3D Projectors

[Xiaou2]

 I just have to write a little blurb..  as my friend picked up a new Optoma 1080p native 3d projector, a large pull down screen (13' across?), and a bunch of active lcd shutter glasses.

 J A W D R O P P I N G !!!

 I really didnt expect what I was about to experience.   Ive seen LCD shutter glass stuff work with the days of the Sega Master system, as well as the arcade game  "Continental Circus 3D".. and I believe they use them for many of the digital theaters.

 The Sega Master system 3d effect was low frame rate.. so a bit dark and choppy.. but it was really cool.  But.. the images didnt seem to pop out of the screen that far.  Mostly Into the screen.   Missile Defense 3D was the rare example where a game made you feel like dodging your head.. if you missed shooting a missile down.  (This game is worth getting a system + 3d glasses + lightphaser for)

 On Continental Circus (arcade machine), the 3d was much more smooth, and greater brightness.  The 3d effects were dazzling.   The game constantly had computer cars wrecking in front of you... so parts were flying out of the screen.  If you cracked up... smoke would trail in the air in 3d.. out of the screen..   and if you blew up... tires, spoilers, and other parts would fly everywhere +out of the screen.   Its was incredible.    But also... the depth of the road going into the screen..  the hills, and all the scenery...etc..  was incredible.

 The graphics of the game are not that well shaded or great... but the 3d effect really remedied this, with the great depth and greater sense of motion and position.  I emptied my wallet into that game, and played nothing else the entire time, even with a full arcade of games to play.

 Still again.. the out-of screen effect was very limited.    Nearly 1ft of depth internally..  but only maybe 3" max externally.

 Then I went to an Imax 3d film projector... that used polorized glasses...

 Initially, there were really poor quality films. Cheesy, short, and not always really potent in depth.   Over time, these films had gotten a bit better.. and the effects were often beyond comprehension.   For example... in one example, this girl was talking to a group of people..   and she was literally about 6ft in front of you... even though I was about 40ft from the screen.   She was crystal clear.. and you could make out details as fine as the hairs in her nose.  In-sane.

 Eventually they ported some big name movies to the format..  like Superman.   But the conversion was really poor.. and only a few minutes of the film were in full 3d.   But with time, each 3D film got better and better..  and the effect was to the point where you felt like you were IN that environment.   

 The scene from Harry Potter... where they were trying to get the professor to teach again... (horous?)   and the room put itself back together...  was breathtaking and mind blowing.   Avatar was another insane leap.  Sadly, the depth was more into the screen than out... but still, the effect was so incredible, that after the movie, I had some strange emotional episode, where in which our ordinary "concrete jungle" was very depressing.. and I wanted to dive back into the movie... which lasted about 30min or so!   Id never felt or experienced anything like that..  nor the level of beauty and scale that was seen within that world.

 ...But when I saw the re-release of Avatar extended, in  "Real-D"  3d,  it was a  HUGE  let-down.   Turns out the the digital versions do not compare to the film versions... and the 3d depth was like 1/80th of the Imax depth.   Part of this is due to the seating... in that Imax seats you more vertically, to put you closer to the screen.  Part of it is that the screen is so much more massive.    The larger the screen.. the further things can pop out of it... especially when you are sitting in close proximity.

 
 So...  as my friend got his setup... I imagined it would feel more like the Real-D  experience.   Boy was I mistaken!

 He first showed me the typical Imax startup - which is a set of numbers flying out of the screen.  WOW!   I was blown away.  I felt the same impact as the Imax experience.  Insane clarity and depth... and images that extended like 9ft into the room... and far deeper past the screen.

 The most impressive thing he showed me.. which I NEVER expected..  was a 3d re-release of Predator.   I figured that the conversion would be as poor as the Top Gun 3d Id seen in the theater. .. which was fuzzy, and lacking in detail and depth.   WRONG!

 There you were in the middle of the Jungle...  trees and vines all around you, at various depths.  All with perfect clarity and detail.   It was like a whole new movie!  At times, I would not pay full attention to what was going on, merely to marvel at the scenery in its glorious detail and beauty.  You could sit there and literally count blades of grass..  thats how clear and real it is.

 Stuff that you would never have seen or noticed before, takes on a whole other level of experience.  It literally was like you were there, in the Jungle, walking with the actors.   Im still in awe, how there were able to get to this level of conversion. 

  I hope they do this with Aliens soon!   As well as many of my beloved favorites, such as Temple of Doom, Goonies, The Neverending Story, Willow, TRON, A Knights Tale, Tai Chi Master, Drunken Master II, Poltergeist, Nightmare on Elm St.? 1 & 3, True Lies, Total Recall, Terminator II, Bedazzled, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, 36th Chamber of Shaolin / Master Killer, The Italian Job, Oceans 11?,  The ORIGINAL unmolested Star Wars films, Chevy Chase Vacation films ..  and far more...

 
 The price?    Amazingly, the prices has came down considerably.   He paid something like $1500 for the Projector, Screen, and 6 pairs of wireless 3d glasses.

 Also, unlike the elder glasses... you didnt detect any flicker, at all.   And the picture didnt seem dark or dim, as was the case with glasses from the Sega Master System era.

 He fired the thing up for his 3 children, and they were "ALL ABOUT IT"!   Watching in awe, and one even being very critical when the 3d effect wasnt at its best.   heh   

 Turns out there are tons of 3d CGI kids films out there to grab and play.   As well as some other interesting 3d stuff, like that french circus (circ da something).. which is quite breathtaking in the way you are zoomed into all the action and detailed beauty  (rather than if you had some nose bleed seats & a pair of binoculars at best).

 Havent tried any 3D games on his PC yet, as his pc is in another room, and streaming content.  (ugg)

 Anyway, if you have seen a good Imax film based 3D, I Highly recommend getting a setup like this.

 
I believe he has this model projector:

 http://www.amazon.com/Optoma-HD25-LV-1080p-Theater-Projector/dp/B00BQWX1P2/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1399235084&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=optoma+acer+3d+projector+3000#productDetails

 But Ill get more info later, to verify.

[ark_ader]

The one glowing aspect of 3D (if this option is available) is the ability to have two displays when playing co-op and Player vs Player matches.  Both glasses pickup different broadcasts from the TV/Projector.  This is the only reason for buying a 3D display.  Yes the image looks cool, but it gets old pretty quick, and the glasses are uncomfortable if you already a four eyes.

I would want to see the cost of these projectors dipping to $500, coupled with the pain of installation, overheating, and bulb life.  Not to mention the cost of replacement bulbs...

I have two projectors set up with Eye-Infinity giving a 100' screen, and that is very difficult to maintain on a regular basis, due to the above.

[Xiaou2]

Dual player capability is interesting, but you dont need that to have multiplayer setups.  And even if you do have multiplayer on one screen... you are losing depth information... which is critical in things like driving games.   And helpful in many other game aspects, such as how much energy + speed + distance  to shoot a basketball or ..grenade.

 As for your comments..  Ive yet to find 3d to get old.  Thats like saying that they should turn all audio files to Mono, because Stereo gets old.    A very ignorant comment IMO.

 If you have poor depth perception, I get it.   But not everyone is in the same boat as you.  Similar to how not everyone can hear as well as others (thus never will understand the HD audio), nor have a tongue pallet & keen smell, to appreciate the differences in a really well cooked and seasoned meal... and some pile of chemicals and fat at the local fast food joint.
Heck... some cant even discern good color spectrum.. as proven with the color match test that was presented here.  Which again, shows that the experience that someone is having, may be completely different than your own.


 As for your comment about the glasses...  This depends on which glasses you buy.   The ones my friend has, were not uncomfortable at all, despite my glasses.

 Imax glasses, need some work...  but those are cheap throw away junk..  and even those I dont mind for a movie sitting.

