New 3d TVs hitting the market

[drseid]

The worst problem with 3D at this point is ghosting, and it is totally attributed to the shutter glasses. I just received some glasses from a major company that advertise that the shutters sync so rapid and accurate, that they eliminate ghosting altogether. So far in my testing, they work as advertised. Movies that I had with very minor ghosting issues suddenly did not have it at all.

Wow, I want to get me some of those. :-) On my Sony, I don't encounter major ghosting on many 3D Blu-rays, but when the Masters was on ESPN 3D (via Fios TV) I had so much ghosting going on, I had to switch back to watching it on the regular broadcast channel in 2D.

As for the merits of 3D, I am kind of in the middle here. I like it on some movies (like the Avatar 3D blu-ray that is incredible), and find it tiresome on others like the horrible (IMO) The Last Airbender 3D blu-ray. When implemented properly on certain material it can add to the movie watching experience significantly... it just needs to be selectively and properly implemented, IMO. If the studios can do this, then I think it has good staying power. If it is used just to ramp up movie ticket prices and adds little to films, then I think it will be diminished rather quickly both in the theaters and in the home. I guess we will see which it is.

---Dave

[pixelthis]

They need to keep it in theaters for now. Better to wait instead of launching it prematurely
and having it crash and burn, like all of the other times.
BUT THEY WON'T do that, because it would betray the effects of long term use,
and can't have that

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Wow, I want to get me some of those. :-) On my Sony, I don't encounter major ghosting on many 3D Blu-rays, but when the Masters was on ESPN 3D (via Fios TV) I had so much ghosting going on, I had to switch back to watching it on the regular broadcast channel in 2D.

Broadcast 3D is a tough bugger because they have to shoot what is there in real time. With 3D movies, every object is placed and shot with 3D in mind. In post, the 3D is monitored and corrected to eleminate ghosting.

As for the merits of 3D, I am kind of in the middle here. I like it on some movies (like the Avatar 3D blu-ray that is incredible), and find it tiresome on others like the horrible (IMO) The Last Airbender 3D blu-ray. When implemented properly on certain material it can add to the movie watching experience significantly... it just needs to be selectively and properly implemented, IMO. If the studios can do this, then I think it has good staying power. If it is used just to ramp up movie ticket prices and adds little to films, then I think it will be diminished rather quickly both in the theaters and in the home. I guess we will see which it is.

---Dave

The difference between Avatar and The Last Airbender is that Avatar was framed and shot with 3D camera's, and The Last Airbender was shot with digital 2D camera's with 3D added in post. Warner only allotted 2 weeks time for the post production 3D rendering, which is not nearly enough time to render quality 3D images. And you are right, it was so poorly done, it was hard on the eyes.

[E-Stat]

As for the merits of 3D, I am kind of in the middle here. I like it on some movies (like the Avatar 3D blu-ray that is incredible), and find it tiresome on others like the horrible (IMO) The Last Airbender 3D blu-ray.

Same with me. Avatar clearly set the bar with what you could do with 3D when properly executed. I've yet to see, however, another 3D movie with that level of realism. It seems most of the filmed versions (not animated) are post production efforts. Don't get me wrong - I'd really like to see more examples like Avatar. I see the situation like MC music. It's great when done well, but availability for the majority of musical releases is absent. I won't invest in a new technology when it benefits only 1-2% of my collection.

rw

[BadAssJazz]

Same with me. Avatar clearly set the bar with what you could do with 3D when properly executed. I've yet to see, however, another 3D movie with that level of realism. It seems most of the filmed versions (not animated) are post production efforts. Don't get me wrong - I'd really like to see more examples like Avatar. I see the situation like MC music. It's great when done well, but availability for the majority of musical releases is absent. I won't invest in a new technology when it benefits only 1-2% of my collection.

rw

That's pretty much my take on 3D as well. I doubt I'll ever upgrade just for 3D alone. Not unless I win the lottery and can buy or build my own IMAX 3D theater. Until then, I'll be happy with the normal limitations of my standard setup. It will make seeing certain movies at the theater that much more of an event.

[Woochifer]

That's pretty much my take on 3D as well. I doubt I'll ever upgrade just for 3D alone. Not unless I win the lottery and can buy or build my own IMAX 3D theater. Until then, I'll be happy with the normal limitations of my standard setup. It will make seeing certain movies at the theater that much more of an event.

Well, the same thing as said a decade ago about HD. Right now, the market is hitting those early adopters that will upgrade their TV for the 3D capability. But, within the next few years, the 3D feature is just going to migrate its way into most, if not all, new TVs. In much the same that you can now barely find any non-HD TVs, the majority of TVs at that point will come with 3D whether you want it or not.

3D broadcasts on at least 4 channels have already gone live, and there's a lot of development underway on 3D HD cameras and production facilities. And manufacturers are pushing hard on developing glasses-free 3D. There's a lot of activity on the 3D front. The current crop of TVs is just seeding the market while everything else starts to come online.

[E-Stat]

And manufacturers are pushing hard on developing glasses-free 3D.

That is the biggest challenge to widespread use. As for me, I don't have any trouble wearing them. I don't get headaches or object to their use for limited periods of time. I doubt, however, that the public at large would ever accept the notion that you had to wear them all the time just to watch Oprah or the evening news.

rw

[pixelthis]

Well, the same thing as said a decade ago about HD. Right now, the market is hitting those early adopters that will upgrade their TV for the 3D capability. But, within the next few years, the 3D feature is just going to migrate its way into most, if not all, new TVs. In much the same that you can now barely find any non-HD TVs, the majority of TVs at that point will come with 3D whether you want it or not.

