I heard that the World Cup was going to be somehow broadcast in 3D, and apparently it was pretty cool. But the tech still has its issues...
http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/computers/blogs/gadgets-on-the-go/hands-on-3dtv-panasonic-viera-thp50vt20a/20100729-10xeq.html
Same basic LCD FLICKER tech my sega master system had, just now instead of using an interlace trick at standard refresh rate they double the refresh rate and can do progressive scan on the set.
The glass are still powered and synced to the TV to blank out your vision in alternating eyes.
I am waiting for better tech that doesn't require me to where glasses or at least not have to have $300 /pair ones for everyone to enjoy the effect.
Sounds like some of the competitiveness is kicking in, package deals are often offered, and the glasses are not all $300 each, some are apparently as low as $100 US (since the article linked above mentioned the $200 pricepoint as being "double" some competitors).
The local Radio Shack (oops, I mean The Source) had a Sharp 3D package, included a 3D player as well as 2 sets of glasses, for some reduced price, can't remember the details but it was nice to hear they aren't totally taking advantage of early adopters, the fact that packages are being offered already, to reduce the overall cost of things you would buy anyway to get the most out of the tech, that's a good thing to see.
I've tried these out in various stores now and I'm with Lazy. I don't want to have to wear glasses to watch TV, Movie, or Play a Video Game. Holographics is probably the next thing to get the 3D going right.
There are suppose to be TV's on the horizon using the same tech as Nintendo's upcoming 3DS, which gives 3d without any glasses at all. How it will work on bigger screens though is still in question, last I heard.
Quote from: Mags on July 31, 2010, 12:55:53 AM
There are suppose to be TV's on the horizon using the same tech as Nintendo's upcoming 3DS, which gives 3d without any glasses at all. How it will work on bigger screens though is still in question, last I heard.
There are two glasses less techs... The first is one where the TV has a special layer that fragments the image, and can only be viewed at distinct angles from the set.. IE dead on and maybe exactly 30 degrees.. Another more scarey tech uses a projector and an eye tracking system that beams the image into your eyes.. It is limited to x amount of people it can trach
Quote from: Darren Dirt on July 30, 2010, 04:41:27 AM
Sounds like some of the competitiveness is kicking in, package deals are often offered, and the glasses are not all $300 each, some are apparently as low as $100 US (since the article linked above mentioned the $200 pricepoint as being "double" some competitors).
The local Radio Shack (oops, I mean The Source) had a Sharp 3D package, included a 3D player as well as 2 sets of glasses, for some reduced price, can't remember the details but it was nice to hear they aren't totally taking advantage of early adopters, the fact that packages are being offered already, to reduce the overall cost of things you would buy anyway to get the most out of the tech, that's a good thing to see.
Would you trust small kids with $100 to $300 plastic glasses? They really are not all that durable that is for sure.
Quote from: Lazybones on July 31, 2010, 03:04:02 PM
Would you trust small kids with $100 to $300 plastic glasses? They really are not all that durable that is for sure.
Not only that, but adding 3D to a show that has no discernible plot does nothing to the show. 3D won't make a bad show better. So why bother spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on tech that won't make an appreciable difference in your entertainment value?
This whole 3D fad is completely on the manufacturers side, looking for a new angle (pardon the pun). I don't think I've ever heard anyone pining for a 3D television. Heck most 3D movies are quite disappointing.
Personally, one pair of glasses is enough for me.
Little blurb about Toshiba's new glasses-free 3D TV's rumored to be hitting the Japaneses market soon.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/rumor_toshiba_launch_glasses-free_3d_tvs_2010
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/rumor_toshiba_launch_glasses-free_3d_tvs_2010
edit: d'oh! I just found this link, didn't see your post has the same URL, lol -- well, there's comments there, maybe those are new since the above post.
You have to be sitting head on for that apparently to work, I don't think it will catch on.
Maybe they can add a device that shocks your butt or makes a smell instead...
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 26, 2010, 07:32:26 AM
Maybe they can add a device that shocks your butt or makes a smell instead...
If you have a loud enough surround system with a big enough subwoofer, you can already experience the Low Frequency Effects to get a "shock" for your butt. Some shows I watch, the couch vibrates in the Everyone-Running-From-The-Explosion parts.
Quote from: Thorin on August 26, 2010, 10:07:44 AM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 26, 2010, 07:32:26 AM
Maybe they can add a device that shocks your butt or makes a smell instead...
If you have a loud enough surround system with a big enough subwoofer, you can already experience the Low Frequency Effects to get a "shock" for your butt. Some shows I watch, the couch vibrates in the Everyone-Running-From-The-Explosion parts.