 
 And finally, due to the nature that peoples eyes may be further apart or closer together, may be the reason why certain people have limited depth issues, or exaggerated experiences... headaches and nausea.

 In such cases..  Ive wondered if an adjustable periscope style of device could be used to dial in the correct spacing for optimal effect and correct intended perspective viewing lines.  Use a dial to narrow or widen the one eye.   Or have two different styles of the mechanism, for either issue.

 Also, you may wish to consider getting smaller lens glasses.   Ive switched over, and Im much more happy with them.  They dont dig into my nose over time, like all the others Ive worn in the past.

[pbj]

The problem with projectors is the inherent sacrifice of space in your house.

[ark_ader]

Dual player capability is interesting, but you dont need that to have multiplayer setups.  And even if you do have multiplayer on one screen... you are losing depth information... which is critical in things like driving games.   And helpful in many other game aspects, such as how much energy + speed + distance  to shoot a basketball or ..grenade.

 As for your comments..  Ive yet to find 3d to get old.  Thats like saying that they should turn all audio files to Mono, because Stereo gets old.    A very ignorant comment IMO.

 If you have poor depth perception, I get it.   But not everyone is in the same boat as you.  Similar to how not everyone can hear as well as others (thus never will understand the HD audio), nor have a tongue pallet & keen smell, to appreciate the differences in a really well cooked and seasoned meal... and some pile of chemicals and fat at the local fast food joint.
Heck... some cant even discern good color spectrum.. as proven with the color match test that was presented here.  Which again, shows that the experience that someone is having, may be completely different than your own.


 As for your comment about the glasses...  This depends on which glasses you buy.   The ones my friend has, were not uncomfortable at all, despite my glasses.

 Imax glasses, need some work...  but those are cheap throw away junk..  and even those I dont mind for a movie sitting.

 
 And finally, due to the nature that peoples eyes may be further apart or closer together, may be the reason why certain people have limited depth issues, or exaggerated experiences... headaches and nausea.

 In such cases..  Ive wondered if an adjustable periscope style of device could be used to dial in the correct spacing for optimal effect and correct intended perspective viewing lines.  Use a dial to narrow or widen the one eye.   Or have two different styles of the mechanism, for either issue.

 Also, you may wish to consider getting smaller lens glasses.   Ive switched over, and Im much more happy with them.  They dont dig into my nose over time, like all the others Ive worn in the past.

Yeah well...I listen to my music in mono.  You go to a nightclub and the speakers are mono.  I have a 5.1 and I agree games and movies do sound better in surround. 3D and projectors are worth the hassle if they are cheap enough.  I just bought a motorized screen and it had to go back, as the wall looked better!     My fault for being ignorant. 

3d is a fad, but just in case these projectors do drop down to $500, I have plenty of Bluray 3D discs gathering dust.

[RandyT]

X is a little late to the game on  this one.  A few years ago, I participated in a long protracted discussion on the AV forums about 3D.  There were a lot of vehement supporters, but having worked for some years in the 3D display industry and watching how quickly the ROI disappears, I predicted that it would not be widely adopted nor supported.  There are many reasons for this, most transmission technology related, but just as important were the limits of the display technology itself.  Interestingly, those who had made the investment in 3D early and were the most vocal supporters, now have given in to reality.

For projection systems, the best approach is like the ones at the theaters using cheap, passive glasses.  The easiest way to get this kind of system is to use synchronized dual projectors with polarizing filters on each in opposing orientations.  This is still not great, as each eye only gets 50% of the light being generated, so high output (expensive) projectors are needed.  Even after spending all that cash, about 10% of the viewers will not get the 3D effect, due to eyesight issues, and another group will experience migraine-like headaches before getting through a feature length movie.

The technology being used today is really no different than that which was used in theaters in the early 80's (i.e. 30 year old tech).  It has all the drawbacks of that previously abandoned tech and imposes huge costs on media providers with little demand from consumers.  In other words, if you are pleased with the results, don't mind paying extra for limited content, and/or plan to use it exclusively with BD's and videogames, it might be worthwhile.  Otherwise, just get the nicest TV/projector you can for your money and be happy.

[Xiaou2]

Yeah well...I listen to my music in mono.  You go to a nightclub and the speakers are mono.  I have a 5.1 and I agree games and movies do sound better in surround. 3D and projectors are worth the hassle if they are cheap enough.  I just bought a motorized screen and it had to go back, as the wall looked better!     My fault for being ignorant. 

3d is a fad, but just in case these projectors do drop down to $500, I have plenty of Bluray 3D discs gathering dust.

 I do not even understand what you are trying to say.   Your contradictions are ridiculous.

 You say you listen to mono..  but prefer surround sound?!   And saying that a retractable screen looked worse than a blank wall...  thats idiotic to say the least...  unless your leaving out some critical detail, such as the screen was some scammy garbage.

X is a little late to the game on  this one.  A few years ago, I participated in a long protracted discussion on the AV forums about 3D.  There were a lot of vehement supporters, but having worked for some years in the 3D display industry and watching how quickly the ROI disappears, I predicted that it would not be widely adopted nor supported.  There are many reasons for this, most transmission technology related, but just as important were the limits of the display technology itself.  Interestingly, those who had made the investment in 3D early and were the most vocal supporters, now have given in to reality.

For projection systems, the best approach is like the ones at the theaters using cheap, passive glasses.  The easiest way to get this kind of system is to use synchronized dual projectors with polarizing filters on each in opposing orientations.  This is still not great, as each eye only gets 50% of the light being generated, so high output (expensive) projectors are needed.  Even after spending all that cash, about 10% of the viewers will not get the 3D effect, due to eyesight issues, and another group will experience migraine-like headaches before getting through a feature length movie.

The technology being used today is really no different than that which was used in theaters in the early 80's (i.e. 30 year old tech).  It has all the drawbacks of that previously abandoned tech and imposes huge costs on media providers with little demand from consumers.  In other words, if you are pleased with the results, don't mind paying extra for limited content, and/or plan to use it exclusively with BD's and videogames, it might be worthwhile.  Otherwise, just get the nicest TV/projector you can for your money and be happy.

 Uhh..  No.   Im not Late.   If you had read what Id posted, you would know that I stated 3d as early as the Sega Master System... the glasses released in 1987.

 And far before that, Id experienced 3d in the form of anaglyph pictures.

 Viewmaster 3D - Had one of those as a kid.

 Tomytronic 3D - A handheld released in 1983.  Didnt own it, but played it a few times.

 Various Half-Silvered Mirror 3d - from Arcade machines going back the EM days, such as Ninja Gun (Kasco).. extending into popular retro games like Asterioids Deluxe, Discs of Tron, and several others.

 Continental Circus 3D (arcade), was released in 1989.  The effect was incredibly awesome, and the 3d was capitalized to its full potentials... unlike some other 3d games / media.

 Ive had shutterglasses from the Dos heavy days, on PC, which was the only time I actually found an FPS to be interesting/ cool.  Using my old AMD 233mhz, with a Bigfoot 2gb hdd...

 A friend had more modern shutterglasses years later, that used the conversion process to make any 3d game into stereoscopic 3d.   The framerate and brightness were improved vastly..  but the conversion wasnt really the best, was buggy, and not updated well..  and the other media was extremely limited.  The software to do anything in 3d, was still very poor, and not very user friendly for the masses.

 Ive been seeing Imax films, using Polarized glasses, since the beginning of its inception...   all the way up to present.  Ive seen the 2d conversion process go from absolutely wretched, blurry, and buggy  ... to a level of shear disbelief, where you would think the entire film was shot 'today', in HD stereoscopic format.  Crystal clear, no blur, no focus or depth errors.   Simply amazing.

 I have a used Virtuaboy.   And if I can scrape some dough up, Id like to get a 3DS, especially for the Sega re-releases.
I still own & use my Sega master 3d system & glasses.

