What do you think about 3D? Do you like it? Hate it? Think it's better than 4K?

[havuk88]

One thing I never see mentioned much in the 2D/3D debate is what about the people that are buying a brand new set anyway? I sold my 4yr old DLP set because I like the look of the LED picture so I picked up a Samsung UN55C8000 for an incredible price.

I didn't buy the 3d player or glasses, I already have a PS3 that is getting a
3D update on 9/14 and I was thinking about hitting Ebay for a few pairs of the glasses for my daughter and myself maybe like $175

We will watch whatever 3D content available for a cost of the glasses, people have said the games look awesome in 3D as does the Pixar stuff and anything else is a bonus.

[Yourbigpalal83]

I think the problem is some people just want to view 3d as a gimick and they dont see the potentional in the technology. Which is fine, short sited of them, but hey ya know what, so be it.

The tech as it is now, to me, is cool enough to warrent a purchase. Will it get better in the future, no doubt. Will my brand new yet to be bought tv be obsolete within 6 months, highly likely.

Will the new 3d tvs without the glasses be better? idk. I think eventuley yes they will. I have yet to read about anyone actually seeing them in person, trying them out, seeing if the "sweet spot" effect is a real issue or not.

From what i read, the sweet spot effect is a major issue. I dont know for sure, i have yet to see one of these sets. I have yet to see a nintendo 3ds or other portable device in person.

Im not one to dismiss the technology yet. I have yet to experence it. So far my only experence with 3d content is with the glasses, and i find the effect is all dependent on 2 main things...

The brightness and quality of the effect.

Clearly a film that has been converted to 3d via a rushed conversion or a built in function of the tv is not ever going to match a well made native 3d feature. How can it? Its like comparing a blu ray to an upscalled dvd. Sure an upscalled dvd looks really good, but put it head to head with a blu ray disc and its not much of a comparison. Same rules apply here.

I for one dont mind the conversion espically built into the set. Cause frankly i dont want to have to go out and buy right now, my over 400 blu rays and dvds (combined) all over again just for a 3d version.

Some films dont need a 3d version. I doubt i want to watch Shindlers list in 3d, do you? Jaws, jurassic park, without a doubt. Shindlers list? I can do without the added 3d feature.

As for it looking like carbord cut outs, idk what content you saw but i saw a panasonic set that had a native 3d vollyball game demo and to me, it was like i was looking out an open window. Honest to god. I felt as if i could climb through the screen and be chillin with the guys playing vollyball, it felt that real.

Yes, ive seen some flatt cutout content too. I suspect it was more converted then native.

Also people have this weird expecation with 3d. I think cause there thinking holographic stuff, like in star wars or somthing. That the screen is going to project these fully 3d model turnable items out of the screen into your living room.

Dont work that way, not yet. People seem to think things are going to be coming out at them. No. It works the other way (atleast to my eyes). Its like your looking through an open window into another world.

Thats how avatar came off to me. Maby i got inverted 3d depth perception idk but the effect was amazing to me.

You also have to remember too our eyes dont instantly see in 3d eather. We see 2 complete images, slightly off on a flat plane, and our brain CONVERTS THE IMAGE TO 3D! Sure, it does it super fast and we dont even realise it, but we're still seeing 2 2d images meshed together in our brains.

Kinda the same way we dont see items in the real world, we see light shining off items.

Put someone in an unknown completely pitch black room with no light what so ever, and its just as same as putting a blind fold on them, they cant see a thing.

Its just how our eyes work. Maby some of u guys dont see 3d the same way i do. Maby you have the wrong expectations, idk. but for me, 3d works great and i cant wait till october when i can finally get my 3d set!

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by CasualKiller

We just had a Best Buy open here a couple of weekends ago and I flew down to check out the new 3D stuff.

I was totally not impressed, very grainy image and a lot of ghosting on the images. Is it any better for gaming?

After what I've seen for how much it costs and the lack of 3D titles I'm seriously second guessing buying it now. Although all they had was a generic underwater 3D demo thing running, you couldn't test any games or Blurays.. but still if you're going to demo it, it better look good.

