Good news for haters; Samsung no longer believes in 3D TV

[koover]

Originally Posted by GunZenBomZ

Funny old world. My post gets removed is it because I forgot to use 'hypothetically' infront of this post.

Eric nothing you have said is worthy of response. "..Ow why not.."

You are living in a fantasy land of broken grammar & flawed logic. I have no intention of conversing with you or your third person perceived stance or how you became two people. Carry on your mission of self-aggrandizement or whatever journey an goal you have set forth. To ridicule you would belittle my time & skill (you are doing just fine by yourself). Lay off the underscores underlines, extenuation's & quotation marks..sticking with basic punctuation full stop.


You eric took your time too babble on about a number of illogical prepositions that was done to try to humiliate or intimidate me & get me emotional?

Seems my post was way to accurate as it was removed.

Which if people aren't to quick..they won't get too read this either. Thanks to Blu-Dog and other members for sticking with a debate and conversation about the technology rather than using any dissent as a open-door method of attacking adverse views.

One thing I learned on this site is to not criticize someone with regard to their punctuation, grammer or spelling. They'll remove your post just like that. It's not because of your point of view, it's because you attacked the person, not the subject matter. I don't agree with your opinion on this entire 3D matter, but I still respect your point of view even though it makes no sense to me.

[koover]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Disinterest is not hate. Many folks who couldn't care for 3D are upset that pro-3D nuts in this thread are attacking them. They're not... well, I think.

A hater is like someone who gets sick on rollercoasters. So instead of going on the Merry Go Round, he goes to the front of the line of the rollercoaster and attempts to stop people getting on. The people who make it past him and go for the ride are yelled at and called names by the hater. As if they were stupid for wanting to go on the ride.

Someone who's disinterested in the ride will just sit it out, maybe even let his kids jump on and tell him about it afterwards. Completely different ballpark.That's the way I see it anyway. 3D fans love the tech, I hope it stays and those who enjoy it can use it for themselves, and not tie down a bunch of haters Clockwork Orange style and force them to do so too. Plus I imagine it's a lot of fun for directors to do something different after all these years...

Completely agree.

[dmdragon]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

Disinterest is not hate. Many folks who couldn't care for 3D are upset that pro-3D nuts in this thread are attacking them. They're not... well, I think.

A hater is like someone who gets sick on rollercoasters. So instead of going on the Merry Go Round, he goes to the front of the line of the rollercoaster and attempts to stop people getting on. The people who make it past him and go for the ride are yelled at and called names by the hater. As if they were stupid for wanting to go on the ride.

Someone who's disinterested in the ride will just sit it out, maybe even let his kids jump on and tell him about it afterwards. Completely different ballpark.

That's the way I see it anyway. 3D fans love the tech, I hope it stays and those who enjoy it can use it for themselves, and not tie down a bunch of haters Clockwork Orange style and force them to do so too. Plus I imagine it's a lot of fun for directors to do something different after all these years...

That's a good point, but I don't think it's the people saying they just don't care about 3d that are causing the issues. It's the ones who want it to die and cease to exist because they don't care about it, even though it isn't hurting them to have the options and tech out there.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by AmrlKJaneway

A hater is like someone who gets sick on rollercoasters. So instead of going on the Merry Go Round, he goes to the front of the line of the rollercoaster and attempts to stop people getting on. The people who make it past him and go for the ride are yelled at and called names by the hater. As if they were stupid for wanting to go on the ride.

Someone who's disinterested in the ride will just sit it out, maybe even let his kids jump on and tell him about it afterwards. Completely different ballpark.

Except that the Hater With A Mission, who thinks he's striking back at the EGS's, is more like the guy who not only won't let anyone get on, but stands in front of the line handing all the other people who walk by flyers about all the fatalities and injuries that ever happened at other Six Flags parks, and persuading non-rollercoaster fans that that's why amusement parks shouldn't or "aren't" building any more of them.

