really popular in Asia, enough so that China often gets special 3d releases. There may be little hope for us in North A,Erica, but maybe we just need to learn Chinese.

Also, Chinese production companies are starting to invest a lot in new movies so there is still hope for 3d home releases.


----------



## Kano3D

tomtastic said:


> I hope Ultra D is better than my experience with the Red Hydrogen One, the glasses free 3D screen from Leia. If you want the best 3D, don't expect glasses-free 3D to wow you. They will have to do much better than I've seen so far. Get a 3D screen now. Oled if you can find one, projector, the remaining Sony active displays, whatever you can find. Glasses-free just simply doesn't display 3D in the quality we have right now, it's very minimal 3D and can't show any effective pop out, just resulting in crosstalk.


- RH1 ghosting was problem of a bug, was solved in a update. Even I know that to holographic screen success there's need to avoid pop out effects (bye, bye windows violations. Bye, bye users making her terrible own images with things too near eyes). In movies 3D images are controlled and calculated. But if you allow users make their own holographic images, avoiding pop out no user will never complain about eye strains, even if they are terrible photographers. That's one problem 3D have, you can't expect people know how to do a 3D photo without hurting your eyes (the worse is if they know is 3D they will be put hands directly a few centimeters to camera, making unviewable images and after complaining that 3D is a shame), there are a lot of terrible photographers (even in 2d) and you can't explain is their fault, they will say 3D is the problem.



danlshane said:


> I never heard of BOE; it appears to be a Chinese brand, so its reach will be limited in the US. Certainly not enough exposure to prompt studios to take another look at 3-D in the home.


- BOE make screens for Apple. Yes, Is a Chinese brand... but like all other devices, even if are high end (iphones, high-end tvs, etc., except samsung, is corean...). BOE reach globally, maybe even you already have one or more BOE screens at home and you don't know it (Do you have an iPad?)



Worf said:


> Well, 3d is really popular in Asia, enough so that China often gets special 3d releases. There may be little hope for us in North A,Erica, but maybe we just need to learn Chinese.
> 
> Also, Chinese production companies are starting to invest a lot in new movies so there is still hope for 3d home releases.


- They produce everything in 3D, even TV commercials, concerts, etc. And they convert any movie in 3D; I have seen Mission Impossible 1 and 2 in perfect 3D on my ZTE Axon 7 Max (and for free), and in occident only the last Fallout movie was released in 3D, the entire saga is available, I'm watching the entire saga in 3D. Also all the Transformers saga (not only the titles released in 3D), and almost any big budget Hollywood movie is converted in 3D for Chinese market.

The RH1 is only the first prototype of the future (*you can't pretend to have the movie holograms floating directly on a room, there's need to start with this holographic screens with almost all image inside*). After this first generation (and it will greatly succeed at least in China) better holographic screens will appear and eventually we will have movie-like holograms floating around you on a distant future (don't expect that in only 5 years).


----------



## longhornsk57

Kano3D said:


> - RH1 ghosting was problem of a bug, was solved in a update. Even I know that to holographic screen success there's need to avoid pop out effects (bye, bye windows violations. Bye, bye users making her terrible own images with things too near eyes). In movies 3D images are controlled and calculated. But if you allow users make their own holographic images, avoiding pop out no user will never complain about eye strains, even if they are terrible photographers. That's one problem 3D have, you can't expect people know how to do a 3D photo without hurting your eyes (the worse is if they know is 3D they will be put hands directly a few centimeters to camera, making unviewable images and after complaining that 3D is a shame), there are a lot of terrible photographers (even in 2d) and you can't explain is their fault, they will say 3D is the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - BOE make screens for Apple. Yes, Is a Chinese brand... but like all other devices, even if are high end (iphones, high-end tvs, etc., except samsung, is corean...). BOE reach globally, maybe even you already have one or more BOE screens at home and you don't know it (Do you have an iPad?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - They produce everything in 3D, even TV commercials, concerts, etc. And they convert any movie in 3D; I have seen Mission Impossible 1 and 2 in perfect 3D on my ZTE Axon 7 Max (and for free), and in occident only the last Fallout movie was released in 3D, the entire saga is available, I'm watching the entire saga in 3D. Also all the Transformers saga (not only the titles released in 3D), and almost any big budget Hollywood movie is converted in 3D for Chinese market.
> 
> 
> 
> The RH1 is only the first prototype of the future (*you can't pretend to have the movie holograms floating directly on a room, there's need to start with this holographic screens with almost all image inside*). After this first generation (and it will greatly succeed at least in China) better holographic screens will appear and eventually we will have movie-like holograms floating around you on a distant future (don't expect that in only 5 years).


Where can i get my hands on these conversions?


----------



## tomtastic

Kano3D said:


> - *RH1 ghosting was problem of a bug, was solved in a update*. Even I know that to holographic screen success there's need to avoid pop out effects (bye, bye windows violations. Bye, bye users making her terrible own images with things too near eyes). In movies 3D images are controlled and calculated. But if you allow users make their own holographic images, avoiding pop out no user will never complain about eye strains, even if they are terrible photographers. That's one problem 3D have, you can't expect people know how to do a 3D photo without hurting your eyes (the worse is if they know is 3D they will be put hands directly a few centimeters to camera, making unviewable images and after complaining that 3D is a shame), there are a lot of terrible photographers (even in 2d) and you can't explain is their fault, they will say 3D is the problem.
> 
> 
> - BOE make screens for Apple. Yes, Is a Chinese brand... but like all other devices, even if are high end (iphones, high-end tvs, etc., except samsung, is corean...). BOE reach globally, maybe even you already have one or more BOE screens at home and you don't know it (Do you have an iPad?)
> 
> 
> 
> - They produce everything in 3D, even TV commercials, concerts, etc. And they convert any movie in 3D; I have seen Mission Impossible 1 and 2 in perfect 3D on my ZTE Axon 7 Max (and for free), and in occident only the last Fallout movie was released in 3D, the entire saga is available, I'm watching the entire saga in 3D. Also all the Transformers saga (not only the titles released in 3D), and almost any big budget Hollywood movie is converted in 3D for Chinese market.
> 
> The RH1 is only the first prototype of the future (*you can't pretend to have the movie holograms floating directly on a room, there's need to start with this holographic screens with almost all image inside*). After this first generation (and it will greatly succeed at least in China) better holographic screens will appear and eventually we will have movie-like holograms floating around you on a distant future (don't expect that in only 5 years).


Right, I had the phone fully updated and current and the problem was still there. It is NOT a bug, it is a limit of the 4 view screen. It can show 3D and at better viewing angles than what we've had before like lenticular but it is NOT a replacement for glasses 3D screens. 

Pop out 3D is part of the 3D depth plane and to claim it should be avoided for the sake of this limited product is ridiculous. It's not just the neg. parallax but also positive parallax that shows crosstalk. This is worse than most LCD displays that have varying degrees of success in low crosstalk performance. The RH1 would be considered much lower than those. This makes the 3D depth plane very small and layer-like, especially with the closely spaced onboard cameras. It's fine for closeups but that's really it. For shooting subjects 5-8 feet away, look like cardboard cutouts and it's flat at 8 feet.

As far as showing 3D in a limited way free of glasses, it's fine. But to use it for showing movies, no way. If they take this screen and simply make it larger it will fail to become anything more than a gimmick if it can't replace what we have already with glasses screens.

No one expected holograms despite their advertising claims. It is a glasses-free 3D screen, in some ways better than lenticular and in some ways worse. That's the truth after having it for about 10 days and shooting with it as well as displaying images from my Fuji W3 and Panasonic 3D1 and side by side 3D video I filmed.

They claim the RH1 screen is: Better than 3D. Well that's so far from the truth I don't know where to begin. They only thing it brings to the table that's new is it's glasses-free and better viewing angles than lenticular. If you're expecting a fantastic 3D image, look elsewhere. I'm finding most of my still images taken with 30-75mm stereo base actually resolve better on the 7 year old HTC Evo screen.


----------



## danlshane

I admire Kano3D's enthusiasm for new 3-D technology, but thus far any hope for glasses-free 3-D for extended periods in the home is still wishful thinking. Once it hits the stores and I can see that my HOUSE OF WAX Blu-ray looks as good as it does on my passive LG OLED TV, then I'll get excited.


----------



## tomtastic

I think if the bigger displays are anything like this, you have to keep your expectations low for glasses free 3D. I haven't seen the Ultra D panels but this isn't too impressive so far. It might be fine for a phone but for the price point it just isn't really worth it. I am impressed with the viewing angles and it does show 3D, but it's limited depth 3D.

Again, it's not a bug with crosstalk, it's just a limit of what the screen can show. To compensate you can arrange stills in 2 different formats and I tried both. The first method uses conversion and it will show my stills without crosstalk but then the conversion incorrectly aligns the edges and bends them so it's distorted, not good. The correct way is to bypass the onboard conversion and that shows it correctly but then crosstalk if there's any decent amount of pop out. So basically I can only show depth images. The HTC Evo, I have all of my mpo 3D stills loaded up now on it, just using that old phone as a 3D viewer for stills, but it also seems to handle side by side 3D mp4's fine too. Not every image can be displayed crosstalk free but I'm finding it actually can resolve images better with less crosstalk.

Hopefully the tech gets better, at this point I can't really see 3D returning in flat panels unless it's glasses free. But if they release it like this it will probably not wow anybody save that you don't need glasses. But to get the full effect of 3D, it just isn't going to replace what you have now. But maybe some day.


----------



## Worf

Well, the thing with glasses free 3d is it can be on all the time. When I was working with ultra D I had worked with it so long I forgot about the glasses thing - I just expected it. When I went to the theatre to see a movie I had wondered why they gave me glasses. I had forgotten completely about them because the screens just look natural - you look at the screen and see 3d instantly and don't question it or even realize that glasses ares till a thing.

It may not have the full "WOW" factor, but if it comes out people will rapidly forgo the glasses just to have a screen that appears completely natural. Like looking out a window.


----------



## 3DBob

Worf said:


> It may not have the full "WOW" factor, but if it comes out people will rapidly forgo the glasses just to have a screen that appears completely natural. Like looking out a window.


 However, if it's a poor implementation of it, news will travel fast, and people will avoid it. And from then on, it will have a bad reputation even when they get it right.


----------



## Kano3D

3DBob said:


> However, if it's a poor implementation of it, news will travel fast, and people will avoid it. And from then on, it will have a bad reputation even when they get it right.


Poor? Why? I think is absolutely amazing even without pop out, and plain people will like even for the liberty you have not needing glasses or to finding a perfect spot. I repeat, is a product for introduce depth for the masses, not for the few 3D enthusiasts like us. But that is a good notice for us even if you prefer extreme pop outs.

Speaking of the 3D content Hub is an App for the ZTE Axon 7 Max. There's also the K3DX and a new Samsung notebook (also glasses-free with eye sightment like the SuperD and Ivvy K5) bringing the same content as they share the same 3D Hub App. There's another hub with thousands of 3D titles bringing content to the SuperD D1, but maybe it extracts the content from the other. Here's reviews for some of this devices: http://www.tridimensional.info/tag/3d-smartphone/


----------



## Frank714

Here is some other (IMHO) sad 3D news.


As some of you may recall the IMAX program _Journey into space _was released by SHOUT! Factory as a UHD BD together with the corresponding 3D Blu-ray.


One of the last, great IMAX films produced by the Stephen Low Company had been _Aircraft Carrier: Guardian of the Seas _which I've been dying to see and it would appear SHOUT! listened to my request to be able to watch this IMAX film from a physical disc, alas the accompanying Blu-ray disc apparently is only 2D although the aircraft carrier footage had been shot in real 3D: http://www.stephenlow.com/project/aircraft-carrier/ 


UHD release scheduled for February, but probably no 3D Blu-ray: https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=312054


----------



## tomtastic

tomtastic said:


> Hidden Universe was 3D in theaters but IMAX is no longer releasing these on Blu ray 3D, only releasing in 4K and regular Blu ray combo.
> 
> The list of 3D IMAX titles not released on Blu ray 3D in recent times so far includes:
> 
> Hidden Universe
> Tornado Alley
> Great White Shark
> Antartica on the Edge
> A Beautiful Planet
> Journey to the South Pacific
> Titan's of the Ice Age
> 
> Possibly theses were not released on Blu ray 3D format because of Universal distribution in triple pack 4K/2D combo packs and not Shout Factory which handled the last 6 or so IMAX solo releases in 4K/3D/2D Blu ray individual release combos. Time will tell if they ever see a Blu ray 3D release but I'm guessing not.
> 
> The last IMAX features to be released on Blu ray 3D are National Parks Adventure and Dream Big. This appears to be the end of Blu ray 3D releases for IMAX.


Yeah, add Aircraft Carrier to the list. I would say they are no longer releasing on Blu ray 3D, last 2 came out in 2017, none since. Game over for IMAX Blu ray 3D. I have a few of the 4K versions with the 3D combo's but I've never bothered to view them.


----------



## Worf

Damn, I was hoping to see Aircraft Carrier in 3D. It never made it north of the border, or at least never to any of the local IMAX theatres. (It really sucked when the IMAX theatre shut down, it only showed IMAX movies. Now we only have IMAX screens and they usually only show theatricals, not the IMAX documentaries).


----------



## marcuslaw

The lack of a 3-D Blu-ray with the upcoming release of Aircraft Carrier is disappointing. I've written Shout! for an explanation but am sure to receive a boilerplate response from marketing. I'm afraid that leaves us with the post-converted scenes, pretty good too IMO, in Top Gun 3-D for stereoscopic images of an aircraft carrier.


----------



## Steve P.

I haven't seen it, but if the 3-D is as poorly implemented as on some of the other Shout Factory titles, it may not be much of a loss. A 40 min IMAX film with about 5 minutes of random 3-D scenes inserted into an otherwise 2-D film is not worth it and a cheat. Just a few years ago, we were getting excellent IMAX 3D movies, but some of those recent releases were terrible. I did like the Butterflies one, that was a welcome exception.


----------



## tomtastic

Well at least we have a rollable screen at CES! Because you know that will be so useful and what we've all been missing for years and years and now it's finally here.


----------



## MrEmoto

tomtastic said:


> Well at least we have a rollable screen at CES! Because you know that will be so useful and what we've all been missing for years and years and now it's finally here.


THANK GOODNESS THE WAIT IS FINALLY OVER!!!!! 

It wasn't 3D by any chance, was it?


----------



## tomtastic

—And smart toilets, which should prove to be more immersive than 3D with Atmos anyway.


----------



## Frank714

Steve P. said:


> I haven't seen it, but if the 3-D is as poorly implemented as on some of the other Shout Factory titles, it may not be much of a loss. A 40 min IMAX film with about 5 minutes of random 3-D scenes inserted into an otherwise 2-D film is not worth it and a cheat.



http://www.stephenlow.com/project/aircraft-carrier/


Quote: _Aircraft Carrier is captured in 15/70 motion picture film and ultra high-definition digital 3D. ... The onboard crew captured 3D scenes of intense flight activities including night launches and landings as well as POV shots from the cockpit of F-18 Super Hornet fighter jets in flight._

So no, it's not just "5 minutes of random 3-D scenes", the film choreography hinted in the official trailers reveals that much consideration had been devoted to 3D shooting and this was / is a unique once-in-a-lifetime-only opportunity to experience life aboard and around an actual aircraft carrier as 'close' as humanly possible (thanks to 3D).


As for the other 3D IMAX titles only released in 2D compiled by tomtastic (thanks) I'd argue that you'd find plenty of similiar or comparable program content from other content providers, but in the particular case of _Aircraft Carrier_ and to my knowledge this is the only 3D footage *ever* shot on an aircraft carrier and as such has priceless value for posterity and for the history of steroscopic records.


Therefore, I find SHOUT!'s decision not to enclose the corresponding Blu-ray in 3D along with the UHD BD - for lack of better word - immensely shortsighted and tragic. IMHO, this is an exceptional, head and shoulders above the rest documentary that would have deserved better.


----------



## boothman

I saw Aircraft Carrier in IMAX 3D and was very disappointed in the quailty of the picture especially after making a 2 hour drive to see it.


----------



## Frank714

Could you please elaborate what was disappointing about the "quality of the picture"? 


At least you were able to watch it on an IMAX screen and in 3D - you have no idea how much I do envy you.


----------



## Steve P.

Frank714 said:


> http://www.stephenlow.com/project/aircraft-carrier/
> 
> 
> Quote: _Aircraft Carrier is captured in 15/70 motion picture film and ultra high-definition digital 3D. ... The onboard crew captured 3D scenes of intense flight activities including night launches and landings as well as POV shots from the cockpit of F-18 Super Hornet fighter jets in flight._
> 
> So no, it's not just "5 minutes of random 3-D scenes", the film choreography hinted in the official trailers reveals that much consideration had been devoted to 3D shooting and this was / is a unique once-in-a-lifetime-only opportunity to experience life aboard and around an actual aircraft carrier as 'close' as humanly possible (thanks to 3D).
> 
> 
> As for the other 3D IMAX titles only released in 2D compiled by tomtastic (thanks) I'd argue that you'd find plenty of similiar or comparable program content from other content providers, but in the particular case of _Aircraft Carrier_ and to my knowledge this is the only 3D footage *ever* shot on an aircraft carrier and as such has priceless value for posterity and for the history of steroscopic records.
> 
> 
> Therefore, I find SHOUT!'s decision not to enclose the corresponding Blu-ray in 3D along with the UHD BD - for lack of better word - immensely shortsighted and tragic. IMHO, this is an exceptional, head and shoulders above the rest documentary that would have deserved better.


I would agree, and will certainly not be purchasing a flattened out 2D only version. I'm glad to hear that there is reportedly more (and hopefully 100% 3-D content) in this IMAX title, but as I said, some other recent titles released by Shout (from Stephen Low) have been very underwhelming, mostly flat, with seemingly random 3-D shots inserted. This of course, is the fault of the filmmakers themselves. When someone pays for an Big Screen/IMAX 3D presentation, they should not get 90% 2-D footage, and unfortunately, that's they way it has gone with some of the more recent ones. 

If indeed AIRCRAFT CARRIER is a proper 3-D movie, then it is indeed a shame home viewers will be denied of it. However, until I see it or get confirmation, I'm afraid all I see in the press statement about how the film was shot is that "3D scenes were captured". Fool me once....


----------



## tomtastic

I've found nearly all of the IMAX titles really good content wise, I haven't found one that I didn't like so far. I would assume Aircraft Carrier would be the same. Now the 3D quality has varied on some especially those that are filmed with the big IMAX 15/70 camera. Yes, the image quality is fantastic, but is the 3D quality the best? Not always.

National Parks Adventure is a good example, they don't always use the 3D camera, only for a few choice scenes, the other scenes are shot in 2D and converted which just look flat and a 2D pushback so might as well just be 2D. But it's a large camera, loud and the lens spacing is fixed so the 3D effect is limited to its range where it's placed. It would be great if they had shot other scenes in 3D even if they weren't with the big camera but they're just 2D.

Aircraft, I haven't seen it so I can't say. It's certainly possible they shot some of it in 3D and some of it in 2D, given the locations. But what I can is that it was clearly intended for 3D and it's a shame that K2/Giant Screen didn't insist on a Blu ray 3D release. Having a 3D version isn't any different than having a film in its original aspect ratio. Would people not complain if they couldn't see a movie intended for 2.35, only in 1.33?

There are seven IMAX titles that have been released by Universal and only 2D, besides Aircraft Carrier. I thought it might be because Universal was handling the releases now for IMAX but since Shout Factory picked up this one and also no 3D, I don't think that's the case. It's probably a shift away from 3D for home entertainment because of manufacturing preference for 4K.


----------



## Frank714

marcuslaw said:


> I've written Shout! for an explanation but am sure to receive a boilerplate response from marketing.



Thank you! I just added my voice to yours and hope that my reasoning to provide us with the 3D Blu-ray for _that_ particular IMAX film is sound and somewhat convincing. 


I would appreciate if others could join our little 'petition', here is the link to SHOUT!s product page and at its end please feel free to add your voice to ours.  


https://www.shoutfactory.com/product/aircraft-carrier-guardian-of-the-seas?product_id=6993


(dang it, I want to experience the carrier and its jet fighters as close as it's technically possible)


----------



## Frank714

tomtastic said:


> Aircraft Carrier, I haven't seen it so I can't say. It's certainly possible they shot some of it in 3D and some of it in 2D, given the locations. But what I can is that it was clearly intended for 3D and it's a shame that K2/Giant Screen didn't insist on a Blu ray 3D release. Having a 3D version isn't any different than having a film in its original aspect ratio. Would people not complain if they couldn't see a movie intended for 2.35, only in 1.33?



Based on the trailers and the behind-the-scenes stills (revealing the native 3D camera) I'm pretty certain that all footage around and aboard the _USS Ronald Reagan_ is real 3D, including the CGI that takes us inside the carrier's structure. AFAIK K2 Communications does not have the distribution rights as for some time now they didn't list _Aircraft Carrier_ any longer in their program portfolio.


----------



## longhornsk57

Does anyone know if the house with a clock in the walls had a 3D theater release and possible BR release?


----------



## dew42

longhornsk57 said:


> Does anyone know if the house with a clock in the walls had a 3D theater release and possible BR release?


I'm guessing only the remastered THRILLER was in 3D. There is no mention, that I can find, that The House with a Clock in Its Walls was 3D other than The List of 3D Films on Wikipedia.



> SPECIAL PRESENTATION: For the first time ever, for one week only, experience Michael Jackson’s THRILLER in IMAX 3D. Playing ahead of showing of The House with a Clock in Its Walls, for one week only, September 20 – 27.


https://www.challengertlh.com/event/imax-the-house-with-a-clock-in-its-walls/


----------



## longhornsk57

I know but did they have 3D glasses only for that thriller intro then take them off during the movie?


----------



## aaronwt

longhornsk57 said:


> I know but did they have 3D glasses only for that thriller intro then take them off during the movie?


Yes. Well that is how it was at the AMC theater by me. My brother told me about it.


----------



## longhornsk57

Out of curiosity can you buy the thriller on 3D bluray?


----------



## marcuslaw

longhornsk57 said:


> Out of curiosity can you buy the thriller on 3D bluray?


Nope. Not a mention since its limited theatrical engagement in a few theaters playing before The House with a Clock in Its Walls.


----------



## Actionable Mango

longhornsk57 said:


> Out of curiosity can you buy the thriller on 3D bluray?


That was the plan, but I don't see it anywhere yet.

From Rolling Stone:

_"Although he is still working out specifics, the filmmaker *hopes to release the video...on Blu-ray and even in theaters*, according to the New York Daily News."

"It is going to reappear in a highly polished and three-dimensional way"​_


----------



## Frank714

Actionable Mango said:


> _"It is going to reappear in a highly polished and three-dimensional way"_​



That could also be the baseline for _Aircraft Carrier: Guardians of the Sea_. 


(Thanks for joining the discussion over at SHOUT!Factory's product page, a few more "We want the 3D Blu-ray" comments from others wouldn't harm...  ...the release is less than three weeks from now, but it's not yet available for pre-order at Amazon, maybe that's a good sign)


Regarding your question over at SHOUT!Factory I already checked Amazon UK, Australia, Japan, France and Germany.
Japan has listed a Blu-ray version only (from SHOUT), the others don't have it and I've already bugged Germany's EuroVideo because they released a lot of IMAX films in 3D in the past (including the 3D only Blu-ray of _Journey into Space_), but don't have it listed in their program preview up until the end of March (I don't even know whether a German dubbed version of _Aircraft Carrier_ does exist, could be a reason).


To my knowledge EuroVideo was the only provider worldwide to offer another Stephen Low Co. IMAX production - _Fighter Pilot_ - in 3D, but in contrast to _Aircraft Carrier _it was a 2D program converted to 3D.


----------



## Actionable Mango

Frank714 said:


> (Thanks for joining the discussion over at SHOUT!Factory's product page, a few more "We want the 3D Blu-ray" comments from others wouldn't harm...  ...the release is less than three weeks from now, but it's not yet available for pre-order at Amazon, maybe that's a good sign)


You're welcome. You might want to start a new thread about that. I didn't see your request initially because it's buried in this "Is 3D Dead?" topic thread.

In addition to the SHOUT website, you might also put the filmmaker's contact information there (http://www.aircraftcarrierfilm.com/contact-us.html). The filmmaker took all that extra time, expense, and work to make a 3D film, and all of that will be lost for home theater. I hope if we pressure them, they will then pressure SHOUT into a 3DBD release.

For crying out loud, the source material already exists in 3D.


----------



## Frank714

Actionable Mango said:


> In addition to the SHOUT website, you might also put the filmmaker's contact information there (http://www.aircraftcarrierfilm.com/contact-us.html). The filmmaker took all that extra time, expense, and work to make a 3D film, and all of that will be lost for home theater. I hope if we pressure them, they will then pressure SHOUT into a 3DBD release.


 
I'd been in touch with the Stephen Low Company since 2016 and just brought the issue to their attention two weeks ago but haven't heard back from them, yet. 


I keep my fingers crossed that "behind-the-scenes" they work on something with SHOUT to make their 3D accomplishments not go to waste.


----------



## Frank714

AIRCRAFT CARRIER was officially released yesterday. My preorder in Canada is slowly processed (expected delivery end of March!) and trying to order from Amazon USA (they had 6 copies "left", all gone today) they ultimately informed me they couldn't ship to Europe - WTF!  (although there are no longer regional code restrictions on UHD BDs, they now seem to collaborate with the content providers)


Some part in me is still hoping, that the 3D version of this IMAX film might be there in the shape of an Easter egg or the like. In case one of you ordered and can report that this is the case (fingers crossed!) please share this information with us (as I don't know when I'll be able to test my Blu-ray that comes along with the UHD BD).


----------



## 3DBob

Theaters use the Digital Cinema Package on a harddrive to show their movies. The bit rate is about 5 times higher than bluray: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package

However, it would be interesting if someone could get the original package and recode it to bluray and distribute it on Amazon for example. I have to assume that SHOUT has the conversion capability, which they must have used for the 2D version. Maybe we could initiate a Kickstarter program for it. I will give that a . But...stranger things have happened.


----------



## Frank714

Although_ Aircraft Carrier_ was supposedly released on February 5 (Amazon Canada is still packing my copy, can you believe that?), Amazon USA only had 6 copies on release day, then they offered more for the end of February (perhaps there still is hope for a 3D Blu-ray?) and last time I checked there was only one seller asking for twice the RRP.


They could have made that one into a limited edition as it certainly feels like it or added the 3D Blu-ray for a premium price (IMHO).


----------



## dfa973

To answer the title of this thread *"Is 3D about dead?": Yes, it is pretty dead!*

There is no escape from this, 3D for Home is really dead. In Cinema may linger for some time, due to huge install base, but for Home the format is dead, dead, dead.
- want to see some 3D at home in the year 2019? No actual 3D TV are made today, just discontinued models, LCD's or OLED's, if you found them for sale!
- did you not found any 3D TV's for sale in your country/area? You are stuck with 3D projectors and active glasses if you want 3D!
- have a 3D TV? Lucky you, pray that it does not fail! You will not found another one!
- you think that somehow the glassless 3D autostereoscopic TV will appear on the market soon? Just like they said in 2011, and 2012, and 2013, and 2014 and 2015 and 2016 and 2017 and 2018.... Yes, after 7-8 years, a 3D autostereoscopic TV is nowhere to be found!
- 3D Blu-ray's are becoming scarce;
- no major streaming service delivers 3D content, except Vudu;
- Movie studios do not release on 3D Blu-ray every 3D movie that was in the cinema!
- 3D is left behind, no 4K, HDR and WCG support for any kind of 3D video;
- 4K Blu-ray's have no usable 3D MVC extension;
- 8K Blu-ray's (2020-2021 - FVC/H.266) have only in theory 3D support, just like 4K BD's;


----------



## brazen1

Dead? Next up - Aquaman 2019 in 3D here at home.


----------



## dew42

dfa973 said:


> To answer the title of this thread *"Is 3D about dead?": Yes, it is pretty dead!*
> 
> There is no escape from this, 3D for Home is really dead. In Cinema may linger for some time, due to huge install base, but for Home the format is dead, dead, dead.
> - want to see some 3D at home in the year 2019? No actual 3D TV are made today, just discontinued models, LCD's or OLED's, if you found them for sale!
> - did you not found any 3D TV's for sale in your country/area? You are stuck with 3D projectors and active glasses if you want 3D!
> - have a 3D TV? Lucky you, pray that it does not fail! You will not found another one!
> - you think that somehow the glassless 3D autostereoscopic TV will appear on the market soon? Just like they said in 2011, and 2012, and 2013, and 2014 and 2015 and 2016 and 2017 and 2018.... Yes, after 7-8 years, a 3D autostereoscopic TV is nowhere to be found!
> - 3D Blu-ray's are becoming scarce;
> - no major streaming service delivers 3D content, except Vudu;
> - Movie studios do not release on 3D Blu-ray every 3D movie that was in the cinema!
> - 3D is left behind, no 4K, HDR and WCG support for any kind of 3D video;
> - 4K Blu-ray's have no usable 3D MVC extension;
> - 8K Blu-ray's (2020-2021 - FVC/H.266) have only in theory 3D support, just like 4K BD's;


Please don't worry about us diehard 3D fans.

All formats die. We're just here to enjoy it while it lasts.


----------



## tomtastic

3D has never been dead. Even if they stop selling new 3D hardware and content, 3D will still be enjoyed by those that have it. There's so much 3D hardware out there, it's not difficult to find used hardware. You can still buy HD DVD players, Laserdisc players and VHS players afterall. Shouldn't be hard to find a projector or TV for years to come.

And you can still buy a 3DTV new right now. BB still has Sony 65" and 75" 3DTV's online, and apparently these are not new old stock but made recently. As well as projectors with 3D. If I didn't already have a 65" OLED I would buy a new Sony Z9 3D screen.

Vudu _is_ a major 3D streaming service, there is also 3D crave tv.

Glasses-free 3D, was overhyped and too high expectations, myself included. Those that enjoy 3D don't mind the glasses so it's no loss. Those that don't like wearing glasses for 3D, I'm done trying to reason with anyone on that. They must not wear sunglasses either.

I have a 4K TV that's 3D also, but I do not buy 4K discs or HDR, doesn't interest me and it's overhyped. If they want to include that in the next 3D rollout, fine, not losing any sleep over it. 4K-8K viewing, what I've come to realize is that HD in good enough. I still buy regular Blu ray's and 3D. I do not buy Ultra HD discs and I don't know when I will. I still play DVD's, I even hooked up my Laserdisc player recently, have about 300 laserdiscs still. And HD DVD, have over 200 many which have now been released on Blu ray but I will not buy again except for the bad ones which I've replaced already. And some have been released on Ultra, I may get a a few at some point like 2001 or Blade Runner but no rush.

As for studios not releasing on Blu ray 3D, it makes sense from a financial standpoint on titles that don't make back their investment. That accounts for some titles MI: Fallout, no excuse. But something that I have been considering on that movie, there's a lot of fast action scenes, quick camera pans. 3D in 24fps is not as easy on the eyes as 2D with scenes like that. Might be better in 2D. I'd still like to judge for myself. Personally, the titles I miss the most are the IMAX titles that have not been released in 3D and also I wouldn't mind seeing Alpha in 3D. But so far, we're not talking about a lot of titles.


----------



## Seilerbird

Tomtastic nailed it. 3D will never die. It has been declared dead many times in the past and they were always wrong. I don't mind the glasses. I wear clip on sun glasses every time I go out doors so putting on a pair of clip on 3D glasses is no big deal at all.


----------



## krauley

Go look at the prices of 3d bluray vs 4k or standard bluray movies right now, its not dead but they are trying to beat it to death. Unless you find sale prices, some of the older movies are still the same price or even more sometimes than at release. I have my 2016 oled and my older lg LM7200 for if the oled dies. hopefully it never will. Im trying to build a collection but i refuse to pay ridiculous prices and im only buying movies that i will watch more than once. 

Yeah 3d isnt dead but its not going to get any better from here on out.....


----------



## 3DBob

I read a while go on a foreign website, that US 3D blurays are disappearing because they think people in the US buy the 3D bluray only, instead of going to the movies AND buying the bluray. Whereas in other countries, people tend to go to the movies and buy the 3D blurays. I have to admit, I'm one of those that rarely goes to the theater these days. Just don't see the point, but I really wished I'd seen Mission Impossible in 3D at the movies now.


----------



## aaronwt

I saw Alita Battle Angel in Dolby 3D last night. Dolby 3D was the best theatrical 3d presentation I have seen over that last eleven years or so.. Easily better than IMAX 3D and Real 3D.

Sent from my Tab S 10.5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sacramentojoe

tomtastic said:


> 3D has never been dead. Even if they stop selling new 3D hardware and content, 3D will still be enjoyed by those that have it. There's so much 3D hardware out there, it's not difficult to find used hardware. You can still buy HD DVD players, Laserdisc players and VHS players afterall. Shouldn't be hard to find a projector or TV for years to come.
> 
> And you can still buy a 3DTV new right now. BB still has Sony 65" and 75" 3DTV's online, and apparently these are not new old stock but made recently. As well as projectors with 3D. If I didn't already have a 65" OLED I would buy a new Sony Z9 3D screen.
> 
> Vudu _is_ a major 3D streaming service, there is also 3D crave tv.
> 
> Glasses-free 3D, was overhyped and too high expectations, myself included. Those that enjoy 3D don't mind the glasses so it's no loss. Those that don't like wearing glasses for 3D, I'm done trying to reason with anyone on that. They must not wear sunglasses either.
> 
> I have a 4K TV that's 3D also, but I do not buy 4K discs or HDR, doesn't interest me and it's overhyped. If they want to include that in the next 3D rollout, fine, not losing any sleep over it. 4K-8K viewing, what I've come to realize is that HD in good enough. I still buy regular Blu ray's and 3D. I do not buy Ultra HD discs and I don't know when I will. I still play DVD's, I even hooked up my Laserdisc player recently, have about 300 laserdiscs still. And HD DVD, have over 200 many which have now been released on Blu ray but I will not buy again except for the bad ones which I've replaced already. And some have been released on Ultra, I may get a a few at some point like 2001 or Blade Runner but no rush.
> 
> As for studios not releasing on Blu ray 3D, it makes sense from a financial standpoint on titles that don't make back their investment. That accounts for some titles MI: Fallout, no excuse. But something that I have been considering on that movie, there's a lot of fast action scenes, quick camera pans. 3D in 24fps is not as easy on the eyes as 2D with scenes like that. Might be better in 2D. I'd still like to judge for myself. Personally, the titles I miss the most are the IMAX titles that have not been released in 3D and also I wouldn't mind seeing Alpha in 3D. But so far, we're not talking about a lot of titles.


RE: Z9D still being made. Source on this? I've been back and forth on this. I opted not to get a 77G6P for 10K recently, because half of me feels 10K debt is too much for me to take on. But other half regrets it (no more to be found at this time)
Z9D seems like a good alternative, and I could use by BB card for 0% financing. Part of me says not to take on this debt load, but part of me is concerned I'll wait too long and it'll be gone. Any insight as to future availability of 75Z9D?
Would replace PN64D8000.
I actually do buy 4K, even though don't yet have a 4K set. Not that I think the extra pixels does anything, but HDR looks better to me.



3DBob said:


> I read a while go on a foreign website, that US 3D blurays are disappearing because they think people in the US buy the 3D bluray only, instead of going to the movies AND buying the bluray. Whereas in other countries, people tend to go to the movies and buy the 3D blurays. I have to admit, I'm one of those that rarely goes to the theater these days. Just don't see the point, but I really wished I'd seen Mission Impossible in 3D at the movies now.


I still operate based off my interest. MI6 I wanted to see in theaters, did. Aquaman wasn't so much invested in, but bought the 3D Preorder. If it wasn't in 3D, would hold off on buying.


----------



## locutus2k

tomtastic said:


> 3D has never been dead. Even if they stop selling new 3D hardware and content, 3D will still be enjoyed by those that have it. There's so much 3D hardware out there, it's not difficult to find used hardware. You can still buy HD DVD players, Laserdisc players and VHS players afterall. Shouldn't be hard to find a projector or TV for years to come.


Most projector supports active 3D and there are no plans they will stop doing it. If someone's short on money and want the BEST 3D at home he could get, an used previous gen Jvc projector will be a good deal. The only downside is that you will regret for all the time lost in watching 3D on a simple tv. 
I'm a huge 3D fan, one of the best memories i have is seeing as a kid The Michael Jackson 3D short by FF Copola in Disney park. That was a blast! When i've had the opportunity to recreate at home that 3D setup it was like a dream to me. I'm grabbing all the 3D discs i can find all over the world and will treasure them.


----------



## dfa973

tomtastic said:


> 3D has never been dead.


We are not talking about the 3D at cinema.

*At home*, 3D was never a very popular thing, until 2010, when the first 3D Blu-ray disc (Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs) was released. At that moment, many manufacturers of TV's began to market 3D TV's and 3D players, with active or passive glasses.
Before that, we had only anaglyph 3D, using red/cyan glasses, on Laserdiscs, DVD's and even Blu-ray's.
After 2010, the 3D craze has begun, only to fizzle around 2015-2016. At that moment, the market forgot the 3D "keyword". No new 3D products, no brags about 3D, no nothing!

As the history unfolds, even with true 3D Blu-ray's and 3D TV's, the 3D at home has never captured a big chunk of the market. With no sizable market, 3D at home had no chance!
Now we are left with:
1. Very few means to display 3D at home;
2. Blu-ray players manufacturers leave the market (Oppo in 2018, Samsung in 2019);
3. Blu-ray discs in 3D are fewer and fewer each year;
4. Streaming is the future, but streaming is 99% 2D only;

So, at home, we had a crappy 3D before the 2010 (anaglyph), a very good 3D with the advent of 3D Blu-ray after 2010, only to see now that the market leaves the 3D at home in the dust, year by year.

