# 3D in home theaters, Do you see yourself upgrading?



## tonyvdb

With all the hype over the new 3D formats coming to your local home theater do you see yourself spending the cash to upgrade all your equipment to accommodate the new technology? I do believe that you need HDMI 1.4 compatible equipment.
I myself cant see this catching on very fast due to the cost. I would have to upgrade everything, receiver, Bluray player, projector/display and I think even the 35' HDMI cable I have run. I also cant stand wearing the glasses and thats the real deal breaker for me. This just does not seem like something that will sell.
What do you think?


----------



## Bob_99

Having just upgraded my display, I debated this point while looking at different options, but it meant I would have had to wait until the 3D technology settled down and I didn't want to wait any longer. And as with any technology, you have to decide when to jump in or continue standing on the sideline and watching as each new generation comes and goes. IMO since most people have just spent money on upgrading to HD, the desire to dump everything and start over will be low. However, I wonder how many people have delayed buying new technology and will jump on the 3D. In any case, the bottom line for me is that 3D is not in my future.


----------



## nova

I doubt that I will upgrade either. I just barely picked up a Blu-ray player last week.
As for 3D, I think it's a novelty. Kinda cool for a few minutes but that's about it.


----------



## Ares

Sony has said the PS3 will be getting a firmware update to make it 3D capable,now will this apply to all BDP's on the market I'm not sure. but this would still mean you will have to update your TV,HDMI,and most likely your receiver as well to support HDMI 1.4 all this is going to get rather expensive to convert to 3D tech.


----------



## tonyvdb

I also agree that the glasses makes this a hard sell, I do not like waring them as it ruins the experience of the large screen. I understand that they likely would sell comfortable ones but at what cost and you would need a set for each person in the room.


----------



## Spuddy

tonyvdb said:


> I also agree that the glasses makes this a hard sell, I do not like waring them as it ruins the experience of the large screen. I understand that they likely would sell comfortable ones but at what cost and you would need a set for each person in the room.


Don't the 3d TVs work without glasses? I was under the impression that the reason these things are a bigger deal than a simple software re-write is because they eliminate the need to wear anything to experience the effect. 

I'd love one, but then again, I'd also love $12k :spend:


----------



## tonyvdb

Nope you still need glasses its just the lenses are no longer colored (red/blue).


----------



## Ares

I won't be able to sit at home with glasses on my face just to watch TV or play games. The cost of the TV itself will be out of hand and then having to buy a few set's of glasses so the family can watch TV also let's not forget if you have company, If this is the case it will get really expensive to watch TV at home might as well go to the movies.


----------



## mechman

I am in the no camp. Personally I think that it's hype and that it will pass.


----------



## Prof.

Somehow it just doesn't grab me!
The glasses thing turned me off..


----------



## tonyvdb

I am curious maybe we should do a pole? Can someone help me set that up I have no idea how to do that. Seems so far most think they will not upgrade.


----------



## nova

There ya go Tony. Unless you'd like different questions.


----------



## RBTO

I'm _probably_ with the gang that says no, only because I just recently spent a good sum getting a good projector and BD player and don't want to re-invest this soon. I must say however, that I'm a 3D enthusiast and would like the ability to have 3D at home at some point in the future. It's vastly improved now that most of the process has gone digital. What I've been seeing at theaters (Meatballs, Avatar, etc.) is really good quality compared to what has been available in the past. The colored glasses method (anaglyph) stinks in most forms and has been the only way home presentations were possible without a full 3D setup, but that will soon be history except for comic books.
I could say that I'd go 3D if my present BD player could be upgraded (through firmware) to provide the 3D HDMI stream, assuming someone would produce a box that would split this stream into two 2D HDMI outputs. I would then take on the investment of an additional projector (matched to my current one) which would allow for 3D and the convenience of an extra projector. I don't think I will invest for _some time_ if I need to buy a new player _AND_ a new projector. That said, I'm in the maybe, but not right away category. (MBNRA category).


----------



## SteveCallas

Having to wear glasses is a deal breaker - additionally, polarized glasses tend to kill contrast levels.


----------



## tonyvdb

nova said:


> There ya go Tony. Unless you'd like different questions.


Thank you, thats perfect.


----------



## dalto

I will more than likely go for it but not right away. I think it will be at least 2-3 years before it is truly mainstream.


----------



## Spuddy

tonyvdb said:


> Nope you still need glasses its just the lenses are no longer colored (red/blue).


You already don't need those 

This is the TV I was talking about, it's being developed by Philips, but it's insanely expensive right now http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/08/71627


----------



## RBTO

The Phillips 3D display does produce good images using a variation of the lenticular process (which has been used before in a lot of applications) but the process is viewer position sensitive. Phillips has gotten around this by tracking the viewer and using a finer lensing pattern, but still has problems when multiple viewers are involved at various viewing angles. Also if you have head movement, some blurring can result at certain angles. Depending on your perspective, this could be better than wearing glasses, but glasses make viewing by large audiences and angle non-dependency possible. Glasses don't decrease the contrast. They decrease overall image brightness and since they decrease the blacks and whites by the same factor, the contrast index remains constant (same thing a gray screen does). Some glasses have an undesirable tint that can affect color accuracy. Shutter glasses will decrease the brightness by over 50% since each eye is blocked slightly more than 50% of the time. You get the 50% duty cycle reduction plus further brightness reduction due to the glasses themselves (about another 10-20%). The same applies to theaters where circular polarized glasses (not shutter glasses) are used since the image is present on the screen for about 50% of the time for each eye (the exception is IMAX 3D where two projection sources are used simultaneously, each having a different polarization - in this case you only have the brightness reduction the glasses introduce, but a silver screen must be used which adds a little reduction of its own compared to the high gain screen used with shutter glasses). Just some info for those interested.
And yes, the Phillips 3D technology is expensive!


----------



## Ares

Spuddy said:


> You already don't need those
> 
> This is the TV I was talking about, it's being developed by Philips, but it's insanely expensive right now http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/08/71627


Philips will cease all production on TV's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/technology/09philips.html?_r=1


----------



## recruit

I voted maybe as I will see how well it is accepted, never liked wearing those silly coloured glasses so it will have to be really very good to make me change :huh:


----------



## Chester

I voted maybe... presuming there arent glasses; tough to lay your head on the couch with glasses, you start getting uneven pressure distributions on the sides of your head then, the ear-sticks would be indenting on the side of your head (presuming you were laying down...)


----------



## RLouis

Sony actually has one of their new 3D TVs on demo in their Tysons Corner store in Virginia (around Wash DC). My initial impression was, it stunk. Yes, you have to wear glasses but they're actually pretty nice glasses. They're just light tinted lenses, not red/blue. Without the glasses everything has that 3D shadow edge effect to it. It's obvious but it would still be ok to watch without glasses (for a little while). With the glasses on the 3D effect is very mild and very spotty. Some parts of some scenes would project out a bit but it was still very mild. It was like mostly 2D with a little bit of 3D thrown in. The really odd thing I thouight was that the 3D shadow edge effect was still there and quite noticable even with the glasses on, just not as apparent. There was another shopper there, we were both watching the same scenes, and we both had the same opinion right away. Not very natural at all. It's certainly not worth the $5000 asking price (at this point). I know it's new tech but I'm still surprised Sony released it in the state it's in.

It was 46 or 50 inch model 

The 3D broadcast of "Chuck" and some of the Superbowl commercials (last year?) was just as good, if not better, from a regular 2D TV, from what I recall. 

Now that everyone has digital tuners how about a simulcast 3D channels for each respective 2D channel?


----------



## RLouis

I went to another Sony store near where I work (Pentagon City mall) to have a second look at their 3D TV and they said "it was down". I said "what, broken already?" Salesman said "no, it's just down". I'm guesstimating something wasn't right with their initial production run. Maybe firmware problems?


----------



## ctekguy

I am typically a "wait and see" type of guy when it comes to new tech. I'll generally wait till a second or third generation is out before deciding to make the move. I don't like to wait too long and miss out, though I don't like being the guinea pig either.


----------



## JoeESP9

Once upon a time I was an early adopter. Yeah, I bought a Beta VCR when they didn't have timers. I bought a Sony CDP-101. It made my system sound like something was broken. Maybe it's age or experience (I hope) that has tempered my desire to be the first on the block with the newest "gadget". 
With all that said, yes I'll eventually move to 3D TV. However, I won't be an early adopter. Once an electronic device has become mainstream enough for it to be sold in Walmart the economics of large scale production will cause prices to drop rapidly. Of course the caveat is, what source material if any is available. So, when Walmart has them for less than $1000 and a decent selection of software I'll start seriously considering one. Until then I'll go to the local IMax theater to get my dose of vertigo.
So, my answer is yes but no time soon.


----------



## spartanstew

The 3D that I saw at CES this year was very impressive. I already have a 3D ready display in my living room and another in the game room. So, all I need to get is a 3D BD player with dual HDMI out. I'm sure I'll get one.

I've been wanting to update my projector in the HT for the last year, and I think I'll probably wait not until some good (cheaper) 3D PJ's are available, before I upgrade.

