What do you think about 3D? Do you like it? Hate it? Think it's better than 4K? - Page 6 - Blu-ray Forum

PaulGo · 11-09-2010, 02:29 PM

3D TV: Biggest Mistake In CE History?
By Swanni

Washington, D.C. (November 8, 2010) -- The evidence that watching 3D TV could cause a variety of illnesses is rising fast and could cause some industry advocates to scale back their efforts to make 3D TV "the next big thing."

http://www.tvpredictions.com/3dsick110810.htm

Metric · 11-10-2010, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Propellarhead9

Where are and what are you testing? Is it an actual screen or a projector? Either way sounds awesome to me.

Sorry, I didnt get chance at the weekend but I did just test a projected 120" 3d image. Its only 720p but it looks pretty good...

Im using an Optoma GT720 - its a 1280x800 DLP 3D ready projector. I am feeding that with a home theater pc running a ATI 5770 video card, catalyst and reg hack to output 3D. I set my desktop to 720p @ 120hz and launch PowerDVD; I then use Viewsonic PGD-150 DLP Link glasses.

GregBe · 12-03-2010, 04:04 PM

I am not judging yet, just trying to learn. Let me first say, that I have not seen a 3D movie in a theater yet, but went to Best Buy yesterday to look at tv's and they had a Panasonic display with Avatar running.

The 3D images looked pretty cool and three dimensional, but in contrast to the background, they looked gimmicky. If I focused on the characters in 3D, I was impressed, but as a whole picture, it still looked sorta like the cardboard cutouts of the old 3D technology. The worst part for me was the background. It looked really blurry.

Was this a bad representative example, or are these the cons that come along with the pros?

Thanks!
Greg

Truong · 12-03-2010, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GregBe

I am not judging yet, just trying to learn. Let me first say, that I have not seen a 3D movie in a theater yet, but went to Best Buy yesterday to look at tv's and they had a Panasonic display with Avatar running.

The 3D images looked pretty cool and three dimensional, but in contrast to the background, they looked gimmicky. If I focused on the characters in 3D, I was impressed, but as a whole picture, it still looked sorta like the cardboard cutouts of the old 3D technology. The worst part for me was the background. It looked really blurry.

Was this a bad representative example, or are these the cons that come along with the pros?

Thanks!
Greg

If the background was really blurry, it was probably not because of the 3D but because it was the cinematographer's intent that it be blurry. Photographers (and film directors/cinematographers) often employ a narrow field of focus to direct the viewers' attention to the intended object of attention. In other words, everything in the foreground or background of the focal point or object is intentionally out of focus in order to draw attention to the object or person that is in focus. This occurs both in 2D and 3D photography.

Amnalehu · 12-06-2010, 12:33 PM

From reading the various post about many people's experiences and expectations of what 3D is and should be on a home display, I am beginning to think that most people are looking at it from the wrong perspective. It seems like many are expecting the 3D effect to be nothing be nothing but objects spontaneously popping off the screen when we least expect it. This is how early 3D is mostly implemented in theme parks and in animated films, or horror films; more gimmick than substance. My idea of what 3D is is less about things flying off the screen, and more about adding a sense of depth and realism to an already pristine image. Most of use on a day to day basis do not experience things flying directly at our faces. However, almost all of us experience everyday life in 3D. I think the true sense of depth is what 3D in the home is all about. The current technology does a great job at producing this sensation. I would even venture to say that 3D on a quality 50-65 inch plasma display surpasses the 3D that we experience in the theater. I have never really experienced depth in the theater; only objects appearing to extend out of the screen. With my home display, the 3D is more like peering out of a window. I think this is the way home 3D should be marketed. Simply put, adding 3D makes your 1080p image look even more real by adding a field of depth. This is what sold me on 3D; not things appearing to jump off of the screen. For those of you who either have not had the pleasure of experiencing 3D on a home display, venture down to your local Best Buy, go to the Magnolia room and as to look at either the Panasonic, or the Samsung Plasma sets that have 3D. My local best buy had "Under the Sea" Imax and Grand Canyon. Both of these titles do a great job of displaying depth. Grand Canyon has some of the "coming at you" effects, while Under the Sea really shows the sense of depth.

krazeyeyez · 12-26-2010, 09:56 AM

^^^ to the above statement i agree and disagree, foreground/background is far more obvious and attention grabbing in 3d and very distracting imo (have only seen tron in 3d so my experience is VERY limited). Not just your typical slightly out of focus shot.... it seemed uncomfortable to look where i was not supposed to.

