Glasses-Free Could Stunt Growth of 3D Tech, Says FOX

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Zeppelingcdm

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2011
5
0
18,510
[citation][nom]of the way[/nom]You all sadden me. 3D for depth (not popping out of the screen) can add so much to the experience.[/citation]
A good quality 2D HDTV already has sooo much depth of field. I really don't see the need for 3D at this stage in it's evolution.
 

drwho1

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2010
367
0
18,930
I still think that 3D is just a gimmick and I have not interest on ever getting a 3D TV.
Now an 8K4K TV... now we are talking!

 

bystander

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2009
322
0
18,940
I agree with FOX on this and I'd add a couple more tech that is giving it a bad name, the 3D-TV sets with active 3D give people headaches due to the low refresh rate. This also effects console 3D gaming.

When 3D is done passively when filmed correctly, or in 3D gaming with 120hz monitors with 60+ FPS, all the negatives people complain about go away.
 

airborne11b

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2008
78
0
18,590
Most 3d stuff being pushed is trash, but play a game with 3d vision 2 glasses and 3d vision 2 monitor. Super realistic 3d, bright clear image, and glasses that fit comfortably over prescription glasses.

Those pieces of plastic crap movie theaters give you gives 3d a bad rep.
 

bystander

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2009
322
0
18,940
[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]Most 3d stuff being pushed is trash, but play a game with 3d vision 2 glasses and 3d vision 2 monitor. Super realistic 3d, bright clear image, and glasses that fit comfortably over prescription glasses.Those pieces of plastic crap movie theaters give you gives 3d a bad rep.[/citation]
How is the 3D vision 2 when it comes to ghosting? I notice with my glasses, high contrast often bleeds into the other glasses a bit, I'm curious if 3D vision 2 fixes this.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I love my shutter glasses and 3D set-up. Bring it on. Queue up the haters! Everyone that comes over to check it out starts a skeptic and lemme tell you every single one of them have had their jaw on the floor after a demo.
 

whyso

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2012
253
0
18,960
My problem is that 3d movies have to be done in a different way than regular 2d movies. To be honest, cutting a persons head off (such as zooming in on the eyes) looks good in 2d its weird to have the face cut off like that in 3d. Also, the glasses really hurt contrast and colours are much less intense with the glasses on
 

dark_knight33

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2006
128
0
18,630
Having just fully researched and purchased a 3D television this month, I have a lot to say about the subject. First, Glasses free 3D tech will not take off. The technology we have available for this uses prisms and requires the user to sit literally in the sweet spot for it to work. Go to your local BBY and take a look at a nintendo 3DS on display to get an idea. Too far away, no 3D, too much to the left/right no 3D. It's a limitation of the technology. People simply won't tolerate that.

When I went to purchase my TV, I thought LG's passive 3D was going to be it. Then I got a look at it literally side by side with a samsung active 3D set. The way passive 3D works, the vertical picture resolution is halved. Each alternating line goes to a specific eye. It's like taking a 15 year step back to interlaced frames. Instead of 1080p, you start with 1080i, and each eye is only getting 540 lines of that. The 3D effect it creates is quite good, but you can easily see jagged edges and can see the lines during scenes with a lot of movement. The picture is also noticeably darker, also due to interlacing. The glasses are the same things you use at a theater, but the technology in the theater is different because they use two full resolution overlapping frames from a projector rather than half height interlaced frames. The same thing can't be done with current LCD TV sets. This is why there is such a quality drop. I'm not sure it's even possible to duplicate 3D theater tech on the small screen. You'd actually need to use a 3D projector with independent polarization to get this.

The samsung set uses active 3D. The glasses in the display are of lower build quality than what is included with the TV itself. The included glasses are not bad at all. They are actually much more comfortable/lighter than theater glasses, and they even fit great over my wife's corrective glasses. They are very sleek and wrap around your face. The glasses are sort of molded in a circle and are very flexy. The electronics (which are already tiny) are in the ear pieces rather than the top, so there is much less weight on your nose.

The 3D effect created here is also good, but not quite like a theater. Instead of stuff popping off the screen, it just goes really deep. It's like looking at an aquarium through the glass. The surface of the TV is where the 3D effect begins, rather than where the viewer is sitting. The picture however, is perfect. There are some criticisms about flickering and/or eye strain. In my experience with it for the last 3 weeks, I have watched up to 5 hours of 3D content at a time. I did not notice any flickering with the TV, but if I looked at something like the time on the cable box, I could see it subtly blinking. My eyes were tired when I was done, but no more so than looking at a computer screen for just as long.

My TV also has 2D to 3D on the fly. It's not super impressive, but it does work. I watched Fast Five and used the 2D - 3D conversion. At no point did the 3D look wrong, but there were some instances where the 3D was less pronounced than others. It was kind of like watching tron legacy in the theater with the mixed 2D/3D. There are a couple scenes where the camera is circling the large statue in the middle of city. On my TV that scene looks like it was shot in 3D. The whole hill side of the city and the statue clearly have depth.

To say that it's a failure of the technology, that it would hold back consumers from buying into 3D or that it's inadequate is a complete mischaracterization of it. It's a value add, something you can use if you want. It's not the full capability of the tech.

I think the issue is more people that just bought 2D sets within the last couple years talking crap about the tech because they don't want to drop the money for new set, and need to feel better about their purchase. That or a lot of commentators have ridiculous expectations. The Holodeck? Come on.... I've seen a 3D holo of Christopher Walken at universal studios. It to date is still the most awesome display of tech I've ever seen, and I've never seen it anywhere else. To say that TVs have to do that to make 3D worth it is absurd. It wouldn't even be a "TV" any more.

