High Definition TV Owners Ready For 3-D TV

Lee Stewart · 11-21-2008, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjufon

and the colors look like Sh!t in 3D

You talking about the Cyan/Red 3D that is being released on DVD/BD?

Cause the colors are not affected with the DC 3D system - full spectrum.

DonnyDC · 11-21-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dare

3D never even took off for gamers. LCD Shutterglasses have been available for home use for about a decade and a half now, and they are deader than squat. Nobody uses them. The pioneers were not turned on.

Of course, it doesn't help that shutterglasses don't work on most LCD monitors, but you can get anaglyph drivers for every 3D card, and nobody has been beating down that door either.

Stereo photography has been around for almost 170 years, and 3D cinema for almost 120 years. When is that dead horse going to get up?

I think 3D will become mainstream in less than 10 years. Manufacturers always need something to put in tvs. Once everyone has their 1080p, their 120hz, their 30000:1 contrast ratio whats left for consumers to buy into? SHD? another resolution wont be enough imo.

**PFC5** · 11-21-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonnyDC

I think 3D will become mainstream in less than 10 years. Manufacturers always need something to put in tvs. Once everyone has their 1080p, their 120hz, their 30000:1 contrast ratio whats left for consumers to buy into? SHD? another resolution wont be enough imo.

I agree. 3D IS going to be the next big thing in home video in the yers to come and i am looking forward to it myself.

jjufon · 11-21-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

You talking about the Cyan/Red 3D that is being released on DVD/BD?

Cause the colors are not affected with the DC 3D system - full spectrum.

Yes i am.
Gottcha!

Lee Stewart · 11-23-2008, 07:00 PM

Another HDMI Version Headed Our Way With the Advent of 3DTV

Quote:

Home Theater News Video Processors-Switchers News
Written by AVRev.com
Friday, 21 November 2008

HDMI inventors are readying for another HDMI version. HDMI has yet to be perfected in its current state and now another version is already ready to go. Currently, HDMI has many HDCP handshake issues between components and displays.

It is becoming increasingly common to hear of 3D television and movie presentations. Several Blu-rays have been released in 3-D. However, manufacturers are aiming to create 3DTV. This technology would create stereoscopic signals from video components.

HDMI version 1.3 is currently capable of a 10 Gbits/s bandwidth. This is plenty of bandwidth to transmit 1080p video at 60 Hz and audio. It would also be able to handle left and right eye versions of 1080p video at 60 Hz. However, manufacturers want to institute 1080p at 120 Hz. HDMI version 1.3 will not be enough at this point.

While this technology is a ways off, it stinks to think about getting a new HDTV (or 3DTV), receiver, etc. to incorporate yet another HDMI standard. I think we would all like to see a technology work perfectly and efficiently before moving on to another technology. The inability to perfect one doesn't allow for much faith in the next.

http://www.avrev.com/home-theater-ne...t-of-3dtv.html

BobY · 11-24-2008, 11:13 PM

They don't have to look bad. If a polarized system is used (for theaters--LCD shutter glasses will be used for the home), with enough light and a high enough frame rate, it should look fine.

I don't doubt that most films will end up being shot in 3D, as it won't really add much cost by then to shoot in 3D.

There will likely be many 3D theaters as well, as it's an opportunity to provide a unique experience in theaters that won't be available in the vast majority of homes.

But I still find it unlikely that consumers will bite. I have watched some of what was regarded as the best 3D around, including "Captain EO", "Space Station" in IMAX, and numerous high-end tourist attractions in the US and Canada and I still don't find it very compelling--it's not like real, immersive 3D, it's like a bunch of flat objects floating at different depths--kind of the effect I get with binoculars. Then you have the problem of what happens when something goes off the edge of the screen and the 3D effect collapses.

I have never seen a 3D presentation where say, someone pointing their arm or a spear directly out into the audience actually looked like their arm or the spear was a three-dimensional object coming at me. Instead it looked like a weird, flattened thing floating in the air in front of me.

Now, I wear eyeglasses, but so do a lot of Americans (around 120 Million in 2002 according to industry statistics), so if wearing glasses is the problem, it's going to be a widespread problem. IMHO, it's a limitation of the technique and eyeglasses just add an additional discomfort issue.

We're going to check out "Bolt" in Digital 3D, which is supposed to represent the state-of-the-art, so we'll see. I have to say, though, I can't think of many films I'd want to see in 3D--the discomfort of wearing glasses over my glasses and the (what I expect will be) unnatural quality of the depth presented will likely be distracting to me and ruin the enjoyment of the film.

