The 3D Gamble....

Posted by: Micah

The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 03:35 AM

I saw this on the internet...

 Quote:
Sharp Joins 3D LCD TV Parade: Offers Four-Color Display
Ian Paul

Apr 12, 2010 9:06 am

Sharp announced on Monday that it will be launching the world's first four-primary-color 3D LCD television set for availability later this year. The new television will require you to wear special glasses, as do most 3D sets being launched this year, and the company says its new LCD set will have a significantly brighter screen than its competitors. Sharp's 3D LCD will also feature Sharp's side-mount scanning LED backlight technology, which the company says reduces crosstalk--an effect in 3D sets that causes a ghost image to appear onscreen (even when wearing glasses) similar to a double exposure photograph.


Sharper Image

Sharp says its new television boasts brighter more vivid colors thanks to its four-color technology where the set uses red (R), green (G), blue (B) and yellow (Y) to produce color images as opposed to sets that use the standard RGB color display. The electronics maker also claims that its television will deliver a superior 3D image than its competitors thanks to several proprietary technologies Sharp has developed including the company's four-color display and side-mount scanning LED backlight technology. Sharp is set to reveal further technical details about its LCD set next month, according to Crunchgear.


Betting Big on 3D

The television industry is betting that 3D technology will be very popular this year among home users. Sharp is forecasting that 5 to 10 percent of its total television sales will come from 3D sets by March 2011, according to The Wall Street Journal. The year following, Sharp estimates that number will double to 20 or even 30 percent of the company's total television sales. Sony, one of Sharp's competitors, is similarly bullish about people bringing home 3D televisions this year. However, Sony and other manufacturers will have a slight lead time on Sharp. Sony's 3D sets are scheduled to be available worldwide this summer, and Panasonic 3D televisions are already available in the United States. Sharp, meanwhile, is only releasing its new 3D LCD set in Japan on an unspecified date this summer, and will then roll them out worldwide toward the end of the year.

Although 3D televisions are believed to be one of the biggest technology trends for 2010, the question remains whether people really want to bring a 3D-capable television into their home. As IDG News Service reported in January, there are some big obstacles to 3D TV adoption by home users including "the higher cost and complexity" of producing 3D content; the fact that you'll have to wear special glasses that may not be interchangeable with other 3D sets; and that millions of people have already invested in standard HDTVs. Despite those obstacles, however, most of the major television makers are betting that 3D televisions will be big this year including LG, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp and Sony.

Are you planning on buying a 3D television this year, or are you waiting for 3D sets that don't need glasses? Or do you think the 3D TV trend is simply doomed to fail?


Clicky

Personally I think the television industry is a little out of touch with the times. Where I live anyway people are more interested in finding a job, not finding a nice, new $4000 dollar gimmick to bring home. And when I say gimmick I don't mean to say that the TV's don't look great, they do. But there is absolutely no standardization in 3D. It's barely gotten out of the gate yet, and already they're talking about the 3D technology that doesn't require glasses... oh ok, well let me run out right now and buy one of these new, expensive sets that require glasses so that I can replace it next year with a set that doesn't... are you freakin kidding me? And it doesn't stop there, along with the talk of the technology that doesn't require glasses is talk of the next generation of 3D technology that doesn't require glasses that's going to blow away the current technology that doesn't require glasses that is also by the way, NO WHERE CLOSE TO BEING ON THE MARKET YET!!!

Jesus Christ will you people slow down for a second!!! This is absolutely ludicris touting technology that's going to suceed technology that is several years from the market itself! How do they expect to push all of this stuff on America when the biggest priority on many people's minds these days is holding on to their house! It's disqusting to see these TV companies EXPECTING us to run out and grab these things up by the 'BOAT LOAD', when by all intents and purposes, they are disposable sets. The very same companies selling the current generation 3D sets are already working on the 2nd and 3rd generation technology, that they will no doubt roll out of their showrooms and straight down our throats just like they are these sets.

Pretty soon when you walk into any showroom across America a salesman will slap a pair of glasses on your face and dazzle you with their 3D sets. And they will undoubtedly tell you, "don't waste your money on a regular 2D/HD set, look at how stunning that picture is! Of course last year they had the HD sets in our face telling us, "don't wast your money on 720P, look at how stunning that 1080P looks"!!! But in 2 years they'll be shoving the 3D sets that don't require glasses in our faces saying, "why fumble around with those ridiculous glasses all the time, look at how stunning this picture is WITHOUT glasses"!!!

And of course they're right, it does look absolutely stunning... I just can't understand why they couldn't have skipped right over 1080p HD, past 3D w/glasses, past 3D w/out glasses, and straight into 5400p HD forth generation LED 3D without glasses projected on a freeze dried smoke screen powered by atomic battery cells... and been done with it? I mean the very, very LEAST you could do is not flaunt the fact that you have a TV coming out in 3 years that's going to put the TV you're trying to sell me right now to absolute shame! I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's not exactly brilliant marketing.

Ok so moving away from my problem with how fast they're flying through these new technologies and comment on what I have a problem with as far as the technology immediately available... there is no standard in the industry, so for instance the glasses won't necessarily work from one set to the next if they aren't the same manufacturer. So if you have a 3D set and your neighbor has a 3D set, but they aren't both Samsung or whatever and you want to have them over for movie night, they can't bring their own glasses, now you have to buy an extra 4 or 5 pairs for them to be able to watch your TV.... how gay!

Ok, I'll get off of my soap box now and stop ranting away about this, I realize I'm starting to sound like a raving lunatic by now. But before I do I would just like to say for the record, that my vote goes towards, "the 3D TV trend is doomed to fail" simply because I want these guys to get a clue and realize they have to get their shit together and be a little more organized before they open the flood gates with this stuff an unleash it upon us like they're doing with little or no constraints in place. It really does make me angry to realize that they are trying their best to sell stuff they know for a fact will be totally out dated within the next few years.

I watched a video from Samsung, and the narrator comes on in a silky and relaxing voice and says, "to see Hollywoods newest line up of 3D movies, all you need is a Samsung 3D LED television, a Samsung 3D Blu-Ray player, some 3D glasses, a 3D Blu-Ray movie, and some popcorn... and you're all set"! I'm serious, sweat to God she said, "ALL YOU NEED"... like we can all just hop up out of our seat, run down to Walmart and pick that up while we're out getting catfood tonight! Unbelieveable! They are 100% clueless that for a rather large number of Americans out there today, that little all you need list represents 50% of the income they'll bring home this coming year! Get over yourself Samsung!

I spent a lot of money to bring the theater experience into my living room as did most everyone else on this board. But I have to say if there's any movies coming out that I feel I just HAVE TOO watch in 3D in the next few years, I'll shell out the money to see it in the theater in 3D, I'm not going to buy into technology still in it's infancy and throw away my money trying to be the first one on the block with a 3D HT. I'll gladly wait around until it's so good, and so cheap I just can't spend any less money and NOT get it.

Maybe I should take my grumpy butt to bed? \:o
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 03:38 AM

Oh, P.S.... I'm actually very curious about this '4 color tube' picture coming out though! I'm very curious to see how much of a difference it really does, or does not make. Could be interesting.
Posted by: CV

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 03:46 AM

I won't mind buying a 3D set as long as the normal performance and features are there and the added cost isn't that great. However, it's not a feature I have to have yet, and I'll be comparing them to non-3D models. I want my next display purchase to be a front projector, however, so chances are my first 3D display will be for my computer.
Posted by: FordPrefect

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 05:50 AM

[grumpy old man mode]pfffft I can't see in 3D so I certainly won't be buying one [/grumpy old man mode]
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 07:42 AM

I'm not going to waste my money on one, unless they cost the same as a 2d set, and 2d works just as good as the 2d sets.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 09:44 AM

 Originally Posted By: Micah
But there is absolutely no standardization in 3D.

Just to be clear on this. The broadcast format, and HDMI data transmission for 3D standards have been finalized. It's just the display technology which is still being worked on. That's a good thing. Manufacturers are free to come up with innovative ways of presenting each eye's content to the appropriate eye.

