Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
August1991

3D TV

Recommended Posts

Elsewhere, smallc posted this:

3D today is quite different than 3D in the past. It's even coming to your home. Like I said, I think it's you that's stuck in the past.

Curious, I found this:

Top TV makers including Sony (6758.T), Panasonic (6752.T), LG (066570.KS) and Samsung (005930.KS) will feature 3D screen advances at the Consumer Electronics Show this week, hoping the new technology will be as big a boost for the industry as the transition to color TVs from black and white.

...

The need for special 3D glasses and the lack of live sports and entertainment events in 3D may keep people from adopting the technology outside the cinema, analysts say.

Reuters

IMV, high definition and data transmission in general are far bigger problems. I don't think TV manufacturers want to add 3D into the mix - unless it's a marketing thing. I can see Sony or LG advertising screens that meet a certain "3D standard". In theory, any screen can show a 3D movie, assuming that viewers wear the right glasses. The image may be 3D but the quality will otherwise suffer. It's a question of degree.

Fundamentally, the problem with 3D TV or cinema is that it requires two images and to distinguish these images, the viewer requires a filter for both eyes. This means that viewers have to wear glasses, and the image is darker than it would otherwise be.

All such 3D images are dark. The first one I saw was The Mask. The most recent was Avatar. Both used plot to explain the darkness. I don't see ordinary New York Disney sitcoms moving to 3D. They'll simply be too dark. (Viewers will have to wear glasses too.)

The second major issue with 3D concerns content. In the past 50 years or so, filmmakers have had to cope with colour, video and now high defintion images. (Imagine what this means for make-up people.) Adding 3D to the mix now is just too much. Imagine telling Woody Allen that he must create his movies thinking of the 3D version of his movie. (The early movies - Wings, It, Grand Hotel - are like stage plays filmed.)

----

In the 1970s, there was something called quadrophonic sound. Instead of stereo sound (ie. sound mixed to two sources for reproduction), it was mixed to four sources - requiring four speakers. Attempts at 3D now (and even CGI) remind me of quadrophonic sound and 8-track tapes. Quadrophonic sound is now known as 7.1 sound. The .1 is a bass and the odd number 7 is the critical centre speaker. It is an even more tenuous connection between 8-track tapes and mp3 files.

Moreover sound requires so much less memory than visuals. 3D visuals more than double the data, require more light, and make special effects more difficult.

Who knows? In 2018 or so, someone may discover a holographic solution to 3D images and change the whole process.

====

Stanley Kubrick made 2001 in 1967 and among its few errors was the size of computers. In 1967, Kubrick put an astronaut inside a computer to kill it. No one in 1967 imagined that a computer could be minitiarized.

Then again in 1967, the Bell Canada pavillion at Expo 67 allowed people to talk with one another by Picturephone. Little did Nortel/Bell investors know at teh time that people in 2007 would use Skype and the Internet to talk and see one another.

It is hard to predict the future.

Edited by August1991

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While listening to the news on the radio yesterday and report came on that ESPN will launch a 3D HD channel in time to show the World Cup in 3D. Apparently they experimented with a Trojans-Buckeyes game this year so 3D will come to CFB, CBB and who knows what else. It won't be long. Would I put on a pair of glasses to watch 3D programming at home? Yes. I would at least try it. For football, hockey and lacrosse -for sure!

However, I was at a SonyStore in the spring and they had a little 11" screen OLED showing an HD video. I was absolutely blown away because the clarity of the picture gave a realistic impression of depth that was pretty close to being 3D without the glasses. Far better than anything I can get on my 1080 sets through cable. The question is, can that same resolution stand up in a larger picture format? If it does, then I think OLED is the way to go when the prices come down and the screen size goes up. If you are wandering by a SonyStore in the mall see if they have the OLED on display, it's pretty cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auguste, two points:

1. I have seen most IMAX 3D movies, and they're not all dark. The NASCAR 3D film is one example.

2. Electronics manufacturers are ALWAYS looking for the next big thing to get us to upgrade. Examples ? Um, let's see: Long Playing Records, Stereophonic Sound, 8 Track Tapes, Dolby Noise Reduction, Cassettes, Chrome Cassettes, Linear Tracking Turntables, CDs, DATs, Colour Television, Trinitron, Video Discs, VCRs, DVD, Blu-Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone would like to see something technologically amazing, especially if you're a fan of videogames and the Wii especially, check this out. 3D is may be coming to you're TV faster than you think. This has been on youtube for awhile so who knows how far they've come with it now:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auguste, two points:

1. I have seen most IMAX 3D movies, and they're not all dark. The NASCAR 3D film is one example.

2. Electronics manufacturers are ALWAYS looking for the next big thing to get us to upgrade. Examples ? Um, let's see: Long Playing Records, Stereophonic Sound, 8 Track Tapes, Dolby Noise Reduction, Cassettes, Chrome Cassettes, Linear Tracking Turntables, CDs, DATs, Colour Television, Trinitron, Video Discs, VCRs, DVD, Blu-Ray