I was gonna ask how you might know that but you answered it right away. What the hell kind of TV are you watching???
Now Sony is in on the race.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/sony_joins_race_deliver_glasses-free_3d_tvs
Quote from: Mags on August 26, 2010, 12:42:34 PM
Now Sony is in on the race.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/sony_joins_race_deliver_glasses-free_3d_tvs
Sony tries everything once, usually with a custom battery or something haha.
What I want to know is who is driving this whole shift to 3D, is it the film industry or the television industry?
Back in the 50s the reason things like Cinemascope, 3D, seat buzzers, etc came into being was to compete with television which was decimating the film industry. I kinda see some parallels, except this time it's TV and film VS teh interwebs.
Crazy!
They are just trying to create a false race.. I guess they wanted to try and make up for the shortfalls the economy collapsing caused. They realized what other people learned, early obsolescence makes you money.
Quote from: Tom on August 26, 2010, 04:31:28 PM
They are just trying to create a false race.. I guess they wanted to try and make up for the shortfalls the economy collapsing caused. They realized what other people learned, early obsolescence makes you money.
Actually, the more I think I about it the more I feel that the television/film industry is feeling very threatened by the internet.
Television programming is becoming more and more available on the net, how long before people just opt to buy a computer with a big monitor rather than an appliance like a TV? Big companies like Sony and Samsung are split into divisions that compete with each other, how long I wonder before the TV divisions get absorbed into the more generic "display" divisions? Especially when you consider that something like a 3D display that only works well for a single user sounds like it has immediate applications for PC users rather than TV watchers.
Plus I guess after the giant screen push of the early to mid 2000s has only left one marketing option; the next dimension! OooOooOooOoo!!
they are just turning TVs into PCs....
You can now get the following features on high end TVs:
- DNLA streaming / Players built in
- Built in web browsers
- Built in RSS and Twitter clients...
Quote from: Lazybones on August 26, 2010, 05:17:57 PM
they are just turning TVs into PCs....
You can now get the following features on high end TVs:
- DNLA streaming / Players built in
- Built in web browsers
- Built in RSS and Twitter clients...
Many of those features are primitive at best, mind you I can just plug in my PC and use the TV as a display.
So why then this fascination with 3D? Who wants this kind of tech in their living room?
wtf this was in 2007 -- where is the home verson of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0xptspGpkc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_display#External_links
Quote from: Darren Dirt on September 07, 2010, 08:52:37 AM
wtf this was in 2007 -- where is the home verson of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0xptspGpkc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volumetric_display#External_links
They are working on an iPad version already
http://www.cultofmac.com/glass-pyramid-used-to-turn-ipad-holographic-video/52024
Cool video, BUT it appears it's only making a "3D-i-sized" version of a 2D image.
The thing I linked to above was a [usually rendered] image containing X+Y+Z axis contents, and at different angles you're gonna see different details.
Which is why so many of the comments on YT seemed to demand a pr0n application of this technology.
study on 3-D television: many were less interested in the technology after they actually experienced it
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100910/entertainment/us_tv3_d_survey
cliffs: people won't hop aboard the bandwagon until glasses-less tech hits mainstream.
I think the same things could be said about the slack Blu-Ray adoption.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2010, 06:17:49 PM
I think the same things could be said about the slack Blu-Ray adoption.
A couple things that hurt bluray initially was that many Bluray's were sourced from DVD quality "masters" (Which is absolutely useless) and that bluray movies were just too expensive (imo).
Quote from: Tom on September 10, 2010, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2010, 06:17:49 PM
I think the same things could be said about the slack Blu-Ray adoption.
A couple things that hurt bluray initially was that many Bluray's were sourced from DVD quality "masters" (Which is absolutely useless) and that bluray movies were just too expensive (imo).
Many DVDs are sourced from LaserDisc to this day, it didn't seem to hurt sales. The big problem I saw with BluRay was people could get their heads around all the tangible benefits going from VHS to DVD had:
1. No rewinding
2. Better picture / sound (debatable, better than VHS, the same or better than LD)
3. Slim cases
4. TONS of re-releases
But BluRay was only offering two things:
1. Even more better super awesome hi-def picture
2. More storage (this means squat to most middle brows, even less to those with vastly increasing disk arrays)
3. More expensive for no reason (they didn't really offer this, it was foisted upon consumers, still is from what I can tell)
I think the split between HD-DVD and BluRay standards hurt both technologies, potential early adopters didn't want to bank on the lame horse (faded remembrances of the VHS/Betamax debacle). DVD had similar difficulties to surmount back in the late 90s but DivX died off pretty fast and all the competing formats merged into one standard.