For instance of a BD player had enough free CPU cycles (PS3 I'm looking at you), it could take the individual eye frames, tint them (red and green, or red and blue depending on which glasses are being used), combine them into one frame, and make it so people could watch new 3D BDs, on older sets. Albeit with the rather poor anaglyph technology.
Posted by: Nick B

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 10:13 AM

I think that many people are going to be disappointed with 3D TV's. I read an review in Home Theater about the Samsung LCD 3D display playing a 3D blu-ray through a Samsung 3D blu-ray player. The reviewer talked about how the 3D effect was better than in the movie theater, but as you move out of the sweet spot (dead center) the 3D effect started to go away like just as the picture degrades as you move away from the sweet spot on an LCD. Seeing as how LCD's dominate the TV market we are going to have a lot of disappointed people. I'm betting that plasmas won't have this problem. But, a lot of people probably won't notice this until they get home and try to have a 3D party.
Posted by: alan

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 10:51 AM

Hi Micah and all,

I'm firmly on the side of critic Roger Ebert and director Francis Ford Coppola, who stated (Ebert) that "3D adds nothing to the enjoyment of a movie." Coppola finds the emergence of 3D "tedious".

In my cranky old fart mode, I thought 3D was a gimmick in the 1950s when I was a kid, to get people into the theaters. It lasted a couple of years and I predict the same time span for 3D now.

The viewing experience is quite flawed and awful for anyone who wears glasses. There are various visual artifacts/distortions that are tiring for longer viewing periods, not the least of which is significantly reduced image brightness.

Micah: The Sharp fourth color (yellow) addition added nothing in my viewing of various displays at this year's Consumer Electronics Show last January. The Sharp displays looked good, but no better than the best displays from Panasonic, Samsung, Toshiba and LG.

Cheers,
Alan
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 10:56 AM

I think part of the 3D thing is also copy protection. Think about it, it's rather hard to camcorder a 3D movie*.


*Unless you get a circular polarizing filter for your camcorder, and turn it until the phase aligns with just one eye's information, and then you can make a 2D copy of the movie.
Posted by: michael_d

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 11:02 AM

I didn't read all your rant Mica, but I get the jist and concur....

What's this 'fourth' color addition all about? Yellow is already there in a color gamut as a secondary color.

I have to admit that I did enjoy Avatar in the theater in 3-D, but the glasses killed it for me. Every ten minutes or so I had to pull them off and rub my eyes.
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 11:35 AM

Chris, you know entirely too much about all this stuff! And I'm only saying that because I'm insanely jealous of your knowledge depth.

Alan, so with the two TV's right next to eachother you couldn't really see a difference in the vibrance? I've always been curious how they make yellow out of Red, Green & Blue? I've seen but one 3D movie at the theater in the last decade, and that was 'Beowolf'. But I have to be honest, it was a 3D iMAX and I thought it was cool as hell. WAY better than the 3D movies of the 80's.

Therefore I'm almost scared to put the glasses on and watch a 3D TV for fear that I'm going to want it as much as I wanted a High Definition television when they first came out in the late 90's. God I can still remember walking into Sears that 1st time and seeing the 1st 1080i display, what with the mountian scenes and the wildlife all captured and seemingly sitting right there in that little box... I was so mesmerized I could barely move! I'd heard people tout the new sets, but until I finally saw one for myself I had no idea how much better it could look. It did look as good as everyone said it did.

So I can imagine that once I've put the glasses on it very well could have the same impact on me? I don't know, I haven't put em on yet. I do appreciate how letting companies develop their own technology creates competition and brings us a better product in the end. Its just that it also makes it so hard to know when to pull the trigger because the next generation could be a million times better.

Personally speaking the rate at which technology is changing leaves me in a quandry... I have a hard time buying anything at all because I'm afraid of choosing the wrong thing and regretting it later. That's why I haven't had a video camera for the last 10 years, and that's why I'm still without a BD player. I tried the Samsung BDP 3600 for a while and LOVED the picture, but was underwhelmed by the build quality and the streaming feature had issue's. So I've been talking myself into the Oppo player because everyone raves about it, but I'm just so sure as soon as I pull the trigger... BAM, someone else is going to release something that's going to make the 83 obsolete!

If the new Denon has a halfway decent scaler, it might do just that. I dunno, perhaps I'm over thinking the situation, but I've been burned before, and it left a really sour taste in my mouth. \:\(
Posted by: casey01

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 11:52 AM

 Originally Posted By: michael_d
I didn't read all your rant Mica, but I get the jist and concur....

What's this 'fourth' color addition all about? Yellow is already there in a color gamut as a secondary color.

I have to admit that I did enjoy Avatar in the theater in 3-D, but the glasses killed it for me. Every ten minutes or so I had to pull them off and rub my eyes.



I would concur with the question on the addition of this "yellow" color business. As has already been stated, yellow is already a "secondary" color in the spectrum that really doesn't have a significant effect in the overall picture so I don't know what the big deal is. Once again another marketing "gimmick" to fool the public in to thinking they are getting something new that is really already there. If one wants to really carry it a giant step further then buy one of the new "Video EQ"s or Video EQ Pro's from Spectracal(AV Foundry)and it will let you play with and totally calibrate all SIX primary and secondary colors on your existing monitor. You won't need a new television.

As far as 3D movies are concerned, Ebert is right. How many of them can really take advantage of this "not so new" technology.
At $279 a pop on top of the price of the monitor, Samsung's 3D glasses, for the average consumer, could be a deal breaker.
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 11:53 AM

I wonder how they are going to allow shoppers to sample the TV's that require special glasses in the stores? I surely don't want to put on a pair of glasses that who knows how many people before me has already had them on their face.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 11:58 AM

I agree with just about everything you said, Micah. That's part of the reason that I haven't bought a new TV yet (not most of it, but part of it). I'm horrible about wanting to buy the best I can afford, even if it's not quite out, so I'll just wait a little longer, ooh, just got more expensive, I can't see paying that much... etc etc etc.

The idea that TVs--a product that costs >$1000 for the size of sets that people seem to be getting these days--are disposable is ludicrous. I'm seriously in the minority, I know, but I still have the 27" CRT I bought when I was in college. Sigh. C'mon, kids, break the TV already...
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 12:06 PM

 Originally Posted By: casey01
3D glasses, for the average consumer, could be a deal breaker.


Just the thought of always having to put on glasses for TV use in my home is a deal breaker for me let alone the cost.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 12:07 PM

 Originally Posted By: jakewash
 Originally Posted By: casey01
3D glasses, for the average consumer, could be a deal breaker.


Just the thought of always having to put on glasses for TV use in my home is a deal breaker for me let alone the cost.


You'd think the manufacturers would realize this. However, I suspect that Chris is right about it being about piracy. If only the studios would realize that much of that is from insiders and academy members...
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 12:11 PM

Much easier to blame the unknown general public than look in your own backyard.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 12:12 PM

Or to realize that perhaps ticket prices are too high, so people don't want to waste money on them.
Posted by: MarkSJohnson

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 12:23 PM

 Originally Posted By: jakewash
Just the thought of always having to put on glasses for TV use in my home is a deal breaker for me let alone the cost.

Jeesh, I've already been having to do that since I turned 40....
Posted by: alan

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 12:25 PM

Yes, I'd never thought of 3D as being an anti-piracy gambit. Makes sense.

Micah: the sets I viewed were not side-by-side, but I've been judging video displays long enough that I'm confident in my statements. Manufacturers at CES tend to use the same demo source materials so it's not that difficult to view different manufacturers' displays with similar presentations.

I saw no visible advantage of the Sharp displays over those of Panasonic, etc.

Alan
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 12:31 PM

But that is a necessity (and I am not too far from needing them myself) and then you have to add another pair over top of those whenever you want to watch 3D, no thanks. And they expect me to pay more this priviledge, ya right.

I can only imagine where the 3d glasses will always endup after the kids, or even myself on somedays, get done watching, kind of like how the remote seems to disappear once in awhile.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 12:33 PM

Imagine it with a 2-3 year old in the house. Whoops, those $275 glasses are now broken in 4 pieces, with the kid running after you yelling "Fits it! Fits it!"
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 12:50 PM

Not only will the 2 year olds be breaking the generic glasses, the teenagers will be asking for the $500 dollar Oakley version.
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 01:12 PM

Micah, you worry too much. Just wait until your current technology doesn't work any more and then buy the best that you can afford, whatever tech it may be.

3D may be a fad, or not. Depends on how well it can be implemented.

I personally have not plans for a new display for a logn while.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 02:51 PM

I'm happy with my Kuro, I don't plan to replace it for a log10 while. \:D
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 03:00 PM

 Originally Posted By: fredk
Micah, you worry too much...


