Comments on: 3D or not 3D, that is the question

By: Birbal9090

Birbal9090 — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:38:00 +0000

you know what..i agree with you 100%

By: Peter Wilkinson

Peter Wilkinson — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:37:40 +0000

3d is in its infancy… I agree the only way for 3d to truely take off is for it to do away with the tacky glasses… and believe it or not that future is not very far away… Toshiba has announced 2 “GLASSES FREE 3d” production tvs coming out THIS YEAR…(google toshiba glasses free 3d) the only problem with current glasses free 3d tvs is that it has a viewing angle… akin to early lcd’s or rear projection tv’s… however this is a minor limitaion when it comes to cellphones… analists project that cellphones will lead the charge with glasses free 3d… The nintendo 3ds has a amazing glasses free 3d screen all the reviewers that have had a chance to get hands on with the 3ds were amazed… it is a gimmic free glasses free 3d… and its amazing… The first retail cellphone that is glasses free 3d is the sharp Galapagos launching in japan this year.

Viewing angle with cellphones isnt as much of a issue because for the most part due to the fact that is usually only 1 viewer.

By: ryan

ryan — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:13:18 +0000

I couldn’t agree more with you! But there are some 3D without glasses TV coming out. I don’t remember if it’s Sony or Samsung producing it. There are also some new technology format which improve the quality of the image. I think it’s something you can see on Livestation.com, on the on demand section.

Bye!

By: UnderDoc

UnderDoc — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:39:34 +0000

I find it strange that you would consider color an important advancement, but dismiss 3D — this seems very subjective. Spectators in the past enjoyed black-and-white movies just as much as we enjoy color ones now, and while our kids will possibly frown on the idea of watching “flat” cinema, they will not derive any more pleasure from the 3D than we derive from 2D.
The media is really not that important, because we have imagination to aid the illusion. If not, then I guess we would have stopped reading books a long time ago. However, it is important that, within our individual lifetimes, visualization technology improves, if only to compensate for our aging brains and deteriorating senses.

By: Philip Berne

Philip Berne — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:27:24 +0000

You are correct, I tried to simplify the concept of polarization, but “filter” is a much better word choice than “bend.” I’ve amended my text. I also tried to carry the concept to the living room example, I didn’t want to get too technical with the active shutter system, but I missed the mark there as well.

I decided to skip anaglyphic 3D since it’s so outdated. It’s a novelty, now, not a serious method for 3D presentation.

I wouldn’t say that wearing glasses completely breaks the immersive experience, but there is a sacrifice. I’ve never sat through a feature-length 3D film with those glasses on without remembering that I’m wearing them at some point, at numerous points, during the movie. Do I blame 3D as the reason why “Alice In Wonderland” was so horrible? No, the movie had many, many problems. One of those problems was that the sacrifice I make to use the 3D technology is not worth the benefits gained from the sub-par implementation of 3D.

Thanks for reading and for keeping me honest!

By: salsaman

salsaman — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:18:02 +0000

A few technological nits to pick.

First, you say “The light is bent in a certain way…” but that is not the case. Using a polarizing filter is simply filtering, not bending it in any way– there is no redirection.

Second, you imply that the 3D technology at home is the same as in a movie theater, but they are very different. In a movie theater, you wear cheap polarized glasses and the movie is projected with alternating polarization, so your left and right eyes see the appropriate images. At home, you wear shutter glasses, and the TV screen is flickering the left/right images and transmitting a signal to your glasses to block your left eye from seeing the right eye image, and vice versa. They’re very different technologies, but the key is that the glasses for home viewing are active (expensive!) while the glasses at the theater are passive (cheap cheap cheap).

Third, you don’t even mention that the old mechanism for seeing 3D was very different still: anaglyphic images, with both images composited into the same image, but with different color shifts, so your red-cyan glasses give a 3D effect by blocking the left image from your right eye and vice versa. Anaglyphic images are inherently troublesome because bright stuff is always visible to both eyes, so you get a ghosted opposite image in each eye. Plus, it’s just weird to have different eyes seeing different colors!

Lastly, many people reject this blanket idea that wearing glasses to begin with breaks the immersion. Look around a movie theaters when a 3D movie is playing: everybody’s wearing the glasses, and all eyes are glued to the screen. Lots of immersion, lots of open mouths drooling.

By: Kenny Hogg

Kenny Hogg — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:39:17 +0000

I have seen these 3d is going now where news articles over and over again in the past 4 years. Basically making the same points as this article. Of course most of those have since been deleted from the internet, but they and the comments left by so many said how 3d would be gone by now. No one would want it. Yet 3d theaters sold a lot of tickets that those people said would never sell. I think that people that don’t like 3d just can’t accept the fact that so many like it and have embraced it so much. Such as the movie looses some color and brightness. I don’t even notice that when watching a 3d movie. That was never an issue with me, as it is with so many people. So why did the news media get is so wrong about where 3d would be today. The people writing those articles never stopped to ask if every feels the way they do or not.