What's Holding 3D Back? (ARTICLE LINK)

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by Grif32

Glasses will hold it back but what about the cost for the 3d Blu-Ray's. I have not seen anywhere how much a 3D BD will run someone. My guess is around $40 - $50 which will kill it IMHO>

glasses are not the issue and yes 3d blu-ray costs are high
but with all new technology they start high and eventually do come down in price

[gamerman]

Great post!

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by ozzsoad

While I like the idea of 3D and I'm not one to pass it off as a fad, I have to say the current technology for 3D at home is terrible. After checking out "Monsters vs. Aliens" at Best Buy in 3D I was amazed at how bad it looked. There was way too much ghosting and double images(yes I turned the glasses on).

This is what's holding 3D back. The technology isn't ready yet. I couldn't sit through a whole movie that looked like that, not to mention watch TV shows or sports events, talk about killer headaches.

The day they can successfully pull off 3D on televisions, preferably without glasses, is the day I'll invest. As is, I think it's doomed.

there is no ghosting in panasonics 3d

[thebat2]

Originally Posted by ozzsoad

While I like the idea of 3D and I'm not one to pass it off as a fad, I have to say the current technology for 3D at home is terrible. After checking out "Monsters vs. Aliens" at Best Buy in 3D I was amazed at how bad it looked. There was way too much ghosting and double images(yes I turned the glasses on).

This is what's holding 3D back. The technology isn't ready yet. I couldn't sit through a whole movie that looked like that, not to mention watch TV shows or sports events, talk about killer headaches.

The day they can successfully pull off 3D on televisions, preferably without glasses, is the day I'll invest. As is, I think it's doomed.

There is no ghosting on my Samsung LED DLP. Monsters VS Aliens and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs both look great and the 3D is awesome. I am glad I did not have to buy a new tv to use my Panasonic BDT300 3D Blu ray player.

[john_1958]

studios doing movies in post-production instead of 3d

http://gizmodo.com/5460282/how-regular-movies-are-converted-to-3d

[Rebel6666]

Honestly I don't hink 3D tech will fly just yet, I mean will you listen to all your movies in 3D?? Ask yourself,I wouldn't so why spend thousands of dollars right now, I will wait for 1- the d tech be more affordable and if we all wait 5 years or so the tech will be better and cheaper. I just think that a lot of people are like me won't listen to every movie they buy or rent in 3D

[horrorluvr]

Anyone who says they went into a Best Buy and MvA looked bad, looked at a bad setup. I was blown away at the clarity of MvA at Best Buy. There was NO ghosting or blurriness. I was really ho hum on the 3D idea till I actually saw it. Now I think there is no doubt it will catch on and be huge.

Now, that said, I am not rushing out to buy a 3D set right now. I just don't have that kind of money. I just bought a TV and it will be a year or two til I go invest in another. Also I have 5 people in my family and at 120 to 150 bucks a pop glasses are just not an option.

[kings35]

Price and glasses. Plus 3d was around about 10 years ago and it died then. What is convincing people to invest thousands when it could easily go away again. If 3d TV sales aren't doing well they won't make them anymore. Death to 3D just like HD DVD's

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by kings35

Price and glasses. Plus 3d was around about 10 years ago and it died then. What is convincing people to invest thousands when it could easily go away again. If 3d TV sales aren't doing well they won't make them anymore. Death to 3D just like HD DVD's

thats hilarious because prices do come down and 10 yrs ago 3d was anaglyph

[radagast]

There has been thread after thread about 3D TV and there are always those who are negative about the idea.

I am old enough to remember Quad audio systems and the vinyl records that featured the 4 channel sound. There were two competing systems (aren't there always?): Matrix Quad and Discrete Quad. They both died horrible painful deaths.

When the idea of surround sound came out, guess what? The chorus of naysayers brought up the spectre of Matrix and Discrete Quad, and said surround would be nothing more than a fad. There were just too many problems with multi-channel sound. The problem is, the problems that the vinyl systems had were not an issue with HT systems. The naysayers were adamant: Dolby Surround: "The rear channels are mono". Then true multi-channel systems arose; Dolby Pro-Logic, DTS, etc. "Too many cables" "It's too hard to hook up." "You don't really get any noticeable benefit from 5.1 audio." Blah-blah. Yadda yadda.

Comparing the current 3D technology to anaglyph and trying to associate the negatives of anaglyph with current 3D technology is like comparing a great 7.1 system to Matrix Quad or Discrete Quad. Let's all go back to 2.0 audio then.

