High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource (https://www.highdefforum.com/index.php)
-   High Definition News & Informative Articles (https://www.highdefforum.com/high-definition-news-informative-articles-12/)
-   -   3D vs 2D; The chicken or the egg? (https://www.highdefforum.com/high-definition-news-informative-articles/124215-3d-vs-2d-chicken-egg.html)

Rus 12-30-2010 12:00 AM

3D vs 2D; The chicken or the egg?
 
I believe, eventually, everything will be 3D but most folks won't invest in a new 3D HDTV without some assurance that most of the available programs will be in 3D.

My question: If we wait until a certain percentage of programming (70%) is in 3D before making the jump to a new 3D HDTV will we still be able to view the 3D programming on our 2D HDTVs?

:what:

DoctorCAD 12-30-2010 10:09 AM

I don't think that even 70% of programming is even HD yet. I wouldn't worry about 3D.

In my opinion, 3D is not a viable media yet, requiring an additional $250 pair of glasses (which most of the world hates or there wouldn't be a several billion dollar contact lens and Lasik industry) for every viewer is a total waste.

When 3D becomes mainstream, low-cost and not intrusive, it will take off. That could take years...

harls 12-30-2010 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rus (Post 1130788)
I believe, eventually, everything will be 3D but most folks won't invest in a new 3D HDTV without some assurance that most of the available programs will be in 3D.

My question: If we wait until a certain percentage of programming (70%) is in 3D before making the jump to a new 3D HDTV will we still be able to view the 3D programming on our 2D HDTVs?

:what:

If everything becomes 3D without the ability to view in 2D it will eliminate people who cannot see 3d from watching tv so they will not make it so. I cannot view 3D nor can many others.

unotis 12-30-2010 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoctorCAD (Post 1130876)
I don't think that even 70% of programming is even HD yet. I wouldn't worry about 3D.

In my opinion, 3D is not a viable media yet, requiring an additional $250 pair of glasses (which most of the world hates or there wouldn't be a several billion dollar contact lens and Lasik industry) for every viewer is a total waste.

When 3D becomes mainstream, low-cost and not intrusive, it will take off. That could take years...

Some of what you say I agree with, the 70% programing, but that will change dramatically with in the next 2 years.

Next year we will cost of the 3D HDTVs drop and the cost of the glasses will drop because of competition from other suppliers that will jump into the market. Very few of the world actually hate wearing the glasses some wish they didn't need them and the percentage of people that can't use them or view 3D without side effects is a relatively small percentage.

I think within 2 years it will be the dominant form of technology and account for anywhere from 40% to 50% of all HDTVs on the market.

unotis 12-31-2010 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unotis (Post 1131027)
Some of what you say I agree with, the 70% programing, but that will change dramatically with in the next 2 years.

Next year we will cost of the 3D HDTVs drop and the cost of the glasses will drop because of competition from other suppliers that will jump into the market. Very few of the world actually hate wearing the glasses some wish they didn't need them and the percentage of people that can't use them or view 3D without side effects is a relatively small percentage.

I think within 2 years it will be the dominant form of technology and account for anywhere from 40% to 50% of all HDTVs on the market.

I meant 3 years not 2 as bolded above. :rolleyes:

HD Goofnut 12-31-2010 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unotis (Post 1131027)
Some of what you say I agree with, the 70% programing, but that will change dramatically with in the next 2 years.

Next year we will cost of the 3D HDTVs drop and the cost of the glasses will drop because of competition from other suppliers that will jump into the market. Very few of the world actually hate wearing the glasses some wish they didn't need them and the percentage of people that can't use them or view 3D without side effects is a relatively small percentage.

I think within 2 years it will be the dominant form of technology and account for anywhere from 40% to 50% of all HDTVs on the market.

In this economy you are expecting way too much out of a technology that relies on glasses and animated titles.

Lee Stewart 01-01-2011 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoctorCAD (Post 1130876)
I don't think that even 70% of programming is even HD yet. I wouldn't worry about 3D.

In my opinion, 3D is not a viable media yet, requiring an additional $250 pair of glasses (which most of the world hates or there wouldn't be a several billion dollar contact lens and Lasik industry) for every viewer is a total waste.

