# Is 3D TV the next big thing for 2010?



## olevia

I was watching Fox Business today, and they were running a series of interviews from Dreamworks. Intel was interviewed, and the 3D movies about to be released were also discussed in some detail.


At the end of the interview, one of the anchors asked the other if she had seen the 3D Shrek 4 trailer. She said yes. He asked her where, and she said on an as yet unannounced 3D Panasonic TV which will debut at CES.


Is 3D the next big thing for 2010 and beyond?


----------



## Beeper

Yes, 3D and Smell-O-Vision are early 1900s technologies that will soon be in your face, again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision


----------



## sharkcohen

Mehhh.


----------



## bk.secret23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beeper* /forum/post/17747345
> 
> 
> Yes, 3D displays and Smell-O-Vision are technologies that will soon be in your face.
> 
> 
> Both have been used since the early 1900s.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision



FOOD NETWORK!!!


----------



## roobieroo

I think Avatar is really helping bring 3-D TV to the forefront. Once people see it in 3D and realize that it can be done without having crap always flying in your face it could really push demand.


----------



## thecrazykevy

3D is probably cool for animation and video games. Not sure about everything else though.


----------



## roobieroo

I can't post the link but this is from the Consumer Reports blog.


Among the details of the spec:


3D players can deliver full 1080p resolution to each eye, maintaining image quality

3D players will work with any type of 3D-enabled HDTV, regardless of type or brand

3D players will be able to play standard 2D Blu-ray discs

Current Blu-ray players can playing 3D titles in 2D

Support for 3D playback in PlayStation 3 game console

Support for some advanced graphic features, such as 3D menus and subtitles


----------



## Agreed

I don't care a whit about 3D. I don't know what it is I'm supposed to like about it, but whatever it is, I don't. I hope it becomes the next big thing so that the advanced non-3D technologies quickly move into the lower price tiers and make perfectly good high-end sets that just don't happen to support 120hz+ input more affordable to average users. But for me, it's basically a headache-inducing extravagance which was cool in the mid to late 20th century because special effects weren't particularly amazing and it had "wow!" factor; now televisions have genuinely flat, undistorted high-resolution screens which provide the "illusion" of depth and realism perfectly well, and adding yet another layer (which is A: limited by the physical dimensions of the television, and B: essentially just exploiting an optical illusion) has not impressed me lately.


It's the kind of thing that is cool at a theater because the screen takes up your entire field of view and so it's almost like the film is happening around you, but even very big TVs don't offer nearly the same level of field-of-vision coverage and so it's more like watching it happening in this sort of smaller box that you're not really in. I mean, yeah, we've come a long way since colored glasses, and I'm not saying it isn't fun sometimes, but it's basically a gimmick/novelty that has already worn off on me before it's even really got started.


I'll be ecstatic when a genuinely three-dimensional projection system comes out, but who knows if that'll happen in our lifetimes? The whole underlying technology has yet to be developed for anything like that to exist, taking into account entirely new avenues in recording, distribution and playback - at the moment it's science fiction. What passes for 3D these days doesn't move me and until it just becomes a feature that everything has, I'll make no special allowances for it in my budget.


----------



## Topmounter

So they dust off this 3D thing every so often, tell everyone that it sucks less than the last time they saw it and it sucked, people go see it and get their 3D gimmick fix, but it's still not compelling enough to pay more for or go to the theater more often or even see it as anything but a gimmick.


So now the CE manufacturers can't figure out what to sell people after as-big-as-they-can-fit-in-your-house 1080p panels, 1080p Blu-ray players and Dolby 3D surround sound systems with a gazillion speakers... so they latch on to the age old 3D gimmick and promise you that buying all new crap to replace your current perfectly good crap will result in a 3D experience that's less crappy than the crappy 3D experience you keep seeing in the theaters.


I can't see how this bleeding edge is appealing to anyone other than carnies and lotto winners, instead we should just buy stock in the companies that make Tylenol, Advil, Bayer, etc. and use our windfall profits to buy a holo-deck once they become available.


Of course I'm sure I'll be wrong and we'll all be glued to the couch with our goggles on watching Oprah in 3D on our new 3D-enabled home theater systems paid for in part by the "Cash for 2D clunkers" federal program


----------



## hikarate

3d the next big thing. I had to go find this image that always pops in my head whenever I hear the word.


----------



## Agreed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Topmounter* /forum/post/17748716
> 
> 
> So they dust off this 3D thing every so often, tell everyone that it sucks less than the last time they saw it and it sucked, people go see it and get their 3D gimmick fix, but it's still not compelling enough to pay more for or go to the theater more often or even see it as anything but a gimmick.
> 
> 
> So now the CE manufacturers can't figure out what to sell people after as-big-as-they-can-fit-in-your-house 1080p panels, 1080p Blu-ray players and Dolby 3D surround sound systems with a gazillion speakers... so they latch on to the age old 3D gimmick and promise you that buying all new crap to replace your current perfectly good crap will result in a 3D experience that's less crappy than the crappy 3D experience you keep seeing in the theaters.
> 
> 
> I can't see how this bleeding edge is appealing to anyone other than carnies and lotto winners, instead we should just buy stock in the companies that make Tylenol, Advil, Bayer, etc. and use our windfall profits to buy a holo-deck once they become available.
> 
> 
> Of course I'm sure I'll be wrong and we'll all be glued to the couch with our goggles on watching Oprah in 3D on our new 3D-enabled home theater systems paid for in part by the "Cash for 2D clunkers" federal program



Amazing post, literally made me laugh out loud. Fantastically accurate sentiment, as well.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Topmounter* /forum/post/17748716
> 
> 
> Of course I'm sure I'll be wrong and we'll all be glued to the couch with our goggles on watching Oprah in 3D on our new 3D-enabled home theater systems paid for in part by the "Cash for 2D clunkers" federal program



Heh, of course you are wrong, completely wrong







. First, the price of 3D enabled panels will be the same as 2D, in fact one can expect all panels carrying soon the 3D ready label - remember times of HD ready and full HD TVs? Thus, those buying new panels will be buying 3D ones automatically. Then they will only have to buy glasses to watch 3D and that will not be any significant price. Second, nobody is talking about watching 3D all the time. This will be for occasional special viewing. Just last week the 3D Blue Ray disc specs were finalized , 3D discs people will be compatible with 2D, people will buy them and watch in 2D or 3D. As in the case of panels, anybody buying new Blue Ray player will be soon buying a 3D enabled one.


Much the same as the 3D cinema is occasional specialty success, the same will be with [email protected]


----------



## Servicetech571




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Topmounter* /forum/post/17748716
> 
> 
> So they dust off this 3D thing every so often, tell everyone that it sucks less than the last time they saw it and it sucked, people go see it and get their 3D gimmick fix, but it's still not compelling enough to pay more for or go to the theater more often or even see it as anything but a gimmick.
> 
> 
> So now the CE manufacturers can't figure out what to sell people after as-big-as-they-can-fit-in-your-house 1080p panels, 1080p Blu-ray players and Dolby 3D surround sound systems with a gazillion speakers... so they latch on to the age old 3D gimmick and promise you that buying all new crap to replace your current perfectly good crap will result in a 3D experience that's less crappy than the crappy 3D experience you keep seeing in the theaters.
> 
> *I can't see how this bleeding edge is appealing to anyone other than carnies and lotto winners,* instead we should just buy stock in the companies that make Tylenol, Advil, Bayer, etc. and use our windfall profits to buy a holo-deck once they become available.
> 
> 
> Of course I'm sure I'll be wrong and we'll all be glued to the couch with our goggles on watching Oprah in 3D on our new 3D-enabled home theater systems paid for in part by the "Cash for 2D clunkers" federal program



100% agree about not buying overpriced bleeding edge technology. Most people who buy it just whip out the CC and worry about the bill later. What's another $20 per month? Then of course you have to upgrade all your other equipment in order to be able to utilize all the high tech features.


The nice thing is you can buy up 3-4yr old technology for pennies on the dollar. Picked up my Mits WS65513 on Craigslist for $100, somebody paid $3,000 or so for it back in 2004. Picked up my "technologically obsolete" 720p LG 42" TV brand new for $450, people were giving $2,000+ for these 3 yrs ago.


----------



## irkuck

This message is intended only for 3D supporters, FUD spreaders and naysayers go away







: Sony secured the glasses for 3D 


As a premium please look at the Sony brings 3D home


----------



## TNG

I don't think that 3D will sell that much. Maybe Avatar is a great example of what 3D can do (I have not seen it), but there are allot of movies that I have not seen in 2D yet.


It is like the prediction that BD will replace DVD, yes and no. I don't have a BD player and don't need one until the prices of the software comes down much more. Same for 3D, don't need a capable panel until I need to replace one of the ones that I already have, which may be awhile, money doesn't grow on trees.


----------



## topr

3D will be a lot like green technology...everyone will talk a good game but when it's time to get out the wallet...ehh, not so much. A niche product for quite some time would be my guess unless the costs of software and displays are in line with their 2D counterparts.


----------



## sharkcohen

I just bought a new 52" LCD, I don't see buying another one next year just to accommodate a handful of 3D Blu-ray offerings.


----------



## sharkcohen

Ugh, who am I kidding, I probably will


----------



## sirjonsnow

If I want 3-D I'll go outside.


----------



## Dathon

Until we have cheap, mainstream technology that allows a TV to show depth without glasses, it is always going to be a gimmick. I recently saw a demonstration of Panasonic's 3D system. They came to town with their huge truck, with a small theater inside it. I was unimpressed. They are using battery operated LCD shutter glasses that are controlled via IR.


Several problems I saw with this tech...

1. Resolution is halved. You don't get full 1080p per eye.

2. Although things looked "3D" and popped out of the screen, everything looked like "ghosts" to me. It was not the same as viewing a solid object with your own two eyes in the real world.


*Note to Panasonic reps that are in charge of this demonstration:* Turn down those crappy Panasonic speakers you have in that truck. Are you trying to show off your speakers, or your 3D tech? Because your subwoofers were bottoming out, and the surround speakers were distorting!


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sirjonsnow* /forum/post/17763923
> 
> 
> If I want 3-D I'll go outside.



Ha! Great line!


----------



## Bazzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dathon* /forum/post/17764251
> 
> 
> Until we have cheap, mainstream technology that allows a TV to show depth without glasses, it is always going to be a gimmick. I recently saw a demonstration of Panasonic's 3D system. They came to town with their huge truck, with a small theater inside it. I was unimpressed. They are using battery operated LCD shutter glasses that are controlled via IR.
> 
> 
> Several problems I saw with this tech...
> 
> 1. Resolution is halved. You don't get full 1080p per eye.
> 
> 2. Although things looked "3D" and popped out of the screen, everything looked like "ghosts" to me. It was not the same as viewing a solid object with your own two eyes in the real world.
> 
> 
> *Note to Panasonic reps that are in charge of this demonstration:* Turn down those crappy Panasonic speakers you have in that truck. Are you trying to show off your speakers, or your 3D tech? Because your subwoofers were bottoming out, and the surround speakers were distorting!




Hi Dathon,


Did you get to see the Panasonic 3D Demo? I saw it in London & was overall quite impressed in the sense that it was better than I expected such a demo to be but found live material better on 3D than movie stuff - maybe it was just me or that particular demo!


Bazzy!


----------



## BAMABLUHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TNG* /forum/post/17763247
> 
> 
> I don't think that 3D will sell that much. Maybe Avatar is a great example of what 3D can do (I have not seen it), but there are allot of movies that I have not seen in 2D yet.
> 
> 
> It is like the prediction that BD will replace DVD, yes and no. I don't have a BD player and don't need one until the prices of the software comes down much more. Same for 3D, don't need a capable panel until I need to replace one of the ones that I already have, which may be awhile, money doesn't grow on trees.




I did see Avatar on Friday in 3D, but not IMAX 3D. Overall, I loved the movie, but I could have done without the 3D, even though it was the "cleanest" attempt I've seen of it. The Real3D glasses weren't as bad as the old days, but it did dim the screen a bit. I like my movies bright and popping, so I won't see another blockbuster in 3D, even if it's The Hobbitt.


At home, unless they come out with an IMAX TV, I won't be looking for a 3D capable set next year when I plan to shop for a 52'-55' LCD 240hz to replace my aging 46' DLP. I particualarly have reservations if they plan to charge a premium for it (I know they will).


With CES a few weeks away, I can't wait to see what goodies they try to con us into. Like I said, I will be in the market in 2010.


----------



## sharkcohen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sirjonsnow* /forum/post/17763923
> 
> 
> If I want 3-D I'll go outside.



Reminds me of this past summer, I was at an MLS game, and my friend's 14 year old daughter says "wow, this is great, it's just like high def".


----------



## carvega




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roobieroo* /forum/post/17747821
> 
> 
> I think Avatar is really helping bring 3-D TV to the forefront. Once people see it in 3D and realize that it can be done without having crap always flying in your face it could really push demand.










Avatar is the reason I want my next set to be 3D capable... even willing to hold out on a new purchase if it means getting a 3D set!


----------



## carvega

Wow, I'm surprised with the amount of skepticism in this thread. The technology is definitely a step up from HD. I agree that I do not intend to watch everything in 3D so long as it requires me to wear glasses... but I would love to have the option. Especially when it comes to my favorite movies on blu ray.


----------



## MrEastSide

I will never buy another TV just for a few animated movies in 3D. And I have no desire to see real life movies in 3D on a regular basis. Gimmick in my opinion. But, I won't knock anyone who wants a new TV for it.


----------



## carvega




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/17764729
> 
> 
> I will never buy another TV just for a few animated movies in 3D. And I have no desire to see real life movies in 3D on a regular basis. Gimmick in my opinion. But, I won't knock anyone who wants a new TV for it.



If that's the only thing you want to watch in 3D then I agree. But real life material can look quite spectacular in 3D as well... Certainly better than HD. Aside from Avatar, I have seen a few educational vids in 3D... the effect is always nicely done and adds to the immersing experience of the viewing. Still, to each his own.


One drawback will definitely be the content available for the format. Cable & satellite barely provide enough HD content as it is. But as a gamer and an avid buyer of blu ray content, I'm hopeful there will be enough content to satisfy me.


----------



## MrEastSide




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *carvega* /forum/post/17764773
> 
> 
> If that's the only thing you want to watch in 3D then I agree. But real life material can look quite spectacular in 3D as well... Certainly better than HD. Aside from Avatar, I have seen a few educational vids in 3D... the effect is always nicely done and adds to the immersing experience of the viewing. Still, to each his own.
> 
> 
> One drawback will definitely be the content available for the format. Cable & satellite barely provide enough HD content as it is. But as a gamer and an avid buyer of blu ray content, I'm hopeful there will be enough content to satisfy me.



I think my apprehension comes from other gimmicks in the past. To me, this whole 3D thing feels like it's gonna be the 1080P, Full HD, 120Hz crap all over again.


----------



## luclin999

I have zero interest in this gimmick. Especially if it requires me to wear glasses to see the effect.


I don't enjoy the gimmick in the theaters and I have no reason to believe that I'll like it better in my home.


----------



## Denophile




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *carvega* /forum/post/17764695
> 
> 
> Wow, I'm surprised with the amount of skepticism in this thread. The technology is definitely a step up from HD. I agree that I do not intend to watch everything in 3D so long as it requires me to wear glasses... but I would love to have the option. Especially when it comes to my favorite movies on blu ray.



i think having to gut your system and replace all your gear every year or two leads to some skepticism...not to mention that we need to add another 2 speakers every year to accomodate yet another surround format. give it 5 years. 3dtv under 1k, players under 200, no glasses...then it may have a chance.


----------



## BAMABLUHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrEastSide* /forum/post/17764857
> 
> 
> I think my apprehension comes from other gimmicks in the past. To me, this whole 3D thing feels like it's gonna be the 1080P, Full HD, 120Hz crap all over again.



EastSide, lets try to be careful about what we label as a "gimmick". HD was a gimmick 8 years ago, now it is very much mainstream.


Like I stated in an earlier post, after seeing Avatar over the weekend, I didn't hate the 3D, just didn't think it was a big deal. If all TVs in 2010 come 3D ready that are at least 120Hz, with no or minimal cost hike, then fine. If these guys expect me to pay an extra grand for it, they can sit there for the next 5 years.


If Cerv wants a 3D set, he came to the best place for info and advice. Lets not make him feel as if he's out of bounds for wanting a cutting edge set. After all, that's usually who are on AVS Forum, early adopters and serious tech heads.


----------



## Agreed

Well, to be fair 3D really has been around for a LONG, LONG time. Advances in technology have been slow at best. Shuttered goggles have been around for a long time now, I remember some games supporting them with special hardware and the latest graphics cards in the '90s







Granted that as we move away from the old, ugly, awful Green/Red or Blue/Red headache machine methods toward more transparent 3D the user experience gets better, but even polarized 3D has some picture quality issues that are going to be difficult to address and not everyone is going to be ecstatic about the idea of having to invest in a whole new setup (after all, for as many 120hz TVs as there are out there, very few TVs accept 120hz input, let alone 240hz input TVs). Yeah, some technologies are "3D ready" and the spec has just been finalized, but I think there are a lot of reasons why this won't necessarily be a technology that people are going to rush to bring home.


The field of vision issue is the biggest one - the depth and "there"ness of the 3D effect is highly limited by your field of vision, and even a big TV isn't going to compare with a giant movie theater screen or an IMAX FoV so the immersion that 3D dangles in front of you can turn out to be pretty disappointing when you try to take it from the theater to your house.


I just don't care about 3D very much. It's not a new thing, and it's not REALLY 3D. If we get something that offers true three dimensional projection in space then I'll bust my life savings getting the latest and greatest so I can have my very own holovid or whatever they're going to call it. I don't feel nearly as compelled to rush out and get a new TV and some special glasses for my family and friends just to have a sort of limp imitation of a theater's 3D. I like modern 3D technology at the movies, but it's just not something that can be brought home unless you want to sit like three to five feet away from a 65" screen so that you can really be in the illusory depth rather than just see some stuff kind of come off the screen a little.


I mean, it's neat that my PS3 will support it, and maybe I'm wrong and it'll turn out to kick arse and this time next year I'll be shopping for a TV that accepts a 240hz input







I'll wait and see. But I think there are conceptual hurdles rather than technological ones which will limit how nice of an experience this will be at home.


----------



## DirkAngle

Add me to the list of 3D converts... I'm holding off on upgrading till 2010 when I can evaluate the 3D tech. I was amazed that my wife who does not care about these things was enthusiastic about us getting a 3D set. The kids also want to get 3D as that is what they have been seeing in theaters since they were 3. So it may be that this time 3D is for real, and the more cynical amongst us are dragged there by our kids and better halves


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *carvega* /forum/post/17764695
> 
> 
> Wow, I'm surprised with the amount of skepticism in this thread. The technology is definitely a step up from HD. I agree that I do not intend to watch everything in 3D so long as it requires me to wear glasses... but I would love to have the option. Especially when it comes to my favorite movies on blu ray.



Skepticism! Add hatred and even torch carrying villager anger (he,he).


----------



## jbug

One drawback will definitely be the content available for the format. Cable & satellite barely provide enough HD content as it is. But as a gamer and an avid buyer of blu ray content, I'm hopeful there will be enough content to satisfy me.[/quote]




Plenty here http://www.3dmovielist.com/list.html to get the game going.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BAMABLUHD* /forum/post/17765138
> 
> 
> EastSide, lets try to be careful about what we label as a "gimmick". HD was a gimmick 8 years ago, now it is very much mainstream.
> 
> 
> Like I stated in an earlier post, after seeing Avatar over the weekend, I didn't hate the 3D, just didn't think it was a big deal. If all TVs in 2010 come 3D ready that are at least 120Hz, with no or minimal cost hike, then fine. If these guys expect me to pay an extra grand for it, they can sit there for the next 5 years.
> 
> 
> If Cerv wants a 3D set, he came to the best place for info and advice. Lets not make him feel as if he's out of bounds for wanting a cutting edge set. After all, that's usually who are on AVS Forum, early adopters and serious tech heads.




Thanks for a sensible, level headed post. I had someone tell me that I'd be wasting my money if I bought into 3D HDTV. I happen to believe that this is the right time for it and as I like 3D very much, I'll be one of the first ones to waste *my* money on a new set.


----------



## MrEastSide




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BAMABLUHD* /forum/post/17765138
> 
> 
> EastSide, lets try to be careful about what we label as a "gimmick". HD was a gimmick 8 years ago, now it is very much mainstream.
> 
> 
> Like I stated in an earlier post, after seeing Avatar over the weekend, I didn't hate the 3D, just didn't think it was a big deal. If all TVs in 2010 come 3D ready that are at least 120Hz, with no or minimal cost hike, then fine. If these guys expect me to pay an extra grand for it, they can sit there for the next 5 years.
> 
> 
> If Cerv wants a 3D set, he came to the best place for info and advice. Lets not make him feel as if he's out of bounds for wanting a cutting edge set. After all, that's usually who are on AVS Forum, early adopters and serious tech heads.



I never considered HD a gimmick, it's not really. You're moving out of one format of television and eventually ditching all of it for everything in HD. The other things I listed as gimmicks were more so. 1080P, OK, yeah it's nice to have that resolution, but even at 720P, most people are hard pressed to tell a difference even on a large screen. 120Hz, most people agree there is very little difference. A little smoother, yeah, necessary? Not really. Full HD, there is no such thing as FULL HD or partial HD. Something is either high-def resolution or it's not. Since resolutions can go way higher than 1080P, who the hell ever thought of calling 1080P full HD?


And if buying a set that can play the 1 or 2 movies that come out a year in 3D isn't a gimmick I don't know what is. Like I said, I am not knocking anyone who likes it or wants to buy it, but it is a gimmick, whether you like it labeled as one or not. Buying a whole new set for a couple movies a year in 3D? Really? Come on... 3D will never take over completely. Normal movies are going to be the bulk of what is made, not 3D. Which is why I say gimmick.


I think SONY is making a huge mistake dumping billions of dollars into this one.


----------



## Agreed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/17765765
> 
> 
> Thanks for a sensible, level headed post. I had someone tell me that I'd be wasting my money if I bought into 3D HDTV. I happen to believe that this is the right time for it and as I like 3D very much, I'll be one of the first ones to waste *my* money on a new set.



You know, my most recent post or two was/were sensible and level-headed as well. They don't happen to agree with you, so I understand why I don't get the kudos







but all the same there are legitimate non-"raargh" reasons to be unenthusiastic about 3D.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17766716
> 
> 
> You know, my most recent post or two was/were sensible and level-headed as well. They don't happen to agree with you, so I understand why I don't get the kudos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but all the same there are legitimate non-"raargh" reasons to be unenthusiastic about 3D.



Well, I found your post level-headed as well!










At this stage, though, most of the posts are just one thing: Opinion.


There are only a few facts and while some of the news and announcements are optimistic (PS3 capable for 3D, for example) we just don't know many details yet. Are there certain limitations? What are the costs? etc.


What I'm convinced off, though - and this is also an opinion - is:


The human visual system works in 3D and most people use it as such. Viewing movies and other stuff in 2D is a technical limitation, a kludge if you so will, and if 3D movies would have worked excellently since the 50ies we all wouldn't have this discussion right now.


I think that 3D is as inevitable as were color and sound when they took over.

Digital audio pretty much killed analog audio storage.

DVDs destroyed VHS.

etc.


Of course the "new" is not always better than the "old" but that's beside the point. The point is: When will the "new" take over?

And: Will the "new 3D" be good enough or will it be just another kludge? I can't answer that and most of the people here probably neither.


One thing is clear, though: Our sons and daughters will laugh about the in parts "silly" postings if they would ever take their time to read that stuff.


----------



## Dathon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bazzy* /forum/post/17764362
> 
> 
> Hi Dathon,
> 
> 
> Did you get to see the Panasonic 3D Demo? I saw it in London & was overall quite impressed in the sense that it was better than I expected such a demo to be but found live material better on 3D than movie stuff - maybe it was just me or that particular demo!
> 
> 
> Bazzy!



Yes I saw the demo when Panasonic was in my city. They showed clips of The Polar Express, and Scrooge in 3D. I was not impressed, because the 3D effect just didn't look "real" and life-like. There was some depth to the screen, and also things popping out. But I still was unimpressed. It's good for kids and cartoon movies I suppose. But I don't want to see all movies like this.


----------



## Bazzy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dathon* /forum/post/17767233
> 
> 
> Yes I saw the demo when Panasonic was in my city. They showed clips of The Polar Express, and Scrooge in 3D. I was not impressed, because the 3D effect just didn't look "real" and life-like. There was some depth to the screen, and also things popping out. But I still was unimpressed. It's good for kids and cartoon movies I suppose. But I don't want to see all movies like this.



Hi,


Very interesting indeed Dathon - they showed completely different material here in London - I have to say, I was impressed - most of the demo had great 3D Depth and was sharp & in focus - there was a heck of a lot more depth to the pic than stuff coming out of the screen. The demo were a F1 racing scene live, some live city scenes, a extreme skiing sports scene & a few others - most of all were very impressive. the best was the live coverage of the Beijing Olympics - I have to say, that was very "3D". Finally, they showed film material - Avatar - it was good but not as good as the lives scenes shot on 3D imo!


Bazzy!


----------



## irkuck

3D is not a replacement (like HDTV) but upgrade technology which is downward compatible. For its proliferation it is enough that within the next 12-24 months all new TVs will carry 3Dready badge. Then some people will buy other necessary components and 3D Blue Rays, 3D games and some 3D broadcast will be available. In its current embodiment 3D will not replace 2D and there is no way 3D could be used exclusively.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/17767697
> 
> 
> In its current embodiment 3D will not replace 2D and there is no way 3D could be used exclusively.



Exactly! As long as the audience has to use glasses it won't _replace_ anything. It will be an "enhancement" and it will find it's customers.


I'm convinced, though, that we'll see 3D-TV happening without additional "band aids" in the long run. Emphasis on _"long"_...


----------



## BAMABLUHD

Thanks for the kudos jbug, but to MrEastSide, I wasn't trying to get onto him.


Basically, none of us know what to think of 3D in the home right now. I like Agreed's logic on the field of vision argument. My TV is 46' and I only sit about 8 ft or so from it, yet it isn't big enough. My next TV that I will buy in 2010 will need to be at least 52', as I watch a lot of football and play my XBOX 360.


I'd love to see ALABAMA play Texas in 3D at home, but won't be hurt because I can't. Like I said, if the TVs aren't an arm and a leg for the 3D capability, then I'd love to have it. I'd also hope that my Blu Ray player can just download a software upgrade to get

3D, because I have absolutely no plans to replace it anytime soon. However, the PS3 angle is a good one for Sony, although I really don't like Sony as a company anymore.


----------



## bk.secret23

I guess _innovations_ are disregarded... for equivocal.


----------



## TNG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *carvega* /forum/post/17764695
> 
> 
> Wow, I'm surprised with the amount of skepticism in this thread. The technology is definitely a step up from HD. I agree that I do not intend to watch everything in 3D so long as it requires me to wear glasses... but I would love to have the option. Especially when it comes to my favorite movies on blu ray.



Don't get me wrong here, if I _need_ a new set and do get one that comes with all of the options I would not turn it down, but unlike you I would not hold off a purchase just so I can get something 3D capable.


----------



## Steve S

If the 3D standard is just that--a true standard--right from the start I don't see anything wrong with going for it as an early adopter.


The fact is that with few exceptions most "standards" over the last 15 years or so have not been truly standardized from the start. Many early HDTVs (Mitsubishi was one) had a proprietary connection jack for an external tuner and would not accept an HD signal any other way. Does anyone remember the Unity Motion, and later Voom HD satellite systems? The BD standard was supposedly finalized from the start but fully capable players didn't appear for about a year or so--lots of folks plunked down $1k for BD players with no PinP or BD-net capability.


Samsung was marketing "3D ready" DLP rear projection sets over a year ago--these required connection to a PC, shutter glasses, and a whole bunch of other hoops to jump thru.


It should also be remembered that many technologies that are now commonplace and accepted didn't work too well in their earliest releases--OTA digital broadcast was plagued with picture breakup and audio synch issues for years, early 120 hz frame interpolation features caused us to see 3 footballs at once, color tv itself was iffy for the first 10-15 years.


I really don't want to be mistaken for a luddite naysayer here. My efforts are more towards pointing out that in the past a lot of cutting-edge early adopters of new technologies have gotten burned. These people should be praised because without them we'd still be watching 21" BW crt sets, but we can't all afford to emulate them.


----------



## BAMABLUHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steve S* /forum/post/17770567
> 
> 
> If the 3D standard is just that--a true standard--right from the start I don't see anything wrong with going for it as an early adopter.
> 
> 
> The fact is that with few exceptions most "standards" over the last 15 years or so have not been truly standardized from the start. Many early HDTVs (Mitsubishi was one) had a proprietary connection jack for an external tuner and would not accept an HD signal any other way. Does anyone remember the Unity Motion, and later Voom HD satellite systems? The BD standard was supposedly finalized from the start but fully capable players didn't appear for about a year or so--lots of folks plunked down $1k for BD players with no PinP or BD-net capability.
> 
> 
> Samsung was marketing "3D ready" DLP rear projection sets over a year ago--these required connection to a PC, shutter glasses, and a whole bunch of other hoops to jump thru.
> 
> 
> It should also be remembered that many technologies that are now commonplace and accepted didn't work too well in their earliest releases--OTA digital broadcast was plagued with picture breakup and audio synch issues for years, early 120 hz frame interpolation features caused us to see 3 footballs at once, color tv itself was iffy for the first 10-15 years.
> 
> 
> I really don't want to be mistaken for a luddite naysayer here. My efforts are more towards pointing out that in the past a lot of cutting-edge early adopters of new technologies have gotten burned. These people should be praised because without them we'd still be watching 21" BW crt sets, but we can't all afford to emulate them.




Thanks Steve, you make some great points here. Problem for me is that I can't go another football season watching my 46' DLP. My teams playing for the National Championship for God's sake! Next year when the TIDE go for a repeat, I need to watch it all in style, so I'll have to take my chances on a 2010 HDTV.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BAMABLUHD* /forum/post/17775759
> 
> 
> Thanks Steve, you make some great points here. Problem for me is that I can't go another football season watching my 46' DLP. My teams playing for the National Championship for God's sake! Next year when the TIDE go for a repeat, I need to watch it all in style, so I'll have to take my chances on a 2010 HDTV.



I see that you are one big TIDE fan!!


----------



## pcweber111




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BAMABLUHD* /forum/post/17775759
> 
> 
> Thanks Steve, you make some great points here. Problem for me is that I can't go another football season watching my 46' DLP. My teams playing for the National Championship for God's sake! Next year when the TIDE go for a repeat, I need to watch it all in style, so I'll have to take my chances on a 2010 HDTV.



Repeat loss?


\\m/


----------



## Blackraven




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sirjonsnow* /forum/post/17763923
> 
> 
> If I want 3-D I'll go outside.



You summed up everything there my friend


----------



## powertoold

I just saw Avatar in 3D. If 3D TVs with shutter glasses are anything like that, then it's totally a gimmick. The 3D effect was cool and all, but it was sacrificing the PQ, and things don't look 3D in a real sense. They just look 3D in a "hey that's cool and different" way.


I can see myself enjoying 3D movies from time to time, but I'd never buy a 3D TV to see 3D content on a daily or even weekly basis. The glasses definitely degrade the PQ...


----------



## BetaB

So, my insider in the movie business says that this is the year for 3D; it's already been decided, and CES will be the jumping point. I guess there is a Korean company(one that i had never heard of) that is shopping this panel around that doesn't need glasses. However, the real kicker is that when you are watching it, the panel casts shadows over the room. It's really cool and trippy supposedly. He has been talking about this panel for almost a year.


----------



## Matt L

How can a panel "cast a shadow " over the room? Does it have some magic light absorbing properties? Does gauzy fabric shoot out of it filtering the light?


Sounds pretty mysterious...


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17804691
> 
> 
> How can a panel "cast a shadow " over the room? Does it have some magic light absorbing properties? Does gauzy fabric shoot out of it filtering the light?
> 
> 
> Sounds pretty mysterious...



You just have to swallow the magic sugar cube first.


----------



## greenland

HDGuru is now reporting that DirectTV will launch a dedicated 3D HD channel by March 2010. Sports, Movies, and other programs. Current HDTV Boxes will receive a firmware upgrade to allow existing subscribers to access the new 3D HD channel.

http://hdguru.com/directv-to-launch-...xclusive/1201/


----------



## scorrpio

There is a very major problem with up to date implementation of 3D. It is about the way our brain reacts to perceived depth and the way it expects a 3D environment to behave. Because of those factors, 3D as it is today is, in my book, nothing but a barely believable gimmick. Aside from movies, carefully crafted, with every frame, every camera move specifically designed to play along with our '3D psychology', and downplay the limitations of the tech, and presented on a big screen that fills a much larger field of view than a TV, I just don't see 3D getting much traction. In fact, I've read that the kind of 3D we see in Avatar has been specifically developed to lure viewers to theaters, away from their 60" screens, Blu-Ray players and 7.1 setups. Cause that's where big $$$ is, not in Netflix rentals.


So, what is this '3D psychology' I am talking about? Well, to begin with, we got peripheral vision. Even if we don't move our eyes to track an object moving to out vision edge (say, our primary interest is still in the middle), we are still aware of what's on the periphery. If a 3D effect has something 'popping' out the screen towards us, unless it comes directly towards viewer, it will simply vanish in mid-air as soon as it exits the pyramid which base is the screen and viewer is the apex. And the viewer WILL notice it. Effect will be especially jarring on a TV, where view angle is much smaller. Same goes for reverse. Remember the opening scene of original Star Wars? With a Star Destroyer coming overhead from behind? Good luck doing THAT properly in 3D. With a 2D picture, screen frame presents a logical border - it confines the picture, and we expect anything moving beyind the edge to disappear. When things we perceive to be CLOSER to us than the screen get cut off at the screen's edge, the effect is downright Escher-esque.


So, you say, make it like a window with all action happening on the other side. Imagine yourself seated in front of a window. Something interesting happening outside is partially obscrured by window edge. Or, object of your interest is obscured by a nearby tree. What do instinctively do? Right - move your viewing position a bit, to get a better line of sight. You do it because you see depth, and brain 'triangulates' on the fly. You lean towards window, and a bit to the right - and now you can see a whole lot more of what's beyond the left window edge. Try doing that with a 3D TV - the picture will appear to distort and skew to the side, so despite your move, same exact things remain visible in the window. Quite a bummer. Only way to avoid ruining the effect is to use VERY carefully prepared material. Live TV? Sports? Fuhgeddaboutit! Unless of course you want to see some player's disembodied head and shoulders floating between you and your TV on every closeup.


I am not even starting on the whole need to wear those goggles.


We are still quite a ways from a 'as if you are there' 3D experience.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/17807340
> 
> 
> HDGuru is now reporting that DirectTV will launch a dedicated 3D HD channel by March 2010. Sports, Movies, and other programs. Current HDTV Boxes will receive a firmware upgrade to allow existing subscribers to access the new 3D HD channel.
> 
> http://hdguru.com/directv-to-launch-...xclusive/1201/



Strictly speaking by March 2010 new bigh-capacity direct broadcast satellite DIRECTV 12 will be operational. The satellite is already in orbit . Exact date of launching the 3DTV service is not confirmed yet so the earliest date possible is March but it could be later.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/17814011
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking by March 2010 new bigh-capacity direct broadcast satellite DIRECTV 12 will be operational. The satellite is already in orbit . Exact date of launching the 3DTV service is not confirmed yet so the earliest date possible is March but it could be later.



What date was the satellite put into orbit? Your link does not provide any date. If you use the link I provided, you will read that HDGuru reported that the Satellite was scheduled to be launched into orbit on the night of Dec. 28, 2009 which would be later in the same day that HDguru posted the article.


Regardless; I was using HDguru's own words, when he referred to launching the 3D channel in March 2010, not the launching of the Satellite.


----------



## GoLaLakers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bazzy* /forum/post/17767688
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Very interesting indeed Dathon - they showed completely different material here in London - I have to say, I was impressed - most of the demo had great 3D Depth and was sharp & in focus - there was a heck of a lot more depth to the pic than stuff coming out of the screen. The demo were a F1 racing scene live, some live city scenes, a extreme skiing sports scene & a few others - most of all were very impressive. the best was the live coverage of the Beijing Olympics - I have to say, that was very "3D". Finally, they showed film material - Avatar - it was good but not as good as the lives scenes shot on 3D imo!
> 
> 
> Bazzy!



I stopped by the truck last night on my way to the Laker game and I was also impressed. I agree, the film content is not as good. I watched Avatar with the same 3D glasses and it was not the same, but still enjoyable. The live content blew me away, especially the Summer Olympics demo. The Soccer and Gymnastic clips were stunning. I can see 3d being huge for sports. I know Sony has announced they will be filming the world cup in 3d but it's a shame it won't be playing in any theaters here in the states. I am heading to CES next week so I guess I will see plenty of 3D gear to see.


