3d will be here forever !!! So get on board

polkfarmboy · May 2010

I here alot of negative stuff about 3D but its realy going to be here forever so go buy 3D stuff and have confidence

People will say .....wa wa waaaaa booo boo but mostly its because they dont want to buy it and be outa pocket

To me 3D is the best thing ever and I am very excited to buy a 3D tv but would rather wait till a 1080p projector gets released on the market

I hear people say "Why buy it when theres only a few movies being released a year" well thats true . The way 3D will truly take of is the video game industry and this will push the market forward leading to more movies

Pretty much every single major video game in development at the moment is being done in 3D . The reasons I want better audio or a larger screen is to immerse myself as deep as I can for escapism and relaxation so 3D will immerse you more in what you love

imagine sitting playing first person shooters and realy getting the best experience you can hope for . I personily cant wait and I think 3D makes already good things great

RuSsMaN · May 2010

What exactly do I need to buy? When I had my SDA SRS 2's, all I had to do was close my eyes, and try my hardest not to fall out of my chair. You want me to open my eyes and drop a couple mortgage payments in the process?

I do find it interesting, and as with any new tech, it will be refined, filter down, and become (more) afforadable for those interested. I actually had a demo just today, and I was THRILLED that the kids had their glasses on and were freaking out, and I didn't have glasses and the picture wasn't full of red and blue haze.

Cheers,
Russ

cnh · May 2010

pfarmboy,

I don't disagree. I can't justify the expense at the moment and I'm NOT a gamer so there you go...I guess I'm in the camp you mention (are we Luddites perhaps...nah! we're just cheap...or we have a mortgage payment due as RuSsMaN alludes to above.)

I saw the 3D effects and the glasses in all their glory at a museum here in China. Pretty similar to what you can experience in any 3D imax across the U.S. The problem is that

1. NEW receiver with 1.4a HDMI
2. New BDP with 3D and 1.4 HDMI
3. A few sets of glasses at around 200 dollars or so a pop!
4. Last but not least....a brand new multi-thousand dollar HDTV with HDMI 1.4a and 3D capability.

Last time I looked I was not Diamond Jim and you can't buy ANY of this 'used' yet? So you're going to have to pay top dollar....1000s of dollars?

cnh

F1nut · May 2010

imagine sitting playing first person shooters and realy getting the best experience you can hope for

Join the Army.

halo71 · May 2010

F1nut wrote: »

Join the Army.

lol...brilliant!

cstmar01 · May 2010

not interested in 3D wearing double glasses makes me feel lamer than I already am and after awhile its just annoying.

a lot of polls do not show people are that big into 3D, and personally I don't think a lot of people are going to jump on the bandwagon anytime soon because of 1. They just got an LCD TV after upgrading from CRT, and 2. They don't see the point. Woohoo its 3D, the idea that you could have a TV that was smaller, and easier to work with, that gave you a great picture. That was an easier selling point then, ok you already got the smaller greater pic TV now you need to wear these glasses and upgrade all your stuff so you can watch in 3D...after awhile the upgrading doesn't sound like an upgrade anymore and seems like a waste of money.

kevhed72 · May 2010

The other night I saw Clash of the Titans in 3D in the theater. Question: Does 3D on these new TV's look similiar to what you would experience in the theaters?

Amherst · May 2010

Think the bigger question will be "Is it successful?".

First off, this is simply a rehash of old failed technology with higher resolution.
The glasses and the negative tricks that are played on the brain are not something that can be overcome in the current implementation. Still think it will sell some, as anything new (good or bad) seems to do these days. We'll see.

bobman1235 · May 2010

It's an expensive gimmick. Whether it's here to stay or not is irrelevant.

kevhed72 · May 2010

The Clash of the Titans 3D experience was not good. I felt like I was watching one of those red binocular things that you would put the disc in, and then see different scenes in 3-D, but in a movie format. What were those things called?

AsSiMiLaTeD · May 2010

There's also a large group of people who can't see in 3D. I happen to fall into that group, so I have no idea what I'm missing.

kevhed72 · May 2010

Viewmaster Viewfinder

nooshinjohn · May 2010

F1nut wrote: »

Join the Army.