If this does not mean dead, I don't know what to tell...



tomtastic said:


> Even if they stop selling new 3D hardware and content, 3D will still be enjoyed by those that have it. There's so much 3D hardware out there, it's not difficult to find used hardware. You can still buy HD DVD players, Laserdisc players and VHS players afterall. Shouldn't be hard to find a projector or TV for years to come.


True, but for the future, without 3D displays the 3D at home will disappear in 5 years. 10 years from now we will search for 3D Blu-ray's at the garage sales..., because no studio will release new 3D Blu-ray's by then...



tomtastic said:


> Vudu _is_ a major 3D streaming service, there is also 3D crave tv.


How long do you think the 3D library will be maintained? 5 years? 10 years? 




tomtastic said:


> I have a 4K TV that's 3D also, but I do not buy 4K discs or HDR, doesn't interest me and it's overhyped. If they want to include that in the next 3D rollout, fine, not losing any sleep over it. 4K-8K viewing, what I've come to realize is that HD in good enough. I still buy regular Blu ray's and 3D. I do not buy Ultra HD discs and I don't know when I will. I still play DVD's, I even hooked up my Laserdisc player recently, have about 300 laserdiscs still. And HD DVD, have over 200 many which have now been released on Blu ray but I will not buy again except for the bad ones which I've replaced already. And some have been released on Ultra, I may get a a few at some point like 2001 or Blade Runner but no rush.


The fact that 3D was not even implemented for the 4K UHD Blu-ray disc tells us that the 3D for home has no future.
In the same situation is also the future 8K UHD Blu-ray disc, no usable 3D extension...



tomtastic said:


> As for studios not releasing on Blu ray 3D, it makes sense from a financial standpoint on titles that don't make back their investment. That accounts for some titles MI: Fallout, no excuse. But something that I have been considering on that movie, there's a lot of fast action scenes, quick camera pans. 3D in 24fps is not as easy on the eyes as 2D with scenes like that. Might be better in 2D. I'd still like to judge for myself. Personally, the titles I miss the most are the IMAX titles that have not been released in 3D and also I wouldn't mind seeing Alpha in 3D. But so far, we're not talking about a lot of titles.


Not a lot of titles NOW, but as time goes on, fewer and fewer titles will have a 3D release...


----------



## dfa973

locutus2k said:


> Most projector supports active 3D and there are no plans they will stop doing it. If someone's short on money and want the BEST 3D at home he could get, an used previous gen Jvc projector will be a good deal.


Very few homes have projectors instead of TV's, and even fewer use that projector to view 3D on it...
So... ,without a 3D TV, the 3D at home market is dead as far as the usual consumer is concerned...

*And, the usual consumer is not concerned about the 3D at home, at all!!!!*


----------



## locutus2k

dfa973 said:


> Very few homes have projectors instead of TV's, and even fewer use that projector to view 3D on it...
> So... ,without a 3D TV, the 3D at home market is dead as far as the usual consumer is concerned...
> 
> *And, the usual consumer is not concerned about the 3D at home, at all!!!!*


That is right if we're talking about "mass market", i was saying that if someone's really interested in watching good/exceptional quality 3D at home there will always be the option of 3D projection instead of 3D tv. Maybe this will not resurrect the dying 3D but the point is that 3D support for home projectors is alive and there are no plans to killing it in the near future. No need to hunt the last 3D oled panel out there, pay less and have more with any 3D projector you can easily find in production or used. No need to get rid of your 3D bluray collection or be scared that your 3D panel will fail ...


----------



## dfa973

locutus2k said:


> That is right if we're talking about "mass market", i was saying that if someone's really interested in watching good/exceptional quality 3D at home there will always be the option of 3D projection instead of 3D tv.


The whole point is that there are very few people "really interested in watching good/exceptional quality 3D at home", to use your own words.
Not enough people = no 3D displays.



locutus2k said:


> Maybe this will not resurrect the dying 3D but the point is that 3D support for home projectors is alive and there are no plans to killing it in the near future. No need to hunt the last 3D oled panel out there, pay less and have more with any 3D projector you can easily find in production or used. No need to get rid of your 3D bluray collection or be scared that your 3D panel will fail ...


The lack of 3D TV's will shrink the market for 3D content (disc and streaming...), and from that point, the fact that you can use a 3D projector instead of an 3D TV becomes a moot point.


----------



## locutus2k

Of course i'm talkin as a 3D die hard fan for 3D die hard fans. On a commercial base 3D is (almost) dead.


----------



## marcuslaw

Good read on the proper use of 3-D for "combining stereoscopy and advanced visual effects to meet both narrative and aesthetic future-facing aims." 

Alita: Battle Angel by Miriam Ross

https://miriamruthross.wordpress.com/2019/02/19/alita-battle-angel/


----------



## Frank714

locutus2k said:


> Most projector supports active 3D and there are no plans they will stop doing it.



Yes, the latest Sony projector catalog even highlighted "3D World" as a feature, but in the DLP front projector department I consider the 3D support (after vocal consumer complaints here and elsewhere) somewhat lackluster (i.e. only DLP Link support but no RF VESA 3D).


IMHO we did reach a 3D peak summit with the last improvements in technology we had come to cherish (TBPH I never thought in the early 2000's that we'd be able to recreate the then exclusive IMAX 3D experience within less than a decade!).


It may be dead for the mass market but from a stereoscopic collector's point of view (which had been and always will be my attitude) we got to a state-of-the-art level and program content availability with the potential of keeping many of us happy for years to come (I can already see my grandchildren asking for 3D movie experiences...).  


Used to be an avid LaserDisc collector and that turned out to be a dead end with the arrival of the DVD in 1997. I'm pretty confident that with my 3D Blu-rays that's going to be somewhat different...


----------



## krauley

3DBob said:


> I read a while go on a foreign website, that US 3D blurays are disappearing because they think people in the US buy the 3D bluray only, instead of going to the movies AND buying the bluray. Whereas in other countries, people tend to go to the movies and buy the 3D blurays. I have to admit, I'm one of those that rarely goes to the theater these days. Just don't see the point, but I really wished I'd seen Mission Impossible in 3D at the movies now.


The last 4 or 5 times i went to a theater to watch a movie some idiot(s) stayed on their phone throughout the movie. No matter how i tried to ignore it, the light was a major distraction. One of the times the person sat a few rows directly in front of me and i got so frustrated that i screamed "I didnt pay my $(whatever the imax 3d cost) to see your phone". Thats not normally how i roll but i was hot. After the movie i kept expecting someone to confront me but never did. Its been a couple of years now since we been to the theater because i can buy most blurays and all the popcorn and snacks a hell of a lot cheaper and still have extra cash but i do miss the big screen on some movies.


----------



## AVS Commenter

They need to improve 3D. I saw Lego movie 2 in 3D recently and the 3D sucked. Besides a brief scene or two, it adds nothing. Until they improve the tech, I'm done with it.


----------



## tomtastic

dfa973 said:


> We are not talking about the 3D at cinema.
> 
> *At home*, 3D was never a very popular thing, until 2010, when the first 3D Blu-ray disc (Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs) was released. At that moment, many manufacturers of TV's began to market 3D TV's and 3D players, with active or passive glasses.
> Before that, we had only anaglyph 3D, using red/cyan glasses, on Laserdiscs, DVD's and even Blu-ray's.
> After 2010, the 3D craze has begun, only to fizzle around 2015-2016. At that moment, the market forgot the 3D "keyword". No new 3D products, no brags about 3D, no nothing!
> 
> As the history unfolds, even with true 3D Blu-ray's and 3D TV's, the 3D at home has never captured a big chunk of the market. With no sizable market, 3D at home had no chance!
> Now we are left with:
> 1. Very few means to display 3D at home;
> 2. Blu-ray players manufacturers leave the market (Oppo in 2018, Samsung in 2019);
> 3. Blu-ray discs in 3D are fewer and fewer each year;
> 4. Streaming is the future, but streaming is 99% 2D only;
> 
> So, at home, we had a crappy 3D before the 2010 (anaglyph), a very good 3D with the advent of 3D Blu-ray after 2010, only to see now that the market leaves the 3D at home in the dust, year by year.
> 
> If this does not mean dead, I don't know what to tell...
> 
> 
> 
> True, but for the future, without 3D displays the 3D at home will disappear in 5 years. 10 years from now we will search for 3D Blu-ray's at the garage sales..., because no studio will release new 3D Blu-ray's by then...
> 
> 
> How long do you think the 3D library will be maintained? 5 years? 10 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that 3D was not even implemented for the 4K UHD Blu-ray disc tells us that the 3D for home has no future.
> In the same situation is also the future 8K UHD Blu-ray disc, no usable 3D extension...
> 
> 
> 
> Not a lot of titles NOW, but as time goes on, fewer and fewer titles will have a 3D release...


I was referring to 3D as a whole not just theater. 3D has never been big in home entertainment because Blu-ray 3D is the first universal format to come along that everyone can buy and view on different screens and projectors. Before that there were limited options, so this is really the first real home 3D era. Along with that home theaters were not a big thing pre DVD era or even movie collecting. A much smaller percentage collected movies then, let alone any 3D titles which there weren't too many formats or titles. In the 80's there were a select few 3D titles on VHD from Victor (field sequential), and not very many on laserdisc either and even more obscure titles, that's not going to set any market for 3D. DVD's only ever offered anaglyph, yuck! So 3D in the home being popular never applied until now 2010-pres.

I'm not sure why 3D is supposed to "capture a big chunk of the market". That was an unrealistic expectation set by the Avatar effect. Everything was going to be in 3D. 3D TV's, 3D movies, 3D sports, 3D video games, 3D broadcasting, 3D phones, 3D, 3D, 3D.

I like things now better than when this current 3D bubble emerged up until last few years. 3D got a lot of people upset it was taking over their theaters and paying more for a screen for a feature they didn't want. They can now relax and complain about something else finally. 

3D is still around and kicking, just finished up a 2019 3D movie list and so far 30 titles or more (subject to change of course) so a BIG year for 3D probably biggest since 2015. Star Wars Episode IX, Avengers, Spider-Man, Terminator sequel, many more, plus another Ang Lee film in 4K 3D HFR (yes, sort of pointless since we don't have HFR at home).

The lack of 3D on Ultra HD discs. A lot of misunderstanding here. The lack of MVC on this format doesn't mean anything really. Ultra HD is a niche format so is Blu ray 3D. Buying _physical media_ of any type is niche any more with streaming. Sony didn't even include a Ultra HD player in their PS4, —still! To this day, their own format they don't have a built in player and they were last to the table in releasing a stand alone 4K player too. Where's the backing of their own format?

Let's look at the material that would be Ultra HD 3D. There were and still aren't screens that could handle 4K 3D, only half 4K/eye like LG. Then software, there are only a few software options to produce official Blu ray 3D discs and none of the them offered MVC rendering at 4K resolutions. Yes, if the demand afforded it, they would produce the addition for that, but lack of hardware = no support. The same for HFR, current displays don't support 120fps or 48fps in 3D or 2D. They're not going to add that to the niche Ultra HD format without hardware backend support.

What do theaters support? 4K 3D? No only 2K, accept maybe those rare instances of Ang Lee films. Adding 4K MVC to Ultra HD is like putting the cart before the horse. Manufacturers have to be on the same page and so do the studios in what they're going to offer. When Blu ray 3D came out, we already had 1080p established for a few years on a physical format and hardware was already in place to support the media. Adding 3D to Blu ray was feasible then as Blu ray was readily established. I can't say the same for Ultra HD with so many moving away from physical media altogether. Personally, when I film something whether it's in 2D or 3D, I almost never put it on disc. Granted it's not for commercial use, but if I want to share, I just put it on YT. Rarely do I output to disc any more, only special projects.

The lack of 3D on Ultra HD, the specs were rolled out in 2015-ish as I recall, at that time there were still 3 manufacturers releasing 3D screens, not including projectors. None of them supported 3D at 4K resolution/eye. Not to mention it was the first release of Ultra HD. I'm not sure where 4K 3D would fit in there. You'd have to have manufacturers ready to build 4K 3D capable displays and then the studios would have to be on board to deliver 4K 3D discs, again without the software to do it. 

If 4K3D happens, it won't happen that fast. First Ultra HD has to be established and work out all the standards a few years at least. Then develop the software to render MVC onto blu ray, which Sony has ended support for Do Studio so that's a big ? there. As far as advancement of Blu ray 3D right now, it's basically dead in the water. But I wouldn't expect it back in 2015 nor would I expect it before 2020 or even 2021. 

You have Blu ray 3D in 1080p format and you have Ultra HD a 2D format. These aren't 2 directly competing formats yet everyone considers them as such because one is replacing the other at least in stores. The North American market has pretty much given up on Blu ray 3D. There are still a number of 3D fans here though, we just have to order from other regions. And the fact that the theaters are still showing 3D, they must be selling enough 3D tickets to keep those going.

There hasn't been a 3D title that didn't receive a Blu ray 3D that I thought: "Well that's it, they're done with 3D" Accept for MI: Fallout. Monster Trucks, MI: Fallout and Ben-hur. Two of those didn't perform well, MI no excuse but I'm not sure if it would be a good 3D movie either. The only one that half-way irks me is Alpha. Because it's live-action and looked interesting but it didn't perform great at box office either. There's usually a direct effect of box office performance and Blu ray 3D release or not. The animated movies, Hotel Transylvania 3, Ralph Breaks the Internet, not crying over those.

Anyway, 2019 is looking like the biggest year for 3D in at least the last 3 years. 2020 could be bigger with Avatar 2. Check out the 2019 3D schedule.


----------



## RagtopFE

I have been actively picking up 3D Blu-Ray titles over the last year or so. I was lucky to get my 3D capable Samsung in the spring of 2016 before that years new non-3D sets came out. Glad I did! I'm in for however long I can be.....


----------



## 3DBob

I think I know why MI Fallout 3D wasn't done. I have seen MI Fallout in 4K twice and both times, I was very irritated by the wide-screen images, but delighted by the IMAX full-screen intermingle images. Well, I watched all of the included special features and noted that the director said that he used film mostly and digital cameras where he needed that wouldn't support use of film. That instantly hit me as all of the normal wide-screen scenes were very grainy, limited gamma and hard to watch most of the time. I was thinking when watching the film the second time, that it would have been a waste in 3D because of the use of film would make it too unrealistic for 3D.


----------



## deano86

You know what I find to be really ironic?? That there are many people posting on this thread and providing their evidence that 3D is indeed dead while plenty others argue the opposite... as they should!... But the fact that this very thread was started over 5 years ago now is incredible!! .... maybe it truly wasn't/isn't dead? lol! Awesome!


----------



## jorgebetancourt

tomtastic said:


> I was referring to 3D as a whole not just theater. 3D has never been big in home entertainment because Blu-ray 3D is the first universal format to come along that everyone can buy and view on different screens and projectors. Before that there were limited options, so this is really the first real home 3D era. Along with that home theaters were not a big thing pre DVD era or even movie collecting. A much smaller percentage collected movies then, let alone any 3D titles which there weren't too many formats or titles. In the 80's there were a select few 3D titles on VHD from Victor (field sequential), and not very many on laserdisc either and even more obscure titles, that's not going to set any market for 3D. DVD's only ever offered anaglyph, yuck! So 3D in the home being popular never applied until now 2010-pres.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why 3D is supposed to "capture a big chunk of the market". That was an unrealistic expectation set by the Avatar effect. Everything was going to be in 3D. 3D TV's, 3D movies, 3D sports, 3D video games, 3D broadcasting, 3D phones, 3D, 3D, 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> I like things now better than when this current 3D bubble emerged up until last few years. 3D got a lot of people upset it was taking over their theaters and paying more for a screen for a feature they didn't want. They can now relax and complain about something else finally.
> 
> 
> 
> 3D is still around and kicking, just finished up a 2019 3D movie list and so far 30 titles or more (subject to change of course) so a BIG year for 3D probably biggest since 2015. Star Wars Episode IX, Avengers, Spider-Man, Terminator sequel, many more, plus another Ang Lee film in 4K 3D HFR (yes, sort of pointless since we don't have HFR at home).
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of 3D on Ultra HD discs. A lot of misunderstanding here. The lack of MVC on this format doesn't mean anything really. Ultra HD is a niche format so is Blu ray 3D. Buying _physical media_ of any type is niche any more with streaming. Sony didn't even include a Ultra HD player in their PS4, —still! To this day, their own format they don't have a built in player and they were last to the table in releasing a stand alone 4K player too. Where's the backing of their own format?
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the material that would be Ultra HD 3D. There were and still aren't screens that could handle 4K 3D, only half 4K/eye like LG. Then software, there are only a few software options to produce official Blu ray 3D discs and none of the them offered MVC rendering at 4K resolutions. Yes, if the demand afforded it, they would produce the addition for that, but lack of hardware = no support. The same for HFR, current displays don't support 120fps or 48fps in 3D or 2D. They're not going to add that to the niche Ultra HD format without hardware backend support.
> 
> 
> 
> What do theaters support? 4K 3D? No only 2K, accept maybe those rare instances of Ang Lee films. Adding 4K MVC to Ultra HD is like putting the cart before the horse. Manufacturers have to be on the same page and so do the studios in what they're going to offer. When Blu ray 3D came out, we already had 1080p established for a few years on a physical format and hardware was already in place to support the media. Adding 3D to Blu ray was feasible then as Blu ray was readily established. I can't say the same for Ultra HD with so many moving away from physical media altogether. Personally, when I film something whether it's in 2D or 3D, I almost never put it on disc. Granted it's not for commercial use, but if I want to share, I just put it on YT. Rarely do I output to disc any more, only special projects.
> 
> 
> 
> The lack of 3D on Ultra HD, the specs were rolled out in 2015-ish as I recall, at that time there were still 3 manufacturers releasing 3D screens, not including projectors. None of them supported 3D at 4K resolution/eye. Not to mention it was the first release of Ultra HD. I'm not sure where 4K 3D would fit in there. You'd have to have manufacturers ready to build 4K 3D capable displays and then the studios would have to be on board to deliver 4K 3D discs, again without the software to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> If 4K3D happens, it won't happen that fast. First Ultra HD has to be established and work out all the standards a few years at least. Then develop the software to render MVC onto blu ray, which Sony has ended support for Do Studio so that's a big ? there. As far as advancement of Blu ray 3D right now, it's basically dead in the water. But I wouldn't expect it back in 2015 nor would I expect it before 2020 or even 2021.
> 
> 
> 
> You have Blu ray 3D in 1080p format and you have Ultra HD a 2D format. These aren't 2 directly competing formats yet everyone considers them as such because one is replacing the other at least in stores. The North American market has pretty much given up on Blu ray 3D. There are still a number of 3D fans here though, we just have to order from other regions. And the fact that the theaters are still showing 3D, they must be selling enough 3D tickets to keep those going.
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a 3D title that didn't receive a Blu ray 3D that I thought: "Well that's it, they're done with 3D" Accept for MI: Fallout. Monster Trucks, MI: Fallout and Ben-hur. Two of those didn't perform well, MI no excuse but I'm not sure if it would be a good 3D movie either. The only one that half-way irks me is Alpha. Because it's live-action and looked interesting but it didn't perform great at box office either. There's usually a direct effect of box office performance and Blu ray 3D release or not. The animated movies, Hotel Transylvania 3, Ralph Breaks the Internet, not crying over those.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, 2019 is looking like the biggest year for 3D in at least the last 3 years. 2020 could be bigger with Avatar 2. Check out the 2019 3D schedule.


I think you've nailed it when you said not every movie needs to come out on Blu-ray 3D. Some movies are just plain terrible and won't do very well no matter what format you out..


Now you take a movie like Alita and that definitely needs to be put out on Blu-ray 3D..

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## 3DBob

deano86 said:


> You know what I find to be really ironic?? That there are many people posting on this thread and providing their evidence that 3D is indeed dead while plenty others argue the opposite... as they should!... But the fact that this very thread was started over 5 years ago now is incredible!! .... maybe it truly wasn't/isn't dead? lol! Awesome!


Overseas, Asia, Russia, China, Japan, Germany, etc., 3D is very strong in theaters at least. Forget about regular TV, though, that is dead as of 2016. Projectors are still 3D capable, but many 4K projectors don't support it, and it's dying for the future of 8k for sure. But it's a matter of perspective. 3D really only exists because of theatrical releases. Bluray 3D, is just a subset of the TV world, and THAT IS DYING, at least in the US. Why companies will go through the effort of creating a 3D blurays for other countries that clearly can be watched in the US, but don't sell it in the US, is really the question that needs to be solved. And if US watchers don't go to the theater and support 3D showings (theaters around Detroit area have few people in their 3D showings now, by the way-I've been to some showings that only had 5 or less people including me), it will die here...and I must say I rarely go to the theater now, anyway.


----------



## aaronwt

krauley said:


> The last 4 or 5 times i went to a theater to watch a movie some idiot(s) stayed on their phone throughout the movie. No matter how i tried to ignore it, the light was a major distraction. One of the times the person sat a few rows directly in front of me and i got so frustrated that i screamed "I didnt pay my $(whatever the imax 3d cost) to see your phone". Thats not normally how i roll but i was hot. After the movie i kept expecting someone to confront me but never did. Its been a couple of years now since we been to the theater because i can buy most blurays and all the popcorn and snacks a hell of a lot cheaper and still have extra cash but i do miss the big screen on some movies.


?? At AMC theaters you report it to management. The people get warned. You get a coupon to one or two free movies. You also get coupons for free popcorn and a drink. I've done this a couple of times. But typically there isn't an issue during a movie.

or at the Alamo theaters the people get one warning and then on the second they get thrown out without a refund.


----------



## krauley

aaronwt said:


> ?? At AMC theaters you report it to management. The people get warned. You get a coupon to one or two free movies. You also get coupons for free popcorn and a drink. I've done this a couple of times. But typically there isn't an issue during a movie.
> 
> or at the Alamo theaters the people get one warning and then on the second they get thrown out without a refund.


yes i could have bitched about it to the management but i would not leave the movie to do it and doing it after would not have fixed the problem aside from getting a pass to see others use there phones lol. its like a catch22 i guess, i just beefed up my home system and now just wait on the blurays unless a movie is really something i want to see on the big screen. Although i did want to see aquaman i chose to just preorder the bluray. I usually only go to imax and 3d movies which are a little more expensive and rarely do a weekend night movie to avoid the crowds, just happen to get lucky i guess :wink:


----------



## DavidK442

The demise of Bluray 3D has spurned me on to collect it.
I have had a 3D capable projector and glasses for about 4 years now, the BenQW1070.
My old Pioneer receiver won't pass the 3D signal so in the past I have routed around it and used the optical out on my PS3 for audio.
I really enjoyed 3D the few of times I took the effort, but the image was so dull on my low gain spandex screen that it detracted from the experience.
A year ago I got serious and mounted a pull down vinyl screen (1.0 gain) about 7 feet away from my main viewing seat and hooked in an HDMI splitter.
With the W1070 on full wide zoom I get a 100" diagonal image. The first 3D movie viewed on the dedicated screen was Coraline. Clear, bright, vibrant, 3-dimensional, simply WOW!!! I was hooked.
Since then I went on a purchasing spree and now have over 90 3D Bluray's. Mostly animation but also some top rated live action.
The hunt itself has been fun, looking for Ebay and Amazon deals, at home and in the UK. Zavvi.com started me off with a huge Disney sale last year and I snatched up every 3D version I could find, although I already owned the 2D Blurays. Thankfully Disney is mostly region free, except for Ratatouille. I have contemplated buying a region free Bluray player, but I need to stop just short of crazy.
I am currently hunting for a higher gain acoustically transparent screen material for my main display in hopes that I can go to the full 112" width and still have adequate brightness for 3D. A fresh projector bulb is waiting in its box to give the best chance of success.
Not happy that the home format is dying and even Disney is abandoning it, but ultimately looking forward to watching my collection for years to come.


----------



## DolbyVision

I saw a tweet today for AV tech guys which listed Dolby Vision 3D seminar. 
May be it was about 3D.


----------



## Frank714

deano86 said:


> You know what I find to be really ironic?? That there are many people posting on this thread and providing their evidence that 3D is indeed dead while plenty others argue the opposite... as they should!... But the fact that this very thread was started over 5 years ago now is incredible!! .... maybe it truly wasn't/isn't dead? lol! Awesome!


 
IMHO it's not dead and has never been, it's currently hibernating and will come back to life one way or the other, as it did repeatedly in past decades. 


Until recently I wasn't that much interested in the PlayStation Virtual Reality headset (the latest _Ace Combat 7_ changed that) but IIRC its designed to enable the user to have a 3D experience and besides games there's probably potential for other 3D programs as well (add to this that those 3D glasses are much bigger and heavier than those we use).


Strange that I haven't been able to find concise information whether you can use a 3D Blu-ray with your PS4 and the PSVR set to watch films in 3D. There may be quite some uncharted potential on behalf of 3D here...


----------



## dfa973

tomtastic said:


> I was referring to 3D as a whole not just theater. 3D has never been big in home entertainment because Blu-ray 3D is the first universal format to come along that everyone can buy and view on different screens and projectors. Before that there were limited options, so this is really the first real home 3D era.


The fact that 3D projections will linger in cinemas for many years does not mean that the 3D at home will survive that much!
*For us, it matters what will happen with 3D at home.*
3D movies are present in cinema from the '50s (and even earlier...) and with some exceptions (like the '60s and '70s who had very few 3D movies) 3D movies were made in every decade from that moment.
We had only 6-7 years of abundant 3D displays, and now 3D at home is in "surviving mode".
With the Blu-ray disc players market dwindling every ear, and with the fact that the streaming services that will replace the disc players offer mostly 2D content, there will be a time when studios will ponder if there is a reason to release 3D Blu-rays anymore....


----------



## tomtastic

But what is the evidence that suggests Blu ray 3D releases are dwindling? The 12 titles so far in the last 6 years? That averages to just 2 movies/year many of which are box office bombs or disappointments. Only 4 titles in 6 years that were successes didn't receive a Blu ray 3D.

What will determine the lifespan of Blu ray 3D will be disc sales. Since most Blu ray 3D releases are released overseas now and in limited numbers worldwide, they can guarantee selling out a certain number of titles. It's sort of like Netflix. They are still profitable running their DVD by mail service.

The Colony (2013)
Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast unknown budget limited theatrical release (2014) Available on Vudu only.
Fast And Furious 7 (2015)
Ben-Hur (2016)
Pete's Dragon (2016)
Monster Trucks (2017)
Mission Impossible: Fallout (2018)
Hotel Transylvania 3 (2018)
Alpha (2018)
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018)
Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)
A Wrinkle in Time (2018)


Scale:
Green = box office success
yellow = moderate
orange = low performer
red = bomb


----------



## 2ndvizio

tomtastic said:


> But what is the evidence that suggests Blu ray 3D releases are dwindling? The 12 titles so far in the last 6 years? That averages to just 2 movies/year many of which are box office bombs or disappointments. Only 4 titles in 6 years that were successes didn't receive a Blu ray 3D.
> 
> What will determine the lifespan of Blu ray 3D will be disc sales. Since most Blu ray 3D releases are released overseas now and in limited numbers worldwide, they can guarantee selling out a certain number of titles. It's sort of like Netflix. They are still profitable running their DVD by mail service.
> 
> The Colony (2013)
> Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast unknown budget limited theatrical release (2014) Available on Vudu only.
> Fast And Furious 7 (2015)
> Ben-Hur (2016)
> Pete's Dragon (2016)
> Monster Trucks (2017)
> Mission Impossible: Fallout (2018)
> Hotel Transylvania 3 (2018)
> Alpha (2018)
> The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018)
> Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)
> A Wrinkle in Time (2018)
> 
> 
> Scale:
> Green = box office success
> yellow = moderate
> orange = low performer
> red = bomb


That is six missing 3d blurays in the last year that I could have purchased and enjoyed. Going from one to two per year not released to six is not a good trend.

Besides new releases, I think older releases are harder to find so I've been on a buying binge, trying to grab what I can before they disappear for good. 

Hopefully, I'm wrong and the 3d blurays keep coming, but I'm not sure so its better to get them now, ordered about 50 3d blurays in the last couple of weeks.


----------



## tomtastic

2ndvizio said:


> *That is six missing 3d blu rays in the last year* that I could have purchased and enjoyed. Going from one to two per year not released to six is not a good trend.
> 
> Besides new releases, I think older releases are harder to find so I've been on a buying binge, trying to grab what I can before they disappear for good.
> 
> Hopefully, I'm wrong and the 3d blurays keep coming, but I'm not sure so its better to get them now, ordered about 50 3d blurays in the last couple of weeks.


Yes, six in last year is not good but only 3 of which were successful. Disney is the biggest contributor to 3D releases with Disney Studios, Marvel, Pixar and now 20th Fox. What happens with Frozen 2 and Star Wars IX will be a BIG tell, before that Dumbo and Aladdin should give us an idea what Disney is going to do with 3D at least on Disney Studios movies, hopefully still releasing in other regions, if not and they are successful, then it's unlikely we'll get Frozen 2 or Star Wars IX on Blu ray 3D. We should have an idea of what to expect on 3D by end of 2019. If there's another 6 or more titles this year, then it's bad news for Blu ray 3D.

Of course Disney is moving to controlling their content worldwide, eliminating 3rd parties like Netflix and Blu ray cost money to distribute titles on, 3D is another added cost to produce so they could be eliminating Blu ray altogether. I've said it before, Disney could be the death blow to Blu ray 3D releases and 3D in theaters, since they have the largest stake in the movie industry. If they stop producing/distributing 3D that's more than half the theatrical releases of 3D films.


----------



## Mamasboy

So few non-avs forum people own 2D or 3D DVD players and streaming or cable/sat must account for 90% of all movie watch in the US which offer little to no 3D.

I don't think 3D is dead, it just is in a lull because the masses really don't have access to it in there homes anymore, once it comes to the streaming services as a regular option I think we will see lots of 3D TVs again.

BTW: I love Space movies like the OPs all time favorite movie 'Gravity' in 3D. Other non-space movies I prefer 2D. It works well with Pixar movies also, but those are more for kids.


----------



## 3DBob

Mamasboy said:


> So few non-avs forum people own 2D or 3D DVD players and streaming or cable/sat must account for 90% of all movie watch in the US which offer little to no 3D.
> 
> I don't think 3D is dead, it just is in a lull because the masses really don't have access to it in there homes anymore, once it comes to the streaming services as a regular option I think we will see lots of 3D TVs again.
> 
> BTW: I love Space movies like the OPs all time favorite movie 'Gravity' in 3D. Other non-space movies I prefer 2D. It works well with Pixar movies also, but those are more for kids.


 Funny you should mention Gravity, it's one of my favorite 3D movies. That said, I've had a few people watch it with me, and they all said, it was the most artificial looking space movie they had every seen and the 3D just made it worse. I was blown away by their negative comments. It just shows that not all people see 3D the same as we do..., and non-space movies I always prefer 3D...


----------



## Worf

Frank714 said:


> Strange that I haven't been able to find concise information whether you can use a 3D Blu-ray with your PS4 and the PSVR set to watch films in 3D. There may be quite some uncharted potential on behalf of 3D here...


You should be able to. Considering I bought a PSVR solely for this purpose when I heard it was possible. Other than that I have no interest in VR.


----------



## dfa973

tomtastic said:


> Only 4 titles in 6 years that were successes didn't receive a Blu ray 3D.


Not all the titles below did not get a 3D Blu-ray release!

The Colony (2013)
Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast (2014) - *3D Blu-ray available in Europe in April 2015, multilanguage dubbed, now is nowhere to be found...*
Fast And Furious 7 (2015)
Ben-Hur (2016) - *there was a 3D Blu-ray in Europe in January 2017, also in Mexic, now unavailable/sold out*
Pete's Dragon (2016)
Monster Trucks (2017)
Mission Impossible: Fallout (2018)
Hotel Transylvania 3 (2018)
Alpha (2018)
The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018)
Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)
A Wrinkle in Time (2018)

We can expect that in the years to come, 3D Blu-ray releases to become "optional" for a lot more titles that were 3D in the cinema!


----------



## impetigo

DavidK442 said:


> The demise of Bluray 3D has spurned me on to collect it.


Same here! I really only like HT 3D with animated titles due to the more natural look and brighter scenes which make it a better experience at home, where I mostly watch it on our 65" or 55" passive 3D capable Sony TVs with the kids. I have stopped watching non-animated 3D at home because I don't like how much darker it is (with already dark movies like Solo, etc.), the crosstalk with active 3D, and I watch non-animated movies mostly on the Epson PJ where it's not a great experience for the reasons mentioned. 

And yet... I keep wasting a lot of $$$ buying any 3D movie that I might possibly want to watch in 3D, although the reality is that I probably won't ever watch them in 2D let alone 3D! Most of them I end up buying from Amazon UK since they have a much better selection than here, and older 3D movies that I collected over the years when it was still viable in the US. Anyway, I feel silly doing it but it's the feeling that it's dying so I should get them while I can for the future novelty of it and the off chance that I may want to watch it in 3D someday as well as the collecting aspect of it.


----------



## DavidK442

impetigo said:


> I keep wasting a lot of $$$ buying any 3D movie that I might possibly want to watch in 3D, although the reality is that I probably won't ever watch them in 2D let alone 3D! Anyway, I feel silly doing it but it's the feeling that it's dying so I should get them while I can for the future novelty of it and the off chance that I may want to watch it in 3D someday as well as the collecting aspect of it.


Wasting money and being silly...my wife would definitely agree with you there. She commented the other day that I seem to have multiple copies of lots of movies. "Ummm...same title, but a different experience my dear." In addition to 3D, the growing population of 4K UHD upgrades in my movie drawers isn't helping.
As an example, I bought Disney's Monster University in 2D when it was released and thought it was mildly entertaining but likely not something I would watch again. Last week I read the review of the 3D version on Bluray.com (damn them) and now it is en-route to my mailbox. There are many others in my collection that would fall into the same category. I will however get around to watching them all and some of the best I have already watched multiple times.
I reflect on my large cd music collection which I just recently recycled and think to myself, "What the heck are you doing buying movies." Cheaper than collecting cars, women and bad habits I suppose.


----------



## Frank714

impetigo said:


> And yet... I keep wasting a lot of $$$ buying any 3D movie that I might possibly want to watch in 3D, although the reality is that I probably won't ever watch them in 2D let alone 3D!



How I know that feeling, although I'm mostly focusing on 'timeless' nature documentaries (and based on customer recommendations). These should keep me busy until the day I die (assuming the Blu-rays hold that long...).


I just remain frustrated that we'll now never see some IMAX films in 3D because that bird has flown. 


_Aircraft Carrier_ arrived today in the mail (finally!), anxious to check it out tonight although I better not expect that SHOUT!Factory somehow included the 3D version along with it.


----------



## DaveMcLain

krauley said:


> yes i could have bitched about it to the management but i would not leave the movie to do it and doing it after would not have fixed the problem aside from getting a pass to see others use there phones lol. its like a catch22 i guess, i just beefed up my home system and now just wait on the blurays unless a movie is really something i want to see on the big screen. Although i did want to see aquaman i chose to just preorder the bluray. I usually only go to imax and 3d movies which are a little more expensive and rarely do a weekend night movie to avoid the crowds, just happen to get lucky i guess :wink:


While it is illegal; having a pocket cell phone jammer in situations like this would be awesome.


----------



## krauley

DaveMcLain said:


> While it is illegal; having a pocket cell phone jammer in situations like this would be awesome.


Its good, like i said, i beefed up my home system and I feel it serves the function for me. If I start to feel left out I will get my teenage daughter to come watch something with me and bring her iphone lol


----------



## tomtastic

dfa973 said:


> Not all the titles below did not get a 3D Blu-ray release!
> 
> The Colony (2013)
> Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast (2014) - *3D Blu-ray available in Europe in April 2015, multilanguage dubbed, now is nowhere to be found...*
> Fast And Furious 7 (2015)
> Ben-Hur (2016) - *there was a 3D Blu-ray in Europe in January 2017, also in Mexic, now unavailable/sold out*
> Pete's Dragon (2016)
> Monster Trucks (2017)
> Mission Impossible: Fallout (2018)
> Hotel Transylvania 3 (2018)
> Alpha (2018)
> The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018)
> Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)
> A Wrinkle in Time (2018)
> 
> We can expect that in the years to come, 3D Blu-ray releases to become "optional" for a lot more titles that were 3D in the cinema!


There were never any releases on these on Blu ray 3D. (Ben-hur Finland), it was probably entered on Blu-ray.com by mistake, unless you can show an image or a copy for sale somewhere other than Blu-ray.com. Even if it was released, it stays on the list because it's a limited release in only one country.


----------



## Frank714

Received my copies of _Aircraft Carrier: Guardian of the Seas_ yesterday but the only surprise was a Dolby Atmos track for both the UHD BD and the BD, alas no 3D. 


Still a great IMAX film to watch (IMHO), I posted my review over at Amazon.com.


Strange to say but since the Chinese participated at the RIMPAC excercise and probably would love to see that program in 3D (but the narrator made it clear that the top speed of the _USS Ronald Reagan_ remains highly classified, LOL) I somewhat only see a chance for a Chinese Blu-ray of _Aircraft Carrier_ in 3D... (which I'd buy instantly)


----------



## MrEmoto

aaronwt said:


> ?? At AMC theaters you report it to management. The people get warned. You get a coupon to one or two free movies. You also get coupons for free popcorn and a drink. I've done this a couple of times. But typically there isn't an issue during a movie.
> 
> or at the Alamo theaters the people get one warning and then on the second they get thrown out without a refund.


