# Is the push for 3D compromising the 2D quality?



## fergi (Mar 6, 2010)

I lost the vision in my left eye a few years ago and therefor can not appreciate the new 3D programming. I'm a little concerned that my 2D choices may be limited by the current push for the 3D. 

Am I at some time going to be forced into paying extra for 3D equipment that may not play 2D as well as the dedicated 2D TV equipment now?


----------



## Zeitgeist (Apr 4, 2009)

Good question....

I prefer the quality of a good 2D movie over a 3D in the theater... There are compromises still being made for 3D.

Although 3D has come A LONG way... 

I sure hope that 3D doesn't become a forced norm..


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

There might be some money diverted to the technical side of making a feature, which could compromise the story line or the amount invested in special effects, etc., but imaging wise, 3D doesn't compromise a motion picture.

In a 3D feature, there is basically just a second video channel which you can take or leave. Some folks have remarked that 3D ready televisions (flat screen) look even better than their predecessors. They have better refresh rates, and the overall technology has been improved on the account of 3D requirements. I don't think any 3D Blu-Ray players would be considered to be compromised, and produce images just as good as their 2D counterparts.

It's my opinion that 3D will have very little if any effect on 2D. I have some 3D Blu-Rays and if you watch in 2D, you wouldn't know the difference unless someone told you it was a 3D disk.

Granted, there has been some lousy 3D out there, and the flubs from computerized 3D can carry over into a 2D image, but it doesn't have to be that way. Avatar is an example of a feature that looks great in 2D and many folks really appreciate it in 3D. More like apples and oranges.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

3D will not replace 2D just as SD dvds are still being sold today. 3D is a nice option but BluRay still has not caught on in many households, it will be at least 10 years before we see 3D common place and who knows by then holographic's will be possible.


----------



## KelvinS1965 (Feb 6, 2011)

IMHO 3D hasn't negatively impacted on the 2D performance of hardware: The new JVC X3 looks better in 2D than the previous model HD550 with better colours as well for a similar price too if you ignore the 3D glasses and emitter. I've recently bought a fully 3D capable scaler, the Lumagen Radiance Mini3D (one of a range of 3D Lumagen VPs) yet I don't use _any_ of the 3D features, but what it does for 2D is amazing. I don't know if they would have brought out the Mini version if it weren't for 3D, so I'm grateful for that as a 'full' Radiance would have been twice the price and I'd have no need for all the extra inputs anyway.

What we will never know is if the X3 would have been even better if 3D wasn't around, but I don't think that's worth losing sleep over.


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

There haven't been many advances in 2D since 3D came along, but I'm not sure there are many new worlds to conquer. I' keep pursueing the impossible goal in audio, but for video quality, enough's enough.lddude:


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

Wow, as a person who has invested profoundly in 3D, I agree with the opinion of just about everyone here. 



> 3D will not replace 2D just as SD dvds are still being sold today. 3D is a nice option but BluRay still has not caught on in many households, it will be at least 10 years before we see 3D common place and who knows by then holographic's will be possible.


I agree with some of this, and I disagree with others. You are right, 3D will not replace 2D - and let's be frank, it is not supposed or intended to. 3D is a enhancement of the 2D visual experience - a extension of the storytelling aspect of the movie, and a more visually immersive experience than 2D. Which is a better experience is purely subjective rather than objective. 



> There haven't been many advances in 2D since 3D came along, but I'm not sure there are many new worlds to conquer.


4K has not really been touched, and it is another visually experience in and of itself. 



> IMHO 3D hasn't negatively impacted on the 2D performance of hardware: The new JVC X3 looks better in 2D than the previous model HD550 with better colours as well for a similar price too if you ignore the 3D glasses and emitter.


I totally agree with this. You can add the emitters and glasses later if you are interested in 3D. This projector is a great 2D performer. 



> There might be some money diverted to the technical side of making a feature, which could compromise the story line or the amount invested in special effects, etc., but imaging wise, 3D doesn't compromise a motion picture.


The screen play or concept of a movie(rights in industry speak) are purchased long before the budget of the movie itself is established. The rights to the movie are purchased long before even an actor is chosen for the lead part, or even a Director is chosen.



> I lost the vision in my left eye a few years ago and therefor can not appreciate the new 3D programming. I'm a little concerned that my 2D choices may be limited by the current push for the 3D.
> 
> Am I at some time going to be forced into paying extra for 3D equipment that may not play 2D as well as the dedicated 2D TV equipment now?


The answer to this is no on both counts. Because 3D is designed to be backwards compatible with 2D, your choices will be unaffected. 3D is an extension of the 2D experience, not a replacement of it. 

You will find that 3D able equipment is just as good with 2D as it is with 3D. One does not have to be compromised over the other, both are designed to work together equally(when 3D is perfected).


----------



## fergi (Mar 6, 2010)

It appears that 3D is having a positive influence on the technology. 

Thanks you all for your input. My current Dell plasma is getting a little long in the tooth and I was afraid that soon there would be no 2D options available. Does anyone have a suggestion for a good value in a 50" plasma?


----------



## Trick McKaha (Oct 7, 2009)

I also agree with those here who indicate that 3D has not undermined the quality of 2D equipment. I will say that I have read that movie makers will generally frame their shots differently for 3D. 2D movies can have people standing at the edge of the frame, but good 3D has the main elements contained entirely within the frame. I suppose that is one reason why 3D movies sometimes appear smaller than 2D ones. So if movies start to get made for 3D, they might not have some of the tricks and techniques that have proven so effective in 2D through the years. Watching a 3D movie in 2D may not be as great an experience as it might have been if the movie were made for 2D in the first place. I wouldn't worry about it, though.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

Trick McKaha said:


> I also agree with those here who indicate that 3D has not undermined the quality of 2D equipment. I will say that I have read that movie makers will generally frame their shots differently for 3D. 2D movies can have people standing at the edge of the frame, but good 3D has the main elements contained entirely within the frame. I suppose that is one reason why 3D movies sometimes appear smaller than 2D ones. So if movies start to get made for 3D, they might not have some of the tricks and techniques that have proven so effective in 2D through the years. Watching a 3D movie in 2D may not be as great an experience as it might have been if the movie were made for 2D in the first place. I wouldn't worry about it, though.


Last year I attended a 3D conference for DP's(Director or Photography), and while they can't always use the same tools for 2D, they have quite a few others that work for 3D. 

I am already seeing 3D films that avoid the "in your face" effect which is so hard on the eyes. Now they are using 3D for depth mostly, which is a lot easier on the eyes. They have also learned how to do 3D with fast moving images, and that also takes the strain off the eyes.


----------



## Integra8 (Jan 1, 2011)

I have heard, from BB, that the 2D tuner in a 2D/3D TV is better...so they say. I just wish they would have let HD, never mind Blu Ray take off more than this silly 3D nonsense, at least to me. People were just getting into HD and then they throw 3D into the mix not long after Blu Ray won the format war confusing people even more, not to mention the big turn off when they see the investment of 3D.

Jeff


----------



## IrishStout (Nov 12, 2010)

I did not get a chance to read all of the posts, but if you are looking for a superior 2D TV then 3D is the way to go. They need to use better components to deal with the increase in refresh rate so that you do not get flicker when viewing 3D. I can go on but I do not have time to elaborate.. but trust me.. best 2 is a 3d solution.. just don't watch 3D on it...


----------