 Ive owned and seen some other 3d pc glasses..   as well as the various early variants of LCD 3d TVs.  Some were 'ok', but most Id seen were quite horrible... with poor depth and a lot of noticeable flicker effect.


So, unless you have seen the latest, live in person... then I believe you are behind the times.


 The projector my buddy has, isnt like a 10th of the Polarized 3d imax experience.  It was about a 8.5 to 9.. out of 10... and thats saying something!  Considering your competing against much higher resolution, and a picture thats much larger than the standard livingroom.

 Unlike the past 3d, the glasses they put out now, are much more translucent... allowing for far more light to get through.   And unlike the earlier LCD tv shutter glasses Id tried before... these had no detectable flicker.   Which was a huge relief.

  Although you could notice things a little dimmer when donning glasses initially..  when the movie is playing, you dont notice anything but shear beauty.  The colors were vivid, clear, saturated, and bright.

 I didnt think it would be possible to replicate the Imax level of experience on a non polarized setup..  but I too was mistaken.  Things have changed dramatically, with the latest technology improvements.

 Part of this may also be due to his projector being a DLP projector..  rather than an LCD / LED  based projector.


  I do not "Impress" easily... as many may know from my highly critical opinion... so for me to gush like this,
trust me... its really something to check out / buy.
 

 As for the money made in 3d...  its nothing to sneeze about anymore.   Imax 3d versions of films are making money hand over fist.   Some of them are breaking all box office records.   Some actors are rolling in plies of cash as a result.
 

 "Box Office: 'Gravity' Soars, Sets October Record With $55 Million October Launch"

 "The overall three-day domestic gross for “Gravity,” boosted by a whopping 80% from 3D, "


 Finally, no nice TV or HD projector, can come anywhere close to matching the experience of the said reviewed projector setup.  I cant wait to try a game on a setup like that.   (though sadly, it may be a while, as him and his wife have recently separated..  )

 The only thing that might possibly rival, is a "far future" version of the Occulous Rift.  Probably its 2nd or 3rd generation 'production model'..  maybe  5 to 10 yrs down the road.

[Hoopz]

I just have to write a little blurb.. 

Shenanigans!

[ChadTower]

Even after spending all that cash, about 10% of the viewers will not get the 3D effect, due to eyesight issues, and another group will experience migraine-like headaches before getting through a feature length movie.

Even this varies from content to content seemingly with no regard to the tech being used.  I have sat in cheap old theaters and watched really good 3D.  I sat in an IMAX for the last Harry Potter movie and the 3D was a jumbled up cluster-F of blur.  The 3D in the previews before that same movie was good enough that I was swatting at objects floating in front of me.  I have yet to see one technology that consistently works for me.  It is worth noting that I am 20-15 in one eye and 20-50 in the other.

[Vigo]

But at the same time, some movies just have horrid, half-assed 3d.

[ChadTower]

But at the same time, some movies just have horrid, half-assed 3d.

That's true but in this particular case I am betting that Harry Potter movie isn't one of them.  My kids said they loved the 3D.  I couldn't even tell what was going on in that scene with all the glass orbs.  It was like watching a 50 foot tall movie through an aquarium with sand in my eye.

[PL1]

Shenanigans!

[/Super Troopers]


Scott

[RandyT]

Uhh..  No.   Im not Late.   If you had read what Id posted, you would know that I stated 3d as early as the Sega Master System... the glasses released in 1987.

That's the problem.  You are comparing it to a 30 year old kid's toy.  The latest stuff will obviously look better.  I get it, you are impressed and worldly, so you believe it's the "next big thing".  But in reality, it's not.  It's a technology which was rejected 30 years ago, but is now available in many incarnations for home consumers, who have not embraced it in numbers which would sway content providers to care.  Transmitting high quality 3D content costs more.  Most satellite and cable providers aren't even in full HD yet.  Producing quality 3D content costs a lot more.  These costs get passed onto consumers who don't want to pay for it, as the value is not there.  The novelty of the experience passes quickly, and once it does, folks choose to save their money (see Wii.)

3D was foisted upon the movie going public as a means getting more butts in seats at the local theaters, when high quality alternatives started finding their way into homes in massive numbers.  It was also forced onto the public as a technology included with new TVs, as a means of increasing sagging TV sales, when the market started becoming saturated.  The success of 3D in theaters is arguable.  Many venues show only the 3D versions of the films, which have ridiculously higher ticket prices, so usually the gross is reported, which makes it look more successful than it really is.  When people stopped going to 3D movies due to the high cost of a ticket, they started showing the films in standard 2D as well.  Now that so many theaters have made the investment, they have to use it, so even movies which are poorly suited to the technology get released in a shoddily constructed form just to be marketed as "3D" and maximize revenues from those theaters.

So, unless you have seen the latest, live in person... then I believe you are behind the times.

 The projector my buddy has, isnt like a 10th of the Polarized 3d imax experience.  It was about a 8.5 to 9.. out of 10... and thats saying something!  Considering your competing against much higher resolution, and a picture thats much larger than the standard livingroom.

 Unlike the past 3d, the glasses they put out now, are much more translucent... allowing for far more light to get through.   And unlike the earlier LCD tv shutter glasses Id tried before... these had no detectable flicker.   Which was a huge relief.

  Although you could notice things a little dimmer when donning glasses initially..  when the movie is playing, you dont notice anything but shear beauty.  The colors were vivid, clear, saturated, and bright.

 Part of this may also be due to his projector being a DLP projector..  rather than an LCD / LED  based projector.

Giant text notwithstanding, no, I am not.  You cannot fight physics.  When you view a natural image, both eyes get the full amount of light available, and your brain merges it.  Close one eye, and you get half the light.  Polarize the light, and you are still discarding half.  The tech your friend's setup is using, is at the lower end of the scale for brightness.  The dual projector setup is better, as images are not alternated from one source, so you get the "maximum" of 50% of the light being generated (lens absorption not considered).  Your brain will compensate, and in a very dark room it may be acceptable, but it can't have the "punch" in vibrancy that a standard 2D image has at the same lumen output. 

DLP has it's own issues, and having owned one and being susceptible to rainbow effects and flicker, I wasn't too impressed.  DLP doesn't necessarily make for a better projector, but a better and often smaller projector for the price.  There is only one picture producing element instead of three, and no complex optics or large optical paths.  But they do have a fast and constantly spinning motor, which produces more noise and leads to shorter MTBFs.

I didnt think it would be possible to replicate the Imax level of experience on a non polarized setup.. 

You didn't, you just don't have a proper frame of reference to be able to make such a comparison...unless your friend also owns an IMAX theater, and has his $1500 projector set up in the next room over.

[ark_ader]

Yeah well...I listen to my music in mono.  You go to a nightclub and the speakers are mono.  I have a 5.1 and I agree games and movies do sound better in surround. 3D and projectors are worth the hassle if they are cheap enough.  I just bought a motorized screen and it had to go back, as the wall looked better!     My fault for being ignorant. 

3d is a fad, but just in case these projectors do drop down to $500, I have plenty of Bluray 3D discs gathering dust.

 I do not even understand what you are trying to say.   Your contradictions are ridiculous.

 You say you listen to mono..  but prefer surround sound?!   And saying that a retractable screen looked worse than a blank wall...  thats idiotic to say the least...  unless your leaving out some critical detail, such as the screen was some scammy garbage.

My point is that I do not listen to my music in stereo.  I like to watch movies in surround due to the special effects.  The projector screen look as good as the wall, so off it went back to the store.  These are not contradictions, these are your feeble attempts to troll me to make your point which is totally wasted on me.  I get it that you are the world's leading expert on 3D TV after you saw at your friend's house.  I get it believe me.  Yet this technology was used in 1953 with the House of Wax, and that technology died a death too.

I was at CES this year and at the LG booth they had a wall of 3D displays all synced together.  Yes it was amazing, the colours, the speed of the 4K displays, etc.  Wow. 