Ie., it's gone way beyond "I don't like wearing glasses!" to some sort of unrelated "We are the 99%!...Occupy Sony Headquarters!" belief that telling everyone 3D Blu Is A Flop will make it go away at the theaters, thus "punishing" the EGS with customer righteousness in the process.
Again, that's old 2007 don't-wanna-buy-Blu grudges. flavored with more grumbling about having to pay an extra five bucks for Ghost Rider...If you wanna hate, fine, just don't think you're on a "mission" to Change the World.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Except that the Hater With A Mission, who thinks he's striking back at the EGS's, is more like the guy who not only won't let anyone get on, but stands in front of the line handing all the other people who walk by flyers about all the fatalities and injuries that ever happened at other Six Flags parks, and persuading non-rollercoaster fans that that's why amusement parks shouldn't or "aren't" building any more of them.

Ie., it's gone way beyond "I don't like wearing glasses!" to some sort of unrelated "We are the 99%!...Occupy Sony Headquarters!" belief that telling everyone 3D Blu Is A Flop will make it go away at the theaters, thus "punishing" the EGS with customer righteousness in the process.
Again, that's old 2007 don't-wanna-buy-Blu grudges. flavored with more grumbling about having to pay an extra five bucks for Ghost Rider...If you wanna hate, fine, just don't think you're on a "mission" to Change the World.

Whatever.

Do you think the industry should do more, less, or what they're doing now to promote 3-D adoption? Should they make a better marketing investment?

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Whatever.

Do you think the industry should do more, less, or what they're doing now to promote 3-D adoption? Should they make a better marketing investment?

Oh, more of anything's always better.

But
--and BEEP-BEEP!, here's the point speeding down the highway like a Mack truck!--
to take the passive enemy-of-my-enemy position and say "Well, okay, you have to admit it's not doing well in the marketplace because the companies are doing a disastrous job of promoting it, but that still means it'll flop anyway...Oh well, that's the home-theater biz " may look like a hidden ally, but isn't really saying anything about whether the public is "accepting" or "rejecting" 3-D in general, now, is it? That puts the guilt squarely in the companies' laps (where it belongs), lets the public off clean, and practically martyrs 3DTV, like laserdisk in the 90's. That's like trying to trot out the old "Remember HD-DVD?" darts and implying the reason HDDVD flopped was that "Toshiba didn't advertise it enough".
It may be tempting to say "Whatever, as long as they get the heave-ho and we don't have to look at them!", but is that the point you REALLY want to make at the end of the day?

(Of course, this is all academic, since the studios are just now beginning to fix their Avatar mistakes whether you saw a Super Bowl ad or not, but it's nice to analyze the insecure, defensive Anatomy of a Hater once in a while, just to get a psychological perspective.
But, to calm the discussion down, a video interlude, for your enjoyment. )

[Show spoiler]

Samsung 3D LED TV - Full Commercial - YouTube

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Oh, more of anything's always better.

But
--and BEEP-BEEP!, here's the point speeding down the highway like a Mack truck!--
to take the passive enemy-of-my-enemy position and say "Well, okay, you have to admit it's not doing well in the marketplace because the companies are doing a disastrous job of promoting it, but that still means it'll flop anyway...Oh well, that's the home-theater biz " may look like a hidden ally, but isn't really saying anything about whether the public is "accepting" or "rejecting" 3-D in general, now, is it?

Why is this about some "enemy"? Or "ally"? 3-D isn't going anywhere, since it's dirt cheap to produce for manufacturers of devices, and fairly cheap for the producers and disc makers. They're pumping up profits, but that's not spurring adoption. The public is not standing in line for it, no matter how much you like it, and that can change - if the resistance factors can be addressed.

Originally Posted by EricJ

That puts the guilt squarely in the companies' laps (where it belongs), lets the public off clean, and practically martyrs 3DTV, like laserdisk in the 90's. That's like trying to trot out the old "Remember HD-DVD?" darts and implying the reason HDDVD flopped was that "Toshiba didn't advertise it enough".

Toshiba's advertising didn't kill anything. Their disc capacity killed HD-DVD, and everyone knows it. I'm not making time-wasting comparisons to other media - that's just spin. 3-D is what it is, it works well (depending on the production - playback is clean), and it fits, full featured, on a disc or in a theater. Without a customer base, it will always be a niche. With a customer base, it will be an enhanced standard.

I'm sure you realize this, but I don't think you're concerned about it. If you want it to remain a niche, filled with fans only, that's OK with me, but all this choosing up sides to go fight isn't improving anything much. In fact, whether you do it or not, dismissing people's resistance as some kind of Neanderthal display is just slowing everything down.