I can see myself being 3D capable in 3 different rooms in about 18 months.


----------



## the_rookie

I personally don't see the point to jumping to it. And as it has been said alot have just jumped onto the HD boat, let alone being able to restart with HD + 3D. So I do not think it will last too long.


----------



## Spuddy

I don't see why we can't just wait until every other movie/show is produced with 3D formatting to begin with (what, like a year from now?? Won't be long after Avatar's success) and just use a HDTV or projector(s) to produce the image as edited for 3D perfection straight from the studio


----------



## Moonfly

I voted maybe. As it stands its not great in the home, but if they can get it like digital 3D cinema or better for a decent price I would certainly consider it. 

I think the only way its truly going to take off though is if they discover a way to do it without the need for glasses. Some people will never even give it a chance just because of that, but they are probably the minority.


----------



## recruit

Moonfly said:


> I voted maybe. As it stands its not great in the home, but if they can get it like digital 3D cinema or better for a decent price I would certainly consider it.
> 
> I think the only way its truly going to take off though is if they discover a way to do it without the need for glasses. Some people will never even give it a chance just because of that, but they are probably the minority.


I believe there was a company at CES which were demonstrating 3D HDTV without the need for glasses, but I cannot remember the name :scratch:


----------



## Ares

Samsung had a 3D without glasses demo setup at CES this year, Intel offered one as well.


----------



## mechman

It's my understanding that the sets that do not require glasses, the setup is quite limiting.


----------



## Ares

I believe from what I have read you need to sit pretty much dead center if I am remembering correctly sitting off-axis makes for a terrible viewing experience.


----------



## Chester

Dont the non-glasses tv's use something similar to the technology used on stickers where you can turn them at different angles and see different images?


----------



## Ares

Matt I found the article that I have read before and it mentions lenticular lens coating giving the TV the ability to produce a 3D image without glasses. Very similar but you would offset various layers at different increments to get the 3D effect.


----------



## Spuddy

Chester said:


> Dont the non-glasses tv's use something similar to the technology used on stickers where you can turn them at different angles and see different images?


Yep, They're very similar to holographic images.

I don't know much about the Samsung or Intel TVs, but as far the as the Philips one (which I guess we won't see here) it is actually producing 9 seperate versions of the same image within each pixel, with each one getting sent out in a different direction from the other 8. Receiving different images in the same viewing position leaves you with a 3D image much like a holograph, but also like a holograph, it means you have to be in a certain positions to achieve the effect. More than one person can see it correctly at a time, but it demands precise positioning and very limited head movement when watching something


----------



## DougMac

I've seen a couple of movies in 3D at the local muliplex ("Up!", "Avatar"). While they were fun and the 3D was used effectively, the addition of 3D did not significantly enhance the story. I actually felt distracted by the effect at times. I've watched "Up!" at home in 2D and it was more enjoyable.

James Cameron thought the movie world was just waiting for him to release a "serious" film before embracing 3D. I think there are more practical reasons 3D won't be widely adopted. I regard 3D is another attempt to save the movie theaters by luring us out of the comfort of our home and into the halls of sticky floors. Sorry, but I much prefer my dedicated HT. I get better PQ, SQ, audience members and the wine is also much better!


----------



## Chester

Ahh I understand, so basically... with lenticular 3D tv, we will be in the same 'sweet spot' issue that we face with our speakers! we will have to start DIYin rigs to keep our heads properly positioned  (like what they use in brain surgery to keep the head aligned)


----------



## tonyvdb

The new seating will be like they use in roller coaster rides that lock your head in one position.


----------



## Spuddy

tonyvdb said:


> The new seating will be like they use in roller coaster rides that lock your head in one position.


Brings a whole new meaning to telling new guests "you'll be in for a ride if you watch something at my place"

Gotta be sure to have a camera set up when they enter


----------



## RBTO

Don't want to be a stickler here - but for some clarification, the type of glassless displays being shown use a lenticular method originally called Xography. It is somewhat viewer position sensitive and doesn't work from just any position. It was used on some stickers and magazine covers to show different pictures from different angles. The stickers on credit cards are "holograms", not xographs. "Holography" is generally considered to be a technique using film exposed with coherent light from a laser (or lasers) and produces a 3D image that can be viewed from any angle. It is glassless, but hasn't been (and probably won't be) perfected for moving images, and is usually monochromatic, being seen in only one color (although color holograms have been developed).

Relative to _this_ discussion, deciding whether you will buy into 3D television and 3D HT, only the former (lenticular) applies and it is not too successful because of its angle dependency. You won't be seeing any "holographic" television displays anytime soon (i.e., next 20 years or so) so don't go there in your decision making process. It's a non-issue right now. What you _will_ see in the near future is two forms of 3D displays - lenticular (glassless), and polarized or shutter glass versions (requiring glasses, of course). Think about those when trying to decide. Personally, I don't mind glasses (wear them for reading all the time), but that's a personal decision. I think the primary deciding factors for me are the re-investment angle (need to buy all new equipment), and the ultimate quality 3D systems that will be out there in 1 or 2 years, will provide. From what I've seen, the latter is improving all the time. The former is the determining factor for me.


----------



## MetalMilitia

I will definately be looking at purchasing 3d ready devices after watching Avatar in 3d


----------



## recruit

MetalMilitia said:


> I will definately be looking at purchasing 3d ready devices after watching Avatar in 3d


This is one film that I would really like to see and if it is good in 3D then even better, I presume it is the real deal with proper 3D glasses that you wear?


----------



## RBTO

Anyone thinking about home 3D should see Avatar in 3D before they go further. I've seen it at IMAX and at a RealD 3D theater and liked the latter better. The IMAX uses two source projection and when I visited, there was a synchronization problem. Not so with the RealD presentation. (RealD uses one source and alternates between left and right images.) Anyway, the movie (not necessarily the story line) is very impressive in 3D.
A good home 3D setup (when it gets here) should do Avatar justice.


----------



## corock

I'm in the no camp. The AV industry just spent the last couple of years upgrading everyone to flat panel HD tv's and surround systems to do them justice, to the tune of hundreds to thousands per household. The public has been very slow to upgrade their ten year old DVD players to Blu-Ray; I just can't see them putting out another 2G+ for 3D. IMHO I think it will die from lack of sales. 

As an aside my 3 year old Samsung LED DLP has a seperate 3D input, which I found weird at the time since no source equipment existed. Samsung must have been guessing at what the standard and interconnect would be. Or its simply a port that isn't connected to anything and simply a marketing feature; just like the USB port for firmware upgrades, even though there haven't been any. I get a kick out of these products that are billed as "future proof" because they're upgradable, but 6 months later the manufacturer comes out with a new model and its as if your model didn't even exist. Sorry for ranting and going OT.


----------



## chadnliz

No I wont be, this is fluff for kids and I dont think after once or twice watching movies like this its gonna be something many will think they need. Not enough movies are going to be of calibur to get the funding for this expense, of those how many are really a movie where it will be worth the effort, I mean a drama dialogue driven movie wont benefit from some goofy 3D affect. That maybe leaves a handfull of releases if that yearly where they both can afford and justify the technology.
Sure the geeks will jump on this but they jump on everything new but other than that I dont see huge numbers of folks huddled around a monitor with silly glasses in their homes, too expensive, too much hassle, too little content will equal too little sales and it will die off soon after its release IMO.


----------



## Spuddy

How much of an upgrade would 3D tv really be for theater buffs? It's as simple as a set of glasses to go with a 3D movie  I can't see anyone here downgrading to 3D TV with the shutter lenses at this time, especially considering they got pulled off production as far as I know

On a side note, if you can get a screen refresh rate twice as high as we can physically see, would that eliminate the dimming problems of the shutter lense TVs? Give each eye a full-blown screenplay rate separately, and you won't even physically be able to see the down time (the problem that makes the image darker.) I'm pretty sure the technology is already readily available.


----------



## MatrixDweller

I'm due for a projector upgrade. My Epson Home Cinema 550 still does the job, but I'll probably have to replace the bulb gain within the next two years. It's only 720p and going on 5 years old.

If I do replace, it might as well be 3D. That is any fall into my budget and the specs are decent enough. I've heard rumors that 3D will need HDMI 1.4 to work. The PS3 is supposedly getting a firmware update and it only has HDMI 1.3 so I'm not sure if the rumors are correct. If it does requires more gear upgrades (ie: a new AVR) then I might have to pass.

3D is picking up a lot of momentum and the movie industry is just scratching the surface right now with it. Avatar was breathtaking, but I'm sure there are better films yet to be released that use 3D to its fullest. There is still the potential that 3D could fade out like has in the past. It is much better this time, but still requires glasses. Glasses-less 3D is quite a ways out and most likely will not be available as a projected image.

One added benefit of the emergence of 3D might be that it pushed the price of regular (2D) projectors down quite a bit. That might be good incentive for me later this year to purchase a new 2D protector instead. 

The big thing is I'll have to see some live demos so that I can say that it's really worth it (which might help get my wife on board too).


