3DTV not what I thought

[Narmer]

The last time I saw a movie in 3D was in 2007. Angelina Jolie did the voice-over for some character in an animation movie. I saw it at the IMAX theatre on the upper westside. The 3D animation felt like it was coming out of the screen and actually in front of you. But when I went to Best Buy today, the 3D reminded me of those pop-up books. The 3D images were distinct from the background but they did not 'pop out'. It wasn't the same. All this just sounds like hype to me.

 

[Quasmo]

Bigger the screen the more real the illusion

 

[KaOTiK]

The last time I saw a movie in 3D was in 2007. Angelina Jolie did the voice-over for some character in an animation movie. I saw it at the IMAX theatre on the upper westside. The 3D animation felt like it was coming out of the screen and actually in front of you. But when I went to Best Buy today, the 3D reminded me of those pop-up books. The 3D images were distinct from the background but they did not 'pop out'. It wasn't the same. All this just sounds like hype to me.

Beowulf?

 

[Crono]

All this just sounds like hype to me.

Yes.

It's so manufacturers can claim that their TVs have 3D, and thus outsell their rivals.

I don't care to watch TV in that kind of 3D, and I'm guessing most people don't, either.

 

[Narmer]

Beowulf?

Yeah.

 

[Ika]

Were you wearing the glasses, or was this a no-glasses TV?

 

[destrekor]

The last time I saw a movie in 3D was in 2007. Angelina Jolie did the voice-over for some character in an animation movie. I saw it at the IMAX theatre on the upper westside. The 3D animation felt like it was coming out of the screen and actually in front of you. But when I went to Best Buy today, the 3D reminded me of those pop-up books. The 3D images were distinct from the background but they did not 'pop out'. It wasn't the same. All this just sounds like hype to me.

that pop-out is gimmicky 3D

Avatar had some pop-out mainly to please the people who wanted their 3D to be full of gimmicks, but the biggest tricks were with the surreal amount of depth. There was a real foreground, middle, and background.

It did feel like it extended a decent amount in front of the screen, but a lot of the trick was making it seem like there wasn't a screen, and the image continued past it in some cases.

That'll need larger screens to prevent the bezel from pissing off your eyes and messing with the illusion. And the demos in store may have been terrible 3D in general, versus being a good example of the medium.
All 3D is not the same. Most 3D is faked post-production. IMAX used some dual-lens systems for their old documentary-style films, but Avatar is essentially the first with proper 3D, thanks to a new hollywood-ready dual-lens camera.

I'm hoping they get some good 3D projectors out soon, that'll probably be the route I go in the future. If more movies do it like Avatar, then I want... I really want.
It just needs to be properly done. IMHO, it can be done without making it a gimmick. I think it adds to the visual experience, and at times the pop out at you think can also help, but for it to help the rest of the depth perception trickery needs to tag along. Again, like Avatar.
Movie was so-so, but it is king and will serve as my benchmark for future 3D.
Hopefully his next production, I think the one he'll do before the Avatar sequels, based on a manga, will also use the same camera system.

 

[Narmer]

Were you wearing the glasses, or was this a no-glasses TV?

I was wearing glasses. I didn't know there were tvs that did not require glasses.

 

[zerocool84]

If more movies do it like Avatar, then I want... I really want.
It just needs to be properly done. IMHO, it can be done without making it a gimmick. I think it adds to the visual experience, and at times the pop out at you think can also help, but for it to help the rest of the depth perception trickery needs to tag along. Again, like Avatar.
Movie was so-so, but it is king and will serve as my benchmark for future 3D.
Hopefully his next production, I think the one he'll do before the Avatar sequels, based on a manga, will also use the same camera system.

Avatar still has the same problems that all 3D movies do, panning problem, blurriness, focus problems, and eye strain/headaches for many people. Avatar's 3D was better than all 3D before it but it still sucked.

 

[Newbian]

I was wearing glasses. I didn't know there were tvs that did not require glasses.

If you get the eye surgery you will never have to wear those glasses again.

 

[Aikouka]

I don't recall there being any TV that don't require special glasses? I heard about some very small screen that they're guessing will be put in the new Nintendo handheld that does not require glasses, but it's currently too expensive to manufacture on a large scale.

 

[soulcougher73]

Avatar still has the same problems that all 3D movies do, panning problem, blurriness, focus problems, and eye strain/headaches for many people. Avatar's 3D was better than all 3D before it but it still sucked.

Agreed. The blurriness and focus problems are what kept me from liking the 3D version. I will stick with my 2D and like it.