Originally Posted by EricJ

It may be tempting to say "Whatever, as long as they get the heave-ho and we don't have to look at them!", but is that the point you REALLY want to make at the end of the day?

Anyone who spent significant money on obsolescent technology right before 3-D was introduced definitely has a bone to pick with the manufacturers. Anyone who already wears glasses, or wasted time on The Green Hornet or Green Lantern or something, or watches ticket prices climb to filet mignon levels, or gets headaches watching 3-D, or is just bored watching cartoons has a bone to pick. At this point, that's too many people.

Originally Posted by EricJ

(Of course, this is all academic, since the studios are just now beginning to fix their Avatar mistakes whether you saw a Super Bowl ad or not, but it's nice to analyze the insecure, defensive Anatomy of a Hater once in a while, just to get a psychological perspective.
But, to calm the discussion down, a video interlude, for your enjoyment. )

[Show spoiler]Samsung 3D LED TV - Full Commercial - YouTube

Something is odd. You're looking for a war, and you're very light on ammo. And I don't watch commercials.

[Damage Inc.]

Wow, 3D is already starting to die huh?
Well, it's to be expected for an "enhancement" that costs you a lot of extra money, even at theaters.
Because of course your equipment has to be capable and at the theater the ticket costs more and you have to put on glasses.

You know, personally, I "like" 3D, just for movies that benefit from it.
I mean, it can be an absolutely amazing experience and view at a movie.
I'm not speaking of if films should be in 3D though, as in older films converted and all that, that's not what it's about.

But what I think is, that 3D will eventually be a standard feature in all TVs, it's inevitable.
It already is pretty much a standard technology that comes with your TV.
Sure, people might not desire 3D as much, especially not if it costs you significantly more, but they will keep it a part of screens and what not.
And just wait, there are already technologies that have "glasses-less" 3D, so at some point, it's as simple as turning on your TV.

So basically, the whole problem with 3D is that it's "tacky", it's "tacked on" to movies and the equipment you use to view them on.
3D needs time to be integrated and even if it won't remain this decade, it will come back next decade.
There's no end to trying to sell new things and trying to make it right to also enjoy it.
So this won't lead to a definite goodbye for sure...


Actually I decided to type out my thoughts on 3D, which might be interesting, I don't know.
It's long, so click here if you want to see it all:

[Show spoiler]Ask yourself, do you enjoy 3D?
If you watch a movie in proper 3D, without complaining about 3D on forums, do you enjoy the viewing and the movie?

If not, why not? Because people are so pessimistic about it? Because purists are so afraid they will touch their 2D-classics?

Because I'm not particularly fór 3D, but I'm definitely not against 3D.
I think 3D has this whole image of being a niche, a gimmick, a fad, and perhaps even downright childish,
because it has been attempted before and it has tragically failed before.
But does that mean we should hate 3D when it works?
I mean, look at how far we've gotten with the technology, it's so much better now with a lot of room for improvement.
And they WILL improve it until it's the thing it should be; Three Dimensional.

Don't you think that maybe film was meant to be 3D all along?
I mean, the way they made cameras, with depth-of-field and all that, it's supposed to emulate the real thing.
Now I know that the 2D-image film can be something special and it has its charm.
But why hate on 3D, and I mean 3D in general, so much, when our own human sight IS 3D??
It's the real world people, if we have 2 eyes (and I'm sorry people who don't anymore), we see in 3D.
I think, just like widescreen, it would be a lot more natural to have a 3D-image.
And wait you purists, I'm not saying that everything and especially existing 2D-films have to be in 3D.
Although it could be a secondary OPTION to watch a classic in 3D if they make it available.
But anyway, I think, once we have screens that can show 3D without any glasses and all that,
it could be the most normal thing in the world to be watching video in 3D.

My point is also, 3D shouldn't be seen as "an effect", like some special modern effect.
3D should be seen as... nothing special, it isn't because it's what we see when we open our eyes, all day long.
Well, except for the fact that we stare at 2D-screens/images for a huge chunk of our lives in this day and age. -_-
But if I have to be honest, because I love the registration of images, storytelling on film and documentary on film,
I would honestly LOVE to see 'Planet Earth' in 3D, I would LOVE to see the depth to our World.
You can make it deep with high-resolution film/video, deep colors and a huge screen.
But there is nothing like REAL depth, I can tell you that.
So if they do this "gimmick" that's called 3D the RIGHT way, people would probably accept it more.
It's not supposed to be an "enhancement", a toy, a novelty or anything like that, it should just BE what we see.