----------



## tonyvdb

Spuddy said:


> How much of an upgrade would 3D tv really be for theater buffs? It's as simple as a set of glasses to go with a 3D movie.


Traditional 3D movies in the past have used the red/blue glasses and did not work very well. The new technology requires a different set of special glasses for each person, a new display, receiver and BluRay player and all must be HDMI 1.4 compliant.


----------



## Spuddy

tonyvdb said:


> Traditional 3D movies in the past have used the red/blue glasses and did not work very well. The new technology requires a different set of special glasses for each person, a new display, receiver and BluRay player and all must be HDMI 1.4 compliant.


What about the clear glasses? I remember watching a 3D week special on Nickelodeon when I was a kid, and the glasses we had to use for it were clear even though it was all standard low-definition stuff. Any idea what the difference in technology is? I keep hearing about the Sony LCD thing and the Philips glass-less thing, but this apparently isn't one of those


----------



## tonyvdb

Even though there is some new trial sets that work 3D without glasses so far they do not have a wide viewing angle (you must sit directly in front of the screen) and do not work with projectors. The 3D we are seeing come out now still uses a pair of polarized clear lenses that each person in the room must ware.


----------



## Voodoo Rufus

RBTO said:


> Anyone thinking about home 3D should see Avatar in 3D before they go further. I've seen it at IMAX and at a RealD 3D theater and liked the latter better. The IMAX uses two source projection and when I visited, there was a synchronization problem. Not so with the RealD presentation. (RealD uses one source and alternates between left and right images.) Anyway, the movie (not necessarily the story line) is very impressive in 3D.
> A good home 3D setup (when it gets here) should do Avatar justice.


I mostly agree with the above statement. I saw it on RealD first and then Imax 3D. The Imax I thought gave greater visual detail, but perhaps I was just overwhelmed by the imagery the first time around. It's also the first movie I've seen in 3D.

As far as home theater equipment, I would like to get devices that are ready for 3D content in the future, but it will all depend on the cost. I personally don't see it in my future in the next 5 years at least.


----------



## hrpschrd

I am surprised that so many are complaining about the glasses when huge audiences were perfectly happy to pay extra for 3D Avatar.

I see that Sony (maybe others) are offering free firmware upgrades to Blu ray players. The software codex will be independent of the display. The HDMI spec has been modified. So in time someone will be able to make a decent 3D display for a reasonable amount of money. Total new investment is mostly the display and the market will love to have more unique consumer goods to sell.

In essence, it seems to me that 3D is inevitable. Question is when. Apparently the front edge is Summer 2010.


----------



## Ricci

Negative for me. Glasses are a put off for me as is the need to further upgrade a lot of equipment..again..and the probable rarity of 3D movies (likely action blockbusters only) and the issues with viewing angle. I just see it as too far in it's infancy to be worthwhile. Perhaps in another 15 years it'll be ready.


----------



## Cleatus

nope- too much $


----------



## Sir Terrence

I am most definitely going to upgrade because I cannot see why not. The glasses thing does not bother me, and I can get more a more consistent result in my home theater than one can get at various movies theaters(lamp life is very important with 3D). I am going to start simply by using my PS3, My Bravia PRO, and I will have to wait till I can find some glasses that will be compatible with my television. If I like what I see(and based on my initial experience I will), I will move up to a projection based system down the road.


----------



## tonyvdb

Sir Terrence said:


> My Bravia PRO


Your Bravia Pro wont do the new 3D


----------



## recruit

I've yet to see the HDTV's with the new 3D technology, I have missed a few shows here in the UK demonstrating them so I really cannot say if it is any good or not :scratch:


----------



## DougMac

When I want 3D, I'll dig out my Viewmaster. I think 3D has always been a novelty and even with advances in technology, I think it will remain one.

I've seen several recent movies in 3D. I saw "Up" in 3D at the theater and in 2D blu ray at home on a 120" screen. The 2D version was better. I found the 3D distracting at times.


----------



## recruit

That has always been the problem for me with 3D also, It tends to distract me from the actual film or make my eyes hurt if I wear the glasses for any long periods of time, what are other peoples take on this?


----------



## tonyvdb

Thats my biggest beef as well. I wont ware the glasses.


----------



## recruit

tonyvdb said:


> Thats my biggest beef as well. I wont ware the glasses.


If there the card board cut out ones with red and blue lenses then forget it :rubeyes:


----------



## tonyvdb

No, they look like regular glasses and are simply shaded polarized lessens. Although Ive seen the frames made of cardboard. I dont ware glasses normally so I'm not used to waring them as it is.


----------



## Sir Terrence

tonyvdb said:


> Your Bravia Pro wont do the new 3D


I am not talking about the Bravia Pro engine. It is a LCD panel that WAS going to be marketed to post production facilities, and it does 3D alright.


----------



## Owen Bartley

I'm not going to upgrade or buy anything new specifically to get 3D. I'm sure eventually if it becomes the standard everything will just include it anyway, but for now I'm not too interested.

I enjoyed Avatar in IMAX but it was more a novelty than a necessity. I wear glasses occasionally for distance (usually driving and for movies, and now for HD viewing at home), so I'm not completely opposed to the idea of the glasses, but my biggest problem in Avatar was fitting the 3D glasses over my regular glasses. 

Personally I think I'm more interested in Ultra High Def than in 3D. I still just don't see it as that much of an improvement to most viewing aside from being a cool feature.


----------



## Dale Rasco

tonyvdb said:


> With all the hype over the new 3D formats coming to your local home theater do you see yourself spending the cash to upgrade all your equipment to accommodate the new technology? I do believe that you need HDMI 1.4 compatible equipment.
> I myself cant see this catching on very fast due to the cost. I would have to upgrade everything, receiver, Bluray player, projector/display and I think even the 35' HDMI cable I have run. I also cant stand wearing the glasses and thats the real deal breaker for me. This just does not seem like something that will sell.
> What do you think?


Exactly the same reasons I won't be upgrading anytime soon.


----------



## Benway

I watched Avatar in 3D in the local cinema. The 3D effects were very impressive, indeed, but there was lot of problems with picture quality. The glasses i used seemed to decrease the contrast a lot, everything was kind of dim. The colors looked very washed out too, and there were occasional flicker in some scenes.

But this is my only experiece with 3D so far, so it may be too soon to draw any conclusions yet, before seeing a proper 3D demo in a home setting.

Perhaps the eye-blasting light output that most new displays are capable of today will fix the contrast problem I experienced, at least.


----------



## Spuddy

As far as I know, Avatar in IMAX was pretty much the supreme 3d quality available as of only 2 months ago, so it will be a few years before you see 3d as a quality image if you're starting with Avatar's picture as a low point. Avatar was a huge breakthrough though if you ever check out some older 3d titles- so far, Avatar is the only 3d movie that actually held my attention with its 3 dimensional integration


----------



## John S

I took a quick look at Samsung's 3D demo the other day. The animated movie they're using is kind of fun and the effect is there, and with a surprisingly wide viewing angle for LCD.

Still, there's no way I will upgrade until there's tons of 3D BDs available of serious movies, not just novelty stuff like cartoons and "Transformers 6: We're Out To Get You" kind of junk.


----------



## freki

I see myself getting into 3D in 2-3 years time, but not at the moment. I think cost will come way down really soon with as fast as everything is catching on. With it being the new hype, more and more component mfgs will hopefully integrate the technologies into more and more of their offerings. Plus more titles will be available. 

The glasses thing is a bummer. The systems I've looked at (nVidia) you have to buy glasses that cost about $100 pair to view the 3D, and that is not so appealing. If technology came into the home that allowed you to just wear the polarized lenses like you do in the theater, that would be more do-able for me.

Personally I'm excited for 3D in the home. I imagine it hooked up to the new Natal system from Microsoft


----------



## MatrixDweller

I saw a demo of a Samsung 3D TV and I have to say that I am very impressed. I've seen a few 3D films in the theater and the TV look better in my opinion. I found the image in the movie theater was darker and almost blurry at times. On the TV it was sharp and had more pop.

I won't upgrade until the price comes down significantly. Having to upgrade my projector, my Bluray player and possibly my AVR not to mention having to buy 7 or more sets of glasses (my family plus spares for guests) would break the bank. I am due for a projector upgrade in the near future (1-2 years) so when I do I would not get one that doesn't support 3D. Same with any other components on an as needed basis.


----------



## recruit

The one component that I might be changing in about a years time will be my LCD panel so may be tempted to go 3D then.


----------



## SETUP

Hi everyone i'm newbie here, just want to share my thoughts on 3d display. my friend has a 3d ready panel of about 55 inches. we run a 3d blueray movie and it was impressive but i felt a bit dizzy!! but having to have watched a 3d movie already at imax here.. i guess imho it is better to watch 3d movies in big panels like a minimum 100" diagonal screen for me to be able to truly appreciated 3d visual. with a room as small as mine probably it will take more time before i upgrade into a 3d ready projector of some sort.perhaps.. when the price go down already


----------



## imdlaw1

Just bought the Optoma hd66 projector. Getting ready to set up my theater. Cant wait to try it out. My son wants to use it for 3D video games.