----------



## dovercat

2D films already look 3D on a good display, due to depth of image. High MTF, simultaneous contrast , good gamma tracking, decent black level, accurate colors. Come to think of it even line drawings look 3D if the drawing has depth cues in it, the brain is happy to be fooled into seeing three dimensions.


3D is a gimmick to get people back into the cinemas, and stop people downloading pirate copies of films. You need to go to the cinema to have the spectacular experience promised by the new blockbuster. Thats the problem 3D films are spectale films not neccessarily good films. When films of the caliber of green mile or shawshank redemption are made in 3D the tecnology might be something more than a novelty. Avatar looks like a 2.5hr cgi endurance test, of giant blue smurfs meet dances with wolves. I would of prefered a decent thriller or even a drama with real location shooting to demonstrate how 3D improves the experience. Not a mainly cgi film where the main selling point is the spectacle of 3D and the special effects budget.


3D in the home seems ideal for LCD flatpannels which have the worst MTF and simultaneous contrast of any current display technology. They are already very bright so can take the brightness hit of sequential or polarised images, they already have the high frame rates due to using frame interpolation to overcome sample and hold motion blur. Due to frame interpolation many already look odd hyper real.


3D imposes a whole lot of new limitations on how films are shot. They have to avoid making jarring jumps in relative distance to the viewer, so your eyes are not suddenly having to focus on things alot closer or alot further away. So no quick cut scenes between close ups and distant shots, but smoother transitions. Also the need to avoid eyestrain with too many effects getting closer to you than the screen as you go cross eyed.


It also does not in its self solve the depth of field problem with motion. Current 24fps films use a narrow depth of field to keep the center of attention in focus while the background blurs. They do this because due to filming at 24fps the fast moving relative to the camera/viewer background would visibly judder. Sharpness induces perception of judder, blur induces the perception of smoothness in motion.

So how many frames per second is real life filming in 3D going to use, and how high a frame rate is it going to be displayed at, to keep the background and action both in sharp focus even using 100fps is too slow for many live sports.

3D films do use higher frame rates or cgi backgrounds but I would prefer a move towards higher frame rates in all filming. It enables a greater depth of field to be used, putting more of the image in sharp focus giving the eyes more depth cues to help create the illusion of 3D depth on 2D as well as 3D displays. While your at it, if your going to create a video standard, why not increase the greyscale and color bit depth, and the color gamut.


Due to the expense of having to upgrade blu-ray player and display and the fact that the vast majority of programs and films are still going to be in 2D, I think it will fail. Many are happy with dvd and have yet to upgrade to blu-ray. Those that have upgraded to full hd flatpannels and blu-ray did it recently and may not like to replace all their relatively new AV gear, just to see a few films or special events in 3D.


----------



## TVOD

3D will fail because it's a gimmick


HD will fail because SD is good enough for the public


DVDs will fail because there are too many VHS machines in use


Talkies will fail because they will never replace silent pictures


Apples will fail because they are the forbidden fruit


OK some technologies do fail, but sometimes it's just timing and improvements in technology. Quadraphonic was a failure but 5.1 was a success. If 3D comes a little or no price increase I think it'll catch on. Some of the demos I've seen have been quite impressive, especially some sports.


I suppose as in the past we'll have to see how one industry which has had a historic influence on video technology weighs in on 3D: Adult movies. Usually they have some sort of convention coinciding with CES.


----------



## jbug

I really feel that 3D will catch on. I have no doubt whatsoever about it. The content has been coming out at a steady pace and Avatar was the extra boost that 3D needed going into the 2010 Consumer Electronic Show. Avatar got folks out and into 3D theaters who never had seen 3D before. A whole department in the company I work for went to see Avatar and afterwards they were converts glowing just as much as the studio and consumer electronic CEOs who were banking on Avatar to do well. 3D is in the foreground and in the back of minds of those that can and cannot afford it right away when it comes out next year. The implimentation of 3D is a long range plan and I see no reason for it to fail.


The general movie going public has been turning out to see the recent clip of 3D movies for going on three years and I can't remember a debuting 3D movie that did not take the top spot at the box office however meager the take. I plan on being an early adapter and picking up my first plasma set (they better have a 65 incher for 3D) from Panasonic as I like 3D very much. I still like 2D movies but 3D movies are a special treat not to mention PS3 games and sporting events that will come.


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TVOD* /forum/post/17815519
> 
> 
> 3D will fail because it's a gimmick
> 
> 
> HD will fail because SD is good enough for the public
> 
> 
> DVDs will fail because there are too many VHS machines in use
> 
> 
> Talkies will fail because they will never replace silent pictures
> 
> 
> Apples will fail because they are the forbidden fruit
> 
> 
> OK some technologies do fail, but sometimes it's just timing and improvements in technology. Quadraphonic was a failure but 5.1 was a success. If 3D comes a little or no price increase I think it'll catch on. Some of the demos I've seen have been quite impressive, especially some sports.
> 
> 
> I suppose as in the past we'll have to see how one industry which has had a historic influence on video technology weighs in on 3D: Adult movies. Usually they have some sort of convention coinciding with CES.



High Definition is not a massive success in Europe. Germany has had high definition satellite channels fail due to lack of intrest. In the UK less than 50% of households have high definition dislays. High Definition will eventually succeed because goverments are selling off the analogue bandwidth, and digital systems area switching over to DVB-S2 and DVB-T2, high definition is the you will get better picture quality so we are doing this for your benefit line the goverment uses to convince people they are not being robbed by having to buy new set top boxes. High bit-rate SD is definetly good enough, with no minimum bit-rate higher resolution is no guarantee of better quality pictures.

DVDs had a clear advantage in convinence, durability and picture quality over VHS.

Flat screen TVs sold because they were thin and less bulky than crt and manufactures stoped making crts, not because they were high definition.

Blue-ray is still not the disc format of choice in Europe, DVDs out sell Blu-rays comfortably. The only reason Blue-ray did not fail is because of the Sony Playstation and giving away Blue-ray players with High Definition TVs.


If 3D comes at little or no extra cost I will be amazed. Are people really going to replace their new flat screen tvs and blu-ray players for 3D compatible models. I do not think so. Are the people who have yet to adopt High Defintion and Blu-ray going to buy the new TVs and Players, yes, when their existing TVs and Dvd players die of old age.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *greenland* /forum/post/17814475
> 
> 
> What date was the satellite put into orbit? Your link does not provide any date. If you use the link I provided, you will read that HDGuru reported that the Satellite was scheduled to be launched into orbit on the night of Dec. 28, 2009 which would be later in the same day that HDguru posted the article.



That was indeed the date. On the news site information was logged at 1:30 on 29th.


----------



## madurodave

3D will be successful if they show lots of bikini movies in 3D!


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madurodave* /forum/post/17821538
> 
> 
> 3D will be successful if they show lots of bikini movies in 3D!



3D will be successful if they show lots of bikini movies in 3D without the bikinis...


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17817044
> 
> 
> High Definition is not a massive success in Europe. Germany has had high definition satellite channels fail due to lack of intrest. In the UK less than 50% of households have high definition dislays.



This is not so. HD is just moving into a big success in progressive markets in Europe. But for those who do not know the market realities there one should first remind that HD in Europe is purely market driven (no mandatory switchover to HD)and especially there is no terrestrial HDTV. Thus, the only way to HD is via commercial satellite and cable packages. In the markets where there is good offer of such packages and/or competition between operators the development is brisk. Sky UK and Sky Italy offer lots of HD programming and uptake is growing very fast. In Poland there are 3 commercial operators each vying for customers with good offering of HD. In fact, every commercial operator in Europe has now to offer at least some HD to be competitive. Last but not least, Sky UK will be among first operators offering 3D.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17817044
> 
> 
> High Definition will eventually succeed because goverments are selling off the analogue bandwidth, and digital systems area switching over to DVB-S2 and DVB-T2, high definition is the you will get better picture quality so we are doing this for your benefit line the goverment uses to convince people they are not being robbed by having to buy new set top boxes.



Terrestrial HD has not started yet in Europe and it will face huge problem in capturing consumers from DVB-T to DVB-T2. It will launch 2010 in UK but it will face stony road ahead.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17817044
> 
> 
> High bit-rate SD is definetly good enough, with no minimum bit-rate standard higher resolution is no guarantee of better quality pictures.
> 
> DVDs had a clear advantage in convinence, durability and picture quality over VHS.
> 
> Flat screen TVs sold because they were thin and less bulky than crt and manufactures stoped making crts, not because they were high definition.



Yes, but people realize now clearly they need for HD since they see annoying artefacts from SD on their big flat panels. Contrary to what you say HD differs from SD at least in those artefacts.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17817044
> 
> 
> Blue-ray is still not the disc format of choice in Europe, DVDs out sell Blu-rays comfortably. The only reason Blue-ray did not fail is because of the Sony Playstation and giving away Blue-ray players with High Definition TVs.



Blue Ray is just in the ramp up phase, it will be big within the next 24 months



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17817044
> 
> 
> If 3D comes at little or no extra cost I will be amazed. Are people really going to replace their new flat screen tvs and blu-ray players for 3D compatible models. I do not think so. Are the people who have yet to adopt High Defintion and Blu-ray going to buy the new TVs and Players, yes, when their existing TVs and Dvd players die of old age.



Nobody expects people will change their new flat panels to 3D. But all new panels should become quite quickly 3D ready


----------



## Majestyk

Movies are going to go down hill, fast, with 3D. I already think Avatar sucks and I can't understand the hype in the actual movie. Audiences in the 50's were smart...They caught on that 3D was a gimmick, so it went away.



> Quote:
> I just bought a new 52" LCD, I don't see buying another one next year just to accommodate a handful of 3D Blu-ray offerings.
> 
> 
> Ugh, who am I kidding, I probably will



This is what corporate big wigs want to read. You should at least hold off buying a 3D TV until the third generation, otherwise you'll be buying a new TV every year. It took 8 years for flat screens to catch up to CRT quality. It's going to take awhile for 3D TV's to mature.


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/17823481
> 
> 
> This is not so. *HD is just moving into a big success in progressive markets in Europe*. But for those who do not know the market realities there *one should first remind that HD in Europe is purely market driven* (no mandatory switchover to HD)and especially there is no terrestrial HDTV. Thus, the only way to HD is via commercial satellite and cable packages. In the markets where there is good offer of such packages and/or competition between operators the development is brisk. *Sky UK and Sky Italy offer lots of HD programming and uptake is growing very fast*. In Poland there are 3 commercial operators each vying for customers with good offering of HD. In fact, every commercial operator in Europe has now to offer at least some HD to be competitive. *Last but not least, Sky UK will be among first operators offering 3D*.



Most European nations have many TV channels with part or full state funding. The move to digital and high definition is therefore being state sponsored. The governments hope to make vast amounts of money by auctioning off the spectrum freed up by closing down analogue terrestrial services. Satellite is generally used as a filler to give 100% national coverage cheaper than relying on terrestrial transmitters alone. The satellite packages, epgs, and in some nations encryption systems are supported by the state backed TV stations. Some times in competition with purely commercial ventures, some times in effect giving them support by increasing their channel line up. So satellite services are also in effect part state funded.


High Definition is not a rip roaring success in the UK. The analogue switch off will force people to buy a new set top box and with DVB-T2 and DVB-S2 both promising better quality via High Definition and the simple unavailability of standard definiton TV sets. I can see that being a major boost.


British Sky Broadcasting Group plc Annual Review 2009

9.442 milion direct subscirbers. 34% of subscribers are SKY+HD. So 3.210 million SKY+HD subscribers.

UK number of Households >25.7 million. So less than 12.5% of Households receieve direct SKY HD. This is the UKs most sucessful High Defintion TV service.

More will get it via cable companys but they have a combined total of less than 4 million subscribers and most of them will be non-hd subscribers.


Ofcom digital television update Q3 2009

0.640 million freesat at end of September 2009. 79% are HD receivers. So 0.506 million freesat HD viewers.

UK number of Households >25.7 million. So less than 2% of Households recieve freesat HD, the part state backed via BBC high defintion package which at the moment is one full time and one part time channel in high definition the rest in standard definition. BBC high definition is also available on Sky receivers.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/17823481
> 
> 
> Blue Ray is just in the ramp up phase, it will be big within the next 24 months



British Video Association figures

Blu-ray in first 6months of 2009, 3.1 million discs

DVD sales in same period 100 million discs.

So 3.1% of disc sales are High Definiton.


Blu-ray will succeed if player and disc prices continue to fall, it has to be a no-brainer choice not a more expensive premium option.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *irkuck* /forum/post/17823481
> 
> 
> Nobody expects people will change their new flat panels to 3D. But all new panels should become quite quickly 3D ready



Only if 3D ready comes at no additional cost to the consumer. It is a chicken and egg situation. Program makers will not spend the extra money to shoot in 3D if not enough viewers will be able to see it in 3D. Viewers will not pay extra for 3D displays if there is too little to watch on them. If and when 3D becomes the defacto standard for film production rather than mostly childrens cgi and specticle event movies like Avatar, I can see it naturally progressing to home displays.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17826458
> 
> 
> Most European nations have many TV channels with part or full state funding. The move to digital and high definition is therefore being state sponsored. The governments hope to make vast amounts of money by auctioning off the spectrum freed up by closing down analogue terrestrial services. Satellite is generally used as a filler to give 100% national coverage cheaper than relying on terrestrial transmitters alone. The satellite packages, epgs, and in some nations encryption systems are supported by the state backed TV stations. Some times in competition with purely commercial ventures, some times in effect giving them support by increasing their channel line up. So satellite services are also in effect part state funded.
> 
> 
> High Definition is not a rip roaring success in the UK. The analogue switch off will force people to buy a new set top box and with DVB-T2 and DVB-S2 both promising better quality via High Definition and the simple unavailability of standard definiton TV sets. I can see that being a major boost.
> 
> 
> Blu-ray will succeed if player and disc prices continue to fall, it has to be a no-brainer choice not a more expensive premium option.
> 
> 
> Only if 3D ready comes at no additional cost to the consumer. It is a chicken and egg situation. Program makers will not spend the extra money to shoot in 3D if not enough viewers will be able to see it in 3D. Viewers will not pay extra for 3D displays if there is too little to watch on them. If and when 3D becomes the defacto standard for film production rather than mostly childrens cgi and specticle event movies like Avatar, I can see it naturally progressing to home displays.



Dovercat, I agree about most of the stuff and in Germany it's even worse.

In fact it's so worse that I get really aggressive about the whole stuff.


However, I don't think that the costly auctioning of licences or frequencies is the major reason behind the analog to digital switch. IMHO it's corruption as in Germany it's well known that politicians have ties to the content & license industry.

The one suffering from this is Joe Average who has to pay lots of money to nurture the content industry (whether license holders of Hollywood stuff or soccer rights).


Without delving too deep into history or presenting statistics the following situation is the net result until now:


- No HD-TV free OTA in the forseeable future (DVB-T2 won't be available at all thanks to a botched launch of DVB-T).


- The major public stations, who remain "free" as one already pays a fee of 18 Euros a month for them ("GEZ"), will launch their HD program in Feb. 2010 in 720p via satellite (most Germans aren't allowed to install a dish) and cable. They literally played the waiting game for years until most households had a HD-ready TV (and nearly too long as IP-TV seems to take off now). Their shift to HD will take years, though, as much content will be upscaled SD (even including some of their own studio productions like the news). It's the same game as with the 16:9 format which also took about 10 years to get accepted. I bet that we won't have 3D public channels in Germany until 2020...


- The free private stations tested HD two years ago but then switched off everything within a month. Now they re-launched vial satellite but with a standard called "HD+", requiring new (certified) receivers with CI+ slot and forbidding most hard disk convenience features like skipping commercials. Yes, one can record the program but has to watch in real-time, even when no commercials are running. While they broadcast in 1080i (mostly US series and movies) it is even suckier than recording with VCRs. No TiVo for Germans...

So while the subscriber has to endure the commercials he also has to pay 50 Euros/year flat for "service" (not for the "free" program itself). This is a major debate right now in the internet community as you would expect but there's no solution in sight (except hacking receivers...).


- The biggest cable-company in Germany (Kabel Deutschland GmbH) forces it's subscribers to use separate receivers as TVs with built-in HD cable receivers (most new TVs) aren't supported. This company also expects the TV stations to pay more for their HD content, even if the bandwith isn't broader than with analog channels which get switched off 2012.


- There's only one large pay-TV provider: Sky (who bought "Premiere") and guess what: You need another certified receiver to be able to watch the channels. Until they have an agreement with the cable and satellite providers one has to use two different receivers for all major stations.


The list goes on and on...


Nope, we won't see 3D here until 2020 - at least not until Sky provides a 3D channel - for an additional 30 Euros in 2015 or something like that.


Remember the phrase "Stupid German Money" in Hollywood?

Well, us Germans are the dumbest & richest people in Europe - we deserve to pay!


----------



## Agreed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scorrpio* /forum/post/17808206
> 
> 
> There is a very major problem with up to date implementation of 3D. It is about the way our brain reacts to perceived depth and the way it expects a 3D environment to behave.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I am not even starting on the whole need to wear those goggles.
> 
> 
> We are still quite a ways from a 'as if you are there' 3D experience.



Just wanted to thank you for explicating what I was referring to with my FOV concerns earlier, I hope everyone pays attention to your post because this is exactly why bringing the cinema 3D experience home is extremely unlikely without enormous screens and/or a willingness to sit closer to them than your mother would be comfortable with











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17826458
> 
> 
> British Video Association figures
> 
> Blu-ray in first 6months of 2009, 3.1 million discs
> 
> DVD sales in same period 100 million discs.
> 
> So 3.1% of disc sales are High Definiton.
> 
> 
> Blu-ray will succeed if player and disc prices continue to fall, it has to be a no-brainer choice not a more expensive premium option.



Hey, anywhere I can get related figures for the U.S. market? That's really interesting, I wonder how we compare. Blu-Ray seems like it's a fairly solid "hit" here but go down to any local supermarket retailer (e.g. Wal-Mart, Target, whatever) and you'll see in the video section that there are still at least three to four times as many DVDs for sale as there are BDs. But the BDs do move. I'm sad on this New Year's Day because my wife insisted that I not buy the Rocky collection in Blu-Ray on account of we just spent a lot of money setting up our new home theater and buying Christmas presents for relatives, etc., my complaint being "But, but, but, Rocky! In BLU-RAY!







"


We've got only two BDs so far (as I said, we _just_ got this stuff): The Dark Knight and the new Star Trek movie. Naturally we have an enormous DVD collection. While the PS3 upscales DVDs extremely well to my eyes (better than my Samsung's internal upscaling which is not bad or anything), and DVDs definitely do look good as such, the level of detail and realism of BDs is just incredible, the kind of thing that makes me want to watch all my favorite movies that I've only ever seen on DVD or VHS in BD so that I can get the full experience.


Another thing - for me, 3D as it is now doesn't give me that feeling at all. I don't feel like "ah, I must now watch movies in 3D to get the full experience!" Properly mastered BD material is just amazingly good looking and I will be actively seeking it out for sure, but toward 3D I've got a sort of well-wishing apathy. I don't want it to fail, but I'm indifferent to its success, as it currently exists.


----------



## fire407

I saw the Panasonic demo with shuttered glasses at NAB this past April, and I was very impressed. If movies are the only thing you have seen in 3D, then you have not seen great 3D. For the Panasonic demo they had a live camera pointed at a group of people, and you would swear that the people were standing right in front of you---until you realized that you were part of the group you were looking at. Then they switched to a live camera of a bakery shop set(part of camera demos at NAB) and it looked like the set was actually in front of you including the live models. The film frame rate limits how "real" 3D can look, but live camera events such as football look fantastic. Also, Avatar just really didn't look like it was made for 3D. There were way too many instances where Cameron used a shallow depth of field to determine focus for us, where great 3D allows us to decide what plane we want to focus on. Shooting great 3D is actually going to limit the DP's artistic choices, since almost everything should be shot with a greater depth of field. A shallow depth of field in 2D is necessary for the director to decide whats important in the scene, but like in Avatar when the background is out of focus, in 3D you should be able to choose where to focus you eyes and you can't. I was an early adopter with HDTV, and I even enjoy the failed formats of DVHS and HD DVD, and I will definitely buy a 65" 3D TV in the next few months. I'm also going to CES next week and I'm curious to see the advances made in 3D without glasses. At NAB they had such a set with video of a slot machine spitting coins out, but it was very difficult to focus your eyes on it, and there is no way I could watch a movie without getting a headache. Perhaps the state of the art has improved.


----------



## TVOD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17817044
> 
> 
> High Definition is not a massive success in Europe. Germany has had high definition satellite channels fail due to lack of intrest. In the UK less than 50% of households have high definition dislays. High Definition will eventually succeed because goverments are selling off the analogue bandwidth, and digital systems area switching over to DVB-S2 and DVB-T2, high definition is the you will get better picture quality so we are doing this for your benefit line the goverment uses to convince people they are not being robbed by having to buy new set top boxes. High bit-rate SD is definetly good enough, with no minimum bit-rate higher resolution is no guarantee of better quality pictures.



Part of the issue in Europe & UK compared to the US is that 16:9 SD was adopted. It was avoided in the US as it was thought it would impede the adoption of HD. 16:9 came along with the conversion to HD in the US.


For so many years I heard that HD would NEVER succeed at becoming mainstream in the US. Even several years after HD was adopted in 1998 I heard from people in the industry that they thought the public wouldn't buy into HD. If the public only saw the quality of the images before they were transmitted they would be more than happy. Well now, especially with improved quality of some of the HD material, that is becoming less true. The problem still exists that there is much poor distribution from OTA multiplexing and provider degradation, but I there is evidence that there is now a concern for better quality in some corners. D* was the poster child for bad quality, but they have made a major improvement with their conversion to MPEG4. FiOS delivers most feeds unmolested. BluRay can deliver very good quality, and hopefully viewers will start to be accustomed to that level. I've noticed less compliments to upconverted 16:9 material lately and I think viewers can tell the difference more and more. I know there are still countless stories still about viewers who watch stretched 4:3 analog and think they are watching HD, but there will always be a certain amount of those.


Europe has an advantage in being able to use newer codecs for transmission, but I think the limitations of ATSC and bandwidth for OTA will eventually fade as most get their feeds from providers. MPEG4 encoders for provider distribution at stations could solve this issue. Extra cost, to be sure, but encoders are getting much cheaper. The first HD MPEG2 encoder I saw was about 4 feet high and cost several hundred thousand dollars, and required a 30 amp power connection.


The marketing by the US providers is using HD as the major selling point. It may be many viewers still fall under the "I totally don't know what that means, but I want it" category, but nonetheless HD is selling big time. 3D may be harder to sell in stores than HD. One can just walk by a display and see HD but they need to stop and put on glasses to sample 3D, especially if they have to chain the down the glasses to keep people from walking out the door with them. 2010 may be the start of the push, but I suspect it will take quite a while for 3D to take hold. It may all be a moot point if 3D is just thrown into the displays. It's really a smaller technical step on the viewers end than the conversion from SD to HD.


I imagine 3D could influence local stations to use even better endowed weather girls


----------



## dovercat

Depth Cues

With 2D Images you have

Texture Gradient the closer the object the more surface detail you can see.

Overlapping we expect an object that appears to overlap another is closer.

Shades and Shadow, how the object apperars to effect light, casting a shadow, light is assumed to be coming down, bright objects closer than dark objects, high objects further away than objects close to the ground.

Linear Perspective parallel lines apear to get closer as they go to the horizon

Aerial Perspective, things further away get bluer, due to the atmosphere.

Retinal Image Size caused by knowing the objects relative size so subconciously deducing its distance

Vernier acutity maybe a major factor in juding distance


A 2D image with plenty of depth cues will look as if it has depth, especially if there is movement in the scene. Some of these depth cues work best for displays with high MTF and overall contrast for visible texture gradients and the effects of lighting on objects, accurate color and color gradients is also helpful so objects fool the eye.


3D filming is done with the latest cameras, they have higher MTF curves than traditional film cameras and use higher frame rates. They would give a better illusion of depth even if being used for 2D. A high MTF image will give more depth cues due to texture gradients. Higher frame rate filming allows for larger depth of focus in moving scenes, which in turn provides more depth cues so better illusion of depth. A lower frame rate requires bluring of the background to prevent the precption of judder.


With 3D you get

Binocular Parallax the eyes see a slightly different view point. This may give an overall impression of depth, accurate estimation of object distance appears to be at least in part down to vernier acuity which does not require binocular vision.

Convergence of eyes pointing slightly inward to focus on the same object, is a weak indication and only an effective depth cue at 10mtrs or less, becoming a stronger cue the closer the object gets.

Accomodation the tension of the muscle altering the focal length of the eye, is again a weak indication only an effective depth cue at 2mtrs or less and again becoming a stronger cue the closer the object gets.


So 3D can give a general impression of depth to the image and can make objects standout from the screen by causing strong use of convergence. It is especially good at making objects appear closer to the viewer, but this can cause double vision and eyestrain, and is seen as the most gimmicky 3D effect. It also has problems in having to keep transitions between relative distance to the thing of intrest smooth, jumping rapidly between near and far focus, maybe jarring and cause eyestrain. I think it can help overcome weaknesses in the displays ability to show other depth cues that are more dependent on 2D picture quality, and for good displays can be icing on the cake


I do not think current 3D gives you.

Monocular Movement Parallax caused by moving the head.


I have seen Beuwolf, Journey to the center of the earth, Bolt the superdog, and Monsters vs aliens. I enjoyed the 3D effect in all the movies except Monsters vs Aliens that I thought was a poor film.


I think for live action films the increase frame rate and better camera MTF are the major benefits, binocular disparity is just a fringe benefit, that is not really needed to give the illusion of depth, but is needed for the objects coming out of the screen effect. Anything that encourages film makers to use cameras with higher MTF and higher frame rates is to be welcomed as it will improve picture quality in 2D as well as 3D.





Going back off topic to High Definition. I fear as it becomes the standard HD TV channel picture quality will drop as bit rates are starved to save costs by allowing more channels in the multiplexes.


Higher definition picture quality used to be designed to sell receivers, get subscribers and have people recommend it to friends and family. While standard defintion is as cheap as they can get away with, while still leaving it watchable at least in their opinion.


Standard defintion satellite TV in Europe could be upto the standard of DVD full-D1 resolution 576ix720 and 4000kbps to 5000kbps with peaks of 7000kbps to 8000kbps in action scenes. But you can get channels at full-D1 resolution 576ix720, cropped-D1 576ix704, sub-sampled D1 576ix544, 576ix528, and letterboxed rather than anamorphic 16:9. Bit rates range from just under 4500kbps for BBC1 to below 1400kbps for some free or subscription package channels.


Skys flagship general entertainment channel Sky One was untill recently being transmitted at around 2433kbps standard defintion (they seemed to have increased the bit-rate for Christmass). While Sky One HD was showing the same programs is at 14844kbps. So creating more difference in picture quality SD to HD by starving the standard definition channel.


The EBU recommends 1080ix1920 at 14-16000kbps. BBC One used to be at 20000kbps but is now down to 9727kbps (while still transmitting on other satellites to European networks at 16000kbps). Some believe this is to ensure there will not be a picture quality difference between BBC1 HD freesat and BBC1 HD freeview terrestrial. Despite masses of complaints from viewers experiencing a drop in picture quality, the BBC has said the drop in bit-rates is solely down to it upgrading its encoders, claims it has not effected picture quality for the majority of viewers using flatscreen displays, and those complaining are nerds or front projector users. Sky One HD has recently followed suit dropping to 12436kbs now there is no higher bit-rate BBC1 HD for it to be compared to.


----------



## PrimeTime

A common argument made here by some 3D skeptics is that the reduced field-of-view of most domestic displays reduces the 3D impact when compared to more immersive movie theater 3D.


All that says to me is that 3D is a perfect excuse for many AVS regulars to keep doing what they do naturally -- namely: Buy a newer, BIGGER display.


----------



## Matt L

After seeing the great 3D of Avatar I'm more convinced than ever that 3D TVs will be a waste of money. The time and expense needed to get it right are immense, no production TV show will ever have that luxury, so it will be gimmicky and crappy.


I was always cutting edge, then I moved off the edge to more current tech, and at this point I have no interest in 3D. None whatsoever.


----------



## lparsons21

This has been an enjoyable thread with all kinds of reasoning about the technology and how good/bad it looks.


But the reality is that 3D is very old tech from the 1920's. Didn't catch on at all then. In the 50's, which were considered the golden years of 3D, it didn't catch on. Very few movies, most very forgettable.


A couple mentioned bikini movies or bikini movies without bikinis, well that was tried too, it also flopped (anyone remember "The Amazing Mr. T" or some such?).


I think 3D is one of those things the bigwigs trot out periodically to see if anyone will really care. So far, the answer has been way too few do. We'll see if this is just another flash in the pan.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lparsons21* /forum/post/17838537
> 
> 
> But the reality is that 3D is very old tech from the 1920's. Didn't catch on at all then. In the 50's, which were considered the golden years of 3D, it didn't catch on. Very few movies, most very forgettable.



The reality is that you simply can't compare the old tech with the new one.


Back then they used the anaglyph method with red-green glasses which resulted in headaches and had no natural colors. That the movies that used this gimmick were seldomly more than lurid sfx-fests didn't help it either. Really no wonder that this flopped every time they tried it.


The tech today is vastly superior to the border of being "bearable" and nobody can say if it's a passing fad again or here to stay.



> Quote:
> A couple mentioned bikini movies or bikini movies without bikinis, well that was tried too, it also flopped (anyone remember "The Amazing Mr. T" or some such?).



You mean "The Immoral Mr. Teas"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052920/


----------



## lparsons21




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benny42* /forum/post/17839107
> 
> 
> The reality is that you simply can't compare the old tech with the new one.
> 
> 
> Back then they used the anaglyph method with red-green glasses which resulted in headaches and had no natural colors. That the movies that used this gimmick were seldomly more than lurid sfx-fests didn't help it either. Really no wonder that this flopped every time they tried it.
> 
> 
> The tech today is vastly superior to the border of being "bearable" and nobody can say if it's a passing fad again or here to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean "The Immoral Mr. Teas"?
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052920/



Yep, that's it! I took my then girlfriend there to see if the movie could help push her into letting me do what I wanted and she didn't!







Unfortunately, it didn't.










As to the 'new' 3d compared to the 'old' 3d, yes I'm sure it is better. You'd certainly expect it to be after 87 years!! But I think that as long as glasses of any sort are required, it will be another flop, regardless of what the big boys and the geeks think.


----------



## earthbound




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lparsons21* /forum/post/17838537
> 
> 
> But the reality is that 3D is very old tech from the 1920's. Didn't catch on at all then. In the 50's, which were considered the golden years of 3D, it didn't catch on. Very few movies, most very forgettable.



The big difference now is that people will soon start getting full color 3D capable TVs by default, but as long as special glasses are required its uses will always be limited. I'm all for 3D programming, but do we really want personal care commercials literally shoving their products in our faces? I think not!


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lparsons21* /forum/post/17838537
> 
> 
> I think 3D is one of those things the bigwigs trot out periodically to see if anyone will really care. So far, the answer has been way too few do. We'll see if this is just another flash in the pan.


_Avatar_ is/will be the highest grossing movie in history.


Over sixty percent of _Avatar_ ticket revenue is from 3D presentations.


Some flash. Some pan.


----------



## rxtian

3D, what a joke. I'd have to wear special glasses to view 3D? Not even a funny joke.


----------



## lparsons21




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/17840086
> 
> _Avatar_ is/will be the highest grossing movie in history.
> 
> 
> Over sixty percent of _Avatar_ ticket revenue is from 3D presentations.
> 
> 
> Some flash. Some pan.



Every time that 3D sticks its head up, one or two movies will catch the eye of the viewing public. But it takes a hell of a lot more than one or two movies, even more than one or two a year, to make 3D a successful technology.


In 87 years it hasn't shown us that yet.


And in the case of Avatar, it looks eye popping and like a movie I want to see. But I'll take a pass on the 3D and theater in general.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lparsons21* /forum/post/17840243
> 
> 
> Every time that 3D sticks its head up, one or two movies will catch the eye of the viewing public. But it takes a hell of a lot more than one or two movies, even more than one or two a year, to make 3D a successful technology.
> 
> 
> In 87 years it hasn't shown us that yet.
> 
> 
> And in the case of Avatar, it looks eye popping and like a movie I want to see. But I'll take a pass on the 3D and theater in general.



For the record, it's been more than one or two movies a year. I've seen 11 (good ones at that) since the summer of 2008 and I know that at least 10 of them were #1 at the box office for their opening weekend.


----------



## dave300zx

Can't wait for Thursday! I am very excited to see some 3d announcements.


----------



## Maurice2

CES 2010 Las Vegas


"This year is likely to be dominated once again by 3D TV. It was the big story at the 2009 show, but the key difference this time around is that the likes of Sony and Panasonic will be showing off the 3D television sets that ordinary consumers will be able to buy later in the year."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...0-preview.html


----------



## PrimeTime

So...3D naysayers, there you have it. Anyone who talks on AVS about acquiring one of them newfangled 3D displays can now be officially derided as an "ordinary consumer."


I think that's getting down pretty close to Joe Sixpack territory.


----------



## Plasmacat

This may be a stupid question but here goes.

Does anyone remember the 3D commercials from last year's Superbowl or the 3D episode of Medium? You didn't need a 3D TV to watch those - just needed to get the glasses. I remember getting a whole sheet of 3D glasses for my SB party.

Now I admit the 3D was pretty crappy but why do you need a 3D TV?


----------



## Gary McCoy

The colored glasses are the 1950's style anaglyph 3D process, which compromises color rendition.


The newer TV technology uses shutter glasses with time-sequential 3D, they blink the R and L images on screen while the glasses block the image in the opposite eye.


Do I think 3D will be popular? Not really, because you need:


1) Some expensive glasses, wired or wireless, connected to the display.


2) A totally darkened room. How many watch TV in the dark today?


That last deserves an explanation. In a theater, the room is dark, but while wearing the glasses, your eyes cross slightly to give the 3D effect to the image. But if you look at anything else in the theater, like a lighted EXIT sign, you see a double image, caused by the deliberate eye misconvergence. If you focus on the sign and converge you eyes on that, then the image is misconverged with ghosts. In a lighted room, you will either have the image in 3D AND the rest of the room ghosted, OR if you look at the room, your eyes converge properly and the TV has a double image with ghosting.


That's why theaters are darkened, and it's especially important with a 3D production. But my wife refuses to "watch TV in a cave", so I may have 3D in the Home Theater, but not the family room.


It's kind of an attitude difference. To me, video is a fulltime process. To her, video is part time along with reading, sewing, or yakking on the phone. But 3D video simply MUST be fulltime, there is no other choice.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Plasmacat* /forum/post/17850155
> 
> 
> This may be a stupid question but here goes.
> 
> Does anyone remember the 3D commercials from last year's Superbowl or the 3D episode of Medium? You didn't need a 3D TV to watch those - just needed to get the glasses. I remember getting a whole sheet of 3D glasses for my SB party.
> 
> Now I admit the 3D was pretty crappy but why do you need a 3D TV?



Red-green (or red-blue) glasses like they used with the 3D-episode of Chuck? -> Anaglyph method -> crap


The new techs are much better, require different glasses (but still require glasses - this won't change in the next years).


----------



## dovercat

You also have the Real3D method of polarized light.

Left hand and right hand circular polarized light is projected onto a slightly silver screen the silver helps maintain the the polarization in the reflected light. The viewer wears glasses with one eye left hand circular polarizer, the other right hand ciricular polarizer. The idea with circular polarization is that it is better at maintaining the effect if you tilt your head. But it is worse at rejecting the opposite polarity, more likely to suffer ghosting than usuing the older horizontal/vertical polarization system.


The Real3D system was designed for use with dual projectors, but I believe some cinemas use only one projector sequentially. The problem is doing Real3D sequentially with one projector you lose alot of light. 50% due to the sequential and 50% due to the polarizer.


The alternative sequencial shutter system designed for use with one projector has the advantage of losing less light. 50% due to sequencial but no lose due to polarization. It also can use a normal non silvered screen. The downside is the cost of shutter glasses that have to keep in sync.


One problem with 3D films is thay are mastered with a reference white of only 4.5ftL while 2D films have a reference white of 12ftL with peak white of 14ftL. Unfortunately brigher equals perception of better contrast, more detail, and better more vivid colors. Making this worse is the fact that many cinemas will save money by not replacing their lamps frequently enough, so the image is even dimmer.


These methods maintain full color 3D while the anaglyph method compromised color. Personally I do not mind the old anaglgyph method for the occasional viewing I own Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D which uses this method on its home version. I do however look forward to its release in the new Blu-ray 3D format so it can be watched in 3D full color. For 3D viewing I hope to use a dual projector setup with polarizers.


----------



## mastermaybe

3D is a numbers game if there ever was one.


First, I don't think anyone seriously believes they're going to buy a 3DTV in the next 2 years and will be watching eveything in 3D. Heck, I'd guess that most prolly don't anticipate more than 10% of their overall viewing, I'd bet. Maybe a few movies and events a WEEK, at most.


