3D TV: The Wave of the Future or a Passing Fad?
TonyDP
Inside the MonolithPosts: 4,307MI6 Agent
Sir Miles wrote:Secondly....what do you think of the 3D tv ? What size did you buy..?...I'm convinced that these tv's will just not appeal and die a slow death...I'd love to hear your thoughts...
Seeing as I'm something of an electronics geek and a pretty major 3D fan it was only a matter of time before I got hooked in and bought a 3D TV. My pending birthday was the perfect excuse to blow some money and upgrade my A/V setup.
I decided to buy a Samsung 63" plasma 3D TV. The reason I went with Samsung was (1) their prices were the most aggressive among 3D TV manufacturers, (2) they seemed pretty diligent in putting out firmware updates to improve the 3D experience and (3) their sets offer 2D>3D upconversion, giving you more options on what you can watch. In terms of size, I decided to go as big as possible since the more of your peripheral vision is covered the better the 3D effect will be. In terms of technology, the general consensus to this point is that plasmas are a little better at creating a 3D effect since the phosphors in a plasma decay to OFF faster than the pixels in an LCD can shut off.
The TV I got looks absolutely beautiful in plain old 2D mode. Even if 3D doesn't catch on, this is a really nice set with rich colors, deep blacks and so many image tweaking options that it will take me weeks to familiarize myself with them all. As such, I've hedged my bets and gotten a good all around TV.
The 2D>3D conversion allows you to create a faux 3D effect on any source - broadcast TV, DVD, BluRay, videogame, or what have you. The TV uses algorithms to determine on the fly what part of the image to push into the foreground and what part to push into the background. Results vary from title to title but when it works, it does give a subtle but noticeable sense of depth to the picture. I'm an avid videogamer and it really enhances videogames where the foreground and background are already pretty pronounced.
In terms of native 3D content pickings are still pretty slim right now. In terms of movies each manufacturer is hording certain titles for themselves and that leads to precious few titles being commercially available. Ironically, things are once again better on the videogame front. Sony is actively pushing 3D and already offers several titles that run in native 3D with more on the way.
The 3D effect on native BluRays and videogames can be stunning. My package came with the 3D CGI movie Monsters vs. Aliens. The sense of depth was very good and lots of stuff seemed to pop out of the screen. The games look simply amazing. I showed my brother a demo level from a Sony driving game called Motorstorm: Pacific Rift and his jaw practically dropped to the floor. It's an offroad racing game and the sense of depth and shrubbery and other flora coming at you are really convincing. Some titles still exhibit minor ghosting (also called crosstalk) but its rare and hopefully future releases will improve the 3D quality.
The jury is definitely still out on 3D's long term viability. The manufacturers seem to be going out of their way to screw the rollout up by marking up prices on the hardware and releasing software at a trickle.
Personally, I'm happy with what I already have. The 2D>3D conversion capability gives me more options for 3D viewing and the games, which have always been my primary interest, seem to be catching on. If 3D doesn't catch on, as I said I still have a great TV for regular viewing. Other folks' mileage may vary.
Comments
Congrats on your Purchase/Birthday gift. I have a feeling 3-D TV is here to stay. Some stations are launching station in 3-D. I don't have all the information on hand, but it'll be on Digital channels and is set to launch later this year.
One more question. Is that the same TV George Takei (Sulu from Star Trek) advertises for? It's supposed to have a fourth color added to the already Blue/Green/Red. The fourth color added is yellow. Maybe you know what I'm talking about Tony.
I'll need to get a few more 3D glasses first. Two came with the TV but at $150 each extras are a little expensive right now.
I've been reading about the digital 3D channels. DirecTV already offers a handful of them and other providers will supposedly be following suit shortly. Currently they offer some sports (EPSN 3D broadcast a bunch of games from the world cup in 3D) as well as concerts and some movies. It's early days so content is still on the slim side but they're definitely pushing it.
Oh myyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!
I know the commercials you're talking about Mr. M; they're actually for Sharp TVs. I don't believe Sharp has released a 3D TV yet; mine is a Samsung.
So how do those James Bond DVDs look in the faux 3D? B-)
If it's your milieu then by all means...go for it. You only live once... B-)
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Anyway, I will not be buying a 3D television anytime soon, not that I have anything against it, just that I usually wait until my television blows up, before purchasing a new television. This probably comes from being raised by a father who refused to purchase a new television until the last gasp of a video image had been sucked from it. In the house I grew up in, we literally had to turn the channel with a pliers because my dad didn't think it worth getting a new knob. We were also the last ones on the block to have color television. When man landed on the moon, a neighbor had pity on us and invited us over so we could watch in color.