----------



## bambino

I'm happy with the way things are now granted the 3d thing sounds very cool. Now maybe when my twins are old enough to know about stuff like that then maybe they can talk me into it but for now my wife and i are satisfied.


----------



## CT_Wiebe

This is another reincarnation (one more time around) of 3D. Right now there are at most 3 BD movies available that are decent examples of 3D (Avitar being the best example). Until there is more media available (filmed in, or specifically for 3D), the extra upgrade expense is not worth the price of admission. From what I've read, movies that were filmed in 2D and electronically converted to 3D have poor 3D quality, and don't really count.

Right now, 3D is still in its (2nd or 3rd generation) "Fad" stage. The HDTV offerings are only mildly effective, AFIK. There are also no standards, so one manufacturer's equipment can't be guaranteed to work with another's. I, for one, do not want to be locked into purchasing all of my equipment from a single manufacturer. They rarely, if ever, make good units in all AV categories (BD player, AVR, Projector/Display).

Since I watch almost all of my movies using a front projector, those are the last items to incorporate new technology, so it would be a while for me, even if the sources were available. Another downside, is that I would likely have to buy a new screen, too.


----------



## Moonfly

i TOOK THE kIDS TO SEE tOY sTORY 3 IN 3d THIS AFTERNOON. iN ALL HONEST, i REALLY LIKE IT, AND IN THAT GUISE i REALLY WANT IT TO SUCEED, i REALLY DO LIKE IT. i'LL RESERVE JUSDGEMENT ON THE HOME TILL i SEE IT PROPERLY, BUT i FOR ONE HOPE IT TAKES OF THIS TIME.

I took the kids to see Toy Story 3 this afternoon, and in all honesty, I really liked it. In that guise I really want it to succeed. I'll reserve judgement in the home till I see it for myself, but if its as good as it is in the cinema then I'm all for it. 

I'd stopped bothering with cinema visits, but 3D gives me a reason to go again now, and its become an event again.


----------



## Sir Terrence

CT_Wiebe said:


> This is another reincarnation (one more time around) of 3D. Right now there are at most 3 BD movies available that are decent examples of 3D (Avitar being the best example). Until there is more media available (filmed in, or specifically for 3D), the extra upgrade expense is not worth the price of admission. From what I've read, movies that were filmed in 2D and electronically converted to 3D have poor 3D quality, and don't really count.


As a person who works in the film industry, every time I read something like this...I want to just holler!! While "this" 3D is stereoscopic images on the screen just like the old 3D was, there is nothing similar after that - not in quality or implementation. "This" 3D is better in every way. 

Secondly, as an owner of both a 3D projector and flat panel you probably should not believe everything you read. I have every 3D movie released to home video(at least every non anaglyph one), and the quality of the effect you get is excellent across the board, with only some minor problems here and there. I have to agree there is not much in the way of 3D offerings out there, but I am willing to bet that will change in 2011 when the full push for 3D really takes place. 

There are some movies that were originally planned for 3D(Alice and Wonderland comes to mind), shot in 2D (with 3D in mind), and 3D encoded in post production. The results are excellent when all is said and done. Then there are other movies that were never considered for 3D, encoded quickly for 3D in post production, and the results were hideous at best(clash of the titans comes to mind). So you cannot just generalize that all 2D to 3D conversions are just bad, that is not the case at all. Animation has benefited the most from 3D, and we have only Avatar as a fine example of live shot 3D. 



> Right now, 3D is still in its (2nd or 3rd generation) "Fad" stage. The HDTV offerings are only mildly effective, AFIK. There are also no standards, so one manufacturer's equipment can't be guaranteed to work with another's. I, for one, do not want to be locked into purchasing all of my equipment from a single manufacturer. They rarely, if ever, make good units in all AV categories (BD player, AVR, Projector/Display).


Actually, there are 3D standards in place - the BDA set those standards early this year. There are different implementations of that standard that manufacturers have used, but they are based on one standard set by the BDA. I have a Panasonic 3D Blu ray player, and A Samsung 3D blu ray player, and they both work perfectly with my AV processor, projector and 3D plasma and LCD televisions. They are all interchangeable, and I have yet to see a glitch between any of them. My buddy has a Samsung blu ray player, a Onkyo receiver, and Panasonic 3D plasma, and they work just fine together. Purchasing everything from one manufacturer is not necessary if you do your home work. 

3D has passed the fad stage a long time ago. 3D has been going strong since 2003, and there are still many movies planned for this and next year. 3D movies continue to do better screen to screen than 2D movies in the theater(in terms of revenue and ticket sales), and that has not changed in the last couple of years at least. 



> Since I watch almost all of my movies using a front projector, those are the last items to incorporate new technology, so it would be a while for me, even if the sources were available. Another downside, is that I would likely have to buy a new screen, too.


I have a front projector that is 3D capable, the Titan Reference 3D capable 1080p projector. It is not cheap for sure, but it is a 3D projector that is available now. You do need to replace the screen with a silver screen as it prevents ghosting. 

Granted it is far easier to get into 3D via a flat panel than a projection system, but i have found the projection system gives me a better effect - not the flat panel is bad. In the end, each individual has to decide whether it is worth it to themselves to get into 3D now, or what till later, or never at all. I have thoroughly enjoyed the few movies I have, but all of my 3D setups also do 2D which gives everything a little more value in the end.


----------



## jjmbxkb

I think this latest push to 3D may have the best chance for it to actually stay. If you are on the market for any AV components, it's a good idea to try to future proof your system. However, all surveys on 3D at different forums end up with the largest group saying they will not upgrade to 3D. This one is no exception. My answer to the survey was Maybe.

It will be interesting to collect information on the type of main systems each respondent owns, projection vs. TV, as my theory is it may play a role in their answers. It is probably still too early to add 3D into a projection-base HT system. The projectors are generally one generation behind TV's. My Panny PT-AE4000 is still 60 hz. The shutter glassess will darken the images. So at least I want to wait until manufacturers can pack faster refresh rates (required for full HD 3D), and more lumens to fight the extra light blockade into reasonably priced models. Hopefully, several years from now, they could get rid of the glasses. Either way, you are better off waiting. 

Compared with previuos changes, VHS to DVD, SD to HD, Tube to rear projection to LCD, 3D is an addition, not a wholesale upgrade. A great hope for a quicker 3D adoption is 3D sports. Before the World Cup soccer, we are looking for a place to see a game in 3D, but did not find any. There is very little information or report on it. For the 3D industry, this is a setback to their cause since taking the 3D movie theater experience back home itself is just not appealing enough message. 

In addition to front projection and a LCD panel, I also have a 250 pound rear projection TV, which I used to hope to die quick. But now, I wish it could hold on a little longer, maybe for 1 more year, so that when I'm back on the market, the choices are clearer.


----------



## Moonfly

If you look at the pole in a different way, and take Yes and Maybe as being against No, then its up in the air. I think that is a more true reflection of how 3D is when talking about it in the home. 

I trly am impressed with it at the cinema, and hope it moves to the home just like that, not least as a new TV is waiting to see what happens technology wise. At the cinema there was an advert from a Satellite TV company that is going to be rolling out 3D broadcasts later this year. Football (soccer addle looked brilliant in 3D and the effect made watching it much more of an experience. When they say its like being there, this is the closest they have ever actually been to that effect, on a large enough screen, it really is like being there.

I for one hope it really takes off. Sure the glasses will be a pain for people who already have glasses, but I'm sure technology will eventually overcome that one way or another. I can see subscription glasses companies rolling out 3D variants of your glasses, although I accept they would be expensive compared to the normal gasses.


----------



## alg8er

Lots of bugs to work out. The glasses stink, a lot of people are physically bothered by the effect, and it's a big commitment to limited software. Right now, it's a definite no, and will be for a long time. Maybe 4th or 
5th generation.


----------



## Moonfly

alg8er said:


> Lots of bugs to work out. The glasses stink, a lot of people are physically bothered by the effect, and it's a big commitment to limited software. Right now, it's a definite no, and will be for a long time. Maybe 4th or
> 5th generation.


You know, Ive yet to meet a single persona who claims to be affected by the 3D affect. The glasses really dont bother me at all :dontknow:


----------



## alemar

I'm interested in it. But I'am taking a wait and see attitude. I usually adopt new tech right away. But 3d has never been that big of a draw for me. I really do not like wearing glasses when relaxing. It doesn't make me feel ill at all just not my thing. But if the price comes down and there is more to offer then I might make that decision then.


----------



## Ares

Moonfly said:


> You know, Ive yet to meet a single persona who claims to be affected by the 3D affect. The glasses really dont bother me at all :dontknow:


My wife suffers from nausea and headaches, because of that Avatar is her least favorite movie of all time. I don't suffer any affects from it I just find it really doesn't add anything to a movie IMO. A good story will trump 3D any day of the week as far as I'm concerned, not to get to far off topic here the only good thing about Avatar was the 3D IMO.


