RealD Bringing Full HD Passive 3D in 2011

Status
Not open for further replies.

adaman2576

Distinguished
Oct 26, 2009
41
0
18,580
0
This might be the reason 3d might actually catch on and not just be a fad. There was no way those shutter glasses were going to be adopted by the general public.
 

bpeglow

Distinguished
May 17, 2010
12
0
18,560
0
This is what I've been wanting. Active shutter glasses suck. I would actually consider buying a 3DTV if it's circular polarization. Let's hope they go through Panasonic.
 

g00fysmiley

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2010
476
0
18,930
0
more interesting as cheaper implementation but i'm curious the effective viewing radious if i'm too far off center would it distort the picture? i guess we'll have to wait to see reviews to know
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
817
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]g00fysmiley[/nom]more interesting as cheaper implementation but i'm curious the effective viewing radious if i'm too far off center would it distort the picture? i guess we'll have to wait to see reviews to know[/citation]
Are you referring to 3D-TV's in general? Because they all have a sweet-spot (even the current offerings).

My wife and I didn't buy our first HDTV until this past winter, and we still don't own any Blu-Ray devices (and I know we aren't the only ones slow to adopt). We haven't bought Blu-Ray because its not worth a price-premium (our up-converting DVD player does a nice job with our CDs). My point is, I really don't see 3D catching on. Especially not after so many people have finally jumped on the HD bandwagon...

"What, you mean my 46-inch HD LED TV I bought 6 months ago has to be replaced with a model twice as expensive, same as my Blu Ray player, AND I have to wear 2-pound glasses on my head that cost me $100 a pop, just to watch the dozen or so movies released in 3D blu ray so far? No thanks!"
 

g00fysmiley

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2010
476
0
18,930
0
yea the reason i was wondering is obviously in theatres you can see a 3d movie in a larger vertical "sweet spot" than most shutter glasses so i'm curious if the horisontal range will be better than current shutter technology as well adn if so by how much
 

cracklint

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2008
112
0
18,630
0
whether with passive or active shutter glasses, 3d sucks! After getting used to 120hz motion correction or plasma, going back to 60hz induces migraines. everything I have seen looks like board cut-outs placed infront of a 2d background. I would watch an elementary school musical if I wanted to watch something that fake and unrealistic. I have seen avatar, how to train your dragon, and re: afterlife and would gladly have payed more to see it in regular 2d. I'll will not pay to see another 3d movie or pay a premium just to have it at home. Its amost like stepping back from 1080 to low quality vhs. I can't believe people are investing in this crap.
 

tsnorquist

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2009
265
0
18,930
0
I agree with Crack, I'm not a fan of the 3d. I'd much rather have a 80" to 100" 120hz 2d screen with ultra high resolution.

Save the 3d for Drive Ins' with the old school Red & Green paper glasses =)
 

pacapaca

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2010
9
0
18,510
0
The way it should have been in the first place! Much cheaper glasses (shouldn't be more than a few bucks a piece), lighter and more comfortable, no batteries, etc... I will definitely be looking at 3D TVs in the next few years if they start making them with passive glasses.
 
G

Guest

Guest
@hellwig - Based on the fact that you just bought your first HDTV last winter, I'm assuming you also didn't think HD was going to catch on?

@cracklint - You would gladly pay more to see those movies in 2D... well you're in luck cause you could obviously have paid less to see them in 2D

People are funny. Everyone who has commented on this article has complained about the glasses costing a few hundred dollars but not one person has inquired about the price of this new display technology... which surprise, is much much more expensive than current 3D TVs - the money you save on glasses, you lose 5 times over on the initial purchase... and you're still wearing glasses to watch 3D.

Also - can we please get past the "this will never catch on because people aren't willing to invest the money in this new technology" argument? After the introduction of DVDs, 720P, 1080P and Blu-rays - I don't know if I can do it anymore.

The reality is, 3D is here and it is awesome. Remember how you couldn't tell the difference between HD and SD... and then you got your first HD TV and stated that you could never ever go back? 3D is sort of like that.

 

mayne92

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2009
356
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]hellwig[/nom]Are you referring to 3D-TV's in general? Because they all have a sweet-spot (even the current offerings).My wife and I didn't buy our first HDTV until this past winter, and we still don't own any Blu-Ray devices (and I know we aren't the only ones slow to adopt). We haven't bought Blu-Ray because its not worth a price-premium (our up-converting DVD player does a nice job with our CDs). My point is, I really don't see 3D catching on. Especially not after so many people have finally jumped on the HD bandwagon... "What, you mean my 46-inch HD LED TV I bought 6 months ago has to be replaced with a model twice as expensive, same as my Blu Ray player, AND I have to wear 2-pound glasses on my head that cost me $100 a pop, just to watch the dozen or so movies released in 3D blu ray so far? No thanks!"[/citation]
You took the words right out of my mouth. Also, I still don't have a Bluray player either...$30 for a Bluray Disc movie is not marketed to me lol.
 