I don't argue this point. I suppose I should look at all of these things a great 'options' rather than seeing them as threatening technologies out to deep six my LCD! I suppose the day they stop broadcasting in 2D, or selling 2D movies and I'm totally shit outa luck, THEN I can come back on here and bitch about it.

Until then, I'll go take my chill pill. \:D
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 03:03 PM

When I'm getting ready to buy something new, I come up with the list of features I feel I need, and then look for a product which fulfills them. I don't let the market dictate lead me too much. Sometimes I come up with a list of feature that no single product yet has. That's when I wait.
Posted by: Nick B

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 03:13 PM

The great thing about all of the 3D push from the industry is that the 2D display prices are falling because of it. Now seems to be an excellent time to buy a 2D display, price-wise. I'm not that impressed with the 3D movies overall. I get a headache after about an hour or so. Why would I want a display that can do that all the time.

I am, however, excited about the possibility in gaming though. The ability to having two people racing each other in a racing game and each can view the full screen. Maybe five years down the line, if the 3D thing is still around, I might get a 3D display for that purpose if I need a new display.
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 03:50 PM

 Quote:
I am, however, excited about the possibility in gaming though.

That seems to me to be where the greatest promise of 3D lies. I don't exactly know why, but I think 3D has much more value in an interactive environment like gaming.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 03:56 PM

With a technology like Sony's Move, or Microsoft's Natal, combined with 3D could be interesting. One of the things I complained about is there's no parallax, that when you move your head new information isn't uncovered behind the 3D objects in the foreground. But with the head tracking of those technologies, it could very well be used to change the viewpoint slightly and present a much more realistic 3D experience.

I'm still not buying. \:D
Posted by: casey01

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 04:02 PM

Come to think of it, I was in Best Buy a couple of weeks ago and I happened to come upon a "so-called" demonstration of a new 50" Samsung 3D television.

What was startling was that on the monitor was a soccer game with TWO images of each player on the screen(it looked like a very badly converged CRT), about eight or ten people standing there like a bunch of sheep, NONE of whom that were wearing the special glasses,looking at this ridiculous image while the salesperson was describing the "wondrous nature" of this breakthrough technology!

I kept asking myself, what did these people think they were looking at??
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 04:06 PM

Maybe they were crossing their eyes?
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 04:11 PM

 Originally Posted By: Micah
I saw this on the internet...

 Quote:
Sharp Joins 3D LCD TV Parade: Offers Four-Color Display
Ian Paul

Apr 12, 2010 9:06 am

Sharp announced on Monday that it will be launching the world's first four-primary-color 3D LCD television set for availability later this year. The new television will require you to wear special glasses, as do most 3D sets being launched this year, and the company says its new LCD set will have a significantly brighter screen than its competitors. Sharp's 3D LCD will also feature Sharp's side-mount scanning LED backlight technology, which the company says reduces crosstalk--an effect in 3D sets that causes a ghost image to appear onscreen (even when wearing glasses) similar to a double exposure photograph.


Sharper Image

Sharp says its new television boasts brighter more vivid colors thanks to its four-color technology where the set uses red (R), green (G), blue (B) and yellow (Y) to produce color images as opposed to sets that use the standard RGB color display. The electronics maker also claims that its television will deliver a superior 3D image than its competitors thanks to several proprietary technologies Sharp has developed including the company's four-color display and side-mount scanning LED backlight technology. Sharp is set to reveal further technical details about its LCD set next month, according to Crunchgear.


Betting Big on 3D

The television industry is betting that 3D technology will be very popular this year among home users. Sharp is forecasting that 5 to 10 percent of its total television sales will come from 3D sets by March 2011, according to The Wall Street Journal. The year following, Sharp estimates that number will double to 20 or even 30 percent of the company's total television sales. Sony, one of Sharp's competitors, is similarly bullish about people bringing home 3D televisions this year. However, Sony and other manufacturers will have a slight lead time on Sharp. Sony's 3D sets are scheduled to be available worldwide this summer, and Panasonic 3D televisions are already available in the United States. Sharp, meanwhile, is only releasing its new 3D LCD set in Japan on an unspecified date this summer, and will then roll them out worldwide toward the end of the year.

Although 3D televisions are believed to be one of the biggest technology trends for 2010, the question remains whether people really want to bring a 3D-capable television into their home. As IDG News Service reported in January, there are some big obstacles to 3D TV adoption by home users including "the higher cost and complexity" of producing 3D content; the fact that you'll have to wear special glasses that may not be interchangeable with other 3D sets; and that millions of people have already invested in standard HDTVs. Despite those obstacles, however, most of the major television makers are betting that 3D televisions will be big this year including LG, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp and Sony.

Are you planning on buying a 3D television this year, or are you waiting for 3D sets that don't need glasses? Or do you think the 3D TV trend is simply doomed to fail?


Clicky

Personally I think the television industry is a little out of touch with the times. Where I live anyway people are more interested in finding a job, not finding a nice, new $4000 dollar gimmick to bring home. And when I say gimmick I don't mean to say that the TV's don't look great, they do. But there is absolutely no standardization in 3D. It's barely gotten out of the gate yet, and already they're talking about the 3D technology that doesn't require glasses... oh ok, well let me run out right now and buy one of these new, expensive sets that require glasses so that I can replace it next year with a set that doesn't... are you freakin kidding me? And it doesn't stop there, along with the talk of the technology that doesn't require glasses is talk of the next generation of 3D technology that doesn't require glasses that's going to blow away the current technology that doesn't require glasses that is also by the way, NO WHERE CLOSE TO BEING ON THE MARKET YET!!!

Jesus Christ will you people slow down for a second!!! This is absolutely ludicris touting technology that's going to suceed technology that is several years from the market itself! How do they expect to push all of this stuff on America when the biggest priority on many people's minds these days is holding on to their house! It's disqusting to see these TV companies EXPECTING us to run out and grab these things up by the 'BOAT LOAD', when by all intents and purposes, they are disposable sets. The very same companies selling the current generation 3D sets are already working on the 2nd and 3rd generation technology, that they will no doubt roll out of their showrooms and straight down our throats just like they are these sets.

Pretty soon when you walk into any showroom across America a salesman will slap a pair of glasses on your face and dazzle you with their 3D sets. And they will undoubtedly tell you, "don't waste your money on a regular 2D/HD set, look at how stunning that picture is! Of course last year they had the HD sets in our face telling us, "don't wast your money on 720P, look at how stunning that 1080P looks"!!! But in 2 years they'll be shoving the 3D sets that don't require glasses in our faces saying, "why fumble around with those ridiculous glasses all the time, look at how stunning this picture is WITHOUT glasses"!!!

And of course they're right, it does look absolutely stunning... I just can't understand why they couldn't have skipped right over 1080p HD, past 3D w/glasses, past 3D w/out glasses, and straight into 5400p HD forth generation LED 3D without glasses projected on a freeze dried smoke screen powered by atomic battery cells... and been done with it? I mean the very, very LEAST you could do is not flaunt the fact that you have a TV coming out in 3 years that's going to put the TV you're trying to sell me right now to absolute shame! I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's not exactly brilliant marketing.

Ok so moving away from my problem with how fast they're flying through these new technologies and comment on what I have a problem with as far as the technology immediately available... there is no standard in the industry, so for instance the glasses won't necessarily work from one set to the next if they aren't the same manufacturer. So if you have a 3D set and your neighbor has a 3D set, but they aren't both Samsung or whatever and you want to have them over for movie night, they can't bring their own glasses, now you have to buy an extra 4 or 5 pairs for them to be able to watch your TV.... how gay!

Ok, I'll get off of my soap box now and stop ranting away about this, I realize I'm starting to sound like a raving lunatic by now. But before I do I would just like to say for the record, that my vote goes towards, "the 3D TV trend is doomed to fail" simply because I want these guys to get a clue and realize they have to get their shit together and be a little more organized before they open the flood gates with this stuff an unleash it upon us like they're doing with little or no constraints in place. It really does make me angry to realize that they are trying their best to sell stuff they know for a fact will be totally out dated within the next few years.

I watched a video from Samsung, and the narrator comes on in a silky and relaxing voice and says, "to see Hollywoods newest line up of 3D movies, all you need is a Samsung 3D LED television, a Samsung 3D Blu-Ray player, some 3D glasses, a 3D Blu-Ray movie, and some popcorn... and you're all set"! I'm serious, sweat to God she said, "ALL YOU NEED"... like we can all just hop up out of our seat, run down to Walmart and pick that up while we're out getting catfood tonight! Unbelieveable! They are 100% clueless that for a rather large number of Americans out there today, that little all you need list represents 50% of the income they'll bring home this coming year! Get over yourself Samsung!