The only good 3d tv out there imho atm is the panasonic one. However even a 60" screen isn't very good for 3d, as you reall don't want to sit more then 6 foot away from it (and you need to be in darkness, as if you where running a projector for 3d to run properly). The panasonic set had little to no ghosting and could easily have been the source from the multiple displays I have seen. I have heared good things asbout gaming in 3d and have played the avatar game in 3d, which the game is a ver average game, but in 3d it became alot better as bullets flew past your head etc.

[Lovemy3D]

A lot of people talk about 3D causing headaches. So far I've not had that problem. In fact, last night I had a bit of a headache before putting on the 3D. I was just going to watch a little bit of it after another movie ended, before going to sleep. At first it was a little uncomfortable, but after a little bit I forgot all about it. Then I realized I no longer had a headache at all. Very surprised, I thought it would have made it worse. Could the 3D really have gotten rid of it?

[3DinAK]

I figure I'll buy a 3D tv cause it sounds pretty cool.Plus if anything, I'll still have a 1080p 240hz 60" tv to watch.Haven't got it yet(being shiped) but I'll let ya know what I think next week.Can't wait. I don't buy the whole 3D without glasses deal yet. I'll believe it when I see it.

[navyman]

Much like some of you here, I was not very impressed with the new 3d sets. I really wanted to be, maybe I had unrealistic expectations. I went to a local best buy and stared through those glasses for half an hour hoping that it was just the demo that they were showing and not the technology.

I even considered that maybe it was just my eyesight that wasn't allowing me to get the 3d experience, but now that I read the great post equating it to a diorama, I completely agree. This was a technology that is not ready for prime time and these companies looking to come up with a gimmick to justify higher prices in their top of the line tvs have pulled a fast one on the consumers.

I was expecting the movie theater experience in my home and was really looking forward to buying a ton of children's movies to see the joy on my kids' faces when they reach for favorite characters and all this technology does is make the background look further back. 3D is supposed to bring objects to you not make them seem further away.

[Propellarhead9]

Originally Posted by 3DinAK

I figure I'll buy a 3D tv cause it sounds pretty cool.Plus if anything, I'll still have a 1080p 240hz 60" tv to watch.Haven't got it yet(being shiped) but I'll let ya know what I think next week.Can't wait. I don't buy the whole 3D without glasses deal yet. I'll believe it when I see it.

And with the 3D without glasses whenever it becomes available won't impress anyone either because without the glasses it is impossible for something to look like it's coming off the screen. The glasses essentially are your screen.

On the diorama effect.

With consumer 3DTVs and theaters even you will not get the coming right off the screen feeling unless your entire field of vision is the screen. If you can see the edges of the screen nothing will look like it's coming off. This is also due to the fact that the third dimension is depth and not protrusion.

[supersix4]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Buying a 3D TV right now is a pretty large investment for just a couple of available titles (how many times can one watch "Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs").

Plus, as many have known for awhile, this whole "3D glasses" thing isn't going to last - models will be out next year that don't require them (http://www.electronista.com/articles...d.tvs.in.2010/).

I wonder once the current technology is obsolete (which seems pretty soon) how much people will have paid per hour to watch 3D. If you add up the price difference in the TV and Blu-ray player, add on all the glasses, and the price of the scant few movies available, then divide by how many hours you actually watched in 3D - I bet some people will have paid $100+ an hour just to watch the same couple of movies in 3D at home.

Like any technology, early adopters are liable to get burned - and it looks like 3D is going to scortch many. I won't even consider it until an actual library of 3D films is available (i.e. 100+ titles) and they settle on a real standard that doesn't require buying $150-200 pairs of goofy glasses for everyone who may stop by my house to watch. So, in a couple of years I assume.

I'll only be pissed if in a year or two they say hey everyone who spent 1800-5000 on 3d buy a new set because we can't firmware update your sets to not need glasses... Even then I'd just have a reason to ask for an upgrade

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Hehe, you just perfectly described how I feel about "regular" 3D with glasses, LOL.

It's STILL not really here. There is no standard for the glasses, and there are only a couple of films available, mostly through special manufacturer deals that cost $100's.

And whoa...5 months? Wow, how will we survive.

Expensive? Gee, these current 3D sets are so cheap aren't they...

Point is, by the time a decent library of 3D titles is out (and I'm not just talking a few badly written/acted blockbusters and a smattering of kids movies, the dozen or so we'll have available by the end of this year), these new TV's without glasses will be available.

It's what many of us have been trying to say for awhile - 3D is not yet ready for prime time, and it's never going to have any market penetration while people have to wear big silly electronic glasses.

