ping stevew re: 3d tvs

[dawgfan]

Just curious what kind of reception you've been seeing in the buying public for 3D TV tech. Is there much excitement? Is it having an impact in buying decisions, or are people just shrugging their shoulders and buying the latest TV regardless without caring much about whether it can do 3D or not?

I haven't met anyone personally that's excited about it, so I'm curious what your take is on the tech.

[stevew]

I quit working there earlier this year before we'd sold any 3d tv's. Sorry I couldn't be more help. I thought the TV's themselves were neat, but i wasn't sold on the 3d tech. I think eventually they will master a glasses free setup, or a universal setup. Until then, I'm not even considering shelling out for it.

[dawgfan]

Yeah, I'm with you on the glasses vs. glasses free - when that tech becomes widely available, it will remove a lot of the barriers people have.

Still not sold personally on 3D viewing - I've seen very little content where the 3D really enhances the viewing experience. Avatar did a pretty good job, but I'm not convinced it's more than a marginal improvement on viewing it in 2D.

[Marc Vaughan]

One of my friends in England has had a 3d TV for about a year - he tried to enthuse about it to me ... and sitting awkwardly on a table in his front room I could indeed see a blurry 3d image when wearing the expensive glasses he thrust at me.

Not impressed at all, doubly so when you consider people not wearing the glasses will see a headache inducing blur for nearly all of the current 3d types available.

I expect 3d to be pushed as the 'next big thing' in the television/console manufacturers attempt to maximise revenue, but I'm far from convinced its a compelling argument at present tbh.

[Mac Howard]

The success of HDTV is a double edged sword as far as 3D is concerned. On the one hand it has brought a genuine visual experience to home viewing that the CRT boxes lacked and therefore visual value to that experience which 3D will enhance but on the other hand many people are not keen to hand out another $1000 plus for a TV set in the near future.

But I am surprised at the antagonism to 3D shown by many people - maybe rationalising their wish to avoid another expemsive purchase - but there's no question in my mind that it's on its way. There is, of course, the old problem of "critical mass" - currently too few tvs and too few programs - and Hollywood needs to stop using it for flashy effects instead of just letting the 3D speak for itself (I've a seen a rugby game in 3D and it was terrific and I think sport could well be the thing that converts people). It doesn't help that films still have to be watchable in 2D to justify high production costs and therefore the advantages of 3D such as fore and aft movement and important information in depth is currently avoided and dimishes the advantage.

But I think they well make it work this time. There's certainly a great commercial push and determination behind it. It's an advantage that 3D sets are only a little more expensive than current HD sets (the current 3D sets are expensive because they're high end sets not because of the 3D circuitry which adds little to the cost) and the ability to show 3D as effectively as the normal sets works in their favour.

I would not buy another 2D only set now (already have a reasonable one but wouldn't mind a second in the bedroom) but will delay a 3D purchase until there is considerably more material to watch.

[panerd]

Avatar was neat but it also seemed like a "trick" that would not be fun to watch all the time. I can't imagine how sports in 3D could be enjoyable. (or most programming in general) Maybe I should try it out? Doesn't it just seem gimmicky?

[gstelmack]

The problem with 3D tech is it basically has to have an infinite focal length so when you look off-center you still see a clear image, but in the real world you only focus on exactly what you are looking at and the rest is kind of blurred. Old high-end flightsims used to take advantage of this by rendering the center of the view at high res and using much lower resolution for the rest of the scene.

Head-tracking 3D systems can accomplish this because they know what you are looking at. But not having it is why many folks have problems with 3D viewing, plus a fair number of folks can't see the 3D effect at all or it has little impact with them. And it's pretty tought to do with a single screen being viewed by multiple folks.

These are basic, inherent obstacles in family room viewing. They need to change how people view TV (like individual headsets along the lines of the VR goggles from a decade or two back where each person literally has their own screen), not just add 3D to the existing viewing experience.

Keep in mind that 3D has been "the next big thing" since the '50s. I still don't understand what they've changed that makes them think this will be the big hit.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The problem with 3D tech is it basically has to have an infinite focal length

Which is why you need the top end TVs - items in the distance and therefore small have to be clear to be effective and so the resolution has to be there. It may well be that, in the end, we have TVs that are well beyond the current 1080p.

The limitations of 2D - that depth information is poor - have resulted in techniques to avoid that. Notice how little fore and aft movement or depth information exists in films etc. That's very artificial but we're so used to it after a century of 2 dimentional entertainment that we're oblivious to it now.

But imagine walking around in a two dimentional world. Imagine crossing a busy road with the oncoming traffic in 2D. You wouldn't last long! Just look up from the monitor screen and look around you at the rich visual experience that is missing from 2D entertainment.

Even when watching video on this screen, with no worthwhile fore and aft movement, no worthwhile information in the presentation of depth, the experience is significantly inferior to our real-world experiences.

These are basic, inherent obstacles in family room viewing. They need to change how people view TV

What does surprise me is that we haven't seen much more effort to bring 3D to the PC. Those limitations don't exist when just one person is viewing the screen as most will be viewing this. Perhaps because much of the time we're looking at is naturally 2 dimentional - such as text etc.

If Apple really want to shake the world of enterntainment and even computing they need to bring out a 3D iPad. The viewing problem is almost gone - Nintendo have already shown that glasses-free 3D is possible with its well-reviewd 3DS. And with its own app industry Apple could move well ahead of the rest very quickly.

A 3D iPad would shake up this industry (you heard it first here, Steve!). In fact it woudn't surprise me to learn Apple are well down this route.

And if someone really wants to beat the iPad then try a 3D tablet.

Keep in mind that 3D has been "the next big thing" since the '50s. I still don't understand what they've changed that makes them think this will be the big hit.

Because the technology has changed and the experience so much better and the quality of 2D back then had so much further to go.

But we need to stop thinking of it as "the next big thing" and recognise that it's merely an evolution and the removal of the limitations of 2D. We're now experiencing quality video in our living rooms rather than the box in the corner most watched previously. It is a genuinely quality visual experience. 3D significantly enhances that experience and that is what needs to be emphasised rather than flashy animation.