Until consumer units get down to $500 (and it will as Frys has a sub $800 60") and it will be come mainstream.  I have a friend that bought a Ł1000 3D Samsung, and now after a few months it is now Ł600. It is a fad, and one day it will become an included feature on a future TV purchases.

[Xiaou2]

Heheh.   But for me, that is a 'little' blurb   

Even this varies from content to content seemingly with no regard to the tech being used.  I have sat in cheap old theaters and watched really good 3D.  I sat in an IMAX for the last Harry Potter movie and the 3D was a jumbled up cluster-F of blur.  The 3D in the previews before that same movie was good enough that I was swatting at objects floating in front of me.  I have yet to see one technology that consistently works for me.  It is worth noting that I am 20-15 in one eye and 20-50 in the other.

 First, I agree that the glass globe scene.. and pretty much everything in that film that was 3d, was very poor.

 HOWEVER..  in the final Potters..  they really upped the game.  The 3d was flawless, and quite stunning.   One of the most memorable scenes was when the messy house righted itself back into order.   It was magnitudes better over the previous releases.   There certainly was something they did differently.. and or the deciphering technology just got 1000x more advanced.

 That potter scene with the globes was like the first Superman with the 3d clips in it.   A little less glitchy, but still horrible and disappointing.   I have to wonder if certain studios were cutting corners to "test the waters" ... for a possible "larger" future investment, in processing-power, for the next films...

 Either way... the final films were incredibly good in 3d.    Dont get me wrong... I think there are techniques that could have made certain aspects better..  but as they were.. it was really great to see the depth and details that you normally do not get to see and experience.

 

It's a technology which was rejected 30 years ago

 It wasnt rejected.  3D stereoscopy has never ceased.  Has been in public interest since the days of the old handheld 'center-split'  side-by-side stereo photograph viewers..   which would later transform into the 'viewmaster' much later. 

  Plenty of people have always been interested in 3d.  Are still interested, and own many 3d games, comics, movies.. etc.   See Imax films,  have a  3DS...  and are woooing over the Occulus Rift  all over the place.


 The problem was that the older 3d, initially red/blue..  made a purple mess.   You lost the color and clarity of the image.     

 The latter LCD shutter glasses was a pretty good hit with the Sega Master System...  so much so, that they sold a full 3d packaged version.    However, the framerate flicker wasnt optimal...  and the LCDs were much slower and much more expensive...  (to make a decent profit on).

 Tvs were capable of 3d...  but that would mean all new 3d cameras..   as well many technical hurdles.   Even IF the content was backed... the LCDs and tv refresh rates would be clunky at best.   Lots of flicker, darker image, and any effect would have been minimal due to the small sizes of the tvs back then.   Projectors were only for the ultra rich... well out of consumer reach.   You couldnt even pick up a decent camcorder without trading in a kidney.

 The Virtua Boy... I was interested... but when I heard it was merely red and black.. I opted out.   Had it been full color 3d..  even in a more simplistic form...  Id had been all over it.   Heck, if they had made a few must-play/have games... I may have jumped on it anyways.   I think a lot of people felt the same way.    The titles were more centered like 'tests', rather than full blown, highly polished games.

 3DS - Id get one if I wasnt in debt.   Ill own it one day..  probably used... but still...

 PC 3d never could get off the ground..  because no tech group could get game devs to put in patches for their games initially..   and that no company who made specs,  would make them 'open'.   Their glasses only worked with their video cards & hardware.   That makes game devs less likely to support them... because a good deal of their possible sales may be with machines that do not have that said CPU / Video card.    It was a sad joke.

 Even the highly passionate people who Were putting out 3D glasses and material.. were not able to get it to the masses.. because of the lack of standards, large scale support, driver issues, windows issues / bugs / lack of native support...  and lack of large scale advertising / large game company design / and no titles worth playing... let alone playing in 3D.

 It "COULD"  have been big back then..  had someone like Microsoft built in 3d support right into the OS.. and someone, maybe them..  made glasses available with no need of specialty drivers/cards..etc.

 
 These days, 3d is finally able to get to the masses...  due in large part to the efforts of Imax, and the mere Technological advancements over the last 20+ yrs.   High density data, processing power, specialized converters, high level of storage capability on digital media,  affordable cheap HD 3d displays and glasses.

 The costs have gone so far down, that the big companies now have little problem investing in the tech.   Especially when it proved it could get masses back into the theaters... at a premium profit.

Giant text notwithstanding, no, I am not.  You cannot fight physics.  When you view a natural image, both eyes get the full amount of light available, and your brain merges it.  Close one eye, and you get half the light.  Polarize the light, and you are discarding half again.  The tech your friend's setup is using, is at the lower end of the scale for brightness.  The dual projector setup is better, as images are not alternated from one source, so you get the "maximum" of 50% of the light being generated.  Your brain will compensate, and in a very dark room it may be acceptable, but it can't have the "punch" in vibrancy that a standard 2D image has at the same lumen output.

DLP has it's own issues, and having owned one and being susceptible to rainbow effects and flicker, I wasn't too impressed.  DLP doesn't necessarily make for a better projector, but a better and often smaller projector for the price.  There is only one picture producing element instead of three, and no complex optics or large optical paths.  But they do have a fast and constantly spinning motor, which produces more noise and leads to shorter MTBFs.

 Umm, I dont think you have to Polarize a DLP projection.  Polarization takes place in dual projector setups.

 But I can tell you that the colors were saturated, details were crystal, contrast was deep and picture was very vidid and bright.    Im an artist, with a very high level of awareness and ability to differentiate very subtle changes in color, hue, shade, contrast..etc.   I scored a 100% on the 1st try of the color match test that was posted here... without altering my monitors settings... nor taking more than a few minutes.

 What you have to realize...  is that it doesnt matter if your display gets a little dimmer with glasses... because just like an old monitor thats ages a little.. you just crank up the settings a little.. and its all good.   His settings were not even near max.. and they were beautiful.   As clear, bright, and vividly colorful, as anything Ive seen on any display or projection.

 Ive seen him run the same projector mid-day with the blinds drawn.. but there was still a lot of ambient light in the room.  The picture was still very vivid and bright.

 Maybe the lesser luminance models would be an issue..  But this isnt the case here.  Also, being that the glasses flicker at a higher rate.. it reduces the level of the light reduction.  At least, it certainly is a noticable difference between these and my elder master system glasses.

 Then again, if you have any elder HD projector with lower luminance levels..  your pictures probably gona suck worse anyways.  AND it wont be in 3d.   AND the color and contrast is probably far lower.  And the refresh is probably slower...

 Just because you use two projectors doesnt mean squat..  if both projectors are crappier in their output.
Its double the cost, and sub par on the return.     Im not saying that you couldnt get a better picture using Two of those same DLP models in 2d mode, using a polorizing solution.   However.. from what Ive JUST seen, that just isnt needed anymore, to get a Jaw dropping Imax experience in your living room.

 A lot can happen on the space of a mere year, let alone a few.   LCDs used to be the worst..  but now they are acceptable, and even surpassing CRTs...   Refresh and lag nearly put to rest..  and color depth and contrast has shot through the roof compared to only a few years ago.   So, until you can say that you have seen the new projector Ive just listed, in person, with a nice +10' screen..   (I think his was 12'.. and we sat maybe 14' back from it)       then your just mumbling of OLD data that is no longer relevant.

 As for the Rainbow effect Ive heard about... I saw none of that.  Nothing even in heavy and fast action.
I had not watched any 2d movies..  only 3d... so not sure if that counts.  However, it was impressive to say the least.  Never expected what came out of that thing.  I was floored...   and thats no easy feat.

You didn't, you just don't have a proper frame of reference to be able to make such a comparison...unless your friend also owns an IMAX theater, and has his $1500 projector set up in the next room over.

