Future of TV: 3D?

[GimmeSlack12]

Ars Tech has a decent opinion piece up about how 3D TV's will be the next big thing whether we like it or not. I agree that there seems to be no stopping it regardless of not knowing where the demand for such a feature came from, but it appears that the technology will involve refresh rates of 120Hz that switch between left and right eye, that if you opt to not wear the 3D glasses you won't know the difference.

I'm not a huge fan of the home theater 3D thing, mainly cause I think it's nothing but a gimmick in movie theaters too. Anyone out there actually looking forward to this new feature?

 

[Michael CM1]

That's a big negatory. When the first remention of 3D happened a year or so ago, I thought, "Didn't we try that in the '80s?" But sure as heckfire enough, we're back on that bandwagon, baby.

I have ZERO interest in it. Unless you're talking a Star Wars hologram, it's not actually three-dimensional. It's just some optical illusion of separating the picture.

Considering I still don't get The CW in HD and Family Guy still isn't 16:9, I don't get why the entire industry needs to waste brainpower on 3D. Work on getting HD signals in 1080p and putting all the streaming services on new TVs with Internet connections.

 

[JonHimself]

That's a big negatory. When the first remention of 3D happened a year or so ago, I thought, "Didn't we try that in the '80s?" But sure as heckfire enough, we're back on that bandwagon, baby.

I have ZERO interest in it. Unless you're talking a Star Wars hologram, it's not actually three-dimensional. It's just some optical illusion of separating the picture.

Considering I still don't get The CW in HD and Family Guy still isn't 16:9, I don't get why the entire industry needs to waste brainpower on 3D. Work on getting HD signals in 1080p and putting all the streaming services on new TVs with Internet connections.

Sadly, because (this is an assumption) "most" people think that because they subscribe to the HD package, they're already getting 1080p on everything (because they have no idea what that actually means). If the cable companies/networks/etc come out and say "Now it's even better HD!" no one is really going to be excited or moved to purchase more hardware. However, if a new TV all of a sudden has 3D ("Oh my, 3D?! I've heard that's great!") is new, has a lot of buzz, and the people blindly shopping at a Best Buy could be sucked into that.

 

[Mavimao]

This reaks of nothing but desperation on the part of television manufacturers.

3D was a gimmick in the 50s. It was a gimmick in the 80s. And now it's still a gimmick.

 

[JonHimself]

This reaks of nothing but desperation on the part of television manufacturers.

3D was a gimmick in the 50s. It was a gimmick in the 80s. And now it's still a gimmick.

See I think that the 3D in Avatar is more than a gimmick... for the first time, the 3D affect actually added to that movie (well for me) because it added depth - it went back into the screen instead of coming out at the viewier. Unfortunately, I can't see a lot of movies using it to enhance the movie as opposed to just having it as a cheesy affect.

 

[zedsdead]

See I think that the 3D in Avatar is more than a gimmick... for the first time, the 3D affect actually added to that movie (well for me) because it added depth - it went back into the screen instead of coming out at the viewier. Unfortunately, I can't see a lot of movies using it to enhance the movie as opposed to just having it as a cheesy affect.

I agree. For the most part it is a gimmick, but Avatar was defiantly a different story.

 

[GimmeSlack12]

I agree. For the most part it is a gimmick, but Avatar was defiantly a different story.

A lot of people I've talked to mention that Avatar was so great in 3D, I was meh about it all really. Though I admit it was better than what I was expecting (the 3D implementation, loved the movie!). Anyway, I would think that consumers would see through the 3D Tech gimmick on future TV's, and for the most part I'm pretty sure they can, yet what control do we have?

 

[godslabrat]

Unless said 3D can be done with the standards of the TVs currently on the market, and with no glasses (or possibly minimalist glasses) it won't happen. I don't care if you're getting this from Ars Technica, George Lucas, or Carrot Top. Not. Gonna. Happen.

Moving the US (one of the world's biggest TV markets) into the HD age has been a long, expensive, and complicated process. It's confused consumers, many of whom are angry at being "forced" to buy something. It's great that the upgrade got us off the old NTSC system, but don't expect ANY type of significant overhaul in the industry again for quite some time. People made their switch, they won't make another one. If 3D can work within the standards we have now, then it possibly might have a chance. Otherwise, no.

Statements like this remind me of the mid-90s, when all the experts were "just so sure" that in the future, stoves and coffee makers would have IP addresses so you could turn them on and off over the internet. It's a universal rule in technology marketing that, when you have a loser of an idea, you should act as if anyone who sees its flaws is retarded.