3D is a genuine advance in the visual experience itself - much richer, much more realistic. The flashy stuff merely plays into the hands of those who, for some reason that escapes me, object to the very idea of 3D. There are technical problems but there certainly seems to be a commercial commitment now (for whatever reason) that has been missing before and the texhnical ability to solve the problems.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Which is why you need the top end TVs - items in the distance and therefore small have to be clear to be effective and so the resolution has to be there. It may well be that, in the end, we have TVs that are well beyond the current 1080p.

Yeah, they are already working on 4k resolution for TVs. However, my point was actually the opposite: items away from center need to be BLURRED, not clear in the distance. Pay attention to how little of what you see with your eyes is actually clear. Focus on this line of text and tell me how much of what is above and below you can read. That's the fallacy of 3D that ruins the illusion and causes confusion.

Our brains are pretty tuned so that we accept approximations really well, but the closer you get to high fidelity, the more magnified issues and errors become. We see 2D very differently from how we see 3D, and they have yet to hit a 3D technology that is close enough to real to overcome those perception issues. Nearly everyone can watch 2D just fine, but there are two groups of issues with people watching 3D:

- A fair chunk get sick and just can't watch at all.
- A fair chunk have trouble seeing the effect at all.

The first is just a major problem and cuts a segment of the population out from the beginning. The second means there are lots of parameters for 3D viewing that can be tweaked to help folks see the effect, but every person is different and what works for one does not work for another. I've heard numbers in the 20% range (need to find a source, but I do know it's significant, not a tiny blip like the epilepsy issues that can affect flashing sources) that just plain won't be able to watch 3D at all until they come up with a different methodology entirely.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

What does surprise me is that we haven't seen much more effort to bring 3D to the PC. Those limitations don't exist when just one person is viewing the screen as most will be viewing this. Perhaps because much of the time we're looking at is naturally 2 dimentional - such as text etc.

There have been several attempts. eDimensional has had glasses out for a decade that work on the same principles as the current 3D TVs. The biggest issue they had was CRTs were generally 60 Hz, maybe 85 Hz, and you couldn't get 60Hz to each eye. Plus games had trouble running over 60Hz. Nvidia has a very similar solution out as well now with the advances in monitor refresh rates and improved hardware rendering performance. But it has the same issues as TV that I mentioned above, and along with the cost ($100+ for the glasses, another issue blocking TV adoption) it's just never been more than a fad. The interesting part is, as you mentioned, with the game its much easier to just assume the player is looking at the center of the screen (where the reticule is for a shooter) and thus do proper depth blurring of the rest of the scene.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But we need to stop thinking of it as "the next big thing" and recognise that it's merely an evolution and the removal of the limitations of 2D. We're now experiencing quality video in our living rooms rather than the box in the corner most watched previously. It is a genuinely quality visual experience. 3D significantly enhances that experience and that is what needs to be emphasised rather than flashy animation.

3D is a genuine advance in the visual experience itself - much richer, much more realistic. The flashy stuff merely plays into the hands of those who, for some reason that escapes me, object to the very idea of 3D. There are technical problems but there certainly seems to be a commercial commitment now (for whatever reason) that has been missing before and the texhnical ability to solve the problems.

But that's the debate, isn't it? Is it REALLY a big advance in the quality of the viewing experience? For a chunk of the population, it is a demonstrable step BACK in quality, and for others it remains a big debate. Nearly everyone does ooh and aah when shown a demo, but you lose a chunk of them when asking them to watch for a length of time. Yes, they'll probably eventually solve things like the ghosting issues, but I'd argue that the real 3D leap will be when they can put you INSIDE the scene, rather than looking through a window you can never pass through. The Holodeck will be the leap from 2D, not 3DTV.

[chadritt]

Walter Murch actually wrote an essay recently about why he doesnt feel 3d tech will ever work right. He pretty much a genius when it comes to editing and understanding the relationship between the eye and the brain so I tend to trust him.

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. - Roger Ebert's Journal

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Yeah, they are already working on 4k resolution for TVs.

Genuinely high resolution will be essential for quality 3D. There's no question that you do need a top end TV.

However, my point was actually the opposite: items away from center need to be BLURRED, not clear in the distance. Pay attention to how little of what you see with your eyes is actually clear. Focus on this line of text and tell me how much of what is above and below you can read. That's the fallacy of 3D that ruins the illusion and causes confusion.

Yes, I understand what you're saying there: no matter how "in the distance" something is in this simulated 3D is all the same distance - the plane of the screen - and the focus remains the same.

But I suspect you'll find that is just something the brain accomodates once it becomes used to it - just as it sees three dimensions by use of perspective (I once read that some primitive tribes cannot see a face when you show them a photograph - their brain hasn't made the adjustmnent our brains make from experience) . I think it'll be something that comes from experience. The fact that many people can watch and see current 3D without headaches indicates that the brain adjustment can take place.

With some it takes more time - my in-laws still claim that the zap-zap-zap effect of music videos is physiologically unpleasant. It's not helped, of course, by their being antagonistic to the videos in the first place and I wonder how much of this is also true of the 3D debate when many clearly express an antagonism rather than mere opinion.

I've heard numbers in the 20% range (need to find a source, but I do know it's significant, not a tiny blip like the epilepsy issues that can affect flashing sources) that just plain won't be able to watch 3D at all until they come up with a different methodology entirely.

80% isn't bad and, as others can watch a 3D picture reasonably well in 2D then I don't think that would prove to be critical.

There have been several attempts. eDimensional has had glasses out for a decade that work on the same principles as the current 3D TVs. The biggest issue they had was CRTs were generally 60 Hz, maybe 85 Hz, and you couldn't get 60Hz to each eye. Plus games had trouble running over 60Hz.

But those limitations have gone. There is nothing in a technical sense to prevent PCs from going 3D now. In fact I believe I read of 3D monitors requring only software for the PC at the CES show. Glasses-free 3D is much easier with a single viewer.

The Nintendo 3DS is getting some excellent reviews.

Nvidia has a very similar solution out as well now with the advances in monitor refresh rates and improved hardware rendering performance. But it has the same issues as TV that I mentioned above, and along with the cost ($100+ for the glasses, another issue blocking TV adoption) it's just never been more than a fad.

