3D TELEVISION, YES OR NO.

[Anonymous]

TWARDLAW:
CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN TO ME THE REASON FOR THE EXCITEMENT OVER 3D TELEVISION, I HAVE TRIED IT AND FOR ME IT IS PLAIN RUBBISH.

WHEN I WAS A CHILD MY PARENTS WOULD BUY ME POP-UP BOOKS, WHICH IF YOU LOOKED AT THEM GAVE A 3D EFFECT, I SAY EFFECT AS THE IMAGE WAS PURELY A BUILD UP OF 2D LAYERS ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER BUT STILL CONSISTING OF FLAT PICTURES.

WATCHING PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF 3D OVER THE YEARS HAS DONE NOTHING TO CREATE A SOLID 3D EFFECT AND THE IMAGES STILL LOOK JUST AS THEY DID ALL THOSE YEARS AGO

NOW WE HAVE THE LATEST VERSION AND LOW AND BEHOLD, TO ME IT LOOKS JUST AS BAD

TO ME IT JUST SEEMS A WASTE OF MONEY AND EXPERTISE THAT WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON IMPROVED BROADCASTING AND MEDIA MATERIAL

Can I ask which film you watched in 3D? Football Broadcasting is mainly layered like you say and one of the demos ive seen with the city?

I've watched a few other films and found it ands depth to characters in cartoons and several layers of perspective.

Im pondering whether to buy a Samsung 46c8000 but having demo'd it along side a Sharp Quatro half its price which wasnt 3d i found the motion on the Samsung was terrible!!

I dont think 3D is going anywhere though this time and it seems to its boosting box office sales so its only a matter of time before it becomes main stream in the home

3D Tv glasses free is also in the pipe works which would be awesome!!

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I just finished writing 3D article for Croatian Pcchip magazine, and returned 46PFL4705. I tested almost all of the available 3D TV, 3D PC monitors, few projectors...
I even take few of 3D TV at my home, for week or two, in order to accommodate to 3D.

All of them sucks. I never managed to watch anything above 15 minutes; I never watched whole 3D movie... It just plain sucks.

Headache, trouble with focusing, judder, crosstalk, fuzzy images, blinking pictures (damn glasses and 60 Hz), dark picture, often unconvincing 3D effect, just to mention few issues I have with 3D...

It a shame, that only one high end TV is available without 3D - Panasonic V20.

If there is offer - 2D TV for one quid cheaper then3D TV, same other than that, I will take first one

3D? - no way, hose...

 

[TheHomeCinemaCentre]

lobby:

Totally agree with Nick yes on projector no on tv. By the way Nick what 3d projectors are now available, looking at one for next year budget won't allow before xmas .

By next year I imagine the choice will be improved but right now we have one model from Sony and the three models in the JVC line up. There are top end options available from Sim2 and Projection Design as well.

 

[SteveR750]

Andrew Everard:
SteveR750:the proles

As opposed to...?

Those that don't believe everything that newspapers and TV news programmes tell you that you should own, however subtle... Yes I know it's an un PC description, but my tongue is in my cheek, Sadly though it seems that a large number of people either cannot or are too lazy to find out whether something is valuable or not, and just get it because everyone else is.

 

[micks_address]

Well i think most new tvs from now on will be 3d ready anyway.. i'd rather have a 3d ready tv.. and have the option to try the 3d if i wanted to than not... i have my 3d tv about 2 months now, the main problem with watching 3d is actually getting the tv to myself to do so! the kids are to young for it, and it gives my wifes headaches.. so its a bit anti social in our house.. i watched some football on sky 3d and wasnt overly impressed.. switching back to sky hd pictures was a much better experience.. i have 2 3d blu-rays.. Cloudy with a chance of meatballs and a christmas carol.. neither one watched yet! with ice age 3, coraline and avatar in 3d on the way hopefully from panasonic.. i will definetely be watching avatar in 3d.. i totally appreciate the effect of 3d.. its just a pity the glasses darken the image quite a bit..

