http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/warning-3d-video-hazardous-to-your-health

I have to say, I have no interest in this at all

Exactly, not interested in the 3D "fad"

Only if glasses free and not much of an increase in cost would I have any interest. I know several people that can only see out of one eye. I don't suppose that they would have any interest either.

I have been looking at new displays for a while now, and in the last couple of months, EVERYONE is recommending these 3D displays... at a certain point i was thinking i was the ONLY one who doesn't want a 3D display, all i want is a REALLY nice 2D display....

glad to see at least 2 other people have the same opinion that i do!

Thanks guys!

I have no desire in 3D either, I watched Sony's demo in a store and it was interesting but the PQ was a little fuzzy to me. I had a hard time keeping things clear, in focus. I can see gaming making use of this technology, but I still do not want to wear glasses to watch TV/Movie/play a game, so until that happens I am opting out.

No no, we've had a pretty big discussion already about how fed up we all are about the industry treating $3000+ dollar telivisions as 'disposable' merchandise, & that we weren't going to buy into it.

It used to be when you went down to shop for tv's, you were ready to purchase something that you planned to enjoy for the next few decades anyway. Now-a-days it seems as if the salesmen are practically telling us, "oh yes, this is our top of the line Plasma/LCD/LED/Laser/DPL that we carry right now, & it should do you very nicely until the 2160p/3D/Hologram/Chrome Electron sets come out in a year or two. At which time you should be sure to come back and upgrade because they're going to be spectacular"!!!

Piss on that. If everyone is out to get a 3D set then at least the really good 2D sets will hopefully come down in price & I can get a good 1 for the bedroom. I guess I should check on ebay for used 65 inch 2D sets, I'll just bet there are people trying to unload their 1 or 2 year old sets cheap so they can get the latest and greatest 3D displays. I'm up for a good cheap 65 inch LCD/LED/Plasma!

Other than seeing 7 of 9 in 3D, I have no use for this technology.

"That is irrelevant".....

Call me old fashioned, but I consider a 3D movie special enough to get me to venture out to the theater to see it on a huge screen. I have a 3D blu-ray, and while I think it's cool, it's nowhere near the enjoyment I get watching 3D at the theater. If I had it at home, it would quickly become old and bothersome...especially if I'm forced to wear glasses watching it. I already see myself switching the tv to 2D for most viewing.

Oh...and I prefer to take out my contacts at night to watch tv. Therefore, I need to wear my eyeglasses. Are they gonna make goggles to fit over eyeglasses?

Invite me over when you get that movie OK?

Im not interested in 3D either. I just can't see wearing sunglasses in a dark room. For that matter wearing glasses to watch tv period. If you have kids, how many pairs of 250 dollar glasses can you afford in one year?

Like all technology, early adopters will pave the way for the rest of the people. 3D will be available w/o glasses and we'll all wonder how we did w/o it once the technology matures. I'm sure the port industry will once again pave the way. You know, the $1 billion dollar industry that no one claims to have!

If you take the word "3D" and replace it with "sound" or "color" I'm sure it's a rehash of what Charlie Chaplain said about "talkies" and what folk said about "color TVs"

3D without glasses will be here shortly from Nintendo, the 3DS

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/15/nintendo-3ds-set-to-expand-your-gaming-horizons/

I just got a Samsung 3d TV, the TV is excellent. But I could care less about the 3D, its ok for 5 minutes. But then I have to take off the glasses it's too dark with them on. Plus you lose a lot of the color duh. for the money though I could not see going without 3D the price difference was under 300. The 3D TV had better contrast ratio and 240 hz Vs 120. Does any of that matter? Most likely no, but why kick myself later for 220. I buy a new tv every 7 or 8 years might as well enjoy it

Hi sonicfox,

Yes, Sony and others make goggles that fit over eyeglasses and they are mostly clumsy, heavy and uncomfortable (I wear eyeglasses).

I hate them. Most people who wear eyeglasses, like me, dislike wearing them, and to ask people to don a second pair is ridiculous. (I can't wear contacts.)