I spent a lot of money to bring the theater experience into my living room as did most everyone else on this board. But I have to say if there's any movies coming out that I feel I just HAVE TOO watch in 3D in the next few years, I'll shell out the money to see it in the theater in 3D, I'm not going to buy into technology still in it's infancy and throw away my money trying to be the first one on the block with a 3D HT. I'll gladly wait around until it's so good, and so cheap I just can't spend any less money and NOT get it.

Maybe I should take my grumpy butt to bed? \:o


I have nothing to add other than I can't believe that you still had a P.S. after that post.
Posted by: alan

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 04:40 PM

Jakewash,

Exactly. Trying to line up the 3D glasses over your regular glasses is really annoying. If the 3D glasses shift at all or your head moves slightly, the alignment of the 3D glasses with your own prescription lenses is destroyed and the 3D effect disappears or becomes blurry or distorted.

I misquoted director Francis Coppola in my earlier post. I said he called 3D "tedious." Actually, he called it "tiresome." Millions of people wear glasses, including Coppola. Having to don the extra pair for 3D is ridiculous.

For anyone interested, here's the link to the oft-quoted Roger Ebert article on 3D in Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237110

Regards,
Alan
Posted by: snazzed

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 05:03 PM

Its been this way in the Computer industry for a long time. About 5 years ago I stopped being interested in the Latest and Greatest and started only dealing with my needs.

Ok, its great to know whats available but that doesn't mean I must have it.

I agree with the post that said having to wear glasses to watch is a deal breaker. Damn right. I don't need any TV that requires me to put on special equipment to use so when I look at my bonus next year and consider a new TV, 3D will not be on the list.

Don't bother trying to keep up with the latest and greatest. Look at what you have and what you need or want. The industry can do whatever it likes. I don't care.

If I were to buy a new TV tomorrow, Panasonic 46" Plasma. 1080p. I suspect 46" 1080p will be my only requirement until they bring an Higher Def Standard to the screen. Even then, I can't imagine it looking any beter than 1080p but that doesn't mean it won't. (46 is the biggest screen I can fit in my TVs currently location)

Red 4k anyone? I wonder if they will call it 2540p?

snazzed
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 05:09 PM

Panasonic 46" plasma, 1080p is what is on my buy next list for TV in living room, only I plan on waiting about 1 1/2 to 2 years from now before buying one, since I bought a Samsung 37" LCD about 7 months ago. I wanted the plasma, but it was out of my price range at the moment.
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 05:12 PM

 Originally Posted By: htnut
I have nothing to add other than I can't believe that you still had a P.S. after that post.

Well, his first post was a bit of a script, so a Post Script seems appropriate.
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 05:14 PM

 Quote:
Its been this way in the Computer industry for a long time. About 5 years ago I stopped being interested in the Latest and Greatest and started only dealing with my needs.

And if that didn't do it, reading ClubNeon's post about his uber machine was enough for me to realize that I wasn't even close to keeping up in the tech race. Good enough works for me.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 05:16 PM

ClubNeon's machine is simply disgusting.
Posted by: snazzed

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 05:37 PM

@CatBrat:
My current TV is an LG 37" LCD 720p/1080i... probably about 6 years old. Its still "good enough" but I'm starting to get colour banding in dark scenes. When it gets replaced it will come upstairs to the living room.

@Fredk:

Totally! My friends give me a hard time because my machine is "old". In other words I don't upgrade ever 12-18months. The only game I play is World of Warcraft and is is *not* power hog. I play with all settings at about 90% and still max out my frame rate. One of them was genuinely shocked that I'm using a Pentium Dual Core, 2.5Ghz CPU. "Not even a Core2Duo! You need to upgrade that!" No... no I don't. Why do I need to upgrade?

I asked him what hardware he's running... I won't bother listing it. His top hardware demand is *also* WoW... and he paid $3500 for a new machine this year. WTH for?!

Uh oh. I'm ranting again.

I have a 2yr old Laptop that was middle of the road at the time... don't play games on it so its still plenty fine.

snazzed
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 06:52 PM

 Originally Posted By: kcarlile
ClubNeon's machine is simply disgusting.

What? I removed the dust when I added the second 16 GB of RAM. Thought I didn't have to open the case (or even power down the machine) when I hot swapped in two 2TB SAS drives.

Still don't have my dual, 6-core CPUs though. \:\( But that'll be another chance to clean it. Trying to keep it from being disgusting.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 07:01 PM

Shaddap.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 07:04 PM

Only buying what I need, no sense in chasing state of the art.
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 07:15 PM

It's interesting computers came up as a comparison. I was thinking to myself that it was starting to resemble Japan's Sportbike market of the last 15 years until the economy tanked.

Basically, Japan's 'Big 4' (Honda, Kawasaki, Suzuki & Yamaha) came up with a 2 year lifespan for Sportbike models to live. Every two years they would put out a brand new 600 cc and 1000 cc bikes to replace the last models. So for enthusiasts, it became practically impossible to keep up with the 'latest and greatest' out on the street. It wasn't just horsepower increases, they were getting major trickle down technologies from MotoGP every other year. fuel injection, ram-air, radial brakes, fly-by-wire throttle, electronic ignition, traction control... it was getting truely insane! So if your bike was 3 years old you could bet, unless you were keeping up via the aftermarket, that your bike had fallen to the back of the pack. But finally, as a direct result of the world economy, Japan has softened their approach, tightened up on R&D, and started extending the live-span of their bike models.

I'd love to see TV manufacturer's learn the same leason. Stop throwing everything at us so fast, take your time, refine your product, and bring it out when it's a more mature technology, not in it's infancy. I think some good idea's sunk in the market because they either came out too early, and people got tired of waiting for it to evolve, or just had too many choices at their disposal. Who else here remembers when 'Virtual Reality' technology first came out... didn't you think by now we would all be playing every video game available in the virtual world? I know I did, I thouht forsure that was going to be the wave of the future! But it was short lived, I believe in part because they unleashed it before it was affordable. I remember seeing a 'Virtual Reality' home gaming system that cost something like $50,000 bucks! I'm not real sure whey they didn't sell like hot cakes??? [rolls eyes]

Had they been patient with the technology and brought it to market when people could afford it, I think it would have done a whole lot better. But nobody wants to wait, they want to push everything out the door as soon as they can. That's why I think 3D with glasses is destined to fail. And it's failure just might take 3D without glasses down with it as an innocent bystander. Had they waited until they had a TV that could display 3D without glasses, without side-to-side issues and all the rest of it, then I think 3D could have been THE next big leap.
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 07:19 PM

Actually I hope that they (and most consumers) don't learn that lesson. That way, in 10 years when I need a new TV, the Joneses and the TV industry will have spent those 10 years working themselves into a lather to get me a much better TV really, really cheap.
Posted by: terzaghi

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/18/10 10:57 PM

I agree with most of the comments here. I really don't want to hassle with 3D and special glasses, especially since I wear prescription glasses.

I'm going to take this opportunity to hopefully find a killer price on a old fashioned 2D TV maybe sometime in January or so.
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/19/10 11:54 AM

Check this link for Johnny Lee's hacks on the Wii. This has some cool 3d gamimg possibilities, sadly, he came up with this a year or so after the Wii was initially released but so far no one has done much with it.
Posted by: Zarak

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/19/10 01:18 PM

 Originally Posted By: Micah

Had they been patient with the technology and brought it to market when people could afford it, I think it would have done a whole lot better. But nobody wants to wait, they want to push everything out the door as soon as they can.


They have no reason to be patient when they can charge high prices and the early adopters will pay those prices for new tech. The early adopters fund future R&D and help bring down prices for the rest of us. So thanks to all of the early adopters here at the Axiom forums! \:\)
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/19/10 01:29 PM

Maybe, but that doesn't excuse a company from making better forcasts. Even with early adoptors money funding R&D, if they don't bring the prices down to affordable levels in a reasonable amount of time the general public will lose interest and then.... all is lost.
Posted by: GregLee

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 12:05 AM

I'm very enthusiastic about 3D. So enthusiastic that I bought a PS3 when I learned that it would be capable of playing 3D blu-rays, and I just bought a Pioneer vsx-1020 for its ability to switch HDMI 1.4a signals (including 3D BD and 3D TV). But I'm not quite enthusiastic enough to go ahead and buy a 3D TV just yet. Maybe next Spring.