I don't doubt you at all, but for me it ruins the experience. I set aside a block of time, spend all that money, and then have to deal with bad behavior. I don't want to be a policeman as I try to watch a film. Nobody is going to stop the film and back it up to where the phone-moron distracted me, nevermind shush the talkers who constantly either talk about what is onscreen or ask their friend to explain what they just saw, etc., etc. For me, the larger screen is just not worth it. Maybe more people are jerks where I live, I don't know, but I haven't gone to the movie theater in many years and have no plan of changing that. I will wait until I can buy the 3D disc and watch that. Although my set-up is not the absolute best in the world, it works really well for me and I thoroughly enjoy watching movies on it. Last night I started watching Thor Ragnarok (sp?) and was really blown away by the 3D in it. Really great.


----------



## Kenbar

The 3D door is closing from what I can tell. But for the moment...still enough to keep me reaching in my wallet. I have...




























on order...


----------



## Newuser2018

Kenbar said:


> The 3D door is closing from what I can tell. But for the moment...still enough to keep me reaching in my wallet. I have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on order...


May I know feedback about Jivaro 3D & Mortal engines 3D in terms of Pop-outs?
Are they any good?


----------



## Kenbar

Newuser2018 said:


> May I know feedback about Jivaro 3D & Mortal engines 3D in terms of Pop-outs?
> Are they any good?


On order, not in my grubby hands yet 


Lots of reviews will happen here as well as here...

https://forum.blu-ray.com/forumdisplay.php?f=134


----------



## Newuser2018

Kenbar said:


> On order, not in me grubby hands yet


Thanks. Pls keep us posted here so we know to buy or skip


----------



## Kenbar

Not on order yet, but will get Captain Marvel 3D if it comes out...


----------



## aaronwt

Kenbar said:


> Not on order yet, but will get Captain Marvel 3D if it comes out...


I would probably do the same thing. I was hoping for another Dolby 3D title in the theater around here. But I didn't see it for Captain Marvel. Alita Battle Angel looked superb in Dolby 3D. The best theatrical 3D I have seen. I will need to try and get it on 3D BD when the disc is released.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Tapatalk


----------



## nc88keyz

MrEmoto said:


> I don't doubt you at all, but for me it ruins the experience. I set aside a block of time, spend all that money, and then have to deal with bad behavior. I don't want to be a policeman as I try to watch a film. Nobody is going to stop the film and back it up to where the phone-moron distracted me, nevermind shush the talkers who constantly either talk about what is onscreen or ask their friend to explain what they just saw, etc., etc. For me, the larger screen is just not worth it. Maybe more people are jerks where I live, I don't know, but I haven't gone to the movie theater in many years and have no plan of changing that. I will wait until I can buy the 3D disc and watch that. Although my set-up is not the absolute best in the world, it works really well for me and I thoroughly enjoy watching movies on it. Last night I started watching Thor Ragnarok (sp?) and was really blown away by the 3D in it. Really great.


Ant-Man and the Wasp did it for me the other night as well. A treat. I am only dissapointed I waited as long to watch it after Infinity War

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## marcuslaw

Newuser2018 said:


> May I know feedback about Jivaro 3D & Mortal engines 3D in terms of Pop-outs?
> Are they any good?


Matt Hough over at HTF had this to say about Jivaro 3-D:



> 3D Rating: 5/5
> 
> The film has been framed at 1.66:1 for this video presentation and is offered in 1080p resolution using the MVC (3D)/AVC (2D) codec. Apart from a single white scratch, a bit of color fringing, and a dust speck here and there, this is another triumph for the 3-D Film Archive who has done a remarkable job cleaning the film and bringing it up to modern expectations (just look at the dirty, speck-filled trailer to realize how much work needed to be accomplished on this vintage film). Color is excellent throughout always matching and sometimes outpacing the beauties of the previous Sangaree and Inferno. Skin tones are particularly appealing. The movie has been divided into 10 chapters.
> 
> From the moment the opening credits appear many feet in front of the screen, you know you’re in for a tremendous good time with the 3D implementation. The cinematography emphasizes the differing viewing planes throughout (stock shots that aren’t in 3D are noticeable but not at all problematic), and there is no crosstalk whatsoever in this presentation.* Forward projections in addition to the main titles are plentiful, most notably a shrunken head that is thrust into our faces on two occasions but also including poles, bottles, vases, chairs, spears, and arrows that come hurtling toward the camera*. Depth in the studio sets is constantly enhanced by the use of 3D.


----------



## Steve P.

I saw JIVARO at the 2006 and 2013 World 3-D Expos, and it's an entertaining "lost city of the jungle" type film with excellent, deep photography and some fun off the screen gimmicks as well. Recommended.


----------



## tomtastic

Nvidia ending support for 3D with future updates, supported until April 2020.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/03/11/nvidia-ends-3d-vision-support/


----------



## dfa973

*Global 3D box office slump continues*



> “Global 3D box office was $6.7 billion in 2018, a decrease of 20 percent compared to 2017.
> 
> The decrease occurred across all regions.
> 
> The smallest decrease in percentage terms was in the Asia Pacific regions *(-14%)* where China’s 3D box office the prior year (2017) included the top box office film in Chinese history, and the largest was in the U.S./Canada *(-34%)* where 3D wide releases decreased 21% over 2017.
> 
> Global 3D box office was 16 percent of total box office in 2018,” the MPAA report said.




*Does 3D have a future?*

In 2016 and 2017, leading TV manufactures started phasing out 3D support in TVs. 3D-capable TVs have now completely vanished from the consumer market. Some studios continue to release 3D Blu-rays in HD resolution but few streaming services support the format.

A few Hollywood directors are trying to elevate the 3D experience by combining it with HFR (High Frame Rate). Director Ang Lee and Paramount are planning to release Gemini Man, starring Will Smith, in 3D/4K/60fps later this year. However, few movie theaters are equipped to screen 3D HFR. 

3D in the home is a closed chapter and the development over the last few years cast a dark shadow over 3D cinema. However, it is too early to declare 3D cinema dead. Can new technology revitalize the format? Can James Cameron?

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554281023


----------



## foxxiu

dfa973 said:


> *Global 3D box office slump continues*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Does 3D have a future?*
> 
> 
> 
> In 2016 and 2017, leading TV manufactures started phasing out 3D support in TVs. 3D-capable TVs have now completely vanished from the consumer market. Some studios continue to release 3D Blu-rays in HD resolution but few streaming services support the format.
> 
> 
> 
> A few Hollywood directors are trying to elevate the 3D experience by combining it with HFR (High Frame Rate). Director Ang Lee and Paramount are planning to release Gemini Man, starring Will Smith, in 3D/4K/60fps later this year. However, few movie theaters are equipped to screen 3D HFR.
> 
> 
> 
> 3D in the home is a closed chapter and the development over the last few years cast a dark shadow over 3D cinema. However, it is too early to declare 3D cinema dead. Can new technology revitalize the format? Can James Cameron?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1554281023


This all looks to me like a produced fact. 3D is declining because less people go watch 3D movies. Is it a fact? Not so simple answer.
My question is, how can I watch 3D movie if nearby cinema stopped offering it? So, all of sudden I just joined that declining crowd? No, I'm forced to join it by withdrawn choice!

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## dfa973

foxxiu said:


> This all looks to me like a produced fact. 3D is declining because less people go watch 3D movies. Is it a fact? Not so simple answer.
> My question is, how can I watch 3D movie if nearby cinema stopped offering it? So, all of sudden I just joined that declining crowd? No, I'm forced to join it by withdrawn choice!


You may be right, but let's not forget that a lot of people will NOT go to a 3D showing (for whatever reasons, real or not, objective or subjective) and prefer a 2D showing and this tendency is known to cinema chains, so the cinema chains adapted to this reality - thus more 2D showings in countries where 3D is not popular. There are still countries/regions where 3D showings are prevalent, and the 2D showings (of a 3D movie) are a minority.

But the global trend is inevitable, slowly, very slowly 3D will make way to 2D, and the future trend is 2D with 4K, EDR/HDR and some HFR sprinkled here and there...


----------



## Frank714

I think it's safe to say that 3D has become a niche market.


I'd also be interested to learn how the "3D demographics" have involved concerning the use of 3D flat screens in comparison to 3D front projectors which continue to provide 3D support (and noticably manufacturers re-introduced 3D support for DLP 4K front projectors that were lacking this feature at first).


On a global scale a niche market can survive and thrive and I think there's a possibility that especially holds true for 3D.


LaserDisc was a classic niche market in the 1990's, but in that particular case that niche market died when something easier to handle and store and with better overall quality arrived, i.e. the Digital Versatile Disc. 


I can't see anything on the horizon to replace current 3D Blu-rays. Program content providers charge premium prices for 3D Blu-rays and while streaming services give 3D a wide berth, 3D Blu-rays seem to remain one of the pillars that justify the physical media market for program content providers.


----------



## Seilerbird

I go over to my bass forum and there is a thread 'Is rock dead'. I come here and I find a thread 'Is 3d dead'. I have been hearing both formats are dead for the last 60 years and both are still alive and kicking.


----------



## aaronwt

Still alive but is it really kicking? 3D I mean.
More like it's foot is moving a little. 

Sent from my Nexus 7(32GB)


----------



## Steve P.

When 3-D was really dead, back in the 90's, I and many other 3-D fans had a large library of field sequential content to watch at home. Years before 3-D TVs were available, we found a way. By contrast, even it its current state, we are better off now than we were then. If we got nothing but upcoming 3-D Film Archive titles, of which there are many, I'd be content.

The glass is half full....


----------



## tomtastic

The biggest problem is the glasses for most. And not always that they just don't like to wear glasses (though some do strangely because they must not ever wear sunglasses) but it's an extra step one has to go thru over watching 2D. So after awhile, people don't like to bother. It's sort of a natural occurrence over time.

Imagine if you had to wear headphones to hear Dolby Atmos. It would be a hit right away perhaps if it was groundbreaking in that you had to use headphones to have Atmos sound, but after awhile people would stop going to the trouble of getting them out and passing them around, charging them, (or the tangled mess if they weren't wireless.) Without headphones, it means everyone can enjoy it without any extra steps. By now if headphones were required, Atmos would be in decline, instead it's no extra trouble or steps.

For 3D the only step forward is glasses-free but the tech is still awhile off. From what I've seen from Leia on their screen it's definitely plausible glasses-free can work, it's just a matter of how well. Will it replace the best glasses screens? Right now? No, it's more likely it won't for quite awhile but it might satisfy the casual 3D user. But the more I look at my Hydrogen One's screen, it does impress me still that this is without glasses after all.

2019 will be a bigger year than 2018 for movies and 3D. Avengers, Star Wars, Frozen 2, many others. Doesn't mean the 3D take will be any better, it will probably still decline. Enjoy it while you can, hopefully some glasses-free tech will work it's way out into the market in the next few years.


----------



## MrEmoto

Steve P. said:


> When 3-D was really dead, back in the 90's, I and many other 3-D fans had a large library of field sequential content to watch at home. Years before 3-D TVs were available, we found a way. By contrast, even it its current state, we are better off now than we were then. If we got nothing but upcoming 3-D Film Archive titles, of which there are many, I'd be content.
> 
> The glass is half full....



I think 3D is one of those things that periodically becomes irresistible to filmmakers. There will always be someone trying to make it happen. Periodically, someone will make it happen, if even only for a short time. 

This recent renaissance was the biggest yet. I hope that there is enough $ in 3D to keep the content coming, but I can't say for sure if there is. I have seen several TV ads for upcoming summer films that mention 3D so new content is in the works. Hope there will be 3D BR discs. Fingers crossed.


----------



## 3DBob

The trend towards dark 3D movies is on the rise, it seems. That can create the right moodiness in theaters, but on home 3D TVs and especially projectors, it creates another nail in the 3D coffin (ala latest Star Wars movies). That said, conversions are getting better and better, to the point, that shooting native 3D could be more expensive and a waste of effort, ala Cameron and Avatar sequels. I see some of the latest efforts have had a 3D consultant on task to give the director 3D perspective ideas. Cameron insisted, recently, that Alita: Battle Angel be seen in 3D, and yet only a few theaters offered it in 3D near me and only for a couple of days. Making money drives everything, 3D included. It's not a free offering to those who enjoy it, regardless of how wonderful it is.

As was said before, 3D isn't dying, it's evolving into VR. As that technology grows and becomes more commonplace, so will movies especially made for VR, and my guess is Netflix will be on the front burner for that.


----------



## tomtastic

3DBob said:


> As was said before, 3D isn't dying, it's evolving into VR. As that technology grows and becomes more commonplace, *so will movies especially made for VR*, and my guess is Netflix will be on the front burner for that.


I have my doubts because if people can't wear glasses to watch 3D, it will be even harder to get them to wear a headset. For movies, it's all about the theatrical run (though Netflix is changing the game a bit) where studios make their biggest take. At least in the theater, VR is really a home entertainment, so there's a problem there with getting hollywood to invest in the format. And they have to figure out a way to fit storytelling into a VR environment too and make it work. I think we're still a long ways from being able to do all that in VR.


----------



## MrEmoto

tomtastic said:


> I have my doubts because if people can't wear glasses to watch 3D, it will be even harder to get them to wear a headset. For movies, it's all about the theatrical run (though Netflix is changing the game a bit) where studios make their biggest take. At least in the theater, VR is really a home entertainment, so there's a problem there with getting hollywood to invest in the format. And they have to figure out a way to fit storytelling into a VR environment too and make it work. I think we're still a long ways from being able to do all that in VR.


I'm with you on this. I have no issue or problem wearing 3D glasses, but I will NOT put something over my head that completely eliminates my ability to see what is going on around me. Not going to happen.


----------



## danlshane

dfa973 said:


> You may be right, but let's not forget that a lot of people will NOT go to a 3D showing (for whatever reasons, real or not, objective or subjective) and prefer a 2D showing and this tendency is known to cinema chains, so the cinema chains adapted to this reality - thus more 2D showings in countries where 3D is not popular.


Let's see -- each 3D ticket costs several dollars more than a 2D showing and is usually scheduled for the wee hours. I wonder what effect that might have on how many average families would opt for 2D over 3D?


----------



## rfbrang

They trickle out titles, I keep buying. Aquaman this week.


----------



## MMoser

I just bought 2 Sony Z9D tv's before they are gone for good as they are some of the last good 3D tv's I could find. Also just bought some of the latest blu-ray releases in 3D from different countries in Europe. 

We are doing what we can to keep the stereoscopic dream alive while we can... but when you see major releases like the last Mission Impossible getting a 3D theatrical release and no blu-ray release anywhere we know our 3D days are numbered. We are holding our breath that Disney will offer this years theatrical 3D releases (Avengers, Lion King, Star Wars etc.) to 3D blu-ray.... I had to order Ralph Breaks the Internet from Japan as the looks to be the only region getting the 3D disc. It' pretty frustrating and not expensive to play in this sandbox, but still very worth it.


----------



## Deja Vu

MMoser said:


> I just bought 2 Sony Z9D tv's before they are gone for good as they are some of the last good 3D tv's I could find. Also just bought some of the latest blu-ray releases in 3D from different countries in Europe.
> 
> We are doing what we can to keep the stereoscopic dream alive while we can... but when you see major releases like the last Mission Impossible getting a 3D theatrical release and no blu-ray release anywhere we know our 3D days are numbered. We are holding our breath that Disney will offer this years theatrical 3D releases (Avengers, Lion King, Star Wars etc.) to 3D blu-ray.... I had to order Ralph Breaks the Internet from Japan as the looks to be the only region getting the 3D disc. It' pretty frustrating and not expensive to play in this sandbox, but still very worth it.


We're going to look like the guys who still replay their laser discs over and over again. 

I have two LG E6 OLEDS and nine 3D projectors (one is a laser projector) to last me until I expire. My wife will probably bury me with my 3D displays and kill two birds with one stone. 

Remember, 3D never really dies. It always comes back out of spite, just like the flu, to annoy those 3D haters, who often plague the threads here. I probably won"t be around for the next 3D revival but just the thought of how much its resurrection will aggravate some people puts a smile on my face.


----------



## Sacramentojoe

As mentioned a bit above, of course sales will decline if theaters don't offer it.

To the point of some people going out of their way to avoid 3D, I go out of my way to get 3D.

It baffles me that theaters decline the opportunity sometimes. The opening night fan events are perfect opportunities to force 3D upon people (because the biggest fans want to see it earliest no matter the format), and the upcoming Avengers: Endgame showings pass that up. Not to mention they don't even stick the fan events on the better screens (IMAX or XD). So I skip out on those showings.

I could've sworn Cinemark offered at least 1 XD 3D Showing of Infinity War opening night last year (though maybe I'm off on that), but a single 3D XD showing each day at 3 in the afternoon is all we get for Endgame. Similar story for Shazam, which is offered 3D XD noon each day.


----------



## Worf

Could be a Disney requirement - studios wield tremendous power over theatres, and Disney is famous for their conditions. Such as the movie will be shown in their largest auditoriums exclusively for a month, with the show schedule unchanging. Since theatres feel forcing the high end formats (3d and other) might not last a month they just put the 2d showing during peak periods, otherwise they risk an empty theatre.


----------



## NosajThing

I wouldn't say that is dead but pretty _dormant_ at the moment. I'm hoping for a comeback.


----------



## Frank714

dfa973 posted this in a parallel thread, but I think it belongs here as well - if not moreso.


_Why Did the 3D Revolution Fail?_

https://technologyandsociety.org/wh...n-fail-the-present-and-future-of-stereoscopy/


IMHO he's missing one subject, i.e that size matters (or in other words: the bigger the screen, the more immersive the 3D experience).


Last century 3D started on the big screen, failed on the 4:3 TV tubes, had a revival as IMAX 3D (again, big screen) and the recent (r)evolution involved flat screens bigger than the previous 4:3 tubes.


Frankly, back in 2011 I was aggressively promoting 3D front projection and my mantra had been that watching IMAX _Under the Sea_ or _Deep Sea_ had rather qualities of looking at an aquarium - and feature films rather looked like 'living' dollhouse presentations on a flat screen.


Interestingly, front projector manufacturers still do support 3D but I couldn't tell whether they know that most 3D aficionados use front projectors or merely use that feature to lure disappointed flat screen users to the world of home theater projection. 


(admittedly, the front projector market itself is a niche market)


Whatever the case, I'm pretty confident that large screen 3D projection provides the best immersive 3D experience and perhaps for many users flat screens just weren't big enough, yet?


----------



## Newuser2018

Frank714 said:


> dfa973 posted this in a parallel thread, but I think it belongs here as well - if not moreso.
> 
> Whatever the case, I'm pretty confident that large screen 3D projection provides the best immersive 3D experience and perhaps for many users flat screens just weren't big enough, yet?


YES Yes.....Having watched atleast 50 3D movies in my 120" Screen (with a PJ), i have to say that indeed it is an Immersive experience and cannot even understand why 3D should be dying...
Now i have stopped watching 2D versions


----------



## jorgebetancourt

something tells me 3D might survive at home because mostly all projectors are including it... We will get less movies thats for sure but not every movie needs to be released in blu-ray 3D.. Nothing worse than getting a crappy movie.. Now a good movie with good 3D I'll buy any day..


----------



## dfa973

jorgebetancourt said:


> something tells me 3D might survive at home because mostly all projectors are including it...


I would not bet on it, the installed base of 3D PJ's is even smaller than that of 3D TVs...
And if we talk about *usage* of the installed base to watch 3D content...


3D has some chances of revival in the future, maybe 5-10 years from now:
- VR headsets
- AR headsets/glasses
- glassless 3D TV
- holographic displays

VR and AR have about the same problem with the current 3D TVs with glasses - consumer must make a conscious decision to watch something in 3D instead of 2D. Not good.

Glassless 3D TVs have a better chance to conquer the 3D at home market, instead of the consumer to take the decision to watch 3D, the content can switch the TV to 3D or 2D, seamless (or no switch at all) - no need for glasses, receivers, sync, batteries, headsets, charging, etc.
But Glassless 3D TVs are immature right now and it will take some years of progress (if there is a will for it...) to get autostereoscopy at a good level at home.

Holographic displays will be the hardest to crack.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

dfa973 said:


> I would not bet on it, the installed base of 3D PJ's is even smaller than that of 3D TVs...
> 
> And if we talk about *usage* of the installed base to watch 3D content...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3D has some chances of revival in the future, maybe 5-10 years from now:
> 
> - VR headsets
> 
> - AR headsets/glasses
> 
> - glassless 3D TV
> 
> - holographic displays
> 
> 
> 
> VR and AR have about the same problem with the current 3D TVs with glasses - consumer must make a conscious decision to watch something in 3D instead of 2D. Not good.
> 
> 
> 
> Glassless 3D TVs have a better chance to conquer the 3D at home market, instead of the consumer to take the decision to watch 3D, the content can switch the TV to 3D or 2D, seamless (or no switch at all) - no need for glasses, receivers, sync, batteries, headsets, charging, etc.
> 
> But Glassless 3D TVs are immature right now and it will take some years of progress (if there is a will for it...) to get autostereoscopy at a good level at home.
> 
> 
> 
> Holographic displays will be the hardest to crack.


I guess what I meant to say is that for the very few of us it will survive for the next few years.. the general public I doubt they will ever be interested enough. 

The catch is Sony who makes movies and 3D projectors.. If Sony wants to continue with their sales trend then they need to continue making projectors with 3D. As long as they make 3D projectors I'm assuming they will continue providing us with 3D movies so we can watch them on their fancy projectors.. If they can't provide us with movies then what's the point of making a 3D projector.. 

I know tons of people here if both brands are equal and one has 3d and the other one doesn't they will go with the 3D projector. 

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## DavidK442

jorgebetancourt said:


> I know tons of people here if both brands are equal and one has 3d and the other one doesn't they will go with the 3D projector.



There are no "equal" projectors unless a simple rebrand, but I know what you mean.
I would not buy one that did not have 3D capability, but someone was buying those first gen 4K DLP's without it.


----------



## brazen1

dfa973 said:


> I would not bet on it, the installed base of 3D PJ's is even smaller than that of 3D TVs...
> And if we talk about *usage* of the installed base to watch 3D content...
> 
> 
> 3D has some chances of revival in the future, maybe 5-10 years from now:
> - VR headsets
> - AR headsets/glasses
> - glassless 3D TV
> - holographic displays
> 
> VR and AR have about the same problem with the current 3D TVs with glasses - consumer must make a conscious decision to watch something in 3D instead of 2D. Not good.
> 
> Glassless 3D TVs have a better chance to conquer the 3D at home market, instead of the consumer to take the decision to watch 3D, the content can switch the TV to 3D or 2D, seamless (or no switch at all) - no need for glasses, receivers, sync, batteries, headsets, charging, etc.
> But Glassless 3D TVs are immature right now and it will take some years of progress (if there is a will for it...) to get autostereoscopy at a good level at home.
> 
> Holographic displays will be the hardest to crack.



I like reading arguments why current 3D is a problem and not good. Yours for instance; to make a conscious decision in order to watch 3D. Really? Pressing play and putting the glasses on is too much of an effort? If you're doing anything more than that, consider your technique/setup. I think the real conscious decisions would include what you're going to watch and at what time. 


3D is in a lull because those that wanted it, have it. There is no new money because those that didn't want it are perfectly happy watching YouTube adventures of other people and heavily bling'd role models that can't carry a tune plastered to their face on a cell phone. Beyond that, minute by minute updates sharing your life on social media is the new entertainment; everyone vying for 'hits' which establishes ones ranking in the world. This is second nature now... aka subconscious decisions. A necessary requirement known as part of life now. Just take an emerging adults phone away for 24 hours and time the survival rate. This is where the new money is. There is no place for 3D in this world.


I think the best we can hope for is old money replacements and upgrades. Alas, there's too few of us. We're not economically viable. The cow was milked. Maybe VR or hologram knock-offs will entice a few of the new money zombies just because new tech turns em' on. How long or deep rooted that footholds would probably par current 3D. I don't mind how long current 3D using a pair of glasses remains dormant as long as new titles keep releasing and my display survives. Once those are gone, no amount of lipstick on a pig pumping VR or glassless 3D is ever going to entice me back into the 3D world. Give back 3D display options and I will gladly upgrade and maintain my current enthusiasm with my old money. If it's not enough for manufactures, then we both lose.


----------



## tomtastic

It's a vicious circle. HD, 3D, 4K now they're rushing out 8K and there's not even content for it other than a few YT videos. Everyone rushes out to buy the latest hardware and then we find out it's not even compatible so you have to go out and re-buy all that stuff again. And how will anyone push 8K right now? Are there 8K players coming? Content? And shouldn't we wait for 16K? After all, the jump from HD to 4K was 4x, 8K is only a 2x jump in resolution over 4K.

In terms of resolution on 55-65" screens we've already reached what we can distinguish at normal distances. The only improvement they can make is to make it 3D and without glasses. Sometimes the vicious circle is good, 3D will be back around when the technology gets caught up and manufacturers run out of the same old thing, they'll need something new to sell you.


----------



## invadergir

I admit I had a 51” 3D Plasma that I ignored for watching a 3D movie with. I also had a projector but not in 3D (Epson 8350) but 51” to 106” screen that was also setup for my surround system (tv on a dresser for my bedroom setup) So I eventually upgraded my projector to a Sony 40ES and there was no turning back on watching my 3D discs and has now become an obsession of sorts. As I now await 4 discs from Germany and 2 from Australia 

Hopefully new home 3D tech will revive the call for 3D movies in North America again


----------



## dfa973

brazen1 said:


> I like reading arguments why current 3D is a problem and not good. Yours for instance; to make a conscious decision in order to watch 3D. Really? Pressing play and putting the glasses on is too much of an effort? If you're doing anything more than that, consider your technique/setup. I think the real conscious decisions would include what you're going to watch and at what time.


There is more to 3D than pressing a button and putting glasses on...

1. IF you already have the 3D TV, the 3D Blu-ray player, and the 3D compatible receiver/soundbar, you need content.
2. You must buy 3D content, bee it on a disc, streaming or by subscribing to a 3D channel/package. 
3. Get enough glasses for the family members. 
4. If the glasses are active, charge the glasses.

All of this was too much for the general public. So, the 3D was axed. The rest is history.


----------



## dfa973

tomtastic said:


> It's a vicious circle. HD, 3D, 4K now they're rushing out 8K and there's not even content for it other than a few YT videos. ....................... Sometimes the vicious circle is good, 3D will be back around when the technology gets caught up and manufacturers run out of the same old thing, they'll need something new to sell you.


After 8K will be 10K...
HFR or VRR content outside games will be inevitable, in spite of Hollywood reluctance, because with so much spatial resolution (8K and more) the motion/temporal resolution will become paramount.
HDR panels with 12bit or more per pixel will be next.
Panels sizes will get bigger an bigger.
In desperation, even autostereoscopy can be thrown in...


----------



## PCummins

tomtastic said:


> I have my doubts because if people can't wear glasses to watch 3D, it will be even harder to get them to wear a headset. For movies, it's all about the theatrical run (though Netflix is changing the game a bit) where studios make their biggest take. At least in the theater, VR is really a home entertainment, so there's a problem there with getting hollywood to invest in the format. And they have to figure out a way to fit storytelling into a VR environment too and make it work. I think we're still a long ways from being able to do all that in VR.


I'd say 3D movies and VR are completely separate experiences which have their own pros/cons. A 3D movie is a more passive experience that benefits from a large TV/screen to view it whereas VR is a more interactive/immersive experience that really needs a computer/console to handle all the 3D graphics and sound processing. If you've tried watching a 3D Blu-Ray on a PSVR the smaller field of view & lower resolution means it's preferable to just watch it on a 3D TV/projector instead. The other issue is VR immersion can cause motion sickness even on fairly mild examples, so if you didn't like 3D glasses I'm pretty sure the potential motion sickness from VR headsets is much worse - and it's hard to know how bad you'd be impacted by it unless you try it out (symptoms can pop up pretty quickly, so if you're stuck in a 2 hour experience that's not very enjoyable). I'd say VR is better for games and storytelling in games over movies - these are better off on traditional 3D display technology.


----------



## barfle

Seilerbird said:


> I go over to my bass forum and there is a thread 'Is rock dead'. I come here and I find a thread 'Is 3d dead'. I have been hearing both formats are dead for the last 60 years and both are still alive and kicking.


It might be kicking, but not very high these days.
:frown:


----------



## barfle

Steve P. said:


> When 3-D was really dead, back in the 90's, I and many other 3-D fans had a large library of field sequential content to watch at home. Years before 3-D TVs were available, we found a way. By contrast, even it its current state, we are better off now than we were then. If we got nothing but upcoming 3-D Film Archive titles, of which there are many, I'd be content.
> 
> The glass is half full....


And there's plenty of View-Masters in the antique shops (and my theater)!


----------



## Frank714

Related thread: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/308-...ndustry-quietly-killing-off-3d-if-so-why.html


I find the figures interesting but have absolutely little to no idea why there is such an apparent and ongoing interest for 3D within Asian communities.


Again, I'd suspect that these figures indicate the possibility that audiences don't mind large screen 3D in public theaters but are less excited to do that at home.


----------



## impetigo

dfa973 said:


> 4. If the glasses are active, charge the glasses.


This is why 3D died. No one wanted to buy very expensive active 3D glasses that needed to be charged and generally had issues with cross talk. But more than that, it was probably the "format" war as it inevitably created confusion and destroyed what chance 3D had of getting established in the home market. If only the industry had agreed on just passive 3D for home theater TV (and active for projectors) I think 3D could have survived, at least longer than it did.


----------



## brazen1

impetigo said:


> This is why 3D died. No one wanted to buy very expensive active 3D glasses that needed to be charged and generally had issues with cross talk. But more than that, it was probably the "format" war as it inevitably created confusion and destroyed what chance 3D had of getting established in the home market. If only the industry had agreed on just passive 3D for home theater TV (and active for projectors) I think 3D could have survived, at least longer than it did.


 
Just a couple problems with your theory... passive was and still is only half resolution and looks half as good as active. It was also the cheaper choice and folks got what they paid for. Then 3D was judged. I have never seen the cross talk you say is an issue with active. Quite the opposite. You're almost guaranteed cross talk with passive. And those very expensive active glasses that came packaged with each and every panel speak volumes about cheap passive throw away glasses. That said, we will be watching yet another 'Brand NEW' 3D release tonight despite how dead 3D is and has been since you declared it so many years ago... active fwiw.


----------



## impetigo

brazen1 said:


> Just a couple problems with your theory... passive was and still is only half resolution and looks half as good as active. It was also the cheaper choice and folks got what they paid for. Then 3D was judged. I have never seen the cross talk you say is an issue with active. Quite the opposite. You're almost guaranteed cross talk with passive. And those very expensive active glasses that came packaged with each and every panel speak volumes about cheap passive throw away glasses. That said, we will be watching yet another 'Brand NEW' 3D release tonight despite how dead 3D is and has been since you declared it so many years ago... active fwiw.


Passive 3D, on a 1080p set, has half the _vertical _resolution: 1920x540, which can affect picture quality but that also depends on the TV set. Passive 3D does not have problems with cross talk that many if not most active 3D TVs (or PJs) do. Not everyone will be sensitive to the effects though, and some active TVs/glasses have less of a problem with it than others. But it is a significant problem for many TVs/PJs and there are topics just about that. Active 3D also are subject to flickering effects due to the way that shutters work in active glasses, and active 3D darkens the image more than passive 3D, from what I've read. On top of that, passive glasses also are more comfortable to most because the physical glasses are lighter, they have larger lenses, don't need to be charged, and you can find great, cheap glasses online to fit your face the best. 

The best 3D tech at this point though is probably passive 3D on a UHD set since you get 1920x1080 for each eye. I paid $2000 a few months ago to buy a used 65" Sony UHD TV that does exactly this, and the 3D is just the best. The trade off is that it's a 65" image versus my 110" PJ screen but for 3D I only watch on my TV.


----------



## DrDon

Bickering removed. Discuss the topic and not each other.


----------



## brazen1

impetigo said:


> The best 3D tech at this point though is probably passive 3D on a UHD set since you get 1920x1080 for each eye.


The same can be said for active UHD displays as well. 1920 x 1080 isn't exclusive for passive only. Cnet says UHD on passive OLED is still half resolution but since there are so many more pixels on a 4k screen you don't notice. To this day you can pixel peep UHD OLED in 3D mode and see every other line of resolution is blanked out and black. Of course we don't pixel peep when actually watching something but just sayin'...


----------



## impetigo

brazen1 said:


> The same can be said for active UHD displays as well. 1920 x 1080 isn't exclusive for passive only. Cnet says UHD on passive OLED is still half resolution but since there are so many more pixels on a 4k screen you don't notice. To this day you can pixel peep UHD OLED in 3D mode and see every other line of resolution is blanked out and black. Of course we don't pixel peep when actually watching something but just sayin'...


That is interesting but personally I haven't noticed passive 3D on my UHD set to have any visible blank/black lines but maybe I'll pixel peep to see if it's noticeable up close. I will say that I watched a 3D movie (Tangled, which is actually better than I expected) over the weekend on the projector with active glasses and I found it to look great. Of course, I usually only watch animated 3D on the projector as live action movies are generally too dark for my Epson to perform to my satisfaction, but it was excellent, on par with passive 3D on my TV. And I'll admit that there were no flickering issues or cross talk that I noticed (although I have had issues with that in the past, more with the Epson glasses than the Value View glasses I purchased later). 

Haven't watched a 3D movie on it since I stopped Solo after 5 minutes and switched to 2D over a year ago. Only problem is that it's hard (impossible) to find active RF/BT glasses that are kid size. For passive I have several different pairs of kid glasses that fit better and wish I could find some for my Epson as we all prefer the larger ("only" 110") screen.


----------



## brazen1

I had a pair of sunglasses that liked to fall off my head when tilting down. My eye doctor had a heater for glasses and just bent them tight for me. Had the same problem with a pair of 3D glasses that were wearing. Not that I recommend it for everyone, I precisely held over a candle moving back and forth well above the flame until it juuuust started to get the plastic ear stem malleable and held it in place for a minute. Cured. Don't try to heat the middle between the lenses whatever you do. I also put heat shrink tubing over the stems to reinforce them so it doesn't happen again applying a gentle heating as before.


----------



## PCummins

brazen1 said:


> The same can be said for active UHD displays as well. 1920 x 1080 isn't exclusive for passive only. Cnet says UHD on passive OLED is still half resolution but since there are so many more pixels on a 4k screen you don't notice. To this day you can pixel peep UHD OLED in 3D mode and see every other line of resolution is blanked out and black. Of course we don't pixel peep when actually watching something but just sayin'...


4K Passive 3D TV's use every line of resolution. There is no "every other line of resolution is blanked out and black" as the image is split into alternating lines to display 2x 3840x1080 images for 3D use. Given that most 3D content available is 3D Blu-Ray there is no noticeable image quality loss from source material. If lines are seen this usually means the person is sitting too close to the TV meaning it is possible to see the black matrix used to avoid crosstalk (see DisplayMate).

See 4K TVs with passive 3D: Finally, a good use for all those pixels - quoting David Katzmaier: "When a 4K resolution TV uses passive 3D, however, the extra pixels play a much more obvious role. You still lose half the vertical resolution, but since there are so many more pixels, you can afford to lose it. 4K TVs (3,840x2,160-pixel resolution) with passive 3D, like the Toshiba L9300U, can still deliver greater than HD resolution in 3D, at 3,840x1,080 pixels per eye." Also: "That is, until 4K resolution TVs with passive 3D came along. I just finished reviewing my first one, Toshiba's 65L9300U, and it delivered the cleanest, most artifact-free 3D image of any TV I've had in the lab."


----------



## tomtastic

Yes, it's true every line of resolution is used on a passive screen. The visible black lines are only visible when viewing lines of the opposite corresponding eye view with the glasses _on_, this is what's commonly misinterpreted as every other blank lines, but it just appears that way when viewing in 3D too close. On a 4K screen, in order to see these black lines, you would have to be about 3 or 4 feet away, which in most cases is too close because of crosstalk.

Active vs. passive, on LCD screens about equal in terms of crosstalk. LCD's are just more prone to crosstalk because it's a timing issue, pixel response rate is just not fast enough in high contrasting scenes. OLED is better, but I've noticed it too can show crosstalk in some demanding scenes. DLP is still the lowest crosstalk that I've seen, although not nearly as exciting PQ-wise.

The whole active vs. passive debate is already settled. Since Blu ray 3D never moved beyond HD resolution, UHD passive screens leveled the playing field and they are not half resolution like the 1080p sets were. Now, if they suddenly came out with a UHD active screen that supported full 4K resolution, then yes, UHD passive screens would then be yet again, half resolution. It doesn't seem like any full 4K 3D support is coming right now so it's not really an issue at this time. But since 8K screens are already on the horizon, they should be able to handle full 4K resolution on a 8K passive set. Of course that is all just wishful thinking right now since no new active or passive 3D TV's are being manufactured now. The best you can get is 4K 3D half resolution which all LG UHD passive screens support as well as a few active Samsung models.


----------



## Frank714

Allow me to add my personal and ambivalent 3D viewing experiences over this Easter weekend. I'd say a non-3D aficionado would have find it troublesome:


JERUSALEM (IMAX 3D)
Bright images, real 3D combined with 3D CGI renderings of the Second Temple and vintage black & white stereo photographic images (yeah!).
The 3D effect was especially spectacular within the old, narrow streets of Jerusalem and the director carefully selected elements that would really make the most use of 3D. 


