PDA

View Full Version : Sony plans to put 3D televisions in homes by the end of next year


aglick
09-03-2009, 11:03 PM
http://boxxlabs.blogspot.com/2009/09/sony-to-begin-selling-3dtvs-bythe-end.html

DuttyFoot
09-03-2009, 11:08 PM
yeah i heard about that. I think based on the upcoming avatar movie panasonic plans to do the same.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/03/eyes-on-panasonics-full-hd-3d-plasma-and-blu-ray-combo/

seems like philips is on board also

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/03/philips-56-inch-21-9-3d-tvs-futures-so-bright-we-had-to-wear/

aglick
09-03-2009, 11:17 PM
yep - and JVC: http://www.displayblog.com/2009/04/13/jvc-gd-463d10-46-1080p-3d-lcd-tv/

Animasta
09-03-2009, 11:22 PM
Awesome news :)

Laa-Yosh
09-04-2009, 01:24 AM
They're all using active glasses - LCDs are in the glasses that flicker in sync with the TV's refresh rate. So it's not as easy on the eyes like Dolby 3D or RealD cinemas that use passive glasses. Also, the active glasses need to have batteries in them too, making them heavy and even more expensive...

The trouble is that passive glasses need different polarization for which TV screens aren't really ready. If you have a projector it's an easier case, but the polarizing equipment is already expensive, and the screen you use needs a special coating that's not cheap either.

So I predict we'll see a second wave of new, polarized TVs offering the superior tech - sometime after 2010... But this at least makes them put out bluray discs that have stereo content and fortunately that can be the same for all display technologies...

SciFibrow
09-04-2009, 01:53 AM
sounds great, though the timing is a bit off.. Avatar is out at the end of this year and they'll bring sets out a whole year later?

Maybe Panasonic will get moving sooner, but it's a bit of a laugh that their main rival isn't taking advantage of the squillion dollars worth of Avatar marketing. Will Sony actually hand this to Panasonic on a platter?

lol (I'll buy the first one that DOESN'T cost as much as a small car...)

CHRiTTeR
09-04-2009, 01:55 AM
didnt philips already try (or do) this?
I heared some sold tv's already have 3d capability.

philnolan3d
09-04-2009, 02:05 AM
They're all using active glasses

Aw, I heard this earlier and assumed it was the TVs that don't need glasses. Oh well, still cool news.

SciFibrow
09-04-2009, 02:37 AM
I tried out Invincible Tiger the other day with the Anaglyph mode and it really whet my appetite for non-headache inducing 3D. The lofty heights and the 3D cherry blossoms are beautiful and feel really epic! Especially when coupled with the top class animation (and, of course, 70's retro kung fu).

This tech really won't take off though unless there are a LOT of rich nerds out there willing to take the risk. So unlikely... unless they change their tactic and make it closer to cost price (c'mon, $7000 US?! what is it, made of gold?)

philnolan3d
09-04-2009, 02:53 AM
didnt philips already try (or do) this?
I heared some sold tv's already have 3d capability.

I don't know who makes it exactly, but I know they have been around. I remember hearing that my old school just got one like 6 months ago.

3dtutorial
09-04-2009, 03:00 AM
didnt philips already try (or do) this?
I heared some sold tv's already have 3d capability.

Yup and they killed the project off - it is dead.

Regards,

J

DuttyFoot
09-04-2009, 03:46 AM
i found a webste some time ago of a company that was at nab and they were showing off there displays that could do stereoscopic 3d.

aglick
09-04-2009, 04:29 AM
The Sony and JVC 3DTVs use cheap passive polarized glasses that only cost a couple of dollars.

On the surface of the screen is a thin polarized film with that has 1080 "lens strips" all the way across the surface of the screen. These strips are perfectly aligned with the pixels on the panel. The strips act like lenses to polarize the light in alternating left or right circular polarization patterns.

Two signals are fed to the monitor. One for left eye, one for right eye.

These signals get displayed on the monitor in an interlaced format where every other field will carry the signal for only one eye at a time.

These fields (60 per second) become polarized in alternating modes as the light passes through the alternating polarized film.

The cheap glasses are also polarized so that you only see the image for one eye at a time -in the correctly corresponding eye.

The screen refreshes fast enough that you can't detect any "flickering" or other temporal or annoying visual or temporal distortions.

The 3D effect is very very good. It's as good as or better (visually) than "active shutter" technologies.

DuttyFoot
09-04-2009, 04:32 AM
this is the other company i was talking about

http://www.alioscopyusa.com/content/3d-display

technology overview

http://www.alioscopyusa.com/content/technology-overview

Digiegg
09-04-2009, 05:18 AM
do we have to wear those glasses everytime we watch movies?

axiomatic
09-04-2009, 05:58 AM
Dammit!!

I've got strabismic amblyopia (err, i'm both cross-eyed and lazy-eyed) so I can't see 3D tv or movies. I expect one day this may become a problem with my work (3D artist) if this trend of steroscopic development continues.

And it gets worse, since my dominant eye has crap vision while my lazy eye is fine. Apparently that's rare, usually the dominant eye is the better one. So while I should be able to go without glasses knowing my lazy eye can't see anything much anyway, the reality is I have to wear glasses unless I want to walk around with one eye always stuck looking at my nose.


Bah :(

philnolan3d
09-04-2009, 12:17 PM
do we have to wear those glasses everytime we watch movies?

I know I've seen a number of YouTube videos from CES about TVs that display 3D without glasses. I just searched now and could only find this one LG TV, but this video's a couple of years old:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-TPxytihwI

Here's an article about an LG TV that display's 3D with glasses:
http://www.hardwaresphere.com/2009/06/18/lg-unveils-3d-version-of-lcd-tv/

The problem with glasses has always been for people like myself who already wear glasses, it's rather uncomfortable to wear two pairs. Perhaps if there was a clip-on version that might be better.

Edit: Here's a slightly newer (and longer) video of that TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFgjsloidPA

Lordiego01
09-04-2009, 01:41 PM
we had a demo at my job with the 3d-ready screens that don't need glasses.

While awesome for the first 30 seconds, you quickly grow tired of it. I guess the tech (at least the ones we saw) are not ready for mass-market consumer yet.

Also, I felt dizzy afterward, like my vision was "off" for a few minutes.

flipnap
09-04-2009, 04:05 PM
i really cant believe this is going mainstream. i think companies have lost their minds. Im guessing after all this fails itll give the main players a reason to ask for a "bailout" when they go bankrupt. the whole 3d phase the nations in (and yes its a phase, we been here before and left it) will pass. All this technology will be vaporware.. its already bad enough that the average price for a set has increased 10 fold because of technology and will only last a fraction of time its analog counterpart will (i still have an 8 year old TV going strong, and i doubt my LDC tv will last that long).. so someones gonna go spend, say 8 grand on a 32 inch 3d tv, then what, blow 200 bucks a pop every time they accidently sit on their glasses? how many times have you lost your remote? i mean seriously, its a novelty. It works in the theater. It belongs in the theater.. the only way i will ever comfortably watch 3d in my house is with split eye video monitor glasses.. theyre trying to get people to put glasses on their heads, why not just build the LCD right into the eyepieces and do it right with full stereo seperation..

CHRiTTeR
09-04-2009, 04:12 PM
Maybe its a good time to introduce those oldschool VR-helmet type of things.

