Glasses-Free 3D Discussion Televisions / Cinema / Gaming

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by revgen

2020 is still 3 years away. Anything can happen from now until then.

Yes but things will have to be set in stone because he is filming back to back isn't he? He can't exactly change tech half way through.

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

I still don't get all the *****ing from people about the glasses being an inconvenience- they don't even bother me on top of regular glasses.

33% Light loss

Edit. Correction:

"the viewer sees about 35% of the light that would be seen in a 2D system projecting on a matte white screen."

http://www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/real-d.pdf

[DJR662]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

So what's the wow factor that is going to blow us away in this film? 60 FPS? No thanks.

Man I'm so with you on this, I really can't stand HFR. I saw the final Hobbit movie this way and it totally ruined the movie.

Originally Posted by Paul H

IMO, the future of 3D in the home will stem from the current passive technology that is almost perfection in the 2016 LG OLED displays

I wish all 4K TVs from every manufacturer used passive, not just in 2016 but beyond as well...

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

I still don't get all the *****ing from people about the glasses being an inconvenience- they don't even bother me on top of regular glasses.

Amen to that! I love all these extras "gadgets" that offer a different experience. I'm not just talking about 3D glasses but also about all the Wii peripherals, PlayStation Move/Eye, Xbox Kinect and ofcourse PS VR.

[NzScreamindemon]

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

I still don't get all the *****ing from people about the glasses being an inconvenience

Yet a lot of those very same people will easily pop a cumbersome VR headset on! Go Figure........

Chris

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by NzScreamindemon

Yet a lot of those very same people will easily pop a cumbersome VR headset on! Go Figure........

Chris

Nothing cumbersome about the PS VR. It is light, comfortable and easy to use.
I love 3D AND VR (VR is 3D just all around you)

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by NzScreamindemon

Yet a lot of those very same people will easily pop a cumbersome VR headset on! Go Figure........

Chris

No light and colour loss with VR though so you're not comparing apples with apples.

[icy hot]

Had this discussion at work today and was told that glasses were a problem because it was hard to get their kids to keep them on during the movie. Anyone else heard that complaint?

[revgen]

I don't have kids, but I've been to family movies at the theater and I never saw kids taking their glasses off. They'd talk too loud, bounce in their chair, but the glasses usually stayed on the whole time.

[bavanut]

I have a hunch that even when great strides are made to counter light loss, there will still be complaints.

It seems to me the best ways to counter light loss in situations where the light is filtered through polarizers or some other transmission medium is either (a) increase the reflectivity of the screen or (b) increase the intensity of the lamp house. Supposing one achieves both (a) and (b), such that viewing a film through filters results in just the requisite amount of brightness, then the screen without filters will always be brighter still.

So I conclude that, even in optimal circumstances, when present and future technology results in superb levels of screen brightness, ill-informed spectators will behold a hyper-bright screen without glasses, then an adequately bright screen with glasses, and leap to the conclusion they are still being presented with a dim image.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Recent reports of Avatar sequels to be "glasses-free 3D" are just not true!


Source: James Cameron on Terminator 2, Avatar and the future of cinema.

IMO, the future of 3D in the home will stem from the current passive technology that is almost perfection in the 2016 LG OLED displays

Thanks for posting that info. Cameron himself said, that while in the theaters, audiences are more accepting of wearing 3D glasses since their sole purpose is to watch a new movie in a dark theater, compared to being at home with so many distractions. So that makes sense that he's not pushing for glasses-free 3D in theaters.

At home, if it can handle most angles and offer strong 3D pop outs/layers, then it'll be ready for home.

Originally Posted by film11

It will have more aggressive 3D. Cameron has said his biggest regret about the first movie was that he didn't push the 3D hard enough.

Good. The jungle scenes look awesome in strong 3D, though I agree, there are many medium distance shots that are nearly flat, like when watching the flying raptors and the Na'vi and Jake flying them. Close up it's better, but distance shots suffer in Avatar more than I would expect, even though distance scenery normally flattens out in real life. Glad to hear he's going to push it more.

Originally Posted by bavanut

I have a hunch that even when great strides are made to counter light loss, there will still be complaints.

It seems to me the best ways to counter light loss in situations where the light is filtered through polarizers or some other transmission medium is either (a) increase the reflectivity of the screen or (b) increase the intensity of the lamp house. Supposing one achieves both (a) and (b), such that viewing a film through filters results in just the requisite amount of brightness, then the screen without filters will always be brighter still.

So I conclude that, even in optimal circumstances, when present and future technology results in superb levels of screen brightness, ill-informed spectators will behold a hyper-bright screen without glasses, then an adequately bright screen with glasses, and leap to the conclusion they are still being presented with a dim image.

Yes.
Cinemark 3D theaters increase the brightness and it makes a huge difference in enjoying the 3D compared to other theaters that don't adjust it.

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by bavanut

I have a hunch that even when great strides are made to counter light loss, there will still be complaints.

