3D TV

[Ian]

I thought this might be of interest to other people here, as there are some other gadget fans here too

To cut a long story short, I was working on a project at university for a PhD/MPhil that involved using autostereoscopic displays (3D monitors that don't need glasses). So, when the advent of 3D TV came along I was pretty excited.

I set up a 3D TV and stereoscopic forum (http://www.3d-forums.com) a while back, it's basically just a "shell" of a site as there are only a handful of posts. However, I thought I'd mention it here in case there is anyone else interested in 3D TV or stereoscopic PC gaming. The site needs a bit of a re-arrangement (in terms of forum categories and articles).

I don't know if 3D TV will be a flop or a real success, but it's going to be fun finding out .

 

[Mychael]

At our shopping centre the other day they were demo'ing 3D tv's, with the electronic glasses.
To me they were interesting from a novelty point of view but in 5 mins of viewing I thought it would quickly become an eye strain.
Action shots were good but scenery looked to me a bit fake in the back ground, sort of like the effect you used to get with those Panorama glasses I had as a kid, the ones where you put in slides and saw 3d animals and waterfalls and stuff (stills), looked 3d but not quite right.

 

[Ian]

Yep, I agree that there is still quite a bit of work to be done. I'm not a fan of active glasses either, as I find them uncomfotable for long periods - but I'm sure things are going to progress rapidly in this area if it becomes popular (as the technology is already there).

 

[Fire cat]

The real improvement would be to see 3D without the glasses.
I think Phillips or Sony is allready working on that. Though, if there's no 3D show, why have a 3D screen?
The only use of 3D I have seen is in cinema's, and only for a handfull of movies.

Interesting though.

 

[andsome]

3D is fine with the occasional movie, but I couldn't be bothered for ordinary TV in the home. A decent flat screen is fine for me.

 

[clifford_cooley]

Why andsome you look better sitting in that chair. :lol:

 

[andsome]

Why andsome you look better sitting in that chair. :lol:

I look gorgeous whether standing, sitting or lying down anywhere.

 

[Thrax]

I hate 3D for several reasons: it compromises image quality, it creates "haves" and "have nots" for group viewing experiences, it gives many people headaches, it's a desperation move by the BDA, etc. etc.

I wish it would go away.

 

[Ian]

The real improvement would be to see 3D without the glasses.
I think Phillips or Sony is already working on that. Though, if there's no 3D show, why have a 3D screen?

Yep, that would be an autostereocopic display. I've had experience with them, however the unit I used on a day to day basis was using relatively primitive technology and was only 15" - so the viewing experience wasn't great.

I hate 3D for several reasons: it compromises image quality, it creates "haves" and "have nots" for group viewing experiences, it gives many people headaches, it's a desperation move by the BDA, etc. etc.

I wish it would go away.

I guess you react badly to stereoscopic images too? I'm the same most of the time.

Any form of active glasses play havoc with me if I'm using them for more than 10 mins, although my other half can use them fine for hours on end.

The sad part is that it's not just down to the method of producing a stereo image (i.e, alternating left/right images, polarizing techniques etc...) but due to the fact that the eyes are converging at a totally different place to the point of focus - creating a strained feeling, like you are forcing cross-eyes for a period. Some helicopter pilots are trained for months with HMD units which cause similar problems, and it's not unknown for complete or partial ocular rejection to occur - basically the pilot goes blind in one or both eyes due to disparate images and the difficulty in the brain reconciling them.

Autosterescopic monitors were quite comfortable for me, although I couldn't create huge depth effects, otherwise I'd start to reject the image and it would become uncomfortable viewing. Subtle effects worked very well though.

 

[Kalario]

I agree with Thrax... what is wrong with a nice 50' flat screen HD tv?

 

[Thrax]

Phyisologically, I'm perfectly comfortable with stereoscopic displays. I can watch them for hours with nary a problem. I just don't like the fact that we've spent DECADES perfecting HDTV technology only to take monumental strides backwards in image quality for the sake of 3D.

I also don't like that we're taking a step back because the Blu-ray Disc Authority can't find a way to sell Blu-ray to the average buyer.

 

[clifford_cooley]

In other words they can't make a fortune by l getting us to spend a fortune upgrading our DVD recorders because our DVD recorders are working just fine for us. If the price is right the consumer will purchase. I would purchase if the price was around twice or even triple that of the DVD. It's not, it's much more.

 

[catilley1092]

Me too, a nice large flat screen HDTV beats that other stuff any day.

 

[TrainableMan]

People already own flat screen TVs and those prices are falling falling so in order to make money they must make you buy something new and expensive - Buy expensive foreign technology! It's the American way.

 

[Ian]

Out of interest, what is the cost of a Blu-Ray disc and DVD for a recent release?

In the UK, Avatar is £10 on DVD and £15 on Blu-Ray (inc DVD), which works out at around $15/$22.50 respectively. Is that comparable?

The vast majority of my purchases are still DVDs, as after a few months you can pick them up for around £5 (something like the Hurt Locker or District 9 are that price). I've only got a handful of Blu-Ray discs so far, because they are twice the price - although Casino Royal was made for Blu-Ray, just for the fact it has Eva Green in it :lol:

 

[TrainableMan]

On amazon.com I see Avatar DVD at $20-$25US, Blu-ray $20-$33. But I've heard Avatar will not be released in 3D, atleast not this year.

 

[draceena]

I can see 3-D but definately feel the strain after watching. That, along with slight stomach upset (depending on how the camera moves) and the fact that I have to 'stack' the 3-d glasses over my perscription glasses and that annoys me to no end...well I'm never gonna buy a 3-d tv unless its the kind that has already converted the image without added glasses and that the effect is mild and not excessive.