But how much 3d material is there available?

Will glasses stay at $100 when mass produced and sold? I very much doubt it - in fact I believe I saw a set with $20 glasses being predicted (can't remember where now).

It's a typical 'critical mass" situation.

But that's the debate, isn't it? Is it REALLY a big advance in the quality of the viewing experience?

I've seen a rugby match on TV and the answer is "ABSOLUTELY!"

For a chunk of the population, it is a demonstrable step BACK in quality,

Presumably you mean those who suffer headaches. I don't see a 3D experience being a backward step otherwise.

Nearly everyone does ooh and aah when shown a demo, but you lose a chunk of them when asking them to watch for a length of time.

That's my point about letting 3D speak for itself rather than the flashy effects currently being pushed. Experience in the past shows that as the information environment increases then the exaggerations need to decrease. Silent movies exaggerated movement and facial expressions to make up for the lack of information in the sound and the over-acting that resulted had to be dropped whn sound came in. The exaggerations of contrast and tricks of light and shade had to go when colour came in. There are similar exaggerations that have been developed for 2D that have no justification in a 3D world. Many of the features used for impact (just like the exaggerated acting and contrast earlier) in the 2D world need to be dropped.

3D actually needs to "calm down" - the very reverse of what we're currently seeing in 3D movies. The extra dimension in itself with important movement fore and aft and depth information introduces no end of new qualities to the visual experience. We're seeing nothing of this so far.

Which is why sport is so good because it is naturally three diminsional.

In the real world we probably experience more movement towards and away from us than left to right or up and down. An enormous amount of the important information we experience is in that dimension often missing from the 2D screen. We don't notice it because we've become used to it but the 2D presentation is VERY artificial.

Yes, they'll probably eventually solve things like the ghosting issues, but I'd argue that the real 3D leap will be when they can put you INSIDE the scene, rather than looking through a window you can never pass through. The Holodeck will be the leap from 2D, not 3DTV.

I think that's right but that will be achieved in time. Colour wasn't great when it replaced black and white (and, of course, there were no shortage of commentators who insisted colour would never replace black and white). Fortunately the Wright brothers didn't wait until they could build a craft capable of carrying 500 people across the Atlantic in a few hours before inflicting their aircraft on the world. The first is never the best but is necessary for the best to come.

What I've seen of 3D, and maybe I'm one of the lucky ones in seeing it without a problem, but even the current 3D is a big step up on 2D. and that's before we've seen anything that genuinely uses its advantages. I think there is sufficent commercial commitment now to iron out the problems and eventually hit that critical mass and bring everyone else (or maybe the 80%) along with them.

Maybe it's because I'm an electronic engineer by training and have seen the most astonishing changes since I graduated that I have the confidence that they'll solve the problems this time. From what I've seen it can work and I believe if others can see what I've seen they'll eventually become convinced.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Walter Murch actually wrote an essay recently about why he doesnt feel 3d tech will ever work right. He pretty much a genius when it comes to editing and understanding the relationship between the eye and the brain so I tend to trust him.

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. - Roger Ebert's Journal

And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before

I'm not sure he's right in that. I think the reflection in a mirror or stream may have similar properties to a 3D TV image.

However, what is certain, is that nature has never exposed humankind to anything remotely like the 2D depiction of a 3D scene that we see in today's films etc. If there is any validity to the argument that 3D will drive us mad because we have no natural experience of it then 2D (or art) would have done so long ago.

The brain is very clever (well some are ). It gives us the illusion of 3 dimensions in normal film by its analysis if size - that house is smaller than the man but houses are bigger than men so it must be further away as things in the distance appear smaller. And so on. With 3D it gets a helping hand with stereoscopic images which correspond to those experienced in the real world.

The brain has much more to do with the 2D picture and, in the end, may be less taxed by 3D. The 3D image may prove to be more natural than the 2D we've become used to.

The argument that distant objects should require the brain to refocus the eyes applies to 2D as well as 3D. Focusing on the house from the man in real-life would require a refocus of the eye but in neither case is this necessary.

The argument that plot is more important than visuals is not something I would disagree too much with but it is irrelevant to the 2/3D debate. There is no reason in the world why the plot for a 3D film should be better or worse than one for a 2D film even though Hollywood seems keen to convince us the latter is so.

[Sun Tzu]

People can bicker all they want back and forth on this, but to me it seems like those who are in favor of 3D are in the great minority. I for one can't stand 3D, as I get motion sickness from just sitting in the passenger seat of a car on a windy road...well...me and hundreds of millions of other people.

[Arles]

I just got the top end 3D Samsung and really enjoy it. I don't watch a ton of 3D programming, but I have watched a few movies and some football/NBA games and think it adds a little to the experience. There's a lot of crappy production on low end 3D shows/programs that I think put it in a bad light. I also think some of the early 3D TVs weren't quite as crisp. But, when done well, it's a nice option for viewing.

3D programming is like an Asian food place in a strip mall. If it's well done, it's a great meal. If it's half ass, you are on the toilet for the rest of the day. I find that if I stick to ESPN and movie 3D channel on DirectTv, as well as a few well-done 3D blu ray movies, it's a nice addition.

[tucker rocky]

Prepare to fork out about $2,000.00 starting out, for this overpriced thing.

Not interested.

I'll stick with my HD 52" that I bought for $750, 2 years ago.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Arles

I just got the top end 3D Samsung and really enjoy it. I don't watch a ton of 3D programming, but I have watched a few movies and some football/NBA games and think it adds a little to the experience. There's a lot of crappy production on low end 3D shows/programs that I think put it in a bad light. I also think some of the early 3D TVs weren't quite as crisp. But, when done well, it's a nice option for viewing.

3D programming is like an Asian food place in a strip mall. If it's well done, it's a great meal. If it's half ass, you are on the toilet for the rest of the day. I find that if I stick to ESPN and movie 3D channel on DirectTv, as well as a few well-done 3D blu ray movies, it's a nice addition.