THINK BIG (IMAX 3D)
My Oppo BDP-93 had repeatedly issues showing the 3D version, had to shut it off twice and restart the whole thing to be able to watch it in 3D. Nice but rather underwhelming, mostly focusing on school projects and - expectedly - skyscrapers in the distance were too far away to show up in "real" 3D. Really wished SHOUT!Factory would have instead released AIRCRAFT CARRIER in 3D on Blu-ray. 


GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY
Yes, I'm very late to the party.  Finally got around to watch it, but couldn't help but feel that the entire cinematography of the movie was too dark to begin with and nothing was wrong with my projector (watched JERUSALEM twice, at the beginning and the very end).


So out of three 3D viewings only one was really a delightful, pro-3D experience. I don't claim that this ratio is representative of what average consumers might have experienced during the golden days of 3D, but if it's remotely applicable I for one could understand why consumers rather stayed with traditional 2D...


----------



## blackwiggle

Frank714 said:


> Allow me to add my personal and ambivalent 3D viewing experiences over this Easter weekend. I'd say a non-3D aficionado would have find it troublesome:
> 
> 
> JERUSALEM (IMAX 3D)
> Bright images, real 3D combined with 3D CGI renderings of the Second Temple and vintage black & white stereo photographic images (yeah!).
> The 3D effect was especially spectacular within the old, narrow streets of Jerusalem and the director carefully selected elements that would really make the most use of 3D.
> 
> 
> THINK BIG (IMAX 3D)
> My Oppo BDP-93 had repeatedly issues showing the 3D version, had to shut it off twice and restart the whole thing to be able to watch it in 3D. Nice but rather underwhelming, mostly focusing on school projects and - expectedly - skyscrapers in the distance were too far away to show up in "real" 3D. Really wished SHOUT!Factory would have instead released AIRCRAFT CARRIER in 3D on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY
> Yes, I'm very late to the party.  Finally got around to watch it, but couldn't help but feel that the entire cinematography of the movie was too dark to begin with and nothing was wrong with my projector (watched JERUSALEM twice, at the beginning and the very end).
> 
> 
> So out of three 3D viewings only one was really a delightful, pro-3D experience. I don't claim that this ratio is representative of what average consumers might have experienced during the golden days of 3D, but if it's remotely applicable I for one could understand why consumers rather stayed with traditional 2D...


I bought one of the last 3D capable TV's made late 2017.
It's a 4K UHD Panasonic EX780a 65" model, it uses active glasses.
I got a bewildered look on the salespersons face when I stated that I wanted to buy this TV because it was 3D capable.


He wanted to get rid of it off the showroom floor ASAP because it took up space for displaying OLED.....fine by me, it's original RRP on release was AUS$4500, I got it delivered for AUS $2800 and a Panasonic 4K Disc player chucked in.....happy days.....[He said I could get the 75" for the same price, but no Disc Player, I thought about it, but I didn't have the space ]


Anyway, it looked ok at first, but being at this game for a fair while, I noticed things weren't as good as they could be.....I have my own calibration gear.
It's pointless calibrating a NEW TV or PJ, they will drift horrendously very quickly.
I waited about two months [In retrospect that was still to soon] but once I calibrated it, WOW, what a difference.....it looked VERY close to the AUS $7k Panasonic OLED.


You might be thinking WTF has this got to do with 3D.


Well to get great 3D, the Grey scale of the TV has to be spot on......Believe me, hardly ANY TV, regardless of cost or technology used, is the Grey Scale Tracking even close. out of the box, and it drifts over time.



Grey Scale is the B&W portion of the picture that controls detail and fine texture, You calibrate the B&W portion first , Colour is placed on top of Grey Scale.


To cut a long story short, If your 3D capable TV isn't calibrated, at least for Grey Scale, then your 3D viewing experience will be far less than Stella.


I have 100+ 3D Blurays.
I bought and watched a few over the Easter weekend
.
Aquaman....Looks good in 3D but the acting is wooden and the script EXTREMELY Cliched, a Cookie Cutter Warner Bros / DC comic mess....Just like Batman V's Superman.


Mortal Engines 3D....This movie is a lot better than Aquaman IMHO, although it got worse reviews [Don't believe all movie reviews]...Acting is FAR less wooden / Script actually makes some sense....the 3D I would rate in my Top 5 3D movies [it's subtle and works well with the CGI]...It's too long would be my only complaint.


How to Train My Dragon: The Lost world 3D....like previous HTTYD 3D movies, some of the best of the best.


As for 'IS 3D DEAD'


Well it might be as far as TV reproduction goes, at least momentarily....NO 3D capable TV's being made AFIK, even Hisense has dropped out.


PJ 3D support is another matter, that's alive and well.


Not surprising really, as 3D has always looked better on a BIG Screen


----------



## danlshane

Frank714 said:


> So out of three 3D viewings only one was really a delightful, pro-3D experience. I don't claim that this ratio is representative of what average consumers might have experienced during the golden days of 3D, but if it's remotely applicable I for one could understand why consumers rather stayed with traditional 2D...


That appears to me to be the biggest downfall of current 3D and a contributor to its general lack of audience. If filmmakers had shown the same courage as the directors in the 1950s, emphasizing the depth and negative parallax, 3D at home might have proved more popular.


----------



## impetigo

tomtastic said:


> Active vs. passive, on LCD screens about equal in terms of crosstalk. LCD's are just more prone to crosstalk because it's a timing issue, pixel response rate is just not fast enough in high contrasting scenes. OLED is better, but I've noticed it too can show crosstalk in some demanding scenes. DLP is still the lowest crosstalk that I've seen, although not nearly as exciting PQ-wise.


Curious about the dimming of active vs passive TVs/projectors. I've read that active 3D has greater dimming than passive, but of course things can vary a lot between different models, different tech (OLED vs LCD vs plasma for TVs, DLP vs other types of PJs), etc., and there is no real A/B comparison to be made since there are no TVs that support both active/passive or TVs that are identical except for active vs passive support, but would be interested to know if one vs the other inherently dims the image more.



danlshane said:


> That appears to me to be the biggest downfall of current 3D and a contributor to its general lack of audience. If filmmakers had shown the same courage as the directors in the 1950s, emphasizing the depth and negative parallax, 3D at home might have proved more popular.


I have a good number of 3D titles, both animation and live action, but I mostly watch animation because with animation 3D is always impressive, at least with the titles I've watched (I have most main stream American 3D movies available except for the super rare Trolls). Live action is good too, just not quite as natural looking but that's the same as in the theater IME. Most 3D movies these days seem to be sci-fi/action and tend to be on the darker side to begin with, which leads to a poor experience with my Epson 5040UB. Would like to get a brighter PJ someday so that I can watch those movies properly in 3D but for now I need the automated lens shift/zoom/memory of the Epson for my CIH setup.


----------



## tomtastic

The _glasses_ reduce brightness more with active, that I can tell you for sure. But I generally watch my projector in total darkness with walls painted black so it's less of an issue. Never had a active flat screen so I can't really comment on those. I would say it's probably not a huge difference in brightness between the two formats.

In theater I recall being disappointed with Xpand glasses. They were heavy and dark. RealD is polarized, uses same glasses as LG screens use so bring your own if you want.


----------



## impetigo

tomtastic said:


> The _glasses_ reduce brightness more with active, that I can tell you for sure. But I generally watch my projector in total darkness with walls painted black so it's less of an issue. Never had a active flat screen so I can't really comment on those. I would say it's probably not a huge difference in brightness between the two formats.
> 
> In theater I recall being disappointed with Xpand glasses. They were heavy and dark. RealD is polarized, uses same glasses as LG screens use so bring your own if you want.


Thanks, I've noticed more dimness with active 3D on my Epson projector (both Epson and slightly less with the Value View glasses) than my passive Sony 3D TV but again it's apples and oranges almost. I'm considering getting a gain increasing (can't remember the term) screen to help with performance with darker 3D movies but then again the Epson ain't great at black levels so maybe not. 

For theaters, I have a slew of various passive 3D glasses I bought online over the years that I always bring, although I have noticed that the RealD 3D glasses seem improved these days. I even bought 3D glasses for IMAX (non-laser) that some dude was getting made in China in small batches and selling on Amazon that were great -- the one time I used them -- but that was shortly before IMAX phased out 3D movies. Just can't win but at least we have as much as we do, and at least 3D projectors are still being manufactured for now.


----------



## aaronwt

What about the DOlby 3D glasses? My brother gave me a pair of IMAX 3D and Real3D glasses to use last year at the theater. But then when I went to my first Dolby 3D showing, I found out that they use something completely different from what IMAX 3D and Real3D use.


----------



## noob00224

Is there any difference in eye strain between SBS/TAB and Frame Packing?


----------



## gollygosh

I have an LG E6 and when you press the button on the remote marked 3d - all content is in 3d 


OK it's not proper 3d, but you know what, neither are most movies that are sopposed to be mastered that way, most are just put through a very similar conversion process.


----------



## dfa973

noob00224 said:


> Is there any difference in eye strain between SBS/TAB and Frame Packing?


Not really, even if the SBS/TAB/OU image is half the resolution, the stereoscopic effect is the same and the strain is the same.


----------



## Seilerbird

barfle said:


> It might be kicking, but not very high these days.
> :frown:


3D never has kicked very high and it never will.


----------



## noob00224

dfa973 said:


> Not really, even if the SBS/TAB/OU image is half the resolution, the stereoscopic effect is the same and the strain is the same.


Maybe it's just me then, I seem to get more eye strain with sbs/tab.


----------



## dfa973

noob00224 said:


> Maybe it's just me then, I seem to get more eye strain with sbs/tab.


I guess that you are more sensitive to parallax, there are movies with a lot of L/R separation, and movies that have mild separation. 
For example, I do not like to view a movie with exaggerated L/R separation... Lots of 50's movies are like that.


----------



## MLXXX

noob00224 said:


> Maybe it's just me then, I seem to get more eye strain with sbs/tab.


It would depend on the particular video title and display device, but all other things being equal the SBS/OU version will generally be at a reduced visual resolution compared to Blu-ray 3D frame-packing, and that could cause your eyes to strain more in trying to see the 3D effect. Another possible factor to consider, if using active glasses, would be the possible impact of the frame rate used for the sbs/tab version. (This is a bit off-topic for this thread!)


----------



## King Vidiot

gollygosh said:


> I have an LG E6 and when you press the button on the remote marked 3d - all content is in 3d
> OK it's not proper 3d, but you know what, neither are most movies that are sopposed to be mastered that way, most are just put through a very similar conversion process.


Not quite- watch the extra on the "Men in Black 3" disc that shows a bit about proper 3D conversion. I still don't get why they don't shoot true 2-camera 3D more often, but it's still not as primitive as a TV's auto-conversion. That's essentially the visual equivalent of fake-stereo settings on sound systems.


----------



## Steve P.

dfa973 said:


> I guess that you are more sensitive to parallax, there are movies with a lot of L/R separation, and movies that have mild separation.
> For example, I do not like to view a movie with exaggerated L/R separation... Lots of 50's movies are like that.


Many would argue the 1950's movies are what 3-D is supposed to look like, and it's today's movies that are "wimpy 2.5D", with a purposefully decreased 3-D effect. I would be in that camp.


----------



## dfa973

Steve P. said:


> Many would argue the 1950's movies are what 3-D is supposed to look like, and it's today's movies that are "wimpy 2.5D", with a purposefully decreased 3-D effect. I would be in that camp.


Ohhh, I do like movies with good 3D effects, great depth, and pop-up, BUT there are movies where "very good" is transformed in "wow, my eyes just crossed".
I was talking about those movies - sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## scarabaeus

aaronwt said:


> What about the DOlby 3D glasses? My brother gave me a pair of IMAX 3D and Real3D glasses to use last year at the theater. But then when I went to my first Dolby 3D showing, I found out that they use something completely different from what IMAX 3D and Real3D use.



The Dolby system is completely different from those other two. 



IMAX 3D uses LCD shutter glasses that alternately turn black, and the image in the screen alternates between the left and right views synchronously.


RealD uses circular polarised lenses, and projects both views at the same time with opposite polarization.


The Dolby system has slightly different color filters for the red, green and blue components in each lens. The two projectors, one for each view, are using RGB primaries that match those respective deviations. The lenses then let through the primaries from one projector, and block the ones from the other projector.


So, basically, if a normal TV or projector would have the three components for red, green and blue at specific wavelengths, then the Dolby system would have one view with wavelengths a little bit shorter (higher frequency) than those, and the other view a little longer wavelengths (lower frequency). The eye then percieves the color from those deviated primaries in the same way as from the traditional three primaries. Any off-color effect from that can be compensated when authoring the pictures. Some describe it as "anaglyph on steroids".


The advantage of both RealD and Dolby against IMAX is that both views are visible at the same time (caveat: many RealD theaters use a single projector and toggle the polarity with a "Z-Screen" in front of the lens, but at a very high frequency of 144 Hz), and continuously, while IMAX might introduce flicker. The advantage of IMAX and Dolby against RealD is that they work on white screens, while RealD requires a silver screen to maintain polarization. The advantage of RealD against the other two is that the glasses are really cheap.


RealD is essentially known as "Passive" 3D on LCD and OLEDs at home, while the IMAX one is known as "Active" 3D, used on Plasma TVs, with projectors, and, puzzling, with a lot of LCDs. (LCD lends itself to passive 3D, due to the inherent polarization of the screen technology, and the long switching times that make active 3D difficult) I don't think it would be possible to use the Dolby system in the home, maybe with two single-chip LCD, LCoS or DLP projectors where you can swap out the color wheel.


----------



## Steve P.

IMAX switched to polarized 3-D many years ago in every market I have encountered. Are there still any IMAX venues using those old giant shutter glasses with the built in headphones? Are there really still IMAX venues that use any type of active glasses? News to me if so - I haven't seen that for over a decade.

The current IMAX glasses are polarized differently from Real D. I bought a pair from Amazon that are oriented for IMAX, so it's much nicer than using the filthy, scratched and fingerprint covered ones the ushers try to give me. I also have my own pair of Real D glasses which I use at venues which use that format, which is the vast majority.

One local theater has Real D, IMAX and Dolby 3D capability, and I bet it is a pain for the staff to keep track of it all.


----------



## MrEmoto

Steve P. said:


> Many would argue the 1950's movies are what 3-D is supposed to look like, and it's today's movies that are "wimpy 2.5D", with a purposefully decreased 3-D effect. I would be in that camp.


Given that you are in that camp, would you be so kind as to recommend some of your favorites? I don't have any 50s films in my 3D library, so your input as a 50s 3D enthusiast would be most welcome.


----------



## Steve P.

MrEmoto said:


> Given that you are in that camp, would you be so kind as to recommend some of your favorites? I don't have any 50s films in my 3D library, so your input as a 50s 3D enthusiast would be most welcome.


Sure. All of these are available on Blu-ray 3D. The 3-D films of the time ranged quite a variety of genres, so you should find something to your taste. I'd say the first five on the list are a must.

*Creature from the Black Lagoon
House of Wax
Inferno
Jivaro
The Maze*
It Came from Outer Space
Gog
Gun Fury 
Sangaree
Cease Fire
Those Readheads from Seattle
Kiss Me Kate
Dial M For Murder
September Storm
Man in the Dark
Miss Sadie Thompson
The Bubble
Revenge of the Creature
The Mad Magician (includes two 3-D Three Stooges shorts)
Dragonfly Squadron
3-D Rarities

There is more to come from the 3-D Film Archive, from both the 1950's era and the later 1970's and 80's films, which are even more pronounced in their 3-D effect. (Parasite, Revenge of the Shogun Women, 3-D Rarities II, Nudie Cutie Collection, etc. are already announced for release in upcoming months.)

I'd *highly recommend* a visit to www.3dfilmarchive.com , as it is an excellent site which contains a huge amount of information about the history of 3-D movies, widescreen movies and the coming of stereo sound. There are sections on myths that persist in the public's mind, in depth articles about the production and release of various titles, original advertising, etc. It's quite simply the definitive source of correct information on the subject.

Currently available 1980's era stuff on Blu-ray 3D format: 

JAWS 3-D (it's in the extras menu in the disc marketed as Jaws 3)
Amityville 3-D (part of Amityville Horror Collection)
Metalstorm
Comin' at Ya!


----------



## Frank714

Steve P. said:


> Sure. All of these are available on Blu-ray 3D. The 3-D films of the time ranged quite a variety of genres, so you should find something to your taste. I'd say the first five on the list are a must...
> 
> ...
> 3-D Rarities


YMMV, but IMHO the last from your list (above) should belong to the top five. 


I'm eagerly awaiting _3-D Rarities II._


----------



## Steve P.

I also await the 3-D Rarities II release eagerly. The only reason it wasn't at the top is that is a collection of shorts, rather than containing a feature length film from the 1950s. It's been announced that Rarities II will indeed contain a little seen 3-D feature among its content.


----------



## noob00224

Watched Godzilla 2 recently at a commercial theater in 3D and there were some artifacts in the 3D. Around solid white lights or large bright letters bright "shadows" (of the bright object) appeared on the right and left.
Is this crosstalk?


----------



## danlshane

noob00224 said:


> Watched Godzilla 2 recently at a commercial theater in 3D and there were some artifacts in the 3D. Around solid white lights or large bright letters bright "shadows" (of the bright object) appeared on the right and left.
> Is this crosstalk?


Yes. Projector illumination probably not correctly calibrated.


----------



## noob00224

danlshane said:


> Yes. Projector illumination probably not correctly calibrated.


Is this the kind of crosstalk present on some LCD projectors?


----------



## danlshane

noob00224 said:


> Is this the kind of crosstalk present on some LCD projectors?


I don't have any experience with 3-D LCD projectors, so I couldn't say.


----------



## 3DBob

noob00224 said:


> Is this the kind of crosstalk present on some LCD projectors?


 My experience with LCD projectors, ala Epson, would prove that crosstalk is more apparent when brightness is turned up. The Epson 5040UB had a problem, and I think it was fixed by limiting the brightness and contrast. There are 3 LCDs, one for red, blue and green, and are controlled by white light passing through polarizers and prisms through the three colors. Anyway, I think the crosstalk is a problem when too much light is passed through and the light decay of the panels is not quick enough from one frame to another for the left-right eye images hitting each eye separately causing apparent crosstalk.


----------



## deano86

3DBob said:


> My experience with LCD projectors, ala Epson, would prove that crosstalk is more apparent when brightness is turned up. The Epson 5040UB had a problem, and I think it was fixed by limiting the brightness and contrast. There are 3 LCDs, one for red, blue and green, and are controlled by white light passing through polarizers and prisms through the three colors. Anyway, I think the crosstalk is a problem when too much light is passed through and the light decay of the panels is not quick enough from one frame to an another for the left-right eye images hitting each eye separately causing apparent crosstalk.


And that's where I think my Panasonic 8000 has an advantage ... "it uses 480Hz driven panels for 3D to increase the amount of time that the eyewear shutters can stay open... about 1.5x regular 240Hz panels and results in brighter 3D and its overdrive technology more accurately detects the separate right/left eye info resulting in less crosstalk".... straight from the brochure, obviously... LOL! 

It does obviously work however, as I have always been able to use the "Lighter" or brighter 3D eyewear setting instead of Normal or Darker to combat crosstalk and keep the lamp on ECO mode for 3D viewing...


----------



## DigitalMovs

Fast forward to July, 2019.

Still not dead... I'm looking forward to my Alita Battle Angel 4K/3D combo. The combos are the last 3D movies that I'll pick up in hopes of getting a 3D capable projector one day. My Samsung UA-65HU9000 65" does stunning 3D, but I've just let the discs collect dust as I watch the 4K counterparts.


----------



## Deja Vu

3DBob said:


> My experience with LCD projectors, ala Epson, would prove that crosstalk is more apparent when brightness is turned up. The Epson 5040UB had a problem, and I think it was fixed by limiting the brightness and contrast. There are 3 LCDs, one for red, blue and green, and are controlled by white light passing through polarizers and prisms through the three colors. Anyway, I think the crosstalk is a problem when too much light is passed through and the light decay of the panels is not quick enough from one frame to another for the left-right eye images hitting each eye separately causing apparent crosstalk.


I have a number of Epson 3D projectors including the LS10,000 (laser). I've always been disappointed with Epson's 3D (too much cross-talk, especially in the background). 

However, not long ago out of frustration I decided to play with the 3D depth setting. I thought that by decreasing depth it might ameliorate the cross-talk somewhat. It made cross-talk worse so out of desperation I tried increasing depth to plus 2 and was shocked when the "ghosting" disappeared. There was no downside to this change. I also have two 2016 JVC projectors, which have exceptionally good 3D. The Epson now has the least cross-talk of any of my non-DLP projectors and overall it has the best 3D when cross-talk, contrast, black level and brightness are all taken into consideration.

I tried the same changes to the 3D on my Epson 5020 and it helped the cross-talk but it seemed to negatively impact the sharpness of the 3D image.

Anyway, if you have an Epson 3D projector increase the 3D depth setting by a couple of clicks and see if that helps with cross-talk.


----------



## 3DBob

Deja Vu said:


> Anyway, if you have an Epson 3D projector increase the 3D depth setting by a couple of clicks and see if that helps with cross-talk.


Interesting, @Deja Vu. The downside of this is if by increasing depth, you separate the objects at infinity (or the furthest objects on the screen) by more than 2.5", you could suffer eye turn-out (opposite of crosseyed, aka walleyed). Doesn't effect adults as much as children, who could suffer bad eye strain.


----------



## Deja Vu

3DBob said:


> Interesting, @Deja Vu. The downside of this is if by increasing depth, you separate the objects at infinity (or the furthest objects on the screen) by more than 2.5", you could suffer eye turn-out (opposite of crosseyed, aka walleyed). Doesn't effect adults as much as children, who could suffer bad eye strain.


Personally (no proof) I think Epson made a slight miscalculation (mistake) with their depth setting for 3D and the +2 setting should have been 0 or neutral. When I moved the setting from neutral to +1 and then to +2 I could see with each click a sift of the image, which to my eye properly aligned the left and right eye view(s) and eliminated pretty much all of the cross-talk (as it should be).


----------



## 3DBob

Deja Vu said:


> Personally (no proof) I think Epson made a slight miscalculation (mistake) with their depth setting for 3D and the +2 setting should have been 0 or neutral. When I moved the setting from neutral to +1 and then to +2 I could see with each click a sift of the image, which to my eye properly aligned the left and right eye view(s) and eliminated pretty much all of the cross-talk (as it should be).


 @Deja Vu: What size screen to you have and could you measure the separation of the furthest objects on your screen at each setting. This would give me a sense of what you are talking about. My Sony X700 and other Sony bluray players have a setting for screen size, and will automatically adjust the image so the furthest objects are around 2.5 inches. This works for most movies, but not all IMAX movies. I sometimes have to set the screen size smaller to get the right separation. What bluray player are you using?


----------



## Car67

deano86 said:


> And that's where I think my Panasonic 8000 has an advantage ... "it uses 480Hz driven panels for 3D to increase the amount of time that the eyewear shutters can stay open... about 1.5x regular 240Hz panels and results in brighter 3D and its overdrive technology more accurately detects the separate right/left eye info resulting in less crosstalk".... straight from the brochure, obviously... LOL!
> 
> It does obviously work however, as I have always been able to use the "Lighter" or brighter 3D eyewear setting instead of Normal or Darker to combat crosstalk and keep the lamp on ECO mode for 3D viewing...


Epson claims 480Hz 3D frequency too, perhaps with fi high, I can't see any difference between my 3d glasses: Epson (no frequency specs on their package/manual), xpand x105rf (96-240hz) or samsung (120hz), crosstalk is more visible on the samsung, they are brighter.


----------



## marcuslaw

In a welcome move, Sony's new flagship player, the UBP-X1100ES, supports Blu-ray 3-D (along with other supposedly "dead" formats like DVD-A). Hopefully, it's left the door open for its future panels reintroducing support for the format. 

UBP-X1100ES 4K UHD Blu-ray Player With HDR


----------



## MrEmoto

marcuslaw said:


> In a welcome move, Sony's new flagship player, the UBP-X1100ES, supports Blu-ray 3-D (along with other supposedly "dead" formats like DVD-A). Hopefully, it's left the door open for its future panels reintroducing support for the format.
> 
> UBP-X1100ES 4K UHD Blu-ray Player With HDR


Looks like a nice unit. 

Can anyone shed light on what this means:

STREAMING
4K streaming, 3D Streaming (No 3D content)


----------



## SteveCaron

marcuslaw said:


> In a welcome move, Sony's new flagship player, the UBP-X1100ES, supports Blu-ray 3-D (along with other supposedly "dead" formats like DVD-A). Hopefully, it's left the door open for its future panels reintroducing support for the format.
> 
> UBP-X1100ES 4K UHD Blu-ray Player With HDR


Pretty impressive features and audio support. At the moment I'm knee deep in Oppo's
but for certain if they all failed I would consider this one.


----------



## tomtastic

600? Might as well buy an Xbox, 4K and 3D too, plus a game system and it's cheaper. Not sure about DVD-A support, might need to keep an older player around.


----------



## impetigo

marcuslaw said:


> In a welcome move, Sony's new flagship player, the UBP-X1100ES, supports Blu-ray 3-D (along with other supposedly "dead" formats like DVD-A). Hopefully, it's left the door open for its future panels reintroducing support for the format.
> 
> UBP-X1100ES 4K UHD Blu-ray Player With HDR


Thank you, Sony! This looks like a nice Oppo UDP 203 replacement, with support for UHD, 3D, and all the high res/surround audio formats like SACD and especially DVD-A (rival format to Sony's SACD that wasn't supported by earlier Sony players). Guess I should probably get this instead of another used UDP 203, although I do need a region-free hack option like I have on my Oppo players.


----------



## krauley

arent all modern uhd players compatible with 3d blurays? I thought if it was made within the last 6 or 8 years any player would play 3d blurays?

Im going to wait on the PS5 to see what specs it releases with before i buy an oppo replacement/backup player. Im thinking the unit will come with a uhd drive this time and hopefully play 3d disc also.


----------



## Worf

Samsung UHD players no longer do 3d. Maybe even their regular bd players as well.


----------



## krauley

I would have never imagined that any player that came out within the last couple of years wouldnt have 3d playback built in but im glad to know this now. i would have hated to buy something just to find out it didnt play 3d discs. well now im aware thanks.


----------



## Deja Vu

Worf said:


> Samsung UHD players no longer do 3d. Maybe even their regular bd players as well.


My understanding is that Samsung is no longer making any Blu-ray players, 4K or otherwise. So, Samsung apparently sees the writing on the wall when it comes to physical media.


https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-to-stop-making-4k-blu-ray-players-report-says/


----------



## impetigo

Deja Vu said:


> My understanding is that Samsung is no longer making any Blu-ray players, 4K or otherwise. So, Samsung apparently sees the writing on the wall when it comes to physical media.


Yeah, I think they made that announcement a while ago. Too bad, it's certainly not helping the physical media situation, so especially nice to see Sony come out with a nice, all in one, player like this one. If only it had a region free option I think I would definitely buy one.


----------



## SteveCaron

Well it looks like another source for 3D blu rays may beginning to dry up on us and that is in the UK. There is no 3D blu-ray for Spiderman Far from Home being released there however there is one in Germany. Obviously this is still good thing but I don't like the signal its sending us.


----------



## longhornsk57

I'll just mention Alita Battle Angel was amazing in 3D. So much preferred over 4K.

3D may or may not be dying but I'll always be an avid fan


----------



## aaronwt

longhornsk57 said:


> I'll just mention Alita Battle Angel was amazing in 3D. So much preferred over 4K.
> 
> 3D may or may not be dying but I'll always be an avid fan


I loved Alita in 3D in the Dolby theater. It was the best theatrical 3D presentation I have ever seen.
But at home I preferred the UHD BD/DV presentation over the 3D BD presentation..


----------



## longhornsk57

aaronwt said:


> I loved Alita in 3D in the Dolby theater. It was the best theatrical 3D presentation I have ever seen.
> 
> But at home I preferred the UHD BD/DV presentation over the 3D BD presentation..


I guess it depends on your preference and display.

At 160" active 3D looked a lot better than UHD in total darkness at my house. The depth is just unmatched


----------



## Deja Vu

longhornsk57 said:


> I'll just mention Alita Battle Angel was amazing in 3D. So much preferred over 4K.
> 
> 3D may or may not be dying but I'll always be an avid fan


If 3D is dying it sure is a sloooooow death! This thread was started in 2013. Will we still be posting here in 2023? I suspect we will.


----------



## Newuser2018

If 3D dies, that will be my last day watching a movie...no wayyyy....


----------



## marcuslaw

The girls might not be so pretty (according to today's standards), but one thing's for sure, 3-D isn't dead (yet). The 3-D Nudie-Cuties Collection restored by the kind folks over at 3-D Film Archive has dropped in pre-order price to a mere $22.99.


----------



## marcuslaw

Kino does it again. Here comes another 3-D Blu-ray release and this one is said to have jaw dropping stereo imagery in the second half of the film. I feel sorry for the haters and justifiers stuck with new panels that will never have the opportunity to experience this movie the way the director intended. 

Long Day's Journey Into Night

Kino Lorber have detailed their upcoming 3D Blu-ray release of Gan Bi's film Long Day's Journey Into Night 3D(2018), starring Jue Huang, Wei Tang, Sylvia Chang, Yongzhong Chen, and Meihuizi Zeng. The release will be available for purchase on November 26. 

Synopsis: Bi Gan follows up his knockout debut, Kaili Blues, with this noir-tinged stunner about a lost soul (Jue Huang) on a quest to find a missing woman from his past (Wei Tang, Lust, Caution). Following leads across Guizhou province, he crosses paths with a series of colorful characters, among them a prickly hairdresser played by Taiwanese superstar Sylvia Chang. When the search leads him to a dingy movie theater, the film launches into an hour-long, gravity-defying 3D sequence shot that plunges its protagonist—and us—into a labyrinthine cityscape. China's biggest arthouse hit of all time, the film took in more than $40 million dollars in its opening weekend at the domestic box office.

Special Features: 
Interview with director Bi Gan
Interview with star Huang Jue
Making-of documentary
Booklet interview with Bi Gan by writer Aaron Stewart-Ahn
Theatrical trailer






"About That Insane, Hour-Long, Single-Take, 3D Sequence in 'Long Day's Journey Into Night'"


----------



## Don Landis

3D will die for me if I am blind in one eye. 

While 3D on a flat screen may be hard to purchase, the truth is that 3D has evolved and the new way to watch 3D movies or any other genre in 3D is in a Virtual Reality experience. I still love my home theater experience and we watched Avengers: Endgame yesterday in 3D, but I now spend 10 times the time viewing 3D content in my Oculus Quest. It is even more real than 3D on the flat screen.


----------



## marcuslaw

Don Landis said:


> 3D will die for me if I am blind in one eye.


There's always hope. 

Researchers: We can watch 3-D with only one eye

3D vision breakthrough


----------



## Don Landis

It is also possible to create 3D images with one camera too. (not using editing software ). the technique uses a panning left to right while capturing a series of pictures, then alternate every other image shot to left and right eye in a side by side 3D construct. I first used this with a Sony digital camera with the SBS processing built in, and later successfully did the same with video using a djiMavic drone camera and splitting the video into sequential frames and placing every other frame alternating left and right. The drone was used to fly a left to right path maintaining distance and altitude of the scene. I shot it at 60 fps which when split to 3D SBS resulted in 30 fps video. 

All these unique single eye experiments work but they are not adaptable to the general market so I don't see commercial value here.


----------



## 3DBob

I once worked with a person who was blind in one eye and could see in 3D, but he had to constantly move his head left and right to get the jiggle between two perspectives. Just to test this out at the time, we had him judge distance between objects, and he was spot on. He said he could see space between objects. The brain is quite remarkable.

As for the sequential 3D method. I used that in pics I took in Africa. The Panasonic z100 has a slow 4k shutter mode to take a series of photos as if you are shooting a movie, but each image is a quick shutter to avoid blur. I took pics out the window as we were moving through local towns, then in post editing selected consecutive frames and aligned them in StereoPhotoMaker software. Worked perfectly, but sometimes objects would move slightly between frames. I never thought of creating a movie sequence doing this. I will have to try that--thanks, Don.

As for movies, even with some 3D movies still being shown, they are only shown for a week around here, then only in 2D after that. All IMAX is now in 2D, but I did manage to see Endgame in IMAX 3D here several months ago, but have to say, there were very few people in the theater, and that was sad because there are limited theater rooms in a multiplex, and they can't afford to have one of the theater rooms barely breaking even as they have to pay someone to run that room regardless of the audience. When they showed the 3D conversion of the original Jurassic Park several years ago, there were only 3 people in the IMAX room watching at that time.


----------



## tomtastic

The end of IMAX 3D is unfortunate. There's a number of productions that haven't been released onto Blu ray 3D, only UHD/Blu ray. The directors go to the trouble of shooting with the big 3D camera but then no home release for it. Shout Factory handled the last half dozen or so IMAX releases in 3D but they dropped 3D, probably a decision by IMAX to save cost. To someone over there in charge, "We want these on Blu ray 3D!"

I don't really go to theater any more. But last I checked, the 3D theaters they run about 2 weeks and cycle in the new 3D movie. The theater rooms are much smaller for 3D, about 25 seats. I wanted to go for Endgame and Mission Impossible but never got around to it. And then there's the possibility that the movie might never make it to Blu ray 3D. I don't want to go see it then find out I'll never see it again in 3D.


----------



## Don Landis

I haven't been to a AMC or Regal in years. I just got disgusted at the other people so I like that a theater has few people in it. For IMAX 3D we go to The World Golf Village IMAX and it is really big. I sit way in the back so I won't get neck strain. They still show 3D but I only go there to see StarWars in 3D. About the only series I am hooked enough on to want to see it in the theater, otherwise I wait until it is out for home viewing. 

Bob the trick to getting good 3D with the pan technique is the speed of the pan. This sets the interaxial distance between frames so you will need to do a little math to get it right for 65mm IOD. In addition the speed can't vary. The dji Mavic Pro drone is capable of maintaining speed and distance so it was much better than me walking with the camera. I think a dolly would work pretty good too. While this was a fun experiment, I never used it in any of my projects as just using a 3D camera was much easier. However, I did one documentary in 3D up on YT where I used the technique with my Sony NEX cameras for a 3D panorama shot and it added some nice production value that none of my 3D cameras could do. Not only 3D but cinemascope wide angle as well. The Sony can only do this in stills, not video.


----------



## ryudoadema

Don Landis said:


> 3D will die for me if I am blind in one eye.
> 
> While 3D on a flat screen may be hard to purchase, the truth is that 3D has evolved and the new way to watch 3D movies or any other genre in 3D is in a Virtual Reality experience. I still love my home theater experience and we watched Avengers: Endgame yesterday in 3D, but I now spend 10 times the time viewing 3D content in my Oculus Quest. It is even more real than 3D on the flat screen.


I personally enjoy my 3d on a projector over VR at the moment. I have a Vive, Odyssey and Pimax 5k. Pimax 5k gets the closest to the at home pj experience, but still a ways to go to beat it. VR is definitely one of the best ways to experience 3d though. I can even watch a 3d movie in CT with my mom and sister down in FL! Now THAT certainly earns VR some points


----------



## Don Landis

Yes, the virtual home theater apps are nice for creating the feeling of being in a big IMAX theater. I have been following the PiMAX HMD's but decided to go the wireless route for my second HMD. I have a Rift for the computer that I mainly need for editing VR projects in adobe Premiere Pro. It has the Oculus drivers built in which is nice. It also has drivers for Vive but the Vive isn't quite as good as the image quality of the Rift. I tried them both and finally decided which to keep. I also have a Oculus Go but mostly for visitors when they come here. The Go is easier to control and navigate for a new person to the HMD.


----------



## marcuslaw

They're insanely expensive, but I see it on the bright side. Sony is once again producing a 3D TV. 

Sony Crystal LED systems


----------



## Don Landis

marcuslaw said:


> They're insanely expensive, but I see it on the bright side. Sony is once again producing a 3D TV.
> 
> Sony Crystal LED systems


Bet we see this on the newest cruise ships coming out.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

marcuslaw said:


> They're insanely expensive, but I see it on the bright side. Sony is once again producing a 3D TV.
> 
> Sony Crystal LED systems


$5,000,000 for a 3D TV is worth considering. Or you can try your luck on ebay for an LG OLED e6p.


----------



## Steve P.

For $5 million, it better have 32K.


----------



## longhornsk57

I've just ordered Aladdin in 3D. Anyone seen it? I didn't in theaters


----------



## krauley

marcuslaw said:


> They're insanely expensive, but I see it on the bright side. Sony is once again producing a 3D TV.
> 
> Sony Crystal LED systems


Just preordered one, cant wait


----------



## Don Landis

Steve P. said:


> For $5 million, it better have 32K.


Content?


----------



## Don Landis

longhornsk57 said:


> I've just ordered Aladdin in 3D. Anyone seen it? I didn't in theaters


I did too. My grandson said it's a good movie and he is excited to see it again when I get it.


----------



## Steve P.

Don Landis said:


> Content?


Didn't you hear? The 2028 Olympics might be broadcast to 3 people in Japan in 32K....gotta future-proof, right? I'm sure someone on will upload a killer demo loop on You Tube, and I won't have any issue streaming 32k, right? I mean, if I'm spending $5 million on this TV, I just want to make sure it's the latest, greatest most pretty resolution with billions and billions of pixels, even if I can't see them.


