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

[alidan]

glasses free is good for hand held devices,
passive 3d is good for family and movies
active shutter 3d is the only way to go, with a screen for each eye head mount a second because of expensive and how bad most are.

true 3d is awsome, but most people only see those crappy 2d conversions, or an animated 3d movie that wasnt made with 3d fully in mind.

 

[whiteodian]

I'm not a big fan of 3D. I'm just not that impressed. The number one thing that bugs me is trying to watch some new release movies. They are almost exclusively in 3D. There might be 2 showings in 2D on some new releases. One showing during the middle of the day and one at like 10PM. I feel like the movie industry is really trying to cram 3D down our throats and it pisses me off. I've decided to avoid this gimmick and see the 2D shows or wait for DVD.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]whiteodian[/nom]I'm not a big fan of 3D. I'm just not that impressed. The number one thing that bugs me is trying to watch some new release movies. They are almost exclusively in 3D. There might be 2 showings in 2D on some new releases. One showing during the middle of the day and one at like 10PM. I feel like the movie industry is really trying to cram 3D down our throats and it pisses me off. I've decided to avoid this gimmick and see the 2D shows or wait for DVD.[/citation]
To call 3D a gimmick is like calling life a gimmick. 3D is how we view the world. You, like FOX is talking about, are victim of poorly used 3D and possibly bad 3D systems.

 

[robochump]

I do agree that converting 2D to 3D cheaply for the sake of full time glasses free TV will diminish the perceived quality to the consumer which may influence consumers to not bother with the 3D technology.

But glasses free 3D will take off if quality is high. Basically glasses free 3D TVs that can display HD 2D images as well as any other HD TV and display high quality 3D on demand will be a hit. Full time 3D broadcast currently is not possible but I dont see why consumers would be displeased by purchasing 3D disks or download to view glasses free?!?

 

[Vladislaus]

[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]
I also have a 3d vision 2 asus and fallen in love with 3d games. I'm not going to lie but I also though that 3d gaming was a gimmick, but that was until I experienced it. I also have a 2560x1440 dell monitor, I know most people here will bite my head off, but I prefer to play a game with 3d vision than with the higher rez.

I never experimented on the original 3d vision, so I don't know how they perform. However I also tested other solutions, like 3DTVs. I have to say that they are inferior. Specially the LG models with passive glasses.

 

[f-14]

going to a play is more 3-D than a 1-D pane will ever produce, if i walk to the side i should be able to see it from a side view, i should be able to walk to the other side also, or even be on the back of the stage or lighting area, or in the play itself, or under the glass window on the stage floor front working the doors and other set material that needs to get changed out.
THAT is 3-D. anything less than being able to be in the middle, sides, top bottom front or back is a joke pretending to be 3-D and

not filtered through sub-par technology.

on a single dimensional screen only viewable from the front and no other angle and glasses, i already have glasses,

filtered through sub-par technology

with glasses is not 3-D again it is a JOKE, it never worked back in the 50's and it is never going to work on a 1-D screen no matter what headache you try to pass it off as 3-D with.
i find it highly offensive to call something 3-D when it can not be viewed from 360º in every direction or with you sitting right in the middle of it looking outward.
anything less than that is black lie.

 

[palladin9479]

Glass's free 3D is horrible, it's an optical illusion that relies on you sitting in a perfect spot and even then your getting a distorted image.

I use nVidia's 3D Vision with an acer monitor, there is absolutely nothing that can compare. Best way for consumers to see things in 3D is with active shutter glass's. Passive at home sucks due to the interlacing, theater really depends on the qualify of their glass's and how they washed them. Polarized lenses are easily ruined if someone touch's them and puts oils between the slits. Good quality glass's that have been properly washed and handled will give an awesome experience.

Consumer 3D on PC's has been around for over a decade. I used to do 3D gaming with a Geforce 4200ti on a 17 inch NEC CRT with 1024x768@85. It's nothing new, faddish or gimmicky. We just never had the technology to provide a good experience.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]going to a play is more 3-D than a 1-D pane will ever produce, if i walk to the side i should be able to see it from a side view, i should be able to walk to the other side also, or even be on the back of the stage or lighting area, or in the play itself, or under the glass window on the stage floor front working the doors and other set material that needs to get changed out. THAT is 3-D. anything less than being able to be in the middle, sides, top bottom front or back is a joke pretending to be 3-D and on a single dimensional screen only viewable from the front and no other angle and glasses, i already have glasses, with glasses is not 3-D again it is a JOKE, it never worked back in the 50's and it is never going to work on a 1-D screen no matter what headache you try to pass it off as 3-D with.i find it highly offensive to call something 3-D when it can not be viewed from 360º in every direction or with you sitting right in the middle of it looking outward. anything less than that is black lie.[/citation]
3D can be produced from a single view and make it look exactly the same as if you were in that location. What you are describing is a holodeck. Also, in a game using 3D vision or HD3D, you can move and turn and see things from all angles, but you have to use the controls. We aren't in the Star Trek universe yet and even if that technology existed.

 

[tomfreak]

As long as it require men to wear the silly glass I will never jump into the 3D tech.

till today I have yet to step in to 3D cinema. nor bought any 3D display.

 

[airborne11b]

[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]

I turned in my 3D vision 1 setup because of this exact problem. The 3D effects were great, but the bleeding/ghosting/dark screen was a real put off.