Interesting that it's another game designer that sees the benefits that come from this advance. The antagonism and passion which many show in this debate indicates to me that this is not about the 2D/3D technology but a part of the progressive/conservative debate that splits our society. The nonsense arguments against 3D that I've described in previous posts indicate that people are defending a life-style decision/prejudice rather making a rational judgement on the merits or otherwise of the technological change.

it's a nice option for viewing.

That's right. This is not a revolution in entertainment it's merely an evolutionary development. 2D isn't 2D at all - there's barely a scene in a 2D movie that doesn't depict a 3D scene. It just doesn't do it that well relying on size alone to generate the 3D illusion. But it reflects our recognition that 3 dimensions are necessary for realistic depiction of life. All that 3D does is create a better illusion and in doing so a modestly worthwhile improvement in visual quality.

But then that's all HD tv did - an improvement in visual quality not program content - and the first reaction to them was similarly negative - my in-laws were "never going to waste money on HD" but now have a 70 inch set in their living room and a 42 inch set in the bedroom. Currently they're "not going to waste money on 3D" - hell, they won't even look at a 3D set in the showrooms - but the same will happen.

HD has given us a taste for quality visuals that was lacking in the old CRT days and has paved the way for 3D (as well as delaying it because people don't want to spend another $1000 so soon).

The price needs to come down (but is not caused by the 3D circuitry but because the tvs are high end) and both the amount and quality of the 3D programs needs to improve. When the 3D set is the same price as the 2D set, and because the 3D set displays 2D as well as the 2D set and therefore the material of the last couple of decades will still play well, then people will choose the 3D one by default. And then they'll start to watch 3D movies etc. They'll ease their way into it.

The current change isn't a major one. Here's the major one that current 3D will pave the way for:

Princess Leia Debuts Kinect-Powered 3-D Video Streaming | Wired Science | Wired.com

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by tucker rocky

Prepare to fork out about $2,000.00 starting out, for this overpriced thing.

Not interested.

I'll stick with my HD 52" that I bought for $750, 2 years ago.

When a 52 inch 3D set is $750 and you need a new set will you seek out a 2D set?

I ask that because there is essentially no difference in price between a 2D and 3D set of equal quality and because the 3D set will display 2D as well as a 2D set. It is those facts that will eventually see the demise of the 2D set.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

People can bicker all they want back and forth on this, but to me it seems like those who are in favor of 3D are in the great minority. I for one can't stand 3D, as I get motion sickness from just sitting in the passenger seat of a car on a windy road...well...me and hundreds of millions of other people.

What I hear people complain most about is the cost and the fact you have to wear glasses.

Yes, I hear a lot of people complain about viewing movies in 3D, but we hear that about virtually ANY new technology.

As it always is with new technology, it's always going to come back to the two points above. If cell phones weighed 8 pounds, cost $750 for the hardware and a monthly plan of $250, they would not be as popular as they are now. I still hear a ton of people talk about how cell phones are ruining America. . . yet I really don't see them going away anytime soon.

You are right, we can all argue back and forth on this. Where I think you are wrong is the amount of objections. Get rid of the glasses and get to a reasonable price point? 3D will take off. In this case, I think the glasses are a bigger hindrance than the price point.

For proof, just wait and see the sales figures for the Nintendo 3DS this spring.

[Sun Tzu]

Eh, I stand by my words...and one of the main reasons is one that you didn't touch on in your response. I get nauseous when watching movies in 3D...and I don't think any advancements in technology are going to help that. I also think it looks kind of hokey, personally. It doesn't immerse me in the movie, rather, it takes me out of the movie. I feel much more immersed in a "2D" film that's just naturally engaging.

If you (or anyone else) thinks it's a hard-headed thing, or a not into new technology thing, that's a crock. You'd be hard pressed to find many people under the age of 40 who aren't all for any new technology that makes something they already do more enjoyable. When TV's started coming out in HD, it made watching sports, movies, etc more enjoyable. Despite it's massive price tag, the technology was welcomed with open arms almost instantly. 3D doesn't have that, and you know why? It doesn't improve the viewing experience for most people...it's just a gimmick.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

3D doesn't have that, and you know why? It doesn't improve the viewing experience for most people...it's just a gimmick.

Bingo. As soon as I see a compelling demonstration that is something that enhances my viewing experience instead of being simply different, but ultimately inferior, I'll be on board. And maybe that demonstration exists - I haven't seen good sports 3D broadcasts on a good 3D TV. But even the best of the 3D movies I've seen (like Avatar) are interesting, but not superior to a 2D experience.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

When a 52 inch 3D set is $750 and you need a new set will you seek out a 2D set?

I ask that because there is essentially no difference in price between a 2D and 3D set of equal quality and because the 3D set will display 2D as well as a 2D set. It is those facts that will eventually see the demise of the 2D set.

Nah...3d will be to the home TV industry what DLP, mini projectors and close range rear projection was, a nice side note on the path towards where we are going.

3d may be great tech, but like Beta and Plasma it will lose out to inferior designs based on market demand.

Now give me a 3d set that doesnt require glasses, carries as much visual definition as a current mid grade HD set, and is from a recognized name brand I can sell it at near any price point.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I haven't seen good sports 3D broadcasts on a good 3D TV. But even the best of the 3D movies I've seen (like Avatar) are interesting, but not superior to a 2D experience.

You should save your judgement until you have seen a good sports broadcast. I think you'll be impressed when you do. Sports are a natural for 3D. They don't require much from the director to bring out the best pictures. The sport itself does that.

Your point about Avatar is fine. Hollywood are determined, it seems, to create a correlation between 3D and crap films. Instead of letting the 3D speak for itself they insist on what they see as an impressive display of 3D but is really only flashy. They push the idea too hard. I'm still waiting for them to put out a movie in 3D that is worth watching in its own right.

But wait until you see an NFL game in quality 3D. Where the separation of players allows you to see perfectly the gaps the running backs pick out as they penetrate the defense (which are just an overlap of images in 2D) and the exact spacial relationship between players. Currently we get a better understanding of a play from multiple angle shots. In 3D you get much of that immediately because of the better spacial definition and separation of objects. I've seen rugby - similar in style to the NFL - and it is a very impressive show.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Your point about Avatar is fine. Hollywood are determined, it seems, to create a correlation between 3D and crap films. Instead of letting the 3D speak for itself they insist on what they see as an impressive display of 3D but is really only flashy. They push the idea too hard. I'm still waiting for them to put out a movie in 3D that is worth watching in its own right.

