What is all the hype about with 3-D?

[[1080-p]]

http://newteevee.com/2009/10/05/3dtv...lly-heres-why/

http://www.3dtv-research.org/
http://3dtv.at/Index_en.aspx

to me 3dtv should have the lens built into the set so the tv becomes one big eye-ware instead of glasses
like this http://en.zerocreative.com/xyz?ad_code=AdW

[AKORIS]

here's what I don't understand-- I have 2 blu-rays in my collection that have the 3-D option-- (My Bloody Valentine and Journey to the center of the
earth)--

while it is fun to see the 3-D option I much prefer the 2-D because the clarity is 100 times better. In 3-d the PQ is diminished a lot--- if you were
watching hi-def movies all the time in 3-D-- wouldn't that defeat the whole
purpose of upgrading movies from dvd to blu-ray???

[connect42]

Originally Posted by fredreed

Why are they even considering coming out with movies in 3-D, I mean what is this about them maybe working on 3D televisions, come on people why would I want waste more money that I don't even have to spend on useless nonsense like a 3D television when I already have a perfectly good television for watching movies.

I had a perfectly good Sony picture tube TV three years ago. I loved that TV and the picture was good. I didn't need a new TV. Then I bought my LG LCD because it had this nonsense called HD mixed in with the completely unnecessary 1080P and 120HZ. I can't believe they were offering these new sets in stores when my picture tube still worked so well.

[atomik kinder]

Originally Posted by gates70

I do wear glasses for medical reasons and there's no way I'd want to wear glasses for a movie. I hate wearing glasses as it is. Enough with the money hungry gimmicks from studios. We have a medium in Blu Ray that's nearing perfection so why screw around with it (already). The studios are lucky people started moving to Blu Ray and that it's catching on because a lot of people are still very very happy with DVD. We home theater fanatics are the minority, not the majority. Most people I talk too are happy with their "normal size" tv's and DVD's.

I don't hate wearing glasses. I can't see without them.

Anyway, I love the new 3-D in theaters, even if I have to wear glasses over my glasses.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by fredreed

Why are they even considering coming out with movies in 3-D,

Historically, guess I'm the only one who remembers the days when IMAX was the only one who could do dedicated 3-D screens--
And when Warner was IMAX-pimping all their seasonal tentpoles, and Robert Zemeckis realized nobody was even bothering to see "Polar Express" in the regular theaters, Disney picked up the note of desperation and used the same strategy to try and save "Chicken Little" at the last minute...

Then, when audiences went to see the New Gimmick (okay, who's still defensive about "Hey, I liked Chicken Little in 3-D! "?), the entire industry grabbed the wrong end of the stick and beating about the bush with it--
The rise of digital DLP meant that mall cineplexes didn't have to change their screens, 3-D moved out of the IMAX wilderness into the suburbs, and well, that brings us up to date.

[jam6969]

I always hate that 3D glasses.That damn thing make me dizzy.

[SpaceDog]

I do not get the anti-3d crowd. Thus far 2d content is not being replaced by 3d, it's being enhanced. You may have room to complain if they stop making 2d content altogether, but it's just silly to argue against an additional choice.

[[1080-p]]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

here's what I don't understand-- I have 2 blu-rays in my collection that have the 3-D option-- (My Bloody Valentine and Journey to the center of the
earth)--

while it is fun to see the 3-D option I much prefer the 2-D because the clarity is 100 times better. In 3-d the PQ is diminished a lot--- if you were
watching hi-def movies all the time in 3-D-- wouldn't that defeat the whole
purpose of upgrading movies from dvd to blu-ray???

yeah I'm not a fan of todays blu-ray 3d
wouldn't it be easier to place a 3d-chip like wowvx into blu-ray player or the hdtv set
http://www.therawfeed.com/2007/08/ja...-10-times.html

http://www.mediastation.co.uk/WOWVX.htm# with a high-end videocard

http://images.google.com/images?q=3d...N&hl=en&tab=wi

http://www.slashgear.com/3dfusion-ma...splay-2035286/

http://www.dimensionalstudios.com/ph...x_display.html

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

I do not get the anti-3d crowd. Thus far 2d content is not being replaced by 3d, it's being enhanced. You may have room to complain if they stop making 2d content altogether, but it's just silly to argue against an additional choice.

"enhanced" meaning that you will have the choice of 2-D and 3-D as it is
currently?

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

"enhanced" meaning that you will have the choice of 2-D and 3-D as it is
currently?

Enhanced meaning to have 2 choices - 2 viewing options. You can choose to watch in 2D or you can choose to watch in 3d.

For me, today that means watching in 2D if it's anaglyph red/blue. However, if the technology at home approximates the Real-D experience in theaters, I will likely start opting for the 3D counterpart.

Even if this becomes outrageously popular, the studios will still provide flat versions on home video.

Originally Posted by AKORIS

if you were
watching hi-def movies all the time in 3-D-- wouldn't that defeat the whole
purpose of upgrading movies from dvd to blu-ray???

On this, keep in mind that new 3D proposals would almost certainly take advantage of 120Hz+ sets and provide 2 concurrent 1080P video streams. No loss of video quality for HD.

[masoud90]

I think it's because 3D is a technology that has long been tried over and over again to make it perfect and now they have really perfected it a lot - if not completely.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by SpaceDog

I do not get the anti-3d crowd. Thus far 2d content is not being replaced by 3d, it's being enhanced. You may have room to complain if they stop making 2d content altogether, but it's just silly to argue against an additional choice.

And if you simply hate 3D, it's a simple matter to only display one of the two discreet video streams instead of both.

Don't be mad about optional enhancements. If you don't like 3D, you don't have to watch it that way, even for movies ostensibly designed as 3D gimmick movies (think: Spy Kids 3). On the DVD release of these 3D gimmick movies, I bet they FORCE you to see it in 3D, but in softcoding it on Blu-ray as part of an updated standard, it would be a simple feature to set the TV to only display the left eye's image.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

And if you simply hate 3D, it's a simple matter to only display one of the two discreet video streams instead of both.

Don't be mad about optional enhancements. If you don't like 3D, you don't have to watch it that way, even for movies ostensibly designed as 3D gimmick movies (think: Spy Kids 3). On the DVD release of these 3D gimmick movies, I bet they FORCE you to see it in 3D, but in softcoding it on Blu-ray as part of an updated standard, it would be a simple feature to set the TV to only display the left eye's image.

Actually when SK3 hit DVD, it had a flat disc and a 3d disc. I actually bought it for the goof of having a 3d title. I didn't get through more than 20 minutes.

Even back to your example, they offer a choice.

[tilallr1]

I think gaming in 3D would be cool. Other than that, I am not sure about 3D at home. Still think its a gimmic.

[aggienader08]

I don't understand the inner working of 3-D home video. If someone that has the knowledge of the technology wouldn't mind explaining, what would have to be done in order to get the 3-D home viewing experience up to par with the theater experience?

Best example that comes to mind is Up! That looked fantastic in 3-D.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

here's what I don't understand-- I have 2 blu-rays in my collection that have the 3-D option-- (My Bloody Valentine and Journey to the center of the
earth)--

while it is fun to see the 3-D option I much prefer the 2-D because the clarity is 100 times better. In 3-d the PQ is diminished a lot--- if you were
watching hi-def movies all the time in 3-D-- wouldn't that defeat the whole
purpose of upgrading movies from dvd to blu-ray???

no, these are not real 3d they are the old anaglyph method. Due to the fact that they use colour filters the image degrades, but with real 3D that should not happen. Also, at least for Journey to the center of the earth, the BD has two versions of the movie (3D and 2D) that means that 1/2 the disk is used for 2D and the other for 3D. with real 3D that won't happen because the same 3D will be the 2D.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by aggienader08

I don't understand the inner working of 3-D home video. If someone that has the knowledge of the technology wouldn't mind explaining, what would have to be done in order to get the 3-D home viewing experience up to par with the theater experience?

Best example that comes to mind is Up! That looked fantastic in 3-D.

it depends. In the old days (i.e. still tody) 3D= anaglyph with coloured lenses and no issue on any TV.

But 3D just means each of our eyes see a different picture. I am hoping/guessing that different manufacturers will make different players that treat 3D diffrently, maybe some that will colour filter the images in order to use anaglyph with older TVs.

On the other hand, at CEDIA this year, a show for people who sell and instal AV equipment as well as built HT rooms, several manufacturers showed diffferent solutions.

1) JVC had a set-up with two projectors that used differently polarized light and polarized glasses (the same as most theatres)

2) JVC also had a set up on a new flat screen LCD TV where each line (row of pixels) has a different polarization, here too you used polarized glasses

3) Samsung (I think) had a TV which used shutter glasses


1) would also need two HDMI cables (one for each image and each projector)


I don't know about the rest but
2) at some point would need to interlace the two (L & R) images into one, it could be done in the player, in the display or a different box

3) at some point will need to shuffle the images one after the other, again, it could be done in the player, in the display or a different box

soas you can see it will be hard for anyone to explain until it is here, There might be one tech or several, there could be one means of passing the data or many....

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by aggienader08

I don't understand the inner working of 3-D home video. If someone that has the knowledge of the technology wouldn't mind explaining, what would have to be done in order to get the 3-D home viewing experience up to par with the theater experience?

Best example that comes to mind is Up! That looked fantastic in 3-D.

Basically 3D at home will use this tech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_glasses. They previously used it at IMAX before they brought in polarised 3D.

Also: In theory all you would need to watch 3D movies at home with shutter glasses tech is a 120Hz HDTV, some shutter glasses and a firmware upgrade for some BD players. So for some people in theor they only need to pay for the shutter glasses.

And once again the problem with these 3D threads is half the people in the threads complaining about 3D are talking about anaglyph 3D while everyone else that has seen a recent 3D movie at a cinema and likes it is talking about "Digital" 3D.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Then, when audiences went to see the New Gimmick (okay, who's still defensive about "Hey, I liked Chicken Little in 3-D! "?), the entire industry grabbed the wrong end of the stick and beating about the bush with it--
The rise of digital DLP meant that mall cineplexes didn't have to change their screens, 3-D moved out of the IMAX wilderness into the suburbs, and well, that brings us up to date.

Your wrong there. All screens that have 3D capable projectors need to have their white screens replaced with a silver one which reflects more light to counter the darker image cause by the 3D lenses on the glasses. IMAX uses the same silver screen. Also this isn't a cheap process that's why some cinema companies haven't jumped on yet.

[syncguy]

I do not expect 3D would be widely used for regular viewing unless 3D is improved to give natural and subtle 3D as you are watching it live. Enhanced 3D affects, some looks like cartoonish, perhaps not the best for regular enjoyment.