DonnyDC · 11-24-2008, 11:36 PM

I think for most live action movies 3D would be good in small doses. Most of the time it'll be normal but maybe once in awhile something like debris would come flying at you after an explosion, or when they do that weird camera effect where the foreground is really blurry etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobY

I have never seen a 3D presentation where say, someone pointing their arm or a spear directly out into the audience actually looked like their arm or the spear was a three-dimensional object coming at me. Instead it looked like a weird, flattened thing floating in the air in front of me.

This is a huge problem for live action, but I dont believe its the case with CG movies. I dont think Beowulf looked flat but its been awhile since I saw it.
Maybe it has to do with the 3D process? in order to create really 3D image they may need to recreate live action movies in wireframe before incorporating 3D.

Bravestime · 11-25-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Panasonic Proposes Blu-ray Disc Standard for 3D Imagery

Panasonic Corp of Japan has disclosed the submission of a proposal to the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA), for a Blu-ray Disc standard to store three-dimensional (3D) imagery formed of left-/right-eye two-channel full-High Definition (HD) images (1,920 x 1,080 pixels). It is also considering submitting a proposal for a High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) standard capable of transmitting 3D imagery. The BDA hopes to begin formal discussion on the standard proposal before the end of 2008, with commercial adoption probably in 2010.

There are two reasons why Panasonic moved to propose a standard ahead of other firms: to avoid the same sort of futile standards war that occurred with next-gen Digital Videodiscs (DVD), and to prevent patent conflict related to 3D imagery standards.

US film companies are beefing up their film production stances, preparing to handle the 3D images they hope will provide massive revenues; at the same time they are developing packaged 3D media for the home to create a new revenue stream. This trend has stirred up considerable activity in the background, with many companies scurrying to have their own proprietary 3D imagery standards adopted by the BDA. According to Masayuki Kozuka, general manager in charge of Storage Device Strategy, AVC Networks Company of Panasonic, “Standards wars, patent monopolies and the like would seriously interfere with the widespread adoption of any 3D image standard. We developed a standard based on existing technology, specifically designed for easy acceptance.”

Complete Article: http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article...081030/160508/

**PFC5** · 11-25-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobY

They don't have to look bad. If a polarized system is used (for theaters--LCD shutter glasses will be used for the home), with enough light and a high enough frame rate, it should look fine.

I don't doubt that most films will end up being shot in 3D, as it won't really add much cost by then to shoot in 3D.

There will likely be many 3D theaters as well, as it's an opportunity to provide a unique experience in theaters that won't be available in the vast majority of homes.

But I still find it unlikely that consumers will bite. I have watched some of what was regarded as the best 3D around, including "Captain EO", "Space Station" in IMAX, and numerous high-end tourist attractions in the US and Canada and I still don't find it very compelling--it's not like real, immersive 3D, it's like a bunch of flat objects floating at different depths--kind of the effect I get with binoculars. Then you have the problem of what happens when something goes off the edge of the screen and the 3D effect collapses.

I have never seen a 3D presentation where say, someone pointing their arm or a spear directly out into the audience actually looked like their arm or the spear was a three-dimensional object coming at me. Instead it looked like a weird, flattened thing floating in the air in front of me.

Now, I wear eyeglasses, but so do a lot of Americans (around 120 Million in 2002 according to industry statistics), so if wearing glasses is the problem, it's going to be a widespread problem. IMHO, it's a limitation of the technique and eyeglasses just add an additional discomfort issue.

We're going to check out "Bolt" in Digital 3D, which is supposed to represent the state-of-the-art, so we'll see. I have to say, though, I can't think of many films I'd want to see in 3D--the discomfort of wearing glasses over my glasses and the (what I expect will be) unnatural quality of the depth presented will likely be distracting to me and ruin the enjoyment of the film.

Have you ever seen the Terminator show at Universal Studios in Florida BobY?

It has been a while but I remember it looking pretty darn realistic and that made me thing we would have 3D more prevalent in the home by now or at least in the theaters.

Bravestime · 11-25-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFC5

Have you ever seen the Terminator show at Universal Studios in Florida BobY?

It has been a while but I remember it looking pretty darn realistic and that made me thing we would have 3D more prevalent in the home by now or at least in the theaters.

I saw that. It was a number of years back, but I found it very enjoyable.