I'm still very happy with my set & it's 3D, I wouldn't trade it for any other TV out.
 

cybrcatter

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2008
52
0
18,580
My sentiments on 3D (in theaters) thus far: MEH.

Have absolutely no desire for 3D in my living room or on my PC.

I will admit that Jackson's approach to 3D in the forthcoming Hobbit movie has me a little intrigued, but I won't hold my breath.
 
G

Guest

Guest
The biggest problem with 3D at the moment is the lack of content. There are only about 100 3D bluray movies available. Over half of which are animated movies. 3D seems to work best with films that have a lot of CGI where they can easily manipulate the content to generate the desired 3D effect. The biggest disappointment after getting the 3D tv home was going to the rental store and trying to find something decent to watch. Of course in time (assuming this is not another short lived fad) better content will hopefully become available.
 

therabiddeer

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2008
137
0
18,630
I saw episode 1 in the theaters in 3d, that is not 3d. Movies like that will absolutely kill 3d. Also, I hate 3d movies because I have to wear glasses on top of my glasses, which is really uncomfortable.
 

sp0nger

Distinguished
Nov 5, 2008
29
0
18,580
I laugh at all the comments on this article from people who have never owned a powerful computer system in conjunction with an proper 3D set up like nvidia 3d vision. Oh the wonderful world you are all missing but love to comment on so much
 

jaber2

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2012
65
0
18,580
So basically stop the growth and improvements based on real time examples because it could be harmful for the future of the same fucking thing you are trying to do, if I only had any hair left to pull out of my head because of stupid remarks like that.
 

blevsta

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2009
13
0
18,560
[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]How is the 3D vision 2 when it comes to ghosting? I notice with my glasses, high contrast often bleeds into the other glasses a bit, I'm curious if 3D vision 2 fixes this.[/citation]

My friend has the 3D vision 2 Asus monitor. It's pretty awesome. Ghosting is non-existent in some games and it's reduced to for all others. The image is also brighter. I have the classic 3d vision, so the image is darker, and I have a little bit of ghosting.

For anyone who thinks 3D is a gimmick I'd recommend finding a friend with a 3d vision setup. Load up a 3d vision ready game. (The Witcher 2) Toggle the effect on and off with CTRL + T. The technology works stunningly well if developers utilize it properly. I think that goes along with what this Fox producer is saying. Half-ass 3d implementations just turn people off from the tech.
 

bystander

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2009
322
0
18,940
[citation][nom]blevsta[/nom]My friend has the 3D vision 2 Asus monitor. It's pretty awesome. Ghosting is non-existent in some games and it's reduced to for all others. The image is also brighter. I have the classic 3d vision, so the image is darker, and I have a little bit of ghosting.For anyone who thinks 3D is a gimmick I'd recommend finding a friend with a 3d vision setup. Load up a 3d vision ready game. (The Witcher 2) Toggle the effect on and off with CTRL + T. The technology works stunningly well if developers utilize it properly. I think that goes along with what this Fox producer is saying. Half-ass 3d implementations just turn people off from the tech.[/citation]

Good to know about 3D vision 2. I was also wondering if the 3D vision 2 glasses are better in terms of keeping light out. Perhaps the glasses alone could help on the ghosting.

I also played The Witcher 2 in 3D, it is awesome. Only Crysis 2 is comparable in the quality of 3D (perfect), and after getting a 3D Vision water fix for Skyrim, I can add that to the list of perfectly done 3D (avoid the 1.5 patch).
 

omega21xx

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2012
122
0
18,630
Just curious, why so many downvotes without someone explaining why what I said was wrong? Are there just that many against glasses free 3d? If I said something in-correct to receive a downvote I'd like to know so I could acknowledge it.
 

doorspawn

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2010
65
0
18,580
If you want glasses-free 3D that you can walk around with, you'll have to wait for a new set of laws of physics or move to a different universe.

It's like demanding to live in a house that's downhill both to AND from your work.

Think, how does a pixel know which direction to send the left-eye color and which to send the right-eye color?


Also, if you don't like 3D don't hurt on those that adore it (like me). Some people have better 3D perception than others, but you'd never see colorblind people lashing out at color TV.
 

omega21xx

Distinguished
Jan 21, 2012
122
0
18,630
[citation][nom]doorspawn[/nom]If you want glasses-free 3D that you can walk around with, you'll have to wait for a new set of laws of physics or move to a different universe.It's like demanding to live in a house that's downhill both to AND from your work.Think, how does a pixel know which direction to send the left-eye color and which to send the right-eye color?Also, if you don't like 3D don't hurt on those that adore it (like me). Some people have better 3D perception than others, but you'd never see colorblind people lashing out at color TV.[/citation]

I guess I may have exaggerated, but with nearly 57 viewing angles and 13 degree view per point, virtually you rarely see any strange cross-view images. Glass free also is newer tech and has a way to go. The more it's developed the better 3D viewing will be (benefiting by also not needing glasses on top of glasses like me). Also I'm not a fan of pop out 3D, glass free 3D gives depth without horrifying pop out oddities. Guess it's more personal preference than anything.
 

SirGCal

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
89
0
18,580
[citation][nom]carnetarian[/nom]I have absolutely hated 3D from the beginning, and I can't for this stupid fad to die out again. It gives me a headache, looks terrible, and detracts from the plot of the movie.It's nothing but an annoying gimmick used to try to distract people from how weak the actual content of the movie is.[/citation]

Exactly... This is also why '3D' has come and gone a handful of times already...

Though, to be honest, Avatar was the first movie that really looked good in 3D. I saw that at the Imax and was impressed. All of the others I prefer without 3D. It almost always gives me a headache and so few movies know how to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.