But I digress, having seen several 3D movies I have been less than impressed with the quality of the 3D with the exception of Avatar. When I saw Toy Story 3, I opted for the 2D because I also find the glasses to be a hassle. Anyway, congratulations on your new purchase and I am sure it won't be long before you have an IMAX screen in your place.
Samsung have certainly been an early adopter of this format....although their 3D tv's haven't got great reviews this side of the pond....
Like I said....I'm not convinced by 3D tv at all...but I'll have to hold my hand up here and say that I haven't yet seen it 'in person'....I know that Sky TV are going to offer 3D football (thats PROPER football to our American cousins
Tony...please keep me/us informed with your thoughts to 3D tv as you continue to watch it -{
Darenhat, at your suggestion I tried watching a few bits and pieces of some of my James Bond BluRays and the results were pretty much as I expected. I first popped in the PTS to Thunderball; close-up to medium shots had visible depth added to them and certain objects such as the balcony Bond and his friend are standing on or the chair Bond is sitting in as he waits for Madame Boutier pop out from the background. The fight, with all of the fast cuts doesn't really benefit as things move too fast for your eyes to process any kind of 3D effect. Next up I put in Moonraker and watched the PTS and parts of the big climax at the end. Once again, close-ups on the plane, as well as shots of the plane in flight or Bond in freefall yielded a subtle but discernible 3D effect. Derek's Meddings' special effects shots, which had a very flat look to them to begin with, do not come across as well and remain flat looking. Lastly, I put in the PTS from QoS and, as expected, all the 3 second cuts pretty much kill any 3D effect as its hard enough to make out what's going on in 2D.
Clearly 2D>3D works best with relatively slow pans and not quick cuts. Also, the cinematography used impacts the sense of 3D greatly and if the original photography was flat, any 3D effect will be minimal at best. By way of comparison, earlier today I watched part of a BluRay concert video of the Pat Metheny Group that I had. It was recorded using HD cameras and the static camera shots and slow pans really coexisted nicely with 2D>3D; the sense of depth and even musicians and instruments popping out of the screen as they were being held were really visible and quite pronounced.
Sir Miles, the Samsungs also got bad writeups here when they were first released back in the spring. Since then Samsung has released a number of firmware upgrades which have improved the 3D effect dramatically and drastically reduced instances of crosstalk and ghosting. The general consensus these days is that Panasonic TVs still offer the best 3D (though they offer no 2D>3D conversion, severely limiting what you can do with the TVs right now) and Samsung is a respectable second and closing the gap all the time. Any problems with ghosting seem to be tied to the active shutter glasses which still cannot block out all light when in their "off" state. Playing with brightness and contrast settings further alleviates ghosting. Also, the Samsung plasma I bought appears to have markedly improved resistance to image retention and burn-in. I've already watched a few letterbox films and spent a few hours playing various games with static huds and have not yet seen a hint of IR, even when using the TV's scroll wipe tools to look for persistent afterimages.
Quite honestly the biggest problems I see going forward are pricing and content availability. Studios have plenty of catalog titles that were filmed in 3D but for whatever reason they're being really slow in announcing and releasing them. Hopefully as we approach the holidays that will improve. Also, while I understand the need to maximize profits from early adopters like me, they really need to get more aggressive with their pricing if they want to lure people in, especially as so many of us had already made the jump to HD within the last 2 to 3 years.
(Sorry Loeffs, got a reputation to uphold
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Not at all. You made it until the 10th post! {[]
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
You know NP, I was going to put in some cheeky remark for you about that very topic but I decided to err on the side of caution. FWIW, I'm sure someone, somewhere will release something more suited to your unique tastes.
While you can say what you want about the quality of his prequels, there is no denying that Lucas' movies and other projects always look fantastic so I fully expect a first class 3D conversion (the article says it will take a year or more to do each film, thus the one year gap between films). The movies are full of imagery that would translate well into 3D and I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with them.
Full article from the Hollywood Reporter is here:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i677c428c4dc16c2c7592835d50e86a3a
Hitchcock was a 3D pioneer or maybe just supporter, maybe his old films would work well rather than the Terence Hunt style editing stuff.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
A pioneer ? Did he make more 3D films besides Dial M for Murder ?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Yeah that's when the fad started and it ended quickly.