Now, recognizing that, it would be difficult for me to anticipate loads of folks upgrading a television that they spent thousands of dollars on in the last year or two JUST for 3D when 3D will likely represent just a sliver of the content they'll be watching.


Sure, those with deep pockets, or the incessant need for bleeding edge tech will scoop it up nearly immediately, but they represent a VERY small percentage of the 300 million US consumers.


As a matter of fact, I'd reason that you could very realistically see a substantial backlash against 3D in the US. What with the cost of HD panels over the last 2 years, and BD players, you can bet millions of consumers will be crying foul over the idea that they have to buy a COMPLETELY new panel for the new tech. Watch for it, unless panel prices plummet.


And that's huge. I got my 60" Kuro for a steal at $3300. Now you're telling me that (arguably)the worlds finest display not 12 months removed is incompatible with 3D...AND ditto for the MILLIONS of other panels produced and sold?


The incompatible, existing HDTV's are the killer to me. Unless they introduce serviceable 3D tech that works with these units (which appears very unlikely), the tech

is nearly DOA.


but, whatever.



James


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary McCoy* /forum/post/17851002
> 
> 
> Do I think 3D will be popular? Not really, because you need:
> 
> 
> 1) Some expensive glasses, wired or wireless, connected to the display.



You're talking to an audience here that pays beaucoup bux just to have people come over and adjust their rig. What's a hundred dollars for eyeglass entry into the world of 3D?


> Quote:
> 2) A totally darkened room. How many watch TV in the dark today?



Answer: Most people with Kuros, or Kuro wannabees. It's their own little dark chapel. And again, that's most of AVS.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17852000
> 
> 
> One problem with 3D films is thay are mastered with a reference white of only 4.5ftL while 2D films have a reference white of 12ftL with peak white of 14ftL.



Looks like the emergence of 3D will favor the use of brighter LCD displays. Which will re-ignite the forums' plasma/LCD flame wars.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mastermaybe* /forum/post/17852481
> 
> 
> Now, recognizing that, it would be difficult for me to anticipate loads of folks upgrading a television that they spent thousands of dollars on in the last year or two JUST for 3D when 3D will likely represent just a sliver of the content they'll be watching.
> 
> 
> Sure, those with deep pockets, or the incessant need for bleeding edge tech will scoop it up nearly immediately, but they represent a VERY small percentage of the 300 million US consumers.



That "very small percentage" is much larger here on AVS.


> Quote:
> As a matter of fact, I'd reason that you could very realistically see a substantial backlash against 3D in the US. What with the cost of HD panels over the last 2 years, and BD players, you can bet millions of consumers will be crying foul over the idea that they have to buy a COMPLETELY new panel for the new tech. Watch for it, unless panel prices plummet.



If the non-broadcast 3D tasks can be handled by the disc player, it's not a big deal to buy a newer "3D compatible" BluRay instead of a whole display.


> Quote:
> I got my 60" Kuro for a steal at $3300. Now you're telling me that (arguably) the worlds finest display not 12 months removed is incompatible with 3D...AND ditto for the MILLIONS of other panels produced and sold?



Not necessarily "incompatible." But "brightness-challenged" displays like plasmas may be, in the 3D world, arguably less then optimum versus LCDs.


A pertinent piece from CES about broadcast 3D can be found here .


----------



## mastermaybe

^ First, it matters not in the least if there's a HUNDRED THOUSAND "AVSers" who would buy this tomorrow. The numbers need to be much greater than that for PROFITABILITY, which, believe you me, is ALL the corp's care about.


2. Yes, the VAST majority of current HDTV's, including Kuros, produced in the last 5 years will NOT be compatible with the proposed 3D tech (that is, HD stereoscopic video).


Here's a list for you:

http://www.3dmovielist.com/3dhdtvs.html 


Not a whole helluva lot...prolly a fraction of the percent of the units purchased, as a matter of fact.

And, sigh, the Kuro and other PDP's are PLENTY bright, perhaps not retina-scorching, but more than amply bright to display 3D imagery.


There's no harm in including the tech in new sets if it can be implemented at a reasonable cost, but, the idea that this is going to be the "next big thing" anytime soon isn't really based in reality, IMO.


Time will render the verdict.


James


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mastermaybe* /forum/post/17852481
> 
> 
> First, I don't think anyone seriously believes they're going to buy a 3DTV in the next 2 years and will be watching eveything in 3D. Heck, I'd guess that most prolly don't anticipate more than 10% of their overall viewing, I'd bet. Maybe a few movies and events a WEEK, at most.



With the current 3D technology nobody ever will be watching everything in 3D. Eye strain and headaches will prevent this. The 3D is for limited viewing time.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mastermaybe* /forum/post/17852481
> 
> 
> Now, recognizing that, it would be difficult for me to anticipate loads of folks upgrading a television that they spent thousands of dollars on in the last year or two JUST for 3D when 3D will likely represent just a sliver of the content they'll be watching.



The model is different: People buying new sets will be getting 3D by default. Many of them will buy glasses just out of curiosity.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mastermaybe* /forum/post/17852481
> 
> 
> Sure, those with deep pockets, or the incessant need for bleeding edge tech will scoop it up nearly immediately, but they represent a VERY small percentage of the 300 million US consumers.



Yes, but this is enough for the start of this technology.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mastermaybe* /forum/post/17852481
> 
> 
> As a matter of fact, I'd reason that you could very realistically see a substantial backlash against 3D in the US. What with the cost of HD panels over the last 2 years, and BD players, you can bet millions of consumers will be crying foul over the idea that they have to buy a COMPLETELY new panel for the new tech. Watch for it, unless panel prices plummet.
> 
> 
> And that's huge. I got my 60" Kuro for a steal at $3300. Now you're telling me that (arguably)the worlds finest display not 12 months removed is incompatible with 3D...AND ditto for the MILLIONS of other panels produced and sold?



That's the price of technology moving at lightning speed. However, 3D is not the question of living or dying, it is fully downward compatible to 2D which is also enjoyable. For some sensitive people suffering from headache, 3D is even completely unacceptable.


----------



## PrimeTime

Similar to the obvious brightness advantage of LCDs versus plasmas, the attributes of 3D are/will be far more apparent to the great unwashed multitudes than the vanishing "Kuro blacks" the enthusiasts obsess about here.


That alone makes 3D a huge factor in sales.


----------



## greenland

 http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/05/e...ur-football-t/ 


" Need any more proof this is the year of 3D ? _USA Today_ is reporting ESPN 3D will start broadcasting this summer with a World Cup soccer match, with additional content coming from the Summer X Games (NBA games, and college basketball & football."


There sure are a lot of manufacturers of flat panel manufacturers introducing 3D capable displays in 2010. Surely they must have done some market research as to the prospects of home 3D catching on, before so many of them made very large investments in the R&D of their 3D offerings!


Lots of comments point to the fact that there is not yet very much product available to display on 3D panels. Well, Duh! Why the hell would there be, before there is anything to watch them on?!


When DVD, and Blu-Ray players were first introduced, there was almost no Discs available either, so that is just a specious point, that the doubters are using.


Myself, I am taking a 4D position on the prospects for home 3D displays succeeding or not. I am going to wait and see, in other words allowing time to pass, to see what will actually transpire. (Time+3D=4D)


I notice that a lot of the doubters are also claiming that since so many people already own new HD Displays, that there will be almost no demand for new 3D displays. That is another specious argument, because one would then have to say that there will be almost no demand for new 2D HDTV displays in 2010 either, for the very same reason.


Reality check:


More than 30 million people installed digital, OTA, conversion boxes during 2009. None of those sets are HD models. In addition many millions more are still using digital conversion boxes from the cable companies. There is a huge unfilled HD consumer market out there still, and at some time all those people will have to purchase new HD sets.


That is why, I an not going to just pull forecasts out of my arse, like many people are doing, but just take a 4D, wait and see what actually happens, approach, to how things actually transpire.


----------



## jaball77




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/17854654
> 
> 
> 2) A totally darkened room. How many watch TV in the dark today?
> 
> 
> Answer: Most people with Kuros, or Kuro wannabees. It's their own little dark chapel. And again, that's most of AVS.



Wow. You really have no relationship at all with reality, do you? Oh well. Makes it easier to read this thread if I can just ignore your posts.


As for 3d in the home... It's a gimmick. Nobody wants to wear damn 3d glasses around the house for day-to-day viewing. What good is 3d on a "tiny" 50" set anyway?


TV manufacturers are running out of marketing gimmicks with which to differentiate themselves. First it was 1080p, then 120Hz and frame interpolation, then 240Hz, then LED... Now 3d. I'm pretty sure this will all blow over.


----------



## BSTNFAN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jaball77* /forum/post/17856552
> 
> 
> TV manufacturers are running out of marketing gimmicks with which to differentiate themselves. First it was 1080p, then 120Hz and frame interpolation, then 240Hz, then LED... Now 3d. I'm pretty sure this will all blow over.



Why? All the other ones you mentioned didn't "blow over" they've become or are quickly becoming the standard. Why do you think this is different.


----------



## jaball77




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BSTNFAN* /forum/post/17856590
> 
> 
> Why? All the other ones you mentioned didn't "blow over" they've become or are quickly becoming the standard. Why do you think this is different.



I don't mean to say that 1080p or 120Hz will blow over... I just think it's going to be another badge the marketing department can put on the box. "3d capable!" it will say... But nobody will use it. The same way that most people don't use the full potential of 1080p sets, but that's a feature everyone's gotta have.


----------



## MikeBiker

In 2012 there may be some 3-D TV content available.


----------



## robi1138




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/17857343
> 
> 
> In 2012 there may be some 3-D TV content available.



Too late...ESPN will have a channel ready in time for the World Cup and Discovery will start broadcasting in 2011. http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/201...D9D1RE380.html


----------



## Gris




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robi1138* /forum/post/17857542
> 
> 
> Too late...ESPN will have a channel ready in time for the World Cup and Discovery will start broadcasting in 2011. http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/201...D9D1RE380.html



Hmmm, looks like Disney's rolling out a 3D station in June, joining Discovery & ESPN. I think 3D's going to be bigger - way bigger than most anticipate and that it would be very prudent for anyone in the new TV market to add 3D compatibility to their list of considerations.


----------



## skogan

I was totally sure I didn't need 3d until I heard about ESPN 3d. Suddenly, I can't live without it. Football games, UFC/Boxing matches... sign me up.


3d HD - sports and porn for the win.


----------



## Malax

Can someone please explain to me (or link me to something) why a 3D capable display is necessary to view something in TV?


There's something I'm missing here. I keep thinking that if the material is filmed for 3D (that double vision stuff), and you have the glasses, what is my set doing that's making a difference?


Any help here is greatly appreciated.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Malax* /forum/post/17859919
> 
> 
> Can someone please explain to me (or link me to something) why a 3D capable display is necessary to view something in TV?
> 
> 
> There's something I'm missing here. I keep thinking that if the material is filmed for 3D (that double vision stuff), and you have the glasses, what is my set doing that's making a difference?
> 
> 
> Any help here is greatly appreciated.



Because, at least with the Panasonic system, the TV will emit a signal to the shuttered glasses that will turn one eye on while the other eye is blanked. The signal will be 120hz and each eye will get a full 60 frames per second. Live video looks remarkably good. Film frame rates make film not quite as smooth but still better than the 3D I've seen at the theater. Just looking at the Avatar grosses is enough for anyone to see that 3D will become big this year and grow even larger in the next few years. If you think it's a gimmick, then it's a gimmick that people want---and if you haven't seen the shuttered 3D TV, then you haven't seen good 3D. Some manufacturers are going to go with polarized lenses instead of the more expensive shuttered glasses, and perhaps some older TVs might be backward compatible with it, but it's just not the same quality as using shuttered glasses.


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jaball77* /forum/post/17856552
> 
> 
> What good is 3d on a "tiny" 50" set anyway?



Sounds like yet another good excuse to "upgrade" to a larger display. Which is already the most popular topic in the Display forums here.


> Quote:
> TV manufacturers are running out of marketing gimmicks with which to differentiate themselves. First it was 1080p, then 120Hz and frame interpolation, then 240Hz, then LED... Now 3d. I'm pretty sure this will all blow over.



Those "gimmicks" you cite are the very meat and potatos of AVS discussions.


As for "running out" of marketing gimmicks, I have greater faith in American imagination than some. Along with the observation that a certain kind of person is apparently born every minute.


----------



## RMcR

I have a hard time seeing 3-D TV take flight. Look how slow the vast majority of consumers have been to adopt HDTV even though it offers a clear and hassle-free advantage over standard definition.


Not to mention that watching 3-D gives me a headache. Will this new format be any different?


What's next, lenticular screens and smell-o-vision?


----------



## Frohlich

I wear glasses so going to see a 3d movie is weird for me because i have to put the glasses over my regular glasses. There is something cool about 3d,but I am not sure about using it for everyday viewing. The once a week sporting event or movie I could see...but everyday viewing might not be for me.


----------



## dovercat

If 3D becomes the next big thing. How long untill Holographic 3D projection comes the next, next big thing. Having read about the Musion holographic projection system that creates the illusion of three dimensional objects in a clear box, it looks a damn sight more impressive than your average 3D on a screen.


----------



## Gary McCoy

In a year where almost everybody will be watching the SuperBowl on a bigscreen HDTV, he who watches the SuperBowl on bigscreen FHD3D clearly has bragging rights.











It doesn't get much more mainstream than that.


----------



## Maurice2

Good article summarizing the current state of 3D TV and its future in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/bu...ref=technology


----------



## Neceo

people seem to forget, the tv will do 3d but you can watch normal 2d as well. You don't have to watch 3d all day everyday.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Neceo* /forum/post/17861904
> 
> 
> people seem to forget, the tv will do 3d but you can watch normal 2d as well. You don't have to watch 3d all day everyday.



Unless I am watching TV, everything is 3-D all day, everyday.


----------



## Neceo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/17862064
> 
> 
> Unless I am watching TV, everything is 3-D all day, everyday.




works for me =) .. i got a ps3 i plan to check out 3d and play games and watch movies in 3d


----------



## dwarner

After seeing Avatatar twice in imax 3d, I'm definitely interested in having it at home, IF I don't have to replace my new sammy 55" panel.

Aside from having a TV with a too-low refresh rate, I don't see why it would require a new display..


I suppose it could be done with a 3D BD player with it's own IR emitter to sync the LCD shutter glasses?


If it requires a new TV, it may be a very long wait for me, since I don't like replacing gear until it either dies, or becomes completely obsolete.


----------



## Birdman71

I realize that this thread is focused on 3d for TV and movies, but there is another compelling reason as well....gaming.


For me, 3D is a convergence of several geek technologies, and is right up my alley.


Using an HTPC is not exactly mainstream, but its certainly more common that it was 5 years ago. You get a lot of benefit without a lot of effort if you are a PC hobbyist. I used to have to run Powerstrip and and a VGA to component converter to feed a 1080i only RPTV. Now its easy to get a PC with HDMI out. Supports HDTV timings with its own drivers, over/underscan control, etc.


Front projection isn't for everyone. But if you have to room to do it, its an affordable way to get a huge image. Cost vs resolution and/or contrast...same as the flat panels.


3D technology doesn't add much to the cost if you're already in the market for a new display. The Optoma HD65 is a very popular 720p DLP front projector. MSRP is $699.00 Street price is 10% under that. The newly released Optoma HD66 is also 720p. Increased brightness by 800 lumens, added 3d capability and has the same MSRP.


Now for me, the bulb in my BenQ PE7800 projector (576p) just died. I have a choice of budget 1080p for $999 or budget 720p w/3D capabilities for $699. Both are upgrades to my 576p unit. For the price of two bulbs, I'm going the 720p route with 3D. I already run an HTPC. I need to upgrade to Windows 7 (would do eventually anyway,) buy an Nvidia 3d vision kit and a better video card. It's an $1100 upgrade that at worst nets me: A better, newer projector that is higher res that what I had with a fresh bulb, a Windows 7 OS license for my HTPC, and a better video card for my HTPC that can move to a desktop machine for gaming if I don't like the 3d. That's worst case. I'm betting on getting a lot fun from 3d gaming on a 92" screen...










All the TV and Blu-Ray stuff is just a bonus that adds value to a sweet home theater gaming rig. Now I just need to get off my butt and put the room back together instead of dreaming about it... Isn't it almost tax return time????


----------



## D-Nice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gary McCoy* /forum/post/17861693
> 
> 
> In a year where almost everybody will be watching the SuperBowl on a bigscreen HDTV, he who watches the SuperBowl on bigscreen FHD3D clearly has bragging rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't get much more mainstream than that.



So, who's going to pay for all of those 3D glasses at this 3D SuperBowl party? I have not seen anything that says Panasonic TV supplied 3D glasses will work with Vizo's 72" LED 3D TV..... and..... how many 3D glasses do you expect manufacturers to supply with thier TVs? No more than 4 from what I have heard.


Wait until Joe Six Pax figures that out


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D-Nice* /forum/post/17862325
> 
> 
> So, who's going to pay for all of those 3D glasses at this 3D SuperBowl party? I have not seen anything that says Panasonic TV supplied 3D glasses will work with Vizo's 72" LED 3D TV..... and..... how many 3D glasses do you expect manufacturers to supply with thier TVs? No more than 4 from what I have heard.
> 
> 
> Wait until Joe Six Pax figures that out



And who needs more than four glasses most of the time? Sorority houses? The Waltons?


Well, there's a new business niche every day...


----------



## D-Nice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benny42* /forum/post/17862406
> 
> 
> And who needs more than four glasses most of the time? Sorority houses? The Waltons?
> 
> 
> Well, there's a new business niche every day...



Four glasses is the max they will offer. 2 is more probable. And you asked who needs 4 glasses??? Unless you are wife and kid-less, that is really a silly question to ask. I didn't know hermits dominated the main stream consumer household.


----------



## robi1138




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D-Nice* /forum/post/17862456
> 
> 
> Unless you are wife and kid-less, that is really a silly question to ask. I didn't know hermits dominated the main stream consumer household.



Do you regularly have more than 4 people watching your TV simultaneously?


----------



## Malax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17860023
> 
> 
> Because, at least with the Panasonic system, the TV will emit a signal to the shuttered glasses that will turn one eye on while the other eye is blanked. The signal will be 120hz and each eye will get a full 60 frames per second. Live video looks remarkably good. Film frame rates make film not quite as smooth but still better than the 3D I've seen at the theater. Just looking at the Avatar grosses is enough for anyone to see that 3D will become big this year and grow even larger in the next few years. If you think it's a gimmick, then it's a gimmick that people want---and if you haven't seen the shuttered 3D TV, then you haven't seen good 3D. Some manufacturers are going to go with polarized lenses instead of the more expensive shuttered glasses, and perhaps some older TVs might be backward compatible with it, but it's just not the same quality as using shuttered glasses.



Ok, thanks. This helps some. I did see Avatar the other day in IMAX 3d, and it was ok. It wasn't mind-blowing like I keep hearing. I'm not sure if it was the sheer size of the screen or what, but it was really hard to focus my eyes on anything, particularly towards the beginning, that the camera wasn't specifically focusing on.


The final battle was very good, but overall it's not something I feel I have to have. It may be nice here and there, but how many people are really going to buy a new set BECAUSE of this? I'm talking about people who weren't in the market for a new TV anyway.


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dwarner* /forum/post/17862163
> 
> 
> Aside from having a TV with a too-low refresh rate, I don't see why it would require a new display..
> 
> 
> I suppose it could be done with a 3D BD player with it's own IR emitter to sync the LCD shutter glasses?



The display needs to be able to accept and display a 120Hz input. Not just display 120Hz or higher with a 60Hz input by using duplicating frames or frame interpolation or black frame insertion, etc...


For the blu-ray player to have its own IR emitter the display would have to keep perfect sync with it, modern displays have image processing and can add lag of upto 100ms. This lag with some displays might not always be constant the image refresh time may vary a bit rather than be a perfectly steady. So the display needs to be the source of the IR emitter sync signal as it knows when it is displaying each frame.


----------



## greenland

Panasonic, CES 2010, just announced that Fox Sports will televise the 2010 Baseball All-Star game in 3D.


----------



## Jeffslmn8

I don't see the average household needing more than 4 glasses unless they were having like a movie night of some sort.


They can push 3D all they want this year, it'll never stick for good until they eliminate the need for glasses.


----------



## Brien




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Topmounter* /forum/post/17748716
> 
> 
> So they dust off this 3D thing every so often, tell everyone that it sucks less than the last time they saw it and it sucked, people go see it and get their 3D gimmick fix, but it's still not compelling enough to pay more for or go to the theater more often or even see it as anything but a gimmick.
> 
> 
> So now the CE manufacturers can't figure out what to sell people after as-big-as-they-can-fit-in-your-house 1080p panels, 1080p Blu-ray players and Dolby 3D surround sound systems with a gazillion speakers... so they latch on to the age old 3D gimmick and promise you that buying all new crap to replace your current perfectly good crap will result in a 3D experience that's less crappy than the crappy 3D experience you keep seeing in the theaters.
> 
> 
> I can't see how this bleeding edge is appealing to anyone other than carnies and lotto winners, instead we should just buy stock in the companies that make Tylenol, Advil, Bayer, etc. and use our windfall profits to buy a holo-deck once they become available.
> 
> 
> Of course I'm sure I'll be wrong and we'll all be glued to the couch with our goggles on watching Oprah in 3D on our new 3D-enabled home theater systems paid for in part by the "Cash for 2D clunkers" federal program



I couldn't have said it better myself.


Honestly, I'm surprised they aren't pushing 4k or 8k TVs instead. Maybe the ultra-widescreen movement will be next.


----------



## J y E 4Ever




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brien* /forum/post/17866274
> 
> 
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'm surprised they aren't pushing 4k or 8k TVs instead. Maybe the ultra-widescreen movement will be next.



4K/8K...LOL


How long did it take our slow ass country to even get to 1080p/24!?!


You want 4k/8k, move to Japan, we won't be seeing that here for another decade!


You will take your 3D and be happy with it....










4k/8k...LOL


----------



## robi1138




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *J y E 4Ever* /forum/post/17866304
> 
> 
> 4K/8K...LOL
> 
> 
> How long did it take our slow ass country to even get to 1080p/24!?!
> 
> 
> You want 4k/8k, move to Japan, we won't be seeing that here for another decade!
> 
> 
> You will take your 3D and be happy with it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4k/8k...LOL



lol


----------



## Brien




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Denophile* /forum/post/17765000
> 
> 
> i think having to gut your system and replace all your gear every year or two leads to some skepticism...not to mention that we need to add another 2 speakers every year to accomodate yet another surround format. give it 5 years. 3dtv under 1k, players under 200, no glasses...then it may have a chance.



Yeah, but the way the world works, the CE companies will be pushing something new by then making our 11.2 AVRs and 70" 3DTV's obsolete (or so they say).


Give me better black levels and less screen-door effect, not fake DOF.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *powertoold* /forum/post/17803850
> 
> 
> I just saw Avatar in 3D. If 3D TVs with shutter glasses are anything like that, then it's totally a gimmick. The 3D effect was cool and all, but it was sacrificing the PQ, and things don't look 3D in a real sense. They just look 3D in a "hey that's cool and different" way.
> 
> 
> I can see myself enjoying 3D movies from time to time, but I'd never buy a 3D TV to see 3D content on a daily or even weekly basis. The glasses definitely degrade the PQ...





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *scorrpio* /forum/post/17808206
> 
> 
> There is a very major problem with up to date implementation of 3D. It is about the way our brain reacts to perceived depth and the way it expects a 3D environment to behave. Because of those factors, 3D as it is today is, in my book, nothing but a barely believable gimmick. Aside from movies, carefully crafted, with every frame, every camera move specifically designed to play along with our '3D psychology', and downplay the limitations of the tech, and presented on a big screen that fills a much larger field of view than a TV, I just don't see 3D getting much traction. In fact, I've read that the kind of 3D we see in Avatar has been specifically developed to lure viewers to theaters, away from their 60" screens, Blu-Ray players and 7.1 setups. Cause that's where big $$$ is, not in Netflix rentals.
> 
> 
> So, what is this '3D psychology' I am talking about? Well, to begin with, we got peripheral vision. Even if we don't move our eyes to track an object moving to out vision edge (say, our primary interest is still in the middle), we are still aware of what's on the periphery. If a 3D effect has something 'popping' out the screen towards us, unless it comes directly towards viewer, it will simply vanish in mid-air as soon as it exits the pyramid which base is the screen and viewer is the apex. And the viewer WILL notice it. Effect will be especially jarring on a TV, where view angle is much smaller. Same goes for reverse. Remember the opening scene of original Star Wars? With a Star Destroyer coming overhead from behind? Good luck doing THAT properly in 3D. With a 2D picture, screen frame presents a logical border - it confines the picture, and we expect anything moving beyind the edge to disappear. When things we perceive to be CLOSER to us than the screen get cut off at the screen's edge, the effect is downright Escher-esque.
> 
> 
> So, you say, make it like a window with all action happening on the other side. Imagine yourself seated in front of a window. Something interesting happening outside is partially obscrured by window edge. Or, object of your interest is obscured by a nearby tree. What do instinctively do? Right - move your viewing position a bit, to get a better line of sight. You do it because you see depth, and brain 'triangulates' on the fly. You lean towards window, and a bit to the right - and now you can see a whole lot more of what's beyond the left window edge. Try doing that with a 3D TV - the picture will appear to distort and skew to the side, so despite your move, same exact things remain visible in the window. Quite a bummer. Only way to avoid ruining the effect is to use VERY carefully prepared material. Live TV? Sports? Fuhgeddaboutit! Unless of course you want to see some player's disembodied head and shoulders floating between you and your TV on every closeup.



From a cinematic perspective, I have to agree; there is so much filmic language that has to be thrown out the window for 3D films to be watchable. Could you imagine a stereoscopic Hitchcock film? Vertigo, for instance, would literally give the viewer vertigo. Zollys? Nope, won't work. The list goes on. It's a shame.


----------



## QZ1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benny42* /forum/post/17862406
> 
> 
> And who needs *more than four glasses* most of the time? Sorority houses? The Waltons?
> 
> 
> Well, there's a new business niche every day...





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *D-Nice* /forum/post/17862456
> 
> 
> Four glasses is the max they will offer. 2 is more probable. *And you asked who needs 4 glasses???* *Unless you are wife and kid-less, that is really a silly question to ask. I didn't know hermits dominated the main stream consumer household.*



He didn't ask who needs four glasses, he asked who needs *more than* four glasses; that would be five or more, since you mis-read it.


And the question being silly? Well, somewhat. Now, obviously there are plenty of households of five or more. However, the relevant number is five people watching the same TV together. Sure some households will sometimes have five people watching TV together, but while they all might *want* 3-D glasses, they don't all *need* them.


For those that do want more glasses, I think the vast majority of the public will know very quickly that 3-D needs glasses, and there obviously is going to be a limit on how many the TV would include, and they'll factor that in.


Frankly, you answer, while partially correct, was even sillier. As if one's household is either wife and children (which you imply means three children (or maybe two, since you misread the Q)), with all five (or maybe you thought four) people watching the same TV, otherwise, one is single (which you characterize as being a hermit).


Plenty of people will be using something other than one or five glasses, that would two, three or four, of course. There are so many combinations of single or married, number of children, number of relatives and friends, more relevantly, the number of those watching the TV together, and one to four will cover plenty of households in this regard. Again, any more than that, and they will either buy more 3-D glasses or watch in 2-D, big deal.


----------



## DaViD Boulet

The backlash against 3D is illogical in most of this thread. While one's personal preference for 3D or not is a simple opinion, trying to couch the disdain for 3D as somehow negating the artistic integrity of cinema merely exposes ones ignorance of the visual language of movies.


3D is no different, no better, no worse than any other element an artist has to work with. Like all of them... aspect ratio, color, contrast, grain, multi-channel audio, dyanmic range... all of these provide options an artist can choose to use as he/she wishes. 3D does not have to be pies flying out into the audience: it can be about added depth to a scene. How much depth? That's also at the director's discretion. Once scene could be loaded with depth. The next scene virtually flat. Artist's choice, just like color, lighting, and everything else about the image you see on the screen.


3D is one more tool, and a good one if used well... just like color, just like widescreen, just like film stock choices, just like exposure and lighting, just like multichannel audio...



> Quote:
> From a cinematic perspective, I have to agree; there is so much filmic language that has to be thrown out the window for 3D films to be watchable. Could you imagine a stereoscopic Hitchcock film? Vertigo, for instance, would literally give the viewer vertigo. Zollys? Nope, won't work. The list goes on. It's a shame.



Nothing gets thrown out because a new tool brings additional choices. The degree of depth in any given scene is under the control of the director. One scene could literally be shot flat (2D), and the next with exaggerated depth... all by the wish of the artist. Just like the other available visual tools that govern aspects of the projected picture.




> Quote:
> Again, any more than that, and they will either buy more 3-D glasses or watch in 2-D, big deal.



Polarized glasses as a dime a dozen. You can take them home for free after watching a 3D movie at the theater.


----------



## Benny42




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QZ1* /forum/post/17866934
> 
> 
> He didn't ask who needs four glasses, he asked who needs *more than* four glasses; that would be five or more, since you mis-read it.



Thanks for interpreting!











> Quote:
> And the question being silly? Well, somewhat. Now, obviously there are plenty of households of five or more. However, the relevant number is five people watching the same TV together. Sure some households will sometimes have five people watching TV together, but while they all might *want* 3-D glasses, they don't all *need* them.



At least not all the time! So there's a niche to establish 3D-glasses-rentals around the country - for all those rare occasions where you have many friends at home!



> Quote:
> For those that do want more glasses, I think the vast majority of the public will know very quickly that 3-D needs glasses, and there obviously is going to be a limit on how many the TV would include, and they'll factor that in.
> 
> 
> Frankly, you answer, while partially correct, was even sillier. As if one's household is either wife and children (which you imply means three children (or maybe two, since you misread the Q)), with all five (or maybe you thought four) people watching the same TV, otherwise, one is single (which you characterize as being a hermit).
> 
> 
> Plenty of people will be using something other than one or five glasses, that would two, three or four, of course. There are so many combinations of single or married, number of children, number of relatives and friends, more relevantly, the number of those watching the TV together, and one to four will cover plenty of households in this regard. Again, any more than that, and they will either buy more 3-D glasses or watch in 2-D, big deal.



And if you have persons in your household who already have glasses the 3D-ones could be glued onto them! That way you don't have to remember how many do you need...


Wait! I see another new business niche!










[silly hermit wanders off, muttering to himself]


----------



## Agreed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17868583
> 
> 
> The backlash against 3D is illogical in most of this thread. While one's personal preference for 3D or not is a simple opinion, trying to couch the disdain for 3D as somehow negating the artistic integrity of cinema merely exposes ones ignorance of the visual language of movies.



Take it easy, Spock, everyone who is objecting is doing so on tentative grounds. Of course we'll have to see how it actually plays out. You're incorrect to simply dismiss concerns as "illogical," given that you can't just run a truth table inversion on the multi-faceted, subjective concerns that folks have expressed. You may disagree, but that does not make something illogical, nor ignorant (and that _is_ a statement of logic, I can prove it if need be







).


----------



## J y E 4Ever




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17871260
> 
> 
> Take it easy, Spock, everyone who is objecting is doing so on tentative grounds. Of course we'll have to see how it actually plays out. You're incorrect to simply dismiss concerns as "illogical," given that you can't just run a truth table inversion on the multi-faceted, subjective concerns that folks have expressed. You may disagree, but that does not make something illogical, nor ignorant (and that _is_ a statement of logic, I can prove it if need be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



Now that is some funny ****!


You have just won my vote for best post of the last 5 minutes!!!


----------



## dovercat

Some what off topic, but a nice site demonstrating visual illusions. Show how much what we perceive is made up by the eyes/brain interpreting the world rather than what we really see.

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17871260
> 
> 
> Take it easy, Spock, everyone who is objecting is doing so on tentative grounds. Of course we'll have to see how it actually plays out. You're incorrect to simply dismiss concerns as "illogical," given that you can't just run a truth table inversion on the multi-faceted, subjective concerns that folks have expressed. You may disagree, but that does not make something illogical, nor ignorant (and that _is_ a statement of logic, I can prove it if need be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).




While all opinions are subjective, that doesn't mean they are all reasonable or defendable.


I'm not suggesting that all concerns related to 3D are illogical. But saying that giving artists the option to use 3D would destroy the integrity of the art of film is based in myth and is an unfounded, ungrounded opinion.


One can not like 3D (an perfectly valid opinion) and even suggest that 3D, used as a gimmick to distract, would impede the integrity of art. But to suggest that 3D itself is somehow a bad thing, wherease all the other aspects of film that provided increased realism over time (color, scope, film resolution) are somehow good, is arbitrarily and unsupportably treating one criteria differently than the rest. Without demonstrating why providing a depth-perception tool to visual artists should be judged differently than every other aspect of image reproduction that's evolved over time and has allowed film-makers to enjoy an increased palette of choices, it cannot be assumed to be so if we're having an informed disucssion.


I understand that casual conversation often takes detours into emotion-based opinions that really can't be defended, and there's a time and place for being able to air one's unsupportable views without the need for debate-worthy tenents. But AVS is short for Audio Visual *Science*, and given the nature of discussion in this forum, it's appropriate that we frame our conversation in ways that are consistent and that can be supported, even when we're speaking subjectively.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17871682
> 
> 
> Some what off topic, but a nice site demonstrating visual illusions. Show how much what we perceive is made up by the eyes/brain interpreting the world rather than what we really see.
> 
> http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/



Actually, 100% of what we see is perception. Our brain is a translation tool that perceives. Only our eyes literally "sense", but our experience of sight is based on how our brain interprets those signals, and not the signals themselves. That's one reason why we don't see a hole in our sight where our blind-spot on our retina is... our brain makes us happy by filling that in via interpolation so our visual world looks complete.


The way we experience all of our senses is via perception. Uh-oh... now I'm sounding like Descartes. Can we interject philosophy into this thread or is that too logical?










dave


----------



## Matt L

I think 3D will suffer from a case of going to the well too often. HD is just taking off, some reports say 50% penetration in the US, but that may not be accurate. Even if those numbers are real, those people have just gotten their shiny new HD sets in the last couple of years, they are certainly not goiong to run out and plunk down more money for 3D.


If you factor in the entry cost of HD, then add another layer of costs for ancillary equipment, there are only a very few that will take advantage of the 3D experience. Then there is the cost of the content, since D and Others charge for HD what makes anyone think they will give away the 3D HD feed?


If the economy was better, and if HD had been around for a bit longer then 3D _might_ stand a chance, but my feelings and many of the other posters here think it's doomed to fail.


----------



## Birdman71

I really don't understand all the negativity. Especially from a place like AVS. We spent 50 years in the analog era. From the 40s to the 90s, our home video choices were very solidly anchored to the NTSC format. Very little improvements could be realized and the technology was very mature. I for one, am very happy that we've entered the digital age and technology can continue to evolve. The fact that we now think in terms of bits and pixels allows things to scale in ways that weren't possible 20 years ago. I'm glad that display technology can advance beyond 1080i or 720p instead of being tied to what the broadcasters use like we did for decades. I'm glad the FCC sets standards so that all of these sets share some common capabilities that we can all fall back to. Everything else is a bonus.


People can watch HD broadcast in whatever resolution at whatever refresh their display supports while listening to the audio in either mono, stereo, or digital 5.1 surround. Blu-ray can expand those choices to 1080p and lossless audio. Yet, no one is forced to use 1080p. No one is forced to use lossless audio.


3D is simply a new technology that becomes feasible as display refresh rates go higher. There is nothing forcing anyone to upgrade. They don't lose anything. If you just bought a megabucks display...bully for you. I prefer that the set available for me to purchase next year continues to improve. If you think 3D has to add a ton of money to the price....compare the price of Optoma's HD65 and HD66 projectors. One syncs to 120hz inputs and is 3d capable. One doesn't. Same MSRP.


The concern about everything coming in 3D is beyond me. We've been watching HD for a decade. What percentage of broadcast programming is HD now? It's been 10 years. If it's not something you're interest in....that's your call. It doesn't have to cost a fortune since its a side benefit of faster refresh rates. It isn't for everyone, but can definitely make some things more immersive and to me, that's the point. Better sound for more realism. Better video for more realism. 3D for more realism. And since none of those things are requirements, why the hostility beyond sour grapes that your set doesn't support it? Did you feel the same about your xxx not doing lossless? Couldn't bitsteam audio? Can't do 24p? Doesn't sync to 1080p? No interpolation? etc. etc. etc.