----------



## MrEmoto

marcuslaw said:


> Kino does it again. Here comes another 3-D Blu-ray release and this one is said to have jaw dropping stereo imagery in the second half of the film. I feel sorry for the haters and justifiers stuck with new panels that will never have the opportunity to experience this movie the way the director intended.
> 
> Long Day's Journey Into Night
> 
> Kino Lorber have detailed their upcoming 3D Blu-ray release of Gan Bi's film Long Day's Journey Into Night 3D(2018), starring Jue Huang, Wei Tang, Sylvia Chang, Yongzhong Chen, and Meihuizi Zeng. The release will be available for purchase on November 26.
> 
> Synopsis: Bi Gan follows up his knockout debut, Kaili Blues, with this noir-tinged stunner about a lost soul (Jue Huang) on a quest to find a missing woman from his past (Wei Tang, Lust, Caution). Following leads across Guizhou province, he crosses paths with a series of colorful characters, among them a prickly hairdresser played by Taiwanese superstar Sylvia Chang. When the search leads him to a dingy movie theater, the film launches into an hour-long, gravity-defying 3D sequence shot that plunges its protagonist—and us—into a labyrinthine cityscape. China's biggest arthouse hit of all time, the film took in more than $40 million dollars in its opening weekend at the domestic box office.
> 
> Special Features:
> Interview with director Bi Gan
> Interview with star Huang Jue
> Making-of documentary
> Booklet interview with Bi Gan by writer Aaron Stewart-Ahn
> Theatrical trailer
> 
> https://youtu.be/0yPt3kQzxa8
> 
> "About That Insane, Hour-Long, Single-Take, 3D Sequence in 'Long Day's Journey Into Night'"


Thanks for the heads up! FWIW, your Amazon link did not work for me, but I found this one which I believe is to the same product: https://www.amazon.com/Long-Days-Journey-Night-Blu-ray/dp/B07XJZQGD6


----------



## Postmoderndesign

MrEmoto said:


> Thanks for the heads up! FWIW, your Amazon link did not work for me, but I found this one which I believe is to the same product: https://www.amazon.com/Long-Days-Journey-Night-Blu-ray/dp/B07XJZQGD6


This link worked and goes to a preorder for Nov. 26 release. It is listed as blue ray but not 3D. I was not clear what language is spoken. There are no reviews other than the poster's. "'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?", Dirty Harry


----------



## impetigo

longhornsk57 said:


> I've just ordered Aladdin in 3D. Anyone seen it? I didn't in theaters


I thought it was mostly trash (unlike the Lion King that was mostly good) but of course I pre-ordered it from Amazon UK.


----------



## Frank714

marcuslaw said:


> 3D vision breakthrough


 
Thanks for the link, although it still doesn't tell me enough why and how the brain manages to register a 3D image with one eye - provided there is motion in the image... 


As a matter of fact, I do often watch 2D movie scenes with one closed eye to experience "recreated 3D". 


One of my favorites is the lobby scene in _The Matrix_: 



 

The moving columns of the lobby enhance the recreated 3D effect, further enhanced by all the debris in time-lapse photograpy. Real 3D couldn't look better.


It's almost an irony of cosmic proportions that to get this kind of 3D from any 2D source (but again, provided there is motion!) one needs to get rid of 3D shutter glasses and instead look for an eye-patch. 


Again, 3D isn't dead at all, we've still not seen all of it...


----------



## 3DBob

Frank714 said:


> Thanks for the link, although it still doesn't tell me enough why and how the brain manages to register a 3D image with one eye - provided there is motion in the image...
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I do often watch 2D movie scenes with one closed eye to experience "recreated 3D".
> 
> 
> One of my favorites is the lobby scene in _The Matrix_: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855w0sdZjgA
> 
> 
> The moving columns of the lobby enhance the recreated 3D effect, further enhanced by all the debris in time-lapse photograpy. Real 3D couldn't look better.
> 
> 
> It's almost an irony of cosmic proportions that to get this kind of 3D from any 2D source (but again, provided there is motion!) one needs to get rid of 3D shutter glasses and instead look for an eye-patch.
> 
> 
> Again, 3D isn't dead at all, we've still not seen all of it...


An easy way to see 3D in a 2D movie is to take a pair of sunglasses and take one lens out. Then watch the movie. Depending on the direction of movement, you will see 3D. You sometimes have to switch the dark lens to the other eye. This works because the light hitting one eye is delayed by the dark lens and causes the brain to see the image from that eye as separate from the right. This works best on sideways movement. This is the "Pulfrich effect", search for it. Lots of info on how it works and other youtube videos.

Here is a great example:


----------



## Frank714

Many thanks for this information, didn't know that name previously, I still have a couple of Nuoptix glasses that showed me the way how to recreate this kind of 3D. Here is another (old) video demonstrating Nuoptix techniques:


----------



## scarabaeus

"3rd Rock from the Sun" did a double episode with a few scenes shot for the NuOptix system, it was of course announced as a "3D" mega-event.
https://www.avforums.com/threads/third-rock-from-the-sun-3d-episodes.732877/


----------



## Steve P.

That 3rd Rock episode was a total failure - there was no Pulfrich Effect noticeable. Even worse was the Super Bowl halftime show that tried to do this - they clearly didn't understand how the illusion worked, and only some brief animation showed any hint of depth. FOX did the same thing with a Rolling Stones concert, and "Revenge of the Nerds IV" but they didn't succeed either. 

Probably the only examples of Pulfrich Illusion being successfully exploited was a music video by "The Judds" and a Yogi Bear cartoon series which had some short segments animated with this in mind. They both worked quite well,as the camera and backgrounds were correctly manipulated to get this accidental 3-D effect with 2-D video.

You can test this effect with your cell phone. Have someone drive down the street at about 20 MPH. Shoot video of landscape from passenger window. Then watch the video with a sun glass lens over your right eye (or even squint and look through your lashes) and you will see the 2-D video appears to be 3-D. Stop the car however, and the effect is lost. It's a fleeting effect which is best harnessed in 30 second segments. There is no "Nuoptix sustem". They shot ordinary 2-D video with 2-D cameras - the Pulfrich effect occurs naturally as long as the camera and background movement are correct.


----------



## SteveCaron

Steve P. said:


> That 3rd Rock episode was a total failure - there was no Pulfrich Effect noticeable. Even worse was the Super Bowl halftime show that tried to do this - they clearly didn't understand how the illusion worked, and only some brief animation showed any hint of depth. FOX did the same thing with a Rolling Stones concert, and "Revenge of the Nerds IV" but they didn't succeed either.
> 
> Probably the only examples of Pulfrich Illusion being successfully exploited was a music video by "The Judds" and a Yogi Bear cartoon series which had some short segments animated with this in mind. They both worked quite well,as the camera and backgrounds were correctly manipulated to get this accidental 3-D effect with 2-D video.
> 
> You can test this effect with your cell phone. Have someone drive down the street at about 20 MPH. Shoot video of landscape from passenger window. Then watch the video with a sun glass lens over your right eye (or even squint and look through your lashes) and you will see the 2-D video appears to be 3-D. Stop the car however, and the effect is lost. It's a fleeting effect which is best harnessed in 30 second segments. There is no "Nuoptix sustem". They shot ordinary 2-D video with 2-D cameras - the Pulfrich effect occurs naturally as long as the camera and background movement are correct.


I thought I had read that the Super Bowl failure was less what the Network was broadcasting but instead an issue with the local affiliates... least I thought I read that someplace. I live in the Detroit Suburbs and recorded it in S-VHS so I had repeated opportunities to view it even as recently as 3 years ago and aside from the obvious lower resolution I thought it still looked pretty good. I've been meaning to put it up on YouTube but I'm not sure how many people hung on to their glasses.


----------



## Steve P.

The affiliates would have had nothing to do with it - the 1989 half time show was all simply 2-D material shot with 2-D cameras in an attempt to harness the Pulfrich Illusion. Nothing was actually shot in or broadcast in 3-D. 

You don't need the glasses that were distributed. Any pair of cheap sunglasses will do (just punch the left lens out) I've found that by simply squinting my right eye I can get the Pulfrich effect to work with material properly shot to harness it. I confess I've found myself doing that from time to time in "flat" movies, and seeing a few fleeting seconds of accidental 3-D in some scenes. 

If you ever get a chance to see the 1970's Jekyll and Hyde movie "I, Monster" with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing, it's an interesting experiment with this idea. They had started production with the intent of advertising it as a "3-D" movie, and many sequences were shot with a moving camera in an attempt to harness the Pulfich Illusion, but they soon realized that it wasn't going to work as conceived and the idea was abandoned. The film was released without any such fanfare. Still, there is a good amount of footage where it works fleetingly in the finished film. A DVD was released with a pair of compatible glasses within the package a few years ago - just don't expect anything like real 3-D! To be clear - not a frame was shot with 3-D cameras.


----------



## tomtastic

I just use a pair of polarized glasses or active ones would work too, just hold over one eye.

This one is cool:


----------



## Marine121

tomtastic said:


> I just use a pair of polarized glasses or active ones would work too, just hold over one eye.
> 
> This one is cool:
> https://youtu.be/1mnWI_u_zBg


I couldn't make it seem to work with my pair of glasses.


----------



## marcuslaw

Article by Adrian Pennington on Red Shark: 3D’s comeback is inevitable - but next year?


----------



## 3DBob

James Cameron produced Terminator: Dark Fate coming to theaters next week, and even rewrote some of the script, but apparently decided not to film or convert to 3D. Oh well, another nail in the 3D coffin. There is no explanation for this that I could find on the Internet. Avatar sequels not coming out until Dec. 2021--yawn...


----------



## marcuslaw

Relax Bob. There's at least one highly anticipated film expected to have a 3D theatrical release - Denis Villeneuve's remake of 'Dune' around November 2020. Otherwise, there's a, likely dumb, Spongebob film and a live action Mulan that will also be shown in 3D next year.


----------



## impetigo

marcuslaw said:


> Relax Bob. There's at least one highly anticipated film expected to have a 3D theatrical release - Denis Villeneuve's remake of 'Dune' around November 2020. Otherwise, there's a, likely dumb, Spongebob film and a live action Mulan that will also be shown in 3D next year.


I am hyped for a 3D Dune and Mulan -- sure, why not! It could be good if it is heavier on the action and minus all the songs... hard to imagine that though.


----------



## aaronwt

I see the next star Wars will have some 3D showings. But at the AMC 22 screen and the AMC 18 screen theaters near me, they only have one 3D showing a day in the IMAX theater. And the rest of the 3D showings are in the smaller theaters(which I have no desire to sit in).

I was hoping that they would have a Dolby theater 3D showing. Since Alita: Battle Angel, in Dolby 3D, was the best theatrical 3D presentation I had ever seen. I would go to every 3D showing if they were presented in 3D at the Dolby theater.


----------



## rdjam

marcuslaw said:


> Relax Bob. There's at least one highly anticipated film expected to have a 3D theatrical release - Denis Villeneuve's remake of 'Dune' around November 2020. Otherwise, there's a, likely dumb, Spongebob film and a live action Mulan that will also be shown in 3D next year.


Looking forward to that one. I'm gutted that they've stopped making 3D Blurays - have stocked up on almost all of them that I can lay my hands on. When the resurgence of 3D begins again, I'll figure out how to adapt into my 3D setup - there WILL be a way...


----------



## dfa973

rdjam said:


> When the resurgence of 3D begins again, I'll figure out how to adapt into my 3D setup - there WILL be a way...


WHEN the 3D will come back I'm sure that at that time 3D will come along with higher resolution (4K/8K/whatever), HDR, WCG, maybe even some HFR, so our current 3D Bluray discs will have the same status as of today's DVDs..., old tech...


----------



## Damon Atkinson

rdjam said:


> Looking forward to that one. I'm gutted that they've stopped making 3D Blurays - have stocked up on almost all of them that I can lay my hands on. When the resurgence of 3D begins again, I'll figure out how to adapt into my 3D setup - there WILL be a way...



What do you mean they stopped making 3D blu-rays? Only Paramount completely stopped so far. Importing is a must these days.


----------



## JMCurtis

Yeah, I've been importing them myself. Prices are comparable to what they would have been in the states too! In some cases, actually lower. It just takes longer yo get them, as they tend to be released a month later due to the fact that some of the movies play lateer in Europe than in the states.


----------



## rdjam

Damon Atkinson said:


> What do you mean they stopped making 3D blu-rays? Only Paramount completely stopped so far. Importing is a must these days.


I will definitely look out for new releases on imports. Anyone tracking these in a thread here? This would be very useful!


----------



## Menarini

Is VR also dead like 3D? There was lot of talk of the OR and playstation VR couple of years back, but now hardly any talk of VR.


----------



## dew42

rdjam said:


> I will definitely look out for new releases on imports. Anyone tracking these in a thread here? This would be very useful!


The 2019 3D Movie Schedule thread may be a bit out of date but it has links to the source list we use.

Pick or search for a movie from the thread titles in this 3D Content forum. The first post (or near to) has direct links the to all the major sources (e.g.: amazon.co.uk) for importing that title on 3D Blu-ray.


----------



## rural scribe

*1917*

I've seen the trailer for 1917 (release date Dec. 25, 2019) a couple of times. This trailer is all about a particular technical aspect of how the film was made. It was made with some of the same technical gimmicks used by Hitchcock in "Rope" or Alejandro González Iñárritu's "Birdman".

I got my hopes up the first time I saw this because Director Sam Mendes opens it by saying he wants to make 1917 in such a way as to be as "immersive an experience as possible", so I think he's talking about 3D, right? No, he's just talking about shooting and editing the film to make it look like it is all one continuous shot.

Well, Birdman got some Oscars, so maybe this will too. Birdman was interesting from a standpoint of trying to spot where the edits are. But immersive? Nah, 3D can be a lot more immersive than that.

This is perhaps another sign of the decline of 3D. It is not worthy of awards or even mentions of awards, like editing gimmicks are, I guess.


----------



## rural scribe

longhornsk57 said:


> I've just ordered Aladdin in 3D. Anyone seen it? I didn't in theaters


A lot of people liked it. It just won a People's Choice Award for best family movie of the year. I liked it too. I saw it in 3D at a local theater.

It also won some Saturn Awards and Teen Choice awards, so far. It is early in awards season.


----------



## marcuslaw

dfa973 said:


> WHEN the 3D will come back I'm sure that at that time 3D will come along with higher resolution (4K/8K/whatever), HDR, WCG, maybe even some HFR, so our current 3D Bluray discs will have the same status as of today's DVDs..., old tech...


Although Victor Matsuda left open the possibility of incorporating 3D into the UHD BD spec as an add-on (and thus at a higher resolution than 1080p), the only way that will happen is if a filmmaker like James Cameron creates 4K theatrical 3D content. IMO, no one will. I think Blu-ray 3-D will always be 1080p and I'm okay with upscaling panels displaying that. All it takes is for manufacturers to reincorporate it . . . and I say, why not? 



> Q: Are there any plans to incorporate 3D into the UHD BD spec as an add-on?
> 
> A (Victor Matsuda): No. Not at this time. Currently there is no 4K theatrical 3D content.
> 
> Q: From the technical side, what are the limitations with frame rate for HFR presentations, 3D, 4K and HDR? For example, will HFR 3D HDR 4K be possible? Or would there need to be limits on one or more of these options?
> 
> A (Victor Matsuda): There are no plans to for 4K 3D. The format supports frame rates up to 60fps.
> 
> Q: UHD BD means passive 2K 3D, correct? Can/will both 2D and 3D versions of a film that was 3D in theater be included on a single UHD BD release, or will there be separate 2D and 3D editions? Or will there be full 4K 3D releases? Can 3D be streamed – in other words, will UHD BD be the only source for passive 3D content?
> 
> A (Victor Matsuda): The specification does not support 4K 3D. With respect to current 3D titles, playback of 3D content on Ultra HD Blu-ray players is not mandatory, but a manufacturer could choose to include this capability in its player.


http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/072315_1800


----------



## tomtastic

marcuslaw said:


> Although Victor Matsuda left open the possibility of incorporating 3D into the UHD BD spec as an add-on (and thus at a higher resolution than 1080p), the only way that will happen is if a filmmaker like James Cameron creates 4K theatrical 3D content. IMO, no one will. I think Blu-ray 3-D will always be 1080p and I'm okay with upscaling panels displaying that. All it takes is for manufacturers to reincorporate it . . . and I say, why not?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/columns/my-two-cents/072315_1800



Right, I'd also add that since the majority of movies that are 3D are the variety that are VFX heavy, the digital intermediate is only 2K which is similar in resolution to 1080p. So given they upscale that portion of elements it wouldn't even truly be 4K if they did offer it. IMAX and 3D documentaries would be spectacular in 4K3D but of course IMAX has discontinued releasing on the Blu ray 3D format.

It's hard to say where tech is going. Physical media is slowly being replaced with digital. Will there be 8K discs? I doubt it. So would there be 4K3D Blu rays? Probably not given the few number of films offering home release Blu ray 3D's and now having to source them from other regions. All we can see is what's out there right now and that is a few brands still offer 3D on projectors and that's basically it if you want 3D.


----------



## obveron

marcuslaw said:


> Although Victor Matsuda left open the possibility of incorporating 3D into the UHD BD spec as an add-on (and thus at a higher resolution than 1080p), the only way that will happen is if a filmmaker like James Cameron creates 4K theatrical 3D content. IMO, no one will. I think Blu-ray 3-D will always be 1080p and I'm okay with upscaling panels displaying that. All it takes is for manufacturers to reincorporate it . . . and I say, why not?


All 3d RealD theatrical content is 2k resolution, which is still a big improvement from 1080p. Most 3D studios like Marvel are working on at least 4k 3d masters, the only reason it's 2k in the theater is due to cinema limitations. If lack of 4k 3d bluray spec is going to be "blamed" on theatrical content, digital cinema tech is the weak point (but it's still better than 1080p), not the filmmaker.


----------



## dfa973

obveron said:


> All 3d RealD theatrical content is 2k resolution, which is still a *big improvement from 1080p*.


Cinema 2K (2048×1080) is marginally better than the consumer 1080p (1920x1080). Image quality to the average eye is the same between those formats. There is no "big improvement"!


----------



## obveron

dfa973 said:


> Cinema 2K (2048×1080) is marginally better than the consumer 1080p (1920x1080). Image quality to the average eye is the same between those formats. There is no "big improvement"!


Indeed my apologies, had a brain fart thought 2k was 1440p, it's clearly not. been mixed up in to many pc gaming crowds who mis-use the term 2k to describe 1440p monitors...


----------



## aaronwt

obveron said:


> Indeed my apologies, had a brain fart thought 2k was 1440p, it's clearly not. been mixed up in to many pc gaming crowds who mis-use the term 2k to describe 1440p monitors...


Yes. I never understood why they were calling 2560x1440P monitors 2K.
When 1920x1080p is also considered 2K.


----------



## Worf

1440p monitors are known as QHD for Quad HD because they have 4 times the pixels of 720p - they are double 720p in each dimension (1280x720 doubled gives 2560x1440). We call quad full HD Ultra HD or UHD (aka 4k).

One minor difference with cinema 2k is it's anamorphic, so the image uses all 1080 lines, versus what you might see on a Blu-Ray where the image is only 900 lines because it has to be letterboxed. Cinemas use a lens to expand the image to the proper aspect ratio so the pixels are rectangular (wider than tall) to avoid letterboxing.


----------



## SteveCaron

Over the Holidays I decided to watch my Blu Rays of Fantasia and Fantasia 2000 and was thinking to myself that when 3D was HOT we didn't see Disney produce another entry called Fantasia 3D. Now that would have been something to behold.


----------



## tomtastic

Well, I'm just going to go ahead and say it. Covid-19 is probably going to kill off 3D in theaters for next couple years, if not indefinitely. Covid-19 might kill off 3D for good. 2020 had a very short list of 3D films to begin with now many of them are expected to be pushed into 2021. Theaters are closed and studios are streaming instead, of course without a 3D option. Minions is the first 3D film to be pushed into 2021. Don't know about Onward which went digital.

Now obviously the glasses could be cleaned and if it's RealD 3D, you could bring your own glasses, but there is going to be an increasing fear going forward and that is simply going to hurt 3D because of the glasses. Glasses-free 3D is nowhere to be seen. The big question is will they offer Blu ray 3D option if the film was in 3D and had never been released in 3D? Whatever the case, it didn't look good for 3D before all this and it looks far worse now.


----------



## MrEmoto

tomtastic said:


> Well, I'm just going to go ahead and say it. Covid-19 is probably going to kill off 3D in theaters for next couple years, if not indefinitely. Covid-19 might kill off 3D for good. 2020 had a very short list of 3D films to begin with now many of them are expected to be pushed into 2021. Theaters are closed and studios are streaming instead, of course without a 3D option. Minions is the first to be pushed into 2020.
> 
> Now obviously the glasses could be cleaned and if it's RealD 3D, you could bring your own glasses, but there is going to be an increasing fear going forward and that is simply going to hurt 3D because of the glasses. Glasses-free 3D is nowhere to be seen. The big question is will they offer Blu ray 3D option if the film was in 3D and had never been released in 3D? Whatever the case, it didn't look good for 3D before all this and it looks far worse now.


I cannot argue with your thinking. This does not prevent me from hoping you are wrong.


----------



## 3DBob

Ahh, crap. be safe, be alive, be healthy...if you can survive that, then 3D will be important again...just sayin'.


----------



## JMCurtis

I'll support 3D for as long as it is available!! Theaters will open again eventually, and studios will resume productions. They have to, since they need to survive, and people need to work. No work, no money! I plan on re-watching all of my 3D movies I've got - which is a lot!


----------



## Car67

This thread started in the 2013, and 3d is still alive in new film/documentary releases, hundreds of 3D blurays, and projectors, just no more cameras/camcoders infortunately, for now....


----------



## longhornsk57

I think with VR making a big surge 3D still has life ahead..

Sent from my MI 8 using Tapatalk


----------



## danlshane

longhornsk57 said:


> I think with VR making a big surge 3D still has life ahead..


What big surge would that be?


----------



## ryudoadema

danlshane said:


> What big surge would that be?


Oculus Quest and Valve Index have been selling out for months. Half-Life: Alyx (VR only) just came out and is one of the best reviewed games of all time and pretty high on the most players concurrently on steam. Over a million steam headsets recorded during their latest survey, and I know my 2 as well as my brother's and sister's are never counted. So it's likely way more than that. Quest has sold well over a million. We're getting there!

Me and my uncle in CT watch 3d movies (sometimes 2d as well) in bigscreen vr with my mother, sister and brother who all live in FL weekly. I can either stream any of my sbs/ou 3d movies, or we can purchase 3d movie tickets @ $3.99 each to watch together in a little better quality without the upload demands of streaming my own collection. Haven't tried that yet though.


----------



## adam_knox

I'm bummed that its likely 3d blurays won't be released. Since Pixar/Disney's Onward went straight to Disney+, I doubt there will be many bluray sales and I doubt 3d will be getting a special run on the production line.

I was excited for VR, but it really is cost prohibitive for a large percentage of the population and rather isolating even if watching a movie with other people. Are you going to have friends over, have them all strap phones to your faces and zone out to watch a movie together? Its hard enough keeping allthe 3d glasses charged, what are the odds everyone's phone would be charged to last a whole movie... not even going to mention how popcorn and snacks would work. I hope 3d evolves into realistic, interactive virtual experiences, but i was hoping casual 3d would be an option for general use. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ryudoadema

adam_knox said:


> I'm bummed that its likely 3d blurays won't be released. Since Pixar/Disney's Onward went straight to Disney+, I doubt there will be many bluray sales and I doubt 3d will be getting a special run on the production line.
> 
> I was excited for VR, but it really is cost prohibitive for a large percentage of the population and rather isolating even if watching a movie with other people. Are you going to have friends over, have them all strap phones to your faces and zone out to watch a movie together? Its hard enough keeping allthe 3d glasses charged, what are the odds everyone's phone would be charged to last a whole movie... not even going to mention how popcorn and snacks would work. I hope 3d evolves into realistic, interactive virtual experiences, but i was hoping casual 3d would be an option for general use.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


If you're just looking for the bigscreen experience Oculus go is like $100 or $150. Nothing else needed except wi-fi. You don't need the people to come over, it seems like you are with them (their avatars anyway) in the VR theater.

I will be upset when physical media is gone too. I still prefer 3d on my pj, but my family lives across country so we wouldn't be able to watch together on that anyway.


----------



## danlshane

ryudoadema said:


> If you're just looking for the bigscreen experience Oculus go is like $100 or $150. Nothing else needed except wi-fi. You don't need the people to come over, it seems like you are with them (their avatars anyway) in the VR theater.
> 
> I will be upset when physical media is gone too. I still prefer 3d on my pj, but my family lives across country so we wouldn't be able to watch together on that anyway.


What you describe works for you.

I love 3D and have long enjoyed the solo experience of View-Master reels, but nothing beat the 3D parties I would have, projecting View-Master images taken with my personal stereo camera. Even with polarized glasses it was a group setting that felt natural.

Perhaps to younger people who have grown up with online gaming and electronic devices virtually fused to their bodies VR seems like a normal method of entertainment, but it seems ill-suited for most.

I wish you well with your VR experience; I do enjoy it myself for brief periods using Google Cardboard and other methods. But I believe what you call a "surge" is simply a wave in a very small pond.


----------



## ryudoadema

danlshane said:


> What you describe works for you.
> 
> I love 3D and have long enjoyed the solo experience of View-Master reels, but nothing beat the 3D parties I would have, projecting View-Master images taken with my personal stereo camera. Even with polarized glasses it was a group setting that felt natural.
> 
> Perhaps to younger people who have grown up with online gaming and electronic devices virtually fused to their bodies VR seems like a normal method of entertainment, but it seems ill-suited for most.
> 
> I wish you well with your VR experience; I do enjoy it myself for brief periods using Google Cardboard and other methods. But I believe what you call a "surge" is simply a wave in a very small pond.


Definitely understand your aversion to it, and agree to disagree that it's just a small wave in a small pond. Just would like to point out that my mother is 60 and my uncle is in his 50's and they both join in weekly for our movie get-togethers. As I said, there is no other choice for us anyway since we live across country from each other. Also if google cardboard was my only experience with VR, I would be pretty cold on the idea too. I know you said other methods, but cardboard/gear vr are both far cries from true VR where your motion is tracked 1 to 1 in the virtual space with your hands as the actual inputs.

Being in the VR community for 5 years now I can tell it is growing, and I just really hope it helps 3d in it's other forms like in theaters and on physical media. I would sorely miss any new 3d films on my pj, much more than I would miss them in my vr headset...

Sounds like your 3d parties were awesome and I would have liked to experience one!


----------



## bweissman

I find it annoying that 8K is possibly going to become a thing.


If 2D 8K is doable, then 3D 4K is doable. I know which one I'd rather have.


----------



## bgaviator

I really enjoy watching 3D movies and YouTube videos on my Oculus Go. I just wish they'd get the resolution up and eliminate the narrow fov....can't stand the feeling like I'm looking through a pair of binoculars. If they could perfect those two things, it would be a perfect environment for watching 3D movies.


----------



## rural scribe

*3D is dead, long live 3D*

I just watched a new video that addresses the question in the title of this forum, Is 3D about dead? The answer is yes, and no.

The humorous, entertaining 17-minute video made by The Royal Ocean Film Society and MUBI, called "The Life and Death of 3D" can be found on Vimeo and YouTube.

I discovered it yesterday during a Google News search, linked to a May 1 Film School Rejects article called The Many Deaths of 3D: A History of Cinema's Problem Child. 
Link here:
https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-life-and-death-of-3d/

The subtitle of the article cleverly sums up the video this way: "3D is dead, long live 3D"

The video recounts the near 100-year history of 3D in cinema -- how there have been periodic revivals of the format, each followed by 3D death pronouncements over the years, including the current episode we now are living through.

I am a film critic and 3D fan, but I have no connection to the article and video linked above.


----------



## marcuslaw

After watching the video, check out the 3-D Archive's post entitled "What Killed 3-D?". 

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/what-killed-3D


----------



## rural scribe

marcuslaw said:


> After watching the video, check out the 3-D Archive's post entitled "What Killed 3-D?".
> 
> http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/what-killed-3D


Yeah, the 3D Archive site is a great resource, and I appreciate the efforts of the group to restore and make available old 3D movies.

The story about futile attempts to create a bluray 3D disc of "Hondo" (1953) is fascinating (see "HONDO Restoration.doc" on the 3D Archive web site). It illustrates some high hurdles in film restoration. I hope the Hondo project gets done someday soon.


----------



## aoaaron

Yes, home 3D is dying. We have no TVs supporting it and we have only a few projector brands still flying the 3D badge.
The accessibility of 3D content is going to slow become £2000+ for those that want to buy a new device which supports 3D. 


3D can still and will probably survive in the cinema, because they have the equipment and will want to use it.
At home, we will need a revolution of 3D and I don't see that happening without someone putting a lot of cash into someones wallet as TV brands are reclutant to pass on the charge to consumers when they can make TVs cheaper and just target HDR high nits (and rightfully so given consumer demand). 
Maybe VR can give 3D a small niche group of people who will buy the films once the resolution and FOV become comfortable. 

Sadly HDR is the real deal which might be the nail in the coffin for 3D as far as I'm aware, 3D limits the brightness of panels slightly and HDR needs all the brightness it can get. 

It will be sad if this is the case but in all honesty, 3D's death is down to everyone. From consumers not recognising or supporting it, to directors and studios not respecting the format.

Excluding atmos off of 3D discs, studios doing some crap post conversions... you can only be-little a genuinely decent format so much before it dies. 

I hope I'm wrong and there is a break through somewhere. I'd love for some form of passive 3D box to be emerge which will somehow decode information and allow say an LG OLED C9/CX/C8/C7 to be able to do 3D content. That might just be the future for 3D but I don't know anything about the technology to fathom how that happens.

I've heard of glasses free 3D but again.. no idea how that makes it to consumer grade panels.


----------



## 3DBob

Without Marvel 3D, and there is little on the horizon, 3D is dead...for the USA for sure. We are too cheap to watch 3D because of the glasses...heard that cry over and over. Russia has a TV channel dedicated to 3D. It's big in other countries, but for some reason USA doesn't really care about it--all about cost vs. image enjoyment apparently.


----------



## Deja Vu

Just replace "masks" with "3D glasses" and yes, 3D is dead in the U.S.!

Remember, 3D glasses "literally kill people" and anyone wearing them is subject to citizens' arrest -- they're "the devil's" work..


----------



## Worf

Sadly, that appears to be the truth and explains the situation a bit too well.


----------



## Hydra Spectre

Watching 3D movies in VR is still amazing.
I wonder why there isn't a resurgence in 3D Blu-rays for watching on PlayStation 4 VR?


----------



## aoaaron

Hydra Spectre said:


> Watching 3D movies in VR is still amazing.
> I wonder why there isn't a resurgence in 3D Blu-rays for watching on PlayStation 4 VR?




Because the FOV is crap, the audio sucks, the resolution is terrible, and you are wearing a headset on your head. 


I don't get people who say 3D Blurays in VR is amazing. Its not. Its the worst form of watching 3D films. 3DLCD, Projector and OLED are all better ways to experience it. 


VR is great because its an active form of entertainment where you close yourself off from the open world and wear and uncomfortably heavy headset the promise of ACTIVE entertainment and enjoyment. The sacrifice is worth the advantages.

However using a VR headset for a passive means of entertainment is not a very good trade off for most people. The benefit of a few extra things popping out into your face or around is not worth the negatives of:
1. Wearing a heavy headset
2. The unsocial nature of now watching films with the headset
3. Being closed off from the world 
4. The resolution being terrible
5. The colours and brightness not being as good as your TV
6. Audio compromise (unless the audio is being fed through to your speakers). 
etc. 
7. The scale is slightly off , its not perfect becaause the display isn't real
8. the FOV is very boxy both vertical and horizontal (even on valve index)
9. screen door effect

There is also a sense of awe when something projects into YOUR room. This doesn't happen with a VR headset. 

There is a place for VR and 3D films potentially.. a niche one.. but with the current crop of headsets, its very much so a big compromise. FYI I have a PSVR, Valve Index, Oculus Quest and Rift S, and have tried 3D films on all of them. Its fun, but its no where near projection or TVs as an experience. 


VR has a lot of AMAZING moments and wanders. RE7VR, Superhot, Astrobot, Half Life alyx, Asgard's Wrath.. I can comfortably say watching a 3D Film in VR is one of the most underwhelming. Making huge compromises for an active form of entertainment, just to play a gimped form of passive entertainment will not make sense for most people. 

Remember there is no doubt 3D partly failed because people couldn't be bothered to draw the curtains, put 3D glasses on and press the sync button. Putting on a WIRED VR headset and shut yourself from the outside world in a boxy claustrophobic field of view

If we can get a wireless, OLED, HIGH FOV, HIGH RESOLUTION, VR headset which is light, then maybe we can start talking about it being a the 3D blu-ray saviour. and the sad thing is it will come.. but will it come in time for 3D blurays to still being made?.... no.


----------



## PCummins

aoaaron said:


> Because the FOV is crap, the audio sucks, the resolution is terrible, and you are wearing a headset on your head. I don't get people who say 3D Blurays in VR is amazing. Its not. Its the worst form of watching 3D films. 3DLCD, Projector and OLED are all better ways to experience it.


Agree with that. Anyone who claims Blu-Ray 3D on the PSVR or another VR headset is a "good" experience simply implies to me they've hardly ever seen a quality TV or projector playing a Blu-Ray 3D movie before. VR's designed for different purposes so there's a lot of trade offs for getting that to work vs what's required for high quality Blu-Ray 3D. There's a few headsets that have high enough resolution (or different designs) that could potentially handle this now (or are coming out) however I don't think the average person would be purchasing these.


----------



## Kano3D

Demand 3D projections at return to cinemas #BackTo3D 
https://www.tridimensional.info/2020/06/demand-3d-projections-at-return-to-cinemas-backto3d/


----------



## SteveCaron

3D TV may be on its last legs but with Friday the 13 Part 3 in true 3d coming in the next few days I feel the journey is complete.


----------



## marcuslaw

SteveCaron said:


> 3D TV may be on its last legs but with Friday the 13 Part 3 in true 3d coming in the next few days I feel the journey is complete.


Well, I'm happy to report that FT13th 3-D looks great, but must argue that Jason doesn't complete the journey. If anyone will do that, it will be James Cameron and Avatar 2-4's Jake Sulley.


----------



## DavidK442

I picked up a few 3D titles in the heyday, but always found that my spandex projector screen was just too dim to enjoy them.
This past year I installed a 1.0 gain, 110" roller screen in front of the spandex, specifically for 3D.
The added brightness with my old BenQ W1070 completely changed the experience. Sitting 8 feet away with a good 3D movie spinning is completely engrossing.
As a result I have been buying 3D titles like they are going out of style...which of course they are. A recent binge-buy of local discs and UK imports brings me to 125 (which I'm sure is dwarfed by many collections in this thread).
I only buy movies with highly rated 3D presentations, unfortunately not all are actually great movies, but still enjoyable at least for a single pass.
I have a growing pile of 2D-only Bluray's that have been supplanted by the 3D collection. In this day of on-line viewing they are worthless I'm afraid, but the abandonment of 3D by streaming services long ago makes me appreciate physical media even more.
3D is almost dead, but I have countless hours of enjoyment just a drawer pull away.


----------



## bigdad56

So has Covid pretty much killed any new 3D content? I have so many 3D films but have watched them all about a million times lol. I'm even worried about Avatar now because who knows what movie theaters will look like post Covid... quite sad really. I have a client who owns a nice cinema down the street and even pre-covid he told me that they were only doing a couple 3D showings because even at increased ticket prices the 2/3 full auditorium would make less money. Maybe Dolby vision can bring it back when glasses won't be required...

Alas has anyone watched anything lately that they enjoyed?


----------



## jorgebetancourt

bigdad56 said:


> So has Covid pretty much killed any new 3D content? I have so many 3D films but have watched them all about a million times lol. I'm even worried about Avatar now because who knows what movie theaters will look like post Covid... quite sad really. I have a client who owns a nice cinema down the street and even pre-covid he told me that they were only doing a couple 3D showings because even at increased ticket prices the 2/3 full auditorium would make less money. Maybe Dolby vision can bring it back when glasses won't be required...
> 
> Alas has anyone watched anything lately that they enjoyed?


I watched trolls 2 and frozen 2 and they where both GREAT.. Am 48 years old and still love animation...

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk


----------



## MrEmoto

bigdad56 said:


> So has Covid pretty much killed any new 3D content? I have so many 3D films but have watched them all about a million times lol. I'm even worried about Avatar now because who knows what movie theaters will look like post Covid... quite sad really. I have a client who owns a nice cinema down the street and even pre-covid he told me that they were only doing a couple 3D showings because even at increased ticket prices the 2/3 full auditorium would make less money. Maybe Dolby vision can bring it back when glasses won't be required...
> 
> *Alas has anyone watched anything lately that they enjoyed?*


I watched the two Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies on consecutive weekends and really enjoyed them. The stories were the sorts of things you would expect, but I thought the 3D was outstanding. I was able to enjoy them, even though I am an old f*rt and had no prior knowledge of the characters or anything, beyond simply knowing they existed.


----------



## bigdad56

jorgebetancourt said:


> I watched trolls 2 and frozen 2 and they where both GREAT.. Am 48 years old and still love animation...
> 
> Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk


 Trolls 2 is in 3D?


----------



## Kenbar

I'm hoping for a 3D Blu-ray release of Disney's Mulan sometime next year maybe. And perhaps Avatar 2...maybe some day before I die. The virus has put a dark cloud over 3D releases along with movies in general. Disney might cut back on 3D as overall business has gotten totally trashed. But their huge...might not. I pretty much buy every 3D release now days in an attempt to do my part to keep the format alive-ish.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

bigdad56 said:


> Trolls 2 is in 3D?