Other than gaming, which is huge, of course, I do not think 3D has much of a commercial future so long as the 3D googles are required. Besides, there are all kinds of annoying motion anomalies in 3D whenever a camera pans and with fast action. I even watched a World Cup soccer in 3D demo at a press event in New York last week and it didn't add much, except for the goalie camera shot, with the net in the foreground.

It's a novelty, and I think it will pass, just like it did in the 1950s. Of course, never underestimate the marketing and hype engine. . .if you tell enough people and a lot of dumb press people that something is great, and advertise it everywhere, people will come to believe it. Look at Bose.

Cheers,
Alan

I read in Home Theater Magazine that there is a risk of getting an outbreak of Herpes on your face by using the recycled glasses provided by the local theaters. This was an Italian study and I don't have a link, but like I said, it was a recent Home Theater Magazine blurb.

Honest, honey.... See, I saw this 3D movie a few months ago.....

It makes sense, because cold sores are herpes. If the previous wearer had cold sores then yes, I can see this happening.

Nasty thoughts going through my head now...but, LMAO!!!

Hey-Ohhhhh...

You're in good company.

... and SUVs.

Your comments are interesting Alan. I also immediately thought of gaming when 3d came out (again), though maybe not the best place to implement the technology.

I enjoyed Avatar in the theater and 3D. I enjoyed the depth and feeling as if I was there, but the glasses just killed it for me. I was constantly fiddling with them and rubbing my eyes. If they could ever come up with a glasses free solution that actually works, I'm all over it. But until that day comes, if it comes, I'm staying away from 3D.

I honestly don't think 3D is the next 'color' tv. I think they want it to be, but unless they find a way to make the picture superior to 2D then why would it replace 2D? I don't think people will chose depth over clarity/color/brightness.

It has time to mature yes, but as of right now it does not have what it takes to overthrow the 2D format and declare itself 'the future'. Before we can speculate that in 2015 we'll all be laughing at 2D sets they have to bring it a LONG WAY.

Like I said, it's possible, but it will take some serious leaps in technology to attain that goal.

BTW, Sonicfox, you are one devilishly handsome man!

OMG! The Jones' have a 3D tv and we don't.

...Quick, to the Catmobile! I'll meet you down at BestBuy, perhaps they'll cut us a deal on TWO 3D tv's!!!!

I hope 3D dies quicker than Beta

I always wondered, if Beta means 'experimental'.... then what ever made them think people would chose it for the long term?

Beta doesn't mean experimental, the "testing" part of "beta testing" is what means experimental. Beta means the second phase of testing after alpha testing, but before gamma testing.

Wasn't Beta better than VHS? I seem to remember someone telling me that broadcast used Beta for their "masters" for a few decades.

That was Betacam, a professional, half-inch tape system. Sony purposely named their home video format, Betamax (it's proper name), similarly, so people would make the connection.

Though you're also correct, Beta did have slightly higher quality video than VHS. But initially the tapes could not hold a full, feature-length movie. So you'd have to switch tapes in the middle. That was a major strike with the studios. Decreasing the tape speed in order to fit a full movie, lowered the quality to slightly below VHS.

Hi,

Plus a little-known fact about Sony's Beta. The hi-fi soundtrack (Beta Hi-Fi) audibly pumped its noise floor up and down. VHS Hi-Fi was an altogether superior system, very close in audio quality to digital recording.

When I pointed this out to Betaphiles, who would go on and on about Beta being a superior format, they'd get really angry.

Cheers,
Alan

LOL. I rember A/B testing Beta with VHS and the Beta had superior Video properties, but I never knew anything about the audio.

Well back then HT was almost non-existant. Back in the 80's I honestly don't remember being at anyone's house who had their tv's hooked up to external speakers. I'm not saying NOBODY did it, but it was extremely rare back then. So the vast majority of people just listened to their movies through their 'usually' mono tv sets.

