C
Chazwozel
I'm so not crazy about having to wear glasses to watch TV...
- Status
C
Chazwozel
Well I guess what I'm saying is that I hope 3D Tv doesn't catch on as the new norm in like 8 years, kinda like LCD/Plasma/LED HDTV has.
figmentPez
Staff member
I'm more bothered by the glasses costing $100+ a pair.
C
Chazwozel
I'm more bothered by the glasses costing $100+ a pair.[/QUOTE]
WTF?!?!? These are the same fucking throw-away glasses you get at any 3D show at a theme park!
As long as HDTV still works and is supported by everything, I'm cool.
figmentPez
Staff member
No, they're not. The 3D glasses paired with 3DTVs aimed at consumers use LCD shutter technology (as higher-end theater models do). They have batteries and sensors to sync with the TV, and have to be charged periodically. I still don't see how they cost $100+, though.
I'm more bothered by the glasses costing $100+ a pair.[/QUOTE]
WTF?!?!? These are the same fucking throw-away glasses you get at any 3D show at a theme park![/QUOTE]
Most of the 3d TV's require shutter glasses, not the cheap ones.
*Damn, got beat to it.
Supposedly they will be coming out with passive 3d sets this summer though.
C
Chazwozel
I don't think that's physically possible with this technology unless you get into the realm of ocular implants. Realistic holographs however...
figmentPez
Staff member
They've already got them, and they had them on the show floor at the latest CES. They don't have as strong a 3D effect, they have a much smaller viewing angle, they're dimmer and I'm not sure what other drawbacks they have. I have no idea how they work, but they're out there.
The tech does work better on smaller screen, though. The Nintendo 3DS is set to be 3D without any need for glasses, and people who have seen such small-screen 3D say it can be impressive.
I don't think that's physically possible with this technology unless you get into the realm of ocular implants. Realistic holographs however...[/QUOTE]
Oh, they ARE working on it. I spent las summer working at a physics-optics research center and they were working on some ideas toward 3D without glasses. Baby steps, but still, if someone is doing that in Spain (VERY good center, but still), there should be people doing more advanced things in the US.
EDIT: Actually, now that I think of it, what they were working on was improved 3D without glasses: correct 3D from more than one position, wide angle if possible, etc.
C
Chazwozel
I don't think that's physically possible with this technology unless you get into the realm of ocular implants. Realistic holographs however...[/QUOTE]
Oh, they ARE working on it. I spent las summer working at a physics-optics research center and they were working on some ideas toward 3D without glasses. Baby steps, but still, if someone is doing that in Spain (VERY good center, but still), there should be people doing more advanced things in the US.[/QUOTE]
But it would be a holographic basic 3D right? There's no physical way you can make your eyes see 3D pop out on a 2D screen without augmentation. I guess I could see a holographic displayer mounted above and below the 2D screen and work in sync with the 2D image to generate a 3D effect....
C
Chazwozel
I guess holographic projector...
.
I don't think that's physically possible with this technology unless you get into the realm of ocular implants. Realistic holographs however...[/QUOTE]
Oh, they ARE working on it. I spent las summer working at a physics-optics research center and they were working on some ideas toward 3D without glasses. Baby steps, but still, if someone is doing that in Spain (VERY good center, but still), there should be people doing more advanced things in the US.[/QUOTE]
But it would be a holographic basic 3D right? There's no physical way you can make your eyes see 3D pop out on a 2D screen without augmentation. I guess I could see a holographic displayer mounted above and below the 2D screen and work in sync with the 2D image to generate a 3D effect....[/QUOTE]
Did anyone see Colbert's 3D trick? They interleaved two camera angles rapidly. you see a background shift occur, though I bet you could correct for that. It wasn't a really great effect but you could see the potential.
I guess holographic projector...[/QUOTE]
After some google and this post, I finally know what you were talking about
doomdragon6
Staff member
I was actually just reading a history and future on 3D tv/theater technologies, like, 10 minutes before I saw this.
It won't catch on, don't worry.
People hate wearing glasses.
Also, the ones with the sensors are horribly expensive and require you to sit in one place.
It won't catch on, don't worry.
People hate wearing glasses.
Also, the ones with the sensors are horribly expensive and require you to sit in one place.
Yeah, one can only point to the abject financial failure of Alice in Wonderland and Avatar to see that 3D is just a fad.
C
Chazwozel
Yeah, one can only point to the abject financial failure of Alice in Wonderland and Avatar to see that 3D is just a fad.[/QUOTE]
Well theater is one thing. It's a limited experience. And it could just be a fad (remember the 3d flicks of the 60s and 70s). If most people are like me, they like to turn on the tube late at night and lay down while watching a movie. Glasses would suck in that situation.
I don't think that's physically possible with this technology unless you get into the realm of ocular implants. Realistic holographs however...[/QUOTE]
Oh, they ARE working on it. I spent las summer working at a physics-optics research center and they were working on some ideas toward 3D without glasses. Baby steps, but still, if someone is doing that in Spain (VERY good center, but still), there should be people doing more advanced things in the US.[/QUOTE]
But it would be a holographic basic 3D right? There's no physical way you can make your eyes see 3D pop out on a 2D screen without augmentation. I guess I could see a holographic displayer mounted above and below the 2D screen and work in sync with the 2D image to generate a 3D effect....[/QUOTE]
The ones they had at the CES show had polarizing screens over the TV, which allowed for up to 8 3D viewing angles. Basically, worked the same as the glasses, but on the TV instead of the end users. The main problem with them is you can only get the 3D effect from specific viewing angles.