----------



## realmike15

Quick article about Samsung's new TV's for 2010 including 3D

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...wood-producer/


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Birdman71* /forum/post/17880248
> 
> 
> I really don't understand all the negativity. Especially from a place like AVS. We spent 50 years in the analog era. From the 40s to the 90s, our home video choices were very solidly anchored to the NTSC format. Very little improvements could be realized and the technology was very mature. I for one, am very happy that we've entered the digital age and technology can continue to evolve. The fact that we now think in terms of bits and pixels allows things to scale in ways that weren't possible 20 years ago. I'm glad that display technology can advance beyond 1080i or 720p instead of being tied to what the broadcasters use like we did for decades. I'm glad the FCC sets standards so that all of these sets share some common capabilities that we can all fall back to. Everything else is a bonus.
> 
> 
> People can watch HD broadcast in whatever resolution at whatever refresh their display supports while listening to the audio in either mono, stereo, or digital 5.1 surround. Blu-ray can expand those choices to 1080p and lossless audio. Yet, no one is forced to use 1080p. No one is forced to use lossless audio.
> 
> 
> 3D is simply a new technology that becomes feasible as display refresh rates go higher. There is nothing forcing anyone to upgrade. They don't lose anything. If you just bought a megabucks display...bully for you. I prefer that the set available for me to purchase next year continues to improve. If you think 3D has to add a ton of money to the price....compare the price of Optoma's HD65 and HD66 projectors. One syncs to 120hz inputs and is 3d capable. One doesn't. Same MSRP.
> 
> 
> The concern about everything coming in 3D is beyond me. We've been watching HD for a decade. What percentage of broadcast programming is HD now? It's been 10 years. If it's not something you're interest in....that's your call. It doesn't have to cost a fortune since its a side benefit of faster refresh rates. It isn't for everyone, but can definitely make some things more immersive and to me, that's the point. Better sound for more realism. Better video for more realism. 3D for more realism. And since none of those things are requirements, why the hostility beyond sour grapes that your set doesn't support it? Did you feel the same about your xxx not doing lossless? Couldn't bitsteam audio? Can't do 24p? Doesn't sync to 1080p? No interpolation? etc. etc. etc.



Amen.


----------



## Birdman71




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Brien* /forum/post/17866407
> 
> 
> Could you imagine a stereoscopic Hitchcock film? Vertigo, for instance, would literally give the viewer vertigo. Zollys? Nope, won't work. The list goes on. It's a shame.



Are you aware of the Hitchcock 3d show that ran at Universal Studios Florida from 1990 to 2003? It's ironic that Hitchcock can't work in 3d but converted clips of his movies is the first 3d I ever saw. BTW, the scene from "The Birds" was crazy fun.


Are you aware that he filmed "Dial M for Murder" in 3D?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_M_...D_film_version 


You're right...3D Hitchcock would never work.


----------



## DaViD Boulet

The only movie I can think of that absolutely would be worse in 3D would be The Phamtom Menace. Can you imagine Jar-Jar in 3D? Now *THAT* would be a frighting, barf-ridden shame!













> Quote:
> Are you aware that he filmed "Dial M for Murder" in 3D?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dial_M_...D_film_version
> 
> 
> You're right...3D Hitchcock would never work.



When you think of how Hitcock and Wells often use special lenses and camera-angles, they were *trying* in many cases to create depth perception though they were limited by the 2D canvas. I'd love to see Hichcock's Dial M For Murder the way it was intended by the artist... in native 3D. Blu-ray will deliver.


----------



## 8mile13




DaViD Boulet said:


> . I'd love to see Hichcock's Dial M For Murder the way it was intended by the artist... in native 3D. Blu-ray will deliver.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> If you want to see Hichcock's Dail M For Murder the way it was intended
> 
> by the artist you have to go to a movie-theatre and watch it in native 3D.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Birdman71* /forum/post/17880248
> 
> 
> I really don't understand all the negativity. Especially from a place like AVS. We spent 50 years in the analog era. From the 40s to the 90s, our home video choices were very solidly anchored to the NTSC format. Very little improvements could be realized and the technology was very mature. I for one, am very happy that we've entered the digital age and technology can continue to evolve. The fact that we now think in terms of bits and pixels allows things to scale in ways that weren't possible 20 years ago. I'm glad that display technology can advance beyond 1080i or 720p instead of being tied to what the broadcasters use like we did for decades. I'm glad the FCC sets standards so that all of these sets share some common capabilities that we can all fall back to. Everything else is a bonus.
> 
> 
> People can watch HD broadcast in whatever resolution at whatever refresh their display supports while listening to the audio in either mono, stereo, or digital 5.1 surround. Blu-ray can expand those choices to 1080p and lossless audio. Yet, no one is forced to use 1080p. No one is forced to use lossless audio.
> 
> 
> 3D is simply a new technology that becomes feasible as display refresh rates go higher. There is nothing forcing anyone to upgrade. They don't lose anything. If you just bought a megabucks display...bully for you. I prefer that the set available for me to purchase next year continues to improve. If you think 3D has to add a ton of money to the price....compare the price of Optoma's HD65 and HD66 projectors. One syncs to 120hz inputs and is 3d capable. One doesn't. Same MSRP.
> 
> 
> The concern about everything coming in 3D is beyond me. We've been watching HD for a decade. What percentage of broadcast programming is HD now? It's been 10 years. If it's not something you're interest in....that's your call. It doesn't have to cost a fortune since its a side benefit of faster refresh rates. It isn't for everyone, but can definitely make some things more immersive and to me, that's the point. Better sound for more realism. Better video for more realism. 3D for more realism. And since none of those things are requirements, why the hostility beyond sour grapes that your set doesn't support it? Did you feel the same about your xxx not doing lossless? Couldn't bitsteam audio? Can't do 24p? Doesn't sync to 1080p? No interpolation? etc. etc. etc.



Double Amen. I am also somewhat disappointed at the misinformation regarding 3D here at AVS of all places. Some post seem hateful for some odd reason. One guy said he hopes it fails. Wow! My question would be, Why? I've been an early adapter since I was a teenager for the technology that interested me. If I didn't like it I, I simply did not persue it. I like Hi Def movies and 3D is a next logical step which will eventually lead to something even better. Don't shoot first, just follow the path and see where it leads.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> If you want to see Hichcock's Dail M For Murder the way it was intended
> 
> by the artist you have to go to a movie-theatre and watch it in native 3D.



So, we shouldn't watch movies at home?


----------



## Matt L




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/17884768
> 
> 
> Double Amen. I am also somewhat disappointed at the misinformation regarding 3D here at AVS of all places. Some post seem hateful for some odd reason. One guy said he hopes it fails. Wow! My question would be, Why? I've been an early adapter since I was a teenager for the technology that interested me. If I didn't like it I, I simply did not persue it. I like Hi Def movies and 3D is a next logical step which will eventually lead to something even better. Don't shoot first, just follow the path and see where it leads.



Put me in the camp of hoping it fails. The problem I foresee is that it will rarely be done correctly and will turn into a gimmick. It will steal money from other areas of a show's production - you got to pay for it somehow - and lesser talent will be used in front of and behind the cameras. No show has Cameron's money to do a weekly show, and without the money what do you get --gimmicks. Avatar did 3d correctly for the most part, but imagine the cost.


----------



## indyfred

To answer the OP's question "Is 3D TV the next big thing for 2010?", from what I hear coming out of CES, 3D appears to be the next "big thing" that is being pushed.


I can see it now that people are going to get their 3D set and then hook it up to their standard cable or up-converting DVD player (like a lot of HDTV sets are hooked up today).


----------



## gtaylor0




8mile13 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17881954
> 
> 
> . I'd love to see Hichcock's Dial M For Murder the way it was intended by the artist... in native 3D. Blu-ray will deliver.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> If you want to see Hichcock's Dail M For Murder the way it was intended
> 
> by the artist you have to go to a movie-theatre and watch it in native 3D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which I did, when it was rereleased by Warner Brothers in 1981 (basically the first of the 3D resurrections since the 1950's). It was very cool, actually, but Hitch shot in an understated way that showed how mainstream 3D might look if and when we ever get there -- that is, it works in both 2D and 3D.
Click to expand...


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *indyfred* /forum/post/17885900
> 
> 
> To answer the OP's question "Is 3D TV the next big thing for 2010?", from what I hear coming out of CES, 3D appears to be the next "big thing" that is being pushed.
> 
> 
> I can see it now that people are going to get their 3D set and then hook it up to their standard cable or up-converting DVD player (like a lot of HDTV sets are hooked up today).



Many manufacturers promote 2D-to-3D conversion on the fly with advertising "now you can watch everything in 3D". That however will be put to critical test by people as to what kind of artefacts may be created during the conversion.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17885658
> 
> 
> Put me in the camp of hoping it fails. The problem I foresee is that it will rarely be done correctly and will turn into a gimmick. It will steal money from other areas of a show's production - you got to pay for it somehow - and lesser talent will be used in front of and behind the cameras. No show has Cameron's money to do a weekly show, and without the money what do you get --gimmicks. Avatar did 3d correctly for the most part, but imagine the cost.



Coraline was live-film (not CGI) and not big-budget and did a stunning job with 3D. The cost for filming live in 3D will come down quickly. Sony just announced at CES a 1080p 3D *home* video recorder for the family. Rest assured that filming in 3D does not require an Avatar budget.


With Coraline's use of ed, in terms of artistry, it's a much more potent visual experience with the depth of field, and I now wouldn't watch it in 2D as too much of that artist's vision would be lost.


I don't see why we need to assume 3D will become a gimmick when the tide is actually moving in the direction of tasteful use.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17885216
> 
> 
> So, we shouldn't watch movies at home?



Moviemakers want us to watch their movies in a movietheatre,they

make movies with a big movietheatre in the back of their mind.


You started saying: I'd love to see Hichcock's Dail M for Murder the

way it was intended by the artist...on bluray.


----------



## sjschaff




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17748504
> 
> 
> I don't care a whit about 3D. I don't know what it is I'm supposed to like about it, but whatever it is, I don't. I hope it becomes the next big thing so that the advanced non-3D technologies quickly move into the lower price tiers and make perfectly good high-end sets that just don't happen to support 120hz+ input more affordable to average users. But for me, it's basically a headache-inducing extravagance which was cool in the mid to late 20th century because special effects weren't particularly amazing and it had "wow!" factor; now televisions have genuinely flat, undistorted high-resolution screens which provide the "illusion" of depth and realism perfectly well, and adding yet another layer (which is A: limited by the physical dimensions of the television, and B: essentially just exploiting an optical illusion) has not impressed me lately.
> 
> 
> It's the kind of thing that is cool at a theater because the screen takes up your entire field of view and so it's almost like the film is happening around you, but even very big TVs don't offer nearly the same level of field-of-vision coverage and so it's more like watching it happening in this sort of smaller box that you're not really in. I mean, yeah, we've come a long way since colored glasses, and I'm not saying it isn't fun sometimes, but it's basically a gimmick/novelty that has already worn off on me before it's even really got started.
> 
> 
> I'll be ecstatic when a genuinely three-dimensional projection system comes out, but who knows if that'll happen in our lifetimes? The whole underlying technology has yet to be developed for anything like that to exist, taking into account entirely new avenues in recording, distribution and playback - at the moment it's science fiction. What passes for 3D these days doesn't move me and until it just becomes a feature that everything has, I'll make no special allowances for it in my budget.



Seems that most people don't really have a clear "focus" on the objective of 3D. And I'm not about to try, just to suggest that the audio industry has been trying to bring us a symphony in our living room for decades. It's a vain effort, limited by the very walls in the room, let alone the other problems of both capturing and translating sound and giving it back to us in an undistorted manner.


What's odd about the 3D push is we're starting the the wrong video venue: films (artifice) rather than live TV which at least is in a real space. So, I'd rather see the work develop in, say, sports viewing, rather than the artifice of film (green screen, phony sets, etc.). And if we want to feel like we're "there" it had better be "immersive" or otherwise make it seem like the field of view is as close to "being there" as possible. It is unlikely it can ever be, especially since the way the human eye works (constantly moving about in space and focusing at various field depths) would require some rather amazing camera's and playback equipment.


I'd rather manufacturers continue to try and get 2D right.


----------



## PLB

I wrote a lot of comments about the time that _Beowolf_ came out to the effect that 3D was not necessary and irrelevant. I condemned 3D movies as having gratuitous objects flying at you. For example _House of Wax_ in the fifties had a guy with a yo-yo. Last year the new 3D _Journey to the Center of the Earth_ also had a yo-yo scene.


But I was wrong. I objected to these kind of scenes because they distracted from the story. They "took you out of the movie". But this week when I saw Avatar at one point I unconsciously raised my hand to shield my face from the little white "thingies" that were floating around. I realized that the 3D had indeed taken me into the movie.


----------



## Gris

Saying you don't like 3D is like saying you'd rather just see with one eye.


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PLB* /forum/post/17888988
> 
> 
> I wrote a lot of comments about the time that _Beowolf_ came out to the effect that 3D was not necessary and irrelevant. I condemned 3D movies as having gratuitous objects flying at you. For example _House of Wax_ in the fifties had a guy with a yo-yo. Last year the new 3D _Journey to the Center of the Earth_ also had a yo-yo scene.
> 
> 
> But I was wrong. I objected to these kind of scenes because they distracted from the story. They "took you out of the movie". But this week when I saw Avatar at one point I unconsciously raised my hand to shield my face from the little white "thingies" that were floating around. I realized that the 3D had indeed taken me into the movie.



Well I enjoyed Beowulf and Journey to the Center of the Earth, yo-yo, tape measure, bouncing balls, rollercoaster ride and all. It know what it was a fun 3D movie and did not take its self too seriously.

Avatar seems to have delusions of grandeur. Is the story gripping with suspense, innovative with suprises, do you care about the fate of the characters, is it emotionally moving, or is it a rehash of stuff that has been done countless times before but with the added gimmick of 3D, a two and a half hour wannabe epic.


My DIY modified darkchip3 DLP projector in a dedicated room is able to fool me into seeing depth in the image. As if you could throw a ball into the scene, or shout at the people on it. I find myself unconciously smiling at people on the screen who smile at me. So it fools my eyes/brain. Maybe my eyes/brain is easy to fool as it all depends how good your binocular vision is, how much you rely on monocular depth cues, and I was always useless at catching a ball.


3D seems to be a short cut into fooling the eyes/brain into seeing depth by having binocular disparity rather than relying on other depth cues like texture and contrast, details and life-like colors. So the display picture quality can be less good but still give the illusion of depth.

The only advantage to 3D seems to be the ability to make things appear infront of the screen, which is a gimmick effect.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17886739
> 
> 
> Moviemakers want us to watch their movies in a movietheatre,they
> 
> make movies with a big movietheatre in the back of their mind.



More accurately, movie makers want us to watch their movies wide-angle on large screens in a darkened room in their chosen aspect ratio with color reproduction that accurately represents the spectrum of their approved release prints and resolution that preserves the detail that they put into the craft of their finished film.


Blu-ray projected in a high quality home-theater can accomplish most of those goals with superior fidelity than many projected theatrical prints in the vast majority of theater houses (I acknowledge the existence of high-performance projection venues that do indeed exist, and certainly do exceed blu-ray disc performance with large-format film projection).




> Quote:
> You started saying: I'd love to see Hichcock's Dail M for Murder the
> 
> way it was intended by the artist...on bluray.



The medium and venue of delivery is moot for most directors, as long as their objectives for wide-angle viewing and image quality and color saturation are being maintained: It's the viewers' experience of the moving image on the screen that's the intention to be faithfully replicated, not the fact of projecting in a theater itself. Naturally, these are matters of opinion as are all beliefs surrounding how to best preserve the integrity of art, which is subjective by definition.


----------



## AJSJones

Lots of negative stuff on something that will be an option











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gris* /forum/post/17894466
> 
> 
> Saying you don't like 3D is like saying you'd rather just see with one eye.



Nice one







I have little sympathy for folks whining here because they haven't figured out that it was _they who assumed_ that everything would _have_ to be viewed in 3D. If you don't like the 3D effect - d'oh, switch it off ! If you don't like the 3D effect when you go outside, close one eye











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sirjonsnow* /forum/post/17763923
> 
> 
> If I want 3-D I'll go outside.



Well, I don't even have to go outside, my brain sees 3D everywhere (except on flat surfaces )







BUT I do have to wear glasses to see it (contacts and lasik aren't going to, ahem, cut it for _my_ eyes). So I don't have much sympathy for those whining about having to wear glasses - WHEN the 3D programming is on.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mastermaybe* /forum/post/17852481
> 
> 
> First, I don't think anyone seriously believes they're going to buy a 3DTV HDTV in the next 2 years and will be watching eveything in 3D HD. Heck, I'd guess that most prolly don't anticipate more than 10% of their overall viewing, I'd bet. Maybe a few movies and events a WEEK, at most.



Who you talkin' too? I got my first HDTV in 1999 and watched everything in 3D HD I could. Took me only a few hours a week, after the first 6 months on barely an hour a week







BTW, this _IS_ AVS










Certainly, 3D won't be for everything (and you'll still be able to switch it off) but I recall my jaw dropping a couple of times over the last decade with my TV systems: once when I first saw a good HD broadcast of a NFL game (on my Electrohome 8500) - it was like sitting in a skybox with the "you are there - window" feeling everyone had been raving about on , well, on AVS. The second was when I saw the BluRay "Planet Earth" on my (then) recently acquired JVC RS1. I have a 100" screen and I sit quite close*. I think I am one of the demographic that the mfr's are taking as a given as an upgrader - sports and Planet Earth type stuff, as well as some movies - will be stunning in my cave. Watching the news on the 46" in the kitchen with dinner - not so much










*About as close as I could comfortably sit in the Avatar3D (Dolby3D) that I recently saw (but not as close as the IMAX (flim) version in Vegas where I was almost engulfed - that's not happening at home for a while)








Gotta love that smilie from mtbs3D.com


----------



## CHUCKCHILLOUT

I'm really surprised to see such a large anti-3D contingency on this site of all places. The thing is, whether it succeeds or fails, the newer TV's will still be great products without the 3D.


This is my situation; I bought a 42" 1080i Hitachi plasma 3 years ago and recently had to replace the power supply for about $340. Until I knew what the repair cost would be I was entertaining the thought of getting a new TV. I always wanted a bigger 1080p set. I already have a 7.1 setup with PS3 and an Onkyo receiver that encodes all of the more recent codecs save; Dolby PLIIz. You can call me a sucker for new tech, but I've always done it at a budget.


I've seen 60" Mitsubishi DLP's that are 3D compatible for $900, and I know that Samsung also produces compatible TVs, with Sony and Panasonic jumping into the fray. Since the PS3 is getting a free update for 3D coming in 2010, it opens up the possibility of gaming and watching Blu-rays in 3D. I always wanted a larger TV, so for me, to get 50 inch + 120HZ + LCD for 3D gaming and blu-ray watching seems exciting.


I have seen Beowulf and Avatar in 3D IMAX and found it had a more immersive effect, granted that might have been the alcohol, but nonetheless, I enjoyed both immensely.


----------



## John Robert




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CHUCKCHILLOUT* /forum/post/17897628
> 
> 
> I'm really surprised to see such a large anti-3D contingency on this site of all places.



Those that are opposed are those that haven't seen a good demo of the product. It's as big a change as the move from SD to HD. Some of these posters are saying the equivalent of "480P is fine with me"







...


John


----------



## Agreed

The modern 3D tech isn't the cool polarized movie theater tech (which would require basically two panels), it's just a retread of what's been available on much less expensive DLP RPTVs for a long time. And I worry that LCD state change latency could compromise how well it works, especially on the lower end "3D Ready!" sets to come. I am disappointed, shuttered glasses have a lot of issues. Ah, well.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17900462
> 
> 
> The modern 3D tech isn't the cool polarized movie theater tech (which would require basically two panels), it's just a retread of what's been available on much less expensive DLP RPTVs for a long time. And I worry that LCD state change latency could compromise how well it works, especially on the lower end "3D Ready!" sets to come. I am disappointed, shuttered glasses have a lot of issues. Ah, well.



Yes, LCD change-state latency will be a problem if a set and eyewear aren't properly designed. So far, this doesn't seem to be a problem with the products being showcased for 2010 release.


The ability to alternate left/right has the potential to produce a superior picture to polarized light. This is because polarized light allows some degree of bleed-through or cross-talk between the two images. Also, polarized light diminishes brightness by at least 50% because it only transmits 1/2 of the light per eye.


The problem with older active LCD glasses is that the frequency of alternating was rather slow... in some cases older glasses only switched back/forth 60 times a second... meaning each eye was "flashing" a mere 30 times per second which produced a lot of visible flicker and headache.


Today's glasses are operating at 120Hz minimum... 60 frames per eye per second... basically what you enjoyed with regular TV just a few years ago. However, some sets are already doubling that to 240 so each eye gets 120 frames per second. that's basically transparent... no flicker, and perfect vision for each eye with no cross talk and no dimming.


The real reason that theaters don't use active shutter LCD glasses isn't a picture-quality concern, it's a cost issue! Can you imagine how much $$ it would cost for a theater to get equipped to sync to 150 pairs of blue-tooth LCD shutter glasses that have to be recharged every night? Can you imagine trying to stop people from pocketing the glasses as they left the theater? That's the real reason we see polarized light used as the current defacto-statndard in 3D theatrical venues.... LCD would be even more expensive.


To stress the point... Real3D projection is actually just ONE projector that alternates left/right!!! It just happens to use polarized light with polarized eyewear as the affordable way for a theater of guests to view the image, but it's really alternating left/right even though it's polarized! If we could watch AVATAR with LCD shutter glasses synced to the PJ image, we'd get a dramatically better picture because you'd remove the loss of light output from the equation.


----------



## Artwood

Are the 3D haters kin to the 480p DVD worshipers?


----------



## bill4903485




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Artwood* /forum/post/17901237
> 
> 
> Are the 3D haters kin to the 480p DVD worshipers?



I don't see it as hate, but realism. I view thin LED televisions and 3D as yearly stopgaps to stave commerce from stagnation in anticipation of true tech PQ advances. Current 3D tech doesn't seem to be a productive use of engineering time. It certainly makes a marketing guy's life though.


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17900722
> 
> 
> The problem with older active LCD glasses is that the frequency of alternating was rather slow... in some cases older glasses only switched back/forth 60 times a second... meaning each eye was "flashing" a mere 30 times per second which produced a lot of visible flicker and headache.
> 
> 
> Today's glasses are operating at 120Hz minimum... 60 frames per eye per second... basically what you enjoyed with regular TV just a few years ago. However, some sets are already doubling that to 240 so each eye gets 120 frames per second. that's basically transparent... no flicker, and perfect vision for each eye with no cross talk and no dimming.



60 frames per eye per second maybe ok.

Crt was the focus of your attention in the center of your vision, the shutter glasses cover your whole vision. Peripheral vision is more sensitive to flicker than central vision, and the brighter the display the more likely you are to notice it, could you see the CRT fickering when it is in your peripheral vision, some people could. Also I would expect 60Hz is going to have 3:2 pull down judder with 24fps sources like 3D movies on Blu-ray. Unless the 3D Blu-ray spec has increased the frame rate.


120 frames per eye per second sounds great, most people can not detect flicker above 75frames per second. Its also 5:5 even pull down so no motion judder added.


I agree shutter glasses look to be technically better than polarization. No risk of cross talk ghosting.


----------



## AJSJones

Then, down the road, we have (cheap by then) 6 laser or advanced LED (RGB 1 and RGB 2, each primary a slightly different but narrowband wavelength) cheap Dolby color processing chip constant 120Hz per eye and lightweight Infitec type glasses...


----------



## DaViD Boulet

That's the beauty of a 3D protocol that delivers sterescopic HD, but lets the manufacturers take the best advantage of the available technology to deliver it to the consumer... the technology we enjoy will improve over time as the display methodology isn't constrained by the spec or by today's technical/affordability boundaries.


----------



## AJSJones

Thanks DaVid,

I had meant to include that comment about the HDMI 1.4 protocol being display type agnostic ("here's the left and right images - unpack and display as you wish") such that no-one is locked into any kind of display, the software will play on whatever is the latest and greatest display.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17885658
> 
> 
> Put me in the camp of hoping it fails. The problem I foresee is that it will rarely be done correctly and will turn into a gimmick. It will steal money from other areas of a show's production - you got to pay for it somehow - and lesser talent will be used in front of and behind the cameras. No show has Cameron's money to do a weekly show, and without the money what do you get --gimmicks. Avatar did 3d correctly for the most part, but imagine the cost.



For the ninth time to infinity, you don't need an Avatar budget to do a good 3D movie. Have you seen Bolt, Coraline, UP, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, A Christmas Carol, Monsters Vs. Aliens? I'd say they were done very right. It's up to the director to do it right as it is for a 2D film. I can't wait to see Alice In Wonderland in 3D.


----------



## DaViD Boulet

Does anyone know if The Hobbit will be filmed in native 3D???


----------



## AJSJones

I don't _know_ but this from barely 6 weeks ago seems legit saying NO!


----------



## Matt L




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/17903852
> 
> 
> For the ninth time to infinity, you don't need an Avatar budget to do a good 3D movie. Have you seen Bolt, Coraline, UP, Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, A Christmas Carol, Monsters Vs. Aliens? I'd say they were done very right. It's up to the director to do it right as it is for a 2D film. I can't wait to see Alice In Wonderland in 3D.



But you don't answer my question --where does the money come from? It's extra time on stage for blocking, extra cameras, camera operators, lighting, processing, editing and on and on. Who pays for this? Is the average 18 minute sitcom supposed to absorb the extra costs without cutting something? Charge extra for commercial time in a tight economy? Or is 3D reserved for the "movie of the week" or what many would like - sporting events? Just how much is there going to be to justify my spending money on equipment?


I jumped into HD over a decade ago at a great cost even with limited content available. When the content was available it was a great and substantial leap over standard 480i programming. 3D is in no way comparable to the difference between SD and HD broadcasting. I'd liken it to an incremental step, or a holding pattern while we wait for the next big thing, problem is most people don't have the latest big thing.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17905530
> 
> 
> But you don't answer my question --where does the money come from? It's extra time on stage for blocking, extra cameras, camera operators, lighting, processing, editing and on and on. Who pays for this? Is the average 18 minute sitcom supposed to absorb the extra costs without cutting something? Charge extra for commercial time in a tight economy? Or is 3D reserved for the "movie of the week" or what many would like - sporting events? Just how much is there going to be to justify my spending money on equipment?
> 
> 
> I jumped into HD over a decade ago at a great cost even with limited content available. When the content was available it was a great and substantial leap over standard 480i programming. 3D is in no way comparable to the difference between SD and HD broadcasting. I'd liken it to an incremental step, or a holding pattern while we wait for the next big thing, problem is most people don't have the latest big thing.



With 3D doing so well in theaters, studios are budgeting money for them. Take Dreamworks for example. All their animated films will be in 3D. 3D movies have proven to be a draw and are making money and money is what will keep studios producing them.


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/17907591
> 
> 
> With 3D doing so well in theaters, studios are budgeting money for them. Take Dreamworks for example. All their animated films will be in 3D. 3D movies have proven to be a draw and are making money and money is what will keep studios producing them.



Dreamworks animation CGI when they already have the tech. Hardly a good example. Now if it was Time Warner and all their movies with real location shooting, then I would agree as they would have to replace all their cameras.


----------



## Neceo

A lot of people are saying things without experiencing the new 3dtvs for themselves. I say wait and see before making judgments. Maybe you will still hate it or maybe you will like it. Go to a sony store and check out the display they have.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17907932
> 
> 
> Dreamworks animation CGI when they already have the tech. Hardly a good example. Now if it was Time Warner and all their movies with real location shooting, then I would agree as they would have to replace all their cameras.



Avatar is a start to a new trend: live action in 3D (yes, Avatar is largely CGI, but it's got live action footage in 3D as well).


Over time I think we'll see a trickle-down effect with more and more live-action going 3D. Eventually this will not restrict itself to big-budget action films, but start to show up as an affordable option for all types of films and genres. Even an ivory-merchant film like Howards End or a drama like The Queen could be enhanced with 3D photography as the 3D depth can bring intimacy to scenes.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> But you don't answer my question --where does the money come from? It's extra time on stage for blocking, extra cameras, camera operators, lighting, processing, editing and on and on. Who pays for this?



a 3D camera has the 2nd lens built in. The same 3D workstation also works for 2D content, and I don't see why you'd need extra time for blocking or camera opperating or lighting. 3D is visible on the monitor during the shoot so the director knows how it looks even before the shoot is over.


----------



## Agreed

3D works so well with animation because animation has a defined Z axis and a clear frame of reference to the viewer's point of view. It's basically seamless. There are drivers available to turn any 3D game on the computer into an anaglyph stereoscopic game, using the z axis. Works pretty well, too.


Extra gear is involved when talking about filming 3D. I'm sure it'll make its way into more productions as time goes on, that's how these things work, and I'm sure too that filmmakers will learn to make best use of it and learn new techniques, how to translate the current "language" of film into the new medium, especially if it really sticks around. But for smaller productions, it's not a fiscal possibility.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17909360
> 
> 
> 3D works so well with animation because animation has a defined Z axis and a clear frame of reference to the viewer's point of view. It's basically seamless. There are drivers available to turn any 3D game on the computer into an anaglyph stereoscopic game, using the z axis. Works pretty well, too.
> 
> 
> Extra gear is involved when talking about filming 3D. I'm sure it'll make its way into more productions as time goes on, that's how these things work, and I'm sure too that filmmakers will learn to make best use of it and learn new techniques, how to translate the current "language" of film into the new medium, especially if it really sticks around. But for smaller productions, it's not a fiscal possibility.




"But for smaller productions, it's not a fiscal possibility"


Sony is releasing a 3D HDTV 1080p camera for personal use... it was shown at CES. Remember when 1080p cameras were $$$$? Now we see home-grown movies made in stunning 1080p24 (though professional cameras can yeild superior results).


I think it's only a matter of a few years before 3D (digital) filming and editing is within reach of most who would wish to use it. What may maintain a larger and longer cost overhead would be 35mm live-filming in 3D.


----------



## Agreed

Time makes everything cheaper, but early adopters will still have only limited options. Sony's going to push behind it with all of their might since PS3 sales were huge last year and adding support is as simple as a firmware update (to the end users, anyway







), but honestly? I'm going to be watching with detached interest - really, just reading the articles - to see what happens with the adult film industry and 3D. They may not ever have a booth at CES, but more than once they've been seminal in the broader adoption of emerging visual technologies. No pun intended.


----------



## John Robert




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17910694
> 
> 
> they've been seminal in the broader adoption of emerging visual technologies



























John


----------



## John Robert




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17905530
> 
> 
> 3D is in no way comparable to the difference between SD and HD broadcasting.



Couldn't disagree more. You don't think that depth, dimension and the perception of people and objects in a defined space are as important as lines of resolution?


Have you seen a well set up 3D demo?


John


----------



## Agreed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Robert* /forum/post/17911981
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John


_Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for others' perceptions of my innocently worded posts!_


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Robert* /forum/post/17912012
> 
> 
> Couldn't disagree more. You don't think that depth, dimension and the perception of people and objects in a defined space are as important as lines of resolution?
> 
> 
> Have you seen a well set up 3D demo?
> 
> 
> John



I think that's the problem with all of the critics on this forum. They just haven't experienced good 3D. I spent 3 days at CES looking at a lot of different demos, and while some were better than others, I really enjoyed the extra dimension of 3D. One of the best demonstrations was Wheel of Fortune in 3D in the Sony exhibit. I never watch the 2D show, but the set, props, and prizes really looked liked they were right in front of you. Evidently they had replaced every camera on the set with a 3D camera, including a jib camera. Football and the Olympics also looked really good. Live video(60 frames per second for each eye) looked better than film transfers due to the film frame rate. But the film transfers looked as good or better than they would in any theater because each eye was receiving a completely separate image with no crosstalk like you would get with polarized glasses. As I said in another thread, I think that 3D is going to be huge--THIS YEAR.


----------



## Matt L




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17908071
> 
> 
> a 3D camera has the 2nd lens built in. The same 3D workstation also works for 2D content, and I don't see why you'd need extra time for blocking or camera opperating or lighting. 3D is visible on the monitor during the shoot so the director knows how it looks even before the shoot is over.




You seem to be so adamant in your unwavering support for 3D, exactly what is your stake in all this? Do you own stock in a polarized lens company?


Me, I'm just anti hype. The simple facts are you have to wear stupid looking glasses to watch a 3d show, it's an added expense with little reward, and as I have stated it's going to eat up $$ from somewhere. And if I were being cynical I'd moan about the bandwidth it eats up on the proposed SAT and Cable channels, it means that much less for HD channels.


At this point I'll lay odds more of the public feels as I do and it will die on the vine.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17913432
> 
> 
> You seem to be so adamant in your unwavering support for 3D, exactly what is your stake in all this? Do you own stock in a polarized lens company?



No stock. Just know a technological improvement that serves the HT community when I see it.


Just like I advocated for DVD when the laserdisc drones said it would spell the end of quality transfers and widescreen.


Just like I advocated for 16x9 anamorphic DVD when I was almost banned from a certain forum for "making people with 4x3 TVs feel bad that their Televisions weren't state of the art". I even started a petition that got the T2 DVD "flipper disc" haulted and convinced the studio to release it from a new 16x9 transfer on the first commercial RSDL DVD.


Just like I advocated for 16x9 transfers for 1.66:1 films even when WB had much of the HT community convinced 4x3 was good enough.


Just like I advocated for a 1080p HD disc based format when Joe Kane and a band of AVS members were hoping to get stuck with a red-laser 720p format since "we'd never get 1080p".


Just like I advocated for an HD format with lossless audio and worked with another AVS member to get a petition printed in widescreen review and handed to WB who read it long before HD DVD and BD were even formalized... when everyone at AVS was saying we'd never get a lossless audio provision on HD disc.


Just like I advocated for blu-ray Disc with 50GB and 50% greater bandwidth over HD DVD despite the Microsoft-driven FUD that hijacked more than one internet discussion group for over a year.


I guess I just like rooting for the best image we can get, and seeing home-theater technology evolve to meet the challenge.




> Quote:
> At this point I'll lay odds more of the public feels as I do and it will die on the vine.



Given the popularity of 3D ticket sales for Avatar, I'd lay odds that the public doesn't feel like you.


----------



## Agreed

Oh, come on, you give a motivational speech to the nay-sayer but don't even touch on my salient point about the adult film industry? Forsooth, it's an important consideration! Of course, they've got their own troubles, someone has to make the call as to what exactly the audience wants to see coming out of the screen... I wouldn't want to be the director, camera guy, editor, producer, financier, or even investor on an adult film production anyway, but at least the first three in that list are going to have to really wing it if they decide to take the plunge early and put out some depth-enhanced smut.


----------



## bill4903485




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17913432
> 
> 
> You seem to be so adamant in your unwavering support for 3D, exactly what is your stake in all this? Do you own stock in a polarized lens company?
> 
> 
> Me, I'm just anti hype. The simple facts are you have to wear stupid looking glasses to watch a 3d show, it's an added expense with little reward, and as I have stated it's going to eat up $$ from somewhere. And if I were being cynical I'd moan about the bandwidth it eats up on the proposed SAT and Cable channels, it means that much less for HD channels.
> 
> 
> At this point I'll lay odds more of the public feels as I do and it will die on the vine.



Exactly. So much more pimping and questions than actual answers. And not theoretical answers on paper, but real world answers. Just because you can recite marketing speak doesn't mean you know anything substantial or definitive. Yeah, let's all get in on the next big thing, that's been around for more than fifty years.


Makes me think that either a) some of these people just have a hard-on for 3D, or worse b) they work for these particular companies and/or own stock in them.


3D will probably work similarly to DLNA. It will be more hype than functionality for several incarnations. Or it's similar to quad in production values, as it never goes much beyond gimmick. And today's movies are already lacking in content. They have plenty of CGI and effects though.


Oh, for the record, I have experienced good 3D.


----------



## TheBluePill

Always remember the Golden Rule of Home A/V Technology;


Follow the Porn.


Yes, what ever the Porn Industry Backs, will more than likely, become the defacto standard a few years down the road.


----------



## TheBluePill




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17910694
> 
> 
> Time makes everything cheaper, but early adopters will still have only limited options. Sony's going to push behind it with all of their might since PS3 sales were huge last year and adding support is as simple as a firmware update (to the end users, anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), but honestly? I'm going to be watching with detached interest - really, just reading the articles - to see what happens with the adult film industry and 3D. They may not ever have a booth at CES, but more than once they've been seminal in the broader adoption of emerging visual technologies. No pun intended.



They didnt just have a booth, they had an entire convention center! All abuzz about 3D.


----------



## bill4903485

Someone should have sold asprin and ibuprophen at the CES 2010 3D displays. They would have probably have made a fortune.


As for the buzz in the air, it quickly dissapated once a fully realized product was sitting in front of them. From DailyTech, listed as one of the most overblown demonstrations or lowlights of CES 2010...

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17371 

_Three-Dimensional Television/Monitors:

3D was the buzz word on the tongues of every major LCD screen maker. Even the cabbies were talking about it. However, this colorful fad ultimately seems like another questionable promise from a technology that has been flirted with for decades, but never fully embraced.


The fact of the matter is simple. As wonderful as watching your media of choice -- sports, movies, or pornography -- in 3D might be, it still requires you to put on goofy glasses. Outside the movie theater, this has never caught on in the past (despite repeated attempts), and it seems unlikely to now. Can you imagine a bunch of guys sitting down to watch a football game, and the party host saying, "Wait! We've all got to put on our 3D glasses!"?


Such as scene seems pretty unlikely, so that leaves 3D gaming. Sure gamers might be able to swallow the nerd-factor (its hard to be offended by uncool glasses when you're logging 10 hour runs in Warcraft). However, in more cutting edge titles many gamers will be unable to use the tech, as it cuts frame rates by as much as 20 or 30 percent. Final benchmarks remain to be seen, but if early estimates hold true, it seems many gamers will be hesitant to trade their frame rates for 3D glitz.


That leaves so-called "auto-stereoscopic" technologies, still in their nascent stages. Such glasses-free 3D tech is certainly promising, but currently lack the pop of its awkward glasses-driven brethren, raising questions on their price. Many models also suffer from image distortion at certain viewing angles. Clearly this is the more promising approach, but it has a long way to go.


Some analysts estimate that 3D TV revenue could reach $22B USD by 2018. That could certainly be true if manufacturers throw in the chip on most of their lineup. However, that still doesn't mean that anyone will be using the awkward TV plus glasses setup. The 3D chip (unless its of the glasses free variety) will likely sit gathering dust. *You couldn't find a more perfect example of overblown CES 2010 hype than 3D TV*._


----------



## mlankton




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sirjonsnow* /forum/post/17763923
> 
> 
> If I want 3-D I'll go outside.



exactly


----------



## mlankton

When displays can render a 3D image without the need for glasses it will go mainstream. Until then it's SVHS all over again.


----------



## Shtopor

Hi, guys, I am new here, and guess what, the only reason I am here is because

I planed to buy 52" LED Aquos these past holidays and happened to see Avatar. Then I

realized its really what I want. 3D . Then I began research and found about CES2010 and your forum. What I found on this forum is a lot of chaps who invested in their HDTVs and

bashing 3DTV. Guys u have your 2D HDTV ? fine, watch them and keep tracking of how blacks are on your Kuros. But when I walk in the store in the next 12 month (I postponed buying HDTV for now) ALL I will be looking at is 3d HDTV . For me personally 2D tv, Kuro or Shmuro doesn't exist anymore. I saw a few 3d movies so far, Avatar made me believe that 3D is the future. There is only one thing to that. It has to be 1080p/120fps per eye.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> The fact of the matter is simple. As wonderful as watching your media of choice -- sports, movies, or pornography -- in 3D might be, it still requires you to put on goofy glasses.



Well, surprize surprize... we have to wear glasses? Really? That's such a game-changer to all of the conversations we've been having, since no one has realized that until this article.












> Quote:
> If I want 3-D I'll go outside.



You want color? Just go outside. You want high resolution? Just go outside. You want moving pictures? Just go outside.


----------



## John Robert




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17914164
> 
> 
> Yeah, let's all get in on the next big thing



Let's list some of the "next big things" that have come along in the reproduction of movies. Sound, color, multi-channel sound, HD resolution and now 3D. All logical steps in the continuation of efforts to create a life-like experience on your silver screen. Why are you so opposed to the next step in that progression? Was sound hype? Color? HD?


3D is just the next level. It's that simple...


John


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Robert* /forum/post/17915952
> 
> 
> Let's list some of the "next big things" that have come along in the reproduction of movies. Sound, color, multi-channel sound, HD resolution and now 3D.




Don't forget Widescreen...


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17915789
> 
> 
> Well, surprize surprize... we have to wear glasses? Really? That's such a game-changer to all of the conversations we've been having, since no one has realized that until this article.



People who wear glasses because their eyes are not working 100%

will not watch 3D on their 3Dtv for several hours a day with another

set of (3D)glasses upon their glasses,aint gonna happen.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *8mile13* /forum/post/17916665
> 
> 
> People who wear glasses because their eyes are not working 100%
> 
> will not watch 3D on their 3Dtv for several hours a day with another
> 
> set of (3D)glasses upon their glasses,aint gonna happen.



And you said that in one scentence, which makes more sense than a multi-paragraph diatribe touting the immenent failure of 3D... because 3D viewing requires eyewear.


----------



## 8mile13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17916697
> 
> 
> ... because 3D viewing requires eyewear.



What about auto-stereoscopic 3D?


----------



## Agreed

3D is going to be shuttered glasses for some time to come unless you want to pay an enormous amount of money. Projector polarizers (just the polarizers, not factoring in the cost of a projector) cost $1500, maybe (MAYBE) DLP RPTVs could implement some kind of polarized technology. And all current auto-stereoscopic sets are either "sub-720p" (and they won't go into details on just HOW "sub" we're talkin' here) or so finicky and costly that only early adopters with much more disposable income than middle-class consumers will be able to bring them home any time soon.


In 5 years, assuming development continues (and it will) and 3D technology grows apace, we should be seeing some really cool stuff coming down the pipe. For now shuttered glasses at 120fps/eye are going to be our best bet.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17914834
> 
> 
> Someone should have sold asprin and ibuprophen at the CES 2010 3D displays. They would have probably have made a fortune.
> 
> 
> As for the buzz in the air, it quickly dissapated once a fully realized product was sitting in front of them. From DailyTech, listed as one of the most overblown demonstrations or lowlights of CES 2010...
> 
> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17371
> 
> _Three-Dimensional Television/Monitors:
> 
> 3D was the buzz word on the tongues of every major LCD screen maker. Even the cabbies were talking about it. However, this colorful fad ultimately seems like another questionable promise from a technology that has been flirted with for decades, but never fully embraced.
> 
> 
> The fact of the matter is simple. As wonderful as watching your media of choice -- sports, movies, or pornography -- in 3D might be, it still requires you to put on goofy glasses. Outside the movie theater, this has never caught on in the past (despite repeated attempts), and it seems unlikely to now. Can you imagine a bunch of guys sitting down to watch a football game, and the party host saying, "Wait! We've all got to put on our 3D glasses!"?
> 
> 
> Such as scene seems pretty unlikely, so that leaves 3D gaming. Sure gamers might be able to swallow the nerd-factor (its hard to be offended by uncool glasses when you're logging 10 hour runs in Warcraft). However, in more cutting edge titles many gamers will be unable to use the tech, as it cuts frame rates by as much as 20 or 30 percent. Final benchmarks remain to be seen, but if early estimates hold true, it seems many gamers will be hesitant to trade their frame rates for 3D glitz.
> 
> 
> That leaves so-called "auto-stereoscopic" technologies, still in their nascent stages. Such glasses-free 3D tech is certainly promising, but currently lack the pop of its awkward glasses-driven brethren, raising questions on their price. Many models also suffer from image distortion at certain viewing angles. Clearly this is the more promising approach, but it has a long way to go.
> 
> 
> Some analysts estimate that 3D TV revenue could reach $22B USD by 2018. That could certainly be true if manufacturers throw in the chip on most of their lineup. However, that still doesn't mean that anyone will be using the awkward TV plus glasses setup. The 3D chip (unless its of the glasses free variety) will likely sit gathering dust. *You couldn't find a more perfect example of overblown CES 2010 hype than 3D TV*._



Contrary to the sentiments of this article, almost everyone at CES was excited by the 3D technology. Of course people are eagerly going to put shuttered glasses on when you have a 3D football game showing in your home. They will realize that they are experiencing something that can't be experienced with normal HDTV. Do you wear the glasses 24 hours a day? Of course not, but when there is something on that you want to watch in 3D, you will be ready. I spent 3 days looking at 3D. It will become popular THIS YEAR. I've got nothing invested in it, except that I like to see technology move forward and the shuttered glasses technology is a giant leap over red/blue or even polarized glasses from the past. Panasonic had a camera for sale for $20,000 that shoots 3D. It's a prosumer camera that is going to be perfect for porn. There are already porn movies shot in 3D that will be released on Blu-ray. The critics on this forum are going to be shocked at how the public will want this technology.


----------



## tigerfan33




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17917191
> 
> 
> Of course people are eagerly going to put shuttered glasses on when you have a 3D football game showing in your home.



Yea. I can't wait to have a group of people over to watch a ballgame, talk about the game have conversation.......wearing sunglasses!!!!


----------



## fire407

Many people will---and I dare say, someday you will too.


----------



## Agreed

Good news, everyone!

Porn Studios Lead the Stampede into 3D TV 


Smart money is on 3DTV hanging around as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Matt L

Let me borrow this quote from a little read thread Maurice2 posted the other day. pretty much sums it up:



> Quote:
> "3D comes to your living room" was supposed to be one of the biggest stories at CES 2010, and indeed it was—the promotional push by Panasonic, LG, Samsung, Sony, and a few smaller panel makers was massive, with multimillion-dollar booth setups intended to awe conference-goers and start the technology off with a bang.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the billions that have been pumped into R&D and manufacturing for 3D TVs, the normally hype-friendly press has been completely underwhelmed by what its sees after donning the ubiquitous shutter glasses here on the show floor. The collective response from the early adopter crowd at every booth has been, "Meh, I'm not going to buy one of these."
> 
> 
> But because of the specific approach that the industry has settled on, consumers don't have to be bowled over for 3D TV to wind up in every living room. Here's a look at the current state of 3D TV, and at why it's coming to a screen near you whether you like it or not.




For some interesting reading read the comment section.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...y-or-not.ars/1


----------



## bill4903485

Interesting. Because I read that "almost everyone at CES was excited by the 3D technology" from a very reliable source... someone who has yet to see the actual implementation of the technology.


----------



## bill4903485




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17921384
> 
> 
> Good news, everyone!
> 
> Porn Studios Lead the Stampede into 3D TV
> 
> 
> Smart money is on 3DTV hanging around as far as I'm concerned.



I would have agreed with your logic Agreed in 1994, even 1999. The porn industry definitely helped to advance technology in the previous two decades.


But it's 2010; and we've been living in an Internet age for a while. Piracy has left the music and porn industry crippled. They don't have much heft behind their push like year's past.


3D will likely be pushed and fail, only to be repackaged. Just like quad failed because you needed extra speakers, 3D fails because you need extra glasses.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17921838
> 
> 
> Interesting. Because I read that "almost everyone at CES was excited by the 3D technology" from a very reliable source... someone who has yet to see the actual implementation of the technology.



If you're quoting me, then you need to read the rest of my post. I spent 3 days at CES looking at all of the 3D demonstrations. I think that there are just too many people on this forum with their heads buried in the sand just hoping that 3D will go away. It's most likely due to the fact that some people on this forum have recently invested in a new HDTV that is clearly not going to be state of the art later this year. I think that the shuttered glasses approach is the most perfect way to present 3D right now. Each eye gets a discreet picture, unlike polarized glasses where the images aren't totally isolated. Live events such as football look fantastic, and like I mentioned earlier, Wheel of Fortune looked great. I wish that everyone on this forum could have attended CES and then we could be discussing what worked and what didn't work. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but overwhelmingly the sentiment from the attendees at CES was that 3D is going to be huge, but you wouldn't know it by reading some of the reviews. Perhaps some other people that attended CES will post and give their opinion. When DirecTV and ESPN publicize programs that will be presented in 3D, people will want to know what they need to see it. Also, 3D Blu-ray movies and 3D porn will contribute to the success. If the demos in the stores look as good as most of the displays at CES, then the public will want it.


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17917118
> 
> 
> 3D is going to be shuttered glasses for some time to come unless you want to pay an enormous amount of money. Projector polarizers (just the polarizers, not factoring in the cost of a projector) cost $1500



The $1500 is I assume for a rapidly switching polarizer to enable the use of one projector. This would also require a very bright projector since sequential polarization cuts light output and you also need a silver screen to maintain the polarization.

Normal camera circular polarizers cost


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> 3D will likely be pushed and fail, only to be repackaged. Just like quad failed because you needed extra speakers, 3D fails because you need extra glasses.



And Just like 5.1 discrete surround sound failed misserably because you needed extra speakers.


Oh wait a minute, that didn't fail. I guess needing something extra doesn't automatically mean something fails. Maybe Quad failed because the 4-channel separation on LP sucked big-time and sounded awful, but 5.1 discrete sounded great?


----------



## Agreed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17921861
> 
> 
> I would have agreed with your logic Agreed in 1994, even 1999. The porn industry definitely helped to advance technology in the previous two decades.
> 
> 
> But it's 2010; and



... and Blu-Ray won in no small part due to the adult film industry picking it as the format of choice for pornography. Seriously, look it up


----------



## bill4903485




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17922825
> 
> 
> And Just like 5.1 discrete surround sound failed misserably because you needed extra speakers.
> 
> 
> Oh wait a minute, that didn't fail. I guess needing something extra doesn't automatically mean something fails. Maybe Quad failed because the 4-channel separation on LP sucked big-time and sounded awful, but 5.1 discrete sounded great?



David, you are the most wide-eyed dude in the bunch. Quad debuted in 1970. It was repackaged several times in the eighties and nineties, before finally taking hold thirty years later.


Although is 5.1 in every home? Not even close. And having 3D in every home is required by investors for success. That's why you want the majority in this forum to wear those silly little glasses. So you badger and bully to get a head start. But it still isn't going to happen.


----------



## bill4903485




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17923539
> 
> 
> ... and Blu-Ray won in no small part due to the adult film industry picking it as the format of choice for pornography. Seriously, look it up


 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17033892...playmode/1098/


----------



## Agreed

If having 5.1 in every home isn't required for investors' success or for the format to be successful, why is having 3D in every home required for investors' success? Okay, there are people still using SD TVs and VCRs. Hold-outs or folks who can't afford better technology. That's a shame for them given the difficulty in getting non-broadcast media for their setup, but capitalism means stratification, very different debate to be had there.


But 3D is basically eventually going to be in at least every home that has recently bought an HDTV, as the technology moves downward through the ranks in price (well, you can get a 60"+ DLP RPTV that'll do at least 60/60 3D from a good manufacturer for under a grand and you've been able to do so for years now, it's mainly newer technologies catching up). It will be around, whether people use it or not, and BDs will pretty much all have it since it's fully backwards compatible and nearly every home with an HDTV will have the capability to view the media in 3D.


If all that doesn't spell success I don't know what does. They're basically doing everything shy of giving them away to ensure that 3D comes into your house to stay, whether you prefer to use it or not. The only thing a lot of people are going to have to buy will be glasses, anyway, and they'll come down in price.


I'm warming up to its inevitability if nothing else.


----------



## Agreed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17923684
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17033892...playmode/1098/



My article was published this month, yours is 3 years old. I win!










(Although "Hard Times for the Porn Industry?" is a hilarious title for an article, so I have to give you kudos for finding a good one if nothing else!)


----------



## bill4903485




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17923702
> 
> 
> My article was published this month, yours is 3 years old. I win!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Although "Hard Times for the Porn Industry?" is a hilarious title for an article, so I have to give you kudos for finding a good one if nothing else!)



Has the information changed though? If anything, the porn industry and music industry have taken an even greater downturn. I had remembered reading the article a few years ago. From that same time period, there are also articles about the porn industry actually adopting HD-DVD at first due to Blu-ray licensing costs.


The porn industry taking credit for Blu-rays moderate success is like Michael Jackson calling himself the King of Pop. But not the 1984 Michael, but the one of the late 2000's.


----------



## bill4903485




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17923698
> 
> 
> If having 5.1 in every home isn't required for investors' success or for the format to be successful, why is having 3D in every home required for investors' success?



Because we're in a tough economy and 3D tv is useless without content?


Anyhow 3D's success isn't necessarily predicated on being in every home. It's like Internet ads. The Internet is now in the majority of homes. But would you be willing to invest into the promise of Internet advertizing when the majority also use ad blockers. I know I wouldn't.


3D is dependant on general acceptance. And based on early reports, it doesn't look good for this incarnation. Kind of like the failed early promise of DLNA on every television. I imagine that geeks have even more sway than the porn industry. In the very least, I would invest heavily in aspirin stock.


----------



## Agreed

Porn and gamers, really. But it certainly looked like a toss-up there for awhile, having pornography studios on the side of BD and having it in a lot of homes thanks to Sony's wise BD strategy regardling the PS3 definitely helped sway some of the bigger companies. It was an important factor, at the very least.


There's already a porn studio that's offering a $3999 full package (no pun intended) with a quality 3D-capable HDTV, shutter glasses, and a small computer very much like a compact HTPC capable of streaming the exclusive fully 3D content from their web site. They plan to produce BD discs before too long, too, though I'm sure that depends on the success of their service. But don't underestimate smut - the proliferation of free pornography, legal or copyright-infringing, and the proliferation of studios to the point of greater competition for the limited market still hasn't reduced consumption, it's just made it more competitive. The aforementioned streaming model is clever, if they use something like Hulu's protections it will be very difficult and not worth the time (not to mention require a subscription fee to begin with, a pretty good inhibitor to most would-be pirates) to try and capture the content and propagate it via nefarious channels.


Everybody wants to save rock and roll, but this could be a big boon to the porn industry, whether in feast or famine.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Although is 5.1 in every home? Not even close. And having 3D in every home is required by investors for success.



And are multi-channel receivers a "success"? They sure are. I don't see why every home needs 3D for it to be a success. Every home doesn't need Blu-ray for it to be a success.


3D stands to catch a wider penetration than either 5.1 audio or Blu-ray. 5.1 audio requires speakers to be set up and wired all around the room... not something that every well decorated living room is able to incorporate (notice that many homes without discrete 5.1 buy those bose systems that falsely advertise "surround sound from only 2 speakers!" to avoid running wires and having speakers all over the formal living room).


3D glasses don't force you move the couch or to run wires through your wall or to have some ugly speaker on a stand clashing with the decor. The glasses will fit into the drawer in the coffee table when not in use. The barriers that exist for 5.1 discrete audio won't impede 3D.


Will there be reistance to glasses? Sure, by some. But it's a different issue with different variables. And even if just a quarter of HDTV ownder are watching 3D in a few years, that would be a huge market share given the time they'll spend watching dedicated 3D channels on their Direct TV and cable... the advertising revenue for those channels will be tremendous.


----------



## MikeBiker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17922825
> 
> 
> And Just like 5.1 discrete surround sound failed misserably because you needed extra speakers.
> 
> 
> Oh wait a minute, that didn't fail. I guess needing something extra doesn't automatically mean something fails. Maybe Quad failed because the 4-channel separation on LP sucked big-time and sounded awful, but 5.1 discrete sounded great?



LPs in Quad was a stupid idea. Just like 3-D with special glasses.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/17924225
> 
> 
> LPs in Quad was a stupid idea. Just like 3-D with special glasses.



I don't recall thousands of regular consumers paying a premium price to listen to Quad, but they seem to enjoy going out of their way to see Avatar in 3D... wearing special glasses.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/17924225
> 
> 
> LPs in Quad was a stupid idea. Just like 3-D with special glasses.



Special glasses are such a stupid idea that I don't see how James Cameron could shoot Avatar in 3D and get millions of people to go see it wearing glasses. You do understand that you won't wear glasses 24 hours a day, but when there's something special that you want to watch in 3D, you can.

I was typing the same time David was, but the sentiments are the same.


----------



## greenland




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MikeBiker* /forum/post/17924225
> 
> 
> LPs in Quad was a stupid idea. Just like 3-D with special glasses.



Compact Discs, in surround sound, is a more apt comparison, and they were a roaring success.


This is the digital age. Enough with the specious comparisons from a bygone analog processing era.


I am surprised that you did not claim that 3D would fail, because singing through a megaphone, like Rudy Vallee did, never really caught on.


----------



## pmreedjr

I don't mind wearing the glasses, in fact, I wear glasses all the time. My only concern when I buy my 72" or bigger 3-D HDTV this year is how comfortable the shutter glasses will be with my existing glasses. I watched Avatar 3-D on an Imax screen, and I'm sold. Read that? Sold!! I'm also in my middle 60s, so all the talk about what might be in 2015 or 2020 is irrelevant to me. If I'm still around and compass in 10 years I suspect I'll have whatever's current then. I'm definitely buying in this year and will upgrade again in a couple of years if I need to. My current 65" Pioneer RPTV will go to a deserving family or on the trash heap. It's been a great set, but I have seen the future and I'm in it!


----------



## Agreed

Sir, I feel my family deserves a RPTV. It is your duty, nay, divine providence that it should be shipped to me free of charge.


----------



## Shtopor

I don't know but people name glasses as a showstoper for 3D here. I personally have no problem wearing glasses for 2-3 hours for a nice movie experience.

Obviously I will not use them for news or other stuff.

When Jake in Avatar was walking on the tree brunch and looked down ( with th camera) I felt tingling the same as if I was there, a few seconds later I realized that none of movie experiences gave me that immersion.

What I really like to ask you guys from your experience which technology is better suited for 3D is it LCD/LED or Plasma. I mean from technical standpoint

where do u think engineers will be able to reduce cross-talk between images

between right and left eye?

Those who was on the floor report that LG and Panasonic Plasmas gave better

feeling of 3D, is it because of technology or it might be just implementation of

3D on LED TVs that was not on par with what Panasonic engineers managed to achieve.


----------



## Agreed

For now, I think DLP RPTVs and Plasma will offer the best quality 3D. LCDs have some trouble with state changing, so the smoothest, least headache-inducing experiences (120hz left/120hz right) may not be technologically possible in every case, or might have some picture quality issues. It's one thing to be able to display frames in even multiples to account for the differences in 24fps versus 60fps material, and another entirely to actually change the picture 240 times per second as is required for visually transparent 120/120 3D shutter glasses. Plasma won't have problems with it and DLP RPTVs won't have problems with it. I'd be wary of early-adopting LCDs that advertise that functionality, at least make sure to audition them first. Remember that your peripheral vision is more apt at noticing flickering and motion anomalies/artifacts, so pay careful attention when auditioning an LCD and make sure you get to check out material that tests the weaknesses of the technology and not just the strengths. Sure, bright sunny day stuff should be fine, but what about darker scenes with gray to black transitions where LCDs have traditionally suffered performance-wise?


(I say this as a strong supporter of LCD technology, I would hope others here could be a little bit less precious about their own preferred tech too...)


----------



## AJSJones




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/17925242
> 
> 
> For now, I think DLP RPTVs and Plasma will offer the best quality 3D. LCDs have some trouble with state changing, so the smoothest, least headache-inducing experiences (120hz left/120hz right) may not be technologically possible in every case, or might have some picture quality issues. It's one thing to be able to display frames in even multiples to account for the differences in 24fps versus 60fps material, and another entirely to actually change the picture 240 times per second as is required for visually transparent 120/120 3D shutter glasses. Plasma won't have problems with it and DLP RPTVs won't have problems with it. I'd be wary of early-adopting LCDs that advertise that functionality, at least make sure to audition them first. Remember that your peripheral vision is more apt at noticing flickering and motion anomalies/artifacts, so pay careful attention when auditioning an LCD and make sure you get to check out material that tests the weaknesses of the technology and not just the strengths. Sure, bright sunny day stuff should be fine, but what about darker scenes with gray to black transitions where LCDs have traditionally suffered performance-wise?
> 
> 
> (I say this as a strong supporter of LCD technology, I would hope others here could be a little bit less precious about their own preferred tech too...)



Perhaps that's the reasoning behind the LG first FP (6 panel LCOS - dual optical system) to keep the brightness up and deal with the slowness of the transitions when 120/240 is for different eyes rather than the 2D situation where it's just motion transitions....


----------



## Shtopor

You mention DLP, but isn't DLP is capable of showing at most 900 lines for each eye? I might not know that is the case with never sets but I believe even Mitsubishi LaserVue is in that category.

another thing, I remember when I used my first monitors (CRT) flicker was the problem ( my eyes got sore after a few hours of work). I did find a reason for it then - low refresh rate (40hz). Do you think 60Hz for each eye is OK for flicker free experience I thought 72Hz or better 96hz per eye would be more appropriate. That is why I feel 120Hz is a safer bet flickerwise. so far I understand plasmas are doing 60left +60right refresh which is OK for short periods, but might cause eyes to get 'tired' during longer periods.

60Hz that LCD monitor does is not indicative as there is no clear frame refresh

with LCDs, so they don't give our eyes a hard time.


----------



## Maurice2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pmreedjr* /forum/post/17924573
> 
> 
> I wear glasses all the time. My only concern when I buy my 72" or bigger 3-D HDTV this year is how comfortable the shutter glasses will be with my existing glasses. I watched Avatar 3-D on an Imax screen, and I'm sold.



When you watched Avatar, how comfortable were the 3D glasses over your existing glasses?


----------



## Agreed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shtopor* /forum/post/17925817
> 
> 
> You mention DLP, but isn't DLP is capable of showing at most 900 lines for each eye? I might not know that is the case with never sets but I believe even Mitsubishi LaserVue is in that category.
> 
> another thing, I remember when I used my first monitors (CRT) flicker was the problem ( my eyes got sore after a few hours of work). I did find a reason for it then - low refresh rate (40hz). Do you think 60Hz for each eye is OK for flicker free experience I thought 72Hz or better 96hz per eye would be more appropriate. That is why I feel 120Hz is a safer bet flickerwise. so far I understand plasmas are doing 60left +60right refresh which is OK for short periods, but might cause eyes to get 'tired' during longer periods.
> 
> 60Hz that LCD monitor does is not indicative as there is no clear frame refresh
> 
> with LCDs, so they don't give our eyes a hard time.



Flicker is awful if you can see it. I can see it, it kills me, I'm that guy that goes around setting coworkers' refresh rates to however high their monitor will handle when they aren't looking, for their own benefit and mine. I can spot flicker very noticeably up to about 75hz. Past that, I can still see it in my peripheral vision. My favorite CRT monitor back before the sea change to LCDs was a great aperture grille CRT, I forget the maker but it was one of the really high-end CRTs at the time. It would do really high resolutions at 120HZ and it was an absolute godsend at the time. There is no way at all I could watch any kind of 3D Shuttered-Glasses technology TV at 60hz per eye, it would give me a headache within minutes. So I won't be investing personally until I can be sure I can get a good 240hz TV for a 120/120 experience.


The flicker issue isn't with the TV so much as with the glasses, by the way, but it's still a problem for some who are sensitive to it (like you and me) with 120hz 3D that flickers 60hz and 60hz.


----------



## pmreedjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Maurice2* /forum/post/17925827
> 
> 
> When you watched Avatar, how comfortable were the 3D glasses over your existing glasses?



Quite comfortable. As the movie progressed, I generally forgot I had stacked glasses. The theater where I went had more that one glass size , and I got a large size. A lot of people wear glasses and any 3-D scheme that doesn't take that into account starts out handicapped.


----------



## Agreed

What makes you think there are only going to be SlimFit, the Glasses For Small Heads for this newfangled shuttered technology? Shouldn't there be something like, I don't know, adjustable glasses? All sorts of headphones are adjustable, I listen on a set of Sennheiser HD 650s because oh my sweet lord they sound like angels singing into your ears, but even Radioshack specials (some of which, forgive the digression, actually use Koss Portapro drivers which are remarkably linear for their price and hence which do not suck... digression over) have adjustable headbands. Obviously traditional glasses are sized to fit individuals, but why wouldn't 3D shuttered glasses be engineered specifically to avoid what is surely the most likely issue with their use?


----------



## DolfanJay

I'm very excited about 3D. The possibilities are huge. People are gonna come up with ideas about how to use this technology that we haven't even thought of.


The glasses dont bother me I wear glasses all day now anyways.










As far as content goes I think there will be a lot of it available within a year. I mean the TV manufacturers are onboard along with the studios and networks. Just sports alone sounds like reason enough to own one of these. Another poster said Wheel of Fortune looked good on 3D. Anything that can make a crappy show like Wheel of Fortune worth watching must be doing something right.


I cant wait till some of these sets start showing up at BestBuy. I hope they set up a good demo area. I bet there will be lines to check it out.


----------



## jbug

In the meantime check out Sonystyle stores. They have demos set up using their new 3D TVs with a PS3.


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17924201
> 
> 
> 3D glasses don't force you move the couch or to run wires through your wall or to have some ugly speaker on a stand clashing with the decor. The glasses will fit into the drawer in the coffee table when not in use. The barriers that exist for 5.1 discrete audio won't impede 3D.



I liked this post so much I decided to ditto it. So I did.


Take that, you, you....3-D Luddites....


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DolfanJay* /forum/post/17929301
> 
> 
> I'm very excited about 3D. The possibilities are huge. People are gonna come up with ideas about how to use this technology that we haven't even thought of.



One idea I heard thrown around is that someday a TV could show TWO programs at once full screen on the same screen. In other words, one person would wear shuttered glasses where both eyes are getting the same frames, and then another person would wear glasses where they would see the alternate frames. Because each person would see at least 60 frames per second, it would be similar to looking at normal HD, except that each person would obviously have to wear headphones. I don't think anyone is actually putting that technology into the new TVs, but it might happen someday. I think it might be useful for a couple watching TV in the bedroom where each person could watch what they want---or perhaps two people wanting to watch a large 72 in screen in the family room at the same time.


----------



## bill4903485




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrimeTime* /forum/post/17941153
> 
> 
> I liked this post so much I decided to ditto it. So I did.
> 
> 
> Take that, you, you....3-D Luddites....



More like non-early adopters. BTW, you can view a 3D demonstration at most Sony Style stores. Would be great for people to comment based on what they have actually seen. It personally gave me a slight headache.


----------



## jbug

There's a thread just on the subject of the Sonystyle store demo.


----------



## usgambit

Question. I just bought a Pro-151FD (I got a really good price) and am waiting for it to be delivered, so I have some time to make up my mind. All this talk of 3d is making me think I should maybe wait. What do you guys think?


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usgambit* /forum/post/17962129
> 
> 
> Question. I just bought a Pro-151FD (I got a really good price) and am waiting for it to be delivered, so I have some time to make up my mind. All this talk of 3d is making me think I should maybe wait. What do you guys think?



If I was in your position, I would wait. There are a lot of negative comments about 3D on this forum(I'm actually surprised at how much hatred is being expressed toward it), but it's mostly from people that haven't even seen it implemented yet. I also think a lot of criticism is coming from people that have a lot invested in their current setups, and they don't want to see them become less state of the art overnight. I saw a Panasonic 3D demo last April, and even though I thought it looked great, I thought it would be at least 2 or 3 years before it would be available. After going to CES and spending 3 days looking at the various demonstrations, I can tell you that I am very pleased that it's coming this soon, and I will be buying a new 3D TV this year. I almost bought a 65" plasma earlier this year, and if I had, I would be regretting it now. Since you know what's coming, I think you should wait. I'm also sure that you are going to get a lot of people telling you that 3D isn't important, and you should go ahead and get the Pro-151FD. You have to decide if the bargain you are getting will offset any future potential regret. Of course any situation can be fixed later, where you could sell the Pro-151FD and apply the money towards a new 3D TV if it appeals to you, but you would probably take a bit of a hit financially.


----------



## whitetrash66




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17962488
> 
> 
> If I was in your position, I would wait. There are a lot of negative comments about 3D on this forum(I'm actually surprised at how much hatred is being expressed toward it), but it's mostly from people that haven't even seen it implemented yet. I also think a lot of criticism is coming from people that have a lot invested in their current setups, and they don't want to see them become less state of the art overnight. I saw a Panasonic 3D demo last April, and even though I thought it looked great, I thought it would be at least 2 or 3 years before it would be available. After going to CES and spending 3 days looking at the various demonstrations, I can tell you that I am very pleased that it's coming this soon, and I will be buying a new 3D TV this year. I almost bought a 65" plasma earlier this year, and if I had, I would be regretting it now. Since you know what's coming, I think you should wait. I'm also sure that you are going to get a lot of people telling you that 3D isn't important, and you should go ahead and get the Pro-151FD. You have to decide if the bargain you are getting will offset any future potential regret. Of course any situation can be fixed later, where you could sell the Pro-151FD and apply the money towards a new 3D TV if it appeals to you, but you would probably take a bit of a hit financially.




Did you find any differences between the 3D of the new sets at CES? I wish i could see one in person, but no luck where i am


----------



## Matt L




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17962488
> 
> 
> If I was in your position, I would wait. There are a lot of negative comments about 3D on this forum(I'm actually surprised at how much hatred is being expressed toward it), but it's mostly from people that haven't even seen it implemented yet. I also think a lot of criticism is coming from people that have a lot invested in their current setups, and they don't want to see them become less state of the art overnight.



You know, it's a lot simpler than that. Most, if not all, of us that have a negative opinion on the topic have been around for a few years and have experience with this stuff. By stuff I mean products and hype. I've been doing this since the time of CD-4, and loose count of the dozens of formats, and "Improvements" that have been "must haves" over the decades. And I can tell you with a fair degree of certainly that any format that requires people to put on glasses will be doomed to failure. Plus you have the dueling formats, and you require studios to add costs in a tight economy, not going to happen.


I may be wrong, but I will be very surprised if I am. 3d is a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## usgambit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17963122
> 
> 
> You know, it's a lot simpler than that. Most, if not all, of us that have a negative opinion on the topic have been around for a few years and have experience with this stuff. By stuff I mean products and hype. I've been doing this since the time of CD-4, and loose count of the dozens of formats, and "Improvements" that have been "must haves" over the decades. And I can tell you with a fair degree of certainly that any format that requires people to put on glasses will be doomed to failure. Plus you have the dueling formats, and you require studios to add costs in a tight economy, not going to happen.
> 
> 
> I may be wrong, but I will be very surprised if I am. 3d is a solution in search of a problem.



That is part of my problem. I have the chance to get this diamond set for a good price, and if I snooze I will definitely lose, but at the same time I am scared that if I buy now, I am going to regret it within the next couple of years, and there is no way my wife will let me buy another TV any time soon (at least 4 or 5 years).


It's a tough decision!


----------



## whitetrash66




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usgambit* /forum/post/17963335
> 
> 
> That is part of my problem. I have the chance to get this diamond set for a good price, and if I snooze I will definitely lose, but at the same time I am scared that if I buy now, I am going to regret it within the next couple of years, and there is no way my wife will let me buy another TV any time soon (at least 4 or 5 years).
> 
> 
> It's a tough decision!



i just went through the same thing, but i have decided to wait. Sure the TVs will be a bit more when they come out (prices are low now! that is what makes waiting so hard







) but the newer sets should have improved PQ and more features PLUS 3D. The way i think of it is, i am going to get the new Sony XBR-HX900.The PQ should be better than most of last years Sony sets, as it has 240 hertz motionflow pro with scanning backlight, local dimming, and the newest version of their processor, the Bravia Engine 3, all improvements. PLUS it has 3D, that's the bonus of it.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> I may be wrong, but I will be very surprised if I am. 3d is a solution in search of a problem.



sort of like blu-ray was a solution in search of a problem. Sort of like DVD was a solution in search of a problem. sort of like 1080p was a solution in search of a problem.


In all cases, the vast majority of consumers were happy as clams with what they had, and were not looking foward to repurchasing their movie inventory or their video hardware. Only the hard-core enthusiasts get excited about something better, because they tend to care more about the experience of improved AV performance than they do about the need to replace equipment.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitetrash66* /forum/post/17963013
> 
> 
> Did you find any differences between the 3D of the new sets at CES? I wish i could see one in person, but no luck where i am



you'll be able to check out 3D soon at a Sony Styles store.


3D sets should start to really show up on the market mid-late 2010. The up-charge for 3D will vary by brand and technology used. VIZIO's 3D line-up looks to be very competitively priced along side their 2D-only sets.


----------



## usgambit

Does anyone know any potential pricing?


I would be interested in the Panasonic plasma, which I understand would be the equivalent of their current top of the range set, and I believe that retails for about $9,000 or so. Is this what we think the new sets will retail for.


----------



## bill4903485




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17963122
> 
> 
> You know, it's a lot simpler than that. Most, if not all, of us that have a negative opinion on the topic have been around for a few years and have experience with this stuff. By stuff I mean products and hype. I've been doing this since the time of CD-4, and loose count of the dozens of formats, and "Improvements" that have been "must haves" over the decades. And I can tell you with a fair degree of certainly that any format that requires people to put on glasses will be doomed to failure. Plus you have the dueling formats, and you require studios to add costs in a tight economy, not going to happen.
> 
> 
> I may be wrong, but I will be very surprised if I am. 3d is a solution in search of a problem.



You're not going to be able to reach the emotionally invested with simple common sense. They are going to have to learn the hard way.


----------



## Neceo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usgambit* /forum/post/17964489
> 
> 
> Does anyone know any potential pricing?
> 
> 
> I would be interested in the Panasonic plasma, which I understand would be the equivalent of their current top of the range set, and I believe that retails for about $9,000 or so. Is this what we think the new sets will retail for.



uumm where is there a plasma that is 9k? I know of their top of the line z model that is about 5-6 ( still high)


All the suggestions of pricing for the Panasonic line is that it will be about the same as when the V's came out in 2009, so 54in at 2500


Sony's led/lcd is more expensive and i thought i saw something somewhere suggesting the 52in is around 3500ish


----------



## James Howlett

I've seen this on a computer screen, where the graphics card did the work, It looked... weird, my question is why can't the dvd player, xbox, ps3 be the only thing needed to push 3d to the display device? it is after all only a display right? and 60hz is fast enough to deliver 30hz movies twice, am I wrong, is there something im missing as to why we need to purchase a new tv instead of just pushing the 3d picture to the display device?


