I was reading a few things today about some of the stuff that was on show at CES and one of the things which came up was the amount of 3D TV's a lot of the companies had on show. Personally I really can't stand 3D pictures they annoy the hell out of me and if I have to watch them or any length of time I get a bit of a headache but that normally never happens because I get so pi**ed off with them I don't bother with them. What yours view's on 3D TV's the next big thing or just a joke??
Thing is that 3D stuff have a really high "wow-factor". (Wow as in awesome, not the game) Sadly, this seems to be the only criteria when people buy stuff. It doesn't have to be practical or good, it just have to sound fancy. It's just like stuff with blue LEDs. It looked cool while it was rare and new, but nowadays it seems that only cheap, crappy stuff have it. (There are lots of exceptions, of course)
No, 3D TV is new. Give it a while to get done properly, and more importantly used properly. There was a MASSIVE difference between watching My Bloody Valentine 3D and Avatar. Not even talking about general movie quality, it's just blindingly obvious Cameron had 3D in mind the whole way through, and used it to full effect. Gimmicky 3D (which sadly seems to be what most people are looking for at the moment, at least in my place of work) is all about poking you in the eye, like that old Imax mash up and won't last. 3D should just be an enhancement to the picture, for better immersion. I can't imagine watching Avatar in 2D, and I've had the chance to, we're showing both formats. It sucks if you get a headache though, guess it's up to Spielberg to sort that out.
I'm practically blind in one eye, so I can't wait for 3d tvs to make an appearance and drive down the cost of normal tv... not like it'll make a difference to me anyway..
I just don't understand your reluctance to declare: "Whoah! 3DTV? Awesome!" Yes, they're new, the technology is far from mature, and it will probably have an initial buy-in cost of your first born child, your left arm and one - or both - of your testicles to get one. However, who in here would not get one provided they could afford it? Well, let me state the following: even though the first 15-20 minutes or so of Avatar in 3D made me somewhat quesy, I will, if they become readily available at a cost not equalling the GDP of a medium sized african nation, absolutely get one (provided also that I can get one equalling, or topping, my current HD 50" plasma). 3D is decidedly not going to be a fad, just as flatscreens proved not be a fad, or just as HD proved not to be a fad.
3DTV is not new at all. Since at least the mid-1800s it's naturally followed every major advancement in the audio/visual world, and each time it's been a gimmick that gets everyone excited but has ultimately gone nowhere. Really, I can't wait to see the reaction from the general public. Here we are, knee deep in a recession, and everyone just spent their last dimes upgrading to HDTVs because they thought it was required for the DTV transition. Now, they're being told that their brand new HDTVs are obsolete because James Cameron thought it would be cool to re-make Ferngully in 3D. 3D might finally gain some mainstream status in the cinema, where the viewing is a fairly limited engagement and the kitsch factor adds at least something to the experience. I jut don't see it catching on in the living room. Granted, I stopped watching TV quite some time ago, but I can't imagine just sitting in front of the TV with big glasses on, watching Conan O'Brien Jay Leno in 3DOMGWTFBBQ.
bah 3d tv's let me know when full hd 3d projection systems are ready for the home and within reason on the affordability scale. I really don't want to have to spend 14 grand on projectors.
I disagree with this and i think 3D will be here to stay this time. For a start the technology has matured so you get a proper 3D experience with out ruining the look of the film like you did with the old coloured glasses. Avatar has shown how 3D can be used to great effect and not just be a gimmick and after seeing the film i do tend to a agree with the idea that it could be the movie which sets a new benchmark that shifts audience expectations. 3D is very appealing to the movie industry as its not much more expensive to make a film which can not be pirated by the ned in the cinema with a camcorder. The PS3 will support 3D with a firmware update this year and i think GT5 in 3D will shift a fair few 3D TV's. Sony are going to push this technology very hard as it appears the xbox does not have the hardware to do it and it gives them a potential 'killer app' over their rivals. The rest of the blu-ray alliance would love to see it take off to shift some more hardware too. Like all new technology the early adopters will pay a premium but give it a couple of years to mature and 3D where you do not need to wear glasses will be a standard feature on all medium spec or higher TV's.
Then I guess you're one of the unlucky few =/ Spielbergs version should solve all those kinds of problems.
3D is great in cinemas. Otherwise it can go elsewhere. I don't want to look more like a tool when I watch TV.
I'm not fully clued up on the specifics behind the new tech, but the tech behind the cinema 3D is currently using a pair of projectors with a polarising filter, then a pair of polarised glasses with a 90' twist between eyes to cut out the unwanted image. That kind of method simply won't work with an LCD, so they'll have to come up with something new for us to play with. Until then we're stuck with the crap two-colour thing.
From what i have read there are two main technologies atm the polarised glasses like the ones at the cinema and the active shutter type used by Nvidia. The active shutter glasses support a full 1080p signal per eye while with the polarised glasses you only see half the res apparently. The CES coverage on AVForums indicates that both technologies are compatible with each other so if the one you purchased dies out you wont be stuck with a useless lemon. The video below indicates that the polarised glasses (passive 3D) are used on their LCD screens.
Because there are more people to see you looing like a tool in your living room than the cinema...? Two projectors was the old way of doing it, and it didn't need a filter, the prints were polarised left and right. Current tech is a single digital projector with a extremely fast spinning filter in front. Means it can show any digital prints, not just 3D.
Ooh, interesting. I wonder how they managed to get an LCD to output two different planes of polarized light, must be alternate cells in the display, then for 2D the polarization doesn't matter. Didn't think that'd work, but there we go! The 1080p shutter glasses from nVidia are just an alternating signal picture, each frame rendered for a different eye - hence full quality for each eye. The polarised glasses shut out half the picture effectively - hence "half" the detail for each eye. Interesting solution - I find the polarised version to be very effective, and you could make some nice sets of custom glasses for home watching if the manufacturers told you the polarization axes of your set (or with a bit of experimentation).