 

[Elganja]

I don't recall there being any TV that don't require special glasses? I heard about some very small screen that they're guessing will be put in the new Nintendo handheld that does not require glasses, but it's currently too expensive to manufacture on a large scale.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/19/newsights-70-inch-3dtv-keeps-the-glasses-away-with-its-parallax/

 

[shortylickens]

When we get fucking holograph projectors we will have 3D.
Until then, Sony is just jerking us around.

 

[0roo0roo]

The last time I saw a movie in 3D was in 2007. Angelina Jolie did the voice-over for some character in an animation movie. I saw it at the IMAX theatre on the upper westside. The 3D animation felt like it was coming out of the screen and actually in front of you. But when I went to Best Buy today, the 3D reminded me of those pop-up books. The 3D images were distinct from the background but they did not 'pop out'. It wasn't the same. All this just sounds like hype to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=238gr0R2CXg
3d doesn't scale down so well

 

[0roo0roo]

I don't recall there being any TV that don't require special glasses? I heard about some very small screen that they're guessing will be put in the new Nintendo handheld that does not require glasses, but it's currently too expensive to manufacture on a large scale.

aka those stickers with the groovy plastic sheet lenses on top any such tech is very limited in use and viewing angle.

 

[rudder]

Bump 3D... 4D is where it is at. Once televisions can manipulate time... I am all there. Then I could watch lost between 8:00 and 8:01 pm and not worry about the kids missing their bed times.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Avatar still has the same problems that all 3D movies do, panning problem, blurriness, focus problems, and eye strain/headaches for many people. Avatar's 3D was better than all 3D before it but it still sucked.

I didn't notice any of the things you complain about with Avatar. I thought it looked spectacular.

 

[Muse]

I didn't notice any of the things you complain about with Avatar. I thought it looked spectacular.

Ignorance is bliss. I dug it too. No complaints here.

 

[KeithTalent]

Avatar still has the same problems that all 3D movies do, panning problem, blurriness, focus problems, and eye strain/headaches for many people. Avatar's 3D was better than all 3D before it but it still sucked.

Yep, totally agree.

KT

 

[ussfletcher]

When I was at JPL they had some digital 3d projectors, that in combination with the glasses gave an AMAZING 3d experience. One was simulating a fly through of a canyon on mars and it felt like you were literally flying through it. Another was some sort of model for the mars rovers, you could see it in amazing 3d detail. The screens were only about 60" too... Perhaps the projectors are the way to go?

 

[nerp]

When they finally create the 11 dimension television, Einstein's dram of a unified theory will finally be realized. After a word from our sponsors.

 

[Queasy]

Beowulf wasn't originally created in 3D so it wouldn't look as good, correct? They would have probably used a post-processing 'fake 3D' similar to what f'd up Clash of the Titans.

 

[CPA]

I don't recall there being any TV that don't require special glasses? I heard about some very small screen that they're guessing will be put in the new Nintendo handheld that does not require glasses, but it's currently too expensive to manufacture on a large scale.

Samsung is developing one I believe.

 

[destrekor]

Avatar still has the same problems that all 3D movies do, panning problem, blurriness, focus problems, and eye strain/headaches for many people. Avatar's 3D was better than all 3D before it but it still sucked.

Yep, totally agree.

KT

I didn't notice any of the things you complain about with Avatar. I thought it looked spectacular.

It's hit or miss, depending on the person.

Panning is a problem for the reason for the reason of technical limitations. It'll be that way until holographic 3D imaging is reality, if that's even possible. Directors will use various tricks to try and minimize it, but I don't see the problem being possible to be fixed 100%.

Focus problems? Bullshit.
You can't have everything in focus, not if there is anything in the foreground. So, with movies, if stuff in the foreground is in focus, the distant background can't be in focus.

If there is stuff in the, well, middle ground, and beyond, that all can be in focus. It's an optics issue.

When that gets put into 3D, the perception of depth is exaggerated thanks to this very real issue of optical focus. The director focuses on what needs to be clear, what is and is not in focus is at the director's discretion, and that of the director of photography.
And this helps bring the foreground out of the screen, and create a sense of distance and depth to anything behind what is in focus.

Headaches and such? I'd argue anyone getting headaches was NOT following what the director wanted, i.e. focusing the eyes on what is in focus. My eyes were going all over the place, looking around and enjoying the perception of depth, but still managed to basically keep vision locked on the focused subject, and I had no headaches.

There was also an article suggesting that very fact, which I had read prior to seeing the movie. So I knew to focus on the subject that was in focus on the screen, and that proved to work.

Some people are going to get eye strain, but that's not a problem of bad 3D, that's a problem of 3D on a flat display, period. Some people can't grasp how to manage the eyes.
Again, you can't solve that, except with projection of 3D into a 3D space, not onto a 2D surface.