Yep.. Both where great


Kenbar said:


> I'm hoping for a 3D Blu-ray release of Disney's Mulan sometime next year maybe. And perhaps Avatar 2...maybe some day before I die. The virus has put a dark cloud over 3D releases along with movies in general. Disney might cut back on 3D as overall business has gotten totally trashed. But their huge...might not. I pretty much buy every 3D release now days in an attempt to do my part to keep the format alive-ish.


Same here i buy them to try and keep them alive...


----------



## BLMN

bigdad56 said:


> Trolls 2 is in 3D?


Trolls got a digital only release on _FandangoNOW app for Oculus Go / Quest VR headsets. Trolls world tour (aka Trolls 2) got an U.S. release on blu-ray 3D a few months ago. _




Kenbar said:


> I'm hoping for a 3D Blu-ray release of Disney's Mulan sometime next year maybe. And perhaps Avatar 2...maybe some day before I die. The virus has put a dark cloud over 3D releases along with movies in general. Disney might cut back on 3D as overall business has gotten totally trashed. But their huge...might not. I pretty much buy every 3D release now days in an attempt to do my part to keep the format alive-ish.


Mulan blu-ray/4K is coming out next week (11/10) as we already know no U.S. 3D release. Fingers crossed we get an E.U. release (announcement) soon.


----------



## marcuslaw

BLMN said:


> Trolls got a digital only release on _FandangoNOW app for Oculus Go / Quest VR headsets. Trolls world tour (aka Trolls 2) got an U.S. release on blu-ray 3D a few months ago. _
> 
> Mulan blu-ray/4K is coming out next week (11/10) as we already know no U.S. 3D release. Fingers crossed we get an E.U. release (announcement) soon.


While I am strong advocate for the format, I will be passing on Mulan whether or not it's released on Blu-ray 3-D not only because of actress Liu Yifei's support for HK police who brutalized pro-democracy protesters there, but also because of the Chinese government's treatment of the Uighurs, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

#BoycottMulan


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1301762175334256641








Calls to boycott Mulan rise after Disney release


Mulan’s release comes with new calls to boycott the film over comments made by Liu Yifei




www.theverge.com


----------



## Josh Z

marcuslaw said:


> I will be passing on Mulan whether or not it's released on Blu-ray 3-D not only because of actress Liu Yifei's support for HK police who brutalized pro-democracy protesters there, but also because of the Chinese government's treatment of the Uighurs, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.


I don't know much about Liu Yifei, but I think it's worth remembering that, no matter how wealthy, popular or influential, Chinese entertainers and celebrities who do not publicly support their repressive government can be made to suddenly disappear into a prison camp for months to years - if they're lucky enough to ever be released. The example made of Fan Bingbing terrified the entire entertainment industry in China. Chinese actors and actresses do not have the luxury of free speech.


----------



## marcuslaw

Josh Z said:


> I don't know much about Liu Yifei, but I think it's worth remembering that, no matter how wealthy, popular or influential, Chinese entertainers and celebrities who do not publicly support their repressive government can be made to suddenly disappear into a prison camp for months to years - if they're lucky enough to ever be released. The example made of Fan Bingbing terrified the entire entertainment industry in China. Chinese actors and actresses do not have the luxury of free speech.


Nevertheless, we shouldn't be selective in our principles and values. I feel a boycott of Mulan sends a message to China for its suppression of democracy and the Uighurs and to company's doing business with the communist nation like Disney (which routinely takes action in the name of social justice and equality but conveniently ignored it here). 

#BoycottMulan


----------



## bigdad56

BLMN said:


> Trolls got a digital only release on _FandangoNOW app for Oculus Go / Quest VR headsets. Trolls world tour (aka Trolls 2) got an U.S. release on blu-ray 3D a few months ago. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mulan blu-ray/4K is coming out next week (11/10) as we already know no U.S. 3D release. Fingers crossed we get an E.U. release (announcement) soon.


Didn't know that they released a 3D copy. I'll have to see if I can find one! I never saw the first iteration. I wonder if there is a 3D bluray for that as well?


----------



## Kingcarcas

Bought some Xpand glasses for $20 and turns out they were the proprietary battery ones, DOH! On an old DLP RPTV that has 3D so I decided to check it out just for kicks. I need to find the glasses with the common batteries.


----------



## PCummins

Josh Z said:


> I don't know much about Liu Yifei, but I think it's worth remembering that, no matter how wealthy, popular or influential, Chinese entertainers and celebrities who do not publicly support their repressive government can be made to suddenly disappear into a prison camp for months to years - if they're lucky enough to ever be released. The example made of Fan Bingbing terrified the entire entertainment industry in China. Chinese actors and actresses do not have the luxury of free speech.


Liu Yifei's father also appeared to have strong links to the CCP so it's hard to know if that's privately what she thinks. Of course, anyone who speaks out about these sensitive issues gets blacklisted as you say. Depending on who you talk to (HK or mainland Chinese) their views vary accordingly it seems.



marcuslaw said:


> Nevertheless, we shouldn't be selective in our principles and values. I feel a boycott of Mulan sends a message to China for its suppression of democracy and the Uighurs and to company's doing business with the communist nation like Disney (which routinely takes action in the name of social justice and equality but conveniently ignored it here).


To be fair when I did some reading Disney location scouted and did principal photography during 2018 which was before anyone really knew about the internment camps. This means Disney is in a very difficult situation in that failing to acknowledge filming locations would blacklist them out of the Chinese market, while simultaneously angering everyone who now knows about it. You're free to boycott the film however I do feel people are being selective about their principles and values by overly targeting Mulan (just look at all the YouTube videos finding things to complain about the film; this is extremely disproportionate to almost every other film).

Having said that it would be nice to have a 3D release of Mulan on Blu-Ray if the conversion had been done well but hard to know since there were so few actual theatre 3D screenings (I think it was just in China?). Perhaps there would be a re-release in theatres but it seems difficult as well given the overall negative view of the film and COVID-19 in USA at the moment.


----------



## BLMN

bigdad56 said:


> Didn't know that they released a 3D copy. I'll have to see if I can find one! I never saw the first iteration. I wonder if there is a 3D bluray for that as well?


unfortunately no 3D blu-ray for the 1st Trolls, just for World Tour.


----------



## rural scribe

bigdad56 said:


> Didn't know that they released a 3D copy. I'll have to see if I can find one! I never saw the first iteration. I wonder if there is a 3D bluray for that as well?


I don't think there is a 3D blu-ray of the original 1998 Mulan, or the 2004 Mulan II sequel. I have a blu-ray set of both, in 2D.


----------



## aoaaron

Any new 3D films on the horizon? I feel we have enough 3D films available which can last a newcomer a decade. 

Our big hope is Avatar 2/3/4 but god knows where Cameron is on that and if the hype machine can truly get people into it. Given we're not delivering cinema to the home, surely that is 1000% counterproductive to Avatar 2/3/4 to the extent its almost not worth releasing the film. 

We could do with some Cameron post-conversion genius on a few classic films to get us ready for Avatar 2. 

It would be a masterstroke if one of the TV manufacturers gets an exclusive deal on some form of 3D display technology on an OLED panel. I think it'd steer A LOT of people towards the TV that can do 3D over those that cannot.


----------



## Postmoderndesign

tomtastic said:


> I saw Gravity last weekend, I must say this is the best example of 3D I've seen yet and probably the best movie in the last 20 years. That being said, can 3D survive? It seems like there's just been too much post converted 3D, or lack of content to begin with. Haven't seen much released on Blu ray that's been decent 3D in awhile, all seems to just be post converted or just lame depth only stuff. If they don't make 3D standard on TV's I just don't see it continuing much longer.
> 
> 
> I was really excited about a year ago, now I'm thinking about getting a 3D camcorder but I'm wondering if it's even worth it. Is 3D once again, just another passing fad? I really hope not because there is a lot of potential with movies like Gravity and documentaries just doesn't seem to be gaining steam now. If you look at TV content it will probably disappear altogether in the next year. There's what, 2 channels left? ESPN's gone, which I never understood why that was 3D anyway if they weren't going to show live content, there's nothing new on 3D TV.
> 
> 
> So are manufactures backing off 3D? Or is it still going forward like it was a few years ago? I noticed there's not much in the way of 3D camcorders.


I agree-Gravity is a top 3D movie-3D is dead once again. But 3D has a habit of rising from the grave, you just need to live long enough.


----------



## marcuslaw

Postmoderndesign said:


> I agree-Gravity is a top 3D movie-3D is dead once again. But 3D has a habit of rising from the grave, you just need to live long enough.


It'll be back in some form for the Fall of 2023 when Avatar 2 hits the home video market. Look for manufacturers to release new panels that support a stereoscopic format (whatever it will be called but hopefully backward compatible to support Blu-ray 3D) in 2023.


----------



## Frank714

marcuslaw said:


> Look for manufacturers to release new panels that support a stereoscopic format (whatever it will be called but hopefully backward compatible to support Blu-ray 3D) in 2023.


Question: AFAIK 3D program content is still popular in China. How do the Chinese watch their 3D programs, I'm sure they don't do so exclusively on front projectors. So I suspect there are plenty of domestic Chinese flat screens that provide 3D support, but just don't find their way to the Americas or Europe.


----------



## MrEmoto

marcuslaw said:


> It'll be back in some form for the Fall of 2023 when Avatar 2 hits the home video market. Look for manufacturers to release new panels that support a stereoscopic format (whatever it will be called but hopefully backward compatible to support Blu-ray 3D) in 2023.





Frank714 said:


> Question: AFAIK 3D program content is still popular in China. How do the Chinese watch their 3D programs, I'm sure they don't do so exclusively on front projectors. So I suspect there are plenty of domestic Chinese flat screens that provide 3D support, but just don't find their way to the Americas or Europe.


I love what you guys are saying and REALLY hope you are correct. My 2011 Panasonic Plasma can't last forever, so I hope there will be something for me to buy when replacement time comes. I cannot imagine going without 3D.


----------



## PCummins

aoaaron said:


> Any new 3D films on the horizon? I feel we have enough 3D films available which can last a newcomer a decade.


I noted "Monster Hunter" was supposed to be in 3D but after being pulled in China hard to know if it'll be popular enough worldwide to get a release. The usual Marvel/DC films should be 3D but of course it's harder to know with Disney if they will release them on Blu-Ray 3D given Mulan wasn't (even in UK).



Frank714 said:


> Question: AFAIK 3D program content is still popular in China. How do the Chinese watch their 3D programs, I'm sure they don't do so exclusively on front projectors. So I suspect there are plenty of domestic Chinese flat screens that provide 3D support, but just don't find their way to the Americas or Europe.


I had a quick look on AliExpress/Alibaba, they still sell cheap FHD (or 4K?) TV's with 3D it seems in China so I expect there is still a good market for new/used 3D TV's in China, or manufacturers willing to mass produce them.


----------



## aoaaron

PCummins said:


> I noted "Monster Hunter" was supposed to be in 3D but after being pulled in China hard to know if it'll be popular enough worldwide to get a release. The usual Marvel/DC films should be 3D but of course it's harder to know with Disney if they will release them on Blu-Ray 3D given Mulan wasn't (even in UK).
> 
> 
> 
> I had a quick look on AliExpress/Alibaba, they still sell cheap FHD (or 4K?) TV's with 3D it seems in China so I expect there is still a good market for new/used 3D TV's in China, or manufacturers willing to mass produce them.



Yeah. Im just looking at building a strong 3D Bluray collection now and calling it a day if we get any more. I've ordered in about 200-300 blu rays discs.. that should be enough to last me. I'm about 80-90 discs up at the moment.. found a few good chinese films too but getting subtitles is hard. 

Its sad cos its an amazing format and EVERY SINGLE person I've shown it too has been gobsmacked,, but this is on a dedicated home theatre projection setup. people say its like watching the film again.. and due to the depth of field.. the detail retrieval on things infront of u is huge... 

Just enjoyed a few clips of both beauty and the beast films and they are phenomenal. 


a simple film like even frozen is amazing in 3D. When elsa does her spells in the mountains in 4K HDR.. it looks pretty. in 3D, it IS magical. 
Wonder woman scene when they are all shooting at her.. it IS intense.. debris is going into ur face, bullet is infront of ur line of sight...
titanic scene when rose comes out of the car in the intro.. the depth of field IS beautiful. 




anyway.. i would be upset and laying flowers at 3D gravestone but James Cameron has a fetish for 3D and no doubt will revitalise it.. even if it is temporary. My worry is display device wise I don't see how even James C can convince TV manufacturers to pack 3D in again. We really do need a 3D input device or method of plugging in a player or box and it doing the 3D transcoding.. i know this is impossible.. but this present moment in time the commerciablly viable devices for watching 3D are VR headsets and projectors. both niche products and projectors if u want a good one are expensive.


----------



## MrEmoto

aoaaron said:


> Yeah. Im just looking at building a strong 3D Bluray collection now and calling it a day if we get any more. I've ordered in about 200-300 blu rays discs.. that should be enough to last me. I'm about 80-90 discs up at the moment.. found a few good chinese films too but getting subtitles is hard.
> 
> Its sad cos its an amazing format and EVERY SINGLE person I've shown it too has been gobsmacked,, but this is on a dedicated home theatre projection setup. people say its like watching the film again.. and due to the depth of field.. the detail retrieval on things infront of u is huge...
> 
> Just enjoyed a few clips of both beauty and the beast films and they are phenomenal.
> 
> 
> a simple film like even frozen is amazing in 3D. When elsa does her spells in the mountains in 4K HDR.. it looks pretty. in 3D, it IS magical.
> Wonder woman scene when they are all shooting at her.. it IS intense.. debris is going into ur face, bullet is infront of ur line of sight...
> titanic scene when rose comes out of the car in the intro.. the depth of field IS beautiful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyway.. i would be upset and laying flowers at 3D gravestone but James Cameron has a fetish for 3D and no doubt will revitalise it.. even if it is temporary. My worry is display device wise I don't see how even James C can convince TV manufacturers to pack 3D in again. We really do need a 3D input device or method of plugging in a player or box and it doing the 3D transcoding.. i know this is impossible.. but this present moment in time the commerciablly viable devices for watching 3D are VR headsets and projectors. both niche products and projectors if u want a good one are expensive.


It is my understanding (perhaps wrong) that 3D TVs are still being sold in China, due to the popularity of the format there. If that is true (not sure how to confirm) then I imagine that it would not be too much of a stretch for those manufacturers to decide to sell into other markets, if they think there is sufficient interest. Or, perhaps there is a way to get grey market units, I don't know. 

For myself, I got into 3D viewing quite by accident, but am so glad that I did! I needed a new TV in 2011, and after doing a little research decided that a Panasonic plasma would be just the thing. I didn't care anything about 3D and had never seen a 3D movie. It was on sale at Sears as a package with 2 pairs of 3D glasses and a free copy of Avatar that would come in the mail later. Eventually, Avatar arrived and I watched it. Am a big sci-fi lover, so really enjoyed the film. I've been gradually adding to my collection over time. Not sure how many I have, but not all that many. I keep my eyes open for sale pricing here and there.


----------



## aoaaron

MrEmoto said:


> It is my understanding (perhaps wrong) that 3D TVs are still being sold in China, due to the popularity of the format there. If that is true (not sure how to confirm) then I imagine that it would not be too much of a stretch for those manufacturers to decide to sell into other markets, if they think there is sufficient interest. Or, perhaps there is a way to get grey market units, I don't know.
> 
> For myself, I got into 3D viewing quite by accident, but am so glad that I did! I needed a new TV in 2011, and after doing a little research decided that a Panasonic plasma would be just the thing. I didn't care anything about 3D and had never seen a 3D movie. It was on sale at Sears as a package with 2 pairs of 3D glasses and a free copy of Avatar that would come in the mail later. Eventually, Avatar arrived and I watched it. Am a big sci-fi lover, so really enjoyed the film. I've been gradually adding to my collection over time. Not sure how many I have, but not all that many. I keep my eyes open for sale pricing here and there.



I hope so mate.

I got into 3D via my VR headsets. I played Frozen 1 on my Oculus Rift and later on the Quest then the Index and was very impressed. Felt.. special. So when I bought my Epson projector 6050.. I ended up just buying Frozen in 3D to see what it would be like on that.

And then WOW. Having something project into your room was so much better than the VR experience. 

I then demo-ed it with all my family members and everyone preferred the 3D. With a gigantic screen, I think 3D truly comes into its own. Sadly that Epson PJ broke so I went to my Panasonic 902B which also had 3D.

I liked it on that but it did have cross talk and it was only 65 inches so some films were in my opinion unwatchable (e.g. avengers) cos spiderman and all the avengers looked more like toys jumping around my room (something to do with 3D makinf things look smaller). 

I then bought a 77'' OLED and said goodbye to 3D... but god damn I missed it... 

I then found a second hand 6040 for £1000... and snapped it up straight away and ended up returning the 77'' OLED cos the projector was always more fun and better experience and the family and guests when i played something on the OLED would ask to put it on the PJ to 'see what it looks like'...


----------



## Technology3456

I am trying to make a 3D setup for my home and I'm new to the technology. Can anyone tell me if this is still true? Four Reasons to Avoid Stacking Projectors for Passive 3D Installs 



> *REASON #3 – COMPLEXITY*
> Third, a two projector 3D solution requires that the 3D signal be pre-processed and split, with left eye content going to one projector and right eye content going to the other projector. This requires not only additional hardware but also more complex cabling and switching. As of today, there are no retail processors available that can break down a HDMI 1.4a 3D signal to discrete left and right eye with HDCP handshakes.


----------



## PCummins

Technology3456 said:


> I am trying to make a 3D setup for my home and I'm new to the technology. Can anyone tell me if this is still true? Four Reasons to Avoid Stacking Projectors for Passive 3D Installs


Still seems true today given you can still buy a decent native 3D supported projector (with optional 4K support), or if cost is an issue a cheaper second hand FHD 3D projector vs going to the effort of making a dual-projector setup. From the threads online here crosstalk appears to be close to none (or none) with good quality DLP projectors and Active Shutter glasses (DLP Link or RF) and I haven't seen any complaints of flickering which would have been an incentive for dual setups. Perhaps some people with home 3D projector setups can testify?


----------



## Technology3456

PCummins said:


> Still seems true today given you can still buy a decent native 3D supported projector (with optional 4K support), or if cost is an issue a cheaper second hand FHD 3D projector vs going to the effort of making a dual-projector setup. From the threads online here crosstalk appears to be close to none (or none) with good quality DLP projectors and Active Shutter glasses (DLP Link or RF) and I haven't seen any complaints of flickering which would have been an incentive for dual setups. *Perhaps some people with home 3D projector setups can testify?*


Yes please. Although Im less worried about the trouble involved, more worried about quality. If passive is 10% easier on the eyes, then its worth it to me. Also how can active work without flicker? Dont the glasses have to shutter? Also I think only one eye can have a frame delivered at a time, whereas passive can be both at same time. That seems like it might be better especially for long viewing periods. 

But I really have no idea. I just know the article I used as a guide did say for some viewers that passive would be easier on the eyes. It didnt also say "for some viewers, active may be easier on the eyes than passive." It made a point to say that, yeah for some people its the same, but if there is an advantage, it goes to passive. The article was like 10 years old tho.


----------



## PCummins

Technology3456 said:


> Yes please. Although Im less worried about the trouble involved, more worried about quality. If passive is 10% easier on the eyes, then its worth it to me. Also how can active work without flicker? Dont the glasses have to shutter? Also I think only one eye can have a frame delivered at a time, whereas passive can be both at same time. That seems like it might be better especially for long viewing periods.
> 
> But I really have no idea. I just know the article I used as a guide did say for some viewers that passive would be easier on the eyes. It didnt also say "for some viewers, active may be easier on the eyes than passive." It made a point to say that, yeah for some people its the same, but if there is an advantage, it goes to passive. The article was like 10 years old tho.


The newer DLP projectors are using colour wheels running at higher speeds and the glasses shutter at 144 Hz which is fast enough to avoid/reduce flicker, worth doing a search on the forums here as people have commented about crosstalk and flicker with regards to various projector models to get a general idea of how good/bad it is. Passive will show both frames simultaneously to each eye, Active will alternate which frame is shown to which eye.

It also depends on what article you are talking about, the ones from 10 years ago were during the Active vs Passive wars mostly on the TV front and projector technology also wasn't as good as what it is today (slower DLP colour wheel speed, slower glasses, etc). From a cost/quality POV picking & getting a good quality recent 3D FHD (or 4K) projector seems to make more sense if you are new to 3D vs seeking to set up a Passive system initially. If you didn't like the quality then it would be worth then considering the upgrade.

On the TV front it's simpler - if you can get a Passive 3D 4K OLED TV (ideally a C, E or G 6 series without burn-in and aligned filters) that's about as good as it gets. With Active YMMV with regards to flicker/eyestrain depending on what glasses/TV you're using, some people are fine while others like myself can notice it pretty easily.


----------



## Technology3456

PCummins said:


> The newer DLP projectors are using colour wheels running at higher speeds and the glasses shutter at 144 Hz


Is that native 72hz for each eye, or native 120hz with 3:2 or something I dont understand the terms. Because I thought I read there are no DLP projectors that do full 144hz, its like 120hz plus 24 extra using some trick or something, No?



> On the TV front it's simpler - if you can get a Passive 3D 4K OLED TV (ideally a C, E or G 6 series without burn-in and aligned filters) that's about as good as it gets. With Active YMMV with regards to flicker/eyestrain depending on what glasses/TV you're using, some people are fine while others like myself can notice it pretty easily.


How can one OLED display output frames to each eye simultaneously? Or is it passive but with alternating to each eye like active?

I really dont know what's best but the idea of alternating eyes doesn't sound the best to me, and if I can avoid glasses that need batteries that would also be good. And the article I read (it was about projector 3D DIY) said passive might be least bothersome to sensitive people or people who might want to watch 3D movies for 4 hours back to back or something. So since there's no way to really know without trying everything, and trying everything includes trying this, and trying this is a big project and big investment that procludes my ability to try everything else, so, that means there's really no way Im going to find out for sure, and I just have to decide based on what Ive read. And unless you and others truly think there is zero advantage to passive linear polarization projector stack over active shutter, or OLED passive eye alternating 3D, then I'd like to try this one.

And if I try this kind, can you advise the best processors filters etc new or used that I will need?


----------



## PCummins

Technology3456 said:


> Is that native 72hz for each eye, or native 120hz with 3:2 or something I dont understand the terms. Because I thought I read there are no DLP projectors that do full 144hz, its like 120hz plus 24 extra using some trick or something, No?


Native 72 Hz per eye to convert 24 FPS x 3 = 72 Hz, then 2x for 144 Hz. From memory the 6x colour wheel DLP's should be able to do 144 Hz without any issues but it's not something I've been researching.



Technology3456 said:


> How can one OLED display output frames to each eye simultaneously? Or is it passive but with alternating to each eye like active?


It uses a specific polarising film (FPR) to alternate the rows on the screen, so each row shows alternative L/R eye 3D frames and is polarised correctly for the passive glasses. Since 4K has enough pixels height wise (2160px) there is no quality loss with existing 3D Blu-Ray media (one of the big arguments against FHD Passive 3D).



Technology3456 said:


> So since there's no way to really know without trying everything, and trying everything includes trying this


That's why you are best off reading these forums to see what other people think, they don't seem to have significant issues using DLP Link/RF Active Glasses for 3D, there may be members nearby who would be willing to demonstrate their systems if you are in the same local area as well. If you get a good quality Active 3D projector that can be adapted to Passive later that is better than going all out on a Passive system initially as the additional upfront cost doesn't seem beneficial unless you absolutely had issues with Active 3D (ie headaches, eyestrain, etc). Most people seem to opt for a HTPC to split to 2x outputs for passive projector systems, there's links online for how other people have built their own systems which can be followed I guess?


----------



## Josh Z

It is impossible to 100% align two separate projectors to create one image, because each projector is shining from a different angle. That's just basic geometry and can never be resolved. You can get it close enough that maybe it's not overly noticeable, but it will always be a little off. With 2D images, this will result in a slight softening of the picture. With 3D, it could throw off the parallax offset and cause crosstalk artifacts. I think that would be at least as distracting and possibly more so than any potential flicker from active shutter glasses. YMMV.


----------



## fatherom

Josh Z said:


> It is impossible to 100% align two separate projectors to create one image, because each projector is shining from a different angle. That's just basic geometry and can never be resolved. You can get it close enough that maybe it's not overly noticeable, but it will always be a little off. With 2D images, this will result in a slight softening of the picture. With 3D, it could throw off the parallax offset and cause crosstalk artifacts. I think that would be at least as distracting and possibly more so than any potential flicker from active shutter glasses. YMMV.


Agreed, but there are tons of dual projector setups out there (movie theaters, home setups). It's a pretty known precedent to increase brightness by combining the image from multiple projectors. So I'm guessing there's ways to mitigate the geometry issues.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> It is impossible to 100% align two separate projectors to create one image, because each projector is shining from a different angle. That's just basic geometry and can never be resolved. You can get it close enough that maybe it's not overly noticeable, but it will always be a little off. With 2D images, this will result in a slight softening of the picture. With 3D, it could throw off the parallax offset and cause crosstalk artifacts. I think that would be at least as distracting and possibly more so than any potential flicker from active shutter glasses. YMMV.


Lens shift cant make up for 12 inch height difference of two projectors throwing an image 2x screen away or so?


----------



## Josh Z

Technology3456 said:


> Lens shift cant make up for 12 inch height difference of two projectors throwing an image 2x screen away or so?


The problem isn't just the height; it's the angle. Lens shift can get the images _mostly_ aligned, but never exactly. This is mitigated in a cinema setting (like, for example, digital IMAX theaters that use two projectors) because the long throw distance to the screen reduces the offset problem. It's much harder to do in the home environment.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> The problem isn't just the height; it's the angle. Lens shift can get the images _mostly_ aligned, but never exactly. This is mitigated in a cinema setting (like, for example, digital IMAX theaters that use two projectors) because the long throw distance to the screen reduces the offset problem. It's much harder to do in the home environment.


Interesting. But IMAX has much bigger screens too. So are you saying 100 feet away from a 100 foot screen is less problematic than 10 feet away from a 10 foot screen?

What throw distance do you recommend exceeding for it to work? A lot of people do it, at least they used to. I think the only reason you see it less now is because they dont make many 3D movies anymore anyway. Which is the biggest thing holding me back but if I can do it Im going to do it anyway. Maybe hope that once Avatar 2 comes out, 3D will be in vogue again. Meantime, I'll watch some old stuff. I just want to have both options if I can swing it, and good quality of both. Let me know what throw distance you recommend exceeding.


----------



## Josh Z

Technology3456 said:


> What throw distance do you recommend exceeding for it to work?


I mean, I don't recommend doing it, is what I'm saying. It's hugely expensive, difficult, and will probably never be satisfying - at least not enough to justify everything you go through for it. 

Active shutter 3D may not be perfect, but it has huge advantages in cost and practicality. In addition to the alignment issues, uneven aging of the lamps in each projector can really wreck your picture. What if one lamp dims faster or burns out sooner than the other? 

Realistically, how much 3D content do you watch? With less and less 3D content being made and released, even if you're a huge 3D fanatic you'll eventually find yourself watching regular 2D 90-99% of the time.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> I mean, I don't recommend doing it, is what I'm saying. It's hugely expensive, difficult, and will probably never be satisfying - at least not enough to justify everything you go through for it.
> 
> Active shutter 3D may not be perfect, but it has huge advantages in cost and practicality. In addition to the alignment issues, uneven aging of the lamps in each projector can really wreck your picture. What if one lamp dims faster or burns out sooner than the other?
> 
> Realistically, how much 3D content do you watch? With less and less 3D content being made and released, even if you're a huge 3D fanatic you'll eventually find yourself watching regular 2D 90-99% of the time.


You make great points. It's just confusing because it's hard for me to find information elsewhere, and in terms of your post, parts of it are also a bit confusing when you say that passive double stack 3D "will probably never be satisfying," but then you recommend active shutter 3D because it has advantages in costs and practicality even though it "may not be perfect." Does that imply even less perfect than the never satisfying passive 3D? Since the only advantages you mentioned were cost and practicality, but not quality, then its quality must be equal or worse to passive, which would still make it "probably never satisfying." In which case even if it costs less and is more practical, what's the point in paying any money at all for something that will never be satisfying, or that is even a notch below something else that already can never be satisfying?

I may be misinterpreting but are you basically saying, passive 3D is unsatisfying and not worth watching, and active 3D is even more unsatisfying and unwatchable, so you may as well go with the cheaper and easier option because you will never want to use either one anyway once you see it, but really, you shouldn't bother with 3D at all? Is that a fair characterization? Just if I am dead set on 3D, then I may as well pay less money for something worthless than more money for something worthless?

And I assume you are talking about true 144hz active 3D to both eyes, or no? Because all the old posts on the forum are comparing like 120hz or 98hz or 60hz active shutter to passive 3D, so of course that makes active look bad. There are very few posts comparing active 144hz (true 144hz) to passive. The impression I get reading between the lines is that passive might still be a tad better in quality, but the gap has narrowed so much that active is a very viable choice now especially with the right type of projectors (ones with smooth motion in 2D to begin with) and considering it's easier. But there are some people with DLP active 144hz (I think) shudder setups who swear by it. However from your post, it sounds like the best of both is unsatisfying and not worth watching.


----------



## DavidK442

Technology3456 said:


> I may be misinterpreting but are you basically saying, passive 3D is unsatisfying and not worth watching, and active 3D is even more unsatisfying and unwatchable, so you may as well go with the cheaper and easier option because you will never want to use either one anyway once you see it, but really, you shouldn't bother with 3D at all? Is that a fair characterization? Just if I am dead set on 3D, then I may as well pay less money for something worthless than more money for something worthless?


I don't think that is what he said.

Curious: What projector setup do you have currently?


----------



## Technology3456

DavidK442 said:


> I don't think that is what he said.


He _said _passive is unsatisfying, and _implied _active is equal or worse quality but more affordable and easier to set up, but further clarification would be great, I definitely could have misinterpreted something as I said. But of what he wrote so far, that was what was implied, the only confusion is "implied" is not the same as saying outright, so there's still some grey area. But of what he wrote so far, that would be the only meaning I could see anyone taking from it.



> Curious: What projector setup do you have currently?


I have an Infocus IN83 that has been out of use for 10 years due to various reasons having to do with the space. Now I can finally put it back up, but I want to upgrade so dont want to buy a screen for the IN83 if Im going to be using something else (possibly double stack). So I can't give you a clear answer right now but I'm near the end of the process, have a few options I am still exploring but very close to the finish line, the real finish line not the mirage finish lines I've already ran into five times only to realize there was still endless track ahead. I'm talking with people about screens, but a lot of screen reps it feels like they almost don't want my money. They don't provide prices, or options. They're almost like, "yeah this might work for you or it might not. It's $7,000. Buy it or not I don't care, I can't be bothered listing the full options available and the prices." That's an exaggeration but it's a bit like pulling teeth trying to get any info out of them even though I am a sale waiting to happen (not for $7,000, but is $2,000 not also good money?).

It's very strange I've never experienced a sales market like this with anything else in my life where the companies don't really seem to care about selling their products, and they hide the prices of 95% of their items from you even after you ask them. A few of them have been great to deal with but the majority it's been difficult.


----------



## Josh Z

Technology3456 said:


> I may be misinterpreting but are you basically saying, passive 3D is unsatisfying and not worth watching, and active 3D is even more unsatisfying and unwatchable, so you may as well go with the cheaper and easier option because you will never want to use either one anyway once you see it, but really, you shouldn't bother with 3D at all? Is that a fair characterization? Just if I am dead set on 3D, then I may as well pay less money for something worthless than more money for something worthless?


That is not what I said, and you are overthinking this. Active 3D is fine. It is not perfect. There is no such thing as "perfect" 3D for the home, especially with projection. For one thing, the act of putting on 3D glasses will dim the picture tremendously.

For projection, both forms of 3D have their trade-offs. Dual-projector passive 3D has more tradeoffs and is exponentially more difficult and expensive. There is no good reason to do it, IMO.

DLP is the only display technology completely free of 3D crosstalk artifacts. The current generation of JVC D-ILA projectors (*not* the older ones) is a close second for this, and has much better image quality in other respects. LCD projectors are terrible for crosstalk.


----------



## Technology3456

Josh Z said:


> DLP is the only display technology completely free of 3D crosstalk artifacts. The current generation of JVC D-ILA projectors (*not* the older ones) is a close second for this, and has much better image quality in other respects. LCD projectors are terrible for crosstalk.


DLP is free of crosstalk in active 3D you mean? Or both passive and active? 

Thoughts on frame interpolation in 3D?


----------



## Ryan Howard

To answer original post, yes 3D is dead..or perhaps a zombie that don't quite die.


----------



## Technology3456

Ryan Howard said:


> To answer original post, yes 3D is dead..or perhaps a zombie that don't quite die.


I dont understand why though? It wasnt just alive, people were literally paying extra to watch in 3D. So why did they kill it outright... just lower the cost of tickets to normal prices, more people will go to the 3D version if they have the option and its good 3D. I know it costs more to produce, but more people will go so it balances out. And even at home I think there's a big market for it there just needs to be readily available TVs that have brightness for 3D and 3D that doesnt cause eye strain. So that part wont be available yet, but as far as theatrical 3D, I dont understand why it died. It didnt die so much as it was killed by lack of quality 3D movies being made by hollywood, and too expensive ticket prices, and poor presentation. 

But I could be wrong because Im not super knowledgeable about it. I just know that people were paying extra for it at one time so they must have liked it.


----------



## Ryan Howard

It died due to having to chose from different versions of the hardware, mainly the glasses. Then you all had to huddle together at home in dead center of viewing area to truly enjoy the full experience. 

But in the end, it was just a big hassle to watch at home, are the glasses charged, do I get to sit in sweet spot and do on. Plus guests who didn't have spare glasses to use we're sol. 

Add to that cost of a whole family set up didn't help. And as mentioned, a majority of the movies offered were crapfest movies to begin with. I still see people spend all kinds of $$$$ and time and overseas shipping costs to just get one truly crappy movie, just because it's "3D!!". 

It will never return to the home after the huge failure manufacturers saw happen this last time. Plus physical media is 1 tick away from death and very few companies even want to make disc players.

It was an amusing niche market for it's time, but those days are long gone.


----------



## krauley

Ryan Howard said:


> It died due to having to chose from different versions of the hardware, mainly the glasses. Then you all had to huddle together at home in dead center of viewing area to truly enjoy the full experience.
> 
> But in the end, it was just a big hassle to watch at home, are the glasses charged, do I get to sit in sweet spot and do on. Plus guests who didn't have spare glasses to use we're sol.
> 
> Add to that cost of a whole family set up didn't help. And as mentioned, a majority of the movies offered were crapfest movies to begin with. I still see people spend all kinds of $$$$ and time and overseas shipping costs to just get one truly crappy movie, just because it's "3D!!".
> 
> It will never return to the home after the huge failure manufacturers saw happen this last time. Plus physical media is 1 tick away from death and very few companies even want to make disc players.
> 
> It was an amusing niche market for it's time, but those days are long gone.


you sound just like the guy in your avatar. i dont know if thats intentional or not. But i would like to think that most of us here in this forum section enjoy 3d movies and have a different view.


----------



## Josh Z

Technology3456 said:


> DLP is free of crosstalk in active 3D you mean? Or both passive and active?


I was referring to active 3D.



> Thoughts on frame interpolation in 3D?


I'm not generally a fan of frame interpolation, but I do find that turning it on the lowest setting on my JVC projector helps reduce flicker in 3D. I turn it off for all 2D.


----------



## Ryan Howard

No doubt there is a niche of diehard users, but the thread title is " Is 3D about dead?" so all opinions count here.


----------



## fatherom

Josh Z said:


> I'm not generally a fan of frame interpolation, but I do find that turning it on the lowest setting on my JVC projector helps reduce flicker in 3D. I turn it off for all 2D.


Could you elaborate on this?

I used to have an epson 5020 and loved the 3d (120hz glasses so 60hz per eye)

I then moved to a Sony 885es and the 4k with the added brightness makes 3d great, but the 96hz glasses rate really makes flicker in bright scenes (skies, etc) noticeable due to the 48hz per eye. 

Would turning on mild FI help with this kind of flicker?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aaronwt

I definitely preferred active 3D at home over passive 3D. Plus the active 3D had a higher resolution.


----------



## tomtastic

Right now my highest resolution screens are passive. Up to 4K resolution in 3D if sending a 4K3D source. My active screen is only 1080p. The only reason I like active more for movies is the size of screen. And that since it's DLP, crosstalk-free. Although OLED isn't too bad either.


----------



## krauley

Ryan Howard said:


> No doubt there is a niche of diehard users, but the thread title is " Is 3D about dead?" so all opinions count here.


yes they do but look at the date of the original post and yet we are still here


----------



## Josh Z

fatherom said:


> Could you elaborate on this?
> 
> I used to have an epson 5020 and loved the 3d (120hz glasses so 60hz per eye)
> 
> I then moved to a Sony 885es and the 4k with the added brightness makes 3d great, but the 96hz glasses rate really makes flicker in bright scenes (skies, etc) noticeable due to the 48hz per eye.
> 
> Would turning on mild FI help with this kind of flicker?


I found that it helped on my JVC. Cannot speak for Sony.


----------



## 3DBob

144hz dlp 24fps is flicker free. I have the Optoma 52ALV and 3D is the best I've ever seen, and I've seen it all..passive, dlp, lcd, rf, etc. Bright and sharp, and I have a 160" screen. It's a 2.5 gain Dalite Highpower, which, where I sit gives me about 1.8 gain, but it's so imax like. Yeah, you can't buy the Highpower screens anymore unless on ebay. But, people have had good results with 150" screen off of Amazon, but don't get the cheap ones.