Check out animation, its had some of the best examples of 3d ive seen. Obviously Pixars stuff is fantastic but Dreamworks pulled it off in "How to train your dragon" as well. Good 3d along with a very good movie. Also, if you ever find it showing and youre even kind of a fan, see "Nightmare before Christmas" in 3d. They did a great job adding the 3d in years later and i personally loved it.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Nah...3d will be to the home TV industry what DLP, mini projectors and close range rear projection was, a nice side note on the path towards where we are going.

I wouldn't be surprised if 3D doesn't already outsell all three of those technologies.

3d may be great tech, but like Beta and Plasma it will lose out to superior designs based on market demand.

What is the superior technology you have in mind? Anything I can currently see is equally applicable to 3D as to 2D.

Now give me a 3d set that doesnt require glasses, carries as much visual definition as a current mid grade HD set, and is from a recognized name brand I can sell it at near any price point.

Two and three of those already exist and the fourth isn't that far away. The first remains to be seen but, as someone who wears glasses to watch TV anyway, I assure you it's not a big deal once you get used to it

look at it this way:

1) 3D is only marginally more expensive than 2D quality for quality

2) 3D at its worst (switched to 2D) is as good as 2D at its best.

Even if you doubt the qualities of 3D why would you buy a 2D set?

And I think that's the way manufacturers will go. Once the 3D price is alongside the 2D there's little point in continuing to produce 2D sets.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Check out animation, its had some of the best examples of 3d ive seen. Obviously Pixars stuff is fantastic but Dreamworks pulled it off in "How to train your dragon" as well. Good 3d along with a very good movie. Also, if you ever find it showing and youre even kind of a fan, see "Nightmare before Christmas" in 3d. They did a great job adding the 3d in years later and i personally loved it.

Ok, chadritt, will do. I'm not into animations and I think that's true of many who currently are not convinced of 3D's advantages. The argument I referred to above about "plot is more important than visuals" illustrates that some tend to associate 3D with crap films. That's one of the problems and I wish someone at the main studios would realise that and start producing movies that are worhwhile in themselves.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Even if you doubt the qualities of 3D why would you buy a 2D set?

And I think that's the way manufacturers will go. Once the 3D price is alongside the 2D there's little point in continuing to produce 2D sets.

This.

Look at audio receivers today. Try and find a 2 channel receiver. Even the cheapest ones have 5.1, even if you only want to connect two speakers. The funny thing is, to get a simple 2 channel amp, you have to go way up in price range.

The manufacturers will simply stop making separate 2D and 3D models once the component cost difference to add 3D becomes lower than the cost of tracking and marketing the two versions simultaneously.

[Pyser]

remember that u2 3d movie a few years ago?

well, as i remember the story, probably wrongly, art modell's kids company were involved, or a company came to them (or some nfl owner, if not modell), and they wanted to do live nfl 3d games. the nfl said "prove the technology is there", so they had to figure out an event to shoot.

and that's how the u2 movie happened.

and thats why 3d nfl happe-- er...will...happen...probably.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by cartman

The manufacturers will simply stop making separate 2D and 3D models once the component cost difference to add 3D becomes lower than the cost of tracking and marketing the two versions simultaneously.

Yep...they are already doing this. Nearly all of the newer (or coming soon) 50"+ models wont even have the option as they've realized 3d wont sell on its own. So they've collaborated to begin putting in the 3d chipsets so as to get the pricepoint difference to a negligible level.

Good analogy with 5.1 as well. Plenty of people who still dont use 5.1 channels...but its very uncommon to find receivers that dont support it.

[SteveMax58]

As to the glasses free model. I'm not sure that's going to be ready any time real soon (i.e. less than a year or so). There are demos and people making TVs that if you sit just right it might look right and might not make you puke...but it needs to get better for mass appeal. Especially with large displays.

But certainly standardizing on the glasses signaling and allowing for interop between glasses & TVs will go a long way to making 3d an easier sell (or a premium worth paying for).

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Yep...they are already doing this. Nearly all of the newer (or coming soon) 50"+ models wont even have the option as they've realized 3d wont sell on its own. So they've collaborated to begin putting in the 3d chipsets so as to get the pricepoint difference to a negligible level.

Good analogy with 5.1 as well. Plenty of people who still dont use 5.1 channels...but its very uncommon to find receivers that dont support it.

I hadn't thought of that even though I have a 5-1 system cionnected up as 3-1. Even though, as an ex-electronics engineer and enthusiastic progressive, I often promote new technologies, I was never convinced of surround sound. Far too many people simply don't have a suitable room setup to take advantage. If I really want to listen to the sound then I use headphones.

Haven't there already been 3D NFL transmissions? Anyone seen one? Any views on this?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I hadn't thought of that even though I have a 5-1 system cionnected up as 3-1. Even though, as an ex-electronics engineer and enthusiastic progressive, I often promote new technologies, I was never convinced of surround sound. Far too many people simply don't have a suitable room setup to take advantage. If I really want to listen to the sound then I use headphones.

Haven't there already been 3D NFL transmissions? Anyone seen one? Any views on this?

I have the same setup...3.1 because I simply don't have the desire to bother with the additional 2 channels for (IMO) little added value.

Verizon did a 3D NFL game. I believe that's the only one to date. So far, there have been 3D NASCAR, golf, baseball, hockey, and I believe soccer as special sports events (not counting ESPN 3D...which I have not had a chance to see yet). I didn't see the Verizon NFL game but I have seen football, soccer, and other types of content like a live band in 3D. It's all half resolution stuff but its really cool. Something I would probably do once in a while as is...and when/if they start to really "get it right", I could see it being a weekly type of thing.