I heared a few years ago there was a new technologie that projected the images directly into your eye and it wasnt as damaging to your eyes as watching tv + you also you got a bigger fov/screen/projection (because you arent staring at some distant illuminating screen).

Isnt this better if you have to wear glasses anyway?
No more need for polarisation and all those problems.

Decency
09-04-2009, 04:26 PM
I agree completely with Flipnap, I personally can't stand the new "3D" experience in it's current form. I saw the movie UP in 3D and I just couldn't get over how dark and desaturated everything looked the whole time because of those glasses.

FreDre
09-04-2009, 04:44 PM
i really cant believe this is going mainstream. i think companies have lost their minds. Im guessing after all this fails itll give the main players a reason to ask for a "bailout" when they go bankrupt. the whole 3d phase the nations in (and yes its a phase, we been here before and left it) will pass. All this technology will be vaporware.. its already bad enough that the average price for a set has increased 10 fold because of technology and will only last a fraction of time its analog counterpart will (i still have an 8 year old TV going strong, and i doubt my LDC tv will last that long).. so someones gonna go spend, say 8 grand on a 32 inch 3d tv, then what, blow 200 bucks a pop every time they accidently sit on their glasses? how many times have you lost your remote? i mean seriously, its a novelty. It works in the theater. It belongs in the theater.. the only way i will ever comfortably watch 3d in my house is with split eye video monitor glasses.. theyre trying to get people to put glasses on their heads, why not just build the LCD right into the eyepieces and do it right with full stereo seperation..

I think you're overreacting a little bit.
The reason that they are announcing this is to please the movies studios who are making a lot of 3D content recently, since the 3D home video market is almost non existent.
I'm pretty sure those upcoming TV displays won't cost 8 grands as you said, and the glasses will cost something like 25-50$ at max. They are trying to make it mainstream. They are not stupid. Maybe they will charge a premium for a little while, but then you'll see all the prices to go down and be much more affordable.

3D is not a gimmick, it's a natural evolution to film, such as color and sound.
The problem is on the delivery of that content.
Yeah, I get it that the glasses are not awesome, a lot of them are not comfortable and they annoy a lot of people, but it's the only way to make this stuff take off.

In a couple of years (5-6 years) we will see the real 3D HDTVs auto-stereoscopic (no glasses needed), but to see that we need to support that early tech so that the big TV manufacturers pumps more money on R&D on those glassless 3D TVs.

I've seen one of those glassless '3D' HDTV made by Phillips, they still need a lot of work but it is feasible (too bad they stopped working on them due to the economy, but I'm pretty sure they will relaunch it after the 3D Digital revolution become mainstream).

BigPixolin
09-04-2009, 04:45 PM
It always amazes me when the people who will benefit from this are against it. :shrug:
I'm still against trapping a band in a radio to hear the music or a camera taking my picture and stealing my soul, evil pure evil! FYI We have not been here before with this technology.
Thats like saying why build new cars with new features we already have a model-t. :rolleyes:

BUZZFX
09-04-2009, 04:54 PM
we had a demo at my job with the 3d-ready screens that don't need glasses. While awesome for the first 30 seconds, you quickly grow tired of it. I guess the tech (at least the ones we saw) are not ready for mass-market consumer yet.
Also, I felt dizzy afterward, like my vision was "off" for a few minutes.My eyes grew tired of 3D after awhile too. I'd much rather see anything without 3D!


i really cant believe this is going mainstream. i think companies have lost their minds. Im guessing after all this fails itll give the main players a reason to ask for a "bailout" when they go bankrupt. the whole 3d phase the nations in (and yes its a phase, we been here before and left it) will pass. All this technology will be vaporware.. its already bad enough that the average price for a set has increased 10 fold because of technology and will only last a fraction of time its analog counterpart will (i still have an 8 year old TV going strong, and i doubt my LDC tv will last that long).. so someones gonna go spend, say 8 grand on a 32 inch 3d tv, then what, blow 200 bucks a pop every time they accidently sit on their glasses? how many times have you lost your remote? i mean seriously, its a novelty. It works in the theater. It belongs in the theater.. the only way i will ever comfortably watch 3d in my house is with split eye video monitor glasses.. theyre trying to get people to put glasses on their heads, why not just build the LCD right into the eyepieces and do it right with full stereo seperation..Totally Agree. It's 3D is way overdone and becoming annoying already!


I agree completely with Flipnap, I personally can't stand the new "3D" experience in it's current form. I saw the movie UP in 3D and I just couldn't get over how dark and desaturated everything looked the whole time because of those glasses.
Yeah, they can work on it a lot more but I am not interested no matter how good it gets, but you can be sure the general public will eat it up, just because Hollyood presents it as the next big thing!


I think you're overreacting a little bit.
The reason that they are announcing this is to please the movies studios who are making a lot of 3D content recently, since the 3D home video is almost non existent.
I'm pretty sure those upcoming TV displays won't cost 8 grands as you said, and the glasses will cost something like 25-50$ at max. They are trying to make it mainstream. They are not stupid. Maybe they will charge a premium for a little while, but then you'll see all the prices to go down and be much more affordable.

3D is not a gimmick, it's a natural evolution to film, such as color and sound. The problem is the delivery of that content. Yeah, I get it that the glasses are not awesome, a lot of them are not comfortable and they annoy a lot of people, but it's the only way to make this stuff take off.

In a couple of years (5-6 years) we will see the real 3D HDTVs auto-stereoscopic (no glasses needed), but to see that we need to support that early tech so that the big TV manufacturers pumps more money on R&D on those glassless 3D TVs.

I've seen one of those glassless '3D' HDTV made by Phillips, they still need a lot of work but it is feasible (too bad they stopped working on them due to the economy, but I'm pretty sure they will relaunch it after the 3D Digital revolution become mainstream).
Frederic, you really sound like you want this to fly so I can only guess you must be creating 3D content?

aglick
09-04-2009, 05:02 PM
Not to bedraggle this topic down the road again...but I believe 3D is here to stay.

I think we've reached a "critical mass". Here's why:

#1. content. 3D content is now relatively easy to make. There are enough 3D films being turned out to support limited adoption by adventurous "Home Theatre" enthusiasts with the extra cash to spend. And there are now the beginnings a rush to produce things (TV shows, ads, etc) in stereo - just in case this whole wacky 3D thing takes off.

#2. Technology. The technology challenges are being solved. The costs will contuinue to come down. The distribution methods are being worked out. There are many increasingly elegant models the "industry" wil be able to choose from when standards become ratified with the various ruling bodies and standards committees.

Yes, you still need glasses. Yes, there will probably still be varying "issues" with picture quality that trained eyes with a propensity for critical viewing will be able to discern.

This said, I believe that the extensive market research on this topic has find that there are plenty enough consumers who are more than happy to look past these issues (or are just simply not aware of them) as long as the economics become feasible and there's enough content.


20 years from now, we may have something better - but 5 years from now, you'll be watching Friday night football (or porno, depending) in 3D.

FreDre
09-04-2009, 05:03 PM
Frederic, you really sound like you want this to fly so I can only guess you must be creating 3D content?

Nope, not yet. But I would love to.