This question is to anyone who already has a 3d set.....

How does the home experience compare to "real 3d" in the theatre.... and how does source effect the experience, as in an actual 3d filmed movie vs the 3d upconversion or whatever it is being labeled?

I was pretty impressed with my first 3D experience today in spite of the movie being horrible

bhampton · 12-31-2010, 03:31 PM

Hi,

I wish the 3D players would support anaglyph mode for people without true 3D HDTV's.

I know Alaglyph kind of stinks and all. I have the Anaglyph Colaline and Bob's Big Break on Blu and also have Madden 11 which supports Alaglyph. I know it screws stuff up like the colors and all but it's still kind of nifty and makes for a fun diversion. I bought plastic red/cyan and red/blue glasses for the stuff that I do have in anaglyph.

I guess it would kill the whole concept though since people are lazy and no one would buy the new gear if the old gear was supported.

Hmmm.... Looks like I'm not the only one with the idea...

http://forums.support.roxio.com/topi...-in-analglyph/

Quote "I inserted my Blu-ray 3D copy of Ice Age 3D that came with my 3D TV into my new Bluray drive on my PC, purchased the Blu-ray playback add-on to the CinePlayer and was able to play the true 3D version of the movie in analglyph! Sweet! After the holidays, I'll try connecting my HDMI output to my projector and see how that goes!"
-Brian

3DinAK · 12-31-2010, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

Maybe at your home, but my home theater flat out smokes the local cineplexes around here.

Your home theater would smoke our local theater here.Is your set up 3D?

I don't understand how 3D could be a gimmic.Would be like saying blu ray is a gimmic cause dvd was just the same or better.It was time for me to upgrade my tv,so I went with a 3D tv.Made the right choice.

Suntory_Times · 01-04-2011, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

^^^ to the above statement i agree and disagree, foreground/background is far more obvious and attention grabbing in 3d and very distracting imo (have only seen tron in 3d so my experience is VERY limited). Not just your typical slightly out of focus shot.... it seemed uncomfortable to look where i was not supposed to.

This question is to anyone who already has a 3d set.....

How does the home experience compare to "real 3d" in the theatre.... and how does source effect the experience, as in an actual 3d filmed movie vs the 3d upconversion or whatever it is being labeled?

I was pretty impressed with my first 3D experience today in spite of the movie being horrible

3d conversions can be good, and even piranha looks leagues better then any real time convertor. Real time convertors are horrible and should not be used as a real way to view 3d. Native 3d footage is simply mind boggling good. It does depend on the set, but for the most part, 3d at home provides for a brighter image, just as it does for 2d. Home however does seem to be slighly more prone to ghosting, but this isn't always true based on some cinemas I have seen. Proper calibration de-emphasizes most ghosting and makes more minor ghosting close to invisible.

As for the background/forground bieng out of foucs. You can't judge a scene on its own. You can only tell if it works in the film if you have watched the whole film up to that point. The vast majority of people by which stage will automatically follow where the dop and director wants them to look (if they are doing there job at all well).

I'm sad that my Piranha didn't come with the Tron Legacy add in 3d, from what I saw of it on the Christmas Carol b3d blu it looks like we are in for a treat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhampton

Hi,

I wish the 3D players would support anaglyph mode for people without true 3D HDTV's.

I know Alaglyph kind of stinks and all. I have the Anaglyph Colaline and Bob's Big Break on Blu and also have Madden 11 which supports Alaglyph. I know it screws stuff up like the colors and all but it's still kind of nifty and makes for a fun diversion. I bought plastic red/cyan and red/blue glasses for the stuff that I do have in anaglyph.

I guess it would kill the whole concept though since people are lazy and no one would buy the new gear if the old gear was supported.