3D broadcasts on at least 4 channels have already gone live, and there's a lot of development underway on 3D HD cameras and production facilities. And manufacturers are pushing hard on developing glasses-free 3D. There's a lot of activity on the 3D front. The current crop of TVs is just seeding the market while everything else starts to come online.

YOUR comparo is flawed.
HDTV was a massive change, dumb monitors have become computers, basically,
and are used like computers. Ghosting, moire, jaggies, all are gone.
SO IS A COMPANY that was making a box that got rid of ghosting, thats all it did.
Comparing HDTV to a gimmick like 3D is, frankly, ridiculous.
Theres' a form of 3D that doesn't require glasses, been used on computers, why not
use that?
3D is not "gradually" being adopted, it is actively being resisted, nobody wants
to pay such a premium for such an untested tech, especially one with a track record
of crashing and burning repeatedly.
HDTV is a revolution, 3D is a regression...back to the Saturday matinees with the blue/red glasses.

[Woochifer]

YOUR comparo is flawed.
HDTV was a massive change, dumb monitors have become computers, basically,
and are used like computers. Ghosting, moire, jaggies, all are gone.
SO IS A COMPANY that was making a box that got rid of ghosting, thats all it did.
Comparing HDTV to a gimmick like 3D is, frankly, ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous if you bother to look at how features migrate onto home theater equipment. A new spec gets adopted, that spec makes its way into the processing chips, and within a few years, it becomes standard issue. That's the path that 3D is taking.

The 3D MVC spec is already rapidly becoming a standard codec on the latest video processing chips. And this is a simple migration since it's nothing more than a revision to the existing MPEG-4 spec.

Just because YOU think 3D is a gimmick doesn't mean that manufacturers and broadcasters view it the same way. And right now, they are moving very quickly towards making 3D a standard feature in the very near future.

3D is not "gradually" being adopted, it is actively being resisted, nobody wants
to pay such a premium for such an untested tech, especially one with a track record
of crashing and burning repeatedly.

Again, how is it not being adopted when it is already making its way into the latest processing chips that HDTVs, Blu-ray players, satellite/cable receivers, and other HD devices use? This is no different than when DTS or any other updated audio codec gets released. It's only a matter of time before it becomes a standard feature. All PS3s and all Directv HD receivers have already been enabled for 3D, so tell me again how this is not being adopted?

HDTV is a revolution, 3D is a regression...back to the Saturday matinees with the blue/red glasses.

Right, and who else but you thinks that 3D still uses blue/red glasses?

[BadAssJazz]

Well, the same thing as said a decade ago about HD.

Yes, but not by me.

I was all over the HD evolution/revolution in the same way that I was thrilled to ditch my 8-track for cassette tapes, and later cassette tapes for CD's. Nothing drives me like taking the next step to AV nirvana.

If by the next time that I upgrade my plasma I find that only the 3D variety are available, then so be it. I'll plop down my hard-earned ducats and think nothing of it. But right now 3D feels like more a sidestep than a leap forward to me. Maybe if I didn't have to wear the glasses to appreciate the effect I'd feel differently.

[Woochifer]

If by the next time that I upgrade my plasma I find that only the 3D variety are available, then so be it. I'll plop down my hard-earned ducats and think nothing of it. But right now 3D feels like more a sidestep than a leap forward to me. Maybe if I didn't have to wear the glasses to appreciate the effect I'd feel differently.

The 3D spec is pretty much set, and it builds on the existing MPEG-4 standard. The updated MPEG-4 profile has already made its way into many of the latest video processors. With every successive model revision, more and more TVs, BD players, and set-top boxes will use the newer video processors that support the latest MPEG-4 profile.

With other devices, the 3D feature will get added as a simple update. Millions of PS3s and Directv HD receivers running the latest system software are already enabled for 3D. That's why widespread adoption of 3D is IMO inevitable, and only a matter of time before it becomes just another standard feature.

Where things get interesting will be with the implementation -- passive glasses, active glasses, or no glasses. But, regardless of which of those approaches a TV manufacturer takes, they will all use the same video signal format.

[pixelthis]

The 3D spec is pretty much set, and it builds on the existing MPEG-4 standard. The updated MPEG-4 profile has already made its way into many of the latest video processors. With every successive model revision, more and more TVs, BD players, and set-top boxes will use the newer video processors that support the latest MPEG-4 profile.

With other devices, the 3D feature will get added as a simple update. Millions of PS3s and Directv HD receivers running the latest system software are already enabled for 3D. That's why widespread adoption of 3D is IMO inevitable, and only a matter of time before it becomes just another standard feature.

Where things get interesting will be with the implementation -- passive glasses, active glasses, or no glasses. But, regardless of which of those approaches a TV manufacturer takes, they will all use the same video signal format.

A process that causes headaches after a few hours is a "done deal", eh?

TODAYS "shutter glasses have been supercharged with computer tech, while the ones tried in the eighties were automatic.
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, we are a nation of TV addicts, watch TV an average of four hours a day, thats two more than you need to cause a headache with 3D.
Talk about being desperate for sales, never seen an entire industry run like lemmings
off of a cliff.
SAD, REALLY.