I would have said Marines, but that's just me:p...

Sherardp · May 2010

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I would have said Marines, but that's just me:p...

Now that's brilliant!

No 3D for me.......hell they're just now getting 2D decent. Why screw up a good thing? I'm good on the 3D gimmick, it's not something I can really get into yet regardless of price.

Pycroft · May 2010

I think it will be worth it, but when any new technology, there will be bugs. I can imagine the video gaming industry making new games, and them being awful flops because they will be clumbsy to play due to experiementing with the new horizons of the technology. In two years, probably more options to watch/play, price comes down a bit, and more reliability....then I'll give it a run. I'm not just upgrading everything because I loved Avatar

And I can't afford it anyway!

James

cheddar · May 2010

kevhed72 wrote: »

The Clash of the Titans 3D experience was not good. I felt like I was watching one of those red binocular things that you would put the disc in, and then see different scenes in 3-D, but in a movie format. What were those things called?

Just a comment on the movie. Clash of the Titans was not shot in 3D like Avatar with special 3D cameras. It was 'upconverted' afterwards to cash in on the 3D hype and is supposed to be a bad conversion layering the 3D effect in planes. Some people worried it would put people off to 3D because of its bad quality and I guess they were right.

jdwmap · May 2010

cnh wrote: »

pfarmboy,

I don't disagree. I can't justify the expense at the moment and I'm NOT a gamer so there you go...I guess I'm in the camp you mention (are we Luddites perhaps...nah! we're just cheap...or we have a mortgage payment due as RuSsMaN alludes to above.)

I saw the 3D effects and the glasses in all their glory at a museum here in China. Pretty similar to what you can experience in any 3D imax across the U.S. The problem is that

1. NEW receiver with 1.4a HDMI
2. New BDP with 3D and 1.4 HDMI
3. A few sets of glasses at around 200 dollars or so a pop!
4. Last but not least....a brand new multi-thousand dollar HDTV with HDMI 1.4a and 3D capability.

Last time I looked I was not Diamond Jim and you can't buy ANY of this 'used' yet? So you're going to have to pay top dollar....1000s of dollars?

cnh

If I jump on the bandwagon, I plan to buy a TV, I have a PS3 already which will do the movies. The glasses will very likely be used as free promo pieces as I highly doubt they have anywhere near the cost of 200.00 in them, but a high retail price so you get a huge perceived savings by getting a pair or two free with a TV purchase (Kinda like overpriced cables thrown in with your HT purchase). So I am looking at maybe 2000.00 to jump in with a decent sized TV. Not the end of the world, but if you bought a TV in the last 3 years, you may not want to upgrade (I did, I love my 55" TV, but will still switch it out). I have decided I don't need to have a receiver handle my video, just the sound . . .

digitalvideo · May 2010

Do any of you think Avatar would have looked even better in 3D if it was filmed 100% with IMAX cameras?

Sherardp · May 2010

digitalvideo wrote: »

Do any of you think Avatar would have looked even better in 3D if it was filmed 100% with IMAX cameras?

NOPE......If it were shot in 4K then sure.

mystik610 · May 2010

kevhed72 wrote: »

The other night I saw Clash of the Titans in 3D in the theater. Question: Does 3D on these new TV's look similiar to what you would experience in the theaters?

In my experience, 3D on a very large screen in a light controlled theater is far more convincing than 3D in most viewing areas (unless you have a light controlled home theater)...mostly because in those environments, the screen is the only thing you can see.

Stereoscopic 3D is an optical illusion that tricks your eye's depth of field....it works when the screen is the only thing you can see.... but when you're not in a light controlled room and can see the screen's surroundings in your peripheral vision, you can see the inconsistency in your eyes depth of field, and the whole 3D effects falls apart.....It a lot like how a 3D sound-stage falls apart when speakers don't image properly, and you become very aware of where sound is coming from. With a lot of these 3D sets, you can see the inconsistencies in your depth of field, and the optical illusion just doesn't work.