Hmmm.... Looks like I'm not the only one with the idea...

http://forums.support.roxio.com/topi...-in-analglyph/

Quote "I inserted my Blu-ray 3D copy of Ice Age 3D that came with my 3D TV into my new Bluray drive on my PC, purchased the Blu-ray playback add-on to the CinePlayer and was able to play the true 3D version of the movie in analglyph! Sweet! After the holidays, I'll try connecting my HDMI output to my projector and see how that goes!"
-Brian

They do, as long as the disc comes with an analygraph encode. Converting 2d to anaglyph will not look at all good or 3d and hence it is nopt included, plus if anything does such processing it really should be the tv.

JE3146 · 01-05-2011, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

?You see this doesn't make any sense. Why should you care if it is rerleased in 3d, afterall it was shoot in 3d. Why not let those who like 3d enjoy it and just satick with the 2d which is made available to you.

Glancing at this person's posting history in the 3D section, I wouldn't expect anything less.

perfectionthrusilenc · 01-10-2011, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Mike

Well I'm someone who can't see 3D even though I have two eyes! To cut a long story short - had what is known as a 'lazy eye' as a child. If this is left untreated you go blind in that eye (the optic nerve whithers). The treatment is to put a patch over the good eye, forcing the brain to use the lazy eye so it works properly. This is done at the age (under 4) when your brain is working out how to use two eyes for depth perception so although I have two working eyes they don't really work together to produce propper stereoscopic vision (if something is on the left side of my nose, my left eye sees it and if it's on the right side of my nose, my right eye sees it). I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world with condition but I don't know how common it is.

So 3D TV or cinema has always been wasted on me so I've never really bothered about it. Obviously I haven't tried out the new generation of 3D tech but I have to say the glasses look like they could not be comfortably worn over normal spectacles, and that is excluding a much bigger slice of the population.

^^^ this nearly made me cry. I can't believe there is someone else in the world just like me. I feel your pain man, I do. My lazy eye is my left eye and I discovered at a young age that I couldn't "see" 3D either. My family and I went on vacation to Universal Studios one year and we saw the Terminator 3-D show and it didn't work for me. Went to the Spider Man ride at Islands of Adventure and the same result, I could see it, but couldn't "see" it.

Therefore, I will not invest in 3D. It just doesn't work for me.

raygendreau · 01-10-2011, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Mike

Well I'm someone who can't see 3D even though I have two eyes! To cut a long story short - had what is known as a 'lazy eye' as a child. If this is left untreated you go blind in that eye (the optic nerve whithers). The treatment is to put a patch over the good eye, forcing the brain to use the lazy eye so it works properly. This is done at the age (under 4) when your brain is working out how to use two eyes for depth perception so although I have two working eyes they don't really work together to produce propper stereoscopic vision (if something is on the left side of my nose, my left eye sees it and if it's on the right side of my nose, my right eye sees it). I'm sure I'm not the only person in the world with condition but I don't know how common it is.

So 3D TV or cinema has always been wasted on me so I've never really bothered about it. Obviously I haven't tried out the new generation of 3D tech but I have to say the glasses look like they could not be comfortably worn over normal spectacles, and that is excluding a much bigger slice of the population.

Have you ever tried using shutter glasses, perhaps at Best Buy, to view the current generation of 3D? I wear glasses and all of the shutter glasses I have tried fit comfortably over my prescription glasses, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Since you are actually looking through one lens at a time while the other lens is blacked out, could there be a possibility of it working for you? Might be worth a try.

linkgx1 · 02-18-2011, 12:43 AM

Well, I most likely get an 3D HDTV (Thank you Panasonic for your reasonable prices). For me, 3D isn't too bad though most people hate it. It takes time. I'm going to get a 3DTV simply because I haven't had an HDTV and I'm looking to upgrade for a while. Plus, I consider it a novelty. It's pretty awesome to relive some of the GOOD Avatar 3D scenes from the movies. I could honestly care less about 3D, but it can be nice when done right.

So I guess my question is, if you went 3D, why did you. And if not, why didn't you?

linkgx1 · 02-18-2011, 01:28 AM

3D just need to be treated a s a novelty (a delicacy, even), not as something to take over like 1080p. If this can happen, then I think we'd be all set. But it's not going to work if you just convert stuff to 3D.

seregloth · 02-18-2011, 05:43 AM

I was looking to upgrade my 37" LCD and I ended up with a 3d blu ray player through the Disney deal, so I figured, what the hey- I like 3d.

Also, hearing that the Hobbit was being shot in 3d finally helped tip me.