And note, I love movies and how they look on film, I'm definitely one for maintaining them, presenting them as they are, I love it.
But I see all this hate on "3D", and yes, the technology might not be all that great, but technology isn't real-life.
I mean, it will never be, only the thing is, in this case it's not far enough done to be close enough to the real thing yet.
So, I think people should stop rejecting 3D as a niche and accept that 3D is something we live in.
I'm not saying you have to accept the current 3D-fad that's going on and the technology available today.
But open your eyes and see it for yourself. 3D is something technology strives at because it's real and not a special-effect.
I think one day it will be the most normal thing and people will complain about how "flat" and "undynamic" the image is.
And 2D-films would largely be a thing of the past and people might not understand either what 2D was about
or what the negative hassle was about on 3D today.

Yes, 2D will always be around, it's an image on a flat surface, it's probably the most common type of graphic in the world.
But things will evolve and I think 3D in video is one of those things that is destined to be developed over a longer course of time.
We have had film for ages, it became better and better, currently the existence (or use) of film is already threatened by digital sensors.
And we already get video filmed/recorded with 2 lenses, which makes it native (3D)...
It really looks like 3D isn't over for a long time. Even if its current attempt fails, it will be back to be taken more serious than a niche.

That's my honest view on it. I'm for films as they are, but I'm also for 3D done RIGHT.
I, for one, am looking forward to 3D being beautiful and a good experience, like it can occasionally be today.
Besides, why should video remain flat 2D if we're doing all the hassle to make audio so 3-dimensional and dynamic?
People already have 6 to 8 speakers in their homes, perhaps even moving on to 12 to 24 speakers.

[zx_6r]

out with 3d in with smell-a-vision.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by zx_6r

out with 3d in with smell-a-vision.

That's no joke, they already have devices that can capture smells...

Can't wait to play games and smell burning rubber and smoke and what not. lol
Probably not in this lifetime... Or well... technology moves faster and faster...

[FREYMAX 3D]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Samsung uses shutter glasses which is virtually a dead format now.

In the 3D projection world, where affordable 3D projectors (under $5k) have just now finally come to market over the last 6 months, active shutter glasses are basically the only option. Because of it being a projected image, the only way to use a passive technology for 3D projection at home would be to use two projectors synced with an external control for the 3D, polarized filters, and the two images perfectly aligned onto the screen... doable but certainly not practical. So shutter glasses are going to be around for quite awhile yet for 3D projection...

I just spent $3k upgrading to a 3D projector, paid $100 each for four pair of shutter glasses, and bought over $500 of 3D blu-ray movies, all in just the last 3 weeks... and it was the Best money I ever spent. With 3D projection on a 120" screen, and sitting 9 feet from the screen, I now have a better-than-IMAX 3D experience in my home theater...

[Towergrove]

I see this as only speculation. No where do I see this article mentioned other than here. Do a Google search.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Samsung uses shutter glasses which is virtually a dead format now.

Really? I wasn't aware of that, and I suppose neither was Panasonic, the maker of the top-rated 3D sets available, which happen to use active shutter technology...

[Metric]

Originally Posted by FreyTheater3D

In the 3D projection world, where affordable 3D projectors (under $5k) have just now finally come to market over the last 6 months, active shutter glasses are basically the only option. Because of it being a projected image, the only way to use a passive technology for 3D projection at home would be to use two projectors synced with an external control for the 3D, polarized filters, and the two images perfectly aligned onto the screen... doable but certainly not practical. So shutter glasses are going to be around for quite awhile yet for 3D projection...

I just spent $3k upgrading to a 3D projector, paid $100 each for four pair of shutter glasses, and bought over $500 of 3D blu-ray movies, all in just the last 3 weeks... and it was the Best money I ever spent. With 3D projection on a 120" screen, and sitting 9 feet from the screen, I now have a better-than-IMAX 3D experience in my home theater...

You can buy a lens to make an active projector passive - just add the silver screen.

