# Have you seen consumer 3D tech in action?



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Feel free to hit the poll above to see if our results differ from the national trend: People who think they want a 3D television actually don't once they see one in action.

http://gizmodo.com/5637037/study-youre-less-likely-to-buy-a-3dtv-after-watching-one


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

I viewed one at Best Buy a few months ago and I also demo'd one at Capitol Sales during my Spectracal training. I also went to a 3d movie with my kids about a month ago. I want nothing to do with it. The glasses have never felt right. Not to mention some studios seem to be getting away from their main objective - making good movies. Gimmicks do not make a movie. Good scripts make a good movie.

My kids, ages 13, 12, and 7, didn't care for the 3d movie either. They think the glasses are uncomfortable. 

I do get a kick put of folks buying a 46" 3d TV and then viewing it from something like 10-15' away. I know several folks who do this now and wish they would have bought a standard TV. If you're going to do 3d fine, but set it up right. If you want an immersive experience, the screen better fill those glasses.


----------



## bambino (Feb 21, 2010)

I haven't seen one but waited in line for all of 5 minutes too but it wasn't worth the line (to me) to check it out. I'm really not thinking one is in my future allthough i would like to check it out. Maybe if the twins (when old enough) can talk me into it then maybe but as of now i'm very happy with what i've got.

P.S. I barely get to watch the set i've got do to dictatorship of the wife plus i'm too busy most of the time.:nerd:


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

The shutter glasses method is much better than the polarized IMAX and RealD presentations I've experienced in the theaters. What I have seen in stores is impressive, from a novelty perspective. I would like to own one as long as the 2D performance of the display is not diminished by its inclusion. My showroom's front projection setup with Joe Kane's Samsung DLP and a Joe Kane screen from Da-Lite makes the Blu-ray Disc of 'Avatar' look nearly 3D anyway. The same went for 'Up,' which I saw in IMAX 3D. I won't see a 3D film in a theater again until one offers shutter glasses in my area. The overall image quality suffers too much in the polarized formats. I'm too much of a student of motion pictures to accept the compromises.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## fitzwaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

I saw one at the Sony store in MGM Grand in Vegas last week. It was neat, but I'm not really all that into the 3D thing. Maybe once they can do it without glasses, but until then, nah.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I have seen the Sony, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, and Samsung 3D sets and have to say that the Panasonic seemed slightly better than the rest, but I find all of them to be a distraction rather than a benefit to viewing. I see flicker and vertical motion artifacts in all of them. I think it will be something that a part of the market likes, but not of interrest to most.


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

fitzwaddle said:


> I saw one at the Sony store in MGM Grand in Vegas last week. It was neat, but I'm not really all that into the 3D thing. Maybe once they can do it without glasses, but until then, nah.


I have a difficult time imagining how a 3D display can be realized with no glasses, without severe restrictions to multiple viewing angles, nor do I expect them to be able to make a screen that will not compromise 2D picture quality (which will ever be the majority of programming viewed on a TV).


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I agree, Alan. All of the schemes that I have seen discussed are going to have severe issues, IMO. The problem is really a matter of physics and geometry and to get a real 3D effect you have to have discrete images supplied to each eye.

The bigger issue for me is that 3D is just not that important to most films and television content. It is curious and it is neat, but once you see it living with it just is not that desirable, IMO. I am not willing to make the trade-offs for 3D. It will have to get much better and look more natural and not so derived to appeal to me.

That said, if you like it go get it. Only market interest will drive innovation and R&D that might produce something more interesting.


----------



## fitzwaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

This sums up my impressions of 3D so far:






Every 3D film just has to have the obligatory thing being thrust toward the screen. "See, its 3D!!" Yawn.


----------



## waldo563 (Apr 26, 2009)

I have not been impressed by what I've seen in store displays so far. The image reminds me of cardboard cutouts and in some instances was accompanied by flickering and artifacts. As far as I'm concerned it's a marketing push to steer consumers towards a higher margin line which hasn't matured yet.


----------



## kee1968 (Sep 20, 2010)

lcaillo said:


> I have seen the Sony, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, and Samsung 3D sets and have to say that the Panasonic seemed slightly better than the rest, but I find all of them to be a distraction rather than a benefit to viewing. I see flicker and vertical motion artifacts in all of them. I think it will be something that a part of the market likes, but not of interrest to most.


I agree the Panavision is better but I won't spend the money unless they make it much larger and cheaper. It will also have to have excelleny 2D picture. I am though investing in the Amp ang player as I need to upgrade now so I ordered the Denon A100 and their DBP 2011udci.


----------



## fitzwaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

waldo563 said:


> The image reminds me of cardboard cutouts


Yeah I came away with the same impression. I guess to be expected with v 1.0 of anything, but I'll be on the sidelines for a good while I think.