 

[Anonymous]

I bought a new TV recently, a Samsung UE55C8000, because I wanted a bigger screen and a better picture than my previous TV. All TV,s at the price I paid came with 3D anyway otherwise I may not have chosen it.

I do find that it is hard work to watch it and as others have said it doesnt look 3D to me , just layers of 2D. I find I dont watch it and the thought of watching a whole movie gives me a headache as it doesnt feel relaxing to watch and I am looking for 3D effects rather than watching the program. I think movie makers have a lot to learn until they get it right, until then I will give it a miss.

 

[Anonymous]

A NO from me at this moment in time.

The images I think were a lot more subtle than I expected (in a good way), but the big issue for me is the glasses.

I tried on most of the ones on offer at the Manchester show and it seems very apparent that each company hasn't really put enough thought in to making these 3D glasses compatible for people who wear glasses.

I wear a fairly large frame and due to design the 3D glasses sit too far away from your eye. All I kept seeing was the nose saddle and lens rim.

I know you can't factor in all type of frames, but the big companies could definitely refine their designs to accommodate more users.

 

[strapped for cash]

I wonder, if a simple poll of forumites were conducted, how many would say they're interested in 3D? I know when AV Forum ran a poll asking that question, less that 10 percent of nearly 1,500 respondents claimed they plan to buy a 3D TV in the next year or near future.

Does anyone think the industry has miscalculated in their rush to sell 3D? Or perhaps AV enthusiasts like ourselves are not the target market?

 

[robjcooper]

On all 3D TV's, the 3D is an option which you activate when you want to watch something which is 3D, so it seems to me that just because only one high end TV is available without 3D is somewhat irrelevant. If the 2D picture on any of the Samsung, Panasonic, LG or Sony 3D sets is the best picture you've ever seen, buy it - 3D is just an add on which you can choose to activate if you wish. If you really want 3D as well, then get your dealer to turn on 3D and find the set which you like best for both 2D and 3D. None of the manufacturers is making you watch 3D only!! And SasaK, you're telling me you'd chose to take a 2D only set for a quid cheaper even if the 2D picture on a 3D set was better ?

As rubbish as Simon Cowell's dirge filled televisual offerings are, I can always turn them off or chose not to suffer them, and 3D is just the same. And if you think it's a pain watching 3D, try editing with it.....now where did I put my glasses.....

Rob

 

[strapped for cash]

Exactly, the fact that someone buys a 3D TV does not automatically mean they're interested in 3D content. The industry is hoping to win people over slowly. Then they can repurpose existing content and sell it to us all over again, even though we already owned the VHS, DVD, and now Blu Ray versions. Problem is, converting 2D content to 3D is not nearly as effective as filming in 3D, but I suspect eventually some will buy into it.

Industry bodies seem defiant about the future of 3D. Phrases like "3D is not going away" (James Cameron) and "consumers have been told that 3D is the future" (spokesperson for a 3D consortium) imply that industry bodies believe consumers will buy as instructed; it's simply a matter of pushing the technology forcefully enough and consumers will fall into line. They may be right. On the other hand, people may genuinely enjoy watching 3D content, but at the very least it requires effort and concentration from viewers, who must remain "attentive" throughout (watching 3D is a less passive experience).

 

[Anonymous]

Personally, I watch a film because I want to see a good story. If I'm distracted by 3D effects, than the effects are either interfering with the story, or the story isn't very good.

If I don't see the 3D effects because the story is good, then what's the point?

From the admittedly short time I've seen it, it seems like a gimmick to me. It took far too much effort to view properly, and for me brings nothing to the enjoyment of the film.

MarkP

 

[TWARDLAW]

Now have a new keyboard with a capslock that works

the film I watched in 3D was House of Wax back in the 1960,s also I watched a series of 3D programes on Ch4 some months ago

about the coronation, both using the old cheap glasses that were disposable and to me the new systems are no better.