 The only real tangible thing the Imax "FILM" has over his setup, is size and resolution.   But the feeling, look, depth, all was relative to the Imax experience.    Especially when you put it to scale of how far I sit away from an Imax screen relative to its size.   I was actually closer to the images than in a typical imax, due to closer seating ability... which equates to better visibility and greater 3d pop-out + depth.

 It put the "Real-D" crap Id seen in other theaters to shame.. by Miles.   I shouldnt even mention that.. because its not even on the radar really.   Im just saying... that the experience was spot on.   In many times far better... as theres no travel, no punks making noise, no hats in the way..etc.

My point is that I do not listen to my music in stereo.  I like to watch movies in surround due to the special effects.

 That makes so little sense... unless you are deaf in one ear.   In that case, theres no need to even bring it up, because in that case... you would have to have one eye to make the relevant argument.

 Music is encoded in stereo for depth effect.   Some have recordings that represent where the actual members would be playing.   Some bands play live, using Stereo mixing equipment and pan sounds around.  Not to mention... if your hearing a band live... you ARE hearing audio from multiple sources IN STEREO!  Due to you having two ears.

 Now, if your deaf in one ear... I get it..   But if your hearing is fine in both ears, you are missing out on a far greater auditory experience.   Especially with certain bands and certain recordings.

 In my opinion, all audio music should be in full surround sound, on DVD media... with the ability to play it back in various methods.  Such as either in the normal surround mode -or-  selecting individual speakers to represent individual instruments... for the ultimate in non-distorting audio representation.

The projector screen look as good as the wall, so off it went back to the store.

 Then heres my take on it... either you have an amazingly flat and perfect wall...  OR, your projector setup sucks.. or your eyes suck... or you had a very crappy screen.   A good screen made properly, with the proper materials... will create a highly reflective surface..  and will provide a FAR superior picture with a typical projector.

 They do sell customized movie theater wall paint.  However, its probably quite expensive.. and not easy to put down without any imperfections.

 

Yet this technology was used in 1953 with the House of Wax, and that technology died a death too.

 Uhh, did you hear?   3D never died.  Your using it right now to see things with your TWO EYES.   Oh, and the fact that 3d in entertainment hasnt died either... in fact, its expanding daily..  as pretty much all of the films are presented in Imax 3d.    The tech has been around well before 1953..   but the tech to pull it off flawlessly, is only now present, due to technological advances, and far reduced costs.

 Seeing in 3d isnt a FAD.  If you have limited depth perception, much like your possibly limited auditory perception... then thats why you feel that way.   But the reality is that many people have far greater depth perception, and they experience something that you cant understand / grasp.   So to you, the value isnt there.   And why would you expect a steak to not be a 'fad'... when everthing you eat tastes like hot dogs?   You obviously do not have a very robust pallet.. and or have a cranial issue that is interfering in processing.  Regardless... the tech will continue to advance, because far more people Do have a decent palette... and the joy in the output, is far worth the extra money spent.

 As for 4k..  it doesnt mean much to me.  Its nice to have the extra... but unless your running a Massive display, and or are mere feet away from it..  its kind of a waste of data.    The only thing that might be nice, is higher PPI for better analog arcade monitor simulation.

 Also, does 4k even support 16+10 ?   Or did they stay at 1080p x 4?    The aspect ration should have been 16.10  or wider, from the start.    Then again, we have been scrooged from the start.. .with composite, svideo, and many other limited degraded outputs on consumer devices.. for so many years.


 Stereoscopy is the future.   Whether it be in glasses format, lenticular format,  HMD format..  or Matrix  "Jacked-In"...

[lilshawn]

i have a rift... i don't need no 3d tv. 

*crickets*

anywho, My SIL has a Samsung 3D TV and she hasn't used the "3D" part of it in forever. even she said it was a gimmick and it's worn off. even the "smart" tv part doesn't get used. it's slow as all hell and much easier to just turn around an log onto facebook or twitter or whatever from the computer.

[ark_ader]

I'm really excited for X2 and his love for 3D projectors.  He makes a fair argument, for the use of 3D in the home, and who knows if this technology is augmented with Kinect for enhanced gameplay.  Seeing something so cool like pop out  cinema should have some revenue generation.  Perhaps porn will be its new outlet.

I do hope X2 calms down now, as his comments are of merit. It is the delivery method and unfortunate comments or slights in his responses, that need to be held in check.

[RandyT]

The problem was that the older 3d, initially red/blue..  made a purple mess.   You lost the color and clarity of the image.     

I guess you didn't see Adventures in the Forbidden Zone back in the 80's.  It was one of the first to start using the polarized technology you see today, not red and blue lenses.

The Virtua Boy... I was interested... but when I heard it was merely red and black.. I opted out.   Had it been full color 3d..  even in a more simplistic form...  Id had been all over it.   Heck, if they had made a few must-play/have games... I may have jumped on it anyways.   I think a lot of people felt the same way.    The titles were more centered like 'tests', rather than full blown, highly polished games.

This was essentially a "Viewmaster" with a couple of back lit Gameboys inside.  Red was likely selected due to the fact that inexpensive, high output LED's in other colors were not yet widely available.

*edit*  Turns out these were actually two oscillated LED line displays, so that explains the color.  Same principle for the 3D effect, however.

3DS - Id get one if I wasnt in debt.   Ill own it one day..  probably used... but still...

Most people I know who own one, turn the 3D off.  Even my 11 year old nephew doesn't care about the 3D.  It's not that it isn't a cool effect, just that there are too many drawbacks to actually using it.

Even the highly passionate people who Were putting out 3D glasses and material.. were not able to get it to the masses.. because of the lack of standards, large scale support, driver issues, windows issues / bugs / lack of native support...  and lack of large scale advertising / large game company design / and no titles worth playing... let alone playing in 3D.

 It "COULD"  have been big back then..  had someone like Microsoft built in 3d support right into the OS.. and someone, maybe them..  made glasses available with no need of specialty drivers/cards..etc.

Every technology is market driven.  If there was interest in the technology, it would have blossomed and grew.  History has shown that the demand was not there, so there was no need to further pursue any of the things which were required to improve it.  This is a marketplace rejection, in it's purest form.
 

These days, 3d is finally able to get to the masses...  due in large part to the efforts of Imax, and the mere Technological advancements over the last 20+ yrs.   High density data, processing power, specialized converters, high level of storage capability on digital media,  affordable cheap HD 3d displays and glasses.

 The costs have gone so far down, that the big companies now have little problem investing in the tech.   Especially when it proved it could get masses back into the theaters... at a premium profit.

When the latest films were only offered in 3D, the viewing public had no choice.  Avatar is held up as an example of the profits it could bring.  The problem is, Avatar is an impressive film without 3D, and if folks wanted to see it, they were forced to the 3D technology.  Few 3D titles have come close to what Avatar was able to do.  Curiosity also played a part and added to the initial success.  The novelty has waned, and so has the demand for 3D in the theaters.  The high ticket prices was also a factor, which it would not be if the viewing public found value in the tech.

Umm, I dont think you have to Polarize a DLP projection.  Polarization takes place in dual projector setups.

You are correct.  The last post had the two technologies conflated.  There's no need to polarize with shutter glasses.  However, there are losses in the liquid crystal medium which do not allow 100% of the light to reach the active eye.  They also introduce a color shift, as the medium is not a neutral filter.  Losses are estimated at 10-20%.  So at a 15% loss, you end up with 85% / 2, which means that you get only 42% of the light you would normally get in 2D, for the same lumen output.  The polarizers should be better, but still can't go over 50% in total.

What you have to realize...  is that it doesnt matter if your display gets a little dimmer with glasses... because just like an old monitor thats ages a little.. you just crank up the settings a little.. and its all good.   His settings were not even near max.. and they were beautiful.   As clear, bright, and vividly colorful, as anything Ive seen on any display or projection.