Since I saw Beowulf at IMAX on 3D I'm in love with the format. I think it really adds a new depth to movies. What bothers me is the glasses, of course, they are pretty annoying but once you are immersed on the experience, you forget about them (well, at least I did).

The tech will continue to improve and we will very soon enjoy real 3D without glasses. But I think it's somewhat harsh to say that 3D is crap and it will always be, no matter what they do.
Give it time, folks.

Magnus3D
09-04-2009, 05:21 PM
What's as entertaining in a 3d cinema as the movie itself is to watch people sit there wearing those glasses :) they all look like the alien lizards from the popular -80's series V hehe

http://images.fandango.com/images/fandangoblog/v_l.jpg

/ Magnus

CHRiTTeR
09-04-2009, 05:33 PM
I just couldn't get over how dark and desaturated everything looked the whole time because of those glasses.

Yeah same here. The 3D itself was pretty cool and i was amazed how crisp and sharp it was, but the desaturation and darkness was a huge turn down. I hop they find a solution to that relatively quick (why not project everything 'stronger'?)

I also dont understand why we still need to stare at some stupid illuminating box + the stupid glasses.
The technologie is there to just mount it on our heads. It would be better in so manny ways.
No more polarisation, no more staring at a distant screen (bigger Fov!) and its better for the eyes when projected directly into our eyes (dont know how to say it in english, sry).
Hell they even can build in some surround speakers and off you go! I bet that will be a much better and intense experience then having to look at some 3D images floating in your room.

Venkman
09-04-2009, 05:36 PM
3D is not a gimmick, it's a natural evolution to film, such as color and sound.


50 years from now, VFX people will tell people horror stories of how their ancient predecessors used to film everything in a 2d medium, then try to create/track 3d data after the fact for adding CG, then render it back to a 2d medium for display.

I can't wait to go fully 3d.

pluMmet
09-04-2009, 05:43 PM
I've been saving money for this...now that I know it's shutter glasses they intend to use I'll be spending my money elsewhere.

Perhaps on this. (http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/10/worlds-first-46-inch-stereoscopic-3d-tv-from-hyundai-on-sale-in/)

aglick
09-04-2009, 06:52 PM
Shutter glasses will NOT be needed for many of the 3D Home Theatre technologies -

Again, the Sony and JVC displays use passive, cheap & lightweight "throw away" glasses for a killer stereographic effect. The cost something like $2.

There will also be approaches that use "shutter glasses" but it's not been proven that the image they produce on the retina is of appreciably better quality to make the cost of the shutter glasses worth it for some applications and users.

evolucian
09-04-2009, 06:54 PM
i havent and am not gonna buy a new hdtv for another 1-2 years so this is good news because by then itll probably go down from 7 grand to 2-3....hopefully

pluMmet
09-04-2009, 06:59 PM
Sony has opted for "active shutter" technology, using electronic glasses containing tiny shutters that open and close rapidly in synch with the television image to create a 3D impression.

Shutter glasses will NOT be needed for many of the 3D Home Theatre technologies -

Again, the Sony and JVC displays use passive, cheap & lightweight "throw away" glasses for a killer stereographic effect. The cost something like $2.

There will also be approaches that use "shutter glasses" but it's not been proven that the image they produce on the retina is of appreciably better quality. And yep, the cost of the shutter glasses is certainly a problem for some applications and users.

Please show that Sony will have Polarized glasses.

aglick
09-04-2009, 07:14 PM
My mistake - trying to keep to much data cached in my head... ;)

The JVC, Phillips, LG and IZ3d all use "cheap" polarized glasses

Sony and Samsung have opted for the more expensive and fragile shutter glasses.

Things are in constant flux with the manufacturers trying to refine on these two approaches, but the trajectory is clear. 3D viewing is coming to a living room near you.

pluMmet
09-04-2009, 07:19 PM
Then I will be going with JVC, Phillips or LG...shutter glasses give me a headache.

DimeS
09-04-2009, 07:19 PM
Hahahaha. Thanks for the laugh, this really is one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

So, just to get this straight, you prefer your old, non-HD, small, heavy TV to your new, lightweight, HD LCD because you 'doubt' the LCD will last as long?!

And the average price for a set has increased 10 fold?? Where the hell are you living? You can buy a 50" plasma right now for $1000. Are you saying that 50" TVs used to cost $100?

And ya, companies shouldn't bother to make anything too technologically advanced, because we might just sit on it and break it anyway. :rolleyes:



i really cant believe this is going mainstream. i think companies have lost their minds. Im guessing after all this fails itll give the main players a reason to ask for a "bailout" when they go bankrupt. the whole 3d phase the nations in (and yes its a phase, we been here before and left it) will pass. All this technology will be vaporware.. its already bad enough that the average price for a set has increased 10 fold because of technology and will only last a fraction of time its analog counterpart will (i still have an 8 year old TV going strong, and i doubt my LDC tv will last that long).. so someones gonna go spend, say 8 grand on a 32 inch 3d tv, then what, blow 200 bucks a pop every time they accidently sit on their glasses? how many times have you lost your remote? i mean seriously, its a novelty. It works in the theater. It belongs in the theater.. the only way i will ever comfortably watch 3d in my house is with split eye video monitor glasses.. theyre trying to get people to put glasses on their heads, why not just build the LCD right into the eyepieces and do it right with full stereo seperation..

pluMmet
09-04-2009, 07:24 PM
If anyone announces an OLED passive polarized TV that's what I'm getting :bounce:

kelgy
09-04-2009, 08:05 PM
3D is not a gimmick, it's a natural evolution to film, such as color and sound.
.

*except color is real color and sound is real sound. 3d is not real 3d. Its a mind trick-(two objects being presented to two eyes and told to interpret them as one object, unlike the normal way, two eyes looking at one object) and more complicated an illusion than simply flipping a book to create the illusion of moving pictures.

3d without glasses is the only viable method I can see-as long as it doesnt produce vision problems afterwards. And it wont have much value to My Dinner with Andre type movies.
At the end of the day it just isnt real 3 dimensionality when compared to what sound or color does unless its creating a holodeck type 3d object.

Another thing too is that when you watch amovie usually your eyes dart around, not your head. Same with a live stage show. There isnt that much perception of dimension in such a scenario. Sometimes a live stage show can use a projected image and trick the audience into thinking its live-because from a distance its hard to tell.

Its most noticeable at a close distance-and you dont want objects being poked at the scren merely to sell the effect.
Like watching the Vincent Price House of Wax in 2d and wondering why they spend so much time on that magician throwing yoyos at the screen...

flipnap
09-04-2009, 08:14 PM
hey dime, if you want, we can meet after school at the flagpole and go toe to toe. :rolleyes:

So, just to get this straight, you prefer your old, non-HD, small, heavy TV to your new, lightweight, HD LCD because you 'doubt' the LCD will last as long?!

so your saying you dont think that im saying that i prefer my old heavyweight analoge trinitron over what your saying that you think i mean when i say i prefer my new lightweight flatpanel LCD when i can get a plasma that you prefer for 1000 dollars because itll last longer than a new 3d shutter glasses TV thats more technologically advanced than my old flat panel LCD?

FreDre
09-04-2009, 08:16 PM
*except color is real color and sound is real sound. 3d is not real 3d. Its a mind trick-(two objects being presented to two eyes and told to interpret them as one object, unlike the normal way, two eyes looking at one object) and more complicated an illusion than simply flipping a book to create the illusion of moving pictures.