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by john_1958

thats hilarious because prices do come down and 10 yrs ago 3d was anaglyph

Originally Posted by radagast

There has been thread after thread about 3D TV and there are always those who are negative about the idea.

I am old enough to remember Quad audio systems and the vinyl records that featured the 4 channel sound. There were two competing systems (aren't there always?): Matrix Quad and Discrete Quad. They both died horrible painful deaths.

When the idea of surround sound came out, guess what? The chorus of naysayers brought up the spectre of Matrix and Discrete Quad, and said surround would be nothing more than a fad. There were just too many problems with multi-channel sound. The problem is, the problems that the vinyl systems had were not an issue with HT systems. The naysayers were adamant: Dolby Surround: "The rear channels are mono". Then true multi-channel systems arose; Dolby Pro-Logic, DTS, etc. "Too many cables" "It's too hard to hook up." "You don't really get any noticeable benefit from 5.1 audio." Blah-blah. Yadda yadda.

Comparing the current 3D technology to anaglyph and trying to associate the negatives of anaglyph with current 3D technology is like comparing a great 7.1 system to Matrix Quad or Discrete Quad. Let's all go back to 2.0 audio then.

Both very well said.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by MyBlu-rayBrotherEd

Both very well said.

Thank you.

[STARSCREAM]

I don't understand why everyone keeps saying we had 3D back in this decade and that decade it always fails. This 3D now is NOT the same and we have never ever been able to have this type or good of 3D in the home. It was always crappy anaglyph which blows...hard. If done right 3D can catch on, especially with video games.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

... well, I'm not saying mistakes are never made, what I'm saying is that Monday-morning quarterbacking is cheap, and that those who make their living based on long-term market projections in electronics are more experienced and qualified than any of us critics.

Well a lot of us critics could see that HD DVD never had a true advantage and the powers that be still forced it to market.

I just don't see a demand for 3D at home. The studios brought 3D back to get us back to the theaters. They should keep it there until is has run its course again.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by john_1958

thats hilarious because prices do come down and 10 yrs ago 3d was anaglyph

3D at home has primarily been anaglyph. But polarized 3D theatrical has been around since the 80s. I know when I saw Jaws3D it was definitely a polarized pair of glasses.

Sega also had an active shutter LCD glasses system for one of its systems back years ago. The only problem was that refresh rates were limited to 15fps due to having to be compatible with the old NTSC standard.

Don't be fooled. Active shutter LCD glasses for 3D are not new. They just aren't limited by the NTSC system any longer hence better 3D. Really the only thing that's new is that we actually get theatrical 3D content in a format other than anaglyph.

[john_1958]

Originally Posted by CraigW

3D at home has primarily been anaglyph. But polarized 3D theatrical has been around since the 80s. I know when I saw Jaws3D it was definitely a polarized pair of glasses.

Sega also had an active shutter LCD glasses system for one of its systems back years ago. The only problem was that refresh rates were limited to 15fps due to having to be compatible with the old NTSC standard.

Don't be fooled. Active shutter LCD glasses for 3D are not new. They just aren't limited by the NTSC system any longer hence better 3D. Really the only thing that's new is that we actually get theatrical 3D content in a format other than anaglyph.

well movies like friday the 13 and jaws were anaglyph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FTgMdfPbBE

nice to see 3d glasses have improved over the years

[john_1958]

whats really holding back 3d is marketing and lot of people trying to convert 2d into 3d which takes time
i say just record 3d

[radagast]

The last time I saw the Samsung 3D tv at Best Buy, while watching Monsters Vs. Aliens, I noticed some occasional ghosting. They HAVE to fix that problem in LCD sets.

[STARSCREAM]

Not sure all of you follow gaming but at E3 yesterday Nintendo showed off their new portable gaming device, the 3DS. It does 3D without glasses, yes you read that right...WITHOUT GLASSES. Not just that, but they showed that it will also play movies in 3D as well. I'm still not sure how they are going to have movies on it, they didn't elaborate anymore on that. People who got hands on with it said that the 3D movie trailers they had looked really good. Does anybody know how they are doing this 3D without glasses and will it be an option for tv's/projectors in the next few years?

[thebat2]

Originally Posted by john_1958

well movies like friday the 13 and jaws were anaglyph http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FTgMdfPbBE

nice to see 3d glasses have improved over the years

Jaws 3D and Friday the 13th 3 3D were both shown in NON analglyph. I saw both in the theater and we wore cardboard versions of the RealD glasses we use now in theaters. The analglyph versions were done for home viewing only.