Projectors don't really work this way.  You have a light source, and once you are at the maximum, there's no going higher.  When you start talking about LCD technology, the issue becomes worse.  Changing brightness and contrast settings lead to poor blacks, washed out colors, etc...  If the image size isn't too large, and the projector not too far from the screen, there may be a range for adjustment.  But most will be looking for the largest and brightest screen the room will allow.

Maybe the lesser luminance models would be an issue..  But this isnt the case here.  Also, being that the glasses flicker at a higher rate.. it reduces the level of the light reduction.  At least, it certainly is a noticable difference between these and my elder master system glasses.

 Then again, if you have any elder HD projector with lower luminance levels..  your pictures probably gona suck worse anyways.  AND it wont be in 3d.   AND the color and contrast is probably far lower.  And the refresh is probably slower...

There's a lot more to the equation.  Image size, optics quality, size of the imaging element, etc...  The folks really into home theater will not give up picture quality for brightness, or gimmickery.  I've had a number of projectors, different technologies and different price levels.  The one I use now is a PT-AE4000U, and at 1600 lumens, the image quality is better than any I have seen.  I also have a newish 2000 lumen "classroom" projector which has a brighter image, but the image quality doesn't come close to that of the PT-AE4000U.  What it always boils down to is, how much one can spend, and what quality is expected.  Projectors with 3D cost more, so buyers are faced with the choice of getting a better 2D projector which is within their budget, or sacrificing quality and brightness for 3D viewing.  Most won't choose the latter.

A faster flicker doesn't allow more light to pass.  It's a duty cycle, pure and simple.  Once there is no perceivable flicker, then the duty cycle is optimal.  You still only get a theoretical maximum of 50% of the light.

Just because you use two projectors doesnt mean squat..  if both projectors are crappier in their output.
Its double the cost, and sub par on the return.     Im not saying that you couldnt get a better picture using Two of those same DLP models in 2d mode, using a polorizing solution.   However.. from what Ive JUST seen, that just isnt needed anymore, to get a Jaw dropping Imax experience in your living room.

If you have a lot of family members or friends viewing, it negates the need for costly, sometimes bulky, battery powered glasses.  You can even get 3D glasses in a prescription lens.  Passive 3D also offers much better color reproduction as the glasses are more neutral, as well as having no possible flicker or cross talk between the images, making for a better 3D effect.  Whether or not you need those things is a matter of choice, but there are distinct advantages.

As for the Rainbow effect Ive heard about... I saw none of that.  Nothing even in heavy and fast action.

The rainbowing effect will affect different individuals differently.  It has something to do with how fast your brain will process what you see.  Just like some people will be affected by 60hz lighting, some will see the rainbow effect, even at high speeds.  It's most noticeable when looking at something which is white (all three colors being shown in succession) and quickly looking away at something else on the screen.

The only real tangible thing the Imax "FILM" has over his setup, is size and resolution.

Two things which home theater buffs find very important, among other things. 

In the end, if you like it, then buy it.  But the plain fact is, the market has not indicated that it currently has any willingness to embrace the technology, and without the demand, along with the public's willingness to pay for it, content providers will not step up.  Without a steady stream of affordable content, the 3D capability on the display is useless.  And just as important, a lot of people just don't want to wear glasses while watching TV.

[Vigo]

But the plain fact is, the market has not indicated that it currently has any willingness to embrace the technology, and without the demand, along with the public's willingness to pay for it, content providers will not step up.  Without a steady stream of affordable content, the 3D capability on the display is useless.  And just as important, a lot of people just don't want to wear glasses while watching TV.

Whether or not it is being embraced is one issue, but I don't think home 3d is going anywhere. 3D processing can be farted out in hours and many big brand tvs as of last year come packaged with 3D support as a standard feature. Glasses are turning completely generic as well. It is too damn cheap to not implement 3D. I think 3D won't be jammed down our throats so much anymore, but more be used as a gimmick to get people to buy the more expensive release of the latest pixar film or summer blockbuster.

[ChadTower]

3D is content driven.  Not many typical consumers are going to care about 3D until 3D has content they want.  I guarantee you the first time NFL games are shown in good 3D on a broadcast channel 3D adoption will start en masse.  The problem with the first wave of 3DTVs wasn't the technology as much as it was the fact that it came way too soon after the last shift in $1500 TVs.  The further we get from large size HDTVs being common the more likely we are that people are going to be more willing to buy the next thing.

[RandyT]

Both points are good ones.  However, there is a caveat: Until inclusion of 3D is "free", it must compete in the marketplace. 3D sets (and projectors) cost more, sometimes substantially more, than units of the same quality which don't have it.  3D was responsible for stalling the incremental price drop as manufacturing technology improved to the point of being able to offer larger sets at a lower cost.  Instead of seeing prices on the sets go down, they actually went up, and included the 3D technology.  As almost all manufacturers of new, higher end displays dropped the 2D counterparts, the consumer was forced to pay for the 3D technology if they wished to get a larger set from the manufacturer.  I'm talking from experience, as I was able to buy a previous years model of the Panasonic 65" Plasma at a cost savings of $500 over the current year.  Same display, but no 3D.  They discontinued the 2D only model, leaving no choice for the consumer.  The same can be said of the "smart" TV's.  I believe this course has been reversed, as you now see larger sets at a lower price point, and those are simple 2D only.  This is the marketplace speaking.

And I'm not convinced that football will be the "killer app" for 3D.  ESPN was one of the first to offer sports in a dedicated 3D format.  Lasted about two years before they pulled the plug on it.  Big, bright and clear presentations will, IMHO, win out.

[lilshawn]

3D is content driven.  Not many typical consumers are going to care about 3D until 3D has content they want.  I guarantee you the first time NFL games are shown in good 3D on a broadcast channel 3D adoption will start en masse.  The problem with the first wave of 3DTVs wasn't the technology as much as it was the fact that it came way too soon after the last shift in $1500 TVs.  The further we get from large size HDTVs being common the more likely we are that people are going to be more willing to buy the next thing.

the problem with having an NFL game in 3D would be...well take a look at a current NFL game... it's recorded from 300 feet away. you aren't going to get much 3D effect at that kind of distance. short of making it look like you are staring out at the field through a window... and then switching scenes to closeups...no thanks. THAT will be hard on your brain.

the main issue with 3D movies is that it's blatantly obvious they made a particular scene for 3D. They try WAY too hard.... the character reaches out towards the camera...a paddleball ball is hit towards the viewer... an item is tossed at you... it's so obvious it enrages me. WOOOOOO LOOOOK THREEEEE DEEEE LIK REAL LYFE MY HAND IS GOING TO TOUCH YOU BLAH!  /sarcasm

[RandyT]

the main issue with 3D movies is that it's blatantly obvious they made a particular scene for 3D. They try WAY too hard.... the character reaches out towards the camera...a paddleball ball is hit towards the viewer... an item is tossed at you... it's so obvious it enrages me. WOOOOOO LOOOOK THREEEEE DEEEE LIK REAL LYFE MY HAND IS GOING TO TOUCH YOU BLAH!  /sarcasm

You said it.  We were watching one of the latest releases the other day and that started happening.  Completely forced shots, and looked totally out of place with the context of the scene. Bleah...

[pbj]

Yeah, so, like, everything about cinematography in movies is contrived.  You guys sound old.

[lilshawn]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

[yotsuya]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.

[lilshawn]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.

i'm 30- something. i draw the line at black and white. i have a color TV, it only makes sense to use them all.

plus, i get my fill of 1940's and 50's movies when i visit my grandma and watch on her 20" tube TV.

[yotsuya]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.

i'm 30- something. i draw the line at black and white. i have a color TV, it only makes sense to use them all.

plus, i get my fill of 1940's and 50's movies when i visit my grandma and watch on her 20" tube TV.

Blasphemer!