I was in future shop and the sales guy was raving over the Blue Ray and how it's the greatest and I'd love it...but I did't see a significant difference from other systems that would persuade me to part with the cash for it...from what I've heard from friends and some reviews I'm not alone...it's just not worth the money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll make this short:

Target demographic for ultra highend "3D TV" Males 35 to 50+ (18 to 35 males cannot afford high end TV's or Hummers, etc)

Most common complaint from 35 to 50+ males "The image is too dark" (Probably due to increasing weakness and cloudiness in the eyes as one ages)

Most 3D technologies halve the brightness as they flip from one eye to the other.

3D technologies that halve brightness are doomed to utter failure as the image is "worse" than without.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Target demographic for ultra highend "3D TV" Males 35 to 50+ (18 to 35 males cannot afford high end TV's or Hummers, etc)

Adults, say early 20's+ who get into the workforce buy highend TV. I agree many can't afford it, but that's what credit card debt is for.

Most common complaint from 35 to 50+ males "The image is too dark" (Probably due to increasing weakness and cloudiness in the eyes as one ages)

Huh? It's dark for everybody. Nothing to do with eye weakness

Most 3D technologies halve the brightness as they flip from one eye to the other.

3D technologies that halve brightness are doomed to utter failure as the image is "worse" than without.

What gets me is...why don't they just make the picture brighter to compensate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stanley Kubrick made 2001 in 1967 and among its few errors was the size of computers. In 1967, Kubrick put an astronaut inside a computer to kill it. No one in 1967 imagined that a computer could be minitiarized.

Yeah they really did not think computers would get smaller however.

.... we have a cluster of servers that would be a computer in of itself and requires a room for you to into. So of someone was inside the computer, so to speak, these days it's just in the server room. The server room I maintain is 15x40 feet, 3 racks (full) a shelving unit, the AC and the switch rack where the fiber is terminated.

Even Fox Mulder had to get inside a computer once. :D

Moonlight Graham Icon

Posted Yesterday, 04:43 PM

If anyone would like to see something technologically amazing, especially if you're a fan of videogames and the Wii especially, check this out. 3D is may be coming to you're TV faster than you think. This has been on youtube for awhile so who knows how far they've come with it now: Wii 3D VR head-tracking

Hot damn !!!!!!! That is awesome use of the technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in future shop and the sales guy was raving over the Blue Ray and how it's the greatest and I'd love it...but I did't see a significant difference from other systems that would persuade me to part with the cash for it...from what I've heard from friends and some reviews I'm not alone...it's just not worth the money...

Except that it can hold orders of magnitude more data than a DVD...and there is a difference (a large difference) if a system is properly set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Electronics manufacturers are ALWAYS looking for the next big thing to get us to upgrade. Examples ? Um, let's see: Long Playing Records, Stereophonic Sound, 8 Track Tapes, Dolby Noise Reduction, Cassettes, Chrome Cassettes, Linear Tracking Turntables, CDs, DATs, Colour Television, Trinitron, Video Discs, VCRs, DVD, Blu-Ray
MH, you almost make that sound as if it's a bad thing: "Those terrible corporations ripping people off with constant changes."

On the contrary. We have a system in place that creates terrific incentives to innovate. This is a race to the top.

One reason I dislike professional sports and prefer market relations is this point exactly. When professional sports people compete, nothing new is produced. When engineers compete, society gets new ideas.

I was in future shop and the sales guy was raving over the Blue Ray and how it's the greatest and I'd love it...but I did't see a significant difference from other systems that would persuade me to part with the cash for it...from what I've heard from friends and some reviews I'm not alone...it's just not worth the money...
I think that it is partly a question of eyesight. Most young people can easily detect the difference between good high definition screens and ordinary screens. Older people often don't see a difference.

Moreover, the upgrading of a good DVD transfer to a good screen is almost equivalent to a bluray version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH, you almost make that sound as if it's a bad thing: "Those terrible corporations ripping people off with constant changes."

Not at all. I was responding to this point of yours:

I don't think TV manufacturers want to add 3D into the mix - unless it's a marketing thing. I can see Sony or LG advertising screens that meet a certain "3D standard"

On the contrary. We have a system in place that creates terrific incentives to innovate. This is a race to the top.

One reason I dislike professional sports and prefer market relations is this point exactly. When professional sports people compete, nothing new is produced. When engineers compete, society gets new ideas.

You see - they're hucksters. If they can add a pinwheel to a TV, and sell it as an improvement then they will.