 

[JonHimself]

I don't think it can be done without glasses because the way the 3D is accomplished is by using a messed up picture on the TV that the glasses need to correct to be seen in 3D (very basic/poor description).
From what I've read, it's more the device delivering the content to the TV than the TV itself, but I could be wrong. By that I mean you would need a Bluray player that outputs a 3D image to the TV/reads a 3D Bluray disc and I THINK that a lot of Bluray players only need to have a firmware upgrade to do this. I think I read that Bluray is being adopted faster than DVD was but I would still think there are way more people who don't own a Bluray (not world population, but in the markets that Bluray is prevalent - Western world, developed countries) and because of that, the push for 3D might actually be something that can be accomplished easier than the switch to HD.

Side note - Even if Avatar didn't make it's money back at the box office (which is obviously has done), it will likely also sell a ton of hardware when it's eventually released on Bluray.

 

[zedsdead]

I don't think it can be done without glasses because the way the 3D is accomplished is by using a messed up picture on the TV that the glasses need to correct to be seen in 3D (very basic/poor description).
From what I've read, it's more the device delivering the content to the TV than the TV itself, but I could be wrong. By that I mean you would need a Bluray player that outputs a 3D image to the TV/reads a 3D Bluray disc and I THINK that a lot of Bluray players only need to have a firmware upgrade to do this. I think I read that Bluray is being adopted faster than DVD was but I would still think there are way more people who don't own a Bluray (not world population, but in the markets that Bluray is prevalent - Western world, developed countries) and because of that, the push for 3D might actually be something that can be accomplished easier than the switch to HD.

Side note - Even if Avatar didn't make it's money back at the box office (which is obviously has done), it will likely also sell a ton of hardware when it's eventually released on Bluray.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/10/intel-shows-off-glasses-free-3d-demo-now-this-is-more-like-it/

 

[cube]

3D without glasses has been shown off for many years and it still sucks.

On the other hand, 3D with glasses has been working very well in production for even longer.

 

[JonHimself]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/10/intel-shows-off-glasses-free-3d-demo-now-this-is-more-like-it/

Cool!

 

[PixelFactory]

3D TV is a way for manufacturers to sell their largest and most expensive TVs. For the 3D effect to be its best, the screen needs to fill your field of vision like a movie screen. The less it does, the less pronounced the effect. As far as firmware upgrades for Bluray players, I don't think they would give up the revenue stream of selling you a brand new 3D Bluray.

 

[NOSintake]

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/10/intel-shows-off-glasses-free-3d-demo-now-this-is-more-like-it/

Saw that the other day, but I still think 3D is a flop. No one is going to want to put on glasses just to watch tv. Sure a movie, and maybe a video game, but just normal tv? I can't see it happening because people would get tired of wearing them. In that case alone, I feel like 3D won't catch on that much. Not only that, but HDTV JUST got big. People are still catching on to that. So when people just spent 1000s of dollars on that big 1080p tv, they aren't going to want to spend another few thousand dollars just to get 3D...that's just my opinion though

 

[ethical]

3D TV is a way for manufacturers to sell their largest and most expensive TVs. For the 3D effect to be its best, the screen needs to fill your field of vision like a movie screen. The less it does, the less pronounced the effect. As far as firmware upgrades for Bluray players, I don't think they would give up the revenue stream of selling you a brand new 3D Bluray.

I agree. Unless the screen is the only thing you can see the '3D' isn't that great in my opinion. And short of having a stupidly huge TV in your living room, I think it's going to be hard to reproduce the sort of effects you see in the cinema (which in my opinion isn't that great anyway).

 

[bobgorila]

3D is like surround sound - you don't need every scene to have a helicopter flying from left to right, it works best as a subtle effect that just quietly adds depth to a movie.

Also: most live action movies that're 3D right now (clash of the Titans, for example) were shot in 2D and then the 3D effect was added in post-production. I've not seen it, but by all accounts it's pretty nasty compared to Avatar, which was shot using stereo cameras.

Interesting point about Avatar - all the people I know who saw it in 2D (either in the cinema or pirated copies) say it was boring as hell. My theory is the novelty of the 3D prevented people from getting too bored during the over-long set-up that occupies most of the first hour.