[ark_ader]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.8

i'm 30- something. i draw the line at black and white. i have a color TV, it only makes sense to use them all.


Black and white is more enjoyable than colour.  Like the old twilight zone episodes.


plus, i get my fill of 1940's and 50's movies when i visit my grandma and watch on her 20" tube TV.

[ChadTower]

the problem with having an NFL game in 3D would be...well take a look at a current NFL game... it's recorded from 300 feet away. you aren't going to get much 3D effect at that kind of distance. short of making it look like you are staring out at the field through a window... and then switching scenes to closeups...no thanks. THAT will be hard on your brain.

They do have the ability to change that.  The XFL Camera... erm I mean the NFL Patented Camera On A Trolley Suspended Above The Field... is a whole lot closer to that.  Add a few more and you would have all the angles you need.


The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake in 3D was pretty damn freaky.  They made really good use of the 3D.  It was a lot more than just floaty blood droplets.

[Vigo]

you damn kids and yer new fangled color.... back in my days we had to read what the people said on the screen and ms willikers played the piano to keep us from falling asleep....

That reminds me, I watched Das Kabinet Des Dr. Caligari again this week. Love the silents.

  That is a classic. I didn't see it until later in my life, but I loved B&W's and silents since I was a kid. I was a tiny little spud when I first saw it, but Le voyage dans la lune is still pure magic to me.

[lilshawn]

i feel like i'm in that weird part of the internet again.

back to cat videos. 

[Xiaou2]

I guess you didn't see Adventures in the Forbidden Zone back in the 80's.  It was one of the first to start using the polarized technology you see today, not red and blue lenses.

 I do not remember the 1st polorized 3d thing Id seen.   However,  few theaters back then would have been set up and equipped to utilize stereocopy with polorization.   No big name movies were made with it.  Has something more popular..  that could have changed the demand and market for 3d overnight.

 It was the same problem back in the elder anaglyph days.   Most of the films were low budget crap that was pushed out as fast as possible.   Adding purplish 3d depth to that, did nothing to pack the house.

 And in fact, Imax really didnt take off until decent content started to pour in.   Some of their mini films were really horrible..  and some were "ok"  at best..  but some of them left you wishing for a blockbuster movie that had good actors, a good story..etc.

 Snippits of conversions got people in, in far greater numbers..  but it probably wasnt until  Avatar, that it really kicked up the traffic.

This was essentially a "Viewmaster" with a couple of back lit Gameboys inside.  Red was likely selected due to the fact that inexpensive, high output LED's in other colors were not yet widely available.

 Surprisingly, Ive never looked inside it.  The point was that the lack of full color and good game content ruined it.   The same could have been said for the NES... if Super Mario Bros. hadnt been released.   The   Sega Master System had far more capability, however... it didnt have the game that everybody wanted to play...    And many of Sega's own games were not very high in quality & playability.   You cant expect a version of Outrun, on master system hardware, to sell the system.   Still... games like Zillion, Wonderboy in Monster Land, Shooting Gallery, Global Defense 3D, and a few others..  are still some of my favorites to this day.   And nobody can deny,  the original Phantasy Star, was quite epic, especially for its day.

 Sadly, Alex kid BMX...  and that fire-rescue game.. both using a custom spinner.. were never released.  Those looked fun too.  Ohh, and it was also sad that they didnt add the Stereo sound chip / add-on, found in the Mark III version.

Most people I know who own one, turn the 3D off.  Even my 11 year old nephew doesn't care about the 3D.  It's not that it isn't a cool effect, just that there are too many drawbacks to actually using it.

 Thats because a lenticular display isnt that great of an idea.   You have to be at very exact positions, and not move from them.  For kids, that an especially difficult task      It also can put strain on your body, depending on how you hold it, and are sitting.   And finally, it also depends on if the games depth really adds to the experience.   Not all 3d is done well...  Or adds to the value of the experience.    A game that has a certain kind of perspective, may not have a lot of depth information..  and or the artwork, might be too limited in detail and or missing depth elements.

Every technology is market driven.  If there was interest in the technology, it would have blossomed and grew.  History has shown that the demand was not there, so there was no need to further pursue any of the things which were required to improve it.  This is a marketplace rejection, in it's purest form.

 This is a load of Bull.

 As said, you could have the greatest console hardware out there.. and have it flop.  Not because the hardware... but because of a lack of good media.

 Even good movies are sometimes flops, because there was poor advertising, bad timing, other competing films, and other similar reasons.

When the latest films were only offered in 3D, the viewing public had no choice.  Avatar is held up as an example of the profits it could bring.  The problem is, Avatar is an impressive film without 3D, and if folks wanted to see it, they were forced to the 3D technology.  Few 3D titles have come close to what Avatar was able to do.  Curiosity also played a part and added to the initial success.  The novelty has waned, and so has the demand for 3D in the theaters.  The high ticket prices was also a factor, which it would not be if the viewing public found value in the tech.

 WTH?   AFAIK, no modern film was shown without a 2d version available.

 As for Avatar... its Not that good of a movie  'on its own'.   I wasnt going to see it initially, but when Id heard Imax 3d, I decided to go.  Blew my mind.   Saw it twice.. maybe 3 times.    Sadly, when it came back around as an extended cut.. it was only shown on the Read-D theaters.   It was a HUGE let-down.   The depth was almost all gone.. and you didnt feel like you were in the enviornment.   You didnt get that same intricate level of detail either.   And as such,  the lackings in the film were even more apparent and bothersome.

 Still, its far more entertaining than any of those old Imax short films.  And even in 2d, beats some serious stinkers out there.  But, Avatar isnt in my collection.  And only will, if I have a good 3d display to watch it on.
 

You are correct.  The last post had the two technologies conflated.  There's no need to polarize with shutter glasses.  However, there are losses in the liquid crystal medium which do not allow 100% of the light to reach the active eye.  They also introduce a color shift, as the medium is not a neutral filter.  Losses are estimated at 10-20%.  So at a 15% loss, you end up with 85% / 2, which means that you get only 42% of the light you would normally get in 2D, for the same lumen output.  The polarizers should be better, but still can't go over 50% in total.

 Sorry, but this is more garbage.   If someone spliced a frame of porn into one of your 60fps on a new digital display.. you would never know it.   You couldnt detect it.

 This is what you are talking about.  Something that cant really be detected.  As I donned the glasses.. there was a little dimming.  However, nothing like half.  And once the picture was in sync, and lights were dimmed..  things were vivid and bright as any movie in 2d Ive ever watched.

 As Ive stated, Im an artists.  I have excellent tonal awareness and abilities.  If I cant detect it, then 98% of the world whos optical abilities and far worse awareness..  will never see the difference.   

Projectors don't really work this way.  You have a light source, and once you are at the maximum, there's no going higher.  When you start talking about LCD technology, the issue becomes worse.  Changing brightness and contrast settings lead to poor blacks, washed out colors, etc...  If the image size isn't too large, and the projector not too far from the screen, there may be a range for adjustment.  But most will be looking for the largest and brightest screen the room will allow.

  Your again talking non-sense.   You can change the tonal properties of an input signal to produce a different scale of output.  They even do this sort of thing on elder CRT tvs.

 Also, as far as light goes... the lamp itself, in this.. and many other models.. has dual power modes.   Heck, I just picked up an old 2d projector for cheap at a thrift shop.. and it has a lamp brightness control on it.  The thing is pretty ancient.

There's a lot more to the equation.  Image size, optics quality, size of the imaging element, etc...  The folks really into home theater will not give up picture quality for brightness, or gimmickery.  I've had a number of projectors, different technologies and different price levels.  The one I use now is a PT-AE4000U, and at 1600 lumens, the image quality is better than any I have seen.  I also have a newish 2000 lumen "classroom" projector which has a brighter image, but the image quality doesn't come close to that of the PT-AE4000U.  What it always boils down to is, how much one can spend, and what quality is expected.  Projectors with 3D cost more, so buyers are faced with the choice of getting a better 2D projector which is within their budget, or sacrificing quality and brightness for 3D viewing.  Most won't choose the latter.

