3D tv - what do people think?

[admin_exported]

3D seems to be the new buzz word in visual technology. I've seen one film in 3d and it was fine as a novelty, but I can't say I'm too thrilled about the direction towards it. Maybe I'm quite conservative, and once it is more widespread, I will like it, but at the moment, I wouldn't like to see films go down that road. Most films released this way MAY run the risk of going way over the top in effects, sacrificing story, character development and all the things make films enjoyable in the process.

I'm sure 3d suits a very particular style of film, and that costs may prove prohibitive, so that only a small percentage of films will be made in this way.

What are people's views on 3d tv/ films, are you looking forward to it, think it's a gimmick, or a natural evolution of cinema as an art form?

It would be interested to see what people think, does the public/ consumer want 3d films at the cinema/ in the home, or am I in the minority? No probs if I am, but interesting to know either way.

 

[Andy Clough]

The Panasonic 3D TV system I saw demonstrated at CES back in January certainly worked, and had a certain novelty value, but I'm still not convinced families will want to sit around at home wearing special 3D glasses when watching a film.

Yes, there are alternative systems that don't require the glasses, but to my eyes they're not as effective.

 

[simonlewis]

I'm not really interested in 3D tv a waste of money if you ask me,
I would be interested in wall to wall tv, that would be worth investing in, in my oppinion.

 

[Anonymous]

Sounds pretty good to me.

I'd happily sit there in stupid glasses if it was affordable.

 

[nads]

Might pay to go to see a 3D film but at home, No way.

 

[professorhat]

I'd like to see it evolve - in its current form it won't work I don't think, but that's true of a lot of new technologies. However, watch Minority Report when he's watching old videos of his wife and son - that could really be big when they can actually do projected 3D as opposed to trick 3D. Is it possible - no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Of course, virtually all 3D movies that come out in the next few years are likely to be along the lines of My Bloody Valentine (just as us previous generations got our Jaws 3Ds), but Avatar (James Cameron's film) is certainly an interesting concept given his fantastic history within cinema and I'm looking forward to that. Hopefully, it will be alike to Christopher Nolan's use of IMAX in The Dark Knight - pioneering use of a certain type of filming in some scenes, purely to help immerse the viewer in his world. If used in this way, 3D could be an incredible experience, rather than just a "ooohhh, here's the 3D bit with the big knife coming towards you" way it's been used so far in film making.

In the home? Let's wait till they get it right in the cinema first, then we can talk about home 3D cinema systems.

 

[aliEnRIK]

Theres no way on this planet im buying a tv that requires me to wear glasses to watch them. Once true holo tvs come out and look the bizz im in

 

[ElectroMan]

I had a Razor3D system, which used LCD shutter glasses, the same as the original Imax system (not sure if it's evolved since then).

Basically, there was a small control box about the size of a packet of cigarettes, to which you took the video out of a DVD player, and then connected the box to the video in of a television.

Viewing 'field-sequential' DVDs was amazing, with genuine 'in the room' effects. Unfortunately, there were only a tiny number of 3D DVDs available for it. Even more unfortunately, the system only works with CRTs (something to do with the way the screen is refreshed), so I sold it on eBay.

The glasses were quite comfortable (I don't wear glasses normally, though I do have some cheap reading glasses for ploughing through instruction manuals!), but I wouldn't to wear them too much. They worked by alternatively blacking out/clearing each lens, and got a bit fatiguing after a couple of hours.

I assume the new television 3D systems are different to this?

There's also the old 'one eye' technique, demonstrated by the BBC about 20 years ago. This uses cheap cardboard glasses with one slightly opaque lens, and a clear opening for the other eye. It works by delaying the image to one eye, and the effect can be seen on any television program - but only if something is moving in a specific direction (right to left, or possibly the other way around), or the camera is panning in the opposite direction.

There are some DVDs* that include the glasses, and the 3D effect can be quite good, but depending on the program content it comes and goes all the time! And the effects are all into the screen, rather than beyond it.

I do think that unless they can perfect a system that doesn't require glasses, it will never enter the mainstream.

(* can't believe the price of this - I'll have to put my copy on there!)

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

Personally I don't like the idea in it's current form. I have seen a few films in 3D when the glasses were given away with the Radio (or TV) Times. Years ago it was, but as mentioned, the novelty soon wore off.

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.