I can remember back in 1991 when I was in the AirForce going down and buying my very first 27 inch 'BIG SCREEN' (it had a sticker boastng this fact across the screen) stereo television. I got it home, hooked up my new 'hi-fi' VHS player and thought I was the absolute shit because none of my friends had a stereo tv! So naturally my room was where everyone wanted to watch tv for a while, until everyone else caught on that the place I got mine at would issue anyone with a military I.D. a credit card with a $1500 dollar credit limit (I think the 27 inch tv was around $1200 bucks back then). They did this because the credt card had a 25% interest rate & they knew the military would MAKE their airmen pay their debts (getting into financial trouble in the military was a serious offense).

And besides, we didn't care what the damn percentage rate was so long as we had us a brand new 'stereo' tv in our room!!! It wasn't until about 3 years later when I looked at my statement and still owed like $1000 dollars (the monthly payment was like $25 bucks, which I trusted would pay off my debt in no time flat) on that card that I never used after that initial purchase before I finally scratched my head and went, "hu"???

It was 1989 when I hooked up my 21" Mitsubishi stereo TV to my Fisher stereo system, the NES never sounded so good That TV is still working and the PQ is still pretty darn good too.

When I was in photography school in 1984, I had my Sears TV hooked up to my Technics integrated amp, my Realistic speakers and....talk about being ahead of the curve.... a subwoofer!

Atlantic Technology, I think, was the first company to introduce and push sub/sat speakers in the market...

Wow, you really ARE Ultraman aren't you!!

Did you have you one of them there jetpacks to get you back and forth to school as well? And did you wear one of those silver jumpsuits with the big gold V's down the front that matched your girlfriend...

Seriously though. Even after I had put together that 'hi-fi' movie system in my barracks, it wasn't until about a year later that I was over at my girlfriends house and her dad had hooked up their tv to the stereo system. That was an eye opening (or should I say 'ear opening') moment because I can clearly remember being absolutely shooked and thinking to myself, "tv programs have bass"?????

It had honestly never occured to me that tv stations included a bass signal in their broadcasts. I just assumed only movie's had bass tracks. So needless to say I thought her dad was an absolute genious for thinking to hook his tv up to his stereo. I thought he'd discovered something no human being had ever even thought about doing.

I wished I'd a grown up next door neighbors with Mark!

My roommates blew out those Radio Shack satellites during a party while I was gone for the weekend. It never occurred to them that a 12" high speaker isn't supposed to fill a 3 bedroom townhouse.

Plus, the place always smelled a bit of kerosene because we didn't want to pay for the electric heat in the place!

I KNEW IT!!!

I had to wonder where you were going with this for a moment there. The thread got much more interesting the way I read the above quote.



They have a school for that??!

I just saw an espn commercial with guys wearing those glasses. SORRY!!! They look ridiculous and I can't see people talking to each other with those things on. I just don't see it. I can only see 3d as a single person viewing experience because of it.

It could be worse. They might come out with a new technology one day that requires wearing Speedo's while viewing.

So A few days ago I was at my local best buy and tested out a 3D tv. They had a volly ball game playing on it. I put the goggles on which were not very comfortable and watched for a little while. I think the technology is not cooked yet. I felt like my eyes would get tired after watching for a longer period of time. It seemed like the refresh rate was not fast enough. That said I was pretty impressed with the 3d I was seeing. When the volly ball came straight at me it would bounce off the sand and then come right out of the tv. At one point when one of the girls jumped to hit the ball she was in the store not the tv. =) It was cool seeing the audience on a seperate layer as well as the mountains in the back etc.... I assume the content was recorded specifically for this type of format though and it will be years before lots of 3d content exists. For video games this would be a pretty cool technology.

And now this from Audioholics/Sony

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/sony-confirms-3d-eyestrain

Oh man I completely forgot, I went down to my local HHGreggs last weekend & tried out the 3D set-up they had laid out. For the first few minutes I thought it really SUCKED!!! Then I realized you have to actually turn on the goggles ( ).

Ok hit the tiny little button and... aaaahhhh, THIS is what it's all about! I must admit, it was freakin cool! The demo they played was a loop with everything from sports, space station footage, cartoons, live tv & more. It was really neat to see the figures close to the camera stand out and the stuff in the background fade WAAAY back into the backyard somewhere. Far cooler than I ever would have given it credit for.