----------



## Moonfly

I agree, besides effects and 3D, Avatar is pretty mundane, and IMO one of JC's worst ever films, by his own standards.

I think 3D is simply about fun though, and for me it adds that fun when I want it. Soccer looked great in 3D, and Ive just got back in from having a look at one of Panasonics 3D tv's. Basically, I want one. The only thing is I will wait to make sure the industry is going to properly support it before I lay the money out.

I am supporting that growth by now watching any cinema releases in 3D if they are available. So as long as the support is there, then 3D can firmly count me in. My only gripe is expensive 3D powered glasses in the case of Panasonic. I need 4 pair but the TV only comes with 2 pair, so guess what kind of dealer it will take to win my purchase


----------



## jjmbxkb

Moonfly said:


> ... Soccer looked great in 3D, and Ive just got back in from having a look at one of Panasonics 3D tv's. Basically, I want one. The only thing is I will wait to make sure the industry is going to properly support it before I lay the money out.
> 
> ...


Hi, Moonfly: I'd love to see 3D sports myself, and that will be trigger for me to seriously search for a 3D TV, if I am overwhelmed. My expectations may be too high in hoping that we could a find a sports bar somewhere showing 3D World Cup. But given the publicity, it was not out of the question. Where did you see that demo of soccer, an electronics show? Also, could you elaborate on the industry support comment? 

Thanks.


----------



## Moonfly

Sky TV had an advert on at the cinema before the movie when I watched TS3 yesterday. The camera angle was one of the side line cameras with a panning shot of the player passing the ball around. Being in the tiered seating it really felt like being in the crowd, I was quite impressed by it.

Sky are introducing several 3D channels soon and sport is in there, and going of that effect I cant wait. Even the TV I saw this afternoon was at least as good as the cinema.

As for industry support, well as long as the content is there, and 3D hardware becomes the norm I'm in. I would hate to by a 3D set now only to have waisted the extra outlay in a couple years because the fad died.


----------



## jjmbxkb

I see. I will have to keep searching for an opportunity to see a 3D sports event. Here in the US, I know ESPN should have some 3D channels. I'm hoping the Super Bowl will present more opportunities. Thanks very much.


----------



## alg8er

Moonfly said:


> You know, Ive yet to meet a single persona who claims to be affected by the 3D affect. The glasses really dont bother me at all :dontknow:


Now there's 3 in a single page of this thread. 3 out of the 6-7 people posting on this page, that's like 50% of the population! :bigsmile: 
Both my wife and I get headaches and nausea. Try wearing the 
3d glasses over regular glasses, and yes they stink. I thought gaming looked really cool, but could only stand about 15 minutes. Without the 3D, I could game all day.


----------



## Moonfly

alg8er said:


> Now there's 3 in a single page of this thread. 3 out of the 6-7 people posting on this page, that's like 50% of the population! :bigsmile:
> Both my wife and I get headaches and nausea. Try wearing the
> 3d glasses over regular glasses, and yes they stink. I thought gaming looked really cool, but could only stand about 15 minutes. Without the 3D, I could game all day.


I meant actually meet in person. I do see people mention it online, but considering thats the only place I see the issue just makes me think the issue isnt all that widespread. Of course, it could well be the 3D just isnt all that widespread yet.


----------



## Ares

Moonfly said:


> I meant actually meet in person. I do see people mention it online, but considering thats the only place I see the issue just makes me think the issue isnt all that widespread. Of course, it could well be the 3D just isnt all that widespread yet.



Dan what's your take on JC redoing Titanic in 3D? I think he maybe overdoing it, the movie was already 3 hours long can you imagine sitting through that again and to top it off in 3D no less. 

I told my wife about it an she lost it she started ranting like a mad woman........in Spanish so most of what she said got lost in translation not because she was speaking Spanish but because it was in what I like to call rapid fire mode. The last figure I saw was something like 15% of the US population will suffer from adverse affects from 3D I will try and find that article to confirm if the number is accurate.


----------



## Moonfly

I think it would be the only reason would actually buy this title (kids enjoy it). The glasses arent the issue for me personally, more the milking aspect. That said, if 3D is going to happen then we want older titles re coding as long as they will look well. I would buy it in 3D (you dont have to watch 3D, but if I was to buy it the option is there either way). 3 hours is a long film, but its actually a pretty decent film too, as long as its not overly long for wearing the glasses, I havent gone that long wearing them yet, but many happily wear glasses all day, its just getting used to them I expect.

For me, I think if 3D is going to to take off, then we not only should expect older titles to be re-released, be we would expect that, the format will need the content to support it and many older titles are much loved. BTW, Tron Legancy looks like its going to be an awesome film :T.

I'm actually glad to see the industry driving forward, and supporting the technology, after all, without that its never going to take off no matter what we think. I think it also shows confidence in the technology, which is also positive from the consumer POV, and I have to agree, the technology does actually work, and work very well.


----------



## Ares

I wouldn't mind seeing Tron Legacy in 3D, I have no doubt that 3D will eventually take off. In three years I have bought three HDTVs a Plasma and two LCDs, Plasma was taken out by my daughter and replaced with the Toshi in my Sig so for me looking to upgrade anytime soon is a long shot. The industry has gone through some radical changes in the last five or six years with the advent of HDTV and now 3D to the home market, the next frontier will be Holodeck Tech and it will be given a name like True 3D or something to that affect by the marketing people. If and when that becomes available you can count me on from the get go.


----------



## andreaconci

I don't think so... I've never heard something like this...


----------



## Sir Terrence

Ares said:


> I told my wife about it an she lost it she started ranting like a mad woman........in Spanish so most of what she said got lost in translation not because she was speaking Spanish but because it was in what I like to call rapid fire mode.


Your wife must be Cuban or Puerto Rican, because my entire family speaks rapid fire Spanish. They don't have to translate in their heads, but I do, and I get the biggest headache from having to think that fast! :gulp:




> The last figure I saw was something like 15% of the US population will suffer from adverse affects from 3D I will try and find that article to confirm if the number is accurate.


The number is actually closer to 5-6%.


----------



## Steeve-O

My Onkyo TX-SR608 support 3D video but my TV does and my Blueray player doesn't to.

I will probably jump in 3D the day it will be available in 1080P or better and that you won't need glass. I think that the new Nintendo 3DS does not need glass but I think you have to be sitting at a specific distance to actually see the 3D picture.

Well anyway anytime soon in future I hope we won't need glass anymore. When this time come I may buy a new TV (Mine will probably due anyway when this time will come) and a 3D BRP


----------



## Dale Rasco

I have no interest in wearing glasses in my own room. I saw Avatar in theater and was obviously blown away, but the initial amazment has worn off and it still seems gimmicky to me.


----------



## gdstupak

I'm not too enthused about it.
When it's time for a new tv, I will get the best quality picture I can afford and if it happens to have 3D then that'll be just a little bonus to play with.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Steeve-O said:


> My Onkyo TX-SR608 support 3D video but my TV does and my Blueray player doesn't to.
> 
> I will probably jump in 3D the day it will be available in 1080P or better and that you won't need glass. I think that the new Nintendo 3DS does not need glass but I think you have to be sitting at a specific distance to actually see the 3D picture.
> 
> 
> Well anyway anytime soon in future I hope we won't need glass anymore. When this time come I may buy a new TV (Mine will probably due anyway when this time will come) and a 3D BRP


3D is already available in 1080p, this is what the Bluray standard supports. Personally I think glassesless 3D is a bit of a way off. They have it now with very small screens(12"), but you have to look at it at exactly the right angle, of the effect goes away. That angle is far to narrow for more than one viewer.


----------



## viccmw

I wear prescriptive glasses and the 3D eyewear pieces supplied are non too comfortable to wear on top of it. Until glass-less 3D becomes a reality on a large screen (>= 50"), no 3D for me.


----------



## Sir Terrence

viccmw said:


> I wear prescriptive glasses and the 3D eyewear pieces supplied are non too comfortable to wear on top of it. Until glass-less 3D becomes a reality on a large screen (>= 50"), no 3D for me.


I wear prescription glasses as well, and I have no problem with comfortably wearing the 3D glasses. After a while its like they are not there anymore, they blend right into my own eye wear. I have Samsung's glasses, Panasonic's, Titans, and Sony 3D glasses, all had no problem comfortably fitting over my eye wear.


----------



## Trick McKaha

This thread is a year old, and I'm only now chiming in. I have bought into 3D with an HD66 front projector, and I have a hard time understanding why everyone else doesn't as well. For me, it adds another type of realism and impact to the video watching experience, just as surround sound with subwoofers did, and just as going from 32 inch TV to an 8 ft wide TV did. 3D is a big jump - for me.

I hurried into 3D primarily for home video. It answers the problem of limited content and gives a neat avenue for expression. And, when I go to the trouble of making a video, I want it to be something that I will still want to watch 5 years from now. 

I'm thinking of 3D now as being like Rock and Roll was shortly after the guitar went electric. We had people saying that new fangled stuff hurt their ears and it was a fad anyway. Some cool works are made with a new medium, inspiring artists to experiment more than they do with something more familiar. I can't wait to see what the upcoming 10 years brings us in 3D, but I suspect that after then, most of the innovation will be spent and it will start to become ordinary or derivative. I like it best before the artistic rules are set. Right now.