3D vision 2 vastly improves the bleeding/ghosting. With good color/contrast tweeks the bleeding is non-existent in most games, and only slightly noticeable if in some (so little that even a person as picky as me doesn't notice it most of the time).

So if you were thinking of switching over, and you got the cash, I would say it's worth it. Maybe wait for a few new 3D vision 2 capable monitors come out and pick the best one from reviews.

 

[zodiacfml]

3d sucks. There's a lot more to improve in video and video systems outside that. I never appreciated the 3d blockbuster movies i have seen. Even if I tried hard to like it, I would rather a higher resolution, better color, better DR, and/or better FPS video than 3D.

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]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).[/citation]

As myself and the other posted mentioned, 3D vision 2 is the best 3D tech out atm, and it is a pure pleasure to game with 3D vision 2, but please don't mistake where the advancements are coming from.

The glasses are almost the same as 3D vision 1 glasses, they are just bigger, and more comfortable. The brightness increase and reduced ghosting comes from the Lightboost 3D vision 2 technology built into the monitor.

Buying the glasses alone is a waste, unless you're buying them purely for comfort reasons (they are more comfortable to wear with glasses and headsets, perfect for gamers)

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]As long as it require men to wear the silly glass I will never jump into the 3D tech.till today I have yet to step in to 3D cinema. nor bought any 3D display.[/citation]

So the way you look while watching a movie or playing a game really matters to you? You don't sound like a man to me, but more like a fashion diva. Worried someone is going to see you wearing 3D vision 2 glasses that don't match your Gucci scarf? F'n tool.

 

[tydalwave]

I'm with dark_knight33 on this one. I went with a Samsung 59' 3D plasma. I also was a big skeptic at first as well, but got a lengthy demo from a friend's T.V. set ( which was LED ) and it looked great! And I must say it turned me, although I went with a plasma instead of LED/LCD, due to deeper blacks and I hate the TrueMotion (soap-opera)LED/LCD look in 2D/3D. A plasma with 600hz refresh makes for no ghosting as well.
Everyone who has come to my house and witnessed it has changed their tune as well, they are for it. And the comment dark_knight33 made about people P.O.'d that they recently bought a 2D t.v. seems spot on, those who purchased a new t.v. of recent said they wish they would have waited for 3D. ( BTW the 2D to 3D conversion in HALO Reach and other games rocks! As well as HALO CE Anniversary Edition which is 3D. I know I only speak for myself and a few others, so this isn't a "you are wrong to hate!" post, it's more of just a point of view post

I do wish the prices of the glasses would drop though, having a family of 5 does put a high pricetag on "accessories"

 

[itchyisvegeta]

I remember watching Captain Eo at Disney land, as a kid when it first came out. Pretty amazing at the time. If the special effects were more modern, it would totally hold up to today.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]I turned in my 3D vision 1 setup because of this exact problem. The 3D effects were great, but the bleeding/ghosting/dark screen was a real put off.3D vision 2 vastly improves the bleeding/ghosting. With good color/contrast tweeks the bleeding is non-existent in most games, and only slightly noticeable if in some (so little that even a person as picky as me doesn't notice it most of the time).So if you were thinking of switching over, and you got the cash, I would say it's worth it. Maybe wait for a few new 3D vision 2 capable monitors come out and pick the best one from reviews.[/citation]

For the most part, what you describe your ghosting experience is what I experience with my monitor setup. Only in high contrast areas can you see bleeding and I generally don't notice it unless looking for it. I think the most obvious spot I do see it is at the loading screens in Skyrim.

The part that I'm not sure about is how much of the improvements you are seeing are due to better response times allowing for less "crosstalk", and how much could be due to better glasses blacking out the other eyes bright colors. Both are responsible for the ghosting.

I've been considering going 3D vision 2 ever since I have heard about it. I'm still hesitant.

 

[southernshark]

I hate 3d

 

[dtq]

Ive got 3 pcs running nvidia 3d vision. My wife and I have matching 3d Rigs for Gaming, and in the living room we have a projector giving us a 90" 3d screen... The reaction you get when you put on a game like arkham asylum and have a gun barrel coming literally 8ft out of the screen across the living room at them is brilliant every time . When people have seen 3d in the cinema they normally say the home version is better.

On-the-fly upscaling isnt perfect, but its really not so bad either, I went to see episode 1 in the theatre in 3d and was deeply dissapointed that it wasnt that much better than the "bad"home conversion. Also found the theatre glasses hurt my eyes, whereas the nvidia ones cause me no issues.

I wear glasses at times anyway so nvidia ones are no big issue, they work with my prescription glasses no problem, and are perfectly comfortable even for extended gaming sessions. As for the appearance of them, they are no worse than regular sunglasses and its not as if Im wearing them out as a fashion item. When Im in my own home I really dont worry so much about "fashion."

 

[ern88]

agree, the glasses have to go. When it does. I may get a 3D TV. But not until the Terminator X glasses go!!!!

 

[gm0n3y]

Everyone I know that goes to the movie theatre frequently avoids the 3D version of movies if at all possible. At best they are as good as the 2D version, but often they are worse. Not to mention the extra cost. The glasses don't bother me (in the theatre anyway). I think charging an extra few dollars is what is really going to kill off 3D. Its already at least $12 to see a regular 2D movie. $15 is ridiculous. Some theatres are even more expensive than that.