C
Chazwozel
I don't think that's physically possible with this technology unless you get into the realm of ocular implants. Realistic holographs however...[/QUOTE]
Oh, they ARE working on it. I spent las summer working at a physics-optics research center and they were working on some ideas toward 3D without glasses. Baby steps, but still, if someone is doing that in Spain (VERY good center, but still), there should be people doing more advanced things in the US.[/QUOTE]
But it would be a holographic basic 3D right? There's no physical way you can make your eyes see 3D pop out on a 2D screen without augmentation. I guess I could see a holographic displayer mounted above and below the 2D screen and work in sync with the 2D image to generate a 3D effect....[/QUOTE]
The ones they had at the CES show had polarizing screens over the TV, which allowed for up to 8 3D viewing angles. Basically, worked the same as the glasses, but on the TV instead of the end users. The main problem with them is you can only get the 3D effect from specific viewing angles.[/QUOTE]
I suppose eventually the tech will catch up to where its a million 3D viewing angles, at that point I would buy a 3D tv. I just want to maintain my hang upsidedown from the couch end, head half-cocked on the floor viewing position.
3D is coming, like it or not.
You'll always be able to see whatever in 2D, though, so no need to hate 3D. Just shut off the right video output and only watch the left (or vice versa, if that how you roll. dawg.)
The glasses-less TVs aren't going to go very mainstream until some serious problems are resolved.
LCD shutter glasses are going to be the preferred tech for LCD TVs because polarizing them for polarized lenses (think imax and reald 3D at the theaters) is a pain.
DLP projection TVs and projectors, however, could go with polarized lenses.
I took the 3D lenses passed out for RealD 3D in theaters and put them in the clip on sunglass frames you can get for glasses, and love the result - no more head or earchache from the ill-fitting glasses they pass out at the theater. You'll be able to get comfortable, custom 3D glasses eventually.
Once these TVs come out, though, you'll find that even the LCD shutter glasses will drop radically in price so it shouldn't be an issue by the time 3D tv really catches on. They will be both cheap and comfortable. Ideally the manufacturers will agree to a common protocol and specification so you can have your pair and take them to your buddy's house to watch the game, rather than having to keep 15 on hand for whoever shows up at your house.
You'll always be able to see whatever in 2D, though, so no need to hate 3D. Just shut off the right video output and only watch the left (or vice versa, if that how you roll. dawg.)
The glasses-less TVs aren't going to go very mainstream until some serious problems are resolved.
LCD shutter glasses are going to be the preferred tech for LCD TVs because polarizing them for polarized lenses (think imax and reald 3D at the theaters) is a pain.
DLP projection TVs and projectors, however, could go with polarized lenses.
I took the 3D lenses passed out for RealD 3D in theaters and put them in the clip on sunglass frames you can get for glasses, and love the result - no more head or earchache from the ill-fitting glasses they pass out at the theater. You'll be able to get comfortable, custom 3D glasses eventually.
Once these TVs come out, though, you'll find that even the LCD shutter glasses will drop radically in price so it shouldn't be an issue by the time 3D tv really catches on. They will be both cheap and comfortable. Ideally the manufacturers will agree to a common protocol and specification so you can have your pair and take them to your buddy's house to watch the game, rather than having to keep 15 on hand for whoever shows up at your house.
That makes it even worse for us 4-eyes trying to watch it in 3D. The 3D glasses OVER my regular glasses are a pain in the ass, unless you can order either prescription 3D glasses or clip-ons to fit your frames.
C
Chazwozel
That makes it even worse for us 4-eyes trying to watch it in 3D. The 3D glasses OVER my regular glasses are a pain in the ass, unless you can order either prescription 3D glasses or clip-ons to fit your frames.[/QUOTE]
Ever hear of contact lenses?
But seriously, I agree, wearing special glasses to watch TV at predisposed angles for some cheap effects is kinda stupid. I know Steiny's right though. 3D is being shoved down the market's throat and it's coming whether we like it or not.
J
Joe Johnson
I've heard of these "contact lenses". Are these the same things that don't really work in my dry eyes, unfortunately? Actually, I can use them, but not on a daily basis - I can wear them in about 5 hour stints.
Anyhoo, is there really a way to get the 3D signal watchable in 2D? I ask because my wife has only one functioning eye - meaning 3D is pretty much worthless. Can you watch something in 3D with one eye and one "lense" and have it look OK? Or do you lose a lot in translation?
Anyhoo, is there really a way to get the 3D signal watchable in 2D? I ask because my wife has only one functioning eye - meaning 3D is pretty much worthless. Can you watch something in 3D with one eye and one "lense" and have it look OK? Or do you lose a lot in translation?
I actually tested that out with Alice in Wonderland. Without the glasses, the picture is blurry... with the glasses the blurryness turns into 3D... BUT if you close just one eye while wearing the glasses, you see everything non-blurry but no 3D, so pretty much how it'd be in normal 2D.
What? I do stuff!
What? I do stuff!
figmentPez
Staff member
Actually, I'm not sure about that with the LCD shutter tech. I'm not sure if it relies on both eyes to hide the fact that the lens is being blacked out 60 (er, 24?, 30?, 48?) times a second.
On most content there should be a 2D option, as long as everyone in the room is happy with losing 3D. Though, sadly, the standard for 3D Blu-ray allows for discs that contain a 3D version only, with no 2D option.
- Status