I have also had an extended viewing of 3D ( my son is in the trade) and found it very hard on the eyes.

Regarding the enquiry about the system I use, I have the following :- LG 42 LD790 tv, LG BD390 bluray, Sony STR-DG820 amp and en extended Yamaha speaker system. I also have a Fortec Star Passion sat-box.

 

[robjcooper]

Twardlaw,

Welcome back to the world of lower case ! I have to respectfully say that if you can see no difference between the 3D image using the old style anaglyph glasses (red and blue or red and cyan lenses) and either the modern polarised (as used in the cinema) or the active shutter glasses (used by all the TV manufacturers) then 3D is most definitely not for you.

I personally have real problems watching anything anaglyph - the colour shifts and inaccurate colour rendering, especially on skin tones, makes it very uncomfortable to watch and I find that the 3D 'effect' drifts in and out of focus. However, the brighter and better defined image, both in depth, resolution and colour registration which polarised and active shutter give, does mean that, for me at least, they are quite watchable (although not for extended periods - however, Avatar was so tedious that I'm not sure if it was the tiring effect of the 3D or the crass storyline which made it so dull.).

One of the biggest problems I find with 3D is that everyone who is making it at the moment, attempts to make it look as '3D' as they possibly can (I was working on a trailer today for a feature film with live action combined with CGI characters - the CGI characters looked stuck on and in a different plane to the people they were supposed to be interacting with. Also, any opportunity to throw things out of the screen or towards the audience were used as much as possible - it might be impressive the first time but when it's happening every couple of seconds, it kind of loses its 'charm'. However, I have also seen some of the rushes from an upcoming swashbuckling sequel and they looked absolutely stunning in 3D (viewed on a Panasonic VT20 incidentally).

As I said before, the manufacturers are offering 3D as an option for those who want to try it. If a TV with a 3D option gives you the best picture in 2D, then you've got an added bonus if later on you decide you'd like to try 3D. Just because an amp has a loudness button, it doesn't mean you're expected to use it all the time.

Rob

 

[Anonymous]

3D is the future and then 360 degree Panaramic TV.

The reasons why people dislike 3D is because of an inferior complex! It puts all their thousands of pounds of 2D A/V gear obsolete and into the history books - it's past master like a VW Golf Mk2. Now there is Mk 6.

Those with a Pioneer Kuro TV - well it is now history. If Pioneer went 3D with this set then everyone will say let's have it.Hypocrisy!

2D TV prices are being crushed and steamed rolled,so if if you brought a Sony EX505 for £750 it has now depreciated by one third in less than 3 months - yeah that sucks! You can also get a a good LG 50 inch 2D set for less than £600. That hurts if you take pride in your gear - it is called depreciation!

That's life.Out with the old and in with the new.

 

[Anonymous]

Just once I wanna see WHF step out of the Dixons store it has become, hold its hands up and say "You know what, don't buy into this new technology 3D this, 85 inch that rubbish, don't get the next biggest and best thing just cos its everywhere you look, be happy with what you've got if it works for you."

It won't happen though.

The brain and imagination are powerful things and can join the dots far more effectively than you realise. That's why novels are still being written and these new e-readers are taking off. I don't need a 3D tv to draw me into a programme or film - thats what good writing, acting, direction etc are for. Video calls on iphones? What is the point of that? Nobody needs it, nobody wants it. Just because you can it doesn't mean you should. What next - text messaging in three dimensions? Electronic flies on jeans to monitor groin health?

EDITED BY MODS - not for the first time, please moderate your language

 

[Anonymous]

Oh dear its starting to sound like man has discovered fire and got his fingers burned. It is new tech and may or may not take off. What i dont understand is why people are getting so upset about. It sounds like a crusade against 3D. I do wonder if it just doesnt work for some folk, and the fact that others suffer headaches i can only say i feel quite lucky as i watch it and i enjoy it with no side effects and in about a year i should have enough cash to treat myself to a system which plays 3D. Also agree with last post about peple not wanting to accept that their system is out of date and may need replacing.