This whole thing has been one big scam by the manufacturers to make up for sub-expectation Blu-ray sales. They knew that Blu wasn't growing new owners as much as they had predicted, so they went back to the well of early-adopters knowing some would jump right back and replace brand-new equipment with 3D versions for thousands again. I mean, people have had these things since before you could even walk into a store and buy a SINGLE disc to play in it! Just like the only reason they push it into theaters is because they can charge twice as high ticket prices. It has nothing to do with art or filmmaking, it's all marketing.

Played right into it, some did. And those same people will probably replace their goofy-glasses TV's next year with the new ones that don't need them. The rest of us will wait until they finally get it all figured out - and by then this whole "3-D craze" may very well be over. People are already getting sick of the novelty, just like they did in the 50's, just like they did in the 80's. Storytelling, acting, cinematography - that's the stuff that matters, not the cardboard cutouts of layers of "View-master" that really is what most use of 3-D boils down to.

Giving the quality of them they are very well priced. For an equivelant tv without thew 3d your only paying $200 to $300 less at most. Also the no glasses technology as limited as it is, makes the current models look cheap.

Originally Posted by navyman

Much like some of you here, I was not very impressed with the new 3d sets. I really wanted to be, maybe I had unrealistic expectations. I went to a local best buy and stared through those glasses for half an hour hoping that it was just the demo that they were showing and not the technology.

I even considered that maybe it was just my eyesight that wasn't allowing me to get the 3d experience, but now that I read the great post equating it to a diorama, I completely agree. This was a technology that is not ready for prime time and these companies looking to come up with a gimmick to justify higher prices in their top of the line tvs have pulled a fast one on the consumers.

I was expecting the movie theater experience in my home and was really looking forward to buying a ton of children's movies to see the joy on my kids' faces when they reach for favorite characters and all this technology does is make the background look further back. 3D is supposed to bring objects to you not make them seem further away.

The current tv's can dfo that. The deom they use near me is kids with sper soakers shotting water at the camera, which looks like it's coming out at you.

[Metric]

Big difference between a low res gaming screen and a 60" TV. Why dont we have amoled TVs now for example.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by turkwhip

Here's what I COMPLETELY don't understand. All you guys that put this 3D technology down and try to convince people that are excited about it, that it's bad... what are you doing posting here? Are you just trying to kill their excitement for the fun of it? Do you get something out of that? I mean if you're not interested in this tech and you think it's nothing but 'cardboard cutouts of layers of View-master' then just find some other forum to hangout in. Let those of us that are actually interested in this stuff have useful discussions that build our interest and help us to focus our attention better tech. (Now I'm not saying I post a lot of stuff on these forums myself... but I do read them often.)

So essentially you are saying that only positive comments and those supporting/promoting 3D technology should be "allowed" on the forums? That anyone with valid concerns regarding current (and future) limitations of the tech should just "shut-up and go elsewhere"?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

[aboothlsu]

I was in the same boat as you, but I'm slowly coming around. I havent been impressed with probably 95% of the 3d models but I had a chance to view a
3D Demo on a Samsung 9000 series and wow!! Its always been like most people say a diorama effect but this was the first time I felt like I was looking though a window. It was as if the picture was real and the bezel of the tv was fake, it was a strange sensation.

The technology is still too new, but I think its going in the right direction.

[navyman]

Based on what propellerhead has said about the field of vision needing to be completely covered by the image, I am going to wait until 3d projector prices come down to the 5k range before I make the leap to 3d. That was my inclination to begin with and if this 3d technology can really only be viewed the way it is meant to be viewed on a huge screen then so be it.

The window affect that some of you have been speaking of seems ok but to me it isn't worth the premium price. To me 3d has always been about objects coming at you. I really want that experience in my home theater just not at the current 15k that the 1080p 3d projectors are currently going for.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by navyman

Based on what propellerhead has said about the field of vision needing to be completely covered by the image, I am going to wait until 3d projector prices come down to the 5k range before I make the leap to 3d. That was my inclination to begin with and if this 3d technology can really only be viewed the way it is meant to be viewed on a huge screen then so be it.

The window affect that some of you have been speaking of seems ok but to me it isn't worth the premium price. To me 3d has always been about objects coming at you. I really want that experience in my home theater just not at the current 15k that the 1080p 3d projectors are currently going for.