----------



## hrpschrd

I just bought a new display so it will be a while before I invest again.

That said, my decision is usually software based. Not having glasses and large screen are significant but what am I going to watch? As with BD, I waited until there were enough titles to make it a more common experience. 

And THAT said, I am quite surprised at how fast 3D is entering the mainstream. 3D programming and 3D titles are picking up much faster than I expected. I may be itching for 3D sooner than it is financially warranted.

There is one caveat: I was not very impressed by Tron Legacy in 3D. Actually dissapointed. The graphics were cool but not nearly as immersive as Avatar. I will not support 3D if it only has cartoons and wild action/mayhem to support it. There is a substantially different phenomenon in 3D and HD. HD has a significant immersive effect that is good for all subjects. 3D other than Avatar, seems to be a narrow application. So far. I may not buy 3D for a long time unless that changes. Obviously that is the software issue again.


----------



## Homeincontrol

3D looks good, however presently the drawbacks are holding a lot of users back. Primarily the glasses which are expensive and sort of cumbersome. I will probably have to make the move anyway somewhere down the road. JUST LOVE HIGH TECH


----------



## imdlaw1

I agree, gotta wait for the glasses to get cheaper. DVD players are getting cheaper, but paying for enough glasses for the family to watch in 3D is still expensive.


----------



## TypeA

Since dvd launched Ive always been a early-adopter but a lack of reasonably priced 3D front projectors, and everyone having to wear the required glasses to make the technology work, will keep me out of the 3D market for some time to come. I like the effect tho...


----------



## Sir Terrence

Homeincontrol said:


> 3D looks good, however presently the drawbacks are holding a lot of users back. Primarily the glasses which are expensive and sort of cumbersome. I will probably have to make the move anyway somewhere down the road. JUST LOVE HIGH TECH


I own Samsung's glasses, Panasonic's glasses, and Sony's glasses, and the glasses that came with my Titan 3D projector. None of these glasses are cumbersome. They are expensive, but not cumbersome. 

The industry knows they made a huge mistake rolling out 3D televisions the way they did. Glasses will get cheaper and better, they are the problem at this point.


----------



## Sir Terrence

imdlaw1 said:


> I agree, gotta wait for the glasses to get cheaper. DVD players are getting cheaper, but paying for enough glasses for the family to watch in 3D is still expensive.


Does your whole family sit together and watch television? If so, that is amazing. I have a LG 3D projector that uses REAL3D technology so the glasses only cost $3. We have 5 pairs of glasses, but we never need them all because my family does not always want to watch the same thing, and we don't really watch television together that much and never have. Everyone seems to have different tastes, and what we do all like, we watch it at different times. In most cases, two would have been enough at any time, and that just happens to be how many pairs most manufacturers provide with the set to get you started.


----------



## tonyvdb

Sir Terrence said:


> Does your whole family sit together and watch television? If so, that is amazing. I have a LG 3D projector that uses REAL3D technology so the glasses only cost $3.


Ok but we are talking about the NEW 3D technology not the old red and blue glasses. 
My family, now just the tree of us watch movies all the time together and I have guests over all the time as well so the cost of owning up to 12 pairs of glasses makes 3D unafordable plus They do not make a front projector yet that does the new 3D and thats also going to cost a fortune when they do come out.


----------



## Sir Terrence

tonyvdb said:


> Ok but we are talking about the NEW 3D technology not the old red and blue glasses.
> My family, now just the tree of us watch movies all the time together and I have guests over all the time as well so the cost of owning up to 12 pairs of glasses makes 3D unafordable plus They do not make a front projector yet that does the new 3D and thats also going to cost a fortune when they do come out.


Tony, I am talking about the NEW 3D technology. Why would I talk about crude 3D that requires no investment?

There are new projectors out there that do the NEW 3D technology, and they can be had for under $10,000. Sony has one, and JVC has one. The projector in my sig also does NEW 3D, and I have a LG projector that does 3D using REAL3D technology(polarizing method), so the glasses are dirt cheap. That projector(on a deal) costs me about $8000 dollars. So the projectors are out there, but you have to decide if you are willing to invest. After seeing demo's of the Titan(stunning with 2D and 3D), I had to have one, and was willing to pay good money to get it. Same with the LG, and in the future the JVC DLA-RS40 projector as well. The JVC can be had for less than $5000

There are also dozen of cheaper 3D projectors that do 720p 3D, not full 1080p 3D. They can be had for less than $5000, and the PQ is definitely less sharp than full 1080p, but quite acceptable if enough light is thrown on the screen. There are currently 205 3D projectors out there from 720p to 1080p. The price range is from $2K to $50,000, so there is a lot to choose from, you just have to track down what you like, and are willing to pay for it.


----------



## imdlaw1

Sir Terrence said:


> Does your whole family sit together and watch television? If so, that is amazing. I have a LG 3D projector that uses REAL3D technology so the glasses only cost $3. We have 5 pairs of glasses, but we never need them all because my family does not always want to watch the same thing, and we don't really watch television together that much and never have. Everyone seems to have different tastes, and what we do all like, we watch it at different times. In most cases, two would have been enough at any time, and that just happens to be how many pairs most manufacturers provide with the set to get you started.


Believe it or not, my family actually likes me, most of the time. So yes, we sometimes all sit down and watch movies together.


----------



## Mark Techer

I do want 3D, however the issue I face at this time is the ability to integrate it into my existing CIH set up. 

Whilst the OPPO can vertically stretch some 3D titles, it can't do all (its a JAVA thing apparently) and I have no desire to go back to watching letter boxed films. I've seen 3D on may levels (the best IMO was Cineramax's RealD Pro at CEDIA last year) and regardless of the negatives I read about, generally each time I get to demo the technology, the more I like it. So as soon as the scaling issue for CIH can be overcome, I'm going there.


----------



## class a

The color and contrast is lost with the 3D. Forground and background look fake and flat. Extra money to see 
Clash of The Titans??? I'll suffer w/my Pioneer Elite guys.:sn:


----------



## Mark Techer

class a said:


> The color and contrast is lost with the 3D. Forground and background look fake and flat. Extra money to see
> Clash of The Titans??? I'll suffer w/my Pioneer Elite guys.:sn:


I agree that to a point, the colour and contrast is reduced. I would not go so far as to say "lost".

Clash Of The Titans is a bad example as it was not shot in 3D originally, rather a 2D up-conversion. True 3D is impressive though. I got to see AVATAR on 3D BD and it was impressive to the point that I think the 2D version only has slightly better colours now. It certainly does not have the depth of field the 3D version has. And there are other titles that are even better than AVATAR now. 

I have seen a range of 3D projection systems from entry (sub $10K like JVC X3) to a 3 chip 4K DLP that was 2nd to none.


----------



## yacht422

We attended a home theater cruise late last year-the topic was 3-d.
After four days of VERY interesting and informative comments from people in the know, there was no doubt by any of the attendees that 3d has a long way to go before prime time-time!!
Issues included non-compabilitY with the glasses - i.e. sony's glasses will not work with panny or mitsu or ANY other manufacturer's sets.(so i have a sony, you have a panny, we can not visit each other and use our own glasses! BD vs:HDD anyone?)
If you tilt your head, the image looses its definition. 
The actual image is diminished in brightness with ALL sets. SO - for those of us with projectors, lumens becomes an even bigger issue, at least in the affordable range(less than $50 grand)
i could go on.
What we came away with, was, _not ready for prime time_.
walt


----------



## Trick McKaha

Artistic innovation happens rapidly with a new medium. The current renaissance in 3D movie making is pretty exciting, and if one wants to participate in it, one has to suffer with some compromises. Those that wait for all the kinks to be worked out will be missing the best part. 

I personally think that Tim Burton did something special with his use of 2D to 3D conversion in Alice in Wonderland. Soon, Peter Jackson will bring us his first 3D production. Sooner, we get to see what Kenneth Branaugh does with it. By the time 3D becomes mainstream, much of the exciting innovation will be passed.


----------



## gdstupak

"not ready for prime time" and "not mainstream" are 2 totally different things.

I have seen the issues mentioned earlier and I would rather have better quality than something cool and new.
Also I don't have the money to invest/gamble in a developing process that may or may not be viable in the near future (Beta, HDDVD)(I'm sure 3D will become mainstream, but which process will it be).

EDIT: Trick, now that you've reworded your post, I guess others won't know why I wrote my post.


----------



## tonyvdb

I think is has to be said that 3D is evolving and there will be a new form of it that requires no glasses at that point then it will be accepted by more people.