Properly calibrated 2D screens with deep blacks and good contrast ratios do a far more convincing job of conveying depth of field IMO....the problem is, most consumers have never seen a properly calibrated TV! I personally would have rather seen manufacturer's do more R&D on 2D sets....we were seeing very good progress with LED back-lit LCD's, but those are few and far between now. These 3D TV's and edge-lit LED's are a step-backwards in display technology IMO.

steveinaz · May 2010

3D video will suffer the same fate as SACD, because they will make the same follow-up (or lack of) marketing mistakes*. You heard it here first.

*lack of software
*high introductory costs
*having to replace existing movie libraries
*lack of overall participation
*will be seen as "gimmicky"
*too soon...most folks are just now getting on the HDTV train

cheddar · May 2010

mystik610 wrote: »

In my experience, 3D on a very large screen in a light controlled theater is far more convincing than 3D in most viewing areas (unless you have a light controlled home theater)...mostly because in those environments, the screen is the only thing you can see.

So you're saying that we will need large,wall covering screens (projectors) to appeciate what the technology is really capable of? Seems like looking out a small window in a wall would have the same potential to break up the 'depth of field illusion' since we 'see' the real world 3D with two different pictures to our two eyes in the same way. I would think it would depend on the quality of the 3D product (3D cameras used like in Avatar, instead of a poor upconversion like in Clash) more than just seeing a wall in your field of vision.

mystik610 · May 2010

cheddar wrote: »

So you're saying that we will need large,wall covering screens (projectors) to appeciate what the technology is really capable of? Seems like looking out a small window in a wall would have the same potential to break up the 'depth of field illusion' since we 'see' the real world 3D with two different pictures to our two eyes in the same way. I would think it would depend on the quality of the 3D product (3D cameras used like in Avatar, instead of a poor upconversion like in Clash) more than just seeing a wall in your field of vision.

When you're looking at a 3D screen, what you're actually looking at is two images being filtered back and forth between each eye in rapid succession. (That's why the glasses are necessary) Each eye interprets a different set of visual information at different times, tricking how your brain interprets your depth of field....its a lot like running dipole speakers out of phase to trick your ears depth of field. the 3D effect falls apart when your peripheral vision isn't subject to the same filtering...the glasses aren't going to filter data that isn't on the screen.

You don't necesarily need to have a wall sized screen, but you do need to be in a light controlled room that minimizes or eliminates your peripheral vision.

Looking out a window is not the same thing, as you aren't really seeing two different pictures....there's no illusion going on. You're looking at one picture with the wall in the foreground, and whatever is outside the window in the background.

Willow · May 2010

I kinda smell BETA here.

We bought our plasma 3 yrs ago. I have no interest in buying a new tv (maybe a PJ

) The only time I will buy a 3d tv is if and when they can do it without having to wear glasses. Try watching a 3d family movie with only 2 pairs of glasses. At the above mentioned price of 200$ per pair for a family of 4 it's 1K for stupid glasses that you kids will leave on the couch and we will sit on them. NO Thanks! (oh and I don't have any kids..yet) or in my case the dogs get at them...

ryanjoachim · May 2010

jdwmap wrote: »

The glasses will very likely be used as free promo pieces as I highly doubt they have anywhere near the cost of 200.00 in them, but a high retail price so you get a huge perceived savings by getting a pair or two free with a TV purchase (Kinda like overpriced cables thrown in with your HT purchase).

Actually, decent glasses will be brand-specific at first (panny glasses with panny TV for instance) and WILL cost an average of $199 (according to Engadget) for each set past the first 2 or w/e the current "special" would be.

steveinaz wrote: »

3D video will suffer the same fate as SACD, because they will make the same follow-up (or lack of) marketing mistakes*. You heard it here first.

*lack of software
*high introductory costs
*having to replace existing movie libraries
*lack of overall participation
*will be seen as "gimmicky"
*too soon...most folks are just now getting on the HDTV train

Only thing I would mention about this is that they already have software out there (TV/dvd player thing) that will automatically (on the fly) convert your movie from 2D to 3D. While this is obviously not the "best" way to have a 3D movie, it does at least mean you don't have to replace your whole collection if you don't want to.

Erik Tracy · May 2010

And as soon as you think you have finished with your new fangled future proof 3D wiz-bang upgrade...it will be obsolete cuz a new fangled technology will come out that everyone says you have to have.