The general consensus is that Panasonic does make the best plasmas, especially as they now own Pioneer's technology and are starting to apply it to their own sets. Samsung also makes very good looking plasmas at prices that are generally more affordable than Panasonic.
For true 3D you do need to wear glasses. What you saw on the LCD was most likely interpolation, also referred to via marketing slogans such as anti-judder or motionflow. It basically takes a movie (which is shot at 24 frames per second) and creates intermediate frames which are then displayed at either 60 or 120 frames per second, giving you a smoother flowing picture that also does exhibit a subtle 3D like appearance. Some people also refer to it as the 'soap opera' effect since it makes any source look like it was shot on video rather than film. This kind of tech is typically limited to LCD TVs since they are not as good at displaying fast motion although some plasmas (including some models made by Samsung) have the feature as well.
It may not go away as quickly as the last boom but I know it's not going last too long.
The difference this time is that while there are still way too many quick and cheap productions, most studios are also releasing their tentpole films in 3D. In the next 3-18 months studios will be releasing Thor, Captain America, Green Lantern, Tron Legacy, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the new Pirates of the Caribbean, Transformers 3, Men in Black 3, the Avengers, Spiderman and a host of other big-budget features in 3D. With a lineup like that, 3D most likely won't be going away anytime soon.
Pixar and Dreamworks pretty much do all of their CG features in 3D. Successful directors like Ridley Scott, James Cameron, Michael Bay and even Christoper Nolan to a lesser extent are embracing 3D. The fact that Hollywood can make a couple of extra bucks on each movie by charging a premium for the glasses makes it even more attractive to them.
Also, people definitely are watching 3D movies. Check out annual grosses for films released in 2010 and you'll see that six of the top 10 features all had a major 3D presence and in each case more than half of the film's revenue came from 3D presentations despite a limited number of screens. Even marginal movies like the recently released Resident Evil film saw a bump in their box office (the newest 3D edition had the best opening in the US and is an even bigger hit overseas).
3D is just another tool for a filmmaker to use if he deems it appropriate. New technology is always frowned upon until it becomes established and embraced, not just by the audience but the film distributors as well. In the past it has been their reluctance to convert more screens to support 3D that has been the biggest stumbling block just as in the 1940s and 1950s sound, color and widescreen presentations were all deemed as fads and gimmicks that wouldn't last, largely because distributors didn't want to spend the money to upgrade their gear.
As for home technology becoming obsolete too quickly; that's just the way it is and has been for decades. I'm sure people who owned black and white TVs were upset when color models started to appear. VHS owners must have been angry when DVDs were released and started to catch on. Same with BluRay. Same with high-definition television. Composite cables gave way to more expensive component cables which quickly fell by the wayside in favor of even more expensive all digital solutions like HDMI. A top of the line PC released today will be out of date in 6 months; it's been that way since the 1980s when PCs were first released. People who bought first generation hi-def TVs quickly saw them get superceded with newer models with better picture quality, higher resolutions and more features. And we haven't even touched on the audio side where new receivers are constantly being released as well and new audio formats always get released and then never properly supported.
The lifecycles for these product lines do get shorter but that's just a reflection of the rate at which technology is advancing and the need for companies to release new hardware and software to remain profitable. Look at how many iterations of the Ipod Apple has released in a few short years. Otherwise, we'd all still be watching TV on out 15" black and white TV sets and listening to music on our 8-track tapes.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Personally I always found so called interaction in film unessecary. I think film markers are kidding themselved if they really think they are enhancing the value of their product by making 3-D films. Also this heavy handed use of computers can't be matched by something that is tangible. Something that someone crafted with their hands.
www.scottacademymartialarts.co.uk
I was reading about that; definitely a case of not using all of the technology's potential though ironically Golf was one of the first 3D broadcasts in the US as well. Go figure.
I recently downloaded a 3D preview to Dinosaurs Alive, a 3D Imax feature that will be released on BluRay next month. Now that was impressive; the image of a T-Rex stomping towards me with its mouth agape was almost a little too real. Still looking forward to seeing the whole feature though.
My dad was looking at 3D televisions and was telling me about what he was thinking about buying. I came home and looked at the TV he was thinking about and noticed the glasses are battery operated. Why are the glasses for these TV's battery operated?
Sidenote, he's looking at the 50" Panasonic Viera. He'll get a Blu-Ray player with it also. He hasn't bought anything yet.