I think that it is partly a question of eyesight. Most young people can easily detect the difference between good high definition screens and ordinary screens. Older people often don't see a difference.

I have bad vision and HD looks good to me. But maybe that helps your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. I was responding to this point of yours:

I don't think TV manufacturers want to add 3D into the mix - unless it's a marketing thing. I can see Sony or LG advertising screens that meet a certain "3D standard"

On the contrary. We have a system in place that creates terrific incentives to innovate. This is a race to the top.

One reason I dislike professional sports and prefer market relations is this point exactly. When professional sports people compete, nothing new is produced. When engineers compete, society gets new ideas.

You see - they're hucksters. If they can add a pinwheel to a TV, and sell it as an improvement then they will.

I have bad vision and HD looks good to me. But maybe that helps your point.

I've noticed the prices for the big screens have come down dramatically(a 60"plasma half the price of my 3yr old 42'plasma), that usually means something new is on it's way and the want to clear out old inventory before it arrives, no one wants to buy old technology....HD or 3D will be everywhere soon...

watching a tech program on new electronics, the 3D is on it's way, some sport cable networks are changing over and 3d home camcorders are out as well...

I was going to buy a new 60" plasma but I think I'll wait to see how much the new 3D's cost, I'll pass on the HD I don't find them any better than what I have now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 3D TV is premature. There are many (like me) who have not even gotten into the new TV tech. I still have a 32" square tube TV. It's not more than 10 years old at this point. If people are getting into a new LCD or plasma screen, they are not going to be buying into the 3D tech anytime soon. That is only going to sell to those with large amounts of disposable income.

Not only that the 3D is only going to make a difference with people that have good balance vision, or have contacts/glasses that equalize the eyes. Everyone has a dominant eye. In talking to some who had gone to see Avatar in 3d said they could not see the 3d properly. Blurred or hard to focus. Each eye is viewing their own signal which can make things hard to see if your vision is not up to par. Headaches seem to be common as well with the new 3d tech because of poor or unbalance vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 3D TV is premature. There are many (like me) who have not even gotten into the new TV tech. I still have a 32" square tube TV. It's not more than 10 years old at this point. If people are getting into a new LCD or plasma screen, they are not going to be buying into the 3D tech anytime soon. That is only going to sell to those with large amounts of disposable income.

you're in the small minority, the only people I know of who don't have a plasma or LCD are my father/mother-in-law both in their 70's, the old square tubes are being banished to secondary or third status in homes...I recently hauled an old(8yrs) square tube 31" Sony to the recyclers for a client, I asked a number of people if they wanted it for FREE, I couldn't give the thing away... the current TV technology is already old school,the first 3D's will be pricey as were the first flat screens in 4-5 yrs 3d's will be common...
Not only that the 3D is only going to make a difference with people that have good balance vision, or have contacts/glasses that equalize the eyes. Everyone has a dominant eye. In talking to some who had gone to see Avatar in 3d said they could not see the 3d properly. Blurred or hard to focus. Each eye is viewing their own signal which can make things hard to see if your vision is not up to par. Headaches seem to be common as well with the new 3d tech because of poor or unbalance vision.
I have 50% in one eye, I have double vision all the time sometimes even triple vision(it's confusing) but I had no problem with the 3d effects in Avatar...when the price comes down I'll have a big screen 3D in my family room...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 3D TV is premature. There are many (like me) who have not even gotten into the new TV tech. I still have a 32" square tube TV. It's not more than 10 years old at this point. If people are getting into a new LCD or plasma screen, they are not going to be buying into the 3D tech anytime soon. That is only going to sell to those with large amounts of disposable income.

Not only that the 3D is only going to make a difference with people that have good balance vision, or have contacts/glasses that equalize the eyes. Everyone has a dominant eye. In talking to some who had gone to see Avatar in 3d said they could not see the 3d properly. Blurred or hard to focus. Each eye is viewing their own signal which can make things hard to see if your vision is not up to par. Headaches seem to be common as well with the new 3d tech because of poor or unbalance vision.

This is a good point.

Most people do not have perfect 20/20 vision either. At somewhere around 17/20 vision at 50 inch screen size - people tend to not really notice the difference between highdef and upscaled standard definition. Everything is naturally blurry to people who are borderline contact or glasses wearing.

I actually found that watching movies in 120hz (from a 24hz source like DVD's and Bluray) provided a better quality upgrade than DVD to Bluray itself. I also greatly prefer TV's that have full colour gamut CCFL's (proper reds) The "jumpiness" especially in things like end credits rolling up the screen was just plain annoying at 60hz, and once you've seen a full colour gamut TV - you will wonder why everything was orange before.

Honestly all of this stuff depends heavily on the persons own level of perception.

3D requires too much demand on the viewer to be within a certain level of perceptual ability to fully enjoy.

Edited by ZenOps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...