3D televisions

[PZ]

I was at a local electronic shop yesterday and noticed that many of the new LED TVs are coming out 3D capable - any of you guys have an opinion?  In the past, I've dismissed 3D as gimmicky; a fad that soon fizzles out.

[Art Blade]

Basically 3D TV is different from 3D on a PC.

TVs should come with 200Hz refresh rate and don't suffer from Frames Per Second (FPS) limitations like a vid card on a PC (ie, 25 FPS or less while rendering a massive scenario, 60 FPS or more on a less demanding scenario) which is important when it comes to how 3D is perceived by the spectator: On a PC it's usually a pair of glasses using a "shutter" technique (hence called "shutter glasses"), blocking one glass in turns, thus halving the FPS rate (turning smooth 25 FPS into unbearable 12.5 FPS = slide show). So shutter glasses used with a TV still feature 100Hz per eye, a good value, no tiring effect. Then again, there are other techniques that divide the image on screen, you don't need shutter glasses, but the TV is not so good when watching 2D (blurry, good images are rather angular-dependent, ie only if you sit right in front (middle) of the TV set).

So the question is: How probable is it that you'll get to watch LOADS of 3D programmes and movies so it justifies buying a new TV set? And if you think you'll buy one... which technique would you like? :)

I think the industry is trying to make us believe that we need a 3D device right now (see "Avatar") but they haven't got a large variety of movies or programmes to watch. It will still take some time. Time you better leave to the developers of decent hardware... ;)

[PZ]

Sounds like good advice, but the interesting thing is that all of the TV manufacturers (except Sony) are developing their high-end TVs with 3D capability (i.e., you don't have a choice)

[fragger]

To be honest, I don't know what to think about this. PZ, you're right about 3D being gimmicky, or rather it always has been in the past. It's like every twenty years or so someone in filmdom says, "Hey, nobody's done a 3D movie for a while - let's do one!" A movie gets made, it does so-so biz (except for Avatar) then they all go back to normal 2D again. And considering the higher production costs and extra time required to make a movie or program in 3D, I believe the bulk of films will always be 2D.

I'm starting to think that many in the film industry have been "Avatar-ed up" to believe that because this 3D film did such huge business, it's what people want to see, which is actually misreading the market. Film companies seem to do this all the time. Look at the original Star Wars - other film companies believed that since Star Wars had done so well, that was the kind of movie people wanted to see, so they all started churning out space-themed movies, while missing the point entirely. Star Wars wasn't a runaway success because it was a space movie - it was because, at the time, it was something different and innovative. There's always been a lot of bandwagoning in the movie biz, and this could be what we're seeing with 3D in the wake of Avatar.

I'm thinking that 3D TV will a flash-in-the-pan, dead-end thing, like Betamax and 8-track cartridges, with the available content too sparse to warrant having the equipment. Of course, I'm no Nostradamus of the tech world, but if I'm wrong and I end up being compelled to own a 3D TV just to watch stuff, then I think I'll switch off altogether (not that I watch much now - almost none, in fact).

I've never been crazy about 3D movies anyway - those flipping glasses give me a headache.

[JRD]

I've never been crazy about 3D movies anyway - those flipping glasses give me a headache.

Exactly my thoughts!

I think a 3D movie might be amusing, but everything 3D? Oh no... that`s way too much for me! I also agree that the industry is trying to make us think that we need a 3D TV.

I barely watch TV nowadays. A movie here and there, the news... my wife has her soap operas and that`s all... I wouldn`t buy a 3D TV now... maybe never as I really don`t see the point in investing large cash in something that will turn me into a couch potato!  ;D

I still have the old fashion tube TV in my living room... I don`t even own one of those new fancy flat models you can hang on the wall!

When it becomes a trivial (and cheap) piece of equipment I`ll have one.

[tehsam016]

It'll always just be a gimmick unless they make em so you don't have to use the glasses to see the 3D effects. Unfortunately Avatar did sort of start a trend, but no other movie yet has matched up in the quality of 3D that was in avatar. They usually just make the movie in 2D first, then add 3D in post-production. The only reason Avatar had unmatched 3D effects was because they pretty much filmed with 3D technology from day one, but at the same time it costs a lot more to do it that way, so of course many producers take the low road and throw in 3D at the last minute in order to rake in a few more sales. In all, i think 3D is primarily aimed at the younger crowd, since the 3D trend is starting to take over gaming as well since there are already some PC games like Fallout that support 3D. If it weren't for the tacky-uncomfortable glasses i'd support it a lot more.

[PZ]

Evidently DirectTV, one of the satellite companies is adding a 3D channel according to rumors.  I too don't like the glasses, but I don't think that the 3D effect is possible without them.  In any case, it looks more like the TV manufacturers are adding the capability to add more price to the television, rather than actually banking on the prospect that it will actually develop into something mainstream.

[Art Blade]

It is possible without glasses, but it requires some sort of polarisation filter glued to the screen which causes the angular-dependency = best watched alone because there is only one centre seat in front of the TV that actually allows watching 3D... the rest of the people (even if only one, your partner) will most likely see scrambled crap  ;D Currently they are working on filters that extend that angle so more people can watch ( = notice) 3D, but that involves more than two panels/filters, like three panels (imagine triangular prism-like lines on the screen, one picture for the guy to the left, one for the centre, one for the guy on the right) or, in other words, the more spectators, the more filters. That means of course a lot of different video streams to the panel so the perspective will be maintained when not being watched from the centre seat... eating up bandwidth etc... too much hassle.

Regarding Avatar, its 3D success is based on kind of static scenarios. Imagine something like a car chase through an environment like New York City at a fast pace... you'd be given paper bags along with the glasses... and instead of popcorn, you'd be gobbling anti-sickness pills  ;D Today's techniques don't allow convincing 3D films during fast movements. You'd just want to be sick watching that, and the effects won't be that spectacular.

Also, proper (real-life) 3D is only noticeable at very short ranges (like, at maximum an armlength). Remember, you only have got two eyes that are a few inches apart which creates a 3D image... with those eyes (the angle they can handle to create a 3D image) we cannot recognise objects at bigger distances as 3D. Instead, we (our brains) calculate the speed of objects (the farther away, the slower they move) and determine their 3D aspect by adding different views (angles) we gather over time (like, when passing a tall building in the distance). So the biggest part of what we see, depth of view, is only 2D anyways.