I haven't seen any of the new Sharp 4 color displays, but I find their product literature pretty persuasive. One of the advantages they claim is extra brightness, in part because our eyes are more sensitive to green-yellow than to R, G, or B, and since shutter glasses cut out more than half the light, brightness is very important to glasses-based 3D displays.

I'll also be very interested to see what Vizio comes up with this Summer -- they've made some interesting claims.

Since I'm a rather frugal person, my first 3D display might turn out to be one of the (essentially obsolete) DLP displays. At any rate, for me, the question is not about "if", but (as people say about the next killer asteroid) "when".
Posted by: spiffnme

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 03:55 AM

You may (or may not) know that IMAX has joined Sony and The Discovery Channel to start up a new all 3D cable channel. We've been scrambling to prep 3D content for the channel. So far we've viewed some material on both the new 50" Panasonic plasma and the 50" Samsung LED. If you're looking to purchase either of these I can tell you that the Panasonic has superior picture quality. The 3D is extremely impressive. Colors and contrast are excellent.

That said, for some reason watching 3D on a TV gives me eye strain rather quickly. I find it very uncomfortable. I don't seem to have this problem when watching on a large movie screen. I'd recommend that you watch a good 15+ uninterrupted minutes of 3D imagery on a 3D TV before making your purchase. You don't want to drop $4000 on a TV and then realize you can't stand to watch it in 3D mode.
Posted by: grunt

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 04:02 AM

Thanks for that info.

Now all of you need to go out and start buying 3D so it will drive down the price and drive up the content for the late adopters like me. \:\)
Posted by: CV

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 04:06 AM

That's too bad about the discomfort. Certainly a good reason to hold off. When do you try out HDI's 100" display?
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 11:52 AM

 Originally Posted By: GregLee
I'll also be very interested to see what Vizio comes up with this Summer -- they've made some interesting claims.

It's my understanding Vizio doesn't develop any of their own TV's. They only put together some of the better parts of one TV manufacturer, screens, processors etc. with cheaper components from another or their own supplier for some savings. For instance the latest 55" LED Vizio is an LG in disguise as they use the same engine and display at least from what I had read last year when I was researching for my TV.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 01:09 PM

That's correct. While Vizio claims to be an "American" company, all that really means is their execs live here. They have no panel manufacturing, so they source their parts from other makers.

Heck, even Lucky Goldstar, with their panel plant sometimes sources panels from other makers to meet demands. Worse still, the same model TV may have different panels (and picture quality levels) depending on the manufacture time and place.

While it's nice that there are cheap displays on the market, which has improved HD adoption, there's no "Axiom" of displays at this point. The cheap ones really are just cheap.
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 01:55 PM

Interesting stuff. I've seen Visio displays for sale at Walmart, Meijers, etc... But I didn't know that was their angle.

Once again this site has opened my eyes to information. Was previously ignorant of. Bravo!
Posted by: chesseroo

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 02:09 PM

 Originally Posted By: Micah
I saw this on the internet...

Personally I think the television industry is a little out of touch with the times. Where I live anyway people are more interested in finding a job, not finding a nice, new $4000 dollar gimmick to bring home...

That was a long but well thought out rant and i agree with Micah 100%.

Since we started putting our media room together around 2002, the innovations have been so quick to come to the store shelves that no one can keep up.
It is too expensive a venture for the vast majority of North Americans.
I like the conceptual idea of some of the innovations but really, i am just now contemplating a BR dvd with universal players on the market, but to go back out again and get a 3D version?
Bah.
Forget it.
I have the cash but apparently not the patience.

Sell me a 3D tv once holographic images become the home standard.
Posted by: chesseroo

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 02:11 PM

 Originally Posted By: spiffnme

That said, for some reason watching 3D on a TV gives me eye strain rather quickly. I find it very uncomfortable.

This isn't anything new.
This was a problem with the old 3D red and green goggle idea as well, but for somewhat different reasons.

3D tv needs to be more than putting on a pair of stereo-imaging trickery unless one wants their visual acuity and perception messed up in the long run.
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 03:15 PM

 Originally Posted By: chesseroo
That was a long but well thought out rant and i agree with Micah 100%...



Hey thanks! But uh... Lol, it actually wasn't so much well thought out as it was me blowing off steam! Haha \:D

Curiosity finally got the best of me and I started to google 3D TV's to see what a 65 inch model is going to cost them 'early adopters' (I'm with you Grunt, I'll sit back and let the 'gotta have it' crowd swoop in & pay 15 times what it's going to cost in 24 months). I found a pretty wide gap. First off I saw a 42 inch 3D set for $8k. So immediately I figured, "oh yeah, 65 inch sets won't be cheap"!

But then I found a 55 inch Samsung (I believe) that was '3D ready' for $3200... WTF? Is there a difference between 3D & 3D ready? I was confused so I started researching 3D even further. That's when I started finding out things like the fact that the glasses will probably be brand specific, not universal. So if you buy a 3D set for the movie room, and somewhere down the line you wwant to put another one in the family room you'll have to make sure they're the same brand or you may have to buy separate glasses for each set. Ridiculous!!!

I also read some manufacturers touting technology a few years out that will bring 'no glasses needed' 3D TV's into our living rooms. The only trouble with those sets are that they are very 'sweet-spot' oriented. So then I read where still others are developing the 2nd generation 'glassless' sets that will have a wider viewing angle.... And I got so pissed off that they are bringing the technology out 'as is' anyway, even though its flawed, they know its flawed, and they know how to fix the flaws, but in the meantime want us all to invest in the flawed product while they work all the kinks out. That really bugged me. Because if the technology they are working on requires a different broadcasting signal, and the stations that will be broadcasting the 3D channels switch over to this new signal, its going to leave everyone who's buying into today's 3D technology with a completely useless TV, BD player and everything else.

I don't know enough about the technology, so I don't know if that will come to pass or not? But that was the impression I got while investigating it. And I worked myself up into such a tizzy over it I jumped on here and basically opened the 'relief' valve and got all my thoughts off my chest. Admittedly once I logged on and read what I'd written the next day, I thought I came off a bit like a stark raving mad lunatic!

I'm glad I was at least able to fool you. ;\)
Posted by: Adrian

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 03:24 PM

It seems that it's become more and more prevalent for companhies to release products on the public before they are ready. Let the public be your guinea pig. It's not so bad if the company backs up any problems that arise, but I've found that's not the case esp where the automotive industry is concerned.
Posted by: casey01

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/20/10 05:33 PM

 Originally Posted By: spiffnme
You may (or may not) know that IMAX has joined Sony and The Discovery Channel to start up a new all 3D cable channel. We've been scrambling to prep 3D content for the channel. So far we've viewed some material on both the new 50" Panasonic plasma and the 50" Samsung LED. If you're looking to purchase either of these I can tell you that the Panasonic has superior picture quality. The 3D is extremely impressive. Colors and contrast are excellent.

That said, for some reason watching 3D on a TV gives me eye
strain rather quickly. I find it very uncomfortable. I don't seem to have this problem when watching on a large movie screen. I'd recommend that you watch a good 15+ uninterrupted minutes of 3D imagery on a 3D TV before making your purchase. You don't want to drop $4000 on a TV and then realize you can't stand to watch it in 3D mode.



I do find it a little unusual that IMAX would be involved in promoting a 3D channel other than to possibly promote programming that was released initially in their own theaters. This is already being done on some HD cable channels. Perhaps the underlying reason is to show people that the only way you can get the REAL 3D experience is by seeing it on a mammoth screen with a "state of the art" sound system and a 3D channel on a 3D television will give you just a little taste of the "real thing".
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/21/10 05:43 AM

3d TV reminds me of the Blu Ray fiasco and how it is still evolving and we the consumers are still paying the rpice for adopting it even after a few years of it being relepred, 3D TV is no different, even worse as there are too many players and ways of doing it. I guess they must be hoping for a battle and which ever technology(payouts galore or consumer confidence) wins will be the defacto standard ala Blu Ray.
Posted by: GregLee

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/21/10 07:42 AM

 Originally Posted By: jakewash
there are too many players and ways of doing it. I guess they must be hoping for a battle ...