Bad8511 · 02-18-2011, 08:35 AM

Always wanting the latest and greatest and 3D has always interest me. Plus found a great deal on my Sammy, $1799, thanks Frys!

synergy · 02-18-2011, 12:42 PM

I was planning on upgrading size wise from my 40" LCD. The best set when I bought also happened to have 3D in it. I have a Panny VT25.

SpaceDog · 02-18-2011, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by synergy

I was planning on upgrading size wise from my 40" LCD. The best set when I bought also happened to have 3D in it. I have a Panny VT25.

I'm hoping the 65" version will see a price drop this year. Would definitely like to move that into my living room.

kwrobbins · 02-19-2011, 02:19 PM

Always loved 3D movies and was first in line at their openings. I love 3D on my 63" Samsung

u_nick · 02-19-2011, 02:21 PM

I like 3D a lot. Always been a lot of fun for me. I dont have most of the issues (headaches, uncomfort, etc) that most seem to have. It just 'works' for me.

I actually dont have a TV yet, but have narrowed it down to a couple models. Going to go out today to see them in person to see if I can make a decision. Hopefully soon.

12-31-2010, 03:31 PM	#107
bhampton Blu-ray Count Member since:Aug 2007 4K collection:981 Blu-ray collection:2537 DVD collection:67 Blu-ray reviews: 6 Trading Score:18	Hi, I wish the 3D players would support anaglyph mode for people without true 3D HDTV's. I know Alaglyph kind of stinks and all. I have the Anaglyph Colaline and Bob's Big Break on Blu and also have Madden 11 which supports Alaglyph. I know it screws stuff up like the colors and all but it's still kind of nifty and makes for a fun diversion. I bought plastic red/cyan and red/blue glasses for the stuff that I do have in anaglyph. I guess it would kill the whole concept though since people are lazy and no one would buy the new gear if the old gear was supported. Hmmm.... Looks like I'm not the only one with the idea... http://forums.support.roxio.com/topi...-in-analglyph/ Quote "I inserted my Blu-ray 3D copy of Ice Age 3D that came with my 3D TV into my new Bluray drive on my PC, purchased the Blu-ray playback add-on to the CinePlayer and was able to play the true 3D version of the movie in analglyph! Sweet! After the holidays, I'll try connecting my HDMI output to my projector and see how that goes!" -Brian Last edited by bhampton; 12-31-2010 at 03:36 PM.

02-18-2011, 12:43 AM	#113
linkgx1 Banned Member since:Feb 2011 Location:Saint Louis, MO	Why did you go with 3D? Well, I most likely get an 3D HDTV (Thank you Panasonic for your reasonable prices). For me, 3D isn't too bad though most people hate it. It takes time. I'm going to get a 3DTV simply because I haven't had an HDTV and I'm looking to upgrade for a while. Plus, I consider it a novelty. It's pretty awesome to relive some of the GOOD Avatar 3D scenes from the movies. I could honestly care less about 3D, but it can be nice when done right. So I guess my question is, if you went 3D, why did you. And if not, why didn't you?

11-09-2010, 02:29 PM	#101
PaulGo Power Member Top contributor Member since:Aug 2007 Location:North Potomac, MD	3D TV: Biggest Mistake In CE History? By Swanni Washington, D.C. (November 8, 2010) -- The evidence that watching 3D TV could cause a variety of illnesses is rising fast and could cause some industry advocates to scale back their efforts to make 3D TV "the next big thing." http://www.tvpredictions.com/3dsick110810.htm

12-03-2010, 04:04 PM	#103
GregBe Active Member Member since:Apr 2009 Location:Denver CO Blu-ray collection:29 Trading Score:49	I am not judging yet, just trying to learn. Let me first say, that I have not seen a 3D movie in a theater yet, but went to Best Buy yesterday to look at tv's and they had a Panasonic display with Avatar running. The 3D images looked pretty cool and three dimensional, but in contrast to the background, they looked gimmicky. If I focused on the characters in 3D, I was impressed, but as a whole picture, it still looked sorta like the cardboard cutouts of the old 3D technology. The worst part for me was the background. It looked really blurry. Was this a bad representative example, or are these the cons that come along with the pros? Thanks! Greg