3d without glasses is the only viable method I can see-as long as it doesnt produce vision problems afterwards. And it wont have much value to My Dinner with Andre type movies.
At the end of the day it just isnt real 3 dimensionality when compared to what sound or color does unless its creating a holodeck type 3d object.

Film is a mind trick. It's the illusion of motion from still images that are being shown very fast.
3D is 3D, even if you won't need glasses, it won't be 'real' 3D. That would be a hologram, or even better, real life.

3D will be as 'real' as color and sound as you've just mentioned. They are just tricks, but you have been so accustomed to it that you stop noticing them.

It also all depends on the filmmaker utilizing the 3D format for its film.
Obviously, not all the movies needs it. It really is an artistic choice.
You can use it as a gimmick, or you can use it in a subtle way.

philnolan3d
09-04-2009, 08:22 PM
it wont have much value to My Dinner with Andre type movies.


I disagree, if used correctly it can bring a whole new layer of depth (no pun intended) to the film. Especially if there's no "poke you in the eye" effects. There was a great discussion of this at the International LightWave User group Meeting. I'm trying to find the recording that was made of it.

redbellpeppers
09-04-2009, 08:24 PM
http://boxxlabs.blogspot.com/2009/09/sony-to-begin-selling-3dtvs-bythe-end.html


Cool.
I wonder when people will quit calling 3D a "gimmick"?

kelgy
09-04-2009, 08:27 PM
3D will be as 'real' as color and sound as you've just mentioned. They are just tricks, but you have been so accustomed to it that you stop noticing them.




*no it cant because sound is real, color is real-they arent tricks--a 3d effect is not real 3 dimensional objects in front of you.

And as I said the film motion effect is just not as complicated as what 3d is trying to do. And even there--in some cases people do perceive motion differently. Some people cannot accept stop motion animation as animation because the strobing distracts them--others dont have a problem with it.

If a perfect holodeck-virtual reality type illusion were possible it would change the nature of film anyway.Make it more like a window into a stage show and the sudden changes in the size of objects as well as camera movement would probably be a problem or cause disorientation.
Popup books didnt replace the regular picture books either.

CHRiTTeR
09-04-2009, 08:32 PM
Dude, the sound in movies is just as fake as the images.

'real' sound comes from everywhere while on a home theatre system it is 'simulated/faked' through a limited amount of speakers.
'real' sound also isnt limited in bitdepth or samplerate.

FreDre
09-04-2009, 08:36 PM
*no it cant because sound is real, color is real-they arent tricks--a 3d effect is not real 3 dimensional objects in front of you.
...

The sounds from traditional film comes from a strip that is on the same one with the still pictures. It is drawn with 'weird' lines that are then being interpreted by a machine to reproduce the sound. It is not real.
Maybe the source of it is real, but 3D can also be filmed with real stereoscopic cameras to capture real things.
Also I can say the same about the colors being a combination of light and a reversal film.

All of those things are tricks, they are not real. It fools your brain.
That's the amazing part of movie magic.
Maybe the techniques have changed, but it is still a trick, whenever you think they are not.

oneandonlyDiscoStu
09-04-2009, 08:38 PM
transformers2->transformers3d->cable stuck into a willingless human mass

kelgy
09-04-2009, 08:40 PM
Dude, the sound in movies is just as fake as the images.


**the sound isnt fake, just the means of creating it.
Its real sound. There is no trick involved unless you actually believe the actor speaking on screen is standing behind it and not thousands of miles away(ok there may be a trick at work in terms of how you respond to voices and sounds even if you know its fake--get scared etc-but I would say its not in the same camp as what 3d is trying to do).
If I see red in a movie I am seeing red. It isnt fake red.

Dimensionality is a different thing.
If one is absorbed in a movie they shouldnt be thinking: dammit-I would get so much more out of this if the glass the guy is holding would be in 3d.

philnolan3d
09-04-2009, 08:49 PM
If one is absorbed in a movie they shouldnt be thinking: dammit-I would get so much more out of this if the glass the guy is holding would be in 3d.

The point in 3D, at least the way James Cameron talks about it, is to get you even further absorbed into the film. If 3D is done correctly you wouldn't be thinking about it.

kelgy
09-04-2009, 08:58 PM
The point in 3D, at least the way James Cameron talks about it, is to get you even further absorbed into the film. If 3D is done correctly you wouldn't be thinking about it.

**I understand-what i meant was that when you watch a 2d movie-you shouldnt be thinking I am missing something because objects dont have dimensionality. If you are absorbed you arent thinking about 3d. Or the source of sound or color(but I dont think they are same kind of trick--I dont see them as being tricks, though I suppose if you get scared or react emotionally then on some level you may be reacting as if you were witnessing something even if you know its fake, so I guess its a mind trick in that sense).

Color and sound add a huge element to the experience-I dont think dimensionality does unless it actually puts you in the movie.

aglick
09-04-2009, 09:11 PM
is it real - or is it a trick ?

Experimental autostereographic display technologies aside, there is only one way that "3D" happens.

It happens when your two eyes each get a slightly different 2D view of the same scene - and your BRAIN essentially uses something like a "difference matte" from which a 3rd dimension of space - a sense of depth can be derived.

The sense of depth you get looking around your desk right now is NO MORE "REAL" than the sense of depth you get with the new 3D/stereo viewing technologies.

or perhaps, you could say that it's all a "trick" of the brain.

CHRiTTeR
09-04-2009, 09:15 PM
kelgy, you're wrong, just get over it :D

kelgy
09-04-2009, 09:27 PM
kelgy, you're wrong, just get over it :D

**
Well you better do a better job of articulating it then.
You said the sound was as fake as the images--but unless you believe that the sounds and the images are coming from the sources claimed to be on the screen then it just isnt the same thing as what 3d is trying to do.
Unless you can explain why red perceived in a movie film strip isnt the way red is normally perceived--as in--its not really a reddish hue on the strip, and yet 3d perceived with glasses is the same as what we perceive with 2 eyes.


Play a recorded voice and not tell someone its a recording and they may believe its real. That's a trick.

Play it in a movie theater and no one sophisticated thinks the actor is standing behind the screen.
That isnt a trick.

When a movie screen can materialize an actual 3d object from the screen then you can say its the same as what color and sound is.
Until then its something rather different. (2 objects being presented to 2 eyes as one object, as opposed to 1 object being presented to 2 eyes as 1 object).

Common sense.
Or in short--you dont need devices for your ears and eyes to get the sound and color. But you need it for the dimensionality.

BigPixolin
09-04-2009, 10:12 PM
Ignorance is bliss.