What different ways? What battle? There was the checkerboard board system, but that's dead now. (I have two checkerboard 3D TVs, alas.) For home 3D, everyone has settled on the methods of HDMI 1.4a. The only possibly conflicting 3D method I know of is Sensio's, which Vizio says its sets will use.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/21/10 10:12 AM

There is the issue with the shutter glasses. They use IR codes to say which eye should be covered. While it seems manufacturers have some compatibility in the signal coding, they didn't agree on high or low signals to be assigned to the left or right eye. So cross-brands you may get inverted depth information. Where things that should be popping out from the screen are actually punched in.
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/21/10 05:35 PM

I was refering to, as Chris mentioned, the glasses, which I am not into wearing for home watching so 3D is a non issue for me. If I want to watch a 3D movie, I want it on the much grander scale afforded by massive screens in my local theater, much more impressive , IMO.
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/21/10 06:03 PM

 Originally Posted By: ClubNeon
So cross-brands you may get inverted depth information. Where things that should be popping out from the screen are actually punched in.

Well, that would certainly make some of the 3D movies, like the new schrek thing, a little more interesting...
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/22/10 12:13 AM

I turned my glassed upside down when watching Avatar. It's pretty neat.
Posted by: CV

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/22/10 12:22 AM

You're a digital rebel.
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/22/10 12:24 AM

 Originally Posted By: ClubNeon
I turned my glassed upside down when watching Avatar. It's pretty neat.

I gotta try that.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/22/10 12:33 AM

 Originally Posted By: CV
You're a digital rebel.

I sold my Digital Rebel. I'm a 30D now.
Posted by: CV

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/22/10 12:35 AM

 Originally Posted By: ClubNeon
I sold my Digital Rebel. I'm a 30D now.


I'm not sure that has the same zip to it.
Posted by: St_PatGuy

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/22/10 01:05 AM

Doesn't it mean he's a little top heavy now?
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/22/10 03:36 AM

\:D
Posted by: Hansang

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/22/10 04:57 PM

 Originally Posted By: ClubNeon
I turned my glassed upside down when watching Avatar. It's pretty neat.


Speaking of Avatar...it was "OK" to borderline not good. For me it was

1) too granola'ish
2) enough with the "evil" Military types already.

CGI was impressive though.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/22/10 05:11 PM

If you look at all of James Cameron's movies you'll find out that technology is evil, unless it's being used to make said movie.
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/23/10 01:17 PM

Well this is probably another can of worms I'm about to open, but personally I do think militaries, generally speaking, are a necessary evil. The good/evil perspective lies on which side of the fence you happen to be on. For instance when you watch the movie 'Hotel Rwanda' (based on actual events), most people will view the Hutu as one of the most evil militia's to ever walk the earth. However, if you were Hutu, the genocide would seem completely justified. A 'payback' if you will for the 200,000 Hutu's slaughtered by the Tutsi army in Burundi in 1972.

Of course that wasn't the first conflict between the two groups, their bloodshed dates back hundreds of years. The point though is that any military can be percieved as 'evil' by one group of people, while another group would back their general objective, as it suits their agenda. I served in the US AirForce during operation Desert Shield/Storm. And while I am one of the most non-prejudice people you will ever meet, the propaganda that they soaked us in, the 'hate-machine' that we were subject to brainwashed all of us. I had such little respect for the Iraqi people as a whole, that I would have had no problems killing any man, woman or child that I would have come across had I been on the front lines. They really do a fantastic job of turning soldiers into blood thirsty animals capable of doing things that normal people would never do.

And of course this is a necessity. In order to be sucessful in war, you need your soldiers to be ready to obey any command they are given. Think about it, if you were to pull a young man out of his economics class in college, point to a heavily fortified bunker sitting on top of a hill and say, "I need you to charge that machine gun nest", he would look at you and say, "fuck you, that's insane"!!! And of course he would be right, it is insane. But that's what soldiers are trained to do, things that ordinary citizens would consider 'insane'. Point to the same bunker and tell a US Marine to "charge that machine gun nest", and he'd be running towards imminent death before you got the last part of the sentence out of your mouth. Is that because US Marine's are crazy? Well some would say yes, but moreover, it's because they are trained to do things without question. Obey without taking into consideration morals, danger, concequences or anything else... just simply obey. It's no easy feat, but they accomplish it, and our military has proven to be one of the most effective militaries in the history of warfare. You don't want to know what goes on in any of our skirmishes on the front line. War is hell, there's nothing glamorous about it what-so-ever. And one of the side-effects of all the brainwashing that goes into creating a soldier is that when you wind a person up that tight and unleash them upon the enemy, sometimes they take things even further than you had intended. US soldiers have been found guilty of raping women... killing children... doing many of the same things they depicted the Hutu soldiers of doing in 'Hotel Rwanda'. If you've seen the movie 'In the Valley of Elah' (a story that closely follows the events that led to the killing of Richard T. Davis by his fellow soldiers), it gives an insight into the mind of soldiers who've been subjected to the hate-machine for so long, that human life in general means nothing to them, and neither does taking it. When a soldier can do something like that to his own commerade, imagine what he could do to the enemy whom he has even less respect for. That was one of the saddest movies I've ever seen, and when I Googled Richard T. Davis and found out about the true story, I was even more appauled. Nobody wants to think our brave soldiers are capable of doing such horrible, dispicable acts... but unfortunately some are. And it only takes one bad seed like that to give an entire group of people a bad name. Therefore it should come as no surprise that many of our enemies consider us 'evil'.

But I don't blame the people who put on that uniform to serve and protect their country. I don't think anyone joins the military so that they can rape women and kill children. It is an honorable thing to put your life on the line for your country. The intention is good when you enlist, the outcome of all that training, all the propaganda, all that hate they pump into you can have effects you never would have thought they could have on you. I can remember watching 'wing-tapes' in the pilots lounge on base. These pilots would come back from the war with video's from the airplane/helicopter they flew and play them for us. One video I remember very well was taken from an Apache helicopter that had snuck up on an Iraqi bunker in the middle of the night, created some sort of diversion to get the attention of the sleeping soldiers inside, and as they ran out of the bunker he opened fire on them with his M230 Chain Gun. It was so violent, their bodies were literally being cut in half. Arms, legs, heads... they were flying all over the place.

And I was LAUGHING!!! \:o

We all were, we were laughing, cheering, clapping... the only sadness we felt was that we weren't able to kill those guys ourselves. Looking back it was so disgusting the way we acted, the way we felt, the hatred that flowed out of our mouths on a daily basis. Those men were just like us, serving their country. They had families too... mothers, fathers, children, people who loved them. It was certainly nothing to laugh about, and I regret the way I reacted to the footage I witnessed.

I'm sure many of the Hutu soldiers who've aged 16 years now since the 1994 rebel attacks probably look back and regret some of the things they did or witnessed. When you're in that brainwashed state of mind you are capable of doing things you'd never imagine you could do. Things that haunt you when you come back to the real world and put things in better perspective. Many soldiers have problems later on in life because of war. It's not only the friends that they lost or the carnage that they witnessed. It's also regret from the things they did. Things that they thought at the time was 'justified' because the enemy was 'evil' and deserved what they got. But like Clint Eastwood said in 'Unforgiven'..... "we all got it comin kid". In the end we are all humans, just with different agenda's.

I'm just greatful I wasn't over there with a gun. Or I might have a lot more to regret than laughing at a bloody video.
Posted by: MarkSJohnson

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/23/10 02:30 PM

Micah, that just might be the most obscure derailment I've ever seen here....
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/23/10 04:40 PM

I'm all about breaking new ground.
Posted by: Hansang

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/23/10 11:28 PM

Micah,
I would agree that the concept of military is a necessary evil. But as a general rule men in military are not evil. I can't speak for the Air Force, but I was an platoon leader in an Airborne outfit and we didn't pump our men full of hate/propaganda. But at the same time, we also conditioned men into accepting death as "part of the package of war." Kind of hard to explain in the context of Axiom forum! \:\)


I think the common misconception of civilians and non-combat military people is that "soldiers will comply with any order" and that's wrong. They are legally bound to DISOBEY unlawful orders.

We train our men to follow lawful orders because combat units don't have the luxury of time. That's what it really comes down to. We can't debate about "taking a hill." If you do, others who are depending on your unit will die.

Of course, with any group of human beings, you'll have murderers, rapists, and molesters. After all, military is just a sampling of people in a society with murderers...etc.

