3-D greatest thing ever?

[old&slow]

I wonder if the statement below will go down in history like '640K software is all the memory anybody would ever need on a computer.'

"3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices." Roger Ebert

It's a twitter thing...http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/11000639962

[clem24]

I think there's some truth to this.. At least to the current crop of TVs. Personally I think the problem is the glasses. That speaks for itself. The 2nd issue is cost. If it was compatible with every TV, then yeah, possibly high adoption. But it's not. Third, it really does shake up traditional movie viewing.

Mind you, this is just my opinion. I haven't seen 3D movies in action yet.

[RickDaTuner]

3D movies are garbage to me, solely on the fact that you do not get to choose your focal point.

When you are sitting there and your DOF goes from close to super far in a scene change, it leaves you confused and your eyes straining to figure out if the DOF has really changed.
So really these movies are not 3-D but more Stereoscopy. Real 3-D means that you can personally scan the dimensions of an object.

If they can make something like the Halo-deck on the SSEnterprise, then I would be on board with this new technology

[yellowsnow]

Actually, the new samsung 3-D tvs @ futureshop can turn the 3-D feature on/off. It's still 1080p/240ghz HDTV, but with 3-D capabilities. The cost difference isn't that much compared to the newer LED tvs.

So for normal viewing, just leave 3-D off, but when you want to watch a movie or something in 3-D, you can turn that feature on.

The only sucky thing is you have to buy those stupid 3-D glasses, which costs like $250 each.

[GQBalla]

are the 3D glasses for the TV's different from the ones you get in the 3D movies?

[Rarasaurus]

Yes they are, they are battery powered. I assume there is a good reason for them being 200 vs the free ones you get at the movies.

[accordboi_02]

Assuming someone doesn't even have a PS3 which is reported to get a 3D upgrade:

Samsung TV - $3000
3D Blu Ray - $300 (PS3)
4 - 5 pairs of glasses (who the fuck buys a 3D TV if they can't show it off to their friends?) - ~$1000.

Seriously, a grand for some freaking glasses just to watch your own freaking TV?

Come get me when the glasses won't cost as much as another 1080P HDTV.

[qbrown]

http://www.physorg.com/news188550483.html

3D with no glasses needed ... but you have to sit within a certain viewing area.

[cet]

Originally posted by Rarasaurus
Yes they are, they are battery powered. I assume there is a good reason for them being 200 vs the free ones you get at the movies.

Different technologies for how the 3D effect is achieved.

[TheCheff]

I set up the 55' samsung (UN55C7000) yesterday. As someone stated above you can switch between 2D - 3D. When in 2D mode it is an LED LCD w/ 240hz. The glasses are battery powered and shutter about 60times/second. However there is an issue of the shutter and the film itself not exactly syncing so to speak creating crosstalk.

We displayed it with Monsters vs Aliens 3D, I was fairly impressed after being quite skeptical. Unfortunately on an LCD panel there was quite a bit of crosstalk between the left and right pictures. As well as blurring when the camera was panning(the 3d elements became blurry). Overall tho its a pretty legit 3D experience. It was definitely cool to watch and I believe it will completely change the home theater experience within the next few years.

I can't wait till we get the Panasonic P series in Canada. It's a plasma panel and refreshes much faster then LCD's. Therefor eliminating a lot of the crosstalk and blurring when the camera pans.

Overall I'd probably wait a year for the prices to come down a bit and for more consumer options.

But when not running 3D the Samsung is the best tv on the market imo. It is now 2.65cm thick:eek: and has great colors and blacks. Not to mention aesthetic wise its one of the best looking tvs on the market.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by RickDaTuner
3D movies are garbage to me, solely on the fact that you do not get to choose your focal point.

When you are sitting there and your DOF goes from close to super far in a scene change, it leaves you confused and your eyes straining to figure out if the DOF has really changed.
So really these movies are not 3-D but more Stereoscopy. Real 3-D means that you can personally scan the dimensions of an object.

If they can make something like the Halo-deck on the SSEnterprise, then I would be on board with this new technology

I completely agree, 3D movies are a gimmick to put assess into seats. Think about Avatar.... REALLY think about it, was it a good movie? Nope. I saw it, hardly found it "visually stunning" as everybody said it was. I see 3D every moment of every day, its the perks of having two working eyes...

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by old&slow
I wonder if the statement below will go down in history like '640K software is all the memory anybody would ever need on a computer.'

"3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices." Roger Ebert

It's a twitter thing...http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/11000639962

While I'm sure that's mostly true right now, just like the 640k ram quote, but over time the technology will improve and we'll look back on 2D like you look back on VHS tapes.

[eglove]

saw the 3d setup that they have at futureshop, either it was configured or the glasses don't work. everything was still doubled up when you put the glasses on.


i wasn't a fan

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by UndrgroundRider


While I'm sure that's mostly true right now, just like the 640k ram quote, but over time the technology will improve and we'll look back on 2D like you look back on VHS tapes.

Hardly. VHS to DVD was such a drastic change. HUGE picture quality and sound difference. Not having to rewind. Being able to skip to any part of the movie.

Blu-ray LIKELY won't even get rid of DVD's, and 3D will likely never become mainstream and be a niche market.

[wtf im nameless]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
Hardly. VHS to DVD was such a drastic change. HUGE picture quality and sound difference. Not having to rewind. Being able to skip to any part of the movie.

Blu-ray LIKELY won't even get rid of DVD's, and 3D will likely never become mainstream and be a niche market.

3D will become mainstream once you don't need to wear the glasses. It's only a matter of time.

[qcp1]

i got true 3-d without glasses, i just look out a freakin window. or go outside. i agree once they invent actual holodecks i might switch but i just dont see the point until then.

[Canmorite]

Originally posted by old&slow
I wonder if the statement below will go down in history like '640K software is all the memory anybody would ever need on a computer.'

"3-D is a distracting, annoying, anti-realistic, juvenile abomination to use as an excuse for higher prices." Roger Ebert

It's a twitter thing...http://twitter.com/ebertchicago/status/11000639962

Exactly what I thought when I went to see my first movie in 3-D. Sure it's cool, but is it worth $3-4 extra?

Movie theaters' margins on popcorn and soft drinks must be dipping below 500%!

[UndrgroundRider]

Originally posted by 403Gemini


Hardly. VHS to DVD was such a drastic change. HUGE picture quality and sound difference. Not having to rewind. Being able to skip to any part of the movie.

Blu-ray LIKELY won't even get rid of DVD's, and 3D will likely never become mainstream and be a niche market.

LOL. So because you don't like 3D it is doomed to fail and become a niche market? I hate to break it to you, but you're not the centre of the universe. Most people love 3D movies. On average the same movie makes 14 times as much in the 3D theatres than it does in 2D theatres.

And Blu-ray's market share climbs every day. The manufactures are slowing production of older technology. People will have no choice but to switch as the old players become harder to find, and more expensive to purchase. Also consider that movie studios are the ones who decide what format to release movies in, and they make more money by selling newer more expensive blu-ray discs. Saying that blu-ray will never replace DVD is just naive and a clear indication that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Right now there is only one real hold back for 3D technology; that the pictures are displayed at a fixed focal distance. When viewing a 3D image this causes discomfort due to your brain perceiving depth in the image, but not being able to focus the eye at will on objects not in focus.

Recently there has been a lot of work done to remedy this issue. Some multi-focal-plane displays have been developed and tested in the lab. Although it's all still experimental.

The point being, assuming that the technology will not improve and replace older inferior technology is naive and foolish.