 

[Mach1.8]

I've been thinking about is a lot lately as a new TV is in my family's future. After doing some demos at the local electronics store, vie concluded, as many here have, that this is indeed a gimmick designed to separate you from your money.

Picture quality in a home theater environment involves many variables. The masses usually hang their hat on resolution, but that is pretty far down on the list of things that make for a great picture. Near the top of the list is contrast ratio and black levels, both of which take a hit when you put on those stinking glasses. Adding a greyscale spectrum to the 1080p picture is just crazy IMHO. While I find the 3D effect compelling, I will never get over the loss of picture quality the glasses bring.

 

[VoR]

Interesting point about Avatar - all the people I know who saw it in 2D (either in the cinema or pirated copies) say it was boring as hell. My theory is the novelty of the 3D prevented people from getting too bored during the over-long set-up that occupies most of the first hour.

After seeing it in 3d at the cinema, and just having watched it on bluray - I don't think it was too much of a novelty to completely warp your view of the film.
It certainly was the 'best' 3d effect film I've seen at the cinema, much better than all the 'tacked on for the sake of it', 'let's charge more money for it' films that we're forced into watching now.
It was still great to watch in 2d, and like the poster below you said, you don't have that drop in picture quality that putting cheap plastic lenses infront of your eyes brings - A very crisp and impressive image, rather than a slightly blurred, hard to focus impressive image

 

[Airforcekid]

Im happy as long as they still offer 1080P and I dont need to use glasses.

 

[Grade]

See I think that the 3D in Avatar is more than a gimmick... for the first time, the 3D affect actually added to that movie (well for me) because it added depth - it went back into the screen instead of coming out at the viewier. Unfortunately, I can't see a lot of movies using it to enhance the movie as opposed to just having it as a cheesy affect.

To be honest, I saw Avatar in 3D and in old fashion 2D and to be honest I didn't notice much difference between the two for the exception in 3D things where little in perspective (you noticed things where far way and things are closer). However when the image is moving faster (specially in Christmas Carol) I need to remove the glasses because my eyes begin to cry and if i force it (like Avatar and Christmas Carol) I exited the theater with a massive headache.

To be honest for the price + for the glasses and all that doesn't represent the money spent.

Note: I haven't movie in Imax so don't know if the 3D in Imax is worth it or not.
Note 2: Also for me sounds little dumb to need to hear the 3d glasses to watch tv or movies where I don't use glasses in first place.

 

[DoFoT9]

See I think that the 3D in Avatar is more than a gimmick... for the first time, the 3D affect actually added to that movie (well for me) because it added depth - it went back into the screen instead of coming out at the viewier. Unfortunately, I can't see a lot of movies using it to enhance the movie as opposed to just having it as a cheesy affect.

i watched a documentary on how Avatar was made - the technologies behind it were absolutely ........ well there is really no words.. just

as for 3D TV - i too agree that it is a gimmick, it will take 5+ years for TV shows to even start filming in 3D (due to expenses etc). we still dont even have 10% of our shows over here in progressive formats let along 1080p , my set top box cant even display HD - its another $10 a month to order a new bloody unit!

 

[sammich]

Interesting point about Avatar - all the people I know who saw it in 2D (either in the cinema or pirated copies) say it was boring as hell. My theory is the novelty of the 3D prevented people from getting too bored during the over-long set-up that occupies most of the first hour.

Totally agree. I was going to go for a 2nd viewing of Avatar if I had found someone to go with. But with the BR in hand and watching it on my well proportioned TV in 2D...it's average. The 3D effect does the same for me as surround sound first did for me, I thought a car really drove through my back wall towards my sofa. 3D adds scale, the sense of height is the final piece in bringing you into the world of the movie.

All those saying that 3D should be like a Star Wars-esque hologram, are we supposed to view an endless horizon/world through the box of a hologram?

I believe that to enjoy 3D you need a gigantic TV. The rule of thumb is for every inch of TV, you need to be 3 inches away. I say you need a TV big enough to fill your vision, it can still be like 10 feet away, it just needs to be about 10'.

 

[mstrze]

It seems to me that some form of 'glasses-free' 3D would be marketable better than the glasses-based version. (All it would see to take would be two seperate HDTV 'layers' within the same screen with the eyes tricked into seeing both versions as seperate right-left images. Seems that's what the engadget link is showing. Of course, buying what would essentially be two HDTVs in one box would be pricey at first.)

Until the glasses-free version is adopted in my opinion, this will end up just like the 80s and 3D will simmer in the background once again.