Main > Everything Else

3D televisions

<< < (6/18) > >>

SavannahLion:

--- Quote from: shrunkenmaster on October 10, 2010, 09:29:20 am ---Most content isn't even recorded/broadcast in proper widescreen, let alone HD, let alone 3D! Maybe we should get one thing right before moving on to the next 'big thing' eh?  ;D

--- End quote ---

+1

The current menagerie of ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- up broadcast signals really pisses me off. I was happier with the older analog signal. At least it was a predictable feed.

saint:

--- Quote from: Xiaou2 on October 10, 2010, 02:28:54 pm ---I suspect the people who are complaining about 3d have not seen a good imax3d
movie, which uses polarized glasses.  The glasses are not a big deal at all... and the
effect is Awesome.  Its about time we got depth in our media... and it will only get better once they start Filming in 3d, instead of merely using a 2d to 3d software converter.

--- End quote ---

I have, and it's horrible because I am a glasses wearer. You can't get the 3D glasses over your normal glasses comfortably, and there's too much gap due to the distance they are from your eyes due to your normal glasses.  Fix that and I'll probably be a fan. Some kind of larger wrap-around goggles kind of thing maybe.

OR - if they standardizes on a technology, and we could get prescription versions of 3D glasses I might be tempted to spring for a pair, but probably not due to cost :)

Ginsu Victim:
I have astigmatism and poorly done 3D seems to bother me (like Piranha 3D), but well done 3D doesn't (Pixar films).

Still, I can't wait for this fad to die. I was mad when I heard they are shooting The Hobbit in 3D. I hope they will offer 2D screenings, as well.

Blanka:

--- Quote from: shrunkenmaster on October 10, 2010, 09:29:20 am ---Most content isn't even recorded/broadcast in proper widescreen, let alone HD, let alone 3D! Maybe we should get one thing right before moving on to the next 'big thing' eh?  ;D

--- End quote ---

TV broadcast will NEVER be 3D. The only way 3D is totally acceptable is when the 3D image is real time rendered based on the viewers line of sight. So it only works for games in the end. All pre-programmed 3D is either head aching, non social or bad looking, and at least one of these 3 reasons will keep studios from making broadcast in 3D. You will see some niche channels in 3D, but never main stream TV. And BTW, broadcast TV itself is dead before a decent workin 3D tv exists!

Xiaou2:

--- Quote ---I have, and it's horrible because I am a glasses wearer. You can't get the 3D glasses over your normal glasses comfortably
--- End quote ---

 Strange.  I also wear glasses.. and they seemed to be fine.  Maybe your glasses are thicker or more heftily built.

 I dont think perscription polorized glasses would cost much really.  Polarization isnt all that expensive a technology.  Though, Ive never had to look into it.. and it would be a great option for Imax trips or if the day comes when I get a 3dlcd.

 Im certainly not in a rush, because there is limited media still... as well as there are no artistic apps that really take advantage of 3d that Ive seen.  IE: I dont believe there is a realtime 3d layer & distance option in photoshop... and there really should be.


--- Quote ---I have astigmatism and poorly done 3D
--- End quote ---

 I also have astigmatism.   But the poorly done 3d bothers everyone actually.
Its a matter of the poor conversion of 2d to 3d... where images are not drawn in the correct depths... and it gives ghosting, and other problems... and really messes with your mind.

 If they really are Filming the hobbit with 3d cameras... it will be flawless and awesome... because there are no software conversion problems to deal with.
In fact, anything shot with real 3d cameras will be much more intense. The depth and details will be amazing.  Software 3d, while impressive when cleaned up... is still lacking.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version