So anyway, once again we have this new technology with different emerging options, glasses, no-glasses-head-on-view-only, etc. Compound that with an underwhelming effect and I think most consumers are going "meh".
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2010, 06:34:52 PM
Quote from: Tom on September 10, 2010, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2010, 06:17:49 PM
I think the same things could be said about the slack Blu-Ray adoption.
A couple things that hurt bluray initially was that many Bluray's were sourced from DVD quality "masters" (Which is absolutely useless) and that bluray movies were just too expensive (imo).
Many DVDs are sourced from LaserDisc to this day, it didn't seem to hurt sales. The big problem I saw with BluRay was people could get their heads around all the tangible benefits going from VHS to DVD had:
1. No rewinding
2. Better picture / sound (debatable, better than VHS, the same or better than LD)
3. Slim cases
4. TONS of re-releases
But BluRay was only offering two things:
1. Even more better super awesome hi-def picture
2. More storage (this means squat to most middle brows, even less to those with vastly increasing disk arrays)
3. More expensive for no reason (they didn't really offer this, it was foisted upon consumers, still is from what I can tell)
Indeed. The main selling feature of Bluray was the BETTAR PICTURE. And in many cases, you didn't even get that. So there really wasn't a point to it. I've heard stories of new Bluray releases (of new films at the time) coming out with DVD (or worse) picture quality due to a bad remaster or /really bad/ encode, or both.
Quote
I think the split between HD-DVD and BluRay standards hurt both technologies, potential early adopters didn't want to bank on the lame horse (faded remembrances of the VHS/Betamax debacle). DVD had similar difficulties to surmount back in the late 90s but DivX died off pretty fast and all the competing formats merged into one standard.
So anyway, once again we have this new technology with different emerging options, glasses, no-glasses-head-on-view-only, etc. Compound that with an underwhelming effect and I think most consumers are going "meh".
Pretty much. Meh.
The problem of Blueray image quality probably has more to do with the size of set and viewing distance
http://hd.engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/
Honestly unless it is a side by side, or a huge set I can't tell DVD vs Blueray just by looking.. Even some split screen demo's that exaggerated the difference are hard to see until I am right in front of the set, much closer than I would be at home in many cases.
O and I am really tired of watching monsters vs aliens for demos...
I have seen Alice in Wonderland and live football as well demoed.. Oddly enough I found the football the most interesting to watch in 3D the moves where lame as objects too often hit the edge of frame and wreck the 3D effect.. Where in foot ball you focus so much on the center of action and the camera tries to keep it centered that you really can get immersed..
Just watched Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D in the theatre. Now there is a movie I'd like to see demoed on these TVs as it had some of the best 3D I've seen to date - very well done. Mind you I have not seen Avatar in 3D yet...
Quote from: Melbosa on September 10, 2010, 11:57:21 PM
Just watched Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D in the theatre. Now there is a movie I'd like to see demoed on these TVs as it had some of the best 3D I've seen to date - very well done. Mind you I have not seen Avatar in 3D yet...
Avatar it isn't the greatest story but DAMN it has some great visuals.
Quote from: Lazybones on September 11, 2010, 12:21:57 AM
Quote from: Melbosa on September 10, 2010, 11:57:21 PM
Just watched Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D in the theatre. Now there is a movie I'd like to see demoed on these TVs as it had some of the best 3D I've seen to date - very well done. Mind you I have not seen Avatar in 3D yet...
Avatar it isn't the greatest story but DAMN it has some great visuals.
Agreed!
Quote from: Lazybones on September 10, 2010, 11:26:21 PM
The problem of Blueray image quality probably has more to do with the size of set and viewing distance
http://hd.engadget.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/
^ interesting chart, but CSS warning: HORRIBLY messes up in Chrome
Quote from: Mr. Analog on September 10, 2010, 06:17:49 PM
I think the same things could be said about the slack Blu-Ray adoption.
Personally, I can't be convinced in seeing a point in re-purchasng my pretty-decent-sized library of DVDs (forget VHS vs. DVD, it's more like like 8-track/audiocassette/CD all over again -- at some point you're "fine" with the level of technology) and especially with streaming and/or legit-download-on-demand services becoming so much more prevalent...
Which is what Mr. A and Lazy pretty much said (but I somehow missed it)
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 26, 2010, 05:14:10 PM
Quote from: Tom on August 26, 2010, 04:31:28 PM
They are just trying to create a false race.. I guess they wanted to try and make up for the shortfalls the economy collapsing caused. They realized what other people learned, early obsolescence makes you money.