The only off the shelf passive projector i know of is the LG and its not cheap.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by FreyTheater3D

In the 3D projection world, where affordable 3D projectors (under $5k) have just now finally come to market over the last 6 months, active shutter glasses are basically the only option. Because of it being a projected image, the only way to use a passive technology for 3D projection at home would be to use two projectors synced with an external control for the 3D, polarized filters, and the two images perfectly aligned onto the screen... doable but certainly not practical. So shutter glasses are going to be around for quite awhile yet for 3D projection...

I just spent $3k upgrading to a 3D projector, paid $100 each for four pair of shutter glasses, and bought over $500 of 3D blu-ray movies, all in just the last 3 weeks... and it was the Best money I ever spent. With 3D projection on a 120" screen, and sitting 9 feet from the screen, I now have a better-than-IMAX 3D experience in my home theater...

You are right that there is no cheap passive 3D projectors now for home use. But let's face it most of the theatrical presentations are passive 3D projection. The biggest hic for home is the need for a silver screen since keeping polarity is extremely important and cheap screens/painted walls will have an issue with that. But technically it should be a lot easier to do passive projection than passive TV.
Think about it, how do active shutter glasses work. Simply put there is an LCD in each lens, light passes through a polarizer then the LC layer and then a second polarizer in the lens the LC either changes the polarization or not, and depending on if it does or not the lens lets the light through or not. Take the first polarizer (not needed for LCD or LCoS but needed for DLP) and added in on the lens or in the projector, then add the LC in the projector, that switches every sub-frame (for lack of a better word), now add the different polarizer’s to each lens, just like in the active shutter glasses. You did not change how it works (each eye sees every second sub-frame) but you did move the active part from the viewer to the projector.

The issue is that it is way more fun for manufacturers to charge 100$ per glasses and you don't have to deal with stupid people that buy the projector and wrong screen asking "why doesn't it work?"

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Metric

You can buy a lens to make an active projector passive

?

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by therainberg

And Panasonic are introducing Passive 3D tec into their catalog. Only tec nerds care if active is a little better than passive... if at all. The market is making a shift to passive being the top technology for 3D Tv's over the next few years. Active will still exist but it will just be a tec-head format.

Why do people always have to turn these types of issues into personal attacks? Currently, the top 3D sets are all plasma, and passive tech is not being used on plasma (that I am aware). Panasonic is playing with passive for their lower-tier LCD line, but not the plasma line. Eventually, I see them changing the tech to active (in panel) with passive glasses (from what I've been reading), which would produce a true 1080p 3D image.

I honestly don't care what they do, as long as they don't degrade the 2D picture quality.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Why do people always have to turn these types of issues into personal attacks? Currently, the top 3D sets are all plasma, and passive tech is not being used on plasma (that I am aware). Panasonic is playing with passive for their lower-tier LCD line, but not the plasma line. Eventually, I see them changing the tech to active (in panel) with passive glasses (from what I've been reading), which would produce a true 1080p 3D image.

I honestly don't care what they do, as long as they don't degrade the 2D picture quality.

He's just yet another junior member running his mouth and trolling Ricshoe, who wouldn't know the difference between shit and clay when it comes to the world of HT. I can see that therainberg is going to make a lot of friends around here, when he is already referring to other members as nerds, what a tool.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by therainberg

You're jumping to conclusions again buddy. There is nothing wrong with the term nerds. You inferred some kind kind of negativity, slander, talking down, then proceed to do the same thing to me. I'm not talking down to anyone. Most people into the tec-head side of things refer to themselves as nerds.

"Again"? When have I ever replied to you in these forums other than my previous post and jumped to any kind of conclusion? I don't feel I did jump to conclusions at all, but on the other hand I feel you did. Why? Because your comment is labeling people as a stereotype, but the fact is there are lot of people who love and want the best out of their home theatre's, who I would consider far from fitting into the category of being referred to as a nerd (I personally know plenty of people who love and want the best performing HT gear they can afford, and I wouldn't call them nerds in the slightest). Just because some have an interest in a particular thing more than others (like a person who is passionate about cars and loves to do them up for example), doesn't automatically label them as a nerd in whatever interest they are involved in.

[Robut]

Originally Posted by therainberg

Samsung uses shutter glasses which is virtually a dead format now.

The "nerd" discussion is taking us of the original subject. I disagree with the above quote. I believe Samsung is still holding the biggest market share of 3D displays with their active glasses. I also agree that plasma displays by Panasonic are rated the best for 3D and their cheapest model is the passive display which I've read is manufactured by LG.