[Sun Tzu]

I just don't understand how major manufacturers could mass produce something that will give millions of their customers headaches/nausea and not even give them the option of buying something else. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

It's obvious that there are a couple 3D homers in this thread, and frankly, I think you're overplaying how much people actually enjoy the technology. I would be very, very surprised if 3D has outsold DLP, especially considering that DLP was still available very recently. Again, 3D, at least in it's current form, is nowhere near being a revolution in the viewing experience. The two major problems are...a relatively high percentage of people just flat out can't watch 3D...and again, it just plain doesn't improve your viewing experience.

The problem in this thread is, some people are trying to force the idea that 3D is the next big thing, like HD, or flat-panels, and it just simply isn't. It's a gimmick at best. It's no different than a TV with built in internet access. It doesn't really improve your experience. Maybe it's cool, maybe some people will use it, but charging extra for it is ridiculous, and claiming it's this revolution in entertainment is inconceivable. The idea that someone else would tell you that 3D makes for a better viewing experience, when you've tried it and you know it doesn't, just makes no sense to me. If you like it, great! Go spend your hard earned cash on it, but don't force it down everyones throat.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

I just don't understand how major manufacturers could mass produce something that will give millions of their customers headaches/nausea and not even give them the option of buying something else. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

You seem to miss the point that just because the TV supports 3D, doesn't mean you have to watch the content in 3D.

As for the option to buy part, it is simple economics, as I mentioned in an earlier post. If it isn't cost-effective for them to support a lineup of both 2D and 3D models, they are only going to sell the 3D models.

It very well might be a gimmick, but the same could be said of a 7.1 surround sound setup. Just about every receiver today supports it, but I'd be surprised if more than 15% of setups utilized it.

[Sun Tzu]

Alright, if the cost becomes the same...literally the same, and there is zero jump in overall price, I don't see a problem with it. I'll just look at the 3D channels like the latino channels, funny for a couple minutes, but in the end it's just not for me.

[stevew]

I guess 3d is just part of the product cycle to inflate prices.

It was-
720p
1080p
120hz
240 hz/LED backlight
3d.

I'm guessing 4x will be the next tech so that he most expensive models sell near 4000 dollars.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by stevew

I guess 3d is just part of the product cycle to inflate prices.

It was-
720p
1080p
120hz
240 hz/LED backlight
3d.

I'm guessing 4x will be the next tech so that he most expensive models sell near 4000 dollars.

But the above list also represents an evolution is visual quality. The acceptance of HD has given us a taste for quality visuals in home entertainment. Some of the above changes produce a marginal improvement in what is seen but people still go for them. 3D, whether you like it or not, is clearly a greater change though I would still argue an evolutionary one - improvement in the quality of the 3d illusion.

But there is no difference between the tv manufacturers and PC manufacturers who constantly upgrade the specs of PCs and sell these, at first, for higher prices. Hey, these guys are there to make profits!

But you also have the characteristic that, at any price point, the quality of the device improves with time.

That's why the price of 3D will quickly come down to that of 2D sets. Currently good 3D needs a large screen size, high resolution and fast refresh. That pushes the TV up into the higher brackets. That's the cause of the higher prices of 3D not the additional circuitry needed.

But as the lower price points see better machines then the "good 3D" will come into those price points. As a 3D set displays 2D as well as the equivalently priced 2D set then even those who dislke 3D will buy the 3D set - as Sun Tzu, clearly no fan of 3D, inidicates.

In that case there is no need for manufacturers to continue making 2D sets.

Sun Tzu: I sympathise with your headaches from 3D but I think there are less people who suffer them than you suppose. They just happen to be noisier than the rest. And while it is a perfectly good reason for those to oppose 3D it isn't necessarily a good reason for the technology itself to be rejected. You can always switch to 2D and you're no worse off than if you'd bought a 2D set in the first place.

Your headache response also may be only temporary. Your brain is being asked to do something it hasn't done before in producing the 3D illusion. That can cause confusion. Many people when first using reading glasses suffer nausea and headaches when they use their glasses for any length of time. Same reason: the brain is being fed information in a way it hasn't experienced before. But it gets used to it and the nausea and headaches go away. I recall my first visit to an Omni theatre - with the complete surround screen - and I was very disoriented for about half and hour but eventually that went. Kids usually get over travel sickness (I was bad as a kid but can drive all day now). The brain adjusts.

You may find the nausea/headaches only temporary.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Far too many people simply don't have a suitable room setup to take advantage. If I really want to listen to the sound then I use headphones.

Factually inaccurate. True surround can be set up in a bathroom. Or a coat closet. It takes skill, speaker aiming and electronic balancing but I have NEVER found a room design I couldnt deliver true 5.1 in (7.1 either for that matter, though there is less demand and I ahve looked at a few and said, "glad they didn't ask "

Originally Posted by stevew

I guess 3d is just part of the product cycle to inflate prices.

It was-
720p
1080p
120hz
240 hz/LED backlight
3d.

I'm guessing 4x will be the next tech so that he most expensive models sell near 4000 dollars.

*nods head*

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But the above list also represents an evolution is visual quality. The acceptance of HD has given us a taste for quality visuals in home entertainment. Some of the above changes produce a marginal improvement in what is seen but people still go for them. 3D, whether you like it or not, is clearly a greater change though I would still argue an evolutionary one - improvement in the quality of the 3d illusion.

Not necessarily. there are manufacturers out there pushing sub 24" 1080p sets. You have to shove the thing up you ass and look at it behind your retina to see the difference at that size. hell even at a 32" 1080p is negligible beyond 18" from the screen.

3D does not enhance all programs, it doesnt provide spacial definition, it CREATES the illusion of spatial definition

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But there is no difference between the tv manufacturers and PC manufacturers who constantly upgrade the specs of PCs and sell these, at first, for higher prices. Hey, these guys are there to make profits!

But you also have the characteristic that, at any price point, the quality of the device improves with time.

Minor deviation but for the first few years of Plasma and LCD tech you were actually taking a step back in visual quality in exchange for wide screen. Now today, sure no contest. But I've never seen PC manufacturers take a step backwards along the route.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

That's why the price of 3D will quickly come down to that of 2D sets. Currently good 3D needs a large screen size, high resolution and fast refresh. That pushes the TV up into the higher brackets. That's the cause of the higher prices of 3D not the additional circuitry needed.

