I already wear glasses for watching TV. Now I have to wear this s#1t on top my own glasses to get 3D? There’s no effing way I’m doing that! And another thing, because of the head splitting headache (and subsequent nightmare that night where I dreamt I had a headache) after watching Avatar in 3D, I’m pretty much done with 3D movies. Maybe because Avatar was so bad it sent me over the edge.
get killed both of them !
My house has 2 old school CRT analog TVs using analog cable. Have yet to see a TV program I would say “Damn, I wish I could see this in HD” much less 3D.
I don’t really miss my useless analog TV that I had in my truck. I just wait a day and catch the show on Hulu.
You idiots that say HD is no better than SD probably still have a 640×480 computer monitor.
I think some media will be available soon as will the viewers soon. The problem is to many people have been shafted by blue ray players that got left behind and DVDs that cost to much and nobody is using the media on computers to back stuff up.
A lot of people complain about headaches. Rapidly flashing lights can cause seizures in some people.
It might be prudent to check this out over at a friend’s house some months after they purchase theirs and see if they are still happy and how much they use it.
#1
Avatar really was not a good movie.
I disagree. Avatar did not have a deep plot or Oscar winning acting. On that there is no question. However, much like the 1933 King Kong (also a thin plot), Avatar was leap forward in CGI movies and movie experience.
#4
Often what gives people headaches is that their eyes are slight farther apart or narrower than the “standard” facial dimension. Theoretically, the 3D TV being proposed could fix that in that each person could get glasses tuned to their own facial dimensions.
I’m also skeptical about 3D TV. However, after having seen Avatar, I can see it working. Still, the glasses requirement is a deal killer for most people.
i only committed to 3d if the porno industry will support it.HA
Put me in the “I hate 3D camp”. It sucks. It’s stupid to put it on a TV. I don’t expect this trend to last. Looks like I’ll be waiting another year to get a new TV, hopefully 2011 models will not have this BS.
Argh…the 3D effects aren’t even that good!!! Why Why Why
If I have to wear GLASSES anyway, WHY NOT a dual display GLASSES..and get some DECENT 3D..
#23..
MORE dots only makes MORE DOTS..
at lower RES I can see/display more colors.
MORE dots does not make for LARGER TV..
Porn will make 3D a SUCCESS, just like it made VCRs wildly successful, even if we couldn’t program the damn clock !!! But watch out for those “Money Shots” !!!
The stereo 3D of the last decade or so isn’t the same as the 3D of, say, the 1950′s. A lot of research has gone on since, much of it done by the now-defunct Polaroid corporation. Researchers were commissioned to solve the known issues with 3D:
- Headaches in many viewers after a time
- Inability to focus on “near” 3D objects
- “Ghosting” (show-through of the wrong-eye image)
The core problem with stereo 3D is its plane of focus can differ from where the actual 3D object is “supposed” to be. In other words, the lens in your eye needs to remain focused on the screen even though your brain is trying to say that the target is much closer or farther away, and as a result you need to overcome something called the accommodation-convergence reflex. The Polaroid researchers showed test subjects clips from the 1950′s-style 3D movies while training a camera on the subjects’ eyes– and found that when the movie thrust something toward the viewer, the viewers’ pupils would diverge to compensate– a phenomenon that never happens in nature, and which quickly causes headaches and/or dizzyness.
What emerged from that research wasn’t so much a change in the basic 3D technology as it was a set of rules for filmmakers. 3D objects that approach the audience need to move slowly, stay near the center of the screen (to avoid being clipped by the edges of the screen for one eye or the other), and the gimmick can’t be used frequently or for very long. There cannot be multiple objects in play at different depths– if the audience is focused on a distant object and a near one “pops” into the frame, the audience can’t focus on it and the near object is merely a confusing blur. The viewer’s eyes need to be “led” from one depth to another.
Polaroid was responsible for the 3D technology in “Captain Eo”, which followed the rules painstakingly, was remarkably clear, and remains a landmark 3D film. But they can’t stop other filmmakers from breaking the rules, and so some 3D is better than others.
The game-changer in play for 3D right now is that a permanent infrastructure exists for it. Most theatres have at least one 3D-capable screen, so why not shoot in stereo 3D if it’ll fill a few more seats or bring in a few more dollars? Going from 3D to 2D is trivial.
3D is certainly not for everyone. You have to have two good eyes — (if you wear glasses, similar prescriptions in each eye). You need to have functional depth perception, which not everyone has. Otherwise you just get clunky glasses for no benefit.