Nimrodicus
09-05-2009, 07:58 AM
While I respect Kelgy's right to his opinion (and obviously there are others with the same lack of enthusiasm) I do not agree with it. I would not use the analogy of "2 objects being presented to 2 eyes as one object, as opposed to 1 object being presented to 2 eyes as 1 object". More precisely, the brain is being presented 2 *views* of *1* object, just as the brain would receive in real life. We have 2 eyes, therefore the brain receives 2 views. The primary (but not only) difference is that it is limited to *only* the 2 views the presentation provides, as opposed to an infinite # of views available in the real world by re-positioning one's head in relationship to what is being viewed. As such, you could think of the current mainstream stereoscopic tech as a 'subset' of real 3d, much in the same way that simple 2 speaker stereo sound is a sub-set of full on surround, which in turn is still a sub-set of the more complex soundscape that would exist in the original environment due to the complex sound-reflections and phase interactions that occur (or do not occur). It might be real sound, but it's only a sampling of what you'd have heard had you been there for real. Also the light that reaches your eyes while watching projected film/TV is only a sub-set of the high-dynamic-range of brightness levels we are able to perceive and thus, a mere fraction of the contrast between light and dark that occurs in reality. The average projector bulb is still not as bright as the sun.

So while current stereoscopy may only be a sampling of what you could experience if you were able to have the real actors/objects/SFX available in front of you for viewing from any angle, it is no less ‘real’ than the light you are seeing or the sound you are hearing, although like its counterparts, it does fall short of reality. Everything but reality does. That hardly relegates it as mere fad, phase, or useless anymore than color, light, and simulated motion are 'fads' or 'gimmicks'. And if 2-view stereoscopy is a subset of the views provided by direct viewing of the real thing, how much more a subset is 1 view monoscopy? More views = more information received by the brain = a richer palette or medium to work within.

I agree with FreDre that this the next evolutionary step in film, with the potential for bringing audiences even further into the fictional worlds that human minds can create.

Thus if Kelgy or anyone else wants to refer to current 3D as a gimmick, well I don't have a problem with that. It's a gimmick I happen to enjoy very much.

I don't think the full potential of using 3D for storytelling has come close to being tapped as of yet. There are all sorts of creative uses for depth. As with other aspects of filmmaking, it just depends on what sort of reaction you're hoping to elicit from your audience. If I watch a monoscopic shot of flying over a futuristic city, my brain understands that it is seeing something akin to what it might look like if I were really there. But if I watch a stereoscopic shot of the same thing, I can not only see, but actually feel a subset of the sensation of flying; the parts of the brain that have to do with the sensation of motion are capable of being influenced by the information the eyes provide. It is not real flying, but one notch closer to the real thing than a monoscopic view can provide (wide fov ala IMAX is also pivotal for fuller immersion and ‘fooling’ the brain). Not that 3D films should spend all their time whizzing us around fantastic landscapes in 3D; it's just one fun usage example.

I have a personal vision of the future of 3D. It's always hard to anticipate how different technologies will converge in the future, but we are often surprised by the results. I too think it is here to stay. Even if current efforts fall short of the full-potential. Imagine a film being presented in: HDRI expanded brightness levels (no diminished color-range) in immersive wide fov in super-high-resolution, using holo-lenticular tech that supports seeing the scene from multiple angles via head-motion, in full stereoscopy of course. Quite possible in our children’s lifetimes, if not ours. That's a gimmick I think I could enjoy.

My personal research leads me to believe that it will be possible to use hologram tech to produce lenses/film that are able to record scenes/lightfields from multiple angles all at once, and I'm referring to *real* hologram tech, not the often faulty perception of holograms as portrayed in many films (e.g. R2D2 Princess Leia etc.). We are seeing the beginnings of such tech in the form of the lens-array cameras in development that provide for processing depth-of-field and focus in post, although these are not lenses utilizing holographic tech.

Obviously I have some passion for the medium. Aside from my professional obligations, I am an avid stereoscopic photographer/videographer. I have stereoscopic home-videos of my currently-17-month-old child at several milestone moments. Learning to crawl. To walk. First trip to a waterpark. When I watch these in full-color stereoscopy, the impact is uncanny. More powerful than simply watching 3D entertainment. It is my life re-living itself before me. For me, the stereoscopy truly enhances the sense of re-experiencing events in a way that a normal, boring home-video could not. So whether it's a phase or temporary gimmick in theaters or not, I personally hope the tech is ardently pursued and developed to its very fullest, both technologically AND artistically.

Solothores
09-05-2009, 08:44 AM
Do we have any current market penetration reports for Blu Ray and HDTV? Last I read, majority is still having basic non-HDTV and DVD setups, while demand for Blu Ray and HDTV is increasing (For the record, still no HDTV on my local cable here in Switzerland, but hey, at least we are going digital in a couple of years).

It's nice to get new technologies but I share some of the feelings communicated in this thread, that some industries at the moment are losing themselves by trying to establish too much new tech on the market, way too soon. To some degree it shouldn't be in their interest, seeing that bigger investments from the masses also rely on trust in established standards, that last and don't vanish or get made non-transparent & non-understandable through marketing breaded re-inventions, that require excessive research to see through it for what it is.

This 2.5D (please at least here, we should not fall into marketing terms and label the stuff for what it is, else wise we have to lecture masses about the difference between pseudo 3D and real 3D once tech moves on to the next level) thing will confuse the majority of masses even more which remain rather unfamiliar to these kind of developments. (most of them are still struggling to see through all the nuances of HDTV, while never really understanding the difference between plasma (RIP) and lcd. Some of them might even be hesitant to invest again, seeing them stuck with a HD ready but not FULL HD able Plasma screen that developed dead pixels (because this stuff can develop dead pixels that depending on the extent, is not covered by guarantees), while advertisement is making them out as people that obviously still lose out.

Heck most of the people, that includes professionals, are still not grasping the relation between resolution, screen size and viewing distance (e.g. bigger is always better). What I am saying, leaving the masses uneducated at some point will hit back hard. (All of the aforementioned is personal opinion)

kelgy
09-05-2009, 12:53 PM
The primary (but not only) difference is that it is limited to *only* the 2 views the presentation provides, as opposed to an infinite # of views available in the real world by re-positioning one's head in relationship to what is being viewed. As such, you could think of the current mainstream stereoscopic tech as a 'subset' of real 3d, much in the same way that simple 2 speaker stereo sound is a sub-set of full on surround, which in turn is still a sub-set of the more complex soundscape that would exist in the original environment due to the complex sound-reflections and phase interactions that occur (or do not occur). It might be real sound, but it's only a sampling of what you'd have heard had you been there for real.

**I almost mentioned stereo sound but felt it threw in an extra element of confusion. It is a trick, but I dont see it as a complete parallel.

I think the problem with the 2 views -1 object description is that its assuming that the cameras are giving the exact same kind of capture of the object as the eyes, and it doesnt factor in such things as the eye spacing difference between individuals(some people have eyes wide apart, others have one eye slightly higher than the other). These might be minute differences but they are still differences(though the same can be said about the sampling of stereo sound though in addition to needing glasses, the eyes move around while the ears dont(as far as I know). It is 2 physical objects.

I dont argue with the idea that it may be the next evolution in film, just the idea that it is like the developments of sound or color.



To alleviate the earlier confusion about descriptions of what is a gimmick or trick-this scenario may explain it best.
You are watching a 3d film of someone playing a trumpet.
The sound eminating from the sound projecting device is real sound, and the color of the trumpet is real color. The 3d is not real 3d. That's why I call it a gimmick unlike sound or color in this general description of the phenomenon.

But at the same time the trumpet sound is fake, and the color of the trumpet, like the trumpet shown itself, is also fake--since they are not really coming from an actual trumpet in front of you. I wouldnt call it a trick or gimmick though unless one really believes the actual object is in front of you(I mused about whether one's reaction to a movie content is something of a trick if you get emotionally involved in it--like watching people going down a rollercoaster and getting a sensation of danger, but is that a trick or just your imagination taking over like one can get from reading a book?).