Actually, the more I think I about it the more I feel that the television/film industry is feeling very threatened by the internet.
Television programming is becoming more and more available on the net, how long before people just opt to buy a computer with a big monitor rather than an appliance like a TV? Big companies like Sony and Samsung are split into divisions that compete with each other, how long I wonder before the TV divisions get absorbed into the more generic "display" divisions? Especially when you consider that something like a 3D display that only works well for a single user sounds like it has immediate applications for PC users rather than TV watchers.
Plus I guess after the giant screen push of the early to mid 2000s has only left one marketing option; the next dimension! OooOooOooOoo!!
Quote from: Lazybones on August 26, 2010, 05:17:57 PM
they are just turning TVs into PCs....
You can now get the following features on high end TVs:
- DNLA streaming / Players built in
- Built in web browsers
- Built in RSS and Twitter clients...
Quote from: Mr. Analog on August 26, 2010, 01:13:33 PM
What I want to know is who is driving this whole shift to 3D, is it the film industry or the television industry?
Back in the 50s the reason things like Cinemascope, 3D, seat buzzers, etc came into being was to compete with television which was decimating the film industry. I kinda see some parallels, except this time it's TV and film VS teh interwebs.
Crazy!
3D's future "dim"?
http://www.toronto.com/article/686899
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/05/the_dying_of_the_light.html
Quote
The big selling point of 3-D when the change began a couple of years was that the image would be so much better than 2-D, and also superior to older forms of 3-D used in previous fads of the 1950s and 1970s. This hasn?t proven to be the case at all.
Less publicly stated was the other big reason for 3-D: the hope that it would deter pirates from illegally copying films and trading or selling them via the Internet. Judging by the large number of pirate download sites that still exist, I don?t see any value in this argument, either.
It?s time for all concerned to admit that 3-D: The Sequel has been a massive flop in multiplexes and in the eyes of beholders.
...
Digital projectors have been force-fed to theaters by an industry hungry for the premium prices it can charge for 3D films. As I've been arguing for a long time, this amounts to charging you more for an inferior picture. The winners are the manufacturers of the expensive machines, and the film distributors. The hapless theaters still depend on concession sales to such a degree that a modern American theater can be described as a value-added popcorn stand.
'For 3D showings a special lens is installed in front of a Sony digital projector that rapidly alternates the two polarized images needed for the 3D effect to work. When you're running a 2D film, that polarization device has to be taken out of the image path. If they're not doing that, it's crazy, because you've got a big polarizer that absorbs 50 percent of the light.'
It is as if the Industry is courting self-destruction.
The movie industry feels under threat these days from DVDs, cable movies on demand, a dozen streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Fandor and Mubi, and competition from video games. Decades ago, it felt a similar danger from radio (it introduced talkies) and television (it introduced wide-screen). The irony today is that it hopes to rescue itself with 3D, which is not an improvement but a step back in quality. The fact that more people wanted to see "Pirates" in 2D than 3D is stunning. The fact that 3D projectors in some theaters are producing murky and dim 2D pictures makes me very unhappy.
The film should have a brightness, a crispness and sparkle that makes an impact. It should look like a movie! -- not a mediocre big-screen television. A movie should leap out and zap you, not recede into itself and get lost in dimness. Short-sighted, technically illiterate penny-pinchers are wounding a great art form.
:sigh: oh the 2008-vs-now irony: http://articles.boston.com/2008-03-12/ae/29270530_1_3-d-movies-screens-access-integrated-technologies
Well, I can't say I'm all that surprised really...
"3D is just one more tool for a film maker to use"
http://www.cracked.com/article_18877_4-reasons-3-d-movies-dont-have-to-suck_p2.html
And if 3D bugs ya, you can always get glasses that convert 3D into 2D -> http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/miscellaneous/e9b4/?cpg=164H&link
Quote from: Mr. Analog on July 13, 2011, 03:05:40 PM
And if 3D bugs ya, you can always get glasses that convert 3D into 2D -> http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/miscellaneous/e9b4/?cpg=164H&link
But then you still have to pay the 3D tax on the ticket!
Quote from: Lazybones on July 13, 2011, 03:13:36 PM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on July 13, 2011, 03:05:40 PM
And if 3D bugs ya, you can always get glasses that convert 3D into 2D -> http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/miscellaneous/e9b4/?cpg=164H&link
But then you still have to pay the 3D tax on the ticket!
hehe, exactly!