That was the good news. The bad news is, those glasses were on my face for a whole 10 minutes and I wanted to throw them against the wall half way through the audition. NOT comfortable at all. And they had horrible glare on the inside of the glass from the store lights, I tried cupping my hands around the exposed area to stop the glare, but no matter what I did I couldn't stop the light from coming in & really causing annoying glare!!! Completely unusable design.

But better glasses isn't a fix-all. I also tested looking at the screen with the glasses on, then flipping the glasses down... The screen looks MUCH darker when viewing with the glasses, and the colors don't look nearly as vibrant nor do they POP like they do on the 2D sets (or the 3D set w/out the glasses on). So picture quality does indeed take a severe hit when viewing with those terrible glasses.

The other bad news is, like has been mentioned on here already, after just a 10 minute viewing I actually started to feel a bit nausiated! Perhaps this was due to the fact that I was standing up? I don't know, all I know is that when I took the glasses off and started walking towards the exit I thought for a split second that I was walking on a boat deck & had to get by bearings back. That wasn't a favorable experience. In fact I rather loathed it.

So all in all, the effect was far neater than I was expecting it to be... but the side effects were even worse than I'd heard they were. A 3D tv with glasses will never be on my list of wants. Now, if they can bring that effect to tv's without glasses, and the brightness & color don't suffer, I may have to rethink my stance.

But there's a lot of ground to make up from now to then. And for now, it's a big, fat, "HELL NO"!!!!

Link to trouble in 3D land.

Since this link doesn't work properly, I copied article here.

It was hailed as the great saviour of the film industry, but since 3D technology propelled Avatar to a record-breaking $2.73bn box-office haul, fears are growing that Hollywood is endangering its profitable new format.

Lack of depthSeveral 3D films have topped the box office charts this year, including Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans. Yet, a string of recent 3D films has stumbled at the box office, notably Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore, which flopped, and Step Up 3D, which made less than the first two films in the dance series, both of which were released in 2D.

Hollywood studios like 3D because consumers have so far been willing to pay a premium to see the films. But with 3D tickets costing as much as 50 per cent more than comparable 2D films, analysts have expressed doubts about whether consumer appetite for the format can be sustained – particularly if the films are poor.

“The studios and theatres are overpricing 3D films and there’s too much of it out there,” said Richard Greenfield, an analyst with BTIG Research.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Cinema groups face up to 3D realities - Aug-15
Shrek 3D film fails to pull in the cash - May-25
Middle class opens India’s age of cinema - Aug-13
Film-going defies recession - Jul-21
Nigel Andrews: The birth of the summer blockbuster - Jul-16

“They are converting all of their movies into 3D without any regard to quality.”

A US ticket for Cats & Dogs, which was panned by critics, cost up to 50 per cent more than Christopher Nolan’s Inception, which was released in 2D recently to great critical acclaim. Yet Cats & Dogs cost less to make than Inception and was only converted into 3D after production had finished.

“Why should releasing a film in 3D and having the audience wear 3D glasses cost more?” asked Mr Greenfield.

The studios have packed their release schedules with 3D films: Tron: Legacy, The Green Hornet, Megamind and Yogi Bear are lined up for the coming months, while Avatar will be re-released in 3D at the end of August.

Proponents of 3D insist that it can be a powerful tool when used correctly. “It’s a tool for filmmakers and a premium entertainment experience for moviegoers,” says Rick Heineman, vice-president of marketing at RealD, which makes 3D projection systems for cinemas.

But other analysts say Hollywood is playing a risky game by betting on unwavering consumer enthusiasm for 3D – and for higher prices.

“The studios are guilty of short-term thinking,” says Brandon Gray, president of Box Office Mojo, which tracks film box-office performance. “They all jumped on the 3D bandwagon but they’re avoiding the real issue, which is their bankruptcy regarding storytelling.”