Lee Stewart · 11-25-2008, 03:31 PM

You want to see outstanding 3D and real life to boot . . .

Go see the U2 Concert at your local IMAX theater.

Bravestime · 11-25-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

You want to see outstanding 3D and real life to boot . . .

Go see the U2 Concert at your local IMAX theater.

Just to follow-up, here is a IMAX Theater locator for anyone interested:

http://www.imax.com/ImaxWeb/theatres...TheatresSelect

**PFC5** · 11-25-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart

You want to see outstanding 3D and real life to boot . . .

Go see the U2 Concert at your local IMAX theater.

Is it better than that Terminator show at U studios in Florida? I assume that you have seen it living in FL.

Lee Stewart · 11-25-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFC5

Is it better than that Terminator show at U studios in Florida? I assume that you have seen it living in FL.

Well - one is a show - that mixes real life with 3D cinema (Terminator) while the other (U2) is a 3D cinema presentation shot with twin IMAX cameras in the IMAX 3D format.

Once you see it, you will wonder why they need special effects at all - the 3D is that good.

And of course - if you enjoy the music of U2 - it makes it that much better. I am not a real fan of U2 - but I really enjoyed the presentation. Jaw dropping to say the least.

Of course the 6 channel IMAX audio system helps also.

soupnazi · 11-25-2008, 07:09 PM

I am blind in one eye. The different colored lenses don't work for me.
My options are watch it in red, watch it in green or watch it blurry

What about this newer technology I heard of that does not require the glasses to view? What is the principle behind this tech?
My depth perception is more limited but I still have some depth perception.

11-24-2008, 11:13 PM	#51
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	They don't have to look bad. If a polarized system is used (for theaters--LCD shutter glasses will be used for the home), with enough light and a high enough frame rate, it should look fine. I don't doubt that most films will end up being shot in 3D, as it won't really add much cost by then to shoot in 3D. There will likely be many 3D theaters as well, as it's an opportunity to provide a unique experience in theaters that won't be available in the vast majority of homes. But I still find it unlikely that consumers will bite. I have watched some of what was regarded as the best 3D around, including "Captain EO", "Space Station" in IMAX, and numerous high-end tourist attractions in the US and Canada and I still don't find it very compelling--it's not like real, immersive 3D, it's like a bunch of flat objects floating at different depths--kind of the effect I get with binoculars. Then you have the problem of what happens when something goes off the edge of the screen and the 3D effect collapses. I have never seen a 3D presentation where say, someone pointing their arm or a spear directly out into the audience actually looked like their arm or the spear was a three-dimensional object coming at me. Instead it looked like a weird, flattened thing floating in the air in front of me. Now, I wear eyeglasses, but so do a lot of Americans (around 120 Million in 2002 according to industry statistics), so if wearing glasses is the problem, it's going to be a widespread problem. IMHO, it's a limitation of the technique and eyeglasses just add an additional discomfort issue. We're going to check out "Bolt" in Digital 3D, which is supposed to represent the state-of-the-art, so we'll see. I have to say, though, I can't think of many films I'd want to see in 3D--the discomfort of wearing glasses over my glasses and the (what I expect will be) unnatural quality of the depth presented will likely be distracting to me and ruin the enjoyment of the film. Last edited by BobY; 11-25-2008 at 12:18 AM.

Similar Threads to High Definition TV Owners Ready For 3-D TV
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why are there so few high definition channels available?	KAH9158	The High Definition Lounge	10	03-23-2005 08:39 PM
High definition video questions	gasm	The High Definition Lounge	1	03-08-2005 12:47 AM
When will most programming be available in High Definition?	KAH9158	The High Definition Lounge	0	03-07-2005 09:50 AM
Disappointed With High Definition	rss	DISH Network Forum	20	02-15-2005 11:19 PM
Ultra High Definition Video	sonicularulus	High Definition Movies & Video Clips	5	02-01-2005 07:33 PM

11-25-2008, 03:31 PM	#56
Lee Stewart Behold - the future! Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Albuquerque, NM Age: 58 Posts: 25,188	You want to see outstanding 3D and real life to boot . . . Go see the U2 Concert at your local IMAX theater.

11-25-2008, 07:09 PM	#60
soupnazi mmmmm High Def Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 691	I am blind in one eye. The different colored lenses don't work for me. My options are watch it in red, watch it in green or watch it blurry What about this newer technology I heard of that does not require the glasses to view? What is the principle behind this tech? My depth perception is more limited but I still have some depth perception.