Depends on your vieiwing distance. From 6 foot away thx recommended screen size is 53 inches. So depending on your viewing distance current plasmas/lcd's may be more then sufficient.

[navyman]

I had some free time this last week and went to a dedicated home theater store, where they properly calibrate their displays and have their merchandise set up the way it is meant to be set up.

I asked the owner of the store if I could take a look at some 3d content and he showed me the 63 inch Samsung 8000 series plasma, and for the first time I saw the 3d effect work. It looked amazing. The demo disc he had included a demo of Toy Story 3 and all I could say was wow.

Now I am trying to convince the wife to let me spend about 4k to buy a new TV, new blu-ray player, a 3d kit, an extra pair of glasses, and a new hdmi 1.4 compatible receiver.

I found some good deals online and I think I can keep the whole set-up to under 4k with the 63 inch samsung and the onkyo 708.

Now I just need to convince the wife that since I do not smoke or drink that she needs to understand my addiction to tinkering with the home theater.

[Metric]

Originally Posted by navyman

Based on what propellerhead has said about the field of vision needing to be completely covered by the image, I am going to wait until 3d projector prices come down to the 5k range before I make the leap to 3d. That was my inclination to begin with and if this 3d technology can really only be viewed the way it is meant to be viewed on a huge screen then so be it.

The window affect that some of you have been speaking of seems ok but to me it isn't worth the premium price. To me 3d has always been about objects coming at you. I really want that experience in my home theater just not at the current 15k that the 1080p 3d projectors are currently going for.

I should be able to test 3d at 120" this weekend, ok, its 720p, but we shall see. Total investment for the test was less than 1k.

[Propellarhead9]

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

[lghaze42]

Originally Posted by CasualKiller

We just had a Best Buy open here a couple of weekends ago and I flew down to check out the new 3D stuff.

I was totally not impressed, very grainy image and a lot of ghosting on the images. Is it any better for gaming?

After what I've seen for how much it costs and the lack of 3D titles I'm seriously second guessing buying it now. Although all they had was a generic underwater 3D demo thing running, you couldn't test any games or Blurays.. but still if you're going to demo it, it better look good.

You must not have been watching the Panasonic.
If so they must have a wiring problem.I was at Best Buy and was very impressed with Panny's 3D.It made hi deff look even better in my opinion.

[mpstjohn]

Originally Posted by lghaze42

You must not have been watching the Panasonic.
If so they must have a wiring problem.I was at Best Buy and was very impressed with Panny's 3D.It made hi deff look even better in my opinion.

My thought exactly. Sounds like the impression I got when I first saw the Samsung 3D set, it was showing Monsters VS Aliens and I was completely unimpressed. Quite frankly it nearly gave me a headache. I've heard Sony is about the same quality. Panasonic is the only brand that's impressed me in 3D so far. Haven't been able to find anything LG or Mitsubishi yet, hopefully they're far better than Samsung too.

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by Propellarhead9

And with the 3D without glasses whenever it becomes available won't impress anyone either because without the glasses it is impossible for something to look like it's coming off the screen. The glasses essentially are your screen.

On the diorama effect.

With consumer 3DTVs and theaters even you will not get the coming right off the screen feeling unless your entire field of vision is the screen. If you can see the edges of the screen nothing will look like it's coming off. This is also due to the fact that the third dimension is depth and not protrusion.

Not really meaning to pick on you, especially with this being an old post, but as I've seen people referencing this post as factual evidence, I had make some corrections.

First, "And with the 3D without glasses...":
The 3DTV tech using the prismatic screen (can't think of the term right now) simply serves as a filter to which eye sees which perspective image; which is exacly what the glasses do. Which method is used has no effect on overall depth perception, both in the positive and negitive z-plane. Depth is perceived by the two perspective difference relative the screen projecting the images. Again the glasses are just a filter, it does not project the image onto the glasses lense.

Second, "With consumer 3DTVs and Theaters...":
You do not need your entire field of vision filled with the screen in order to see depth in the positive z-plane (projecting out of the screen). Probably 2/3 of the seating in most theaters can clearly see the edges of the screen. Screen size and distance may effect the overall scale of depth, but does not exclude positive projection.

Trying my best not to comment on the depth vs protrusion statement.