<Nelson>Ha, ha!</Nelson>

There's a brief interview with James Cameron in the current issue of Entertainment Weekly in which he agrees that studios are being too opportunistic/greedy by making all of these sub-standard 3-D releases. However, he maintains that 3-D will catch on and eventually be as commonplace as color film.

I think he's wrong. What I predict for the distant future is a Matrix-style movie experience, where you see it all in your mind.

Minus the spinal interface on the rear of your neck, of course.

Hmmm. ::rubs back of neck::

The "put anything on 3D and charge more" thing, reminds me of the early Blu Ray switch from DVD. They were putting any B movie(or worse) on BD to cash in on the new format. Alas, a crappy movie in a high definition format is still smelly.

Oooooo! I remember smell-o-vision.

Seriously!! Yesterday I saw The Omega Man in Blu-ray. Maybe it's not a piece o' crap in high def. Ya think?

I wasted 2 bucks to see it when it was new!

Oh, and another 2 bucks pissed away on Warhol's 3D Frankenstein. During the entire flick, I think about 7 things came at you, just to put a dent in the ennui.

I want a hollideck!!!

Don't you mean hollaback?

Not only do I remember "smell-o-vision, I actually went to a movie with my wife (yeah, she was a good sport)...they had distributed cards that you scratched and sniffed when cued by the movie graphic. Ugh. Thanks for bring up that memory.

My pleasure. I see audioholics has another article on why 3D will fail.

Here’s another Audioholics take on the state of 3D.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/3d-blu-ray-television-cedia

Thanks for sharing. That was interesting.

I liked his summary, my sentiments exactly.

Well I just updated my PS3 to play 3D content, now if they send me glasses and an upgrade for my TV to play 3d I'm in.

I will guess they hope you want 3D bad enough to go buy a new TV and the glasses to go with it. The firmware update was after all free, how much more could they possibly give away and still make a profit.

Sony didn't give away anything. You allowed them to install the 'hook' on your PS3.

Exactly my point, they will have to do a lot more if they expect me to buy into this new technology, it will probably work on some though, particularly those with plans on buying a new display soon. In reality a pretty smart marketing bait.

I don't mind the 3D functionality being part of my next display purchase, but it's definitely not something I'm going to put a lot of emphasis on. Mainly it will be something to try out for me, but I don't expect much until a couple generations down the road. In the meantime, I'll concentrate on good 2D performance.

What about the good ole 1D sets?

I'm surprised no one's asking about the 38DD sets.

I was actually wondering if the porn industry might drive this technology.

Just as long as the double Ds don't poke out of the screen and half way across the room. Cause, you know, that would upset Gene.

Ha ha. Maybe gimmicks work better in pairs. Great. I'm probably going to refer to breasts as "gimmicks" from now on.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/09/scenes_from_china.html
See photo #6.

Henry66,
Now how in the world did you locate that pic????

The Big Picture is awesome. I have it in my RSS feed. Take a look at some of their past photo sets. My personal favorites are the space ones.

I see a backup avatar for Tom.

Meh. I'll pas.

Have you seen any porn in 1080p? It looks terrible, every little bump, crease, and scary looking rash is clearly visible. I can't see 3D improving on that...

It makes me nostalgic for the good old days of scrambled porn on cable.

Is that a boob?

Can you imagine the "fun" directors would have with 3D? I've got nasty images in my head that I won't even describe. Ewwww!!!

It's funny to hear the collective response to porn in 3d. Usually, sonicfox's reaction would be limited to the fairer sex. It seems like crossing into that 3rd dimension is a little too up close and personal for some folks. Although it'll likely revolutionize the POV niche.

Watching the news on any station in HD is already scary enough with the closeup shots of the news anchors....is that a piece of broccoli between his teeth, my God she's wearing a lot of make-up....can't imagine seeing detail like that in the south tropics.

There might be hope...
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/04/toshiba-3d-television.html

I'm sure it's just a matter of time before 67" 3D becomes the norm. The thought of playing COD on 67" 3D screen is pretty intriguing, I must say!