When 3D becomes mainstream, low-cost and not intrusive, it will take off. That could take years...

You can now purchase a passive 3DTV which does not use active shutter glasses. They use cheap circular polarized glasses, the same ones you get at a RealD theater.

People understand that to see 3D you have to wear a special pair of glasses/eyewear. Been that way since 1952.

Aurostereoscopic 3D (no glasses) is a joke and may never equal the 3D you see today with glasses. It has too many restrictions and limitations.

unotis 01-01-2011 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut (Post 1131429)
In this economy you are expecting way too much out of a technology that relies on glasses and animated titles.

Most of what I see coming out is not animated but live action, it might have some CGI enhancement, but so do many movies nowadays.

And again, 3D has always relied on glasses and besides a great deal of the population wears glasses anyway so how will that hold them back?

Will we stop watching movies because we have to wear regular glasses also? :D

firsTraveler 01-12-2011 07:35 PM

Beyond the consumer side of 3DTV acceptance (glasses, cost, ect) there are several production related problems.


First 3D has a big up front cost in terms of new cameras and editing gear, this is compounded by the fact that a lot of smaller players haven’t even paid off their new HDTV equipment. Not a big deal for major film companies, but a huge deal for indies, local stations, and small cable channels.

Shooting good 3D takes training. Going from SD to HD isn't a big deal for a cameraman, but going from 2D to 3D and doing it right is a significant change.

And what do you film in 3D? Do people want to watch the local news in 3D? Do they want to watch talking heads in 3D? Do they want to watch cooking shows in 3D? For that mater do they want to watch a Hallmark tearjerker in 3D? So far most of what Hollywood has made are kids movies and effects driven genera pics; will the next Love Story make money in 3D?

hoorta 01-13-2011 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unotis (Post 1131477)
Most of what I see coming out is not animated but live action, it might have some CGI enhancement, but so do many movies nowadays.

And again, 3D has always relied on glasses and besides a great deal of the population wears glasses anyway so how will that hold them back?

Will we stop watching movies because we have to wear regular glasses also? :D

Well then answer this one- what if you're extremely nearsighted and already wear glasses, and don't happen to have a pair of contacts handy?

Yeah- glasses on top of glasses- that's the ticket.

FWIW, I didn't bother to wear my contacts and trucked down to the local cinema to catch Avatar in 3D- let's just say doing the double glass thing sucks.

Anyone got a pair of prescription shutter glasses in the works? Bet those would be in the four figure range. :)

unotis 01-13-2011 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firsTraveler (Post 1136151)
Beyond the consumer side of 3DTV acceptance (glasses, cost, ect) there are several production related problems.


First 3D has a big up front cost in terms of new cameras and editing gear, this is compounded by the fact that a lot of smaller players havenít even paid off their new HDTV equipment. Not a big deal for major film companies, but a huge deal for indies, local stations, and small cable channels.

Shooting good 3D takes training. Going from SD to HD isn't a big deal for a cameraman, but going from 2D to 3D and doing it right is a significant change.

And what do you film in 3D? Do people want to watch the local news in 3D? Do they want to watch talking heads in 3D? Do they want to watch cooking shows in 3D? For that mater do they want to watch a Hallmark tearjerker in 3D? So far most of what Hollywood has made are kids movies and effects driven genera pics; will the next Love Story make money in 3D?

All that cost being too high argument will end soon because the cost will quickly drop with economy os scale as it does with everything.

And if people experience the total benefits of 3D such as vastly increased depth of field that adds a much higher sense of real life to the picture and that means all types of films, drama, documentary, science fiction, adventure, animation and Television will also benefit greatly even watching the news, dramas, sitcoms and anything else that is watched on your television.

And in reference to your question, will the next love story make money in 3D the answer is YES, as with any film if done with a good scrip, great plot and excellent acting it will make very good money and will make even more because it is in 3D.

3D will make the film more lifelike and make the experience even more personal and touching for the viewing audience which why love stories are so loved by certain segments of the market already.