I cant comment about wiggle stereoscopy or holographic projection, though I think the later--or some variation on it, presents the best method.

Additional note:

Unlike color and sound, there is a subtraction factor in 3d.
If you watch a 2d image onscreen, you are able to dart your eyes normally--and your eyes keep in perfect sync. But with 3d technology, the 2 image process means that you cant do what your eyes normally do---there is a perception loss which you do not have with color and sound.

In that sense--a 2d image of an object on a screen is more natural 3d than having 2 separate objects that your brain is forced to accept as one. It may be flat, but the image of the object on screen is still more naturally processed in the brain.



Anyway that's all I have to say on the subject. Peace to all. :)

aglick
09-05-2009, 04:48 PM
I'm afraid we've entered the tricky and mostly-useless world of technical semantics.

Regardless of what we want to call it, the stereographic effect used as a film-making and story telling tool will be used increasingly in the commision of creating powerful and compelling viewing experiences.

I'm happy about this. It's clear that many other are as well.

Continuing to think about 3D Stereographic viewing as a passing "gimmick" or "fad" flies in the face of the evidence to the contrary and may actually limit ones abilities and marketability as an artist in the coming months and years.

cresshead
09-05-2009, 05:20 PM
what's the projected price point of 3d/stereoscopic plasma/lcd panels for home owners to buy them?....also the cost of the glsasses used to view them for your family watching a film?

rafanzovin
09-05-2009, 05:32 PM
My difficulty with 3D has less to do with the glasses or the dimming of the image and more to do with the way that it effects filmmaking. In particular, I haven't yet seen anyone effectively deal with the problem of close-appearing objects crossing over the edge of the screen and therefor suddenly dropping away in depth, which is an optical effect that is guaranteed to jolt me out of the movie in a very unpleasant way. This would seem remove the close-up from a filmmakers repertoire, and that's a major part of film language. (Or you could just ignore the problem, as most 3D films seem to have done. Although that doesn't work for me, many people clearly do not find it as distracting as I do.)

Similarly, the appearance of depth in 3D adds a whole other variable to the question of what does and doesn't make a good cut, since sudden changes in apparent depth can be distracting. It seems to me that many cuts that would work in 2D would not work in 3D, and therefor that the technique limits filmmakers in some ways.

That said, while I do not enjoy 3D, it's obvious that lots of other people do. Both sound and color had their detractors (I believe it was Orson Welles who said that he'd never seen a performance in color that wouldn't have been better in black and white), but by this date they look like integral parts of filmmaking. I kind of hope that 3D won't turn out like that, but if it does I suppose I'll have to get used to it.

Disclaimer: I didn't get a chance to see Coraline, Up, or Ice Age 3 in 3D, so if any of these films did manage to make it work without any distracting edge-of-frame effects let me know!

Apoclypse
09-05-2009, 06:06 PM
Film is a mind trick. It's the illusion of motion from still images that are being shown very fast.
3D is 3D, even if you won't need glasses, it won't be 'real' 3D. That would be a hologram, or even better, real life.

3D will be as 'real' as color and sound as you've just mentioned. They are just tricks, but you have been so accustomed to it that you stop noticing them.

It also all depends on the filmmaker utilizing the 3D format for its film.
Obviously, not all the movies needs it. It really is an artistic choice.
You can use it as a gimmick, or you can use it in a subtle way.

Except that not every can or is willing to watch 3D film. I can't, I get motion sickness playing games, and any complex eye trickery is something that i very taxing on my eyes and the effect lasts for days. I can however sit down in front of a TV or movie screen and watch a movie without worrying about having a headache later on.

Not to mention that he also mentioned that it won;t benefit all those comedies, dramas, and thrillers one bit. The only industry that stands to benefit at the moment is ours. The movies released that have 3D in them are very few and far between comparatively. Sound and music are a natural extension of the medium, its something that is necessary in-order to convey the proper emotion, or even to hear hat the hell is going on rather than reading a whole bunch of text at the bottom. I would also like to mention that even though silent films were silent, they were usually accompanied by some form of music (usually a phonograph, or a piano player).

I see 3D in its current form as a gimmick. Its only really being done because not that long ago many people were skipping going to the theater and just waiting for the DVD. I know I did. The movie industry needed to do couldn't be reproduced in peoples' homes. I'm sure now that it can it will probably be bck to the same situation.

That being said, gaming on the other hand can benefit from 3D, and it would be the perfect platform to get people to actually buy one of these sets.

BigPixolin
09-05-2009, 07:29 PM
Not to mention that he also mentioned that it won;t benefit all those comedies, dramas, and thrillers one bit. .

That being said, gaming on the other hand can benefit from 3D, and it would be the perfect platform to get people to actually buy one of these sets.


How does 2d benefit a story?
Everytime I see the movie Step Brothers I think how much funnier the begining when they meet in the yard if it were in 3d IMO. I think 3d can be used to add feelings of closeness or distance to characters based on the story also I think it can be used in a not in your face comedic way aswell. We have barley nipped the tip of the iceberg with 3d's creative use's.

CHRiTTeR
09-06-2009, 01:41 AM
3D doesnt make movies magicly better. No one ever said that. Nothing beats a good story... 3D just gives you a few extra possibilities in the way the story is told and enhances the viewer's experience.

2D or 3D wont fix a bad story and crappy productions.

cresshead
09-06-2009, 11:06 AM
again..price?

John Keates
09-06-2009, 12:18 PM
It is true that the technology isn't really 3D but 2.5d. The television we have now is also 2.5d in a way (or maybe 2.2d or something). If the camera tracks about, the parellax effect gives a feeling of depth... heck, even just a bit of perspective does that. Lighting, shading, texture queues all contribute to the perception of 3D.

Sterioscopic vision is just another tool in the 2.5d arsonal but it is being sold as a whole leap to a new dimension which is nonsense because even our perception of real life isn't 3D. Since when did people percieve the back sides of objects?

This technology is fun, but I think it causes too many problems for the director, the audience and the distributers for the gain to be worth it and it will fade away just like it did last time and just like "interactive" entertainment and virtual reality did.

Steamcore
09-06-2009, 09:17 PM
Sony can wish all they want, but I know from working on shows that are both SD and HD, that there's no way networks are going to add enough money to the budget for make the SD 2d, SD 3D, HD 2D, HD 3D versions of all their shows. Just no way.

philnolan3d
09-07-2009, 01:21 AM
Actually I think if this were to happen Sony would be pushing it because it would show up on BluRay long before it's even possible to see it on TV.

BillB
09-07-2009, 11:26 PM
it doesnt factor in such things as the eye spacing difference between individuals(some people have eyes wide apart, others have one eye slightly higher than the other). These might be minute differences but they are still differences And some people hear a broader sound range than others, and we all have different colour perceptions, and women see more colour than men. So moot point.

When we look at the world through our two eyes we perceive two 2D images, our brain combines them to create the perception of depth. 3D cinema does the same thing. No difference at all. The only difference is in quality, as with sound and colour.