----------



## dovercat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17963817
> 
> 
> sort of like blu-ray was a solution in search of a problem. Sort of like DVD was a solution in search of a problem. sort of like 1080p was a solution in search of a problem.
> 
> 
> In all cases, the vast majority of consumers were happy as clams with what they had, and were not looking foward to repurchasing their movie inventory or their video hardware. Only the hard-core enthusiasts get excited about something better, because they tend to care more about the experience of improved AV performance than they do about the need to replace equipment.



DVD is better than VHS, Blu-ray is better than DVD, 1080p is better than 480i.

3D is different, not better, different. That is what makes it a gimmick rather than an upgrade.

Yes I see the world in 3D with two eyes, but not in the way 3D on a 2D display displays it. If you like the effect then great, but I think the novelty will wear off for many people.


I would say it is like a game changer, like silent movies going to talkies, or black and white going to color. But the often exaggerated and unnatural looking effect and the limitations it places on how scenes are constructed, and the fact the viewer has to wear glasses. May limit its appeal.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dovercat* /forum/post/17966306
> 
> 
> DVD is better than VHS, Blu-ray is better than DVD, 1080p is better than 480i.
> 
> 3D is different, not better, different. That is what makes it a gimmick rather than an upgrade.
> 
> Yes I see the world in 3D with two eyes, but not in the way 3D on a 2D display displays it. If you like the effect then great, but I think the novelty will wear off for many people.
> 
> 
> I would say it is like a game changer, like silent movies going to talkies, or black and white going to color. But the often exaggerated and unnatural looking effect and the limitations it places on how scenes are constructed, and the fact the viewer has to wear glasses. May limit its appeal.




when done properly, 3D video preserves the same spacial depth cues as real-life viewing. The reason that color is better than B&W is because it's more like real life. The reason that 1080p is better than 480i is because it's more like real life. For the same reason 3D is better than 2D. And just like every other "tool of realism" available to an artist (resolution, color, sound etc.), 3D depth, or use of the tool at all, is at the discretion of the artist.


You and I both sound like we agree that bad use of 3D could be discouraging to its favor among the masses. I hope that the trend of good-3D like with Coraline, UP, and Avatar, is a sign of things to come. We all naturally dream of the day when we won't need glasses, but for not it's not too much to disuade most enthusiasts for the reward of real depth perception.


----------



## trem0lo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *usgambit* /forum/post/17962129
> 
> 
> Question. I just bought a Pro-151FD (I got a really good price) and am waiting for it to be delivered, so I have some time to make up my mind. All this talk of 3d is making me think I should maybe wait. What do you guys think?



Stick with the Pioneer. It is a really good set and you'll love the PQ. If you decide you really want 3D down the road, you'll have no problem getting someone to take it off your hands







Especially if 3D flops (or doesn't do well), Panasonic will have wasted time and resources they could have dedicated to utilizing their Kuro tech, which will make the 9G Kuros even more sought-after.


----------



## sopclod

I think the thing that surprises me most is that watching 3D movies with glasses isn't exactly new. Movie studios have been using it as a gimmick to get butts in seats for decades. I figured this was yet another resurgence of an old fad. I saw both Avatar and Captain Eo in 3D in theaters and it had the same gimmicky feel both times.


----------



## taz291819




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sopclod* /forum/post/17967233
> 
> 
> I think the thing that surprises me most is that watching 3D movies with glasses isn't exactly new. Movie studios have been using it as a gimmick to get butts in seats for decades. I figured this was yet another resurgence of an old fad. I saw both Avatar and Captain Eo in 3D in theaters and it had the same gimmicky feel both times.



What? Avatar is just the opposite of every film I've seen in 3D. Instead of the gimmicky pop-out effects, it drew you, the viewer, into the film.


What theater did you watch it in?


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bill4903485* /forum/post/17964512
> 
> 
> You're not going to be able to reach the emotionally invested with simple common sense. They are going to have to learn the hard way.



I'm not sure what you mean by "the hard way." Do you mean that you think that there will be no interest and then it will just go away? I don't think that will happen, but even if it did, I will still end up with a great 2D HDTV. It looks like there are a lot of people here that want it to fail. Well I don't. I liked what I saw at CES and I can't wait until I can watch 3D at home. If you don't want to watch it, just don't. It just seems to me that the critics here are hoping that their negative comments will make it never happen. That's just being naive, because it's going to happen, and I think that it will be huge. Of course not all 3D will be equal, and some sports and movies will look better than others, but when the public sees how good it can look, then they will want it. I just hope the Sony demos are playing full resolution in the Sony Style Stores. Perhaps eventually they'll use a 3D Blu-ray player with HDMI 1.4, instead of the PS3 for the demo. From what I've read, the PS3 can't do full resolution 3D, but I might be wrong.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taz291819* /forum/post/17968411
> 
> 
> What? Avatar is just the opposite of every film I've seen in 3D. Instead of the gimmicky pop-out effects, it drew you, the viewer, into the film.
> 
> 
> What theater did you watch it in?



Not to mention UP and Coraline which both used subtle, depth-producing 3D perspective for the most part with only the rare instance of anything protruding from the screen.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Perhaps eventually they'll use a 3D Blu-ray player with HDMI 1.4, instead of the PS3 for the demo. From what I've read, the PS3 can't do full resolution 3D, but I might be wrong.



Steve Venuti from HDMI confirmed that the PS3 will be fully updatable to "1.4 status" as far as 3-D functionality and protocols... but since it doesn't have the actual 1.4 chipset it won't be able to do extra 1.4 stuff like ethernet and 2-way audio streaming. But as far as HD 3D is concerned, the PS3 will be a fully functional "1.4" device and mate with an HDMI 1.4 HDTV for full-resolution 1080p 3D.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17968851
> 
> 
> Steve Venuti from HDMI confirmed that the PS3 will be fully updatable to "1.4 status" as far as 3-D functionality and protocols... but since it doesn't have the actual 1.4 chipset it won't be able to do extra 1.4 stuff like ethernet and 2-way audio streaming. But as far as HD 3D is concerned, the PS3 will be a fully functional "1.4" device and mate with an HDMI 1.4 HDTV for full-resolution 1080p 3D.



That sounds like good news. It will be great far the PS3 owners, and it might help keep the stand-alone players prices down below the price of the PS3.


----------



## usgambit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trem0lo* /forum/post/17967185
> 
> 
> Stick with the Pioneer. It is a really good set and you'll love the PQ. If you decide you really want 3D down the road, you'll have no problem getting someone to take it off your hands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially if 3D flops (or doesn't do well), Panasonic will have wasted time and resources they could have dedicated to utilizing their Kuro tech, which will make the 9G Kuros even more sought-after.



I am definitely leaning that way. Thanks for the input.


----------



## sopclod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taz291819* /forum/post/17968411
> 
> 
> What? Avatar is just the opposite of every film I've seen in 3D. Instead of the gimmicky pop-out effects, it drew you, the viewer, into the film.
> 
> 
> What theater did you watch it in?



I watched in a cinemark theater in the chicagoland area. I just didn't think it added anything to the movie. I also found the 3D glasses a little annoying, probably because I wear regular glasses as well.


----------



## taz291819




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jmouse007* /forum/post/17973387
> 
> 
> As for me; someone feel free to contact me in about ten - fifteen years when the PROVEN, ONE-STANDARD, GLASS-LESS 3D is finally available at a reasonable price. Until then I will sit the 3D, 1.4abcd (1. whatever) HDMI format war out and be content and enjoy the incredible HD system I already have which is bought and paid for.



Please don't tell me you're going to copy and paste this in every 3D-related thread?


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> However, ONCE A STANDARD IS FINALLY AGREED UPON (after this next bloody 3D "format war" is finally over which could take another decade)



While you can certainly (understandably) feel frustrated by the new Blu-ray 3D spec requiring HDMI 1.4, this false mantra that there's some sort of "format war" or undefined 3D standard needs to stop. It's not true.


There is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE a rule about what type of display is used or what type of 3D display technolgy consumers can buy. Our HD standard doesn't require that all TVs be Plasma or that all projectors be DLP... that's a manufacturing design question. In the same way the industry doesn't require that displays choose active or passive or mandate a refresh rate... that's up to you as a consumer to choose what you'd prefer. That's not the 3D standard... that's the TV set.


The "standard" is how it's shipped back/forth between devices so that the signals work over HDMI 1.4 on all 1.4 gear. There are also some "old fashioned" ways of packing 3D onto HDMI 1.3 that were written into the new 3D spec to allow Satellite and cable companies to send (1/2 resolution) 3D over existing equipment and hardware.


Those standards are already written. Now it's just a matter of getting the 3D displays to make the most of them.


At some point the bulb in your (fantastic) Sony projector will need replacing... and certainly by your 2nd, 3rd, or 4th bulb you'll be getting the upgrade bug as some new LED lit true-black projector will be for sale for probably less than what you paid for your Sony. That might be the right time to think about getting into 3D. For now, enjoy your Sony. It's no less a great projector just because there's now the ADDITIONAL option for consumers to enjoy 3D blu-ray and TV, for those who want it.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17974091
> 
> 
> While you can certainly (understandably) feel frustrated by the new Blu-ray 3D spec requiring HDMI 1.4, this false mantra that there's some sort of "format war" or undefined 3D standard needs to stop. It's not true.
> 
> 
> There is NOT SUPPOSED TO BE a rule about what type of display is used or what type of 3D display technolgy consumers can buy. Our HD standard ...



Our HD standard as opposed to other HD standards? There is not supposed to be a rule about type of display, but there is one? False mantra? This is pretty difficult to follow. I have at home two 3D ready TV's which require for 3D display an input format (1024x768 hdmi) different from _the_ standard you seem to refer to. I think you should be more careful about tossing around accusations of misrepresentation or ignorance for those posts disagreeing with you on these issues.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Our HD standard as opposed to other HD standards? There is not supposed to be a rule about type of display, but there is one? False mantra? This is pretty difficult to follow.



What's so confusing? I don't see why people can't understand that the type of TV technology (ie, polarized vs shutter glasses) you buy isn't the "3D standard"... the 3D standard is a signal and protocols that the set must accept as well as minimum requirements for signal reproduction. Then TV manufacturers can develop many types of displays to take advantage of their own innovation in multiple ways. Just like we have with 2D HDTVs.


As an illustration, the 2D HD the standard allows for 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. These are not competing "formats"... they are all different signal transmission options in the one agreed upon HD format. Sources can deliver whatever type of signal they want out of these choices and it's part of our single HD standard... all HDTVs can accept and display 720p, 1080i, and 1080p (not all early sets were fully functional to the spec as some did not accept 1080p early in the game). You can also buy any type of HDTV you like... 720p, 1080p etc., plasma or LCD... but all of these sets conform to the rules of the HD standard. Some don't provide the maximum quality that our HD standard can allow... a 720p set for example. Others might provide full resolution like 1080p but have poor black level and so don't reveal the full color saturation of the HD image. The point is that consumers can buy what they want with their wallet... but anything labled as an "HDTV" has to conform to certain rules of what types of signals it can accept, but there are no rules about whether that set needs to be a plasma or an LCD or a DLP projector.


The same applies to 3D: we have rules about the signal transmission protocols, and there are minimum requirements manufacturers must meet, but other than that, the display technology is open to innovation. How is this so hard to understand when the HD standard you enjoy, which also allows for a great deal of flexibility in HDTV design, doesn't seem to be a cause for confusion?




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/17975749
> 
> 
> I have at home two 3D ready TV's which require for 3D display an input format (1024x768 hdmi) different from _the_ standard you seem to refer to. I think you should be more careful about tossing around accusations of misrepresentation or ignorance for those posts disagreeing with you on these issues.



Greg,


Your "3d ready" TVs were produced BEFORE the standards were fixed this year.


In fact, I've stated consistently that I feel that labeling those sets as "3D ready", when the manufactures were aware that the true standards were in development and not yet known, was tantamount to mis-marketing.


That doesn't mean we don't have standards now. We do.


----------



## taz291819




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GregLee* /forum/post/17975749
> 
> 
> Our HD standard as opposed to other HD standards? There is not supposed to be a rule about type of display, but there is one? False mantra? This is pretty difficult to follow. I have at home two 3D ready TV's which require for 3D display an input format (1024x768 hdmi) different from _the_ standard you seem to refer to. I think you should be more careful about tossing around accusations of misrepresentation or ignorance for those posts disagreeing with you on these issues.



The standard is set. It just so happens that our 3D-Ready displays aren't 100% compatible, but they are still 3D-Ready, and will work with an adapter.


Newer displays are simply going to have the "adapter" built-in.


It's kind of like the RCA DTC-100, which was the first HD receiver for Directv. It's only output was RGB via a VGA port. Not a lot of HDTVs accepted RGB or RGB+HV, so an adapter was necessary to convert the RGB to component. It's nothing new, and it happens all the time with bleeding edge technology.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *taz291819* /forum/post/17973659
> 
> 
> Please don't tell me you're going to copy and paste this in every 3D-related thread?



That was funny.


----------



## noukheet

I totally think that this 3D thing is never going to succes as long as the goggles are needed.


I have watched avatar and i think it was great on 3d, much better than what it is 2d (even tought i haven't seen it 2d)


When i go to movie teather i can bear those goggles even tought they are not nice to wear and my eyes get bit tired when i watch 3d movies, but thinking that i would sit on a chair in a good position at my home friday night watching movie 3d goggles on, is something what i just don't see going to happen anytime soon.


I dont know about you guys but when i watch movies i like to rest on a couch, not sit in a straight position like in movie teathers.


i am not 100% impressed with 3d tecnic in the movies (sometimes it is really hard to see the hole image clearly with those goggles) and i am sitting in a good straight position during the hole movie, how i am supposed to belive that when i lie on the couch and my head is not even straight with some damn goggles on that all this will be enjoyable?


I belive that this 3D will be the next big thing, but it won't do that until we can get rid of those goggles.


And those who think they will experince some high quality 3d this year, no way, the first models will suck as always, and around 2015 the tecnic will work as they now already are promesing and marketing


Ps. think about lcd and plasma tv's they have been around here, how long? 10 years? lcd:s still cant even display a proper black, plasmas burn in, are greenish etc etc, heh how i am supposed to belive that first 3d models will be great when normal tv's cant even display proper black color after 10 years?


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noukheet* /forum/post/17989959
> 
> 
> how i am supposed to belive that when i lie on the couch and my head is not even straight with some damn goggles on that all this will be enjoyable?



I'm sure in a few years we'll have a couch mode for the 3D glasses that will present upper and lower views to your eyes, instead of left and right views.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noukheet* /forum/post/17989959
> 
> 
> I totally think that this 3D thing is never going to succes as long as the goggles are needed.
> 
> 
> I have watched avatar and i think it was great on 3d, much better than what it is 2d (even tought i haven't seen it 2d)
> 
> 
> When i go to movie teather i can bear those goggles even tought they are not nice to wear and my eyes get bit tired when i watch 3d movies, but thinking that i would sit on a chair in a good position at my home friday night watching movie 3d goggles on, is something what i just don't see going to happen anytime soon.
> 
> 
> I dont know about you guys but when i watch movies i like to rest on a couch, not sit in a straight position like in movie teathers.
> 
> 
> i am not 100% impressed with 3d tecnic in the movies (sometimes it is really hard to see the hole image clearly with those goggles) and i am sitting in a good straight position during the hole movie, how i am supposed to belive that when i lie on the couch and my head is not even straight with some damn goggles on that all this will be enjoyable?
> 
> 
> I belive that this 3D will be the next big thing, but it won't do that until we can get rid of those goggles.
> 
> 
> And those who think they will experince some high quality 3d this year, no way, the first models will suck as always, and around 2015 the tecnic will work as they now already are promesing and marketing
> 
> 
> Ps. think about lcd and plasma tv's they have been around here, how long? 10 years? lcd:s still cant even display a proper black, plasmas burn in, are greenish etc etc, heh how i am supposed to belive that first 3d models will be great when normal tv's cant even display proper black color after 10 years?



Many of you people still don't know where the state of 3D is right now. It hasn't been launched yet, and you guys are talking about how it's going to suck now and be much better later(5 years?). I can tell for sure that when it launches this year it is going to be a very mature product. Sony, Samsung, Toshiba, Vizio, and Panasonic are ready to launch TVs with HDMI 1.4, and emitters for the shuttered glasses. The glasses work---each eye gets a discreet picture. It sounds like you don't think current HDTVs are very good, and yet many people here are constantly extolling the great local dimming LCDs and the Kuro plasmas. And most people here are happy with their "normal" LCDs and "normal" plasmas. Panasonic has definitely improved their black levels and phosphor decay rate on the 2010 plasmas. After seeing the demos, and reading about the agreement for the HDMI 1.4 standard, I am confident that the 3D technology is going to be very mature when it's launched. I won't hesitate to buy a 3D TV this year---no matter how much FUD is thrown around on this forum. I not saying that TVs in 5 years won't be better. Of course they will be, but the 3D standard will still be the same. For those of you wanting 3D without glasses, keep dreaming. From the low rez demos I saw, it's at least 15 years away, and it won't be compatible at all with the current HDTV standard. And of course the new 3D standard is backward compatible--a 3D Blu-ray movie will play on ANY Blu-ray player, but only in 2D on current players. If you get a 3D capable TV, you can watch as much or little 3D as you like---no one is going to force you to watch 3D all the time.


----------



## Matt L

Talk about FUD! Calling the nascent 3D industry "MATURE" is a joke. You have 2 types of glasses , one cheap the other very pricey. The cheap ones deliver half the resolution you have now, the expensive ones require a hefty investment if you have a family. And as for maturity, where is the content? There is the promise of content, and a small amount available now, but no where near enough now.


You want to roll the dice on 3D, go for it. I sure as hell won't. It's your money, you can waste it how ever you want.


----------



## noukheet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17990607
> 
> 
> I am confident that the 3D technology is going to be very mature when it's launched. .



You really belive that this technology will be mature when launched? If the movie theathers 3d system sucks and i think it cost damn much money, how 2000$ tv will be cabable of doing it better?


----------



## whitetrash66




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17990908
> 
> 
> Talk about FUD! Calling the nascent 3D industry "MATURE" is a joke. You have 2 types of glasses , one cheap the other very pricey. The cheap ones deliver half the resolution you have now, the expensive ones require a hefty investment if you have a family. And as for maturity, where is the content? There is the promise of content, and a small amount available now, but no where near enough now.
> 
> 
> You want to roll the dice on 3D, go for it. I sure as hell won't. It's your money, you can waste it how ever you want.



i'm also getting a TV, and instead of getting one now, i've decided to wait and get a 3D set. NOT mainly because it was 3D, but because i want a 240 hertz local dimming set with the incremental increase in PQ that happens every year. it will most likely look better than the sets from last year, and the fact that it has 3D also is only a bonus. i'll definately try it out, and if i like it, i'll use it (for whatever BDs are available) and if i don't, i won't.

but i won't buy something now that's outdated (features or PQ), i've made that mistake before.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *noukheet* /forum/post/17989959
> 
> 
> I totally think that this 3D thing is never going to succes as long as the goggles are needed.
> 
> 
> I have watched avatar and i think it was great on 3d, much better than what it is 2d (even tought i haven't seen it 2d)
> 
> 
> I belive that this 3D will be the next big thing, but it won't do that until we can get rid of those goggles.
> 
> 
> And those who think they will experince some high quality 3d this year, no way, the first models will suck as always, and around 2015 the tecnic will work as they now already are promesing and marketing
> 
> 
> Ps. think about lcd and plasma tv's they have been around here, how long? 10 years? lcd:s still cant even display a proper black, plasmas burn in, are greenish etc etc, heh how i am supposed to belive that first 3d models will be great when normal tv's cant even display proper black color after 10 years?



´


You are well underoptimistic here. 3D TV is for occasional viewing an it is not for everbody, some people are 3D blind, some people are sensitive to eye convergence and easily get headaches, some people are not interested. For all other people 3D will be nice addition, especially that price will be low.


3D tech is not that difficult with current high-end sets so it is likely to be as much perfect as possible this year.


The dream of having 3D living-room-type display without glasses i nice but it is fantasy. It is very unlikely taht such displays will ever come (sorry for shattering dreams







). The reason is that 3D display has to be perfect 2D display. Meaning that when 2D is shown, anything which is used for 3D must disappear with slightest artefacts. That makes it tough, very tough problem.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17990908
> 
> 
> Talk about FUD! Calling the nascent 3D industry "MATURE" is a joke. You have 2 types of glasses , one cheap the other very pricey. The cheap ones deliver half the resolution you have now, the expensive ones require a hefty investment if you have a family. And as for maturity, where is the content? There is the promise of content, and a small amount available now, but no where near enough now.
> 
> 
> You want to roll the dice on 3D, go for it. I sure as hell won't. It's your money, you can waste it how ever you want.



If you were in the market for a new TV this year, I'm guessing that you would get a 3D capable TV, because the higher end TVs are going to have the technology built in. That's not rolling the dice. In a couple of years it will be hard to buy a new TV without the technology. Talk about FUD. You guys think that you can keep this change from happening by expressing a lot of negative opinions. It's going to happen whether you like it or not, and I think that the general public is going to like it----again, not for ALL viewing, but for special sports and movies that they want to see in 3D. If you don't want to watch 3D, no one is going to make you, but evidently you don't want me to watch it either.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/17990908
> 
> 
> Talk about FUD! Calling the nascent 3D industry "MATURE" is a joke. You have 2 types of glasses , one cheap the other very pricey. The cheap ones deliver half the resolution you have now, the expensive ones require a hefty investment if you have a family. And as for maturity, where is the content? There is the promise of content, and a small amount available now, but no where near enough now.
> 
> 
> You want to roll the dice on 3D, go for it. I sure as hell won't. It's your money, you can waste it how ever you want.



I'm not suggesting that 3D technology is mature at the moment, but please get your facts straight. The cheap glasses (assuming you mean polarized) do not deliver "half" the resolution... polarized are full-resolution, like what you see at the IMAX or Read3D digital theater with AVATAR.


And of *course* we don't have 3D content for the home yet. The specs were just finalized and announced right before CES. DirectTV, Cable, ESPN and Discovery have commited to 3D channels during 2010.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17993168
> 
> 
> I'm not suggesting that 3D technology is mature at the moment, but please get your facts straight. The cheap glasses (assuming you mean polarized) do not deliver "half" the resolution... polarized are full-resolution, like what you see at the IMAX or Read3D digital theater with AVATAR.
> 
> 
> And of *course* we don't have 3D content for the home yet. The specs were just finalized and announced right before CES. DirectTV, Cable, ESPN and Discovery have committed to 3D channels during 2010.



Dave, your defense of 3D is stellar despite the seemingly futility of the erroneous opponents of 3D to comprehend the truths from the lies. Keep it up.


----------



## taz291819




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/17993974
> 
> 
> Dave, your defense of 3D is stellar despite the seemingly futility of the erroneous opponents of 3D to comprehend the truths from the lies. Keep it up.



Hmm, two threads in a row.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/17993974
> 
> 
> Dave, your defense of 3D is stellar despite the seemingly futility of the erroneous opponents of 3D to comprehend the truths from the lies. Keep it up.



They'll never be able to replicate BD50. No one can hear the difference between lossy and lossless audio anyway. 30GB is all you really need. We'll never see Blu-ray player prices fall below $200 without competition from HD DVD. The PS3 isn't a decent Blu-ray player because it's a gaming device.


Oh wait a minute, wasn't that all FUD too? Seems that AVS has a habit of circulating mistruth. Now it's 3D's turn.


----------



## Agreed

After finally seeing Avatar in 3D today, I'm a lot more optimistic than I was. Hopefully it'll be a watershed movie that really displays what the technology can do. The only problem with the 3D illusion as it is today and will be until we get true 3D is that there's no actual depth, just a better illusion of depth. Your eyes and brain take some time to get used to focusing only on what is actually in-focus on screen; we're used to being able to re-focus our vision to make out things at different distances, and I had some eyestrain until my eyes-brain system "clicked" and I stopped trying to focus on things that weren't in-focus.


In fact now I'm actually quite excited at the possibilities of 3D in the home. I think one thing a good 3D-capable LCD could bring to the table is superior brightness; the polarization just by its nature results in a huge cut in brightness, 50% wouldn't it be? Shuttered-glasses technology also cuts the brightness; LCD sets are capable of such high output in that area that I think it could be a substantial _improvement_ over what the theater offers. I'm still concerned that you'll need a pretty darned big TV to get anything like the theater experience, and I think that will be FAR more important for 3D than it is for regular material, but given some time for it to filter out and bigger 3D-ready sets to become affordable - and for filmmakers to grasp the medium - I'll be perfectly willing to invest. So consider me a cautious convert; I hold reservations, still, but I feel confident that they will be less and less of an issue as we go forward.


I'm looking into 3D-capable DLPs right now. I think that might be the easiest way to bring a cinematic 3D experience home, though viewing angles could be an issue. But a 72" DLP set ready for shuttered glasses 3D runs under two grand; if 72" isn't enough to give you a cinematic experience, just save the money and go see movies whenever you've got the itch. Of course I'll need a team of horses to move the thing if I go that route, but...


----------



## vinnie97




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17995154
> 
> 
> No one can hear the difference between lossy and lossless audio anyway.



It's quite debatable that anyone does actually: http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...compressed_PCM 



> Quote:
> Next, we compared the original to the Dolby Digital Plus version (that codec is found on numerous BD titles, and like TrueHD, is fully backward compatible with regular Dolby Digital decoders). Even on this extremely high-end system, we couldn’t hear any difference between the uncompressed and the compressed.



This type of test (double blind in a controlled environment) is the only one that would validate the above kind of claims of detectable differences.


Very poor form to drudge up the format war in an unrelated thread, I might add.


On topic, 3D will or will not succeed...but I am very content with sticking with the second best flat panel ever made (PRO-111FD, first would be KRP-500M), without any gimmicks, for the foreseeable future, along with the top-rated Oppo BDP-83. Let's also not forget how horrid first-gen Blu-ray players were in terms of performance and reliability.


Finally, until the economy stops hemorrhaging, 3D will be stuck in neutral at best.


----------



## blastermaster

Honestly, I fail to see the usefulness of 3d in television. In the movie theaters, the screen is very large and thus takes up most of your field of view. In this case, 3D can be very immersive and believable. However, I have seen many "home theater" setups with flat panels and the seating is set so far back from the display that I can't imagine that 3d would have any sort of impact or believability to the viewer. Now, 3d projectors for the home is another thing imho and may be viable if it is presented at the right price and with the promise of content.


If you plan on sitting like 3 feet in front of your 46" set, however, then that's a different story.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster* /forum/post/18004019
> 
> 
> Honestly, I fail to see the usefulness of 3d in television. In the movie theaters, the screen is very large and thus takes up most of your field of view. In this case, 3D can be very immersive and believable. However, I have seen many "home theater" setups with flat panels and the seating is set so far back from the display that I can't imagine that 3d would have any sort of impact or believability to the viewer. Now, 3d projectors for the home is another thing imho and may be viable if it is presented at the right price and with the promise of content.
> 
> 
> If you plan on sitting like 3 feet in front of your 46" set, however, then that's a different story.



At CES there were some impressive 3D displays on small OLED screens. However, I will admit that I am looking to get either a 65" plasma or 72" LCD.


----------



## Agreed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *blastermaster* /forum/post/18004019
> 
> 
> Honestly, I fail to see the usefulness of 3d in television. In the movie theaters, the screen is very large and thus takes up most of your field of view. In this case, 3D can be very immersive and believable. However, I have seen many "home theater" setups with flat panels and the seating is set so far back from the display that I can't imagine that 3d would have any sort of impact or believability to the viewer. Now, 3d projectors for the home is another thing imho and may be viable if it is presented at the right price and with the promise of content.
> 
> 
> If you plan on sitting like 3 feet in front of your 46" set, however, then that's a different story.



Yeah, that's why I'm really considering the 72" DLP set that Mitsubishi has out, 3D-capable... It'll require a big screen to get the true immersive effect. But after seeing Avatar, and pending other films of the same caliber coming out, I am much more seriously considering 3D than I was before.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Agreed* /forum/post/18004175
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why I'm really considering the 72" DLP set that Mitsubishi has out, 3D-capable... It'll require a big screen to get the true immersive effect. But after seeing Avatar, and pending other films of the same caliber coming out, I am much more seriously considering 3D than I was before.



That set won't deliver full 1920 x 1080p in 3D mode. Don't be fooled by the "3D ready" sticker.


wait and get the VIZIO 72" LCD LED-lit with local dimming and 480 Hz.


----------



## Agreed

I just might. I've been impressed by LG's panel technology lately and Vizio's processing looks good to me. I don't like the motion interpolation, but that's defeatable.


----------



## cmatthes1

3D technology will be more useful for gaming. I am not a big fan of the active glasses. I could see flicker on Samsung and Toshiba's sets. I think JVC had a passive set that I was very impressed with. I like it the best out of what i saw. These first revision 3d TV sets are going to be way too overpriced (from what the initial price points were. It will be cheaper to get the NVIDIA glasses with a 3d capable TV. Though they have $200 for the transmitter and 1 pair of glasses and $150 for each addition. Eeek


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cmatthes1* /forum/post/18008360
> 
> 
> 3D technology will be more useful for gaming. I am not a big fan of the active glasses. I could see flicker on Samsung and Toshiba's sets. I think JVC had a passive set that I was very impressed with. I like it the best out of what i saw. These first revision 3d TV sets are going to be way too overpriced (from what the initial price points were. It will be cheaper to get the NVIDIA glasses with a 3d capable TV. Though they have $200 for the transmitter and 1 pair of glasses and $150 for each addition. Eeek



Flicker with active eyewear is dependent on speed. You probably were using 60Hz glasses mated with a 120Hz display.


A 240 Hz display allows the glasses to give 120 to each eye. That's probably flicker-free for most folks.



A 480 Hz display allows the glasses to give 240 to each eye. That's probably flicker-free for everyone.


And 480 will be here in 2010. The VIZIO 3D sets will do 480 Hz.


----------



## taz291819

I don't see any flicker with my shutter glasses, and they're the cheap ones.


----------



## irkuck

_Sky 3D, Europe's first dedicated 3DTV channel will launch in April to pubs , featuring a live weekly 3D Premier League football match_


There is absolutely no doubt PQ will be amazing after a couple of pints, even without glasses







.


----------



## irkuck

 3D trucks on the roads soon.


----------



## Matt L

3D didn't win ANY fans with the crappy colored lens stuff on the Grammys. It was bad. Heard more people say they would not were those stupid glasses. With the supposed big push for 3D you'd think they'd come up with a better intro for a large audience.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/18058537
> 
> 
> 3D didn't win ANY fans with the crappy colored lens stuff on the Grammys. It was bad. Heard more people say they would not were those stupid glasses. With the supposed big push for 3D you'd think they'd come up with a better intro for a large audience.



The new 3D is totally different than what was done at the Grammys. I really wish they wouldn't have done it, since it does give people the wrong idea about how 3D on the new TVs is going to look. Where did you get the idea that this was an intro? This type of gimmicky 3D has been used for years.


----------



## Matt L

I'm just saying that with all the hype in the news about 3D, people's curiosity was raised and this might be their first introduction to 3d on TV. There have been a few shows like Chuck and Medium that have done 3D, but nothing coincided with the "Big" 3D push from the CES...


----------



## taz291819




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Matt L* /forum/post/18058731
> 
> 
> I'm just saying that with all the hype in the news about 3D, people's curiosity was raised and this might be their first introduction to 3d on TV. There have been a few shows like Chuck and Medium that have done 3D, but nothing coincided with the "Big" 3D push from the CES...



Totally agree, and Jerry Jones didn't do any favors by his 3D stunt at that Cowboys game.


At least Sky did it right over in Europe, showing off the real deal in pubs.


----------



## loki993

I think 3D is the next big thing they will use to try and convince you that you need a new TV for, but that's about it. Just like 120Hz, just like 240hz. I have no use for 3D right now.


----------



## QZ1

No. B&W, Color, HD, 3-D.


----------



## irkuck

Despite the 3D-gloom of doomers and naysayers 3D trucks are being readied and will hit the roads soon :


In EUrope Telegenic is to build a second 3D-capable truck to produce live 3D coverage of Premiership football for the new Sky 3D channel.


In the US Sony and New York-based outside broadcast supplier All Mobile Video are building a new 3D-capable truck to hit the road this summer.


The 53-foot double Expando truck will feature 3Ality Digital 3D rigs using Sony HDC-1500 cameras, as well as Sony's MVS-8000G production switcher, SRW recording decks and HD production monitors.


Eric Duke, president of AMV says the new truck "is the first of the next generation of customised 2D/3D HD capable mobile production trailers giving producers a more efficient way of rapidly deploying services in 2D or 3D without the need for separate mobile units and crews."


Sony is also reportedly building the first 3D truck for the Japanese market.


----------



## sopclod

I don't get it. I don't remember any HD trucks. What is point of all? I first I thought it was some sort of joke, like "reality now in 3D!!"


----------



## taz291819




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sopclod* /forum/post/18069350
> 
> 
> I don't get it. I don't remember any HD trucks. What is point of all? I first I thought it was some sort of joke, like "reality now in 3D!!"



There was a big issue with the lack of HD trucks a few years ago. That's why we didn't have a lot of sporting events in HD. It's the same with 3D.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sopclod* /forum/post/18069350
> 
> 
> I don't get it. I don't remember any HD trucks. What is point of all? I first I thought it was some sort of joke, like "reality now in 3D!!"



Are you kidding? You must think that they're building demo trucks. Amost every major event is switched from a truck parked at the event site---kind of like the Super Bowl will be on Sunday. As the previous poster noted, the reason it took so long to get all of the NFL games in HD was because it took years to build the trucks that house the switchers and cameras. The fact that they are building more 3D trucks means that they obviously think it's the future, even though there have been no 3D TVs sold yet.


----------



## PrimeTime




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18074214
> 
> 
> ...there have been no 3D TVs sold yet.



Tell that to Mitsubishi DLP and Samsung PN450B owners.


----------



## djb1940

I saw Avatar yesterday, its not perfect but here's my thoughts. I'm 70 years old, saw first tv 1951. watched westerns at a freind's house, thought I was in heaven. Bought first color tv 1961, only to watched news & disney world thought I was in heaven. Bought custom made 'stero" same thing. bought vhs in 1978 could not believe what you could do "record tv" wow!!!! Had a satelite tv (movies only) in 1980. In 1984 bought 45" projector tv. had a dvd in 1997. Now own $7000.00 pioneer 65" elite (1999) & 47' LG flat screen. The point is things change. I'm personally ready & able to move forward. Lets embrace it & try & perfect it. With or without glass.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djb1940* /forum/post/18077659
> 
> 
> I'm 70 years old, saw first tv 1951. watched westerns at a freind's house, thought I was in heaven. ...



While not quite that old (I'm only 67), I believe I share your perspective. Youngsters can't really appreciate the wonders of modern technology, since they didn't experience as much of our more primitive past. Given the money in the game, I don't think we consumers have any real choice about adopting 3D, but rather than muttering about getting it crammed down my throat, I'm more in the mood for pleasurable anticipation of yet another wonder of the modern world. I think it will be great.


----------



## pmreedjr

Ok, you two ancients; I'm only 64 and am ready and able to jump into the 3D arena. Probably with the 72" Visio and a new BD player. Let's admit it, when you're on the high side of 60, you want to jump into the new experiences; we can't just say," OK, I'll wait 10 years 'til the new tech is mature." the way a 20 or 30 year old can. Funny to think that makes us early adopters!


----------



## djb1940

I don't think I'm ancient (its ok) I didn't take it personally. I want to add I enjoyed Avatar with all its warts in 3d. I only hope to live long enough to enjoy "perfect 3d". How soon does anybody think that will take??? I've got maybe 10 years if I take care of myself.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djb1940* /forum/post/18080400
> 
> 
> How soon does anybody think that will take??? I've got maybe 10 years if I take care of myself.



9 years. But at 70, you should figure on at least 20 years.


----------



## RobAC

I am laughing with the last few comments.


Still remember the small B&W tvs with crappy reception and rabbit ears. Then the explosion of some good tech. (and some bad ones) since then up til now.


My crystal ball is giving 3D about 3-5 yrs until the technology settles down.


For now I am getting an old tech. LCD/LED to watch movies on and to blow things up playing my game consoles & PC.


----------



## djb1940

ok here's the thing, do we all remember the "brick cell phone" & the early "home computors" (commador 64) they weren't perfect. Not even close!! I would even call them 'stone age". How about you? Maybe 3d is in its stone age stage but some of us must get the "wheel" rolling. I think some people must have said "wheel" whats that for, its too primitive. Sorry if I'm beating it to death. The things people often loose as adults that children have are imagination & enthusiasm. To move forward in 3d & beyond these are characteristic's we should all re-ignite . At 70 I still have these in some measure. Lets be both critical & helpful to push these technology's forward. Not all people have to rush out & buy these tv's, just some to get the wheel turning, ok thats it.