All your assertions are easily explained away as to why they will ultimately not block mass market acceptance of 3D in every part of the viewing entertainment industry.

unotis 01-13-2011 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoorta (Post 1136238)
Well then answer this one- what if you're extremely nearsighted and already wear glasses, and don't happen to have a pair of contacts handy? Then I just put the 3D glasses over mine, I don't even realize I've got them on while watching the film anyway.

Yeah- glasses on top of glasses- that's the ticket. Yes it is and why would that be a problem, it doesn't bother anyone I know that wears glasses? I have heard that argument several times and if it pertains to anyone it is an extremely small percentage of the population, I heard the same arguments when it came to seat belts, no one will wear them because they didn't like belts across their waist and that was true to a small minority, but did seat belts become a short lived fad also? I know some places the wearing of seat belts are required by law, but even there most people wouldn't feel comfortable with out wearing them.

FWIW, I didn't bother to wear my contacts and trucked down to the local cinema to catch Avatar in 3D- let's just say doing the double glass thing sucks. Well you're one of the very few that feel that way, sorry to hear that.

Anyone got a pair of prescription shutter glasses in the works? Bet those would be in the four figure range. :)

They're already available, but there is not much of a market for them because 99% of glasses wearing people don't find it any kind of a hassle to wear the 3D glasses over theirs in the first place.

tvine2000 01-17-2011 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Stewart (Post 1131442)
You can now purchase a passive 3DTV which does not use active shutter glasses. They use cheap circular polarized glasses, the same ones you get at a RealD theater.

People understand that to see 3D you have to wear a special pair of glasses/eyewear. Been that way since 1952.

Aurostereoscopic 3D (no glasses) is a joke and may never equal the 3D you see today with glasses. It has too many restrictions and limitations.

Lee hit the nail on the head, this whole debate about glasses or no glasses is just stupid, glasses for 3d have always been the way. Years ago they tried broadcasting a program on tv in 3d without glasses, as today as yesterday it was a joke.

tvine2000 01-17-2011 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by firsTraveler (Post 1136151)
Beyond the consumer side of 3DTV acceptance (glasses, cost, ect) there are several production related problems.


First 3D has a big up front cost in terms of new cameras and editing gear, this is compounded by the fact that a lot of smaller players havenít even paid off their new HDTV equipment. Not a big deal for major film companies, but a huge deal for indies, local stations, and small cable channels.

Shooting good 3D takes training. Going from SD to HD isn't a big deal for a cameraman, but going from 2D to 3D and doing it right is a significant change.

And what do you film in 3D? Do people want to watch the local news in 3D? Do they want to watch talking heads in 3D? Do they want to watch cooking shows in 3D? For that mater do they want to watch a Hallmark tearjerker in 3D? So far most of what Hollywood has made are kids movies and effects driven genera pics; will the next Love Story make money in 3D?

What new technology doesn't have a big up front cost! For people who don't have Hdtv and blu-ray its a big up front cost, cheaper then it was, but never the less the upgrade must be made.

They will film anything 3d they can, just like they film anything in hd 2d now!

Nobody i know objects to upgrading to a new computer, with a new os every 5 or 6 years, and it comes to a point where you have to upgrade. I don't quite understand why so many people object to 3dtv. if its the glasses, its a moot point and has been debated to death. If its cost, doesn't all technology come down in price as people buy this stuff. I think when it comes to 3dtv some people around here are wearing blinders and as Lee said since 1952 glasses is the way of 3d. I think people are making a big deal out of the glasses, but i wonder in the real world if thats true. Somehow i think not!

hoorta 01-18-2011 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unotis (Post 1136396)
They're already available, but there is not much of a market for them because 99% of glasses wearing people don't find it any kind of a hassle to wear the 3D glasses over theirs in the first place.

You have any hard figures on that, or is it just an opinion?

A quick perusal of some on line polls looks like about 50% of people don't like the glasses (and I'd bet the figure is a lot higher for us double glasses folk) and since the technology is proprietary, IMHO it's not going anywhere until it's standardized. Blu-Ray HDDVD all over again.

BTW, the seat belt analogy is not relevant, I can drive a car not using a seat belt- but I can't see past the hood without glasses.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:46 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands