Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by merrick97

I prefer the social environment of the gym itself.

Merrick likes looking at the chicks in the tight outfits!

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Jeff,

Is bluray 3D dead before it even got started?

I'd really like to ask what you have heard to ask this?

Personally, I think 3D is the best thing to happen; now copying the rare polarized theatrical performances in the early 1950's and IMAX 3D (via "Real D 3D") in the home.

My family and friends gathered around our Panasonic 65" Viera 3D HDTV yesterday to experience the quality 3D material. All I heard from them is "we got to get one!".

Direct TV, via our DVR, from channel 106, provided ESPN world-cup soccer telecast in 3D. Very good quality, and in only 1080i format per each eye. All commercials were in 3D including one for "Toy Story 3" 3D now showing at the theaters. Channel 104 had IMAX "Deep Sea 3D" for $4.99, which was in "Full HD 3D" (1080P per eye). Channel 103 has 24hr 3D previews and free 3D hour specials you can record with themes about Planet Earth "African Safari's", "Oceans", etc.

For blu-ray 3D, we watched the Panasonic Demo Disc which had 6 mini-featurette's in 1080P per eye and 8 other 3D sample featurette's @ 720P per eye. Then the kids wanted to watch "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatball's" in 3D (in 1080P).

We're anxiously awaiting the release of "Avatar" in 3D this November and "The Polar Express", (a guilty pleasure of mine) in late November or early December.

IMHO, 3D is here to stay.

Paul

[Jeff Kleist]

Tolja this was coming from the EU as well

http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2010...rust-rules.htm

I think I need to purchase some premium grade popcorn for Stevie's temper tantrums following these hearings. It's going to be delicious.

I prefer the social environment of the gym itself.

You prefer to show off the results of your hard work, the various training machines it offers you, and the singles market There's a lot of people that don't belong to gyms because they don't enjoy the exhibitionism.

For blu-ray 3D, we watched the Panasonic Demo Disc which had 6 mini-featurette's in 1080P per eye and 8 other 3D sample featurette's @ 720P per eye. Then the kids wanted to watch "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatball's" in 3D (in 1080P).

We're anxiously awaiting the release of "Avatar" in 3D this November and "The Polar Express", (a guilty pleasure of mine) in late November or early December.

You won't be able to get Avatar in 3D in November, you purchased too soon. It's going to be exclusive to Panasonic hardware until at least the spring.

That Coral Reef demo is something though isn't it? I would say, bar none, that's the best 3D demo porn there is right now. Even my mom that doesn't give 2 craps about fancy HD perked up at that one

[PaulGo]

Interesting article in The Register. I personally am very excited by 3D and I hope it succeeds, but because of the specialized equipment (glasses, new large screen TV, new blu-ray player) it will take a long time before it becomes mainstream. I have purchased the Panasonic 3D Blu-ray player (it does checkerboard) for my Samsung DLP - I still need to get glasses.

3D TV: Avatar or Ishtar?

Do punters really want it?
By Tony Smith

5th July 2010 12:11 GMT

Heads or Fails We've seen plenty of forecasts predicting how many 3D TVs will be sold in the coming years - the latest, from UK-based IMS Research, puts the total at 218m [1] shipped by the end of 2015 - but none that show that punters want or will use the technoology.

As we reported recently, there have been small spending surges in the US and Europe following the debut of 3D TV sets in these territories, but since there's no real amount of content, we have to attribute these sales to folk with too much money or at least more money than sense, and not real people.

We agree with IMS' Anna Hunt, who notes that “within five years, the majority of high-end large-screen TV sets and Blu-ray Disc players are likely to offer 3D capability". Eventually, all sets will have this feature as vendors struggle to sell more sets and the cost of adding the technology falls.

One day, all TVs will be made this way.

Content will come. Over here, Sky will start broadcasting 3D programming, eventually, and more and more 3D Blu-ray Discs will ship. Though, as Reg Hardware's recent 3D TV Group Test [2] revealed, 2010's release list is all too brief.

But will punters adopt it? Most surveys which have asked retailers all mention that internet connectivity appeals to consumers more than 3D does, while in the UK specifically all the signs are that Freeview HD is the key draw pulling punters into the shops in search of a new screen.

As yet, though, no one appears to have questioned consumers here or elsewhere about whether they actually want 3D TV.

We see signs, admittedly entirely anecdotally, that even 3D in the cinema is proving to be less of a draw, so what chance has the technology got in the living room?

Based on the people we've asked over the past month or so - which we certainly don't pretend is a scientifically selected or statistically relevant sample - suggest of itself 3D TV will be no more successful than a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest.

http://www.reghardware.com/2010/07/0...or_fails_3dtv/

[Jeff Kleist]

These are the same surveys done every time a new expensive technology comes about. People claim they don't want it, and then 5 years down the line when it's cheaper people are all over it.

The biggest problem with 3D is that there are conversions, and that people are howling to be poked in the eye. We as film aficianados, and the filmmakers want to add depth, but for 3D to be a draw and impress people, there has to be that porn factor. Again and again I hear that. 3D animation people, make things float in front of your characters, make sure snow and rain pops out of the screen. If you want to sell 3D, split the difference between depth of field and the spear poking you in the eye, it's only going to help sell the concept to Joe6Pack.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

Merrick likes looking at the chicks in the tight outfits!

Actually they prefer ME in my spandex.

I workout early in the morning and the cute girls are usually asleep. They are there, but there aren't as many as you would expect.