I just get tired of liberal depiction of military types who are rabid baby killers, molesters, maniacal killers. I guess that's my net/net message.
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/24/10 03:31 AM

Yes please don't read into my paragraph that all soldiers become the exact same maniacle blood thirsty animal, or that all US soldiers commite the henous crimes I mentioned. Like I said it only takes a few bad apples in one huge military, running around being complete idiots, doing ungodly things, and suddenly the stories àre flying around between our enemies.

Yeah I would never lump everyone into one big group like that, so let me ephasis that every person is different and reacts differently to the traning supplied. I'd say its a very low percentage that really take the stuff they're trained to do and go totally overboard with it.

Still, it does happen, and those are they types of people that give all militaries a bad name. Because when thinking up stereo-types for the enemies military, people are not as likely to remember the average Joe military man and more likely to remember the extreme, out of control nutcase that was running around cutting kids heads off and bowling with them. Its what we would remember about Hutu army in Rwanda.

And yes thanks for clarifying the 'legal' aspect of a Marines duty to obey an order. Like I said in my example with the machine guns nest, in the military you have to give orders that will more than likely result in the person carrying out the orders to die in the process. But through thpose orders hopefully other lives will be spared. And so it takes a lot of training to prepare a civilian to carry out orders that will ultimately lead to their death.

It is a situation unique to the military. But then again so is handing someone a riffle and telling him to, "go kill as many guys in those uniforms as you can". Those orders all by themself, can change a person for the rest of their life.
Posted by: grunt

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/24/10 04:50 AM

I have spent time in all 4 major branches of the armed forces over a 30 year period and except for your depiction of the USAF you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Marines are not trained to “do things without question.” On the contrary from day one, hour one and quite literally minute one (the process of getting off the bus was a training tool) we were trained to think outside the box, plan ahead for contingencies and to understand that real world rules no longer applied to our actions. We did train to react to certain situations w/o question (immediate action drills) where seconds count. The analogy I try to explain this to people with is that of touch typing. Learning to keyboard doesn’t stop one from thinking about what’s being typed rather it uses a trained automatic response free up the mind to focus on or think about something else like reading what’s on a page being copied or composting thoughts in ones head. Likewise training drills ensure you’ll be doing something experience had shown productive toward survival in certain situations all the while thinking about what comes next after you survive shit-hitting-the-fan.

When Marines, soldiers . . . seem to be risking their lives w/o concern it’s almost always out of concern for their buddies something they’ve already thought long and hard over.

 Originally Posted By: Hansang

I just get tired of liberal depiction of military types who are rabid baby killers, molesters, maniacal killers. I guess that's my net/net message.


Hear, hear!
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/24/10 03:09 PM

Nowhere did I, nor would I ever depict US Marines, Airmen, Seamen, Solders, Seals, Green Beret, etc.... as rabid baby killing moleters or anything close to that. I have more respect for a person who dons a military uniform than just about any other occupation. Don't confuse my regrets for the thoughts I had in my AirForce days for regretting serving my country (even though I'm a Canadian, so it's not technically 'MY' country). Oh contrair, I was proud to serve in the military, and continue to take pride in that fact.

My regrets stem from how low I aloud my respect for certain ethnic groups to get during that time. When I mention the 'hate machine', I'm not accusing the US military or the President or a secret group of Generals behind closed doors somewhere plotting a campaign to turn us into zombies ready to put a bullet into anyone with a towel on their head. There is no one source that I would ever point to and blame for the way we thought... the way I thought. I'm not making accusations of Dr. Evil brainwashing all of our troops. Its far more subtle then that, and a lot less intentional I guess... it comes from the general atmosphere we lived in. First of all most of us were 18, 19 & 20 years old and in the military. So at the base of the fire you have a bunch of young men full of testosterone, ego's, pride, and all that hyper energy that comes with being 19 years old and just coming into our own as young men. No more home made breakfasts from mommy or living under daddy's roof. We were on our own, eager to prove ourselves. Prove that we were worth our salt. All we needed was a little direction.

Some of the kindling on the fire was the alcohol we had access to. On base if you had a military I.D. you could buy alcohol. For most of us this wasn't our first experience with alcohol, but none of us had drank LIKE THAT!!! Right along with all that testosterous driven desire to prove we were men, came the drive to prove we could hold our liquor... and not let anyone drink us under the table! When I got to Tinker AFB they had just recently integrated the base with the Navy's AWACS squadron. So every night we went to the NCO club or the Airman's lounge we had to prove we could out drink them Navy boys! To put it plainly, the vast majority of us had high BAC levels most of time, day-in and day-out. So we weren't usually thinking quite as clearly or logically as we could/should have been.

One month after I graduated Tech school and arrived at Tinker Iraq invaded Kuwait. Footage of the atrocities immediatelly flooded the network news stations. American as a nation was shocked, those of us at Tinker AFB (I won't speak for anyone else since I wasn't anywhere else to witness the aftermath... Although I would assume the effects were fairly consistent throughout most military intallations) by and large developed an intense hatred for not only Saddam Husane (or 'So-Damn Insane' as we affectionally called him) and his military, but for Iraqi people in general. But it wasn't just the network news fueling the fire. We were shown much more graphic material. Very disturbing images of unthinkable things happening over there. Our opinions of those who were responsible for those images we saw fell lower and lower. Anytime we talked about the situation over there, which was constantly, our disission was always that sending a few nuclear warheads over there and obliterating every living thing in that vacinity was by far the best move our President could and should make.

All of the conditions I listed are components of the 'hate machine'. It isn't any 1 thing, or anyone's master plan that creates this fury. Its the entire environment we lived in that took people like me who went into the Military without an ounce of hate for anybody, anywhere... into someone so enraged and bent on avenging those poor victims in Kuwait, that I, along with everyone I knew personally, eagerly voluntered to go over to Saudi Arabia to do whatever we possibly could do to help exterminate any and all Iraqi citizens.

That kind of enthusiasm is invaluable in a war effort. We were ready and more than willing do anything and everything we were asked to do to aid in the war effort. Two weeks after the invasion, we started mobilizing. The official stance of the US for months was that we were 'considering' military action in response to the invasion of Kuwait. However those of us in Air Transportation anyway, knew two weeks after the fact that military action wasn't just being considered... It was immenent. For the next five months we worked 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week. I voluntered for 'mobilization' four times. During a 'mobilization' drill they work you up to 36 hours straight loading C5 Galaxy cargo planes. C5's were landing every 5 to 10 minutes. We would bust our asses loading them with everything our military needed over there to launch a sucessful military campain. And like I said, the complete distain we held for the enemy fueled the fire to work as hard as we could, for as long as we could. When we added up all the hours we were working divided by our pay scale, we were making less than $2 dollars an hour for our service. But you could not have paid a group of people $100 dollars an hour and gotten any more production out of them. Our attitudes had nothing to do with money.

Was our enthusiasm towards our duties in part paid for with images that brought out so much emotion in us that we would do just about anything to make sure they got what was coming to them? I can't speak for anyone but myself of course. But looking back I would say in part, definately.

Now, don't take that to mean that I no longer feel the people responible for the atrocities I was shown didn't deserve to die. I just wouldn't lump every man, woman and child from the same country as deserving the same fate as the soldiers who commited the unspeakable acts in those photo's/video's. And now it strikes me as being just a little on the odd side that of all the crimes against humanity being waged against citizens just as innocent and undeserving as those Kuwaities during that same period of time around the rest of the world ... Those were the only innocent people we seemed to give a shit about. Yes I do still support our actions during that campaign... I just wonder we never even heard about some of those other atrocities. That was before the internet, or 24 hour news channels. I never heard about the situation in Rwanda until the movie came out. And while watching that movie I wished we could have sent a peace keeping force to keep those children safe while fleeing the violence that erupted around them. Hell I know our military can't be all places at one time, it just makes me wonder how we choose which innocents to save and which to ignore.

My comments about soldiers being trained to follow orders came from the Marine recruitor that trained me while I was in the Marine depo program during high school. At the start of my senior year I actually enlisted with the US Marines and went once a month to the depo training programs PT. The machine gun nest example was the example he gave us in describing the way (as he told it) military training in basic training stripped away everything we'd basically learned all of our lives, and reprogramed us to react to commands more like a robot would than a normal citizen.

"Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do and die".