----------



## Technology3456

3DBob said:


> 144hz dlp 24fps is flicker free. I have the Optoma 52ALV and 3D is the best I've ever seen, and I've seen it all..passive, dlp, lcd, rf, etc. Bright and sharp, and I have a 160" screen. It's a 2.5 gain Dalite Highpower, which, where I sit gives me about 1.8 gain, but it's so imax like. Yeah, you can't buy the Highpower screens anymore unless on ebay. *But, people have had good results with 150" screen off of Amazon, but don't get the cheap ones.*


Which 150" amazon screen? And does it come in less than 150"?



> 144hz dlp 24fps is flicker free. I have the Optoma 52ALV and 3D is the best I've ever seen, and I've seen it all..passive, dlp, lcd, rf, etc.


Thanks for sharing your experience! Since most people aren't going to see all the different types, that's the best way we have to gauge it is to compare people's experiences who have seen most or all of it. My question is, you said you've seen 144hz dlp 24fps, and you've seen passive, dlp, lcd, rf, etc, but have you seen _passive dlp, passive lcd, passive rf, etc, _and have you seen _full resolution passive _in each of those or _half resolution passive_, etc etc. It sounds like you've seen many different types, but have you seen the absolute best of each type? Because 144hz dlp 24fps is probably the best active 3D that there is, so unless you're also comparing it to the best passive 3D there is, it might still not give us as clear advice as we think. 

And did you see simultaneous passive, or alternating passive?

And was it linear polarization passive, or Infetec, or Omega, or what type?


----------



## 3DBob

Best to search and ask on the screen forum. Lots of experience there.

Of course, I haven't seen all permutations of passive except for the two projectors on a silver screen. Works great for slides, but not so much for movies. And, it's only as good as the projectors used. In search of 3D nirvana, I think you will never be fully satisfied because of the downside of tinkering with every two-projector system you encounter, whether consistent color, contrast and detail in the shadows, alignment because each projector is always slightly out of alignment to the other--not noticeable on a smaller screen, but will create ghosting on a very large screen. That said, feel free to tinker and let us know how it's going. I don't think you will ever get enough feedback from this forum to make a decision either way. Seeing for yourself is the only way to find out what you really want.


----------



## ryudoadema

Josh Z said:


> That is not what I said, and you are overthinking this. Active 3D is fine. It is not perfect. There is no such thing as "perfect" 3D for the home, especially with projection. For one thing, the act of putting on 3D glasses will dim the picture tremendously.
> 
> For projection, both forms of 3D have their trade-offs. Dual-projector passive 3D has more tradeoffs and is exponentially more difficult and expensive. There is no good reason to do it, IMO.
> 
> DLP is the only display technology completely free of 3D crosstalk artifacts. The current generation of JVC D-ILA projectors (*not* the older ones) is a close second for this, and has much better image quality in other respects. LCD projectors are terrible for crosstalk.


The current crop of lcd from Epson (5040ub and 5050ub) are excellent for 3d and 9/10 movies have undetectable levels of crosstalk with the right settings. Low brightness setting is one of them, and I turned it up to medium for a bit more brightness and still only detect a hint of crosstalk in 50% of movies. Also have to keep auto-iris off, which is fine since you want it as bright as possible all the time.

I came from the benq 1070 and ht3050 before it which I'd never seen crosstalk on. I tested several lcds like the 2045 and could not deal with the crosstalk as I am quite sensitive to things like that- rainbows on dlp, too, but I didn't mind them so much. Anyway I was super dissapointed with the 5040ub at first with crosstalk everywhere. Just a few settings changes and it nigh dissapeared. It loses some brightness due to these changes, but it is still way brighter in 3d than my 1070 and 3050 were. Also has cfi in 3d which can be nice on animations and some heavy cgi movies, though I usually keep it off.

Edit: Also agree with 3dBob that the uhd51alv and uhd52alv are great for 3d. Those two and the Epson 5040ub/5050ub are top 3d I have seen. The only thing I would consider upgrading to would be Optoma or Epson's next iterations of the same, or one with laser. I've seen several laser projectors lately that I bet are phenomenol for 3d, yet are out of my budget by about 2 to $40K!


----------



## MrEmoto

I love to see all of the mention of projectors. I watch everything on my Panny Plasma, but if that should ever pass on to the great entertainment center in the sky, I would probably buy a projector system, especially since seeing some of the comments about achieving good brightness that have been posted recently.


----------



## Technology3456

3DBob said:


> Best to search and ask on the screen forum. Lots of experience there.
> 
> Of course, I haven't seen all permutations of passive except for the two projectors on a silver screen. Works great for slides, but not so much for movies. And, it's only as good as the projectors used. In search of 3D nirvana, I think you will never be fully satisfied because of the downside of tinkering with every two-projector system you encounter, whether consistent color, contrast and detail in the shadows, alignment because each projector is always slightly out of alignment to the other--not noticeable on a smaller screen, but will create ghosting on a very large screen. That said, feel free to tinker and let us know how it's going. I don't think you will ever get enough feedback from this forum to make a decision either way. Seeing for yourself is the only way to find out what you really want.


Thanks for answering. I totally agree with you that I want to try everything myself and that's the only way, but it's too expensive. I'll post my impressions in however many months/years it takes to find two of the projectors I want and test what I can test, for sure.


----------



## 2ndvizio

I was going to write how I think 3d is dead since there are so many movies in 3d that aren't released on blu ray. But I counted the number of 3d blu rays I bought this year and it's 46 so I suppose the content might be there, just hard to find. One last shopping spree as it seems like prices are going up when they go out of print. Last purchase was in 2019 so that is 2 years worth I suppose. Last purchase was Pina which is a dance documentary so I might be just scraping the barrel. Hope if I search again 2 years from now, there still will be more titles to buy.


----------



## 3DBob

Probably only Avatar movies in the future. I think most theaters are dumping their 3D projectors now. 3D really wasn't much of a money maker for them anyway. The last two Marvel movies I saw a couple years ago before the shutdown only had a few people watching along with myself.


----------



## 2ndvizio

If the theaters are dumping 3D projectors, that is a bad news for 3D. I can understand not buying new equipment but dumping stuff you already own, that doesn't make sense unless you know there aren't any more movies coming in 3D.


----------



## Josh Z

2ndvizio said:


> If the theaters are dumping 3D projectors, that is a bad news for 3D. I can understand not buying new equipment but dumping stuff you already own, that doesn't make sense unless you know there aren't any more movies coming in 3D.


Most existing 3D projectors are only 2K resolution. 4K is the current hotness more likely to sell tickets.


----------



## Technology3456

2ndvizio said:


> If the theaters are dumping 3D projectors, that is a bad news for 3D. I can understand not buying new equipment but dumping stuff you already own, that doesn't make sense unless you know there aren't any more movies coming in 3D.


They may be dropping the current ones but buying new ones with 4K capability as well, in preparation for Avatar 2. Didnt Black Widow just come out in 3D in theaters? I think Dune is going to have a 3D release. They're being released so there must be some theaters that can do it.

I have heard people say 3D is still very popular overseas, just not currently in the US. So maybe theaters in the US are selling 3D projectors, but not overseas. I have no inside info about it but hopefully there will be more 3D releases. Wonder Woman 1984 and Godzilla vs Kong are two recent ones, and hopefully Black Widow and, especially, Dune, will get 3D blu ray releases. Really hoping on Dune. 

There are some 10 year old articles about Matrix 4 being in 3D also. Nothing recent but, that would be awesome too, to get a Matrix 4 3D blu ray. That and Dune would be top of the list of movies Im aware of coming out soon. Havent heard anything about Matrix 4, but hopefully at least Dune will get a 3D blu ray.


----------



## 3DBob

Yup, Black Widow just came out in 3D. But got to remember, the decision for it to be made also in 3D was made around 2018, and it was delayed more than a year to hit theaters. It's not current from what is in the hamper for new Marvel movies from what I understand. Here was the list of 3D movies and release dates. Note with many of these being released for streaming in addition to big screen, didn't make it to 3D that I know like Infinite and Tomorrow War, said to even have 3D IMAX releases, but IMAX stopped releasing in 3D already.. Even if they release in 3D in the theaters, don't expect them to make it to bluray 3D, though. List of 3D films (2005 onwards) - Wikipedia


----------



## Technology3456

3DBob said:


> Yup, Black Widow just came out in 3D. But got to remember, the decision for it to be made also in 3D was made around 2018, and it was delayed more than a year to hit theaters. It's not current from what is in the hamper for new Marvel movies from what I understand. Here was the list of 3D movies and release dates. Note with many of these being released for streaming in addition to big screen, didn't make it to 3D that I know like Infinite and Tomorrow War, said to even have 3D IMAX releases, but IMAX stopped releasing in 3D already.. Even if they release in 3D in the theaters, don't expect them to make it to bluray 3D, though. List of 3D films (2005 onwards) - Wikipedia


So is the takeaway really that even overseas, we will get no 3D blu ray releases between now and Avatar 2? Or between a potential Black Widow 3D blu ray release and Avatar 2?

That would be too bad. I doubt the cost to convert a film to 3D is that high, and there is a niche but hardcore audience that will buy the 3D blu rays. Hopefully they keep releasing them.


----------



## 3DBob

Conversion costs $5-7 million at least if not more. That has to be compared to how much box office they get for 3D to make it profitable. It's always about making money, not denying people of anything, just making money, unfortunately.


----------



## Technology3456

3DBob said:


> Conversion costs $5-7 million at least if not more. That has to be compared to how much box office they get for 3D to make it profitable. It's always about making money, not denying people of anything, just making money, unfortunately.


What do they make off 3D ticket sales overseas, plus worldwide 3d blu ray sales? It seems like they could make a lot more than $5-7 mil off 3D sales for a Matrix 4 3D conversion for sure, and any other popular movie.

For reference, Matrix Revolutions made about 417 million just in theaters, without a 3D release, and the property is only more popular now after 20 years of pop culture being spread over the internet.


----------



## Car67

It seems to be a different availability 

3D Blu-ray Amazon com




__





Amazon.com: Blu-ray 3D: Movies & TV


Online shopping for Blu-ray 3D from a great selection at Movies & TV Store.



www.amazon.com





In EU and UK…


Amazon.co.uk



The question is why…


----------



## 2ndvizio

Not sure what you are implying but I can navigate to 3d bluray on amazon.com Amazon.com: Blu-ray 3D: Movies & TV


----------



## Car67

2ndvizio said:


> Not sure what you are implying but I can navigate to 3d bluray on amazon.com Amazon.com: Blu-ray 3D: Movies & TV


I didn't understand why the 3d category didn't show up in my link, I fix my message thank you. However the number of results seems very different.


----------



## jorgebetancourt

I went to my local theater to watch black widow in real 3d and boy was the viewing terrible.. they did have a people watching but I bet none will ever purchase a ticket there for 3d or probably anywhere. 

They spend no time updating their projectors or calibrating them. The movie was so washed out it was hard to watch. I got home turned on my projector to compare and mines just completely destroyed it. 

This is why some don't like 3d.. they make it hard for you to love it..

Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk


----------



## ryudoadema

jorgebetancourt said:


> I went to my local theater to watch black widow in real 3d and boy was the viewing terrible.. they did have a people watching but I bet none will ever purchase a ticket there for 3d or probably anywhere.
> 
> They spend no time updating their projectors or calibrating them. The movie was so washed out it was hard to watch. I got home turned on my projector to compare and mines just completely destroyed it.
> 
> This is why some don't like 3d.. they make it hard for you to love it..
> 
> Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk


Lol exact same experience here. Watched it today in a theater in CT and was grumpy the whole time because of how blurry and dark it was. Just kept thinking how much better it would be at home and wife agreed. Shame there has been no hint of a 3d blu yet, as I would have skipped the theater if I saw one on the horizon. May try a different theater if I get a chance, as I could tell it had good 3d- I just couldn't appreciate it...


----------



## adam_knox

Bummer, no theatres around here showed Black Widow in 3d. Keeping fingers crossed for a blu ray release. It's awesome when there's a movie you want to see already that is also done in 3d. Sort of disappointed that so many of 3d movies released were just movies I had no interest in watching other than for the 3d factor. 

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## NickTheGreat

jorgebetancourt said:


> I went to my local theater to watch black widow in real 3d and boy was the viewing terrible.. they did have a people watching but I bet none will ever purchase a ticket there for 3d or probably anywhere.
> 
> They spend no time updating their projectors or calibrating them. The movie was so washed out it was hard to watch. I got home turned on my projector to compare and mines just completely destroyed it.
> 
> This is why some don't like 3d.. they make it hard for you to love it..
> 
> Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk


This is probably the biggest reason. We're all enthusiasts here, and the guys at the local AMC are not. 

Seems to be the case for me whether I'm buying beer, stuff at Home Depot, or what have you. 

Maybe it's just a 'me' thing.


----------



## Technology3456

Is there anything we can do to influence 3D bluray releases? I'm looking at you, Dune!!

You know, like how _supposedly _The Snyder Cut only got made because people posted comments about it, and posted a lot on social media. I am not advocating that because I think if the cost of social media dying out is that 3D blu rays also have to die out, then even as a 3D fan, that's more than a fair trade, but, would making "we want this movie on 3D blu ray!" threads and posts on forums make a difference?

For example, the Dune trailer just came out. That is a crucial 3D bluray release. Big budget, sci-fi, beautiful. It even looks like they actually tried on this one to make a good story and a good movie too, but we'll see. The point is, this could be one of the best 3D blu rays ever released, and certainly with how few are released these days, getting that on 3d blu ray, or not, could decide the entire month, or three month period, all by itself, of whether "this was a good month for 3D blu rays," or not. A lot hinges on whether Dune gets a 3d blu ray.

So maybe some topics and posts, "please release a 3d blu ray of Dune!" would help? Can't hurt... And Matrix 4 and any other crucial ones you can think of. But I havent heard of Matrix 4 coming to theaters in 3D. Dune is, so all they have to do is put the 3D version they already made onto a disc. Maybe if the data shows people are asking about it on forums, that will influence them to do it?

Edit: also, while most 3d bluray aside from comic book movies (many of which are somewhat sci-fi or fantasy as well) and animation are sci-fi or fantasy films, many of them are just sort of C-movies. There are lots of ones like Dwayne Johnson's Hercules, or Assassin's Creed, or Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (I think), stuff like there. There are very few great _films _on 3D blu-ray, especially ones that also check the boxes of being visually spectacular grand scale stories. Dune is the rare opportunity to get one that could check all of those boxes. It could really be a "unicorn" among 3D blu-ray releases. And... it's already converted to 3D! So they just have to put it on a disc!!

Like, we're talking a potential Mt. Rushmore 3d blu ray here, and it's already made. So to get no 3d blu ray release would be one of the biggest missed opportunities in the history of 3D blu ray, whereas getting it could be a huge addition to the 3d blu ray catalogue. That's how big a "swing" this could be, so I think it's worth posting about it ahead of time and trying to drum up some interest and momentum.


----------



## Technology3456

jorgebetancourt said:


> I went to my local theater to watch black widow in real 3d and boy was the viewing terrible.. they did have a people watching but I bet none will ever purchase a ticket there for 3d or probably anywhere.
> 
> They spend no time updating their projectors or calibrating them. The movie was so washed out it was hard to watch. I got home turned on my projector to compare and mines just completely destroyed it.
> 
> This is why some don't like 3d.. they make it hard for you to love it..
> 
> Sent from my SM-A716U using Tapatalk


3D is a lot more dependent on the setup and display than 2D. It creates a difficult situation where it's hard to know if you dont like 3D, or if you just saw 3D on a bad setup. If people see 3D on a bad setup and dont like it, many will assume they just dislike 3D, and will never give it another chance. This is probably the #1 contributor to the decline of 3D's popularity.


----------



## BriscoCountyJr

3D seems to reoccur in long cycles.
The last 3D boon came after the Avatar movie in 3D was released.
So maybe when Avatar 2+ comes out in super 3D that will start a new cycle?


----------



## T-Bone

I think the real question, as some have alluded to already, "is 3D a dead upgrade path for home theater?"

Regardless of what happens in digital cinemas, in 10 years those with 3D setups are going to look like the the good people of Cuba trying to hobble together 60-year-old cars on spare parts... Only here they'll be hobbling together and scrounging for 3D media and players.

I'm going to revisit this thread in 10 years to assess my prediction.

-T


----------



## MrEmoto

T-Bone said:


> I think the real question, as some have alluded to already, "is 3D a dead upgrade path for home theater?"
> 
> Regardless of what happens in digital cinemas, in 10 years those with 3D setups are going to look like the the good people of Cuba trying to hobble together 60-year-old cars on spare parts... Only here they'll be hobbling together and scrounging for 3D media and players.
> 
> I'm going to revisit this thread in 10 years to assess my prediction.
> 
> -T


I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that 3D televisions are still being sold in Asia and perhaps part of Europe. Can anyone confirm that? 

What I DO know is that you can still buy brand new current model tv projectors that do 3D. If my old plasma tv were to die, I would first see if I could find a working used one on the local for sale boards, but failing that would grab a projector. I am told that some of the new ones, particularly when using a certain type of screen, are wonderfully bright and sharp.


----------



## Technology3456

MrEmoto said:


> I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that 3D televisions are still being sold in Asia and perhaps part of Europe. Can anyone confirm that?
> 
> What I DO know is that you can still buy brand new current model tv projectors that do 3D. If my old plasma tv were to die, I would first see if I could find a working used one on the local for sale boards, but failing that would grab a projector. I am told that some of the new ones, particularly when using a certain type of screen, are wonderfully bright and sharp.


3D discs are still maximum 1080p, and you can get a 1080p 1 chip color wheel DLP projector with 120hz 3D, maybe even 144hz DLP link 3D (I still dont fully understand how that works), used for maybe $400 on ebay or something, and there is no shortage of listings. Or if you prefer LCD, there's also that option. Then new, there are tons of options for more money, including ones that do both 4K, and 3D, at 120hz.

What is odd to me is comments that celebrate 3D being less popular. If a 4K release comes out next week, and it only sells half of what it's projected to sell, you will never see comments cheering about it like, "Yeah, I've been waiting for 4K to die. 4K needs to die. This proves 4K sucks." Like, what is that?

From watching the situation for a few months, I need think there are a few things going on.

1. There are people who have had bad experiences with 3D, on bad displays, who genuinely dislike it, but they have no way of knowing they would actually like it on a better 3D setup

2. There are people who have bad bad experiences with 3D, and it doesn't matter if they watch the perfect 3D setup or not, it will always cause them negative symptoms (I think this group is much smaller, outside of people whose eye health cannot permit 3D. I will find out if I am one of those people or not next time I see my eye Doctor)

3. There are people who sell TVs, or have some financial interest in TVs, in the U.S., and since 3D TVs stopped selling in the U.S. years ago, they have a conflict of interest when it comes to discussions about 3D, and basically want to deride any interest in 3D and steer people to 4K instead, where the $ is. It seemed like this was the place that some comments deriding the idea that plasma TVs had any advantages over OLED TVs may have also been coming from, because plasma TVs are only sold on the used market now, while OLED may be the top selling retail display now, or if not it is definitely trending that way.

It's understandable though. For group #1, how are they supposed to know what they don't know? For group #2, they are basically justified in their feeings without any qualifiers at all. All they could change for the better is empathizing that others are able to enjoy it even if they can't, as unfair as that is. For group #3, everyone has to make a living, you just don't like to see situations where that comes in conflict with people trying to learn reliable information on discussion forums and results in them getting told inaccurate info and wastes lots of their time to sift through it. When there is a way to be upfront without hurting business, that is usually the best way, but that can be a difficult balance to achieve, and we are all human.

I think the conversation would be more productive and fair to all parties if everyone confirmed they actually liked or disliked something before commenting, but again, many in group #1 do not even know there is anything to confirm, because they may have never been informed that there are different types of 3D setups. And I am guilty of this too on other issues. For example I was positive based on memories from 10 years ago, combined with them being reinforced by online advice, that some types of digital displays had better motion than others, but now I am not so sure. With 20/20 hindsight, I wouldn't have said the same things about it that I did, but I didn't know what I didn't know, and did not have al the necessary displays to compare myself (still don't for some). And for group #3, I think being upfront with all cards on the table is most beneficial to everyone. Instead of saying "3D sucks, it's dead, 4K is the way to go," maybe say, "I sell TVs. We carried 3D TVs for years. Interest faded about 5 years ago. Watching 3D on those TVs, I didn't like the experience. That's my only experience with 3D, and it was bad. Maybe it would be better on a different setup, but I don't know. I do know some people claim their local theaters, projectors, or stacked setups deliver great 3D. I need to experience those before I can give an opinion."

Clearly some people really enjoy 3D, and it's been around, up and down, for a long time. One of the highest grossing movies of all time was primarily a 3D release (Avatar). I think it got overtaken by Endgame which also released in 3D in some theaters. Heck, even an old movie, converted to 3D, Titanic, made tons of money just from people _re_watching it in 3D. If that doesn't say a lot...

People already watched that movie, and they paid extra money to go rewatch what they already saw, to the point it made _another _billion I think. So why overplay 3D's demise, and then celebrate it? It will be around in one form or another for probably as long as movies are around. Instead of overplaying and celebrating its demise, we should talk about what can be done to make it affordable for consumers, profitable for dealers, and higher quality, more comfortable and more enjoyable for everyone. 3D doesn't need to die, it needs to evolve.

Now if studies find that even a good 3D setup is simply really bad for your eyes over time, and it can never be truly comfortable to watch, then maybe outside of theatrical-only examples like Avatar, a 2 or 3 hour movie here or there, it really does need to die, and I take it back. But as long as it can be done in a way that it's as healthy as 2D TV, then it shouldn't need to die any more than 2D TV (which _Charlie and the Chocolate Factory_ makes a compelling argument needs to die _itself_, but that's another discussion completely, lol).

So all that is to say, TLDR... _Please release Dune on 3D blu-ray!! _


----------



## T-Bone

Another take...

1. 3D is not part of UHD or 8K standards
2. Market is pushing towards UHD and 8K... Not bluray
3. For those TV manufacturers that no longer make 3D for the US, what events would make them reconsider making 3D displays for the US market?

At this point in time, we all know the current state of 3D for the home. For those wishing for 3D to return to home theater like it was in the past, before it died, it should be easy for them to enumerate the events that would have to take place for that to occur.



Spoiler



There are no events... No can enumerate them. Ergo, 3D for home theater is dead 

Give me a Like to support the Olympics in 2D 4K Atmos.



-T


----------



## MrEmoto

Technology3456 said:


> 3D discs are still maximum 1080p, and you can get a 1080p 1 chip color wheel DLP projector with 120hz 3D, maybe even 144hz DLP link 3D (I still dont fully understand how that works), used for maybe $400 on ebay or something, and there is no shortage of listings. Or if you prefer LCD, there's also that option. Then new, there are tons of options for more money, including ones that do both 4K, and 3D, at 120hz.
> 
> What is odd to me is comments that celebrate 3D being less popular. If a 4K release comes out next week, and it only sells half of what it's projected to sell, you will never see comments cheering about it like, "Yeah, I've been waiting for 4K to die. 4K needs to die. This proves 4K sucks." Like, what is that?
> 
> From watching the situation for a few months, I need think there are a few things going on.
> 
> 1. There are people who have had bad experiences with 3D, on bad displays, who genuinely dislike it, but they have no way of knowing they would actually like it on a better 3D setup
> 
> 2. There are people who have bad bad experiences with 3D, and it doesn't matter if they watch the perfect 3D setup or not, it will always cause them negative symptoms (I think this group is much smaller, outside of people whose eye health cannot permit 3D. I will find out if I am one of those people or not next time I see my eye Doctor)
> 
> 3. There are people who sell TVs, or have some financial interest in TVs, in the U.S., and since 3D TVs stopped selling in the U.S. years ago, they have a conflict of interest when it comes to discussions about 3D, and basically want to deride any interest in 3D and steer people to 4K instead, where the $ is. It seemed like this was the place that some comments deriding the idea that plasma TVs had any advantages over OLED TVs may have also been coming from, because plasma TVs are only sold on the used market now, while OLED may be the top selling retail display now, or if not it is definitely trending that way.
> 
> It's understandable though. For group #1, how are they supposed to know what they don't know? For group #2, they are basically justified in their feeings without any qualifiers at all. All they could change for the better is empathizing that others are able to enjoy it even if they can't, as unfair as that is. For group #3, everyone has to make a living, you just don't like to see situations where that comes in conflict with people trying to learn reliable information on discussion forums and results in them getting told inaccurate info and wastes lots of their time to sift through it. When there is a way to be upfront without hurting business, that is usually the best way, but that can be a difficult balance to achieve, and we are all human.
> 
> I think the conversation would be more productive and fair to all parties if everyone confirmed they actually liked or disliked something before commenting, but again, many in group #1 do not even know there is anything to confirm, because they may have never been informed that there are different types of 3D setups. And I am guilty of this too on other issues. For example I was positive based on memories from 10 years ago, combined with them being reinforced by online advice, that some types of digital displays had better motion than others, but now I am not so sure. With 20/20 hindsight, I wouldn't have said the same things about it that I did, but I didn't know what I didn't know, and did not have al the necessary displays to compare myself (still don't for some). And for group #3, I think being upfront with all cards on the table is most beneficial to everyone. Instead of saying "3D sucks, it's dead, 4K is the way to go," maybe say, "I sell TVs. We carried 3D TVs for years. Interest faded about 5 years ago. Watching 3D on those TVs, I didn't like the experience. That's my only experience with 3D, and it was bad. Maybe it would be better on a different setup, but I don't know. I do know some people claim their local theaters, projectors, or stacked setups deliver great 3D. I need to experience those before I can give an opinion."
> 
> Clearly some people really enjoy 3D, and it's been around, up and down, for a long time. One of the highest grossing movies of all time was primarily a 3D release (Avatar). I think it got overtaken by Endgame which also released in 3D in some theaters. Heck, even an old movie, converted to 3D, Titanic, made tons of money just from people _re_watching it in 3D. If that doesn't say a lot...
> 
> People already watched that movie, and they paid extra money to go rewatch what they already saw, to the point it made _another _billion I think. So why overplay 3D's demise, and then celebrate it? It will be around in one form or another for probably as long as movies are around. Instead of overplaying and celebrating its demise, we should talk about what can be done to make it affordable for consumers, profitable for dealers, and higher quality, more comfortable and more enjoyable for everyone. 3D doesn't need to die, it needs to evolve.
> 
> Now if studies find that even a good 3D setup is simply really bad for your eyes over time, and it can never be truly comfortable to watch, then maybe outside of theatrical-only examples like Avatar, a 2 or 3 hour movie here or there, it really does need to die, and I take it back. But as long as it can be done in a way that it's as healthy as 2D TV, then it shouldn't need to die any more than 2D TV (which _Charlie and the Chocolate Factory_ makes a compelling argument needs to die _itself_, but that's another discussion completely, lol).
> 
> So all that is to say, TLDR... _Please release Dune on 3D blu-ray!! _


FWIW, I was not talking about DLPs when I mentioned projectors. I was talking about the kind of projector for home use that mounts to the ceiling and you hang a type of screen on the wall. Those are still available in the US with 3D capability that has recently been improved somewhat.


----------



## Technology3456

MrEmoto said:


> FWIW, I was not talking about DLPs when I mentioned projectors.


I know you weren't talking about DLP specifically. I was referring to the comment about 3D displays. Not sold anymore in the US, apparently are popular and still sold in other parts of the world. That's the TV situation, _but what about 3D projectors? Are they available?_ I responded yes, for example: DLP projectors, and LCD projectors I also mentioned, etc. The bottom line is that hundreds of 3D blu-rays are still available, many of them new either from US sites or GB, or used on ebay often for prices less than 4K UHD discs, and 3D projectors are available used for cheaper than most used 4K projectors, and new as well including on 4K projector models. TV's in the US are a different story. TV screens are not the ideal size for 3D, and some of them are too low hz, have other issues, that harm the 3D experience. Nevertheless, there are still tons of 3D TV owners in Europe and other parts of the world, where that is still popular. (And some of them may deliver excellent 3D all things considered as well, I have very limited experience with them).

The most important factor, doing quality post-conversions is very cheap for movie studios compared to the profits that 3D generates. Avengers: Endgame made over $500 million in 3D ticket sales, and that doesn't even count 3D blu-ray sales. Most movies aren't Avengers Endgame, but considering a high end post conversion costs maybe $20 million tops, 3D is and will remain profitable for most well known movies released by any movie studio that is interested in making more money. And in business, things that are profitable tend to endure.



> I was talking about the kind of projector for home use that mounts to the ceiling and you hang a type of screen on the wall. Those are still available in the US with 3D capability that has recently been improved somewhat.


You lost me here. I think maybe you're thinking of DLP as some type of custom install type of projectors. DLP is just the type of technology used in the projector. DLP projectors can still be ceiling mounted, and they still project onto a screen on the wall.


----------



## Car67

Douglas Trumbull and MAGI, the future of UHD HFR 3D 








A New Kind of Magic: Douglas Trumbull on Magi, HFR and Dynamic Frame Rates | Filmmaker Magazine


Publication with a focus on independent film, offering articles, links, and resources.




filmmakermagazine.com


----------



## Car67

The MAGI process


----------



## MrEmoto

Car67 said:


> Douglas Trumbull and MAGI, the future of UHD HFR 3D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A New Kind of Magic: Douglas Trumbull on Magi, HFR and Dynamic Frame Rates | Filmmaker Magazine
> 
> 
> Publication with a focus on independent film, offering articles, links, and resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> filmmakermagazine.com


Wow!


----------



## DavidK442

Car67 said:


> The MAGI process


Well, my exaltation as a result of purchasing “The Croods: A New Age” in 3D seems pretty lame compared to your news. 🤗


----------



## MrEmoto

DavidK442 said:


> Well, my exaltation as a result of purchasing “The Croods: A New Age” in 3D seems pretty lame compared to your news. 🤗


I LOL'd.


----------



## Car67

DavidK442 said:


> Well, my exaltation as a result of purchasing “The Croods: A New Age” in 3D seems pretty lame compared to your news. 🤗


Be content with what you have 🤗 
(That video is 7 years old, who knows whenever TVs or projectors will be MAGI 3D Ready)


----------



## T-Bone

Car67 said:


> Be content with what you have 🤗
> (That video is 7 years old, who knows whenever TVs or projectors will be MAGI 3D Ready)


That was an interesting article... I read it. And there was an associated video I saw too. It seemed pretty interesting.

Although I don't understand why it did not take off. I know he tried to get the movie studios involved. But it looks like they just were not buying into it.

Maybe things would have turned out differently for 3D. My guess is if that Magi did not take off by now, "it ain't never gonna."

-T


----------



## 2ndvizio

Although MAGI makes sense, I think technically for LCD tvs/projectors, it would have caused more ghosting so perhaps it might have been great for theaters, not so much for watching 3d at home.


----------



## T-Bone

From the link if you post up on this page:

"Most older auditoriums are much longer than they are wide, generally at a ratio of 3 to 1. *They weren’t designed for 3-D. This is what causes some of the problems with 3-D*; when you’re further away from the screen, it’s harder for your eyes to focus on the 3-D effects. *In the Magi pod you are the right distance from the action to stop eyestrain*."

Cannot overcome that problem unless billions of $ is spent by theater owners to redesign their room dimensions. Certainly possible. But they are in it to make a profit.

Retrofits won't happen. Why spend money to retrofit your theater to match the Magi pod dimensions, or whatever dimensions are recommended for 3D... when they can save (or spend elsewhere) that $ and show the 2D version that people are going to see anyway?

-T


----------



## Car67

2ndvizio said:


> Although MAGI makes sense, I think technically for LCD tvs/projectors, it would have caused more ghosting so perhaps it might have been great for theaters, not so much for watching 3d at home.


I don’t know for MAGI but I rarely experience ghosting with FI High and high 3d brightness mode in default parallax or -1.


----------



## CARTmen

It's the first time i'm writing in this thread but I'm a long time reader.
As many of you, I also believe that 3D is the next logical step for TVs. We already have TVs with incredible resolutions, HDR, more colours than we can see and awesome contrast. But without the sense of depth we can't really be immersed in the movie/ tv show we're viewing.
Unfortunately the majority of people will not tolerate 3D until it can simulate the way you see objects in the real world. The fake 3D we use (one 2D image for each eye) isn't a comfortable way to watch 3D for the majority of people. If the image you're watching don't feel natural, your brain needs to adapt to understand it and you will feel tired after some time. Does any of you go to watch a movie/ watch tv to feel more tired or you go to relax?
Unfortunately we will only see a 3D comeback after some new type of display technology comes up.
I'm hoping that at least one of the new technologies (lightfield/ "holograms"/...) can be good enough for that and that they can do it in the next 2 or 3 years.
I've seen many companies promising that in the last decade and none of them have accomplished that.
I don't know if you are interested but this one is one company that seems promising to me. Let's see if it can live up to the hype.






Realfiction Innovation - exploring & inventing technology


Realfiction is dedicated to exploring and inventing technology that breaks with the current approach of head-mounted wearables. Since the beginning of our journey more than a decade ago, our vision has always been about creating experiences that bring people together




www.realfiction.com


----------



## Car67

Natural stereoscopy is actually made of 2 x 2D images per eye, it’s our brain that makes the magic. It is not the people, it is commercial, all home cinema projectors are 3D ready and most of people usually enjoy it


----------



## CARTmen

I understand your point about the 2x2D images, but that's not completely correct. Even only using one eye you have depht queues. One of those that is important is the focal point. With 3D like we have today, our eyes can only focus in the plan were the camera is focused. When you try to focus any other point of the image that is back or in front of that point, it makes you have convergence problems with bouth your eyes and makes you have eye strain and headaches. That's not natural and it's one of the biggest problems that make people not like 3D.

It's just my opinion. You can desagree of course.


----------



## 2ndvizio

Car67 said:


> I don’t know for MAGI but I rarely experience ghosting with FI High and high 3d brightness mode in default parallax or -1.


I don't see much ghosting if any either with my lcd projector (most movies don't have strong 3d) but I do think the ghosting is usually there when the 3d effect is extreme in which case the left and right frames are very different which makes it difficult for lcd projectors show the next frame without some of the previous frame still there. If you also have differences in time as well, the left and right will be even more different and could cause more ghosting.


----------



## bigdad56

Technology3456 said:


> Is there anything we can do to influence 3D bluray releases? I'm looking at you, Dune!!
> 
> You know, like how _supposedly _The Snyder Cut only got made because people posted comments about it, and posted a lot on social media. I am not advocating that because I think if the cost of social media dying out is that 3D blu rays also have to die out, then even as a 3D fan, that's more than a fair trade, but, would making "we want this movie on 3D blu ray!" threads and posts on forums make a difference?
> 
> For example, the Dune trailer just came out. That is a crucial 3D bluray release. Big budget, sci-fi, beautiful. It even looks like they actually tried on this one to make a good story and a good movie too, but we'll see. The point is, this could be one of the best 3D blu rays ever released, and certainly with how few are released these days, getting that on 3d blu ray, or not, could decide the entire month, or three month period, all by itself, of whether "this was a good month for 3D blu rays," or not. A lot hinges on whether Dune gets a 3d blu ray.
> 
> So maybe some topics and posts, "please release a 3d blu ray of Dune!" would help? Can't hurt... And Matrix 4 and any other crucial ones you can think of. But I havent heard of Matrix 4 coming to theaters in 3D. Dune is, so all they have to do is put the 3D version they already made onto a disc. Maybe if the data shows people are asking about it on forums, that will influence them to do it?
> 
> Edit: also, while most 3d bluray aside from comic book movies (many of which are somewhat sci-fi or fantasy as well) and animation are sci-fi or fantasy films, many of them are just sort of C-movies. There are lots of ones like Dwayne Johnson's Hercules, or Assassin's Creed, or Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter (I think), stuff like there. There are very few great _films _on 3D blu-ray, especially ones that also check the boxes of being visually spectacular grand scale stories. Dune is the rare opportunity to get one that could check all of those boxes. It could really be a "unicorn" among 3D blu-ray releases. And... it's already converted to 3D! So they just have to put it on a disc!!
> 
> Like, we're talking a potential Mt. Rushmore 3d blu ray here, and it's already made. So to get no 3d blu ray release would be one of the biggest missed opportunities in the history of 3D blu ray, whereas getting it could be a huge addition to the 3d blu ray catalogue. That's how big a "swing" this could be, so I think it's worth posting about it ahead of time and trying to drum up some interest and momentum.


Warner Brothers owns this material so I'm not sure if they typically release their blurays in 3D or not. I know they did with the Hobbit trilogy but am not sure about other titles. I'm glad to here that it did get a 3D version if only in theaters I will probably go see this. Alejandro Nuevo (I think that's how you spell his name) is a great director but I did not think her was a 3D person similar to Christopher Nolan. So it's good to hear that a 3D version is being made!


----------



## PCummins

bigdad56 said:


> Warner Brothers owns this material so I'm not sure if they typically release their blurays in 3D or not.


Warner Bros is one of the last remaining holdouts for 3D, they recently released Wonder Woman 1984 and Godzilla vs Kong on 3D, so it's a good chance they'd release this as well since they're doing a conversion.

Dune's directed by Denis Villeneuve, he did Blade Runner 2049 previously in 3D which was pretty good in 3D.


----------



## bigdad56

PCummins said:


> Warner Bros is one of the last remaining holdouts for 3D, they recently released Wonder Woman 1984 and Godzilla vs Kong on 3D, so it's a good chance they'd release this as well since they're doing a conversion.
> 
> Dune's directed by Denis Villeneuve, he did Blade Runner 2049 previously in 3D which was pretty good in 3D.


You are right on Denis Villeneuve IDK why the other director popped in my head!