12-06-2010, 12:33 PM	#105
Amnalehu Member Member since:Oct 2010 Location:St. Louis, Mo Blu-ray collection:22 Blu-ray reviews: 3	From reading the various post about many people's experiences and expectations of what 3D is and should be on a home display, I am beginning to think that most people are looking at it from the wrong perspective. It seems like many are expecting the 3D effect to be nothing be nothing but objects spontaneously popping off the screen when we least expect it. This is how early 3D is mostly implemented in theme parks and in animated films, or horror films; more gimmick than substance. My idea of what 3D is is less about things flying off the screen, and more about adding a sense of depth and realism to an already pristine image. Most of use on a day to day basis do not experience things flying directly at our faces. However, almost all of us experience everyday life in 3D. I think the true sense of depth is what 3D in the home is all about. The current technology does a great job at producing this sensation. I would even venture to say that 3D on a quality 50-65 inch plasma display surpasses the 3D that we experience in the theater. I have never really experienced depth in the theater; only objects appearing to extend out of the screen. With my home display, the 3D is more like peering out of a window. I think this is the way home 3D should be marketed. Simply put, adding 3D makes your 1080p image look even more real by adding a field of depth. This is what sold me on 3D; not things appearing to jump off of the screen. For those of you who either have not had the pleasure of experiencing 3D on a home display, venture down to your local Best Buy, go to the Magnolia room and as to look at either the Panasonic, or the Samsung Plasma sets that have 3D. My local best buy had "Under the Sea" Imax and Grand Canyon. Both of these titles do a great job of displaying depth. Grand Canyon has some of the "coming at you" effects, while Under the Sea really shows the sense of depth.

12-26-2010, 09:56 AM	#106
krazeyeyez Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Dec 2007 Location:the guy on the couch Home Theater Gallery:18 Blu-ray collection:287 Blu-ray reviews:4	^^^ to the above statement i agree and disagree, foreground/background is far more obvious and attention grabbing in 3d and very distracting imo (have only seen tron in 3d so my experience is VERY limited). Not just your typical slightly out of focus shot.... it seemed uncomfortable to look where i was not supposed to. This question is to anyone who already has a 3d set..... How does the home experience compare to "real 3d" in the theatre.... and how does source effect the experience, as in an actual 3d filmed movie vs the 3d upconversion or whatever it is being labeled? I was pretty impressed with my first 3D experience today in spite of the movie being horrible

02-18-2011, 01:28 AM	#114
linkgx1 Banned Member since:Feb 2011 Location:Saint Louis, MO	3D just need to be treated a s a novelty (a delicacy, even), not as something to take over like 1080p. If this can happen, then I think we'd be all set. But it's not going to work if you just convert stuff to 3D.

02-18-2011, 05:43 AM	#115
seregloth Special Member Member since:Oct 2010 Location:New England, USA Blu-ray collection:335 DVD collection:49 Digital collection:980 Trading Score:327	I was looking to upgrade my 37" LCD and I ended up with a 3d blu ray player through the Disney deal, so I figured, what the hey- I like 3d. Also, hearing that the Hobbit was being shot in 3d finally helped tip me.

02-18-2011, 08:35 AM	#116
Bad8511 Senior Member Member since:Apr 2008 Location:Louisville, KY Blu-ray collection:321 Trading Score:8	Always wanting the latest and greatest and 3D has always interest me. Plus found a great deal on my Sammy, $1799, thanks Frys!

02-18-2011, 12:42 PM	#117
synergy Active Member Member since:Aug 2010 Blu-ray collection:5	I was planning on upgrading size wise from my 40" LCD. The best set when I bought also happened to have 3D in it. I have a Panny VT25.

02-19-2011, 02:19 PM	#119
kwrobbins Senior Member Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Maryville Tennessee 4K collection:226 Blu-ray collection:2445 DVD collection:37 Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:95	Always loved 3D movies and was first in line at their openings. I love 3D on my 63" Samsung

02-19-2011, 02:21 PM	#120
u_nick Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Jan 2007 Location:CT, US Trading Score:27	I like 3D a lot. Always been a lot of fun for me. I dont have most of the issues (headaches, uncomfort, etc) that most seem to have. It just 'works' for me. I actually dont have a TV yet, but have narrowed it down to a couple models. Going to go out today to see them in person to see if I can make a decision. Hopefully soon.

Best 3D Blu-ray Deals