But as the lower price points see better machines then the "good 3D" will come into those price points. As a 3D set displays 2D as well as the equivalently priced 2D set then even those who dislke 3D will buy the 3D set - as Sun Tzu, clearly no fan of 3D, inidicates.

In that case there is no need for manufacturers to continue making 2D sets.

I agree, to a point. If the demand isn't there and the programming isnt made to support it, the manufacturers WILL dump 3d quickly because THERE IS A CHIP SET price difference. And a significant one. The truth is manufacturers are subsidizing the 3d chip set today to push the technology out.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Sun Tzu: I sympathise with your headaches from 3D but I think there are less people who suffer them than you suppose. They just happen to be noisier than the rest. And while it is a perfectly good reason for those to oppose 3D it isn't necessarily a good reason for the technology itself to be rejected. You can always switch to 2D and you're no worse off than if you'd bought a 2D set in the first place.

Well other than the increased circuit bord hat and the up/down/up conversion that actually creates a lag and darn near destroys on-line gaming in current chip technology of 3d sets.


To me the ultimate chasm to over come will be the glasses. Beyond getting used to it, most studies Ive seen suggest that somewhere around 90% of TV viewing is casual viewing. IE viewing while doing something else, be it browsing the web on a laptop, doing house work, playing a game with the kids etc. Those things are made significantly more difficult by wearing some head wear around to see an effect. In fact I would wager it has been 4+ years since I have sat down and watched a single TV program without doing something else concurrently. Glasses, none for me Thanks.

But then again the visual definition isn't there yet either, and Im not sure when it will be.

I think the next great TV evolution (and I use that phrase loosely) is a technology I am demoing in our theater display at the office that integrates social networking, web cam, and TV technology. Basically you watch a TV program with your friends with each of you in your own house. You can PIP the web cam feed or ignore it all together. But do you not think we could get an FOFC Sunday NFL viewing party with 10-15 folks watching the same game and commenting on it to each other from a 1000 miles away.

[Arles]

I wasn't planning on getting my 3D set. But, Best Buy had a deal where I got the top of the line Panasonic Plasma 55-inch 3D available set, 3D Blu Ray player, all 4 shrek movies in 3D, 2 pair of glasses, wireless adapter and 36 month financing for about $100-$200 more ($2400) than the similar in quality 2D TV I was considering. It would have been silly not to get it. I still watch 90% of the shows on the TV in 2D, but for some sports and movies it's nice to have the 3D option.

I look at this in a similar vain as Blu Ray. When Blu Ray came out, a lot people thought the quality difference was minimal and few people would pay the premium for Blu Ray movies. Just from 2009 to 2010, Blu Ray sales increased 68% and nearly doubled their percentage of packaged media sales (7 to 13% in one year). As with any high-end entertainment, there is a waiting period for price point. But, once that price difference becomes minimal, 3D TVs will become the norm (even if most people don't use the 3D a great deal).

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

3D does not enhance all programs, it doesnt provide spacial definition, it CREATES the illusion of spatial definition

With 3D material it RE-creates the spacial definition.

2D material, such as films and tv drama etc, almost always depict three dimensional scenes. Information about the third dimension is in the size of objects which the brain uses, along with its experience of the normal size of these objects, to creat a modest illusion of 3D. To a certain extent this size information can be used to generate additional stereoscopic information which will EMPHASISE (not create) the spacial separation.

The quality will clearly be variable depending on the 2D material. But, if unsatisfactory then you can always switch to 2D and get the same picture as you would with a 2D set.

That's why I say the worst from the 3D (2D) is as good as the best for 2D.

I agree, to a point. If the demand isn't there and the programming isnt made to support it, the manufacturers WILL dump 3d quickly because THERE IS A CHIP SET price difference. And a significant one. The truth is manufacturers are subsidizing the 3d chip set today to push the technology out.

The chipset I understand is an insignificant additonal cost now that the designs are done. There's very little to them - simply switching between the two signals - and my understanding is there's very little saved by omitting them. But, if it simply doesn't take off, then clearly they'll be dropped no matter how little.

It's a long time now since I worked as an electronics engineer with a Californian company producing custom ICs but I recall that, while they can expensive to design, they're "cheap as chips" (sorry about that) once they're done and to include in the final product particularly when that's priced in the upper hundreds of dollars..

But an enormous amount of effort is being put into 3D and these guys are not idiots. It's not just one company pushing their own technology for a competitive advantage, it's the entire industry pushing this. There's an awful lof of commercial commitment going in to this and a lot of money lost if it fails.

To me the ultimate chasm to over come will be the glasses. Beyond getting used to it, most studies Ive seen suggest that somewhere around 90% of TV viewing is casual viewing. IE viewing while doing something else, be it browsing the web on a laptop, doing house work, playing a game with the kids etc. Those things are made significantly more difficult by wearing some head wear around to see an effect.

I would agree with that entirely though, as someone that wears special glasses for TV, I can assure you it's not as bad as you make out.

In fact I would wager it has been 4+ years since I have sat down and watched a single TV program without doing something else concurrently.

That's not necessarily how everyone else sees TV. I have two distinct TV watching modes - the one you refer to for casual viewing but then I will watch films, TV drama and some sport etc with much greater concentration on the TV itself. Isn't that what we mean by "Home cinema"?

The takeup of HD tv came before there was much in the way broadcast HD. People bought them to watch film via dvds etc and this in itself was sufficient to encourage sales. At this moment, as there is little in the way of broadcast 3D (though apparently not as little over here as you guys seem to get) then 3D is watched in the same way. And, if you're sitting down to watch a film then it really is no big deal to pick up the glasses from the coffee table and slip them on.

But then again the visual definition isn't there yet either, and Im not sure when it will be.

I think we'll eventually go higher than 1080p for the best 3D. But what I've seen from 1080p the definition is acceptable. The aesthetic appeal of the 3D picture is well beyond that of the best 2D.

I suspect that is why the manufacturers, who presumably have seen it at its best also, believe that, even if everyone is not seeing that right now, if the best can be reproduced then the resistance will be overcome.