The rate of change of technology only means the rate of change of obsolescence increases as well.

If my Windows95 computer hadn't crashed and died - I'd still be using that - along with my Super Beta machine (it *is* better than VHS!)

pitdogg2 · May 2010

bobman1235 wrote: »

It's an expensive gimmick. Whether it's here to stay or not is irrelevant.

Yes i too think it will be short lived. This whole thing reminds me off SACD and DVD-Audio. I jumped on that bandwagon and love all my SACD and DVD-Audio's but no sooner than i spent the money for the player and it all came to a halt. The major manufactures found that they didn't have the guts to stay in it and push the media. I agree with another poster most of us have just spent major bucks on a flat panel upgrade and it is far too soon to justify another major purchase plus all the gear to support it.

bobman1235 · May 2010

SACD and DVD-Audio at least have some relevance from a fidelity ponit of view. For people like a lot on the forum, you're getting a higher quality product.

There's nothing about 3D that is higher quality, it is exactly a silly gimmick and nothing more.

cheddar · May 2010

mystik610 wrote: »

When you're looking at a 3D screen, what you're actually looking at is two images being filtered back and forth between each eye in rapid succession. (That's why the glasses are necessary) Each eye interprets a different set of visual information at different times, tricking how your brain interprets your depth of field...

Looking out a window is not the same thing, as you aren't really seeing two different pictures....there's no illusion going on. You're looking at one picture with the wall in the foreground, and whatever is outside the window in the background.

This does not sound right. When you see a 120hz image on a regular HDTV, an image is being refreshed on the screen in rapid succession and we combine the images we see as if it were a smooth live image. That's all that's happening with 3D except that the successive images alternate for each eye and the glasses alternately block the image to the eye it's not meant for. There is no magic 3D 'filtering' going on. Just each lens alternately blocking the image that isn't meant for each eye. However, each eye receives the proper images in rapid succession and sees it as if it were a smooth live image just like a regular HDTV image.

The same 'illusion' occurs if you're looking out a window, because each eye sees a slightly different viewpoint of what's outside the window because our eyes are naturally offset. And our brain mashes the two 2D images together to give us the perception of depth. Our eyes always see in 2D whether live or with the new tech. It's our brain that has to mash the two images together to perceive depth.

So that's why I say that if the tech can deliver the two images constantly in the proper perspective (like when a 3D camera uses two lenses to create the same images our eyes would see or a 3D game can place objects with the same precision), there should be no difference in the 3D picture we see out a window and that on an HDTV screen except for obvious things like resolution, color, lack of film grain, the effect of seeing any picture in 24-240Hz etc. But the 3D image our 'brain' sees should be the same as the effect is created by seeing two offset 2D images in both cases.

polkfarmboy · May 2010

If one needs to wear glasses for vision the wearing contacts might not be a bad idea.......cstmar01???

To the cheeky buggers F1nut and nooshinjohn ....... Shooting some poor guy in the face who's trying to defend his country is not what I had in mind

For people who go to the cinema and see a 3D movie like avatar ..... your watching a movie using passive glasses . I saw avatar and it gave me a sore head it realy sucked because it screwed up the color too

True 3D effect uses active glasses that are getting cheaper by the day .The active glasses work fine in a bright room and close on eye and open the other tricking your brain .Although youl get a dimmer image you never want to watch movies with the lights on anyways

To steveinaz..... All the new games are not solely made in 3D they work for 2D so when I said that pretty mutch every game thats in development is being done in 3D its because the gaming markets gona explode this platform . These new games wont flop at all its simply an extra option to give you even more value for your money

You can download 3D drivers for free on you pc for free thats the same high end software that being used by developers in the industry

Theres also tons of games that becoming available thats now converted in 3D

dkg999 · May 2010

Cheeky buggers is one of the nicer things F1 and nooshin have been called!

I'll pass on 3D. It's a teaser and just another step in the technology road-map. How far off can the time be when I can suit up, put on the virtual reality helmet, and be in the movie I'm watching? Now that would be cool!

3d will be here forever !!! So get on board

Comments