 

[StanleyAV]

NO, and it is rather subjective as to whether you will perceive the 3D effect as intended : our brains don't all decode this pseudo 3D in the same way. I just see layered 2D which looks unnatural to the point of being fake.

There must be ways of tuning this technology to work for those who see layered 2D, then perhaps the uptake will be greater.

This suck it and see approach is far too random for universal take up to happen. If manufacturers are serious about widespread takeup, 3D must feature on their entry level and mid range models, not just their top of the range TVs.

This technology is in its infancy, in the future it needs to work for
all, without glasses and without side affects of prolonged use.

Is 3D aimed at the wrong market? Surely gaming is where it really belongs?

 

[TheHomeCinemaCentre]

bennyboy71:

Just once I wanna see WHF step out of the Dixons store it has become, hold its hands up and say "You know what, don't buy into this new technology 3D this, 85 inch that, don't get the next biggest and best thing just cos its everywhere you look, be happy with what you've got if it works for you."

It won't happen though.

Of course not. What Hi-Fi is a business and that business is reporting on new products. 3D is a new product and like any new product it is reported on and reviewed. This is the same for all sectors, most magazines report on new releases.

bennyboy71:

I don't need a 3D tv to draw me into a programme or film - thats what good writing, acting, direction etc are for. Video calls on iphones? What is the point of that? Nobody needs it, nobody wants it.

I see the point of video calls. You don't see a need for it but you do not answer for everybody.

 

[Dalesman]

NO.

 

[Andrew Everard]

Ah, the capslock is back.

 

[Anonymous]

next year most tv's bar budget sets will be 3d enabled, its an option just like turning on motion processing, if you dont like it you wont have to use it, its not a threat to tv as we know it, just a choice

 

[Anonymous]

I viewed a Samsung 46c8000 today, well attempted to view it in 3D in Fenwicks in Newcastle as I wanted to show my gf how well 3D can look in right enviroment (it was secluded from other TVs due to postition so wasnt any weird flicker in BG)

The guy spent 30 mins trying to get the TV to come on and hand shake with the BluRay Player. I wasnt impressed it never worked for the 2nd time in a different store for the same TV so that is 100% 'NO' from me.

So im going to play waiting game til later into next year and see what the next load of 3DTV brings us and hopeully theyll be cheaper, more reliable and only consume 0.05kWh/y to be able to delare it almost 'PAYS FOR ITSELF' [caps lock off]

 

[Dalesman]

Andrew Everard:Ah, the capslock is back.

Ok sorry.

no......to 3d.

 

[kinda]

I'd say no.

People compare it to colour pictures emerging but with colour there was no drawback, it was all benefit.

For 3D right now the brightness is lost and there's the messing about with glasses. I think it will be abandoned or replaced in future by some improved form maybe 3D with no glasses.

Also when film makers are talking about having to understand how to use 3D it all starts to seem like a gimick. If 3D is the way forward it should augment any film and scene.

 

[TheHomeCinemaCentre]

kinda:

I'd say no.

People compare it to colour pictures emerging but with colour there was no drawback, it was all benefit.

For 3D right now the brightness is lost and there's the messing about with glasses. I think it will be abandoned or replaced in future by some improved form maybe 3D with no glasses.

Also when film makers are talking about having to understand how to use 3D it all starts to seem like a gimick. If 3D is the way forward it should augment any film and scene.

I am sure that the same was said about surround sound. People are still raving on about surround sound versus stereo. If you like it go for it, if not dont.

The loss of brightness is offset by the 3D gain. In the same way sound engineers had to start to understand Dolby et al the new breed of films will learn 3D. It adds to the creative palette in my mind.