The problem currently is that most of the content itself leaves a lot to be desired.

I think the next great TV evolution (and I use that phrase loosely) is a technology I am demoing in our theater display at the office that integrates social networking, web cam, and TV technology.

Possibly - I think we've been expecting this longer than we have 3D TV (as distinct from film). But I don't think one precludes the other.

Basically you watch a TV program with your friends with each of you in your own house. You can PIP the web cam feed or ignore it all together. But do you not think we could get an FOFC Sunday NFL viewing party with 10-15 folks watching the same game and commenting on it to each other from a 1000 miles away.

Sounds good. Another technology I'm guilty of pushing is the 100 Mbs national fibre network being built by the Australian government (but again opposed by conservatives). I'm a great believer in the value of two-way HD video via a (genuinely) high speed internet (100 Mbs - 1 Gbs). The services this will bring, along with ideas such as the one you describe, stretch the imagination.

Now integrate all this with very large screen HD 3D video and, well, there's no need to leave the house

The one doubt that I have about the current state of 3D TV is the possibility of a glasses-free system. While this would be a major step forward I suspect it would also mean a step up in the cost of the TV set. I don't know the technologies that can do this but I suspect, unlike the current glasses system, the set will need a different screen of some kind. If that happens it could delay things. But I don't believe it will stop them.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The one doubt that I have about the current state of 3D TV is the possibility of a glasses-free system. While this would be a major step forward I suspect it would also mean a step up in the cost of the TV set. I don't know the technologies that can do this but I suspect, unlike the current glasses system, the set will need a different screen of some kind. If that happens it could delay things. But I don't believe it will stop them.

Yeah, you are absolutely correct on the screen for a glasses free display. There are 2 that I am aware of that have been demoed and neither really has seemed to solve the problem, for every situation, at a reasonable cost.

The 1st I'm aware of is the parallax barrier approach. This is sort of similar to the old screens used in the big rear projection HDTVs but they use "slits" in the screen to show 1 polarity over the other. My understanding is that this cannot be done in a <2" LCD/Plasma type of HDTV and likely ends up looking like a DLP or older rear projection HDTV in practice.

The 2nd is called a lenticular film screen. This is typically a very thin film which sits either just behind or just in front (I believe in front) of the actual pixel array. This film provides a convex shape per pixel which can have multiple "sides" to them in order to display 1 polarity of the 3D video stream. The problem with the current implementations is that this creates "sweet spots" that you have to sit in...and they aren't terribly wide unless you are looking at a massive display(like 70+ inches I believe). A massive display naturally costs more and also ends up not looking as good as the mid-size display (40-60) depending on the content, transmission quality, etc. Plus...not everybody has the room for such a display so how do you even get the price down? It would seem this might be the better approach and as MVC becomes more common in the production and distribution chain (at least in the US) the costs may also go down to add more "sides" to the screens.

There are probably a couple of other approaches that I have not heard about yet so maybe something better comes along. I do think a glasses free approach is needed for the social networking & 3d teleconferencing to be more compelling to people (as well as the cost). For home theater...I think they'll just need better content (or more good content anyway).

[SteveMax58]

Here's an article that explains the glasses free 3d technologies a little.

http://www.twice.com/blog/Executive_...Years_Away.php

[Ksyrup]

'Love affair' with TVs ends

By SEAN DALY
Last Updated: 12:09 PM, September 6, 2011
Posted: 11:54 PM, September 5, 2011

The next big thing in TV -- 3-D -- is proving such a bomb with consumers, the first victim may be ESPN's sports-in-3-D channel.

"At one point last year they were actually openly questioning whether they were going to go ahead into year two," tech analyst Phillip Swann told The Post.

The problem is plain, he says. Most of the advertisers on ESPN 3D are the set manufacturers themselves.

And of sales of 3-D TVs show no signs they are going to pick up anytime soon.

"If those guys start to get cold feet, then I suspect ESPN 3D will bow out," he says.

The sports channel insists that ESPN 3-D -- which launched in June 2010 -- is in it for the long haul.

"New television technologies have always taken time to be nurtured and grow, and this is no exception," a network rep tells The Post. "We're where we thought we would be 14 months in, if not farther along."

But there is little enthusiasm for the new technology, even from sports people. "3-D on TV is a bust," says Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and head of HDNet.

"On the Mavs run to an NBA championship, despite me always throwing stuff at the 3-D cameras and having fun with them, not a single person mentioned the 3-D broadcast to me."

Swann believes 3-D has scared and confused consumers -- and is now tanking the entire retail television marketplace.

In a recent survey of 45,000 households, Riddhi Patel of research firm IHS iSuppli found that America's "ongoing love affair with television" -- new and improved sets, that is -- may be over.

Her research found that only 13 percent of those surveyed planned on purchasing a new set in the next 12 months.

Patel says potential TV buyers are most interested in price, picture quality and Internet connectability -- not 3-D.

"The idiot TV makers spent an enormous amount of time and money trying to get people to buy a television they didn't want in the first place," Swann wrote last week on TVPredictions.com, his influential tech site.

"Instead of being told that the new sets would deliver the best pictures they ever saw, they were told they would have to buy a set of 3-D goggles and watch programming that might make them sick!"

Sagging 3D sales are already weighing on profits at Best Buy and other large chain stores, Swann notes.

"The industry knows what's going on," he says. "They just don't want to acknowledge that defeat yet. They have a lot at stake personally, professionally and with shareholders."

I don't know how anyone didn't see this coming, right?

[Logan]

I'm going to be in the market for a new TV in a couple months, just due to necessity (have a 42" plasma in my apt, going to be moving into a 1BR where that will either go in the BR or be used in the living room), so I'll be adding one. But beyond that purchase, I can't imagine when I'd be interested in another. Of course thinner is great, but when what you have is an enormous 3 inches thick, it's hard to see the improvement.

Personally, I go back and forth with whether or not the LED technology is worth it to me. The soap opera, "too real" effect hasn't been kicked by me yet, although admittedly my watching on those sets has been too rare to get accustomed to it. I can imagine my girlfriend going nuts when I throw one of those suckers in our living room.

But 3D? No chance in hell.