----------



## Moonfly (Aug 1, 2008)

lcaillo said:


> I have seen the Sony, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, and Samsung 3D sets and have to say that the Panasonic seemed slightly better than the rest, but I find all of them to be a distraction rather than a benefit to viewing. I see flicker and vertical motion artifacts in all of them. I think it will be something that a part of the market likes, but not of interrest to most.


I have seen the Panasonic and Sony offerings, and I also thought the Panasonic was the better. I cant see the rest of the market beating them two personally, and Panasonic have always been a firm favourite for me.


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

Nobody have responded to the poll saying that they have purchased a 3D TV w/ glasses, etc. If we, those most passionate about Home Theater, aren't buying, it leads me two two conclusions, either or both of which may be true:

1) We, real HT folks, are curmudgeons. Sticks in the mud, tightwads, nay-sayers, jerks. We dismiss out of hand anything seen as a gimmick aimed at the masses because it's not cool and esoteric in our eyes...no matter how much tangle improvement to the experience it may have.

2) Not only aren't we buying, but no one's buying. All this talk of 3D flying off the shelves is a crock and pure marketing hype meant to advertise the money out of our pockets.

Like I said, 3D could be something and we're just missing the action, or nothing and we're all being duped with hyped sales talk, but something is definitely amiss.


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

eugovector said:


> Nobody have [sic] responded to the poll saying that they have purchased a 3D TV w/ glasses, etc. If we, those most passionate about Home Theater, aren't buying, it leads me two two conclusions, either or both of which may be true:
> 
> 1) We, real HT folks, are curmudgeons. Sticks in the mud, tightwads, nay-sayers, jerks. We dismiss out of hand anything seen as a gimmick aimed at the masses because it's not cool and esoteric in our eyes...no matter how much tangle [sic] improvement to the experience it may have.
> 
> ...


Beware of false dilemmas, where only two possibilities in a debate are posed but more exist. There is not just an either/or answer to why no one has responded to your poll, and likely many more than both of the answers you assert. Politicians and media reporters use this technique regularly. I find both of your conclusions dripping with cynicism and negative assumptions about how "we" think and act. Please supply examples of "all this talk of 3D flying off the shelves." 

Don't take this personally. I am more analytical than the typical member about what I read in forums. Agreement isn't always necessary in life, but clarity enhances understanding. My intent in participating in these discussions is to learn more about subjects and technologies that interest me and, hopefully, contribute information that legitimately informs and elevates the reader. I disagree with your conclusions. For myself, I'm not currently investing in "toys" due to the uncertainty of this nation's economic future.

Best regards and beautiful pictures,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
A Lion AV Consultants Affiliate

"Advancing the art and science of electronic imaging"


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm not saying those are the only two options, just the two conclusions that I'm personally drawing. And yes, the cynicism is not only apparent, but intentional and admitted.

Examples of 3D flying of the shelves according to the folks making 3D TVs: http://www.techradar.com/news/television/panasonic-has-upped-3d-tv-production-by-30--684595

Maybe a better measure of 3D's success would be the sale of the glasses, not the TVs. Talk about false assumptions.

I guess my beef is that if we're going to dump a bunch of marketing money into shoving tech down peoples throats, how about we focus on audio? I think listening in 3D is a better experience than viewing in 3D. When's the last time you saw a commercial on TV for better audio, or any audio product for that matter?

And, this is coming from a guy who thought Avatar, both in concept and execution, was fantastic, though not flawless. I think 3D is the future, not the present like we're being sold.


----------



## MarkMac (Jan 5, 2008)

I've seen two different displays. Once was a 55" Samsung, and the other was on a 50" Panasonic plasma. Both looked good to my eyes, but I came away with the same impression on both...very underwhelmed. Sitting ~10 feet from a 50 or so inch 3D display doesn't feel right. The 3D image just loses it's effect when you can see the room around the TV. Unless you are in a dedicated room with a large screen (and the lights out), 3D just doesn't do it for me.


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

MarkMac said:


> I've seen two different displays. Once was a 55" Samsung, and the other was on a 50" Panasonic plasma. Both looked good to my eyes, but I came away with the same impression on both...very underwhelmed. Sitting ~10 feet from a 50 or so inch 3D display doesn't feel right. The 3D image just loses it's effect when you can see the room around the TV. Unless you are in a dedicated room with a large screen (and the lights out), 3D just doesn't do it for me.


Exactly!! :clap: :T I really don't understand why a lot of folks cannot see this. At another forum I frequent, not a audio or video site, they are all going nuts for 3d. :nono:


----------



## eugovector (Sep 4, 2006)

mechman said:


> Exactly!! :clap: :T I really don't understand why a lot of folks cannot see this. At another forum I frequent, not a audio or video site, they are all going nuts for 3d. :nono:


Nuts enough to buy a 3D setup for their home, or just nuts enough to talk about it on a forum?


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

eugovector said:


> Nuts enough to buy a 3D setup for their home, or just nuts enough to talk about it on a forum?


All of the above IMO.


----------