mayne92

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2009
356
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]I promise you this[/nom]@hellwig - Based on the fact that you just bought your first HDTV last winter, I'm assuming you also didn't think HD was going to catch on? @cracklint - You would gladly pay more to see those movies in 2D... well you're in luck cause you could obviously have paid less to see them in 2DPeople are funny. Everyone who has commented on this article has complained about the glasses costing a few hundred dollars but not one person has inquired about the price of this new display technology... which surprise, is much much more expensive than current 3D TVs - the money you save on glasses, you lose 5 times over on the initial purchase... and you're still wearing glasses to watch 3D.Also - can we please get past the "this will never catch on because people aren't willing to invest the money in this new technology" argument? After the introduction of DVDs, 720P, 1080P and Blu-rays - I don't know if I can do it anymore.The reality is, 3D is here and it is awesome. Remember how you couldn't tell the difference between HD and SD... and then you got your first HD TV and stated that you could never ever go back? 3D is sort of like that.[/citation]
I bet you the scumbags of America will get these at taxpayer expense before I can with my actual working earnings...
 

FSXFan

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
40
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]I promise you this[/nom]Also - can we please get past the "this will never catch on because people aren't willing to invest the money in this new technology" argument?[/citation]
I agree totally. I know there's plenty of people just where I live (out in the sticks, compared to most people on this site) that will be buying 3D stuff just because they want to prove they can keep up with the Joneses. The company I work for has one set up at the store for a demo, and people are definitely interested. We've already sold a few 3D TV's and Blu-Ray players, although these were people who already have several plasma and LCD TV's in their homes and can afford to throw money at the new technology just because they want to. But I know there's enough of these people around. Also, the technology is going to get cheaper and more mainstream with time. Eventually all new displays might be 3D.

I just want one for Gran Turismo 5 when it gets here. I also want one without the need for glasses, but passive glasses is a better start than $600 for enough glasses for my family to watch a movie together.
 

wribbs

Distinguished
Aug 31, 2010
39
0
18,590
1
This is great news. I absolutely love watching 3D movies but when I found out about the special (expensive) glasses for home viewing I abandoned any plans to get a 3DTV. I'd still like to see where the tech that doesn't need any glasses to view 3D is going though.
 

caeden

Distinguished
Oct 14, 2009
30
0
18,580
0
The problem with 3D isn't so much a technology problem as much as it is an intelligence issue with Hollywood. The reason 3D is just 'ok' and not great is because it is an inherantly different medium with different story telling tools than good old 2D film/video. Even Avatar (not last airbender, the good one) suffered from wierd/jarring transitions, and occasional scenes with strange depth of field issues. Still a great movie though, and by far the best non-animated 3D movie out there, but even the 'best' still isnt perfect, and the rest of the 3D movies just suck so far. But in a few years when directors stop using 3D as a gimmick and start using it as a real story medium then I will be convinced that 3D is here to stay, and that it deserves to stay.
Also, to mr 'i promise you this', the passive 3D tech is expensive because it just came out. The tech for active shutter glasses has been around sense the '90s, and thus it is cheaper. Give passive a year or so and it has the potential to be much cheaper because there is only one variable to worry about (the screen), rather than having the transmitter with several sets of glasses each with their own receiver, power source, and shutter. There is also potential here for a brighter picture (which shutter glasses always dim things too much), and the ability to have multiple concurrent 3D sources in view because they don't need to be synced. Seems to be a much more elegant solution, and would be especially appreciated for the PC.
 

eccentric909

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2006
228
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]orionantares[/nom]I'll buy a 3D TV when it stops making me queasy to look through the glasses. Same thing with going to a 3D movie.[/citation]

Not sure why you were marked down for this, but 3D (at least in theatres) also makes me queasy. Not every single time, sometimes it depends on where I'm sitting, but a lot of the time I get a headache or sick to my stomach.

That isn't to say I don't like the technology, but a lot of the movies I've seen with 3D would be fine without... Resident Evil Afterlife being a good example. I didn't feel the 3D really brought much to the table with that movie, unlike Avatar which did look pretty cool. It's just not worth it to me however, if I don't feel well during or after the movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Streaming Video & TVs 2
W Streaming Video & TVs 2
R Streaming Video & TVs 3
S Streaming Video & TVs 3
R Streaming Video & TVs 1
valentinalucia Streaming Video & TVs 3
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 2
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
CherlynnLow Streaming Video & TVs 1
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
rutherfordsc Streaming Video & TVs 2
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 1
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 17

ASK THE COMMUNITY