As he explained it by midway through basic we would/should be completely relient on our D.I.'S every command to function. Only in the last two weeks did they build you back back up and give you back your ability and confidence to make decisons on your own again. This was the fall of 1988, spring of 1989. But I can't confirm that this was necessarily the way things went down in Marine basic training because I ultimately switched over to the AirForce. And AirForce BT isn't nearly as intense. They definately do break you down in AF boot camp, but not to the same degree.

So, without pretending to know what goes through every soldiers mind, that was exactly how the hate machine spun my own personal beliefs around on me during my military days. I can remember having conversations with my parents about my opinions that we should just make the Middle East a nuclear wasteland instead of sending out troops over there and putting them in harms way. They were shocked, reminding me that I'd been raised better than to make such large gerneralizations about any ethnic or religeous groups. All I could think to myself was, "oh if you only knew what I knew. If you had seen what I've seen, THEN you would understand". But I have since put things back into perspective. I let my youth, my impressionability, my misguided eagerness and a whole lot of tequila and beer confuse my feelings towards a select few people and spread those feelings over an entire ethnic culture.

For that, I am sorry.
Posted by: Hansang

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/24/10 07:39 PM

I do agree that when the US Military does something wrong, more people around the globe react to it. But in a sick sort of way, that's a compliment and I'm OK with it.

To the international users of this forum, I am well aware that it's annoying to hear about "baseball World Series", "World champions in basketball" etc. \:\) I kind of annoys me too.

Now back to the topic....I'm -> <- close to ordering the VP180. I am the one - after all - who recently brought up the topic of using M80 on its side as fronts.

(mimicking MS commercials) VP180...it was *my* idea! ;\)


PS One thing I forgot to add. I was once talking to snob who thought only idiots went into the military. His "proof" was that men who can think on their own would never "march around field" following orders. We happened to be having a conversation in an auditorium waiting for some key note speaker to start. And the organizer was having a hard time getting people to sit closely together to make room. I told him if we were in the military, I could give three orders and have everyone fill the seats in about 10 seconds....because if we don't do things promptly, people die. It was a sweet to see the light bulb click on his face! ;\)
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/24/10 10:30 PM

 Quote:
I just get tired of liberal depiction of military types who are rabid baby killers, molesters, maniacal killers. I guess that's my net/net message.

Hmm... I think that is a somewhat exagerated depiction of us liberal types. Most of us have a LOT more common sense than that. Actually, I attribute most of the 'baby killing' type activity to the political class. The guys at the top who whip up Nationalism as a tool for private ends. Slobodan Milosevic is a prime example of this. Get the populice wound up. Send the military out to do the dirty work.

Micah, dude, you working your way up to a novel or what? ;\)
Posted by: pmbuko

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/24/10 10:35 PM

Micah,

Thanks so much for sharing your story. Every time a former or current soldier opens up I learn something I didn't know before, and it usually results in a greater respect for the person and all soldiers in general.
Posted by: mpyw

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/24/10 11:32 PM

Seen the Panasonic VT20 at some roadshow on Sunday...
It's a good experience but need to wear the glasses turn me off, color is good compared to current BD 3D's offer with those Red/Blue paper glasses. The different from the BD (like Caroline, Journey to the Center of the Earth & My Bloody Valentine etc.), the 3D effect is withing the TV itself instead of like thing flying in front of you..you get better direction and front/back object differences but the edge of the object is a lil too sharp and artificial for me.

It would be nice if it's in 120" screen....
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/25/10 12:54 PM

 Originally Posted By: mpyw
Seen the Panasonic VT20 at some roadshow on Sunday...
It's a good experience but need to wear the glasses turn me off, color is good compared to current BD 3D's offer with those Red/Blue paper glasses. The different from the BD (like Caroline, Journey to the Center of the Earth & My Bloody Valentine etc.), the 3D effect is withing the TV itself instead of like thing flying in front of you..you get better direction and front/back object differences but the edge of the object is a lil too sharp and artificial for me.

It would be nice if it's in 120" screen....


Woah, let's not get off topic here.
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/25/10 04:06 PM

 Originally Posted By: fredk


Micah, dude, you working your way up to a novel or what? ;\)


Baby steps....


;\)
Posted by: Hansang

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/25/10 07:22 PM

 Originally Posted By: mpyw
Seen the Panasonic VT20 at some roadshow on Sunday...

It would be nice if it's in 120" screen....


 Originally Posted By: htnut

Woah, let's not get off topic here.


The nerve of some people..am I right? \:\)
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/25/10 10:35 PM

 Originally Posted By: Hansang
 Originally Posted By: mpyw
Seen the Panasonic VT20 at some roadshow on Sunday...

It would be nice if it's in 120" screen....


 Originally Posted By: htnut

Woah, let's not get off topic here.


The nerve of some people..am I right? \:\)


Indeed! After all this thread is about novel writing.
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/25/10 11:30 PM

\:D
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/26/10 05:31 AM

Novel writing in Braille.
Posted by: michael_d

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/27/10 05:10 PM

I never have understood why vetts want to talk about their time in the service. I've spent twenty years trying to forget my time running and gunning....

For those still interested in 3-D, I just stumbled onto this web sight. Some very cool stuff. They even have a device that turns your flat panel display into a 3-D display for use without glasses. http://masterimage3d.com/products/3d-lcd
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/27/10 06:47 PM

I like that much better, if it works as well.
Posted by: fredk

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/27/10 07:10 PM

Nice website. Ooooo, and look at all those partners. I guess I can just pop into my local theater for a demo, or maybe pick up one of these jewels at the local best buy...

I sure hope this technology pans out... someday...
Posted by: michael_d

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/28/10 11:05 AM

I'm sure it's "cheap" too....

Jay - why don't you just buy one, report back and let us know how it works? You'll be a hero regardless if works or not. \:\)
Posted by: jakewash

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/28/10 11:38 AM

I am not too sure how my family would take selling the new house just so I could try no glasses 3D. I'll run it by them later tonight and see how it goes. I will be putting a sleeping bag in my truck before hand ;\)
Posted by: Micah

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/28/10 04:20 PM

 Originally Posted By: michael_d
I never have understood why vetts want to talk about their time in the service. I've spent twenty years trying to forget my time running and gunning....



You know, I knew plenty of guys like that before I ever enlisted. Their refusal to talk at all about their experiences in the service made me think there was something very, very sinister about military service. "What did they do to you"? I would wonder.

Now that I've had my own experiences, I can understand with a lot more clarity why some choose not to speak about certain things. Hell I had the luck of not creating too much regret for myself. Since I was not a US citizen I could not go oversea's even though I voluntered to do so. So all these years later, the only thing I wished I'd done differently is change my frame of mind... not too bad on the regret scale.

Still I feel it's good to share with others who've never been in the service some of the insights that I have. Like I said before, I served this country proudly, and continue to take pride in the role I played during the war. No not everything was positive about my experience, but by and large most of what was fueling the negative aspects of the experience was the people that made up the military. There were individuals not only from all over the country, but all over the world in boot camp alone. I was born in Canada, there was a guy born in Peru in my Flight, as well as a guy born in Japan, a guy born in Germany, and a guy born in Mexico... and this is out of 50 airmen in my flight. So there are a lot of different viewpoints that come together.

For the most part I was really excited to see how well we all bonded in boot camp. But there were also some not so proud moments I lived through. But the main point I wanted to get across was that yes, I did feel that the military experience soaked me in an atmosphere of hatred, that I let myself become consumed by. But I also wanted to make sure to mention that this wasn't 100% attributed to some master plan by those who run the military... I do think there is propaganda introduced by higher ups, I witnessed that for myself... but it also has a lot to do with those of us enlisties. Our combined attitudes and outlooks are just as much of the equation.

So instead of blaming my bad experiences on Uncle Sam, I take responibility for letting the surrounding atmosphere I was exposed to penetrating my own morals and ethics. It was an important lesson for me to learn. I'm just greatful the experience wasn't any worse than it was for me personally.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: The 3D Gamble.... - 05/28/10 05:41 PM

 Originally Posted By: michael_d
I never have understood why vetts want to talk about their time in the service. I've spent twenty years trying to forget my time running and gunning....



Iis possible that some actually enjoy(ed) their time in the military. The comradery, a sense of duty and service, and a real sense of purpose can all lead to positive experiences and/or memories. Of course, there are some that simply like to share their experiences, good or bad. Either way I've got all the time in the world for them \:\)