----------



## QZ1

Bravo!

Both messages posted were excellent.









Welcome to AVS Forum.


----------



## djb1940

thanks, bye the way I've been hanging around "avs' for over 10 years & finally decided to post my opinion. "the old 70 one"


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/17995154
> 
> 
> The PS3 isn't a decent Blu-ray player because it's a gaming device.



Would you care to explain the logic behind that statement?


----------



## Nielo TM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/17968683
> 
> 
> From what I've read, the PS3 can't do full resolution 3D, but I might be wrong.



It can


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nielo TM* /forum/post/18090882
> 
> 
> Would you care to explain the logic behind that statement?



That was a paraphrase from my BD-FUD bullet-list... from the bygone days of our format war where most debates were framed around baseless statements like that which were intended to undermine real discussion in favor of fear-propagating myth.


----------



## Nielo TM

Ah I see.


----------



## irkuck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sopclod* /forum/post/18069350
> 
> 
> I don't get it. I don't remember any HD trucks. What is point of all? I first I thought it was some sort of joke, like "reality now in 3D!!"



OB (Outside Broadcast) trucks are a must for OB







. They are control centers for multicamera broadcast of life events and cost multimilions of $. The fact that manufacturers and operators make significant investment in the trucks for 3D (which includes complete production chain with 3D camera rigs) means that this is very serious undertaking and it won't go away easily.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djb1940* /forum/post/18080400
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm ancient (its ok) I didn't take it personally. I want to add I enjoyed Avatar with all its warts in 3d. I only hope to live long enough to enjoy "perfect 3d". How soon does anybody think that will take??? I've got maybe 10 years if I take care of myself.



Mainstream 'glasses free' 3D tv on 100" to 200" (home) displays is probably 10 to 15 years away . . . at minimum!


----------



## Modeski

Personally 3DTV is one area where I'm happy to let other people be the early adopters so I can jump in a few generations down the road.


----------



## pmreedjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Modeski* /forum/post/18215361
> 
> 
> Personally 3DTV is one area where I'm happy to let other people be the early adopters so I can jump in a few generations down the road.



Well, I'll be jumping in along with djb1940, and partly for the same reason. At 64, I'm not waiting around for the "next" generation. I'll be equipped late this year or early next year for 3D at home! We'll tell all you "late adopters" how it's going.


----------



## TrickMcKaha

... so, will you believe me when I'm 64?


----------



## Davespectral

Right now I'm watching the old fashioned (LOL) JVC RS-10U. I absolutely LOVE it still. 7' screen from 13 feet. Recently I put on, my friend's, kid's "Miley Cyrus: Best Of Both Worlds Concert." (try to limit your laughter on that one) The concert is a superb example of what good old 2D Blue Ray can do. It is superbly professional, and was done by Kenny Ortega, ("This Is It") and I have to admit I loved it. It is made to be eye candy, with multi jumbo-trons, bright colors, and dancers with colored wigs etc. in short DAZZLING. That said, in 2D it's an eye candy knock out. It looks superb, and throughout all of that stage lighting, the flesh tones of the personal survive quite well.


THEN I put on the old fashioned Red/Blue glasses for the 3D track. It is very impressive 3D. She walks out on to a T-Shaped platform, to go out in to the audience, the whole thing was recorded that way along with the 2D way. 1st the good: It was really cool looking, and I definitely felt like I was there, about 5 rows out. I walked up to the screen, and the closer I got, the more the whole thing moved back. Now for the bad: It takes the color limit of Blu-ray, which is about as many as the eye can distinguish, and knocks it down to about 20! Yikes! It WRECKED everything that the production people were trying to do. Everything had a red/blue cast to it, partly out of focus. BAD

*ENTER AVATAR IMAX 3D*: A few weeks ago I saw that, and it uses the non electronic, grey type glasses. I was hoping they wouldn't effect color, and they didn't. *It was the most enthralling video related thing that I have ever seen.* Colors looked PERFECT, with perfect, normal flesh tones. The depth of the 3D was like nothing that I've ever seen. When the people walked through the foliage, the leaves of the trees went past my ears just as if I was walking behind them. I never knew that it was even possible.


If what they are talking about is similar to Avatar, then count me in, and I'll wear stupid looking glasses all day long! LOL

*If anybody here hasn't seen Avatar in 3D then I can not recommend it enough. I walked out of the theatre completely STUNNED!!* I'd love to watch the NFL, with Urlacherr running at me.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> THEN I put on the old fashioned Red/Blue glasses for the 3D track. It is very impressive 3D. She walks out on to a T-Shaped platform, to go out in to the audience, the whole thing was recorded that way along with the 2D way. 1st the good: It was really cool looking, and I definitely felt like I was there, about 5 rows out. I walked up to the screen, and the closer I got, the more the whole thing moved back. Now for the bad: It takes the color limit of Blu-ray, which is about as many as the eye can distinguish, and knocks it down to about 20! Yikes! It WRECKED everything that the production people were trying to do. Everything had a red/blue cast to it, partly out of focus. BAD



I hope everyone reading this thread realizes that when we're talking about "3D" coming to home-theater we're NOT talking about this horrible compromised red/blue method that's falsely represented 3D for decades. (you may have not been confused, but many readers are and still think that we're talking about red/blue 3D!)


We're talking about real, actual, genuine stereoscopic reproduction. Like the polarized image you saw with AVATAR. That's the 3D fidelity that's coming to home theater...


----------



## Davespectral




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18220672
> 
> 
> I hope everyone reading this thread realizes that when we're talking about "3D" coming to home-theater we're NOT talking about this horrible compromised red/blue method that's falsely represented 3D for decades. (you may have not been confused, but many readers are and still think that we're talking about red/blue 3D!)
> 
> 
> We're talking about real, actual, genuine stereoscopic reproduction. Like the polarized image you saw with AVATAR. That's the 3D fidelity that's coming to home theater...



Oh yes I figured that. Those red/blue or red/green glasses might have given 3D a bad rep. Just for the heck of it, have you seen Avatar? I also know that I've been out of the loop about 3D for a few years, so many people here must know it's potential better than I have. I'm telling you, I was stunned! LOL


Here's another thought: If .264 is about 6GB per hour, I wonder how big the files are for 3D? I can't wait to see the special features when the Avatar DVD comes out.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TrickMcKaha* /forum/post/18219746
> 
> 
> ... so, will you believe me when I'm 64?



Yes. I was interested enough to look this up, and found that McCartney wrote that when he was 16. It's curious in regard to 3D that the young seem more set in their ways. My theory is that older people have had more practice adapting to technological change and so have gotten better at it. (I'm 68 next week.)


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Davespectral* /forum/post/18220965
> 
> 
> Oh yes I figured that. Those red/blue or red/green glasses might have given 3D a bad rep. Just for the heck of it, have you seen Avatar? I also know that I've been out of the loop about 3D for a few years, so many people here must know it's potential better than I have. I'm telling you, I was stunned! LOL
> 
> 
> Here's another thought: If .264 is about 6GB per hour, I wonder how big the files are for 3D? I can't wait to see the special features when the Avatar DVD comes out.



I've seen AVATAR 3 times in Real3D. Amazing.


Also saw UP and Coraline in Real3D. Amazing Amazing.


In all 3 of these 3D films, the 3D was used to really advance the imagery and make the visual compositions more compelling, enveloping, and emotionally "there"; the opposite of "gimmick". This is 3D done right.


BTW, AVATAR won't be coming to DVD in high-fidelity 3D: blu-ray will have the monopoly on stereoscopic images as far as pre-recorded media is concerned.


And they compression method uses only (at most) 50% more bit space/bandwidth to compress 3D versus 2D. They do this on blu-ray by compression the normal 2D "left" eye image in MPEG4/AVC, and then use multi-view meta-data to store the "difference" between the left and right eye. From that the blu-ray player can reconstruct the right eye but using less bandwidth than by compression 2 independent video signals (which would double bandwidth and bit-space needs).


BTW, so everyone knows, all 3D blu-ray Discs will play in 2D mode in 2D players. You won't need two versions on the store shelf... the 3D blu-ray release will work for everyone whether they have a 2D or 3D blu-ray player (obviously being limited to 2D in 2D players of course).


----------



## Deunan

I'll give this tech 5 years and then look at it. One thing I've learned from this hobby is that I will never buy another piece of tech with the word "ready" in it, as in "HD ready" or "3D ready". A person buys tech with those words and expects the tech to be just that and 5 years later they change the rules and the standards and before you know it your "___ ready" gear isn't so ready after all.


----------



## Maurice2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18224478
> 
> 
> In all 3 of these 3D films, the 3D was used to really advance the imagery and make the visual compositions more compelling, enveloping, and emotionally "there"; the opposite of "gimmick". This is 3D done right.



Well said.


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deunan* /forum/post/18224740
> 
> 
> I'll give this tech 5 years and then look at it. One thing I've learned from this hobby is that I will never buy another piece of tech with the word "ready" in it, as in "HD ready" or "3D ready". A person buys tech with those words and expects the tech to be just that and 5 years later they change the rules and the standards and before you know it your "___ ready" gear isn't so ready after all.



I'm guessing that you won't wait five years. THIS YEAR people will be able to buy a 3D TV, a 3D Blu-ray player, and if they have DirecTV, receive three 3D channels. There will be a lot more content in the future of course, but anyone that buys a 3D TV in the next few months will be able to enjoy 3D right away. I never expect anything I buy to be "future proof." I'm actually surprised that some of the manufacterers, such as Mitsubishi, are going to make adapters for the sets that they sold as "3D ready" BEFORE THE STANDARDS WERE SET. I still watch a great looking Fujitsu plasma that doesn't even have HDMI, so I know what it's like to be an early adopter. 3D is more of an added feature to HD rather than a whole new technology, so people that buy the new 3D TVs are getting top of the line HDTVs as well. The only tech I can think of that won't be incorporated into the new TVs is new tuners for over the air 3D broadcasts---and that's because there aren't any standards for it yet. So if you wait five years you might be able to get a TV with all of the features available this year, plus an upgraded built-in tuner. However, most of us don't even use the tuners that are built into TVs anyway. I know, since I have DirecTV, that I will be able to watch 3D channels later this year.


----------



## Lee Stewart

*Is 3D TV the next big thing for 2010?*


The CEMs sure hope so. They desperately want high ticket, high margin products selling:

*Quixel: LCD Sales Up 40% In 2009*



> Quote:
> However, for the first time, the increase in overall LCD TV volume did not compensate for price erosion and annual revenues declined for the category, with revenues of $21.3 billion in 2009 or a 6 percent decline from 2008 revenues of $22.7 billion.


 http://www.cepro.com/article/lcd_tv_...up_40_in_2009/


----------



## Jmouse007




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18230423
> 
> *Is 3D TV the next big thing for 2010?*
> 
> 
> The CEMs sure hope so. They desperately want high ticket, high margin products selling:
> 
> *Quixel: LCD Sales Up 40% In 2009*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cepro.com/article/lcd_tv_...up_40_in_2009/



You are right in your assessment: 1.4 HDMI and 3D are nothing more than revenue inhancement schemes and the purpose behind 3D is to get warm bodies into theater seats, something that AVATAR succeeded in doing.


It has also been anounced that *3D broadcasts will NOT be in high-definition* =

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1216903 


so what is the point? Complete waste of time, but got to feed people the 3D HYPE, HYPE, HYPE because the manufacturers need something to sell/foist on the public. Next they will be hyping "4D Smell O'vision". Sadly, there are fools always ready to part with their money.


I posted the following on another thread but since it goes a long way in dealing with all the "3D 'ready'" hype I thought I would pass it along:


Don't waste your money selling your nearly brand new high-def 2D equipment (you will lose money) and buying new "3D" equipment (it will cost you MORE MONEY, so you would lose twice).


First off; 3D is nothing but a FAD at this point, specifically designed to get warm bodies into theaters, which with the success of Avatar, has taken place and to generate a new revenue stream for electronics manufacturers. Secondly and this is VERY important, 3D technology for home use is in it's infancy, I dare say embryonic phase at this point.


The 3D sets/equipment that will be sold are technologically primitive at this point. The manufacturers will charge a very hefty premium for this new 3D equipment and will use the early adopter/3D suckers as their "beta testing" Guinea Pigs. Over TIME these folks will find a lot of the flaws and problems that exist with this infant 3D tech because it will not work as promised. They will complain as early adopters always do, the manufacturers will look at these complaints (along with those from the broadcasters who try to implement 3D for the masses) and make corrections.


This process will repeat itself for around 8 to 15 years = 3 to 5 generations of 3D technology "upgrades" until the manufacturers finally get 3D working properly/to the satisfaction of the majority of people using it. Then (IF, and it is a huge "IF") 3D technology using GLASSES even takes off, a 3D quality "standard" will finally be established, the masses will buy into the system, prices will eventually come down BIG TIME! If you "MUST HAVE 3D", THAT IS THE TIME TO BUY... AFTER THE SUCKERS/Beta, Guinea Pigs testers have spent their money working out ALL of the very real "kinks" inherent in 3D using glasses: I have already seen manufacturers trying to hawk phony "super deluxe" 3D glasses for $300!


Given all of the above factors, you are looking at 8 to 15 years before you should even begin to think about possibly jumping on the 3D band wagon. Why such a long, indefinite, indefinable time frame? Because no one has any idea what kind of problems are going present themselves, how quickly or slowly 3D will even develop, be adopted by the public or if the whole 3D for home use format will be dead on arrival; a very real possibility given the fact that we are in a world-wide economic recession possibly bordering on a depression and people do not have money to waste on "new and improved" 3D equipment when they have perfectly fine and working 2D 1080p/ 1.3 HDMI high def equipment that they recently spent a fortune purchasing.


Forget about all of the ooh, aah 3D "hype" coming from the manufacturers! A person would have to be out of their mind to buy a 3D TV or 3D front projector this early in the game, and make no mistake it is a *GAME* designed by the manufacturers to get the consumer to look with disdain on what these same folks had sold them on being the epitome/end all/be all in HD less than a year ago so that they will throw it all away to buy 3D.


At this stage of the game stay; away from 3D for home use like the plague!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


My advice: Relax and enjoy your existing 1080p/1.3a HDMI high-def equipment. Save your money, think LONG-TERM and enjoy your existing new/nearly brand new equipment (given the economy, you want it to last a good 5 to 8 years).


Regarding 3D =


While I enjoyed the 3D technology used in Avatar, like millions of other consumers in America and around the world who have spent BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars recently upgrading our entire HD A/V theater systems so that they now meet the 1080p/1.3HDMI HD standard, I refuse to trash-can my new ONKYO PR-SC5507p pre-pro or our SONY BDP S550 Blu-ray player or SONY VPL-VW60 projector so that "the powers that be" can sell me UNPROVEN, NO SINGLE STANDARD, 3D technology that will need an entirely new UNPROVEN 1.4 HDMI format in order to view 3D content rendering nearly everything we own that is 1.3 HDMI useless.


I will let the early adopter "suckers" spend THEIR money being Guinea Pigs for the electronics industry that will pay them nothing for beta testing and this 3D technology. I will let THEM throw THEIR money down the toilet on a supposedly "new and improved," NO SINGLE STANDARD 3D = shutter glasses, non shutter glasses, polarized glasses, non polarized glasses, red and green glasses, non red and green glasses, and UNPROOVEN 1.4 HDMI format.


The upcoming 3D format wars (with millions of "early adopter" casualties left in it's wake with billions of dollars worth of now worthless technology they can't even sell on Craigslist when everything finally shakes out a decade from now) are going to make HD/Bluray fiasco look like a walk in the park.


Remember: SONY, ONKYO, Denon, Yamaha, etc... haven't even worked out all of the 1.3 HDMI "bugs" yet on gear they have already sold and they expect us to throw it ALL AWAY for an entirely new and unproven 1.4 HDMI format that they themselves will no longer support as soon as the "new and improved", equally untested 1.5 HDMI format comes along.


As for "3DTV"; just look at the existing poor "quality" of HD programming we are being fed by the likes of Comcast, DISH and Direct TV, etc. Many of the HD NFL play off games just broadcast were not sharp or crisp/very poor and appeared to be 720p at best. People are not going to spend billions of dollars on new 3DTV's while HD broadcasters continually feed them lousy HD signals and *this will be the case with "3D" broadcasts: It has also been anounced that 3D broadcasts will NOT be in high-def!inition=*

* http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1216903 *


Is 3D cool? Yes, from a technological standpoint, Avatar in 3D is a game changer for theaters. However, ONCE A STANDARD IS FINALLY AGREED UPON (after this next bloody 3D "format war" is finally over which could take another decade), it will cost tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) to replace nearly all of a families existing AV equipment in order to even remotely begin to bring the quality of that 3D theater experience to the average persons home theater and unless people have their heads in the sand, we are in the midst of one of the severest economic downturns since the Great Depression.


As for me; someone feel free to contact me in about ten - fifteen years when the PROVEN, ONE-STANDARD, *GLASS-LESS 3D* is finally available at a reasonable price. Until then I will sit the 3D, 1.4abcd (1. whatever) HDMI format war out and be content and enjoy the incredible HD system I already have which is bought and paid for.


I can wait 10 - 15 years for this whole 3D mess to finally shake out because I and multitudes of AVS members are tired of being used as Guinea Pigs and beta testers for an industry that continues to treat us like we are nothing but walking dollar signs that can be manipulated into throwing away our gear every 2-3 years for their latest fad. And yes, at this point 3D is just a fad.


In regard to replacing existing A/V gear simply in order to accommodate 3D:


Will I replace my PJ within 5-10 years? Probably, IF the improvement is substantially better than what I have now, which it isn't (much higher lumens, much sharper picture, LED lit, etc..., otherwise what is the point?) and I do not have to mortgage my house to do it. But I refuse to be led around by the nose and manipulated into blowing out perfectly outstanding A/V gear and becoming their free 3D beta tester by the latest A/V 3D FAD to come along.


One more thing; if anyone here on AVS thinks they are going to even begin to have/reproduce the same 3D visual experience viewing AVATAR in your existing home theater that you had at the multi million dollar IMAX 3D theater in the near future or in the future without spending thousands, upon thousands of dollars, “upgrading” their equipment, there is a bridge in Brookline I can sell you real cheap.


As I said above: someone feel free to call me in 10 to 15 years when *GLASSLESS 3D* is fully developed and fully comes into it's own and those nasty "bugs" have been worked out and it is available at a reasonable price. Until then, have fun all you "early adopter, beta testing, Guinea Pigs". But before you take the 3d plunge, I would advise you to remember the lessons of the HD/Bluray format war when many of you lost small and large fortunes after the powers that be decided that HD was worthless and they pulled their entire support for the format in behalf of Bluray, after they had sold you all that stuff, leaving all of you suckers (in their eyes) holding the bag.


I can envision 3 to 8 years from now, the same thing taking place regarding 3D; many AVS members sitting around, like they did with their HD DVD equipment and software, with utter dismay on their faces and anger, realizing they have been ”pawned once again” looking at all of their formerly “new and improved”, “latest 3D 'redy'technology” equipment, and glasses that have suddenly been declared outdated and relegated to the dust bin by the electronics corporations who are ready to sell you on their latest fad.


They will have draws upon draws FULL of different kinds of 3D glasses: polarized, shutter, red, green, etc because there will not be just one way the “electronics powers that be” will decide upon for you to watch 3D… Why? “All the better to sell you stuff my dear.” There will be low end 3D glasses for the masses and then there will be high end, scam “videophile” 3D glasses that will cost you a fortune… this is already taking place with some 3D “super glasses” being marketed at $300! (Oh, joy, *think MONSTER CABLES only for 3D glasses!*). Most of this stuff purchased with your hard-earned money will end up in land fills or being blown out on AVS classifieds or Craigslist for pennies on the dollar because they will say: "Those things are useless and no longer needed because this is the new and improved way we are going to do 3D from now on."


As for me, and others here on AVS who have seen this script/scam/game before; no thanks, we will sit this 3D FAD out (like many of us wisely did during the HD/Bluray format mess.) and when the war is all over (contrary to popular opinion, there will be a 3D war… which system shutter glasses/non shutter glasses/polarized/non polarized… etc, because their are BILLIONS of dollars at stake.) and things finally shake out, then and only then will we bite the bullet and upgrade our A/V equipment to accommodate 3D.


After posting the above on another web site I received the following, confirming what I have said:

_“I've got 30 years behind me in the CE business, have written for a trade magazine for 7 years, and am what one would describe as an early adopter. I couldn't agree with you more. New tech is embraced by the marketplace when one of two things happen:


1) Consumers are forced into a change due to the retirement of an existing format, or:


2) There's a compelling case for the new format on its merits alone.


Neither is the case with 3DTV. It's cool to be sure, but no one but the manufacturers were clamoring for it. It's nothing but a profit recovery strategy at this point because virtually no one is making money on TV sets any more; making or selling them.


My guess is 3D will be most effective if used as a way for movie companies to keep people in the theatres, and I for one would stick to that. It would be a key differentiator between the theater and increasingly sophisticated home theater experience, a fact that will be increasingly more important as cinema ticket prices increase at the same time very big screen home theater hits true mass market price levels.”_


----------



## Lee Stewart

^^^^


I disagree. 3D from CBL and SAT will be in high definition. They just won't be in the 1080 = 2 mega pixels format.


There are two HD formats:


1080 = 2 MP


720 = .92 MP


The resolution for CBL and SAT will be 1 MP when using the 3D formats of 1080 Side by Side or 1080 Over/Under (AKA Top/Bottom)


Only BD will have 2 MP resolution


All resolutions are per eye.


OBTW, the resolution at your local 3D Digital Cinema = 2048x1080. Not much of a difference between BD's 1920x1080.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jmouse007* /forum/post/18233771
> 
> 
> You are right in your assessment: 1.4 HDMI and 3D are nothing more than revenue inhancement schemes and the purpose behind 3D is to get warm bodies into theater seats, something that AVATAR succeeded in doing.
> 
> 
> It has also been anounced that *3D broadcasts will NOT be in high-definition* =
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1216903
> 
> 
> so what is the point? Complete waste of time, but got to feed people the 3D HYPE, HYPE, HYPE because the manufacturers need something to sell/foist on the public. Next they will be hyping "4D Smell O'vision". Sadly, there are fools always ready to part with their money.
> 
> 
> I posted the following on another thread but since it goes a long way in dealing with all the "3D 'ready'" hype I thought I would pass it along:
> 
> 
> Don't waste your money selling your nearly brand new high-def 2D equipment (you will lose money) and buying new "3D" equipment (it will cost you MORE MONEY, so you would lose twice).
> 
> 
> First off; 3D is nothing but a FAD at this point, specifically designed to get warm bodies into theaters, which with the success of Avatar, has taken place and to generate a new revenue stream for electronics manufacturers. Secondly and this is VERY important, 3D technology for home use is in it's infancy, I dare say embryonic phase at this point.
> 
> 
> The 3D sets/equipment that will be sold are technologically primitive at this point. The manufacturers will charge a very hefty premium for this new 3D equipment and will use the early adopter/3D suckers as their "beta testing" Guinea Pigs. Over TIME these folks will find a lot of the flaws and problems that exist with this infant 3D tech because it will not work as promised. They will complain as early adopters always do, the manufacturers will look at these complaints (along with those from the broadcasters who try to implement 3D for the masses) and make corrections.
> 
> 
> This process will repeat itself for around 8 to 15 years = 3 to 5 generations of 3D technology "upgrades" until the manufacturers finally get 3D working properly/to the satisfaction of the majority of people using it. Then (IF, and it is a huge "IF") 3D technology using GLASSES even takes off, a 3D quality "standard" will finally be established, the masses will buy into the system, prices will eventually come down BIG TIME! If you "MUST HAVE 3D", THAT IS THE TIME TO BUY... AFTER THE SUCKERS/Beta, Guinea Pigs testers have spent their money working out ALL of the very real "kinks" inherent in 3D using glasses: I have already seen manufacturers trying to hawk phony "super deluxe" 3D glasses for $300!
> 
> 
> Given all of the above factors, you are looking at 8 to 15 years before you should even begin to think about possibly jumping on the 3D band wagon. Why such a long, indefinite, indefinable time frame? Because no one has any idea what kind of problems are going present themselves, how quickly or slowly 3D will even develop, be adopted by the public or if the whole 3D for home use format will be dead on arrival; a very real possibility given the fact that we are in a world-wide economic recession possibly bordering on a depression and people do not have money to waste on "new and improved" 3D equipment when they have perfectly fine and working 2D 1080p/ 1.3 HDMI high def equipment that they recently spent a fortune purchasing.
> 
> 
> Forget about all of the ooh, aah 3D "hype" coming from the manufacturers! A person would have to be out of their mind to buy a 3D TV or 3D front projector this early in the game, and make no mistake it is a *GAME* designed by the manufacturers to get the consumer to look with disdain on what these same folks had sold them on being the epitome/end all/be all in HD less than a year ago so that they will throw it all away to buy 3D.
> 
> 
> At this stage of the game stay; away from 3D for home use like the plague!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> My advice: Relax and enjoy your existing 1080p/1.3a HDMI high-def equipment. Save your money, think LONG-TERM and enjoy your existing new/nearly brand new equipment (given the economy, you want it to last a good 5 to 8 years).
> 
> 
> Regarding 3D =
> 
> 
> While I enjoyed the 3D technology used in Avatar, like millions of other consumers in America and around the world who have spent BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars recently upgrading our entire HD A/V theater systems so that they now meet the 1080p/1.3HDMI HD standard, I refuse to trash-can my new ONKYO PR-SC5507p pre-pro or our SONY BDP S550 Blu-ray player or SONY VPL-VW60 projector so that "the powers that be" can sell me UNPROVEN, NO SINGLE STANDARD, 3D technology that will need an entirely new UNPROVEN 1.4 HDMI format in order to view 3D content rendering nearly everything we own that is 1.3 HDMI useless.
> 
> 
> I will let the early adopter "suckers" spend THEIR money being Guinea Pigs for the electronics industry that will pay them nothing for beta testing and this 3D technology. I will let THEM throw THEIR money down the toilet on a supposedly "new and improved," NO SINGLE STANDARD 3D = shutter glasses, non shutter glasses, polarized glasses, non polarized glasses, red and green glasses, non red and green glasses, and UNPROOVEN 1.4 HDMI format.
> 
> 
> The upcoming 3D format wars (with millions of "early adopter" casualties left in it's wake with billions of dollars worth of now worthless technology they can't even sell on Craigslist when everything finally shakes out a decade from now) are going to make HD/Bluray fiasco look like a walk in the park.
> 
> 
> Remember: SONY, ONKYO, Denon, Yamaha, etc... haven't even worked out all of the 1.3 HDMI "bugs" yet on gear they have already sold and they expect us to throw it ALL AWAY for an entirely new and unproven 1.4 HDMI format that they themselves will no longer support as soon as the "new and improved", equally untested 1.5 HDMI format comes along.
> 
> 
> As for "3DTV"; just look at the existing poor "quality" of HD programming we are being fed by the likes of Comcast, DISH and Direct TV, etc. Many of the HD NFL play off games just broadcast were not sharp or crisp/very poor and appeared to be 720p at best. People are not going to spend billions of dollars on new 3DTV's while HD broadcasters continually feed them lousy HD signals and *this will be the case with "3D" broadcasts: It has also been anounced that 3D broadcasts will NOT be in high-def!inition=*
> 
> * http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1216903 *
> 
> 
> Is 3D cool? Yes, from a technological standpoint, Avatar in 3D is a game changer for theaters. However, ONCE A STANDARD IS FINALLY AGREED UPON (after this next bloody 3D "format war" is finally over which could take another decade), it will cost tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) to replace nearly all of a families existing AV equipment in order to even remotely begin to bring the quality of that 3D theater experience to the average persons home theater and unless people have their heads in the sand, we are in the midst of one of the severest economic downturns since the Great Depression.
> 
> 
> As for me; someone feel free to contact me in about ten - fifteen years when the PROVEN, ONE-STANDARD, *GLASS-LESS 3D* is finally available at a reasonable price. Until then I will sit the 3D, 1.4abcd (1. whatever) HDMI format war out and be content and enjoy the incredible HD system I already have which is bought and paid for.
> 
> 
> I can wait 10 - 15 years for this whole 3D mess to finally shake out because I and multitudes of AVS members are tired of being used as Guinea Pigs and beta testers for an industry that continues to treat us like we are nothing but walking dollar signs that can be manipulated into throwing away our gear every 2-3 years for their latest fad. And yes, at this point 3D is just a fad.
> 
> 
> In regard to replacing existing A/V gear simply in order to accommodate 3D:
> 
> 
> Will I replace my PJ within 5-10 years? Probably, IF the improvement is substantially better than what I have now, which it isn't (much higher lumens, much sharper picture, LED lit, etc..., otherwise what is the point?) and I do not have to mortgage my house to do it. But I refuse to be led around by the nose and manipulated into blowing out perfectly outstanding A/V gear and becoming their free 3D beta tester by the latest A/V 3D FAD to come along.
> 
> 
> One more thing; if anyone here on AVS thinks they are going to even begin to have/reproduce the same 3D visual experience viewing AVATAR in your existing home theater that you had at the multi million dollar IMAX 3D theater in the near future or in the future without spending thousands, upon thousands of dollars, “upgrading” their equipment, there is a bridge in Brookline I can sell you real cheap.
> 
> 
> As I said above: someone feel free to call me in 10 to 15 years when *GLASSLESS 3D* is fully developed and fully comes into it's own and those nasty "bugs" have been worked out and it is available at a reasonable price. Until then, have fun all you "early adopter, beta testing, Guinea Pigs". But before you take the 3d plunge, I would advise you to remember the lessons of the HD/Bluray format war when many of you lost small and large fortunes after the powers that be decided that HD was worthless and they pulled their entire support for the format in behalf of Bluray, after they had sold you all that stuff, leaving all of you suckers (in their eyes) holding the bag.
> 
> 
> I can envision 3 to 8 years from now, the same thing taking place regarding 3D; many AVS members sitting around, like they did with their HD DVD equipment and software, with utter dismay on their faces and anger, realizing they have been ”pawned once again” looking at all of their formerly “new and improved”, “latest 3D 'redy'technology” equipment, and glasses that have suddenly been declared outdated and relegated to the dust bin by the electronics corporations who are ready to sell you on their latest fad.
> 
> 
> They will have draws upon draws FULL of different kinds of 3D glasses: polarized, shutter, red, green, etc because there will not be just one way the “electronics powers that be” will decide upon for you to watch 3D… Why? “All the better to sell you stuff my dear.” There will be low end 3D glasses for the masses and then there will be high end, scam “videophile” 3D glasses that will cost you a fortune… this is already taking place with some 3D “super glasses” being marketed at $300! (Oh, joy, *think MONSTER CABLES only for 3D glasses!*). Most of this stuff purchased with your hard-earned money will end up in land fills or being blown out on AVS classifieds or Craigslist for pennies on the dollar because they will say: "Those things are useless and no longer needed because this is the new and improved way we are going to do 3D from now on."
> 
> 
> As for me, and others here on AVS who have seen this script/scam/game before; no thanks, we will sit this 3D FAD out (like many of us wisely did during the HD/Bluray format mess.) and when the war is all over (contrary to popular opinion, there will be a 3D war… which system shutter glasses/non shutter glasses/polarized/non polarized… etc, because their are BILLIONS of dollars at stake.) and things finally shake out, then and only then will we bite the bullet and upgrade our A/V equipment to accommodate 3D.
> 
> 
> After posting the above on another web site I received the following, confirming what I have said:
> 
> _“I've got 30 years behind me in the CE business, have written for a trade magazine for 7 years, and am what one would describe as an early adopter. I couldn't agree with you more. New tech is embraced by the marketplace when one of two things happen:
> 
> 
> 1) Consumers are forced into a change due to the retirement of an existing format, or:
> 
> 
> 2) There's a compelling case for the new format on its merits alone.
> 
> 
> Neither is the case with 3DTV. It's cool to be sure, but no one but the manufacturers were clamoring for it. It's nothing but a profit recovery strategy at this point because virtually no one is making money on TV sets any more; making or selling them.
> 
> 
> My guess is 3D will be most effective if used as a way for movie companies to keep people in the theatres, and I for one would stick to that. It would be a key differentiator between the theater and increasingly sophisticated home theater experience, a fact that will be increasingly more important as cinema ticket prices increase at the same time very big screen home theater hits true mass market price levels.”_



That rant seems a bit off-balance. Were you that upset when the CE manufacturers conspired to milk your wallet by offering you 1080p?


You're welcome to sit on the sidelines of stereoscopic video.


The rest of us will be enjoying high fidelity 1920 x 1080p stereoscopic 3D on the display system of our choice as soon as our budget and product performance/pricing selection permit.


And since all 3D systems will also be high-performance 2D displays, there's no "format" that one has to worry about investing in that will go defunct. Just a gorgeous 2D display with the added bonus of a 3D-capable feature when desired.


----------



## SoundChex

The 'tv product' acceptance cycle [in developed nations] is based on historical family/household replacement/addition of a new tv set approx every four years for some reason other than 'to get the latest technology', i.e., broken set, new bigger living room, move older set to kid's room, move it to college/vacation home, etc. Once the 'best price/performance' model in the local big box store includes some new technology, that technology moves into the majority of homes by default (even if once there it remains unused/incorrectly used!)