 Well, that explains it.  If you think either of those is comparable to whats out now... your off your rocker.

 Its like your trying to compare the sega master system to the NES..   but the reality is that the projector Im reviewing.. is more in the realm of PS3 compared to your NES.

 The visual quality of the output in magnitudes over either of your projectors.

If you have a lot of family members or friends viewing, it negates the need for costly, sometimes bulky, battery powered glasses.  You can even get 3D glasses in a prescription lens.  Passive 3D also offers much better color reproduction as the glasses are more neutral, as well as having no possible flicker or cross talk between the images, making for a better 3D effect.  Whether or not you need those things is a matter of choice, but there are distinct advantages.

 In the past, Id have agreed.  But then again.. I dont have the money for two HD projectors either.  The glasses are now very cheap, the color shift isnt noticible - and could easily be adjusted,  they were comfy, and there was no sign of flicker... let alone cross talk.      That what happens as tech advances.   Remarkable ehh?

Quote

    The only real tangible thing the Imax "FILM" has over his setup, is size and resolution.


Two things which home theater buffs find very important, among other things.

 Which is my point.  If your going to make a theater at home... it should be larger than 6ft wide.   No, its not going to be a 50ft tall screen..  like Imax...  but with a 12 to 15' screen... and you sitting much closer than typical at an Imax... the scale of the effect is pretty much the same.

 And as for greater resolution... there are NO current affordable imax level resolution projectors for consumers.. let alone any media with that level of resolution.   You do know that Imax isnt 1080p right?  heh    And that Digital Imax is also different than Film based Imax ...

 I dont even think that 4k displays have full imax capability.   Id have to do some fact checking.   But even if they did... most people couldnt get a screen big enough to see the differences as clearly and intended.

And just as important, a lot of people just don't want to wear glasses while watching TV.


 Thats such a ---smurf-poo--- and Tired excuse.

 If I get the Imax level experience out of whatever Im viewing.. I could care less what Im wearing.  I already wear glasses as it is.   Didnt start till late in life.   And Im happy to do so, because I can see the details in life much better.
Same with 3d content.  I can see and experience movie content in ways that 2d cant portray.  Its well worth the possible discomfort... though, if you get a decent set of glasses, you wont feel a thing.

[RandyT]

No point in continuing if you believe that 100% divided by 2 can somehow be greater than 50%, and can't be bothered to research the subject.  If you like it, and you obviously do, all the facts in the world won't be acceptable to you. 

By all means, enjoy it, but try not to be too upset that a majority of the public isn't as enamored by it as you seem to be.  Or, continue to proselytize for it, albeit a few years late, with the hope of changing an already well-established popular opinion.  Really makes no difference to me 

[EightBySix]

I'm not really interested in 3D until it can convey more information than 2D. When it works like the scene in Bladerunner where Harrison ford is examining the photo, I'll get one....

[ark_ader]

I'm not really interested in 3D until it can convey more information than 2D. When it works like the scene in Bladerunner where Harrison ford is examining the photo, I'll get one....

Those were holographic photos, which will be the replacement of 3D.  I also read about a theory that the reverse image that was taken by a SLR either chemical or digital back, of the eye of the original photographer is embedded in the photograph.  Perhaps that is where the Blade Runner image processor system came to edit in the movie, as the theory was generated in the late 1970s.

[Xiaou2]

No point in continuing

I agree.  No point in wasting time on an old guy who makes pathetic junk comparatively, to the controllers of the 80s.
It pretty much speaks volumes about what that kind of person is and stands for, IMO.

I'm not really interested in 3D until it can convey more information than 2D

 Uhh, it already Does.  You see with two eyes.  Each eye has a different perspective line, so when viewing the same object, you get different views of it.  When combined, you get a far more detailed image, as well as the Depth that comes alone with that.

which will be the replacement of 3D.

 Holography is NOT the replacement of 3d.

 Plain and simple, Holography, if done volumetrically.. "IS"  3d... because it takes up 3d space.   The problem is, if you Could make it happen technically in that format...  that it does not work for typical media such as movies.   For example, if you are seated in a certain spot.. you may see the actors fine.  However, if your seated a little to the right..  a holographic image may hamper your ability to see them.   Not to mention, if you look at the actor from the left, you might see their facial expressions and hand movements.. but from the right..  you miss almost all of that.

 AND...

 If its non-volumetric holography...  then its merely a FLAT image that hovers in space.  Whoop Tee Doo.   Thats pretty much like a floating TV screen.  It does nothing to represent actual 3d depth.


 From what Ive heard..  there was a company that made a volumetric holographic projector.   Said the image was so real, you wouldnt know the difference between reality and the projection.  HOWEVER... if your hand went in the path of the projection, you would get an instant 3rd degree burn.  Being that it superheated the air ... probably using some sort of plasma effect.

 
 The only thing that will replace good stereoscopic displays and projectors, is Stereoscoic head mounted displays... such as the Occulous Rift.   Problem is that miniaturization on that scale, will take many more years before its cost effective.  They are having trouble getting 1080p naitive on the thing..  let alone 4k and beyond...  and Im not sure how far away you are from that virtual screen either.. which again, impacts the experience.   I think they are also warp-distorting the image too.   Which may be ok for games.. but not great for typical movie content.


 As for holographic photography... thats a whole other discussion.   Its more like where the camera not only picks up the light.. but also does a laser-like scan of all the data.  The amount of information would be reliant of how many sensors, the resolution, and the level of sonic / laser scanning abilities.  Probably also combining inferred spectrum into the mix.  Its stuff that could be done today...  but due to a lack of infrastructure, and thus demand..  you wont see it on the consumer equipment.

 3D displays taking a firm hold, would make such a capture device far more likely to be released to the consumers.

[Xiaou2]

the eye of the original photographer is embedded in the photograph. 

 That might only be, if the camera was using a lens system similar to the elder film cameras use.. where as the your line of sight is put into the path of the image via mirrors.

 If its all digital, you are getting a tv picture fed to you on a display.  Theres no longer a need or desire to look down into a physical viewfinder.   In that case, the only way to see whom took the image, would be from reflections of them on the various images in the room..  and noting the color changes based upon VERY complex raytracing sessions.

 Raytracing, is the system of lighting 3d objects using individual light rays (beams).   As the light hits various objects and surfaces.. it changes and or bounces off into and onto other surfaces.   The more rays you calculate.. the more complex and longer it will take to produce the final frame.   However, it will also look more true to life.   Which is why many 3d games and objects do not look as good as some movie and tv commercial images and animations.

 Some games, especially ones from the past..  have pre-rendered many of the graphics using raytracing.  One such game was Marble Madness.

 To deconstruct an image, trying to figure out the light rays in reverse, seems monumentally incomprehensible... even with a large amount of 3d data from a stereoscopic+sonic camera.   Probably need 7000 linked pcs working for a few months to get anything relevant.

[RandyT]

I agree.  No point in wasting time on an old guy who makes pathetic junk comparatively, to the controllers of the 80s.

I suppose 3 patents related to glasses-free 3D displays, many years of research and watching lukewarm acceptance doesn't count for much.  But for fun, here's a shot of my set-up, with a 55" reference for size. 





To get an image of the same brightness in 3D (without even taking image quality into consideration), it would take a 3680 lumen projector.  The latest model (with 3D) in this line costs about double the inexpensive DLP types, yet still puts out only 2400 lumens.  So even with the latest model, in 3D the image would not be as bright.  I'd consider the newer model over my current unit, just for the brightness increase in 2D, but that would be the only reason.  While I have no real need to upgrade at the moment, the inclusion of 3D will not be factor when I do.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I expect that's what will follow...

[ark_ader]