----------



## Sir Terrence

yacht422 said:


> We attended a home theater cruise late last year-the topic was 3-d.
> After four days of VERY interesting and informative comments from people in the know, there was no doubt by any of the attendees that 3d has a long way to go before prime time-time!!
> Issues included non-compabilitY with the glasses - i.e. sony's glasses will not work with panny or mitsu or ANY other manufacturer's sets.(so i have a sony, you have a panny, we can not visit each other and use our own glasses! BD vs:HDD anyone?)
> If you tilt your head, the image looses its definition.
> The actual image is diminished in brightness with ALL sets. SO - for those of us with projectors, lumens becomes an even bigger issue, at least in the affordable range(less than $50 grand)
> i could go on.
> What we came away with, was, _not ready for prime time_.
> walt


I attended the same cruise, and I didn't walk away with the impression that 3D was not ready for prime time. There where issues to keep in mind...yes. But with that information I got on that cruise, I knew exactly what to look for when I purchased two 3D projectors, and three 3D televisions over this last year. The group I attended with was not left with the impression that 3D was not ready for prime time, so I am not sure which attendees you were sampling that left you with that impression. Everyone I attended with has gone on to purchase 3D equipment. What they learned on that cruise did not stop them at all, it actually motivated them more (count me in that camp). 

Yes the glasses from each manufacturer may not be compatible with other manufacturers sets. Not a problem, I just purchased start up kits(or they were included for free) from each of the TV manufacturers, and keep the glasses in the room the television is in. I think it is weird to ask somebody else to bring their glasses to my house to watch a 3D movie. If there are not enough glasses for everybody(which is not usually the case in my house), then we watch a 2D movie so everyone can participate. Another non issue blown out of proportion. 

The tilting head thing is a problem with 3D as a whole, not just the home grown version. Even when watching a IMAX 3D feature, if you tilt your head, things go out of focus. However, that does not happen with my Titan projector, nor my Samsung 3D television. With those two I can actually lay down and watch 3D. Besides, I don't watch 2D movies with my head tilted, so that is a problem that is actually a non problem with closer scrutiny. 

Light levels are another issue to be taken under consideration, but you will find that most of the quality 3D projectors out there have enough lumens to get enough light on the screen with 3D presentations. So do my 3D flat panels. I have found that while brightness is an issue for 3D, it has not been a problem at all in my experience with 3D in the home. 

I clearly remember when both Bluray and HD DVD hit the market, they both had handicaps with the products. That did not stop anyone from buying them, and upgrading when things improved. There are issues with 3D in the home, but there are also workarounds as well. I firmly believe in finding solutions to issues, rather than letting issues stop me dead in my tracks. There are no issues with 3D in the home that there are no solutions for. The more I educate myself on 3D equipment, the more I see people blowing up issues that have solutions for them already.


----------



## Sir Terrence

Mark Techer said:


> I agree that to a point, the colour and contrast is reduced. I would not go so far as to say "lost".


Exactly. With each of my projectors and sets, I have a 3D calibrated setting saved which boosts the color, and turns on the contrast enhancers to compensate for the loss. 



> Clash Of The Titans is a bad example as it was not shot in 3D originally, rather a 2D up-conversion. True 3D is impressive though. I got to see AVATAR on 3D BD and it was impressive to the point that I think the 2D version only has slightly better colours now. It certainly does not have the depth of field the 3D version has. And there are other titles that are even better than AVATAR now.


Clash of the Titans is an extremely poor example of a 3D conversion. 3D conversion takes a lot of time, and the movie must be shot with 3D in mind(Alice in Wonderland was). Clash was not shot with 3D in mind, and they only devoted two weeks for conversion time, which is far shorter than normal. Avatar is positively stunning on a 130" screen in 3D. And Mark you are correct, colors were only slightly washed out when the 3D images are compared to the 2D images. You just adjust the color to compensate. 



> I have seen a range of 3D projection systems from entry (sub $10K like JVC X3) to a 3 chip 4K DLP that was 2nd to none.


I absolutely agree with you here! Even this early in the formats life in the home, there is excellent equipment out there already. If there is anything that 3D need improvement on, its the glasses, not the projectors or the panels themselves.


----------



## gdstupak

Sir Terrence said:


> I clearly remember when both Bluray and HD DVD hit the market, they both had handicaps with the products. That did not stop anyone from buying them, and upgrading when things improved.


I greatly respect your knowledge and opinions on matters so please don't take this response the wrong way.

Many people waited for the handicaps of previous technologies to be ironed out before buying into it. 
Back in the 70's my father made very little money as a school teacher but went ahead and gambled with Beta, that one VCR player was a big expense for our family. Soon after that, Beta lost the format war and we couldn't afford to buy another VCR for awhile.
In the Bluray/HD DVD war, I couldn't afford to gamble on one (with my luck I would have picked the HD DVD). Even after Bluray won, I had to wait awhile for prices to come down a bit.

From your posts it seems to me that you either have plenty of disposable income, or you are given many great things. Most of us don't have either of those luxuries. Many people make less than $30K/year and can't jump into a format with wrinkles and then just easily upgrade later.


----------



## Sir Terrence

gdstupak said:


> I greatly respect your knowledge and opinions on matters so please don't take this response the wrong way.
> 
> Many people waited for the handicaps of previous technologies to be ironed out before buying into it.
> Back in the 70's my father made very little money as a school teacher but went ahead and gambled with Beta, that one VHS player was a big expense for our family. Soon after that, Beta lost the format war and we couldn't afford to buy another VCR for awhile.
> In the Bluray/HD DVD war, I couldn't afford to gamble on one (with my luck I would have picked the HD DVD). Even after Bluray won, I had to wait awhile for prices to come down a bit.


Do get me wrong here, 3D is not for everyone. It may be a total non interest, or somebody may have an interest, but cannot afford it at the time. The problem I am having is folks are not seeming to grab that a 3D projector does 2D as well, so there really is no gamble here. If you buy a projector capable of 3D, and 3D fails, you still have a great 2D projector. This is why I bought into 3D this early in the game. I was at the replacement or building stage of my hometheaters, and doing 3D was what the family wanted when we upgraded. I do not worry 3D failure, because I still have tons of 2D movies that can play on it as well. So this is not quite like the BR and HD DVD war whereas if you picked one and it failed, you have a door stop. 

As far as the money to get into 3D, there are solutions for that as well if you are really interested in doing it. You could start off at 720p 3D(which is not quite as sharp as 1080p 3D but the depth is still there) at just over 1K. There are some decent 3D projectors out there at that price point, but they do(just like their 2D counterparts) have some limitations at that price point. 



> From your posts it seems to me that you either have plenty of disposable income, or you are given many great things. Most of us don't have either of those luxuries. Many people make less than $30K/year and can't jump into a format with wrinkles and then just easily upgrade later.


You are correct on this, but one caveat needs to be added. I am not a foolish or stupid buyer. Just because I have the money to be an early adopter does not mean I do not do my homework, or look for a value. I chose the Titan because it was the best 3D projector in the market. It costs $50k if you paid full price. I got mine for less than that because I bargained(and got 6 pairs of glasses to boot), and I have a long time relationship with the company I got it from. I got my LG 3D projector and 3DTV's like that as well. In this economic climate, you can make deals with vendors if you really want to get into the technology. 

There was a time in my life that I did make $30K a year, and I still had great AV gear. I saved, planned, and was able to stay at the cutting edge because I did those two things. I know how to start off small, and work my way up. With the HD DVD/BR war, I bought the cheapest players on both sides(A1 and PS3). When Bluray won, I started upgrading my Bluray players, and used my A1 for DVD's(and it still gets used). I recently found a brand new still in box XA-2 on Ebay for $125 bucks, and bought it. I now use the A1 as a backup player. I still have 100 HD DVD movies, so I figured I could upgrade the HD DVD player(for cheap at that) to their top of the line, and justify the cost because it played all of my DVD's as well. 

One thing I have learned in my 3D education....the projectors were not the issue, it is 3D glasses technology. So I could safely invest in the projectors, and upgrade the glasses as the technology improves(better shutter syn'c, better lens material etc). Universal glasses are out there, but there is still some issues with getting them to work properly for each line of television. 

If you are really interested in getting into 3D but only make $30k a year, it can be done. In this case, for every issue there is a solution.


----------



## WooferHound

It's fun to turn the glasses up-side-down so the left lens is over the right eye and the right lens is over the left eye. It looks really strange when the left/right images are going to the wrong eyes. I try this everytime I see a 3D movie in the theater.
-©©-


----------



## Trick McKaha

gdstupak said:


> "not ready for prime time" and "not mainstream" are 2 totally different things.
> 
> I have seen the issues mentioned earlier and I would rather have better quality than something cool and new.
> Also I don't have the money to invest/gamble in a developing process that may or may not be viable in the near future (Beta, HDDVD)(I'm sure 3D will become mainstream, but which process will it be).
> 
> EDIT: Trick, now that you've reworded your post, I guess others won't know why I wrote my post.


Yep, sorry. I took back out my mention of waiting for 3D to become "Mainstream". I recognized it wasn't good to mix terms, and especially not terms that start out a little vague. Also, I had already made a similar point earlier, comparing 3D to Rock and Roll before it was mainstream, (or ready for prime time.) I guess I was making those edits as you were responding. Anyway, cheers.