As the quality improves the illusion will improve. Digital 3D is of a sufficient quality that this time around, it looks like 3D is here to stay.

eikonoklastes
09-08-2009, 09:33 AM
And some people hear a broader sound range than others, and we all have different colour perceptions, and women see more colour than men. So moot point.

When we look at the world through our two eyes we perceive two 2D images, our brain combines them to create the perception of depth. 3D cinema does the same thing. No difference at all. The only difference is in quality, as with sound and colour.

As the quality improves the illusion will improve. Digital 3D is of a sufficient quality that this time around, it looks like 3D is here to stay.You'd think that this succinct post would settle it, but just you wait till kelgy comes along to tell you how your words are not real, they're just an illusion of bits, bytes and liquid crystals and therefore immaterial. One can only imagine what The Matrix must have done to his/her mind.

Clanger
09-08-2009, 01:11 PM
I haven't got an ordinary TV yet! Don't think 3D's going to change my mind.

CHRiTTeR
09-08-2009, 07:05 PM
Sony can wish all they want, but I know from working on shows that are both SD and HD, that there's no way networks are going to add enough money to the budget for make the SD 2d, SD 3D, HD 2D, HD 3D versions of all their shows. Just no way.

good point, but my guess this is more geared towards 3D blurays (which mainly also was developped and pushed by sony)

Solothores
09-08-2009, 07:19 PM
And there is 4k (8k) ultra high definition, which is already tested by some network in Japan... (which feels for me to be the more likely next generation candidate that might enter livingrooms, once HDTV has been more established)

mecos
09-08-2009, 07:30 PM
screw 3d, i want odor vision!

seriously, i don't see 3d taking off. it's pretty cool at times but it's also gimmicky and distracting. last 3d movie i saw was coraline in 3d and i think i missed half the animation subtleties like expressions etc because i was staring at the objects sticking out of the screen. it was cool, but i enjoyed it in 2d more.

BillB
09-09-2009, 03:05 AM
screw 3d, i want odor vision!
"I smell dead people."

DuttyFoot
09-09-2009, 05:03 AM
i found this little article over at engadget and its title is, 3D may fall flat. its written by Entelligence.

Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.


here is what the article states

The big theme that stood out for me last week at IFA was the idea of 3D driving sales of new TVs. Both Sony and Panasonic made strong plays for 3D at their press conferences, although Sony did a much better job, giving the audience 3D glasses and showing the trailer for "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs" along with footage of FIFA Soccer and Gran Turismo running on the PS3 -- the cockpit view in GT was particularly impressive. Panasonic's presentation was a little odder, with the audience being asked to "imagine" what 3D would look like during a slideshow of still images (http://www.engadget.com/photos/eyes-on-panasonics-full-hd-3d-plasma-and-blu-ray-combo/) of various events like boxing matches. It was kind of like introducing color TV by showing off a black and white screen and asking the audience to imagine it in color.

I understand the need to drive new sales of TV sets and find some sort of purchase driver. Let's face it. Screens have gotten large enough, perhaps even too large -- if I offered you a 150-inch TV, where would you put it? Resolutions have maxed out and it's hard to make sets much thinner. OLED displays could be a great purchase driver but are a few years off. So something new needs to drive the market. I'm just not convinced that 3D will really help move things forward.

The problem is there's a huge difficulty involved in launching new formats, especially one like 3D. We've seen this time and again. First, you need broad hardware support, and 3D doesn't have it. Sony and Panasonic are taking two different approaches to the 3D market, meaning they'll both be selling incompatible equipment at high price points -- yep, another format war is brewing, and consumers just love when that happens. It's one reason why vendors like Philips are staying out of 3D for the time being.

Second, you need deep content support. At the moment, there's far more content available on good old HD than there will be in either 3D format and that's not going to change very fast. Unless you're a really big fan of a particular title that's available in 3D, you're likely to sit this out for a while. Third, you need a clear and visible consumer value proposition. CDs and DVDs both offered obvious value propositions to consumers. There was a noticeable difference in the experience that was easily grasped, and both were marked by moving from an analog tape format to optical disk, which was more reliable and offered novel features such as random access to content. What's more, both offered clear quality improvements over what had come before -- except to my six friends who still swear by their vinyl LPs and tube amps [and your editor! -- ed.], the upgrade in quality was far more than just noticeable. But when I look at the best content on 3D it just doesn't offer that much more relative to standard HD, especially on smaller screens in regular homes. On top of that, 3D in movie theaters is still mostly a gimmick, and the content that we've seen to date doesn't quite have a compelling feel to it.

With cheap HDTVs and plenty of HD content, the savvy consumer who holds off on a 3D purchase is clearly going to be the winner in 2010 -- and consumers who've already invested in HD screens over the last few years are not likely to upgrade. In the long run, there may be no winner. The last time two formats fought a battle like this over incremental quality was in the audio arena, when it was SACD against DVD-Audio, and both sides lost to the convenience of less-than-CD-quality MP3s and the iPod. In this case, while we wait for large OLED screens to come to market, these efforts in 3D may just fall flat.

BigPixolin
09-09-2009, 01:44 PM
Same pretty much could of been said about HD and SD tvs When HD was introduced.
SD tv's were even cheaper and there was way more content.


But when I look at the best content on 3D it just doesn't offer that much more relative to standard HD

Speechless.:rolleyes: He must have one eye closed.
I think most people look at 3d and dismiss it with a blank imagination. Luckily there is very talented people with alot more imagination taking sterescopic to new levels most people can't imagine.

CHRiTTeR
09-09-2009, 04:30 PM
Let's face it. Screens have gotten large enough, perhaps even too large -- if I offered you a 150-inch TV, where would you put it? Resolutions have maxed

lol

pls give me a 150inch full HD TV!!!

Resolutions have maxed out?! I dont think so

visionmaster2
09-09-2009, 05:26 PM
i dont think 3d market will growing so much, with the glasses system.
wearing glasses is ok when it's in a cinema, but at home ...

This kind of 3d display are much more promising : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGlpb2X2gXs

or this one ! : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvn1e343Clo&feature=related

aglick
09-09-2009, 06:14 PM
i dont think 3d market will growing so much, with the glasses system.
wearing glasses is ok when it's in a cinema, but at home ...

This kind of 3d display are much more promising : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGlpb2X2gXs

or this one ! : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvn1e343Clo&feature=related

Unfortunately, "autostereo" technologies are not at all promising from the standpoint of being feasible for commercialization any time in the next few years.

Autostereo requires anywhere from 8 to dozens (or hundreds) of different camera views per frame. There are no practical work-arounds or solutions to the technical challenges inherent with autostereo content creation and program distribution.

If you want to see films or TV in stereo, you'll need to wear glasses -for the foreseeable future anyway.

BillB
09-10-2009, 01:29 AM
Same pretty much could of been said about HD and SD tvs When HD was introduced.
And he's wrong about the format war aspect too - content delivery for these 3D screens would be the same, the set itself dictates how the 3D is achieved.

Chances are if this does take off, it'll almost end up being free too. Once a set can handle 120Hz processing it's not that much harder to add 3D ability. For sony it's a screen coating and some very cheap glasses, for panasonic a set of LCD glasses (ok, bit of expense there).

circusboy
09-10-2009, 05:05 PM
Devil's advocate.