Most 3D TVs use battery operated glasses. The batteries can be either rechargeable (usually via a USB cable just like the one you use on a PC) or disposable, similar to ones used in hearing aids and other small electronics. My 3D glasses use these batteries and I'm pretty sure the Panasonics use something very similar:
As to why you need batteries, the glasses on the TV he's looking at are called active shutter LCD 3D glasses. They work by very quickly alternating between ON and OFF states. When in their ON state, the lenses are clear; when in their OFF state, the glasses are opaque When the left lens is clear, the right lense is opaque and when the left lens is opaque, the right lense is clear. They do this 60 times per second for each eye. The television simultaneously displays alternating and slightly offset images at the same rate of 60 frames per second. By perfectly synchronizing the glasses with the TV, each eye sees a slightly different image and when the brain fuses those alternating images together, the illusion of 3D is created. The batteries are simply needed to power the glasses. My Samsung 3D TV and glasses work in exactly the same way.
As an FYI, Visio is releasing a 3D TV that uses passive glasses which do not use batteries. Obviously, the glasses are a lot cheaper but the tradeoff is that the image put out by the Visio to each eye is only half the resolution of 3D TVs that the use active shutter technology I described above. There have been no reviews of the Visio yet so there is no feedback out there as to how the 3D looks in practice.
The Viera your father is looking at has won a bunch of awards for both its 2D and 3D performance. Panasonic makes excellent TVs and their Viera 3D plasma TVs use a technology called fast decaying phosphors to create an outstanding 3D image. My only real advice would be to buy as big a TV as you can afford and fit into your entertainment center. 3D is all about immersion and the more of your peripheral vision the TV fills the more convincing the 3D effect will be.
There are already a lot of really great 3D titles out there to sample. Grand Canyon Adventure, Under the Sea 3D and Space Station 3D are three outstanding Imax 3D presentations with lots of eye candy; Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland has some of the best 3D I've seen to date and is an entertaining movie to boot; Resident Evil Afterlife 3D is coming out next week; and if your dad picks up a Panasonic Viera he also gets a free copy of Avatar in 3D (which is selling for over $150 on Ebay these days). There are also lots more titles out there as well with more coming out all the time. In terms of cost, 3D titles generally tend to cost a few bucks more than comparable 2D titles and the titles I've bought have ranged in price from $18 to $35 though just like regular DVDs and BluRays prices come down after a few weeks.
3D in the home really does work; when its done right it makes the images look deep and huge. Its not for everybody as some people simply don't like the effect and some are also sensitive to the glasses flickering on and off so quickly. You really need to play with it in a good electronics store and make sure that that the effect is appealing to you.
Hope that answers your questions; let me know if you need any more info.
I've had that same experience; not all content works well in 3D and fast cuts are the worst on the eyes. If you look at the Imax presentations, which typically are some of the most popular 3D material, they consist mostly of slow pans and fixed camera shots so that your eyes can keep up with the imagery and give you a single point to focus on (it's no wonder a lot of in-store demos use Imax clips). That's also why some movies like Clash of the Titans look bad in 3D while others like Alice In Wonderland work far better. Clash was conceived as a 2D movie and quickly converted to 3D as a cash grab whereas even though Alice was filmed in 2D and converted post-production, the film was designed for 3D from day one and the director and cinematographer took that into account when shooting the film.
The other thing to keep in mind is that an electronics store like Best Buy is probably the worst place to sample something like 3D - it's far too bright and noisy and the TVs themselves usually have the color and sharpness cranked up to ridiculous levels in an attempt to stand out from the crowd. As is the case with normal 2D viewing, you really need to dial in the TV's settings, especially brighness, sharpness and color saturation, to get a pleasing, more realistic image that doesn't tire your eyes out quickly.
Woman Claims She Got Pregnant From 3D Film
The wife of a US Army soldier, Jennifer Stweart, claims she got pregnant by watching a 3D adult film while visiting friends in New York.
38-year-old Jennifer Stweart used the bizarre claims to explain to her husband why their child was black, despite the lovers being very much white skinned.
Jennifer Stweart said her child looks just like a black actor in the adult movie she claims to have watched in 3D with her east coast pals.
“A month after watching the movie, I started feeling dizzy and the results were positive,” Jennifer Stweart said.
Stweart also admits her marriage to the US military man who serves overseas could be in trouble: “Even though my husband believed in me, my marriage could be at risk. But he knows I’m faithful” she said.
Despite his wife’s bizarre explanation, Iraq US military man Erick Jhonson said: “I see it as suspicious. The films in 3D are very real. With today’s technology, anything is possible.”
http://www.eyejabber.com/2010/05/woman-claims-she-got-pregnant-from-3d-film/