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Actually they prefer ME in my spandex

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

These are the same surveys done every time a new expensive technology comes about. People claim they don't want it, and then 5 years down the line when it's cheaper people are all over it.

The biggest problem with 3D is that there are conversions, and that people are howling to be poked in the eye. We as film aficianados, and the filmmakers want to add depth, but for 3D to be a draw and impress people, there has to be that porn factor. Again and again I hear that. 3D animation people, make things float in front of your characters, make sure snow and rain pops out of the screen. If you want to sell 3D, split the difference between depth of field and the spear poking you in the eye, it's only going to help sell the concept to Joe6Pack.

Maybe 3D will become mainstream when Cameron releases Titanic in 3D. The girls will demand one.

[Jeff Kleist]

Actually they prefer ME in my spandex.

I workout early in the morning and the cute girls are usually asleep. They are there, but there aren't as many as you would expect.

Well, that's why you can't get a date. Sleep till ten, never have trouble dipping your pen

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Well, that's why you can't get a date. Sleep till ten, never have trouble dipping your pen

LOL

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Well, that's why you can't get a date. Sleep till ten, never have trouble dipping your pen

Actually on monday tuesday and weds I have to be awake at 4:30 AM Central to get my workouts in before work.

My new lifestyle is too important.

[Jeff Kleist]

Actually on monday tuesday and weds I have to be awake at 4:30 AM Central to get my workouts in before work.

My new lifestyle is too important.

I think I would rather die I often WORK till 4AM. It's not the workout that's bad, it's the morning person

[garyrc]

How aboutprojection 3D?

When (i.e., do they have the technology in the lab now?) will it look good (and bright) on a big home screen (10 to 15 feet away from a 10 foot true width screen)?

How about acoustically transparent screens?

[Jeff Kleist]

They have 3D projectors in the works, you'll probably see some at CES. Obviously they're going to have to push a lot more lumens to be bright on the home screen.

They already have acoustically transparent screens

[MerrickG]

I picked up the new bluray edition of Predator for $5 just because I was soooo curious if it would actually look as bad as people were saying.

The answer:
yes and no.

There are times when it actually looks pretty good and others such as the opening Arnold scene look absolutely atrocious. Its funny because I was showing that scene off to a crowd that doesn't care all that much about HD and I asked them what they thought of how Arnold looked and they thought he looked like someone who had the gaussian blur intensity turned up too high. If THEY thought it looked bad, then umm yeah it was bad.

They do a lot of photoshop work.

[SpaceDog]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

These are the same surveys done every time a new expensive technology comes about. People claim they don't want it, and then 5 years down the line when it's cheaper people are all over it.

The biggest problem with 3D is that there are conversions, and that people are howling to be poked in the eye. We as film aficianados, and the filmmakers want to add depth, but for 3D to be a draw and impress people, there has to be that porn factor. Again and again I hear that. 3D animation people, make things float in front of your characters, make sure snow and rain pops out of the screen. If you want to sell 3D, split the difference between depth of field and the spear poking you in the eye, it's only going to help sell the concept to Joe6Pack.

I think plenty of content providers will create poke you in the eye material. You won't see it with high end productions or directors, but I bet a lot of the 3-d horror coming forward will have pokey things. I definitely prefer the depth of field approach, but plenty of people see this and say "that movie wasn't really in 3D".

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

These are the same surveys done every time a new expensive technology comes about. People claim they don't want it, and then 5 years down the line when it's cheaper people are all over it.

Agreed. Even DVD was suggested to be a big loser by many surveys back in the days of VHS. Consumers didn't know how much they would want a disc that didn't need to be rewound after viewing until they had it in-hand.

The biggest problem with 3D is that there are conversions, and that people are howling to be poked in the eye. We as film aficianados, and the filmmakers want to add depth, but for 3D to be a draw and impress people, there has to be that porn factor. Again and again I hear that. 3D animation people, make things float in front of your characters, make sure snow and rain pops out of the screen. If you want to sell 3D, split the difference between depth of field and the spear poking you in the eye, it's only going to help sell the concept to Joe6Pack.

I agree that there's a risk here. But I also find it interesting that everyone of my "regular" friend's who's seen Up, Corlaine, Avatar, Toy Story 3, or Shrek 4in 3D all talk about how great they are in 3D, yet those films really push the depth-factor and try to minimize pop-out gags. So there's hope!

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Agreed. Even DVD was suggested to be a big loser by many surveys back in the days of VHS. Consumers didn't know how much they would want a disc that didn't need to be rewound after viewing until they had it in-hand.

The thing about 3D is that it will more or less be limited to new movies and not for old ones since they weren't filmed with 3D in mind. If they are going to charge a premium for 3D (they will) the discs had better do something unbelievable.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by merrick97

The thing about 3D is that it will more or less be limited to new movies and not for old ones since they weren't filmed with 3D in mind. If they are going to charge a premium for 3D (they will) the discs had better do something unbelievable.

It won't matter if 3D is only for select titles. 3D isn't a new format... the 3D discs play on all 2D players and v.v.

I'm assuming of course that 2D catalog classics remain in 2D and don't get "fake 3D processed" for 3D BD release. IMO that's the only proper way... actual 3D content in stereo 3D and 2D-original content in 2D. The exception IMO is with digitally animated titles that can be re-rendered in genuine 3D.

[Jeff Kleist]

For those who like NCIS, or are on the fence about the new NCIS-LA Blu-ray but like other shows from Paramount, I suggest you tip over that fence. Just saying.