How will the glasses work on a 3DTV if your not sitting in the 'sweet spot'?
Like how will a family like the Duggers (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20301647,00.html) really enjoy this? :rolleyes:

So will this only appeal to single geeks at home sitting alone directly in front?
And have they already upgraded their TV kinda rescently so therefore will 'wait-and-see'
if its worth upgrading again?

3d might catch on but i wonder how quickly?! The potential market for early adopters may be pretty tiny...
I'm personaly on hold until Blu-Ray truly takes off and my old TV goes belly up.
But I'd love to see such developements take off so it would be a no-brainer to jump onboard.
I'm just not convinced its going to as fast as the industry would like.

BigPixolin
09-10-2009, 05:53 PM
Devil's advocate.

How will the glasses work on a 3DTV if your not sitting in the 'sweet spot'?
Like how will a family like the Duggers (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20301647,00.html) really enjoy this? :rolleyes:

So will this only appeal to single geeks at home sitting alone directly in front?
And have they already upgraded their TV kinda rescently so therefore will 'wait-and-see'
if its worth upgrading again?

3d might catch on but i wonder how quickly?! The potential market for early adopters may be pretty tiny...
I'm personaly on hold until Blu-Ray truly takes off and my old TV goes belly up.
But I'd love to see such developements take off so it would be a no-brainer to jump onboard.
I'm just not convinced its going to as fast as the industry would like.

Again the very same could of been said with the introduction of HDTV's as the veiwing angles were pretty narrow when first introduced.

DuttyFoot
09-10-2009, 06:35 PM
if you got 10 big ones to spare you can pick up the jvc 3d lcd tv.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/10/jvc-brings-46-inch-gd-463d10-3d-lcd-hdtv-to-america-shipping-no/

circusboy
09-10-2009, 07:12 PM
Again the very same could of been said with the introduction of HDTV's as the veiwing angles were pretty narrow when first introduced.
And the 19 pairs of glasses? buy 1 pair and get 18 more free? :rolleyes:
OK so the Duggers are extreme and probably don't all live at home.
But for any more than two people there has to be an awsome incentive to buy lots of pairs of glasses for family viewing.

Also do these TVs look good with 2d content? Or will they look 'worse' than todays HD standard when not showing 3D?

I'm still thinking single geek at home. Tiny market.

aglick
09-11-2009, 12:05 AM
...
Also do these TVs look good with 2d content? Or will they look 'worse' than todays HD standard when not showing 3D?...


That's an excellent question...

The polarized screen technologies (that can be used with cheapo passive glasses) do actually suffer from degraded image quality for standard 2D HD content.

This is caused by the lenticular film on the surface of the panel. It does cause some image degradation when you're looking at standard HD content without the glasses.

The screens that use active ("lcd shutter") glasses suffer none of this when viewing normal 2D HD content without the glasses.

To my knowledge, this is one of the primary differences between the two competing approaches to 3D viewing.

BillB
09-11-2009, 01:50 AM
The polarized screen technologies (that can be used with cheapo passive glasses) do actually suffer from degraded image quality for standard 2D HD content.

This is caused by the lenticular film on the surface of the panel. Question - why would it be a lenticular film? Are you sure you're not confusing the old no-glasses lenticular screens with a polarised screen that requires polarised glasses, not a lenticular lens to feed the left and right images to the correct eye?

aglick
09-11-2009, 02:35 AM
you're right - its not "lenticular" - i'm getting my terms confused.

The filter on the panel "orthogonally" polarizes each line of pixels in alternating left and right 90 degree circular polarization.

In any case, its this thin film that slightly screws up the image for "normal" (glasses-free) viewing of non-3d HD material.

circusboy
09-11-2009, 02:29 PM
In any case, its this thin film that slightly screws up the image for "normal" (glasses-free) viewing of non-3d HD material.

AKA The majority of viewing content for years to come. And of content up till now.
OUCH!

DizzyJ
09-11-2009, 04:46 PM
Maybe its a good time to introduce those oldschool VR-helmet type of things.

I heared a few years ago there was a new technologie that projected the images directly into your eye and it wasnt as damaging to your eyes as watching tv + you also you got a bigger fov/screen/projection (because you arent staring at some distant illuminating screen).


I like this… except it makes watching tv a significantly less social experience. Like drinking, tv watching is best done with company. If said company has a helmet on that blocks peripheral vision, the social aspect is killed.

circusboy
09-11-2009, 04:55 PM
I have no idea what you mean. :D
http://joylandblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/toshiba_vr_helmet1-740378.jpg

Oh and if you get motion sick easily?:p

CHRiTTeR
09-11-2009, 09:12 PM
I like this… except it makes watching tv a significantly less social experience. Like drinking, tv watching is best done with company. If said company has a helmet on that blocks peripheral vision, the social aspect is killed.

I agree, but watching a 3D movie isnt going to be social anyway. You get so much more absorbed inside the movie that you're not paying any attention at your 'real' surrounding anyway.

Besides, didnt they say the same thing about 'normal' TV's back in the day. Its not social.
And i agree, it isnt social at all, thats also why i dont watch a lot of TV and when i watch a movie on TV its not for some social need, but just to relax and enjoy the movie. If i wanna get social, i go to the club or go for a walk in the park.

DizzyJ
09-11-2009, 10:20 PM
I agree, but watching a 3D movie isnt going to be social anyway. You get so much more absorbed inside the movie that you're not paying any attention at your 'real' surrounding anyway.

You're finding much better 3D movies than I am. With a few exceptions, most films released with 3D projections are best seen in company willing to laugh at them.

I enjoy watching movies at home with somebody else. If the movie is funny, we can share the laughter. If it's thrilling, we share that. And no matter what, we can talk about it when its done. While there are some demanding films I want to focus on and avoid talking, they aren't the kind of films that will get 3D releases. Those are films much better seen in a theater, where I'm away from all distractions and can give my attention to the film and nothing else.

CHRiTTeR
09-11-2009, 10:31 PM
You're finding much better 3D movies than I am. With a few exceptions, most films released with 3D projections are best seen in company willing to laugh at them.

I enjoy watching movies at home with somebody else. If the movie is funny, we can share the laughter. If it's thrilling, we share that. And no matter what, we can talk about it when its done. While there are some demanding films I want to focus on and avoid talking, they aren't the kind of films that will get 3D releases. Those are films much better seen in a theater, where I'm away from all distractions and can give my attention to the film and nothing else.

I've only seen 1 so far (ice age 3). The only thing i REALLY didnt like about it were the desaturated colors and the loss of brightness. But the 3D was (in my eyes) impressive and I expected it to look quite blurry but to my surprise it looked sharper than when i watch a 2D movie.

I hate it when ppl start talking or feel the need to express their emotions in an exagerated way while wathing a movie (almost always stupid and obvious remarks), ruins the whole 'atmosphere'.
Just comment and discuss it afterwards or if you dont like the movie go do something else.

Thats also the reason why a movie is so much 'better' when you dim the lights. Because you arent that much distracted by your enviroment anymore.

I've never seen somebody say that watching TV is a social activity.
Many think chatting on the internet is also verry social, but its not. Far from it.

Imagine a shrink saying: "you need more social contact, go watch TV or go surf on the internet". I think its more the other way around, especially these days ;) :D

CGTalk Moderation
09-11-2009, 10:31 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.