----------



## Car67

We must expand the competing horizons beyond Hollywood to push 3D, listing 3D productions and Blu-ray releases from other countries (although they often are in foreign languages sometimes the 2D version is available with the English dub or subs to know the plot before and if it is interesting) and don’t ignore documentaries the most important (and less objectionable or toxic) contents where 3D makes really sense for all ages. My 2 cents…


----------



## T-Bone

Car67 said:


> We must expand the competing horizons beyond Hollywood to push 3D, listing 3D productions and Blu-ray releases from other countries (although they often are in foreign languages sometimes the 2D version is available with the English dub or subs to know the plot before and if it is interesting) and don’t ignore documentaries the most important (and less objectionable or toxic) contents where 3D makes really sense for all ages. My 2 cents…


Recall an objection to 3D is the very act of needing to wear 3D glasses. I believe I read that was a huge reason people dislike 3D. Gotta overcome that, IMO.

Unless the people of the US are different than other countries, they'll hate wearing 3D glasses too.

-T


----------



## PCummins

Car67 said:


> We must expand the competing horizons beyond Hollywood to push 3D, listing 3D productions and Blu-ray releases from other countries


I thought China would be releasing more 3D movies however literally the last release I saw was "Detective Dee: The Four Heavenly Kings" which only got released on 3D Blu-Ray in Germany as far as I'm aware (I was able to see this in 3D in the cinema, fortunately!). They definitely do a lot of 3D cinema screenings from what I hear, they just don't map back to actual 3D Blu-Ray releases.


----------



## PCummins

T-Bone said:


> Recall an objection to 3D is the very act of needing to wear 3D glasses. I believe I read that was a huge reason people dislike 3D. Gotta overcome that, IMO. Unless the people of the US are different than other countries, they'll hate wearing 3D glasses too.


The glasses with the lower light transmittance & lack of good quality projectionists that know what they're doing is an issue for cinemas (ie too dark after wearing glasses, gamma and colour not adjusted properly, etc). Also the lack of strong 3D in movies with actual purpose and intent puts people off; if you're compromising a lot to watch 3D that is almost the same as watching in 2D (in their opinion), why not just watch it in 2D? (Having said that, I'm looking forward to seeing Shang-Chi in 3D once it's released in 3D, it looks like it has a lot of good opportunities for putting 3D to good use).


----------



## Worf

T-Bone said:


> Recall an objection to 3D is the very act of needing to wear 3D glasses. I believe I read that was a huge reason people dislike 3D. Gotta overcome that, IMO.
> 
> Unless the people of the US are different than other countries, they'll hate wearing 3D glasses too.
> 
> -T


Well, unless 3d technology is different everywhere else in the world, everyone else seems perfectly happy wearing the 3d glasses. What happened is people in North America read a few opinion pieces from people that hate glasses and who declare it dead. Or from people who are just negative in general and never happy with anything - you can give them a magic technology that does whatever you want and they'll find a way to declare it worthless and useless.

I mean, if 3d glasses sucked so much, then 3d would be dead everywhere else in the world too and there would be no demand for 3d anymore. The fact there still are 3d releases in other countries shows the market wasn't quite poisoned there. 

There can also be plenty of reasons. Maybe spectacle wearing in the US is lower and thus more of the population aren't used to it, while places like Asia have the vast majority of the population wearing glasses. But I do know the negativity towards 3d is highest in the US where it seems loud mouths with opinions have a lot more sway.


----------



## dianebrat

Worf said:


> Well, unless 3d technology is different everywhere else in the world, everyone else seems perfectly happy wearing the 3d glasses. What happened is people in North America read a few opinion pieces from people that hate glasses and who declare it dead. Or from people who are just negative in general and never happy with anything - you can give them a magic technology that does whatever you want and they'll find a way to declare it worthless and useless.


Totally this, the "people hate wearing glasses" argument for 3D was always a straw man, I think in the US there was just more malaise and people not going to the movies and don't care, if you tie that to a theater industry that was already charging ridiculous concession prices, and added 1/3 of he cost premium for 3D meant a lot of folks just didn't bother.


----------



## T-Bone

dianebrat said:


> Totally this, the "people hate wearing glasses" argument for 3D was always a straw man, I think in the US there was just more malaise and people not going to the movies and don't care, if you tie that to a theater industry that was already charging ridiculous concession prices, and added 1/3 of he cost premium for 3D meant a lot of folks just didn't bother.


People hate wearing 3D glasses was always a straw man?

Not according to the people who hate wearing 3D glasses. 

-T


----------



## dianebrat

T-Bone said:


> People hate wearing 3D glasses was always a straw man?
> 
> Not according to the people who hate wearing 3D glasses.
> 
> -T


Yes, the number of people saying it was always a straw man, and as someone that wears glasses all my life I really can't take the "OMG they're so horrible" approach when those same people happily wear sunglasses.


----------



## aaronwt

You don't have a choice to wear sun glasses. If you want to protect your eyes. 3D glasses are optional. 

Since I re-joined AMC A-List this Summer, there hasn't been a single 3D showing at the local AMC 18 theater complex. And the local Alamo Draft house never even showed 3D. Even though they have their largest screen here. At this point I guess my 3D viewing days are over. 

Sent from my Tab A7 Gray (Spare)


----------



## NickTheGreat

I always figured the biggest hindrance of 3D movies was that they added cost to an already bonkers ticket price. 

I've only been to a movie theater maybe 3 times in the last 5 years, but even in the low-cost Midwest, a movie ticket is encroaching on $20 per head. And that's without food. 

Maybe I'm just a crotchety old man, but I ain't gonna add another $10 on to that or whatever it was. And I really like 3D.


----------



## aaronwt

That's where A-List is nice. And I used to be on the Alamo monthly subscription as well. With A-List, for $22 a month, I can see three movies a week, up to twelve a month. With Alamo, before then Pandemic, it was $20 a month and one movie each day.

But Alamo still hasn't brought back their service. So I am seeing everything with A-List. In August and September I was seeing two to three movies every week. But lately I've only been seeing one or two a week. 

At this point I probably won't re-subscribe to Alamo when they bring back their service.


----------



## Car67

T-Bone said:


> Recall an objection to 3D is the very act of needing to wear 3D glasses. I believe I read that was a huge reason people dislike 3D. Gotta overcome that, IMO.
> 
> Unless the people of the US are different than other countries, they'll hate wearing 3D glasses too.
> 
> -T


I know, same here, but I believe what others said above, it seems to me a prejudice or an excuse to bash 3D for other reasons, or just snob, I mean we need glasses in many situations, even more social than a projection in the dark, including those people wearing sunglasses in clubs and pubs because it looks cool 😎 and of course prescription/reading glasse, glacier glasses, ski glasses, swimming pool glasses, diving mask/glasses, etc. everything needs the right tool for the job, glasses included! I also find it arrogant because every technology or current possibility to do something has its own limits, and unfortunately this is a limit of current 3D technology. Autostereoscopic displays have limited views, and a lot of crosstalk out of their narrow sweet spot, I don't think these limits will be solved soon, despite many claims, so are we trashing a technology just because it is necessary to wear lightweight glasses for two hours? I don't think it's fair.


----------



## Car67

PCummins said:


> I thought China would be releasing more 3D movies however literally the last release I saw was "Detective Dee: The Four Heavenly Kings" which only got released on 3D Blu-Ray in Germany as far as I'm aware (I was able to see this in 3D in the cinema, fortunately!). They definitely do a lot of 3D cinema screenings from what I hear, they just don't map back to actual 3D Blu-Ray releases.


I can't find a list of foreign productions, on bluray com if I select a country they give all disks with that language, not production, any hint about stranger 3D blurays and where to find them?... 

I also found 4 foreign Russian movies, 3 of them with German audio track (English title of their 2D releases: I Am Dragon, Spacewalker, Salyut-7, Attraction) there is a thread about them here.


----------



## T-Bone

Car67 said:


> I know, same here, but I believe what others said above, it seems to me a prejudice or an excuse to bash 3D for other reasons, or just snob, I mean we need glasses in many situations, even more social than a projection in the dark, including those people wearing sunglasses in clubs and pubs because it looks cool 😎 and of course prescription/reading glasse, glacier glasses, ski glasses, swimming pool glasses, diving mask/glasses, etc. everything needs the right tool for the job, glasses included! I also find it arrogant because every technology or current possibility to do something has its own limits, and unfortunately this is a limit of current 3D technology. Autostereoscopic displays have limited views, and a lot of crosstalk out of their narrow sweet spot, I don't think these limits will be solved soon, despite many claims, so are we trashing a technology just because it is necessary to wear lightweight glasses for two hours? I don't think it's fair.


Well you have to understand that people measure quality based on the attributes that are important to them.

If someone finds that the glasses don't fit that well, or they're not used to wearing glasses and they prefer not too wear glasses, or they don't like it because when they turn their head they have the frames blocking their vision (depends how far they turn their head), or if they want to lie down on the sofa and put their head on the armrest and watch TV that way, well... maybe occasionally they want to watch TV the way THEY want to watch tv. Lying down on the floor with their head propped up so in that case the lenses are not in an ideal position on our face to watch in that position... So these are all valid reasons why people would not like wearing glasses.

Remember, this is home theater. So we're not necessarily talking about people in the movie theater. One of the reasons why it died in the home theater is the reasons I just talked about... and there have been many surveys enumerating the issues with 3D.

The other reason is: 2D is good enough. That was one of the reasons that people cited.

So here's an experiment that all of us can do in our homes right now. If you have two eyes, like me, your vision is 3d. We have depth of perception. So now while you're watching something that is in the foreground and something in the background in your home, close one eye. What's the overall effect? You're now viewing in 2d. You still see perfectly fine. 

That's why people cite 2D being good enough because of the attributes they find lowers the quality of 3D.

-T


----------



## Car67

I don’t believe those are real and important reasons to avoid 3D experience, at least sometimes, and 3D is not dead it is just moved on projectors where it makes sense instead of the puppet theatre effect of TVs, almost all home cinema projectors >500$/€ support 3D and hundreds of 3D Blu-ray movies are still available in EU Asia, and new still released, scarcity is a US problem.


----------



## DavidK442

Wow! A flurry of passionate posts in the dying “Is 3D dead?” thread.
I will provide my experience. My wife dislikes 3D. We have tried a couple times at the theatre but each time she comes out with a headache. Going with friends and family generates little interest. Ambivalence really; for them certainly not worth paying a premium to put on some goofy glasses.
I on the other hand love it; when well done that is. My home theatre has a 130” acoustically transparent screen and an old DLP projector. Because the image isn’t bright enough in 3D I also have a pull down solid screen with higher gain. I manually adjust the projector to provide about 100 inches, pull my IKEA Poang chair and foot stool up until my feet almost touch the bottom of the screen and hookup my ear buds because the speakers are now blocked. I do this every time I watch 3D. I have over a hundred discs and watch one every second weekend or so.
If people really cared about 3D they wouldn’t let a little thing like glasses stop them. Frankly though most people don’t care about much at the theatre. Is my date going to put out? Can I see the picture? Can I hear the voices? Is the movie enjoyable? Is the popcorn fresh? Probably in that order. We forum members are an oddity and those of us subscribed to this 3D death-march thread odder still. Enjoy it while it lasts.


----------



## PCummins

Car67 said:


> I can't find a list of foreign productions, on bluray com if I select a country they give all disks with that language, not production, any hint about stranger 3D blurays and where to find them?...


Wikipedia appears to have a good (but incomplete) listing of 3D productions here - in particular, if it was filmed in 3D or Digital 3D it should be of decent quality. I'm unfortunately not in China however I suspect a few of their regional releases were auto-conversions or not as good (ie if it was 2D to start with, unless done by a well known studio like DNEG, Stereo D, Legend 3D). This unfortunately doesn't map back to an actual 3D Blu-Ray release however, but useful as a reference to see which country did what and to then track back to a possible release, usually either Germany, HK or Japan pick up the more fringe 3D releases (so YesAsia can locate HK/Japan releases, Amazon.de for German ones, or eBay of course).

It's a bit of a shame as China had some pretty good animated releases the last few years, think the last one was Abominable (released in USA on 3D Blu-Ray as MOD), but they also had Ne Zha, Jiang Ziya and Wish Dragon that would have been good to see in 3D.


----------



## PCummins

aaronwt said:


> You don't have a choice to wear sun glasses. If you want to protect your eyes. 3D glasses are optional.


That's still a straw man argument as a vast majority of people can go through life fine without wearing sun glasses, they are completely optional. There's no difference - a person chooses to wear sun glasses to protect their eyes, just like a person chooses to wear 3D glasses to see something in 3D.



T-Bone said:


> The other reason is: 2D is good enough. That was one of the reasons that people cited.


In my experience it's as T-Bone says - the vast majority of people find watching a movie in 2D sufficient for them and they are not interested in seeing it in 3D. Even having top of the line glasses-free technology would not change their minds unless the experience was noticeably better than watching it in 2D and even then probably not. Another parallel is HFR movies - a vast majority of people dislike them as the HFR is "not what they expected", sometimes you just need to give the person what they expect, no more, no less. And that means 2D, 24 FPS with a widescreen AR.


----------



## T-Bone

Car67 said:


> I don’t believe those are real and important reasons to avoid 3D experience...


But you see, that is my point exactly. Every consumer has their own set of attributes that defines quality for that consumer.

Your logic is like me telling someone that avoiding all SUV models that do not have a third row is not a real and important reason. They need to consider SUVs that do not have a third row.

Maybe they have six people in their family and a 2 row SUV just won't cut it because it only carries five people.

See where I'm going with this? You can't Levy your definition of quality onto others. They have their own definitions. And that is why we've had a whole bunch of posts about whethor people should like wearing glasses for 3D or not like wearing 3D glasses. The fact of the matter is a lot of people don't like wearing the damn glasses . And if they don't like it now, more than likely they never will. They won't buy into 3d. And if that means it fails, then it fails.

-T


----------



## Worf

Well here's a funny thought. If people universally hated 3d glasses, then we wouldn't be talking about it today. Because there are next to no glasses free 3d experiences. Yet, 3d movies still come out, just not in the US. Asia and Eirope seem to get plenty of 3D releases, and many people here import the discs.

So either Europe and Asia have some magic 3d glasses free technology that never crossed the ocean, or the glasses were being used as an excuse by 3d haters in the US to try to kill the technology. It certainly worked,because 3d is practically non existent in the US today, while 3d releases, both on the big screen and as home video are available outside.

If 3d glasses were truly a universal hatred, 3d would be dead all over the world. We wouldn't be discussing imports of discs from Japan, France, India, Mexico, etc. because why do 3d releases if people hate it?


----------



## T-Bone

No one said that the notion people hate wearing 3D glasses was universal. I guess that would be the straw man in this case 

What I said, and what the research and surveys indicate, is that one of the main reasons that people dislike 3D it's because they're not crazy about wearing 3D glasses. 

I think there were about 10 reasons that tabulated to be the most common reasons why people dislike 3d. Of course I'm only talking about the United states. I can't speak of other nations.

-T


----------



## PCummins

T-Bone said:


> No one said that the notion people hate wearing 3D glasses was universal. I guess that would be the straw man in this case  What I said, and what the research and surveys indicate, is that one of the main reasons that people dislike 3D it's because they're not crazy about wearing 3D glasses. I think there were about 10 reasons that tabulated to be the most common reasons why people dislike 3d. Of course I'm only talking about the United states. I can't speak of other nations.


Be interesting to see what the other reasons are. People I know don't like 3D as they feel it doesn't value-add enough to the experience of watching the movie vs just watching it in 2D. They can wear 3D glasses just fine (since we all wear glasses anyhow). It may make a difference once I move to a larger screen (ie projector + 3D) but I wouldn't be keen to force it onto them if they are not into it.



Worf said:


> If 3d glasses were truly a universal hatred, 3d would be dead all over the world. We wouldn't be discussing imports of discs from Japan, France, India, Mexico, etc. because why do 3d releases if people hate it?


The 3D glasses is a big reason of why people don't like 3D but it's not the only reason, there are still people who don't mind 3D (like ourselves) so that's why there are still releases of 3D Blu-Rays, there's enough of a market to make it viable to handle releases. As I mentioned previously the movie experience for a lot of people is about giving them what they expect. Anything that deviates from what they expect causes people to get upset. Examples:

The Hobbit 3D/HFR: A lot of people claimed they were getting nausea/dizziness or lambasting the HFR as being "fake", and didn't like how they were forced to watch it in 3D or HFR.
Gemini Man: Nobody seemed to care much about 120 Hz/60 Hz HFR, having seen both 60 Hz/3D 24 Hz there didn't really to be that big a difference in the places where it mattered.
ZS Justice League: Significant numbers of people complained bitterly about the 4:3 AR claiming ZS was being excessively arrogant for it not being in a traditional widescreen AR.
Ghostbusters (2016): Despite the bold use of 3D this got swamped by people railing against the gender swapping and claiming misandry.
Monster Hunter: Got pulled from China due to a bad joke (I don't even think it's left in any of the cuts of the film now?)

There's heaps of other examples where a movie is targeted for one reason or another (Plot/Cast/BLM/Woke/Black Female Protagonist/Social Commentary/etc) but ultimately I feel it comes back to "you didn't give the audience what they expected" in one or more aspects of the film that gets people particularly upset. The US seems particularly polarised so that the debate about 3D is either you love it or you hate it, there is no genuine good middle ground, unlike in other countries where it is more balanced. Once a person is on the side that dislikes 3D they will pick easy targets to justify why they don't like 3D (ie having to wear 3D glasses) vs actually giving it much thought.


----------



## T-Bone

PCummins said:


> Once a person is on the side that dislikes 3D they will *pick easy targets to justify why they don't like 3D (ie having to wear 3D glasses) *vs actually giving it much thought.


Good post until this remark. Not that you did anything wrong, but you fell into the same trap as many others. It's easy to discount wearing 3D glasses and say it's an easy target and it's a crutch because people hate 3D anyway so they leverage that for their evidence / argument.

I realize this is AVS forum. But I don't always watch TV sitting in my theater recliner watching my projector. Sometimes I am watching in the living room. Throughout a lot of my life, and people I know, we get up from the TV and go into the kitchen that overlooks the living room where they're watching TV they get snacks etc. We'll keep looking back at the TV so you don't miss anything. But they realize they have to get up.

Now do that with 3D glasses. Now we can understand one use case of why some people really dislike wearing 3D glasses. Where's the value add? I know, some people won't mind wearing a 3D glasses into the bathroom while they do their business and read their phone, and 10 minutes later go back to the living room.

I could go on. And I'm not talking about 3D movie theater where, for the most part, it's a captive audience except for unplanned bathroom breaks.

-T


----------



## NickTheGreat

T-Bone said:


> Good post until this remark. Not that you did anything wrong, but you fell into the same trap as many others. It's easy to discount wearing 3D glasses and say it's an easy target and it's a crutch because people hate 3D anyway so they leverage that for their evidence / argument.
> 
> I realize this is AVS forum. But I don't always watch TV sitting in my theater recliner watching my projector. Sometimes I am watching in the living room. Throughout a lot of my life, and people I know, we get up from the TV and go into the kitchen that overlooks the living room where they're watching TV they get snacks etc. We'll keep looking back at the TV so you don't miss anything. But they realize they have to get up.
> 
> Now do that with 3D glasses. Now we can understand one use case of why some people really dislike wearing 3D glasses. Where's the value add? I know, some people won't mind wearing a 3D glasses into the bathroom while they do their business and read their phone, and 10 minutes later go back to the living room.
> 
> I could go on. And I'm not talking about 3D movie theater where, for the most part, it's a captive audience except for unplanned bathroom breaks.
> 
> -T


Going to the bathroom with 3D glasses is treacherous . . .


----------



## aaronwt

T-Bone said:


> Good post until this remark. Not that you did anything wrong, but you fell into the same trap as many others. It's easy to discount wearing 3D glasses and say it's an easy target and it's a crutch because people hate 3D anyway so they leverage that for their evidence / argument.
> 
> I realize this is AVS forum. But I don't always watch TV sitting in my theater recliner watching my projector. Sometimes I am watching in the living room. Throughout a lot of my life, and people I know, we get up from the TV and go into the kitchen that overlooks the living room where they're watching TV they get snacks etc. We'll keep looking back at the TV so you don't miss anything. But they realize they have to get up.
> 
> Now do that with 3D glasses. Now we can understand one use case of why some people really dislike wearing 3D glasses. Where's the value add? I know, some people won't mind wearing a 3D glasses into the bathroom while they do their business and read their phone, and 10 minutes later go back to the living room.
> 
> I could go on. And I'm not talking about 3D movie theater where, for the most part, it's a captive audience except for unplanned bathroom breaks.
> 
> -T


????
You pause the content and take the glasses off before getting up. I've been doing that with 2D content since the mid eighties. 3D content is no different.


----------



## T-Bone

aaronwt said:


> ????
> You pause the content and take the glasses off before getting up. I've been doing that with 2D content since the mid eighties. 3D content is no different.


Oh my. As an example, when we're watching the game room projector and I get up to get more popcorn for everyone, I wouldn't dream of pausing and ruining the experience for them.

-T


----------



## PCummins

T-Bone said:


> Good post until this remark. Not that you did anything wrong, but you fell into the same trap as many others. It's easy to discount wearing 3D glasses and say it's an easy target and it's a crutch because people hate 3D anyway so they leverage that for their evidence / argument. ... Throughout a lot of my life, and people I know, we get up from the TV and go into the kitchen that overlooks the living room where they're watching TV they get snacks etc. We'll keep looking back at the TV so you don't miss anything. But they realize they have to get up. Now do that with 3D glasses. Now we can understand one use case of why some people really dislike wearing 3D glasses. Where's the value add? I know, some people won't mind wearing a 3D glasses into the bathroom while they do their business and read their phone, and 10 minutes later go back to the living room.


Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that it's a massive imposition that maybe a person might actually need to take off their 3D glasses or miss part of a film because they're prioritising something else (getting snacks, going to the toilet, fiddling with a mobile device) that means they're not devoting a significant portion of their attention span to watching the film? Most of the 3D technologies don't work well outside of their intended uses (DLP Link needs direct line of sight, Passive has strict vertical (and horizontal) sweet spots, etc) and it's well known.

It seems unreasonable that if a person is half watching a film that they get a free pass to complain that they missed something or didn't get it, this is their choice, it is not the fault of the 3D glasses or the technology used. You're literally supporting the argument that a person blames an easy target (3D glasses) vs their actual behaviour or other reasons why they don't like 3D. (Note - I did not always say it's 3D glasses, I just said a person will pick an easy target vs introspectively analysing why they don't like 3D movies).

The closest analogy I know of is people that complain about foreign films with subtitles. They will complain bitterly about being forced to read subtitles ("I want to watch a film, not read it!") and complain they can't focus on the movie and the subtitles simultaneously when they probably weren't focusing all that much on the movie in the first place. There are at least 2 types of viewers - one that actually pays attention to what's been shown and is fully engaged in the viewing experience and the other that uses TV/movies as background noise and only is partially engaged in what's being shown. The latter abhors subtitles as it prevents them from doing this and will almost always have the opinion that dubs are superior, with all their simplistic justifications at the ready, but mostly as it supports their way of viewing things superficially. This same group would hate 3D as well for similar reasons.


----------



## T-Bone

PCummins said:


> Sorry, I'm confused. Are you saying that it's a massive imposition that maybe a person might actually need to take off their 3D glasses or miss part of a film because they're prioritising something else (getting snacks, going to the toilet, fiddling with a mobile device) that means they're not devoting a significant portion of their attention span to watching the film? Most of the 3D technologies don't work well outside of their intended uses (DLP Link needs direct line of sight, Passive has strict vertical (and horizontal) sweet spots, etc) and it's well known.
> 
> It seems unreasonable that if a person is half watching a film that they get a free pass to complain that they missed something or didn't get it, this is their choice, it is not the fault of the 3D glasses or the technology used. You're literally supporting the argument that a person blames an easy target (3D glasses) vs their actual behaviour or other reasons why they don't like 3D. (Note - I did not always say it's 3D glasses, I just said a person will pick an easy target vs introspectively analysing why they don't like 3D movies).
> 
> The closest analogy I know of is people that complain about foreign films with subtitles. They will complain bitterly about being forced to read subtitles ("I want to watch a film, not read it!") and complain they can't focus on the movie and the subtitles simultaneously when they probably weren't focusing all that much on the movie in the first place. There are at least 2 types of viewers - one that actually pays attention to what's been shown and is fully engaged in the viewing experience and the other that uses TV/movies as background noise and only is partially engaged in what's being shown. The latter abhors subtitles as it prevents them from doing this and will almost always have the opinion that dubs are superior, with all their simplistic justifications at the ready, but mostly as it supports their way of viewing things superficially. This same group would hate 3D as well for similar reasons.


I'm tired of the 3D glass discussion. Accept it or don't.

Now I'm moving on to off angle viewing. Another reason why people don't like 3d. Not everyone is going to sit Dead on center. I know in my living room, where we watch a lot of tv, sometimes we're 70° off angle. Luckily we've got a QLED with great off angle viewing.

So there's a use case where people have to stop watching TV in a comfortable manner. And have to huddle in front of this TV to get dead on center for the 3D effect. It does not fit their use case.

And we always circle back to one of the big reasons. 2D is good enough if 3D does not meet there viewing expectations.

-T


----------



## Car67

NickTheGreat said:


> Wikipedia appears to have a good (but incomplete) listing of 3D productions here - in particular, if it was filmed in 3D or Digital 3D it should be of decent quality. I'm unfortunately not in China however I suspect a few of their regional releases were auto-conversions or not as good (ie if it was 2D to start with, unless done by a well known studio like DNEG, Stereo D, Legend 3D). This unfortunately doesn't map back to an actual 3D Blu-Ray release however, but useful as a reference to see which country did what and to then track back to a possible release, usually either Germany, HK or Japan pick up the more fringe 3D releases (so YesAsia can locate HK/Japan releases, Amazon.de for German ones, or eBay of course).
> 
> It's a bit of a shame as China had some pretty good animated releases the last few years, think the last one was Abominable (released in USA on 3D Blu-Ray as MOD), but they also had Ne Zha, Jiang Ziya and Wish Dragon that would have been good to see in 3D.


Thank you.


----------



## T-Bone

PCummins said:


> Most of the 3D technologies don't work well outside of their intended uses.
> ...
> There are at least 2 types of viewers - one that actually pays attention to what's been shown and is fully engaged in the viewing experience and the other that uses TV/movies as background noise and only is partially engaged in what's being shown.


I replied already, but I felt compelled to reply specifically to a couple of your points. Because it's 2021.

1. You keep missing the point. If people watch in a manner that puts them outside of the operating range for 3d, or puts them in a range where they cannot appreciate 3D compared to 2D, then they will not embrace 3d. Because it does not fit their use case. I cannot make it simpler than that.

2. And this is the biggest one of all: Attention. In your mind, it's a binary. Either they're engaged (paying attention), or they're not. Is 2021. For thousands of years people have been considered non-binary attention-fluid. Depends on what they're doing, but sometimes they float between paying attention, to not paying attention, or somewhere in between. Hence the fluidity. 

Non-Binary Attention-Fluid. Remember that, please 

-T


----------



## Worf

So then VR is just a fad then. Because if people have issues with 3d glasses, surely strapping a heavy honking set of goggles to the front of your face is even worse.

And never mind how you're going to be social wearing one of those - getting up for more popcorn is tricky. And using your phone is kinda fun.

I guess we can say VR is going to fail rather spectacularly now...


----------



## PCummins

T-Bone said:


> 1. You keep missing the point. If people watch in a manner that puts them outside of the operating range for 3d, or puts them in a range where they cannot appreciate 3D compared to 2D, then they will not embrace 3d. Because it does not fit their use case. I cannot make it simpler than that.


No, I get your point, however you seem to be substituting simplistic technological or behavioural issues for a reason to dislike 3D (which can be valid reasons, of course). My question (rhetorical, admittedly) is more about whether people are actually being truly introspective about why they don't like 3D, or are they just going with the popular social flow. Or other issues in modern media, for that matter (beyond just 3D appreciation or not).



T-Bone said:


> 2. And this is the biggest one of all: Attention. In your mind, it's a binary. Either they're engaged (paying attention), or they're not.


Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again more carefully, with adequate attention spent on each word. Then you'd realise the assertion you're making isn't technically correct. Admittedly, the examples don't help if you are trying to avoid a binary comparison but it looks like others get what I meant.


----------



## T-Bone

PCummins said:


> No, I get your point, however you seem to be substituting simplistic technological or behavioural issues for a reason to dislike 3D (which can be valid reasons, of course). My question (rhetorical, admittedly) is more about whether people are actually being truly introspective about why they don't like 3D, or are they just going with the popular social flow. Or other issues in modern media, for that matter (beyond just 3D appreciation or not).
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again more carefully, with adequate attention spent on each word. Then you'd realise the assertion you're making isn't technically correct. Admittedly, the examples don't help if you are trying to avoid a binary comparison but it looks like others get what I meant.


I went back and reread. I guess I'll put it this way. 

People can complain about any technology they want, for any reason they want. Even if they are half paying attention. Because you even asked that if people that are half paying attention, are they being reasonable to complain about 3D? And the answer obviously is yes 

AVS forum members did not cause 3D to die. That happened by the consumer. And the manufacturers.

It reminds me of several recent vehicle purchases. I refuse to purchase a vehicle without power seats. I don't conform to the vehicle. The vehicle conforms to the way I like to drive... and I can't get that unless I have a power seats.

I guess some could ask if I'm really being introspective. Or am I just picking an easy target like power seats to discount a vehicle. After all, it is such a small feature compared to the entire vehicle as a whole... Is it lunacy to discount the vehicle or a particular model because it does not have power seats?

For me, the answer is yes. Because the vehicle does not fit my use case.

But here we are. 3D in the Americas is on the decline. Essentially dead. Flat panels are never going to display 3d again.

As for the rest of the world, I wonder if they're really being introspective when wanting 3d. Maybe they just want 3d for no other reason than <fill in the blank for a silly reason>.

-T


----------



## Car67

You are just projecting the irrelevance of your considerations onto others.


----------



## T-Bone

Car67 said:


> You are just projecting the irrelevance of your considerations onto others.


I suppose that is one way to look at it. I'm certain there are other ways to look at it too 

-T


----------



## NeoWick

The reason I believe (After speaking to some friends and family and coworkers who dislike 3d) is that mainly it was the glasses and the experience not being remarkable to them, but another strange thing I came across was people actually thinking that 3D in this context meant anaglyph. 

Yes the old red and blue glasses. some of my coworkers admitted they would never try 3D in a theater because the red and blue glasses make them sick, so they never bought 3d tickets.
This is also likely why people (consumers) who are uneducated also wouldn't buy a 3d TV or 3d discs.

Basically the term 3D is a dead name now, it needs to be rebranded to something else and to let people know that it's not red and blue glasses anymore, and to get this misconception removed entirely from the movie theater viewers and consumers minds. This simply has to be done or else 3D will never make a comeback.

It reminds me of the old NES story for you video gamers out there. Originally in the 80s Atari had lost the consumer market and video games were being seen as a dead fad, a gimmick and a cash grab, but NES was able to rebrand themselves as being a different kind of quality product and actually get people buying video games again.

We need a revolution like that for the 3D world, but sadly I think the time for that has come and went. The only people who could have done anything about it were hollywood and they seem content with letting 3d Die.


----------



## T-Bone

Red and blue? Have they never been to an amusement park and saw a 3D attraction? 

So people really do dislike the glasses. Imagine that!! I have been vindicated.

-T


----------



## b_scott

NeoWick said:


> Basically the term 3D is a dead name now, it needs to be rebranded to something else


I agree with this. I was trying to tell my son I got some 3D movies and he was "aren't they already in 3D?" meaning 3d animated rather than cell animated.


----------



## PCummins

Went to see Thor: Love and Thunder last night. So many people completely oblivious that they picked a 3D session, at least 1/2 of the audience had to head out to get 3D glasses despite being asked as the kiosk when picking up tickets & branding it was a 3D session. My guess is they now have a negative impression of being "forced" to wear glasses for what they assumed would be a normal session which is completely self-inflicted.


----------



## b_scott

I'm checking around me and IMAX 3D only has one showing each day. One. And that's of course only at the few places that have IMAX.


----------



## T-Bone

T-Bone said:


> Another take...
> 
> 1. 3D is not part of UHD or 8K standards
> 2. Market is pushing towards UHD and 8K... Not bluray
> 3. For those TV manufacturers that no longer make 3D for the US, what events would make them reconsider making 3D displays for the US market?
> 
> At this point in time, we all know the current state of 3D for the home. For those wishing for 3D to return to home theater like it was in the past, before it died, it should be easy for them to enumerate the events that would have to take place for that to occur.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> There are no events... No can enumerate them. Ergo, 3D for home theater is dead
> 
> Give me a Like to support the Olympics in 2D 4K Atmos.
> 
> 
> 
> -T


Quoting myself because it's been a year. I was actually searching on something else in the forum and my post came up. 

Anyway, now that a Year's gone by with no considerable change. 3D is on life support. For all intents and purposes, it is dead. Anyone care to weigh in with a bulletized list of events that would need to occur for 3D to take off again like it was in its hay day?

-T


----------



## b_scott

I would think hi speed HDMI cables that can carry double full 4K bandwidth or even 8K bandwidth would need to be standard, and net pipelines would need to be big - to carry the doubled resolution 3D takes. And it would be streaming only, IMO.


----------



## aaronwt

It would need to be a streaming option. Since discs see fewer sales every year. For discs, 3D would be a niche within a niche But then the streaming services aren't typically going to offer 3D any more either. And of course there are no 3D TVs sold any more in the US.


----------



## rural scribe

T-Bone said:


> Quoting myself because it's been a year. I was actually searching on something else in the forum and my post came up.
> 
> Anyway, now that a Year's gone by with no considerable change. 3D is on life support. For all intents and purposes, it is dead. Anyone care to weigh in with a bulletized list of events that would need to occur for 3D to take off again like it was in its hay day?
> 
> -T


A new Avatar movie release in 3D would help revive it, but if 3D


T-Bone said:


> Quoting myself because it's been a year. I was actually searching on something else in the forum and my post came up.
> 
> Anyway, now that a Year's gone by with no considerable change. 3D is on life support. For all intents and purposes, it is dead. Anyone care to weigh in with a bulletized list of events that would need to occur for 3D to take off again like it was in its hay day?
> 
> -T


Any pronouncements about the death of 3D prior to the release and run of the last of the Avatar sequels is obviously premature.


----------



## T-Bone

rural scribe said:


> A new Avatar movie release in 3D would help revive it, but if 3D
> 
> 
> Any pronouncements about the death of 3D prior to the release and run of the last of the Avatar sequels is obviously premature.


Or another way of thinking of it is (since we're really speaking about home theater):

Any pronouncements about 3D being alive and well prior to the announcement by TV manufacturers to include 3D support is obviously premature.



-T


----------



## aaronwt

rural scribe said:


> A new Avatar movie release in 3D would help revive it, but if 3D
> 
> 
> Any pronouncements about the death of 3D prior to the release and run of the last of the Avatar sequels is obviously premature.


If they have Avatar 2 in 3D, in the Dolby theater, then I would definitely see it in 3D. Otherwise, I will only be seeing it in 2D. The Dolby theater experience in 3D is the best 3D presentation I have ever seen. But I've only seen one 3D movie in a Dolby theater around here, Alita. But then that is also the only 3D movie they have shown in the Dolby theater around here.


----------



## Technology3456

aaronwt said:


> If they have Avatar 2 in 3D, in the Dolby theater, then I would definitely see it in 3D. Otherwise, I will only be seeing it in 2D. The Dolby theater experience in 3D is the best 3D presentation I have ever seen. But I've only seen one 3D movie in a Dolby theater around here, Alita. But then that is also the only 3D movie they have shown in the Dolby theater around here.


Did you theater have the laser projection 3D setup with the better contrast? Do you have any what went into making it a better 3D experience for you?


----------



## aaronwt

Technology3456 said:


> Did you theater have the laser projection 3D setup with the better contrast? Do you have any what went into making it a better 3D experience for you?


Yes the Dolby theater has a Laser setup. The thing that made it better was the deeper blacks and brighter whites with 3D. Since the Dolby theaters excel at that. And maybe the 3D process with them is actually better? Unfortunately, the IMAX theaters at those same locations I frequent, have not been updated to laser projection yet. So their blacks are gray.


----------



## Technology3456

aaronwt said:


> Yes the Dolby theater has a Laser setup. The thing that made it better was the deeper blacks and brighter whites with 3D. Since the Dolby theaters excel at that. And maybe the 3D process with them is actually better? Unfortunately, the IMAX theaters at those same locations I frequent, have not been updated to laser projection yet. So their blacks are gray.


Thats cool, sucks about the IMAX though. Do you find the greater contrast has the same effect on the 3D depth for 3D that it has for 3D effect in 2D? I mean of course the better 2D qualities will carry over, but does it also do something unique on top of that for the 3D effect, in an exponential sense, or would you say its nothing more than the better 2D effect but now in 3D so to speak?


----------



## aaronwt

Technology3456 said:


> Thats cool, sucks about the IMAX though. Do you find the greater contrast has the same effect on the 3D depth for 3D that it has for 3D effect in 2D? I mean of course the better 2D qualities will carry over, but does it also do something unique on top of that for the 3D effect, in an exponential sense, or would you say its nothing more than the better 2D effect but now in 3D so to speak?


Not sure. I just remember that the 3D Alita: Battle Angel I saw in the Dolby theater, blew away anything I had ever seen in Real 3D or Imax 3D in the theater. As well as blowing away the passive and active 3D TVs I had at home. It was an awesome 3D presentation that I, unfortunately, have only been able to experience one time.


----------