----------



## gdstupak

Yep, I thought so.
It probably would've been best if I just deleted or edited my response to you but I figured, nobody's still reading this old post anyway.


----------



## Sirbrine

As I mentioned in another thread, I really don't find 3D that appealing, just interesting.

I just took the plunge into the world of decent sized flat screen TVs a little over a year ago. I shopped for a good deal and still paid a lot of money (to me). I plan to keep this TV a long time and am not very excited about spending a lot more money to buy a 3D TV that requires me to wear expensive brand specific glasses that I find annoying.

This post sounds more negative than I really intended. It is just that I am not a 3D convert at this time.


----------



## mickeyharlow

No. I read an article that discussed our brain waves in coordination with our eyes and how 3-d is not conducive to our vision response. That is why they need 3-d glasses. Our brain must be fooled to accept the 3-d. 

Not something that I think is very good for our brain. I get fooled enough without 3-d.


----------



## Sir Terrence

mickeyharlow said:


> No. I read an article that discussed our brain waves in coordination with our eyes and how 3-d is not conducive to our vision response. That is why they need 3-d glasses. Our brain must be fooled to accept the 3-d.
> 
> Not something that I think is very good for our brain. I get fooled enough without 3-d.


We don't really know if 3D is bad for the brain, more studies need to be done on the subject. However, Directors and DP's are figuring out that "extreme" use of vergence(the poking out effect) has been minimized in recent 3D movies, so eye fatigue is quite a bit less than it used to be. 

Our eyes fool the brain all of the time. Sometimes we think objects are higher or lower than they really are. Sometimes they appear closer than they really are. Our brain accepts these discrepancies, and moves on. The problem lies in doing 3D effects to the extreme. That when the problems really crop up.


----------



## mickeyharlow

As with everything, time will tell. As for me, I may end up with a 3-d TV, but I don't have to use the 3-d. I have a feeling that the next major development for TV will be holograms. Back to the big boxes for the effect.


----------



## Sir Terrence

mickeyharlow said:


> As with everything, time will tell. As for me, I may end up with a 3-d TV, but I don't have to use the 3-d. I have a feeling that the next major development for TV will be holograms. Back to the big boxes for the effect.


Everyone keeps mention holograms as the next coming thing. I say no way, 4K has a better chance of making it before holograms do. It will take more than a decade to make holograms practical for the home. They can do 4K tomorrow if the market could bare another video technology, of which it can't which is why 3D is having such a hard time. The manufacturers should not have been so quick to get 3D out there so soon after everyone converted to HDTV. You have to give a product a chance to mature in the market before you put another product out there. The should have also took more time to perfect the glasses, and set a standard so all glasses are compatible with all 3D televisions and projectors.


----------



## tonyvdb

Sir Terrence said:


> They should have also took more time to perfect the glasses, and set a standard so all glasses are compatible with all 3D televisions and projectors.


I dont think that "perfecting" the glasses is where they should be focusing there attention, Eliminating them all together is where it must go. I wont ever even consider 3D an option until the need for the glasses is gone and I know many that also feel this way.


----------



## Sir Terrence

tonyvdb said:


> I dont think that "perfecting" the glasses is where they should be focusing there attention, Eliminating them all together is where it must go. I wont ever even consider 3D an option until the need for the glasses is gone and I know many that also feel this way.


Then 3D is not for you, the glasses are part of the format. Glasses free 3D exists today, but at half resolution, and only for folks who want to sit in a very narrow viewing cone. Plus they don't know how to make them in sizes that make 3D effective. The wait for glasses free will be much to long in coming to even talk about it. The glasses are here now, so perfecting them will do more for 3D than waiting at least five more years for them to perfect autostereoscopic 3D of which they may never get full 1080p from it.


----------



## mickeyharlow

Sir Terrence said:


> Everyone keeps mention holograms as the next coming thing. I say no way, 4K has a better chance of making it before holograms do. It will take more than a decade to make holograms practical for the home. They can do 4K tomorrow if the market could bare another video technology, of which it can't which is why 3D is having such a hard time. The manufacturers should not have been so quick to get 3D out there so soon after everyone converted to HDTV. You have to give a product a chance to mature in the market before you put another product out there. The should have also took more time to perfect the glasses, and set a standard so all glasses are compatible with all 3D televisions and projectors.


Agree with time necessary for tech to mature but manufacturers are under such pressure to produce new technology to bolster need and therefore new sales.


----------



## Sirbrine

mickeyharlow said:


> Agree with time necessary for tech to mature but manufacturers are under such pressure to produce new technology to bolster need and therefore new sales.


They missed the boat with me on this one and I suspect a lot of other people feel the same way. I'm not sure there is any real perceived need for 3D in most people's minds, especially with baby boomers.


----------



## TypeA

Sir Terrence said:


> The manufacturers should not have been so quick to get 3D out there so soon after everyone converted to HDTV. You have to give a product a chance to mature in the market before you put another product out there.


Ironic hdtv languished in obscurity for the better part of a decade, lets hope glasses-free 3D TV doesnt do the same.


----------



## TypeA

tonyvdb said:


> I dont think that "perfecting" the glasses is where they should be focusing there attention, Eliminating them all together is where it must go. I wont ever even consider 3D an option until the need for the glasses is gone and I know many that also feel this way.


+1, in a perfect world anyway.


----------



## mickeyharlow

I think that the manufacturers would have been better served to try and introduce larger screen tv's at the lower price level with at least 2040 hz before trying 3-d. 3-D really requires much larger screens to be truly viable. They put the cart before the horse.


----------



## Sir Terrence

> They missed the boat with me on this one and I suspect a lot of other people feel the same way. I'm not sure there is any real perceived need for 3D in most people's minds, especially with baby boomers.


Baby boomer's at what income level? From what I understand, 3D equipment sales to upper middle class and the wealthy baby boomer's are doing quite well. It is the middle class baby boomer's(which is quite a large segment of the boomer population) where sales are not doing so well. 



> Ironic hdtv languished in obscurity for the better part of a decade, lets hope glasses-free 3D TV doesnt do the same.


It probably will unfortunately. The economics are strongly in favor of passive and active glasses technology. Right now glasses free technology is confined to extremely small displays(the largest is 12" as viewed from 26" away) half resolution, and a very narrow viewing angle(only from the exactly front of the display). It is going to take quite a bit of R&D money to get autostereoscopic displays(and projection systems) at larger sizes that can be viewed from wider angles. Active and passive glass 3D do not have these disadvantages, and can offer full 1080p in each eye, larger LCD and plasma screens, AND high quality projection based system that are already in the market place. By the time glasses free 3D system are available, they are likely to be several generation of improvement in LCD, Plasmas, glasses, and projection based systems. 



> Agree with time necessary for tech to mature but manufacturers are under such pressure to produce new technology to bolster need and therefore new sales.


Her is the other side of your equation - how much the market can bare. At this point it is pretty clear that manufacturers have exceeded the tipping point of what the market can bare- hence the lackluster sales of the sets to main stream consumers(and even quite a few enthusiast as well). When you have just purchased a HDTV, buying another television two years later is a non starter for quite a few folks. I just happen to be in the upgrade period of my installations, and chose to get 3D equipment to future proof myself. Had I have just invested in HDTV, even with my disposal income I would not trade up to 3D. 

Timing is everything. If the manufacturers had waited 4-5 more years before introducing 3D to the home theater, sales might have done quite a bit better. The technology(glasses not displays) would be dramatically improved, and would offer a real value to the end user. The tools on the production side would be more refined, and DP's and Directors (and the studio's) would have a better handle on how to use the technology, and for what type of movie. 

The rush to get products out there, the marketing blunders, and the poor release timing along with a recession is leading to the results that manufacturers(and studios) are now getting. I say this as an early adopter, and just being real about the current events of 3D.



> I think that the manufacturers would have been better served to try and introduce larger screen tv's at the lower price level with at least 2040 hz before trying 3-d. 3-D really requires much larger screens to be truly viable. They put the cart before the horse.


Honestly, I don't think increasing the refresh rate is a panacea for enhancing the performance of LCD's. Faster pixel switching would be a better course of action rather than just increasing the refresh rate. With 65" panels, and 82" DLP rear projection systems available, I don't think screen size is the real issue here. I agree they put the cart before the horse, but not in this area.


----------



## mickeyharlow

Your assessment is correct. The manufacturers play follow the leader. The follow only because they fear being left behind.


----------



## Sir Terrence

mickeyharlow said:


> Your assessment is correct. The manufacturers play follow the leader. The follow only because they fear being left behind.


And sometimes they follow really badly:sad:


----------



## mickeyharlow

Amen.


----------



## Jasonpctech

I think 3D today exists to create a need by getting the video and film industry to accept and produce the software leading to improved 3D innovation don't expect the evolution to real mainstream usage till a few years of content exists. Holographic can never (if ever) happen until producers fully accept a 3D only consumer market. We still have greener tech, thinner flexible screens and LED & Laser advances to refine over the next 10 years too. What we really need RIGHT NOW is to fix stupid HDMI and it's handshake issues!
I do dream about Logan's Run TV's though!


----------