----------



## fire407




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jmouse007* /forum/post/18233771
> 
> 
> You are right in your assessment: 1.4 HDMI and 3D are nothing more than revenue inhancement schemes and the purpose behind 3D is to get warm bodies into theater seats, something that AVATAR succeeded in doing.
> 
> 
> It has also been anounced that *3D broadcasts will NOT be in high-definition* =
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1216903
> 
> 
> so what is the point? Complete waste of time, but got to feed people the 3D HYPE, HYPE, HYPE because the manufacturers need something to sell/foist on the public. Next they will be hyping "4D Smell O'vision". Sadly, there are fools always ready to part with their money.
> 
> 
> I posted the following on another thread but since it goes a long way in dealing with all the "3D 'ready'" hype I thought I would pass it along:
> 
> 
> Don't waste your money selling your nearly brand new high-def 2D equipment (you will lose money) and buying new "3D" equipment (it will cost you MORE MONEY, so you would lose twice).
> 
> 
> First off; 3D is nothing but a FAD at this point, specifically designed to get warm bodies into theaters, which with the success of Avatar, has taken place and to generate a new revenue stream for electronics manufacturers. Secondly and this is VERY important, 3D technology for home use is in it's infancy, I dare say embryonic phase at this point.
> 
> 
> The 3D sets/equipment that will be sold are technologically primitive at this point. The manufacturers will charge a very hefty premium for this new 3D equipment and will use the early adopter/3D suckers as their "beta testing" Guinea Pigs. Over TIME these folks will find a lot of the flaws and problems that exist with this infant 3D tech because it will not work as promised. They will complain as early adopters always do, the manufacturers will look at these complaints (along with those from the broadcasters who try to implement 3D for the masses) and make corrections.
> 
> 
> This process will repeat itself for around 8 to 15 years = 3 to 5 generations of 3D technology "upgrades" until the manufacturers finally get 3D working properly/to the satisfaction of the majority of people using it. Then (IF, and it is a huge "IF") 3D technology using GLASSES even takes off, a 3D quality "standard" will finally be established, the masses will buy into the system, prices will eventually come down BIG TIME! If you "MUST HAVE 3D", THAT IS THE TIME TO BUY... AFTER THE SUCKERS/Beta, Guinea Pigs testers have spent their money working out ALL of the very real "kinks" inherent in 3D using glasses: I have already seen manufacturers trying to hawk phony "super deluxe" 3D glasses for $300!
> 
> 
> Given all of the above factors, you are looking at 8 to 15 years before you should even begin to think about possibly jumping on the 3D band wagon. Why such a long, indefinite, indefinable time frame? Because no one has any idea what kind of problems are going present themselves, how quickly or slowly 3D will even develop, be adopted by the public or if the whole 3D for home use format will be dead on arrival; a very real possibility given the fact that we are in a world-wide economic recession possibly bordering on a depression and people do not have money to waste on "new and improved" 3D equipment when they have perfectly fine and working 2D 1080p/ 1.3 HDMI high def equipment that they recently spent a fortune purchasing.
> 
> 
> Forget about all of the ooh, aah 3D "hype" coming from the manufacturers! A person would have to be out of their mind to buy a 3D TV or 3D front projector this early in the game, and make no mistake it is a *GAME* designed by the manufacturers to get the consumer to look with disdain on what these same folks had sold them on being the epitome/end all/be all in HD less than a year ago so that they will throw it all away to buy 3D.
> 
> 
> At this stage of the game stay; away from 3D for home use like the plague!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> My advice: Relax and enjoy your existing 1080p/1.3a HDMI high-def equipment. Save your money, think LONG-TERM and enjoy your existing new/nearly brand new equipment (given the economy, you want it to last a good 5 to 8 years).
> 
> 
> Regarding 3D =
> 
> 
> While I enjoyed the 3D technology used in Avatar, like millions of other consumers in America and around the world who have spent BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars recently upgrading our entire HD A/V theater systems so that they now meet the 1080p/1.3HDMI HD standard, I refuse to trash-can my new ONKYO PR-SC5507p pre-pro or our SONY BDP S550 Blu-ray player or SONY VPL-VW60 projector so that "the powers that be" can sell me UNPROVEN, NO SINGLE STANDARD, 3D technology that will need an entirely new UNPROVEN 1.4 HDMI format in order to view 3D content rendering nearly everything we own that is 1.3 HDMI useless.
> 
> 
> I will let the early adopter "suckers" spend THEIR money being Guinea Pigs for the electronics industry that will pay them nothing for beta testing and this 3D technology. I will let THEM throw THEIR money down the toilet on a supposedly "new and improved," NO SINGLE STANDARD 3D = shutter glasses, non shutter glasses, polarized glasses, non polarized glasses, red and green glasses, non red and green glasses, and UNPROOVEN 1.4 HDMI format.
> 
> 
> The upcoming 3D format wars (with millions of "early adopter" casualties left in it's wake with billions of dollars worth of now worthless technology they can't even sell on Craigslist when everything finally shakes out a decade from now) are going to make HD/Bluray fiasco look like a walk in the park.
> 
> 
> Remember: SONY, ONKYO, Denon, Yamaha, etc... haven't even worked out all of the 1.3 HDMI "bugs" yet on gear they have already sold and they expect us to throw it ALL AWAY for an entirely new and unproven 1.4 HDMI format that they themselves will no longer support as soon as the "new and improved", equally untested 1.5 HDMI format comes along.
> 
> 
> As for "3DTV"; just look at the existing poor "quality" of HD programming we are being fed by the likes of Comcast, DISH and Direct TV, etc. Many of the HD NFL play off games just broadcast were not sharp or crisp/very poor and appeared to be 720p at best. People are not going to spend billions of dollars on new 3DTV's while HD broadcasters continually feed them lousy HD signals and *this will be the case with "3D" broadcasts: It has also been anounced that 3D broadcasts will NOT be in high-def!inition=*
> 
> * http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1216903 *
> 
> 
> Is 3D cool? Yes, from a technological standpoint, Avatar in 3D is a game changer for theaters. However, ONCE A STANDARD IS FINALLY AGREED UPON (after this next bloody 3D "format war" is finally over which could take another decade), it will cost tens of thousands of dollars (if not more) to replace nearly all of a families existing AV equipment in order to even remotely begin to bring the quality of that 3D theater experience to the average persons home theater and unless people have their heads in the sand, we are in the midst of one of the severest economic downturns since the Great Depression.
> 
> 
> As for me; someone feel free to contact me in about ten - fifteen years when the PROVEN, ONE-STANDARD, *GLASS-LESS 3D* is finally available at a reasonable price. Until then I will sit the 3D, 1.4abcd (1. whatever) HDMI format war out and be content and enjoy the incredible HD system I already have which is bought and paid for.
> 
> 
> I can wait 10 - 15 years for this whole 3D mess to finally shake out because I and multitudes of AVS members are tired of being used as Guinea Pigs and beta testers for an industry that continues to treat us like we are nothing but walking dollar signs that can be manipulated into throwing away our gear every 2-3 years for their latest fad. And yes, at this point 3D is just a fad.
> 
> 
> In regard to replacing existing A/V gear simply in order to accommodate 3D:
> 
> 
> Will I replace my PJ within 5-10 years? Probably, IF the improvement is substantially better than what I have now, which it isn't (much higher lumens, much sharper picture, LED lit, etc..., otherwise what is the point?) and I do not have to mortgage my house to do it. But I refuse to be led around by the nose and manipulated into blowing out perfectly outstanding A/V gear and becoming their free 3D beta tester by the latest A/V 3D FAD to come along.
> 
> 
> One more thing; if anyone here on AVS thinks they are going to even begin to have/reproduce the same 3D visual experience viewing AVATAR in your existing home theater that you had at the multi million dollar IMAX 3D theater in the near future or in the future without spending thousands, upon thousands of dollars, “upgrading” their equipment, there is a bridge in Brookline I can sell you real cheap.
> 
> 
> As I said above: someone feel free to call me in 10 to 15 years when *GLASSLESS 3D* is fully developed and fully comes into it's own and those nasty "bugs" have been worked out and it is available at a reasonable price. Until then, have fun all you "early adopter, beta testing, Guinea Pigs". But before you take the 3d plunge, I would advise you to remember the lessons of the HD/Bluray format war when many of you lost small and large fortunes after the powers that be decided that HD was worthless and they pulled their entire support for the format in behalf of Bluray, after they had sold you all that stuff, leaving all of you suckers (in their eyes) holding the bag.
> 
> 
> I can envision 3 to 8 years from now, the same thing taking place regarding 3D; many AVS members sitting around, like they did with their HD DVD equipment and software, with utter dismay on their faces and anger, realizing they have been ”pawned once again” looking at all of their formerly “new and improved”, “latest 3D 'redy'technology” equipment, and glasses that have suddenly been declared outdated and relegated to the dust bin by the electronics corporations who are ready to sell you on their latest fad.
> 
> 
> They will have draws upon draws FULL of different kinds of 3D glasses: polarized, shutter, red, green, etc because there will not be just one way the “electronics powers that be” will decide upon for you to watch 3D… Why? “All the better to sell you stuff my dear.” There will be low end 3D glasses for the masses and then there will be high end, scam “videophile” 3D glasses that will cost you a fortune… this is already taking place with some 3D “super glasses” being marketed at $300! (Oh, joy, *think MONSTER CABLES only for 3D glasses!*). Most of this stuff purchased with your hard-earned money will end up in land fills or being blown out on AVS classifieds or Craigslist for pennies on the dollar because they will say: "Those things are useless and no longer needed because this is the new and improved way we are going to do 3D from now on."
> 
> 
> As for me, and others here on AVS who have seen this script/scam/game before; no thanks, we will sit this 3D FAD out (like many of us wisely did during the HD/Bluray format mess.) and when the war is all over (contrary to popular opinion, there will be a 3D war… which system shutter glasses/non shutter glasses/polarized/non polarized… etc, because their are BILLIONS of dollars at stake.) and things finally shake out, then and only then will we bite the bullet and upgrade our A/V equipment to accommodate 3D.
> 
> 
> After posting the above on another web site I received the following, confirming what I have said:
> 
> _“I've got 30 years behind me in the CE business, have written for a trade magazine for 7 years, and am what one would describe as an early adopter. I couldn't agree with you more. New tech is embraced by the marketplace when one of two things happen:
> 
> 
> 1) Consumers are forced into a change due to the retirement of an existing format, or:
> 
> 
> 2) There's a compelling case for the new format on its merits alone.
> 
> 
> Neither is the case with 3DTV. It's cool to be sure, but no one but the manufacturers were clamoring for it. It's nothing but a profit recovery strategy at this point because virtually no one is making money on TV sets any more; making or selling them.
> 
> 
> My guess is 3D will be most effective if used as a way for movie companies to keep people in the theatres, and I for one would stick to that. It would be a key differentiator between the theater and increasingly sophisticated home theater experience, a fact that will be increasingly more important as cinema ticket prices increase at the same time very big screen home theater hits true mass market price levels.”_



How many times, and in how many threads are you going to keep posting this drivel? The 3D train is coming WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. Many of us here are really looking forward to the technology, and resent being called "suckers" when we're looking to buy the best TVs that will be available this year. NO ONE IS GOING TO MAKE YOU JUNK YOUR EXPENSIVE SETUP. I'm sorry that you are so ENVIOUS of people like me that are in the market for a new TV, Blu-ray player and receiver. I'll be getting great 2D equipment, where 3D is just a bonus feature---for a relatively small added cost. Your campaign to try to get people to not buy top of the line TVs this year, JUST BECAUSE THE TVs HAVE 3D TECHNOLOGY, is LUDICROUS.


----------



## GregLee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18236611
> 
> 
> How many times, and in how many threads are you going to keep posting this drivel?



My question is: how many times is all that drivel going to be quoted in its entirety?


----------



## Lumpy

I've notice 3D can really evoke the anti-3D rage in some. Everywhere I look for more info on what's to come there's someone there expressing their blind (pun intended) hatred of the technology. I can't wait myself. I've had a taste with my 3D Vision and I want more. Just wish nVidia would have promoted it more.


----------



## ronnie_williams

pretty interesting discussion.


----------



## jbug




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lumpy* /forum/post/18237379
> 
> 
> I've notice 3D can really evoke the anti-3D rage in some. Everywhere I look for more info on what's to come there's someone there expressing their blind (pun intended) hatred of the technology. I can't wait myself. I've had a taste with my 3D Vision and I want more. Just wish nVidia would have promoted it more.



Yes it is HATRED at the highest level. I wouldn't be surprised if someone buying a 3D set was attacked leaving Best Buy for crying out loud.


----------



## davehancock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jbug* /forum/post/18240795
> 
> 
> Yes it is HATRED at the highest level. I wouldn't be surprised if someone buying a 3D set was attacked leaving Best Buy for crying out loud.



Well the hatred may be deserved for buying from Best Buy!


----------



## JOHNnDENVER

Jmouse007?


This just seems antagonistic posting this in the dedicated 3D threads.


This is obviously the place for those looking for info and pro-3D discussions.


----------



## Low Tech

Sorry i dint feel that way... as every 3D movie I have seen did not need any 3D affect to make imagery better.


The 3 movies you stated, did not need 3D as they were computer generated... if anything the lack of proper computer rendering made your 3D experience better for you.


Sorry I am too picky but I dont get paid to make the best for the masses, if I were... We would be waiting for technology to catch up to what I expect to be able to create.


Avatar was a nice film but once we have game consoles with quad GPUs and a true risc processor... Games and Movies will blur your reality.


You will be able to connect your camcorder or camera and add your own image or yourself as a charactor.


There was a studio in a box for about $25,000 dollars US from a company called Play... they made Snappy! .... most studios usually cost 10x as much.


The last RISC processor was a Pentium Clone called NexGen... IBM bought the rights to the chip and developed it.


Unfortunately, they did not allow to work with Nvidia on developing parallel CPU / GPU stackable core processor... as it would be a RISC in design, it would truly multitask with Unix based OS.


All this can be done with todays technology.


Just who will be the first to release such a powerful system to the public???


----------



## Jmouse007




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JOHNnDENVER* /forum/post/18241200
> 
> 
> Jmouse007?
> 
> 
> This just seems antagonistic posting this in the dedicated 3D threads.
> 
> 
> This is obviously the place for those looking for info and pro-3D discussions.



My post dealt with honest, rational objections to an unproven, unnecessary "new and improved" 3D fringe, fad format that only exists to get people into theaters and to provide a new revenue stream for ailing electronics manufacturers isn't "antagonistic posting".

This is obviously the place for those looking for info and pro-3D discussions


Nowhere does it say that these threads are "pro 3D discussions only". If you check the 3D polls on AVS as well as the number of people reading/posting on "3D threads" they prove that the overwhelming majority of AVS members do not want, or are not interested in the gimmick that is "3D". Unless you along with a few others want to turn the 3D areas of AVS into a fascist section where no oppostion or no honest debate can be held, then everone on AVS (whether they support or oppose 3D on valid grounds) has the same right as you do to post their thoughts, reasearch and opinions on the subject.


3D Broadcasts will *not* be in hi-def =

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1216903 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/te...37GqZgBq4URqJQ 2cQ


The majority of people on AVS do not want mediocre 720p broadcasts that are limited in order to accomodate 3D, they would rather have 2D broadcasts in true 1080p high-definition! And yet that is exactly what we are going to get with 3D.


The author of the NY Times article above also points out another very important factor in this debate:

_"Finally and this is the big one didn't we just go through this? Didn't the TV makers and broadcasters just finish dragging the populace through a confusing, expensive transition from our old TV system into the new, flat-panel, high-definition age? Didn't we just buy flat-panel digital TV sets and Blu-ray players and Blu-ray movies, believing that we'd be set for the next decade at least?


And now we find out we've got to start all over again buy a new TV, a new Blu-ray player, new movie discs to accommodate this new format?


I think there's something called Upgrade Fatigue, my friends, and I think the TV industry is about to face-plant right into it."_


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jmouse007* /forum/post/18242608
> 
> 
> My post dealt with honest, rational objections to an unproven, unnecessary "new and improved" 3D fringe, fad format that only exists to get people into theaters and to provide a new revenue stream for ailing electronics manufacturers isn't "antagonistic posting".



3D seems to be very popular at the theaters today. In 2009, it generated BO revenue of over $1B - 10% of the total BO revenue for 2009.


And the 3D of today IS improved compared to the 3D of yesterday which was either Anaglyph or stereoscopic that used film instead of Digital as is done today. Film based 3D (not IMAX) had all kinds of issues that don't exist today with digital.


And the 3D "fad" as you call it just keeps growing. More films are being released in the theater in 3D than ever before.


And this year it will be introduced to consumers so they can see S3D right in their own homes and watch their favorite 3D movies in the comfort of their own home.



> Quote:
> This is obviously the place for those looking for info and pro-3D discussions
> 
> 
> Nowhere does it say that these threads are "pro 3D discussions only". If you check the 3D polls on AVS as well as the number of people reading/posting on "3D threads" they prove that the overwhelming majority of AVS members do not want, or are not interested in the gimmick that is "3D". Unless you along with a few others want to turn the 3D areas of AVS into a fascist section where no oppostion or no honest debate can be held, then everone on AVS (whether they support or oppose 3D on valid grounds) has the same right as you do to post their thoughts, reasearch and opinions on the subject.



Some admitted that because 3D requires new equipment and they had just finished with HD upgrades, they weren't going to start again right away but would consider on their next upgrade.


But you are right - you can express your negative opinion on 3D. Of course you have to expect that not all with agree with you. The most important thing to follow is that all posts should be civil and respectful



> Quote:
> 3D Broadcasts will *not* be in hi-def =
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1216903
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/te...37GqZgBq4URqJQ 2cQ
> 
> 
> The majority of people on AVS do not want mediocre 720p broadcasts that are limited in order to accomodate 3D, they would rather have 2D broadcasts in true 1080p high-definition! And yet that is exactly what we are going to get with 3D.



You ignored my post about what is the definition of HD. It doesn't start and end with 1920x1080. It starts with 1280x720 which yields 1MP.


1 MP is HD. The Discovery HD Theater channel uses 1080i. When they introduce the Discovery 3D channel, they will still be using 1080i though instead of 2 MP it will be 1MP



> Quote:
> The author of the NY Times article above also points out another very important factor in this debate:
> 
> _"Finally — and this is the big one — didn’t we just go through this? Didn’t the TV makers and broadcasters just finish dragging the populace through a confusing, expensive transition from our old TV system into the new, flat-panel, high-definition age? Didn’t we just buy flat-panel digital TV sets and Blu-ray players and Blu-ray movies, believing that we’d be set for the next decade at least?
> 
> 
> And now we find out we’ve got to start all over again — buy a new TV, a new Blu-ray player, new movie discs — to accommodate this new format?_


_


You don't have to "start over." No one is forcing you. If you want S3D then you will spend the money. If you don't want S3D they you won't. That is left up to each individual.


Me personally, I am really looking forward to S3D

_


> _Quote:_
> _
> 
> 
> I think there’s something called Upgrade Fatigue, my friends, and I think the TV industry is about to face-plant right into it."_


_
_If you are an early adopter, then this is something that is not new. It should be expected.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> My post dealt with honest, rational objections to an *unproven*



3D popularity is measurable metric. The chances for success in the home are better than the chances were for DVD to succeed, or for HD adoption, both of which managed to gain ground despite even less favorable indications.



> Quote:
> *unnecessary*



Well, if you want to view 3D content in 3D, obviously 3D is necessary. Just like if you were a consumer who wanted to enjoy the resolution of HD, you'd naturally *need* an HD signal and an HD display. If by "unnecessary" you mean something more existential, well in that vein HD isn't necessary, and neither are television or movies.


If you don't want to view 3D content in 3D, then you've lost absolutely nothing with the new 3D featureset protocols to our existing HD standards.



> Quote:
> "new and improved" 3D *fringe, fad* format



Fringe? Ticket sales of 3D versus 2D title-for-title would indicate the opposite of "fringe".




> Quote:
> that only exists to get people into theaters and to provide a *new revenue* stream for ailing electronics manufacturers isn't "antagonistic posting".



As for a new avenue to generate income, well, of course. Just like DVD. Just like HD. Just like 1080 blu-ray. And those are good things, just like 3D.


You don't want to spend more money and you don't want 3D? Then you do absolutely nothing and you still enjoy the program material in 2D. You couldn't possibly ask for more. Unless you simply want to whine about other enthuisasts having an opportunity to enjoy something you personally don't care about.


Your post reeks of


----------



## fire407

Avatar, My Bloody Valentine, Final Destination, Up, Coraline, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs are all recent movies that were seen in the theater in 3D. Up until this spring, there was no way to see these movies in 3D at home the way they were meant to be seen. Even now, the current versions of some of the movies on Blu-ray include anaglyph glasses that make the movie look far inferior to what was shown in the theater. The red/blue lenses totally wreck the color, and the 3D effect isn't near what it should be. With the shuttered glasses technology we will be able to see the movies at home in great looking full color 3D. How anyone could be against this is beyond me. I can understand someone being bitter that they didn't know it was coming and they spent a ton of money on current equipment, but to not want others to enjoy the technology seems really selfish.


----------



## SoundChex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fire407* /forum/post/18244013
> 
> 
> Avatar, My Bloody Valentine, Final Destination, Up, Coraline, Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs are all recent movies that were seen in the theater in 3D. Up until this spring, there was no way to see these movies in 3D at home the way they were meant to be seen. Even now, the current versions of some of the movies on Blu-ray include anaglyph glasses that make the movie look far inferior to what was shown in the theater. The red/blue lenses totally wreck the color, and the 3D effect isn't near what it should be. With the shuttered glasses technology we will be able to see the movies at home in great looking full color 3D. How anyone could be against this is beyond me. I can understand someone being bitter that they didn't know it was coming and they spent a ton of money on current equipment, but to not want others to enjoy the technology seems really selfish.



Yes, it's expensive and there are questions about _quality_ and _usability_ . . . and it's probably not for everybody for at least a decade. But it's a stepping stone, and offers - in maybe another two decades/generations of technology - the promise of _pay-per-view_ immersive AV telepresence attendance at live sporting and concert events all over the world (and more bad cop shows!) [_Warning cliche alert! And it will all be worth it on the day we all get to step down on to the surface of Mars together with the first Areologists . . . subject to a 20 minute light speed delay, of course!_







]


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SoundChex* /forum/post/18244461
> 
> 
> Yes, it's expensive and there are questions about _quality_ and _usability_ . . . and it's probably not for everybody for at least a decade. But it's a stepping stone, and offers - in maybe another two decades/generations of technology - the promise of _pay-per-view_ immersive AV telepresence attendance at live sporting and concert events all over the world (and more bad cop shows!) [_Warning cliche alert! And it will all be worth it on the day we all get to step down on to the surface of Mars together with the first Areologists . . . subject to a 20 minute light speed delay, of course!_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]



3D is not expensive.


3D blu-ray players will cost only marginally more than standard 2.0 models at first, and then no more at all in 2011. 3D televisions also only cost marginally more than comparable 2D models. VIZIO's 3D sets are prices at very competitive figures for 480Hz LED 1080p displays with local dimming.


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18246490
> 
> 
> 3D is not expensive.
> 
> 
> 3D blu-ray players will cost only marginally more than standard 2.0 models at first, and then no more at all in 2011. 3D televisions also only cost marginally more than comparable 2D models. VIZIO's 3D sets are prices at very competitive figures for 480Hz LED 1080p displays with local dimming.



The real extra cost will be the active shutter glasses. Possibly in the $125 to $150 a pair. Some 3DTV's include 1 pair - some 2 pair and some none (as per announcements)


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18246529
> 
> 
> The real extra cost will be the active shutter glasses. Possibly in the $125 to $150 a pair. Some 3DTV's include 1 pair - some 2 pair and some none (as per announcements)



True. And chances are that those prices will fall dramatically and quickly as shutter glasses become a commodity item.


----------



## mbrennem

IMO shutter glasses will only fall dramatically in price if the glasses are compatible between the various manufacturers, making third-party options viable. Can anyone confirm that will be the case? I really hope they will be compatible because otherwise we will essentially have a mini-"format war" because of the glasses.


----------



## DaViD Boulet

I agree that having interoperability between various left-right sequential TV sets and the active LCD shutter wear is important. It will be especially frustrating for folks having a 3D superbowl party to find out that their $$ LCD glasses don't work on their friend's TV once everyone is ready to watch the game.


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mbrennem* /forum/post/18247696
> 
> 
> IMO shutter glasses will only fall dramatically in price if the glasses are compatible between the various manufacturers, making third-party options viable. Can anyone confirm that will be the case? I really hope they will be compatible because otherwise we will essentially have a mini-"format war" because of the glasses.



Does the Blu-ray 3D standard support displays that use micro/cross-polarization screens (Xpol)? These require passive glasses. If so, you'll see those out there too.


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack

Not gonna touch the debate about jmouse007's "rant," but what sense does it make to post a short complaint about it in which you copy the entire text of the post you're complaining about?!?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18248007
> 
> 
> Does the Blu-ray 3D standard support displays that use micro/cross-polarization screens (Xpol)? These require passive glasses. If so, you'll see those out there too.



One by JVC. MSRP is $9000

http://www.jvc.eu/3d_monitor/monitor/index.html


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18248007
> 
> 
> Does the Blu-ray 3D standard support displays that use micro/cross-polarization screens (Xpol)? These require passive glasses. If so, you'll see those out there too.



The blu-ray and general HDMI 1.4 3D standard is *display agnostic*. it's merely transmitting two left/right images in place of where we used to have only one.


It's up to the 3D display to figure out how to get each image to each eye: whether that's active shutter, polarized, holographic, autoscopic, etc.


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18248435
> 
> 
> The blu-ray and general HDMI 1.4 3D standard is *display agnostic*. it's merely transmitting two left/right images in place of where we used to have only one.
> 
> 
> It's up to the 3D display to figure out how to get each image to each eye: whether that's active shutter, polarized, holographic, autoscopic, etc.



I know what's in the HDMI 1.4 3D standard, since that is readily available and freely downloadable. HDMI 1.4 does indeed handle many types of 3D displays (but not a true holographic display - I'm sure you simply misspoke). But I have not read the Blu-ray 3D standard, which was the only one I mentioned. I have heard that it does not support quincunx (checkerboard). So it's possible other types of 3D display will be incompatible. One would think that in principle if the player simply outputs alternating left-eye and right-eye frames, as just one example of a possible output mode, it should work with any kind of stereoscopic display that accepts alternating frames. But I do not know for certain what format the xpol displays require the images to be input. Do you?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18248642
> 
> 
> I know what's in the HDMI 1.4 3D standard, since that is readily available and freely downloadable. HDMI 1.4 does indeed handle many types of 3D displays (but not a true holographic display - I'm sure you simply misspoke). But I have not read the Blu-ray 3D standard, which was the only one I mentioned. I have heard that it does not support quincunx (checkerboard). So it's possible other types of 3D display will be incompatible. One would think that in principle if the player simply outputs alternating left-eye and right-eye frames, as just one example of a possible output mode, it should work with any kind of stereoscopic display that accepts alternating frames, *but I do not know for certain what format the xpol displays require the images to be input. Do you*?



From My JVC link:



> Quote:
> Compatible with 2 different (Line-by-Line and Side-by-Side) 3D signal inputs


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18248663
> 
> 
> From My JVC link:



Thanks. Does the Blu-ray 3D standard support either of these modes? I say that thinking it must surely. My original question was more rhetorical than revealing of any real doubt.


Who here has actually read the Blu-ray 3D standard? If you have, how did you get a look at it? Where can it be downloaded?


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18248716
> 
> 
> Thanks. Does the Blu-ray 3D standard support either of these modes? I say that thinking it must surely. My original question was more rhetorical than revealing of any real doubt.



That JVC 3DTV came out August of last year so it isn't going to have 1.4 inputs.



> Quote:
> Who here has actually read the Blu-ray 3D standard? If you have, how did you get a look at it? Where can it be downloaded?



AFAIK (???), the BDA does not freely publish tech specs. You have to be a member to get access.


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18248642
> 
> 
> I know what's in the HDMI 1.4 3D standard, since that is readily available and freely downloadable. HDMI 1.4 does indeed handle many types of 3D displays (but not a true holographic display - I'm sure you simply misspoke). But I have not read the Blu-ray 3D standard, which was the only one I mentioned. I have heard that it does not support quincunx (checkerboard). So it's possible other types of 3D display will be incompatible. One would think that in principle if the player simply outputs alternating left-eye and right-eye frames, as just one example of a possible output mode, it should work with any kind of stereoscopic display that accepts alternating frames. But I do not know for certain what format the xpol displays require the images to be input. Do you?



Naturally only 3D sets that were designed to accept native stereo images according to the HDMI 1.4 3d spec will be assured that they are able to receive and properly handle those signals. But that issue is separate from the *technology* that the set uses to display the 3D (polarized/shutter etc.)


the HD standard over HDMI transmits two images. It's up to the display to figure out what to do with them. In the case of Mitsubishi, it's the *TV set* that's not playing the game, because they implimented a checkerboard system on their own before the HDMI standards were in place and so they didn't include the ability for their set to receive and recognize real stereo dual-images to then process (downconvert if you will) into checkerboard for the DMD chips. Therefore, you need to use a HDMI 1.4 -> checkerboard converter to get that set to work with the new 3D systems.


However, any 3D display produced *after* the HDMI 1.4 3D spec has been finalized should be designed to receive the stereo image. That makes no difference whether they are polarized or active shutter. If they need to do conversions of any sort, they can do that internally and the HDMI 1.4 spec doesn't have to be affected.


Had those Mitsubishi 3D DLP sets been designed after the HDMI 1.4 protocols were in place, they too would accept the native dual-stream stereo images and just do the checkerboard conversion internally.


As long as you have dual stereo images, any display can convert them to any other type of system as the rest are all reductions in one way or another from the original full-resolution 1920 x 1080p stereo. The 1/2 res top/bottom and side-side 3D provision added to 1.4 late in the game was only to appease the TV folks like DSS, and 3D sets will probably take those signal and internally separate them and expand them into two full-resolution 1920x1080 streams before display.


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18248907
> 
> 
> Naturally only 3D sets that were designed to accept native stereo images according to the HDMI 1.4 3d spec will be assured that they are able to receive and properly handle those signals. But that issue is separate from the *technology* that the set uses to display the 3D (polarized/shutter etc.)



That's obvious and something I certainly understood. Note that my original question was mostly rhetorical. (Need I say that yet again?)



> Quote:
> the HD standard over HDMI transmits two images. It's up to the display to figure out what to do with them. In the case of Mitsubishi, it's the *TV set* that's not playing the game, because they implimented a checkerboard system on their own before the HDMI standards were in place and so they didn't include the ability for their set to receive and recognize real stereo dual-images to then process (downconvert if you will) into checkerboard for the DMD chips.



I think most of us here understand that. The issue in that specific case is the BDA's apparent decision not to require explicit support in a 3D Blu-ray player for an existing and reasonably "popular" (est. 2 million TVs) format for inputting half-res 3D images. HDMI 1.4 supports it as well as several other half-res formats, as you say. Unfortunate. (I don't myself own a DLP RPTV, btw, so I have no personal stake in the issue either way.)


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18248846
> 
> 
> AFAIK (???), the BDA does not freely publish tech specs. You have to be a member to get access.



I assumed as much. Which is why I asked the question. Someone here might work for a company that is a member of the BDA or they've perhaps obtained the specification "through the back door": I'd like to know who those people are. Wouldn't you? Everyone else who speaks specifically about what is or is not in that specification, unless they are quoting a source who has read the document or the few details that have been made public, is speculating. I'm just being frank, no intent to offend anyone (certainly no one specifically - no one in the current thread has, AFAIK, made any such _specific_ claims about what is in that spec.)


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18249244
> 
> 
> That's obvious and something I certainly understood. Note that my original question was mostly rhetorical. (Need I say that yet again?)
> 
> 
> I think most of us here understand that. The issue in that specific case is the BDA's decision not to require explicit support in a player for an existing format for inputting half-res 3D images. As you go on to say, they included other half-res formats to appease certain interests, but not that one. Unfortunate. (I don't myself own a DLP RPTV, btw, so I have no personal stake in the issue either way.)



True.


The BD player is probably only required to output one particular kind of 3D signal. But that's because all HDMI 1.4 spec displays would be able to use that signal.


Other types of 3D protocols could be built in to a 3D blu-ray player as optional. Even on-the-fly color-filtering to create a composite red/blue mono signal for old-fashioned anaglyph glasses! Perhaps checkerboard could be an option that some BD player might include as well. But any television that opperates outside of the HDMI 1.4 3D spec should also be able to benefit from some sort of converter, like the Mits sets. Maybe the best solution would be for a *receiver* manufacturer to build 3D conversion options into the processing of the recevier... so no matter what type of 3D signal goes in (stereo, left/right, top/bottom etc.) you could output it to the desired type for your display (like checkerboard).


Since the population of legacy 3D displays that aren't HDMI 1.4 compliant is pretty small, and will get proportionally smaller as new HDMI 1.4 3D sets come into use, eventually it will be a moot issue and a given converter box solution should do the trick for anyone with a legacy 3D set.


(p.s. not trying to be condescending or anything rest assured. The original notion asking if blu-ray would work with "polarized" 3D as opposed to active shutter was a natural point to generate some good clarity about the nature of the 3D spec and what it means)


----------



## DaViD Boulet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18249293
> 
> 
> I assumed as much. Which is why I asked the question. Someone here might work for a company that is a member of the BDA or they've perhaps obtained the specification "through the back door": I'd like to know who those people are. Wouldn't you? Everyone else who speaks specifically about what is or is not in that specification, unless they are quoting a source who has read the document or the few details that have been made public, is speculating. I'm just being frank, no intent to offend anyone (certainly no one specifically - no one in the current thread has, AFAIK, made any such _specific_ claims about what is in that spec.)



most of this talk about the details of the "spec" is based off of conversations from CES with manufacturers etc. Hopefully we'll get some better clarity on all these points as 3D nears release.


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18248846
> 
> 
> That JVC 3DTV came out August of last year so it isn't going to have 1.4 inputs.



That's actually more of a problem than the data format itself. The 1.4 spec specifically says that "an HDMI source shall not send any 3D video format to a sink that does not indicate support for that format." It's the "indicate support" part that causes the problem. Even if the display accepts a particular 3D data format that the player can output (e.g., line interleaved), if the display can't tell the player that fact in the expected 1.4 protocol, the jig is up. Of course, an adapter would take care of that but how likely is one for anything other than the Mits/Samsung DLP sets, which have a large enough installed base to justify development?


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaViD Boulet* /forum/post/18249401
> 
> 
> The BD player is probably only required to output one particular kind of 3D signal. But that's because all HDMI 1.4 spec displays would be able to use that signal.



I expect you are right.



> Quote:
> Other types of 3D protocols could be built in to a 3D blu-ray player as optional. Even on-the-fly color-filtering to create a composite red/blue mono signal for old-fashioned anaglyph glasses!Perhaps checkerboard could be an option that some BD player might include as well.



Yes, that may be possible, assuming the Blu-ray 3D spec doesn't for some insane reason prohibit that. I'd buy a player that supported optional output formats such as these over one that did not, all other things being more-or-less equal. (Are you listening, CE manufacturers??)



> Quote:
> Maybe the best solution would be for a *receiver* manufacturer to build 3D conversion options into the processing of the recevier... so no matter what type of 3D signal goes in (stereo, left/right, top/bottom etc.) you could output it to the desired type for your display (like checkerboard).



Good idea!


----------



## Lee Stewart




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GI Joe Sixpack* /forum/post/18249518
> 
> 
> That's actually more of a problem than the data format itself. The 1.4 spec specifically says that "an HDMI source shall not send any 3D video format to a sink that does not indicate support for that format." It's the "indicate support" part that causes the problem. Even if the display accepts a particular 3D data format that the player can output (e.g., line interleaved), if the display can't tell the player that fact in the expected 1.4 protocol, the jig is up. Of course, an adapter would take care of that but how likely is one for anything other than the Mits/Samsung DLP sets, which have a large enough installed base to justify development?



You are referencing the EDID?


----------



## GI Joe Sixpack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lee Stewart* /forum/post/18249626
> 
> 
> You are referencing the EDID?



I was thinking of EDID, yes. Over EDID, players & graphics cards have always been able to read the video resolutions supported by the display. I'm assuming something similar is also be available for 3D information. That's the way I intrepreted the spec, but maybe I'm wrong. The spec also mentions 3D information flowing from the source to the sink (EDID data travels the other way) in an "HDMI vendor specific infoframe packet" and an "AVI infoframe." In any case if the display isn't 1.4 then 3D information won't be communicated or won't be used, whichever way it flows.


----------



## BAMAVADER




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hikarate* /forum/post/17748738
> 
> 
> 3d the next big thing. I had to go find this image that always pops in my head whenever i hear the word.



+1


----------



## Celo

My uncle wants to buy a 3D TV. I told him I would not if I were him. I do not see the 3D becoming a big thing. He thinks 3D will be the future. He said we will see camcorders, digital cameras, etc. in 3D also.


So, when I was at the mall yesterday, I checked out the Sony store. I put the not so comfortable glasses and watched the 3D demo. Very nice, especially real life pictures, like soccer, etc. Still though, I do not see myself watching 3D programming all the time. Especially when I have to put the 3D glasses. I guess it is cool to watch some stuff but for everything, I don't know.


I am thinking 3D will not make it.


I guess my uncle and I will see the results, in few years.


----------



## theblackkeys




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Celo* /forum/post/19084373
> 
> 
> My uncle wants to buy a 3D TV. I told him I would not if I were him. I do not see the 3D becoming a big thing. He thinks 3D will be the future. He said we will see camcorders, digital cameras, etc. in 3D also.
> 
> 
> So, when I was at the mall yesterday, I checked out the Sony store. I put the not so comfortable glasses and watched the 3D demo. Very nice, especially real life pictures, like soccer, etc. Still though, I do not see myself watching 3D programming all the time. Especially when I have to put the 3D glasses. I guess it is cool to watch some stuff but for everything, I don't know.
> 
> 
> I am thinking 3D will not make it.
> 
> 
> I guess my uncle and I will see the results, in few years.



I still think what people fail to realize is the 3D TV's are their respective companies BEST 2D TV's.


----------



## Duck05

Appears it is going that way with the 3D feature being available in the higher bracket models.


Even if (when) more content becomes available, having a hard time believing that the general public (not the people on this forum) will flock to 3D and wear glasses to watch TV in their family rooms.


And those with dedicated home theaters for movie or major sporting events it is hard to fathom that this audience would view 3D materials that often. Could be wrong but with the economy the way it is just can't project how fast this will ramp up or play out....


----------



## bill4903485

With 2010 almost gone, believe we have our answer....


What Happened to That 3-D TV Bonanza?

By DAWN KAWAMOTO


Posted 10:45 AM 12/21/10


Manufacturers of 3-D TVs are getting a lump of coal this holiday season. High expectations for frothy sales have failed to materialize, and price cuts of more than 40% continue during this critical selling period.


Such lackluster sales have been a huge disappointment for the industry, which rolled out a plethora of 3-D sets at the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this year, after offering a sneak peak of the technology in 2009. Research firm DisplaySearch, in October, lowered its 3-D TV shipment projections to 1.6 million in North America for this year from its previous summer forecast of over 2 million.


And prices for the new technology remained compressed even as the sets first appeared in stores en masse, which doesn't bode well. Typically, manufacturers hope to capture their fattest profits right after a new product is introduced.





See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/hKqaJD


----------



## Celo

I guess some people were wrong



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## billqs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Celo*  /t/1207638/is-3d-tv-the-next-big-thing-for-2010/360#post_24758880
> 
> 
> I guess some people were wrong
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I think several factors have kept 3D from greater adoption in the consumer field:

1. The chain to produce a 3d image is relatively complicated for a casual user- (Must have 3d blu-ray, 3d blu-ray player, 3d capable receiver to pass 3d signal (HDMI 1.4) and 3d Display.

2. 3D discs were packaged and sold at a price a good bit greater than the 2d version ( a lot of "special packages")

3. 3D was often only included on higher priced TV's

4. A lot of 3D titles were originally 2D converted to 3D as an afterthought by studios (often yielding poor results)

5. A 50" or less surface doesn't adequately recreate the WOW factor of 3D in a theater.


3D looks really good projected, which is why I am hoping as a projector owner that 3D continues even as a niche market. The right 3D projected on a large surface can be amazing!


----------