I see where there are 3D projectors that require glasses. But, I wonder if glasses free projectors would ever become available. It would probably require a special screen.

These glasses-free displays use a worse technology than requiring glasses in my opinion. Lenticular 3D is an instant headache for me, at least I can stand an hour or two of polarized glasses. Active shutter glasses are also annoying, because I catch the flicker out of the corner of my eyes.

All home options at this point use active shutter too. While LG is supposed to be delivering a polarized display, but it'll only have half-resolution when viewing 3D content*.


*Look through the other 3D discussions to find where I predicted a half-resolution polarized display option.

Is the Nintendo 3DS using this Lenticular 3D technology? I was watching a couple of demos on Youtube and the 3D effect looked pretty good to me. But, if you get a headache after 10 or 15 minutes, then what is the use.

The 3DS is using a different technique. It's like the lenticular, but on a finer scale (uses a sandwich of liquid crystals, one for display and one to separate the images for the eyes). The problem with it is that it only works in a very small sweet spot. Fine for a portable game system that's always centered in view, and at arms length. But doesn't work for TV with multiple viewers at different distances.

Seems like the R&D departments are grasping at anything that comes along, just in case it sells.

I saw a lenticular 3D LCD screen at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago last week. It was mildly annoying. While it worked form multiple angles, I could not find a sweet spot. I could only get about 80% of the screen to be in ideal focus at a time. The remaining 20% looked out-of-phase.

The museum was excellent, by the way. One of the best science museums I've been to.

Except for that damned lenticular 3D LCD screen....

The U-505 (the only German submarine captured during WWII) more than made up for it.

Here's a few measly pics I took with my phone:
http://www.dropbox.com/gallery/3967964/1/U505?h=224958

Damn, those things are BIG!

Which is sort of the same reaction I had to the Enterprise at the Air and Space...

I really wanted to take the inside tour, but it was sold out.

They have to be big to hold so much seamen.

Takes a lot of balls to be a seaman.

yeah...when this story was first reported by Reuters they referred to it as an IMAX film! There were some people running around here that morning! Sadly many people think IMAX and 3D are synonymous.

Well DirecTV just announced they have a lineup of 3D channels, I'm still holding out, besides my wife would kill me if I bought another TV.

We're getting there... slowly...
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/the-future-of-3d-tvs-may-have-just-arrived/

I haven't made up my mind about 3d TV. I bought a 58" Samsung 3d set last July, which, fortunately, also does a respectable 2d picture. I find I'm not really watching much 3d, currently, partly because there isn't that much 3d to watch yet, and partly because 3d picture quality is nothing to rave about -- it's rather dingy, with poor resolution. I don't mind the glasses, except that they cut out so much light that the picture is, as I just mentioned, dingy. 3d is interesting.

I'm waiting for 4D.

Holograms or bust

Busts or Holograms.

Holograms of busts!

I thought about posting that, but realized it wouldn't do much for me...!

You don't like sculpted heads?

I'm an asteroid man myself.

Why are they called hemorrhoids and not asteroids?

Hey I used to like playing asteroids.

I was just reading up on how vector screens functioned today during my lunch break. Of course that lead into refreshing my memory about shadow masks, invar or otherwise, and then aperture grill, and discovered NEC had their own hybrid tech called Cromaclear.

Huh?

You can't process me with a normal brain.

Asteroids didn't use a normal raster display, but a vector based one instead (the electron beam wasn't just deflected from left to right, and then top to bottom, it was used to draw the polygons on the screen). I wanted to know how they did the different colors.

Turns out the process for displaying different colors was the same as some of the original color TV experiments. And since I was already reading up on color TV, I wanted to make sure I remembered how the various masking techniques worked (I did), and picked up a little more insight along the way.

Chris, I have problems processing you with my abnormal brain.

Oh, is THAT what a vector screen does. I've never really been clear on that. Links?

Wish I could find more details, even Wikipedia is a bit thin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_monitor the page on how color works has a bit more info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetron

Sheen. Got it.

I thought this would be relevent to this thread

Go Jar Jar!