It seems to me the best ways to counter light loss in situations where the light is filtered through polarizers or some other transmission medium is either (a) increase the reflectivity of the screen or (b) increase the intensity of the lamp house. Supposing one achieves both (a) and (b), such that viewing a film through filters results in just the requisite amount of brightness, then the screen without filters will always be brighter still.

So I conclude that, even in optimal circumstances, when present and future technology results in superb levels of screen brightness, ill-informed spectators will behold a hyper-bright screen without glasses, then an adequately bright screen with glasses, and leap to the conclusion they are still being presented with a dim image.

I had kind of thought that but even Laser IMAX with 3D glasses on is still only half as bright as regular non-laser 2D IMAX.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by 8traxrule

I still don't get all the *****ing from people about the glasses being an inconvenience- they don't even bother me on top of regular glasses.

Agreed. They wear sunglasses when it's bright outside and earbuds/headphones to listen to music, VR headgear for gaming, and walk around with a phone attached to their hand all day, but whine about a light pair of 3D passive glasses they only wear for the length of the film. I wear mine over my prescription glasses and I don't complain. Would it be great if there was a breakthrough and I didn't need to wear them? Sure. But until then, I have no issue with them.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by icy hot

Had this discussion at work today and was told that glasses were a problem because it was hard to get their kids to keep them on during the movie. Anyone else heard that complaint?

Maybe if they're hyper. Is this a problem in cinemas too?


Also, people don't like them because they can't multi-task. If you wear 3D glasses, you can't do anything else except watch the film. People today do 5 other things while watching their TV.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by bavanut

I have a hunch that even when great strides are made to counter light loss, there will still be complaints.

It seems to me the best ways to counter light loss in situations where the light is filtered through polarizers or some other transmission medium is either (a) increase the reflectivity of the screen or (b) increase the intensity of the lamp house. Supposing one achieves both (a) and (b), such that viewing a film through filters results in just the requisite amount of brightness, then the screen without filters will always be brighter still.

So I conclude that, even in optimal circumstances, when present and future technology results in superb levels of screen brightness, ill-informed spectators will behold a hyper-bright screen without glasses, then an adequately bright screen with glasses, and leap to the conclusion they are still being presented with a dim image.

Good points. I have my 3D mode set to backlight 100 to compensate, and the image is adjusted using the AVS test disc to get the image as good as possible with glasses on without clipping or crushing. I don't see an overly dim image when I wear my glasses. You compensate very quickly. Sure, if I raise my glasses, it's brighter without them. But the screen is brighter than it normally is just for that reason - to help compensate for the glasses. Of course there is some light loss through the glasses. I wonder if it's possible to lessen the amount of light loss through the glasses. Has there been any focus on that in the passive tech, or are they happy just leaving it where it is? Is it even possible to reduce light loss in polarized glasses? The TV tech hasn't done anything with glasses innovation since the first year of home 3D sadly.

That's how it should be done in cinemas too, but I wonder if many theatres can't/won't boost the brightness. Also, there's many articles out there about theatres not changing their bulbs when they age and start to dim, trying to get more life out of them, which results in murky, dim images. This would certainly impact 3D films.

[whippet]

Originally Posted by Rickyrockard

33% Light loss

Edit. Correction:

"the viewer sees about 35% of the light threat would be seen in a 2D system projecting on a matte white screen."

http://http//www.edcf.net/edcf_docs/real-d.pdf

There's also light loss when you wear prescription glasses, contacts, sit off center, have ambient light, have reflective screen and surfaces in the room and don't have your face plastered to the display surface.

[whippet]

...also when you blink or your pupils don't adjust fast enough after a bright scene.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by whippet

There's also light loss when you wear prescription glasses, contacts, sit off center, have ambient light, have reflective screen and surfaces in the room and don't have your face plastered to the display surface.

Well to be fair, my prescription glasses block out virtually no light compared to passive/active 3D glasses. It's not even a comparison.

[Paul H]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Well to be fair, my prescription glasses block out virtually no light compared to passive/active 3D glasses. It's not even a comparison.

Light loss is a factor for all glasses which depends on "Light Transmission" measurements, "Anti Reflective" coating (if any) and "Haze" which manifests from imperfections of the lens material.

Another important factor for 3D glasses is the Polarization Efficiency rating.

The highest-quality professional passive-3D polarized glasses manufactured by the industry @ 99.9% perfection!

[Rickyrockard]

Originally Posted by whippet

There's also light loss when you wear prescription glasses, contacts, sit off center, have ambient light, have reflective screen and surfaces in the room and don't have your face plastered to the display surface.

Those are things inherent with viewing 2D tech. This is about 2D vs 3D right?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by mar3o

Maybe if they're hyper. Is this a problem in cinemas too?


Also, people don't like them because they can't multi-task. If you wear 3D glasses, you can't do anything else except watch the film. People today do 5 other things while watching their TV.

Ah, multitasking. The epidemic that will push our mental health problems to the limit over the next couple of decades. Just try to watch a teen relax these days? Next to impossible for them. They are twitching, on high alert waiting for Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat notifications while pretending to interact with families. I fear the worst and I am being completely serious.