Printable View
Well 3d capabilities can effect the 2d performance as 3d sets tend to have a much stronger hardware platform so performance improves across the device :). Aidanjt, have you tried passive 3d? and im not sure its made by hollywood just to get more from the movies, all the 3d films ive seen for purchase have been a few quid more, for instances captain america triple play was £15 and triple play + bluray 3d was £17.99... thats covering just the disc costs let alone the extra work!.
Yes, the glasses I used were polarised, not shutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hicks12
So £3 more, just for giving you an interlaced frames version of the movie. How is that not bumping up the price?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hicks12
Fair enough, if i got headaches with the polarised i would be dismissing 3d all together! I must say though at the 3d on LG tv are MUCH better than in the cinema, much more noticeable and clearer in general.
Its £3 more for an extra bluray, bluray discs cost a fair amount still and for films that are 2d --> 3d then it requires a bit of time/effort to add in these details. If they only released quad packs(ditigal/dvd/bluray/3d bluray) then id agree its money grabbing but thankfully we have a choice to buy the 3d version or not.
Playing Crysis 2 on my 50" Panasonic 3D plasma was a great experience, but you really do need quality and AA turned up to full (was using my PC + PS3 controller), consoles aren't there yet and 3D TVs at 60fps are limited to 720p (hence the need to compensate with high AA, which consoles can't achieve).
I have a 3D monitor too but I'm far less impressed by gaming on this, it doesn't suck me in and the colour/contrast suck. I've seen great demos but to achieve impressive effects game development teams would need to focus more on the 3D component as 3D is less noticeable at typical monitor size/viewing distance and needs exaggerating.
I personally find some movies inappropriate for 3D whilst others it can make the movie, it all depends on the style and type of narrative and filming.
As far as my eyes are concerned, active technology is flickery during daylight (especially at 50Hz so for Brits it's a trade-off between a flickery light source or closed curtains). Once the lights are off and the brightness is turned up it's great though and I can use active glasses for much longer than passive. I find there's two tricks to getting the most out of 3D and gaming:
1. It takes time for eyes to adjust unless you play in 3D frequently, try playing over a weekend when you can spend more consecutive time on a game. On a week off I found that after around 3 days of gaming in 3D it became second nature and fully immersive, conversely, it took about three days after that for everything else to start focusing properly again!
2. Don't be lazy, you can't treat 3D like watching a 2D screen, just as in real life, you have to pick a distance and focus on it or it'll strain your eyes and look blurry. This is why movies that don't fully consider the effects of 3D can be particularly bad, whereas with gaming in first person, this is far less of an issue as you can behave naturally as you would in real life with regards to focusing and screen transition.
On the note of polarised vs shutter, shutter offers the best quality no doubt and the downsides such as low brightness/frame weight etc are fast being tackled by better frames, lenses and shorter switching times. Polarised, from a TV point of view, the line gaps are far too noticeable for myself, though I'm hoping LG and 4k TVs will make great strides with reducing this effect. Honestly, however, I see the future of 3D on monitors without a doubt being auto-stereoscopic with eye tracking, the technology is solid and produces a high-quality glasses-free experience for a single person. The technology is a long way off with regards to group viewing, limited by resolution and number of viewers and with features such as active glasses screen sharing, I expect both active and polarised to remain competitive for many years.
Have to say that i'm another one who sees 3D as a gimmick. I have only seen two films at the cinema in 3D, Avatar and Star Wars EP1. Both I thought the 3D distracte from me enjoying the film as I find the 3D strains my eyes and I don't like the darker image that wearing polarised glasses gives.
3D in the home I don't understand either, and I don't think I will understand any of it until 3d without glasses technology is perfected and isn't so strenuous to watch (The 3DS makes my eyes water with the slider turned all the way up!)
Personally I'd rather see better quality 2D, better content delivery systems making use of broadband and more reasonably priced content packages so, for example, I don't end up paying through the nose for the entire Sky Sports package, when ALL i want is the Sky F1 channel.
Ben
Here in the US, there's only a handful of 3D channels available across the major providers. Only one sports and one subscription-based premium entertainment channels offer a 3D option via my provider. There have only been a small number of films I've seen that really used 3D to properly enhance the film experience in theaters - Tron: Legacy and Hugo come readily to mind. Seeing as how a 3D film costs $15 per ticket (roughly £10 at the current rate of exchange), it's an expensive evening at the cinema for anyone. In home, it's even worse: 3D capable televisions are significantly (nearly prohibitively) more expensive, plus the need to wear the glasses and remain within the vicinity of the set itself. Perhaps we're weird, but I know lots of Americans like doing other things while watching TV...
Lack of content + dubious entertainment enhancement + extra financial/logistical investment = fail.
I don’t put any value on 3d content. Mostly due the poor implementation,i already need glasses to watch TV/films so I don’t need another pair. One could of course argue that 3d without glasses is a more attractive prospect but it does not justify the price premium that is based on paying more so you are not inconvenienced. Not to mention that at least in my opinion the use of 3d in films degrades the experience almost entirely, id much rather watch avatar on a really nice 2d set with awesome colour accuracy and fidelity.
In terms of 3d in games I don’t see it having any kind of future. From a PC perspective it still carry s a hefty price premium (shelling out for a 120hz monitor with Nvidia 3d vision). That’s assuming that you have a decent graphics card(s) to power the 3d in the first place at 1920x1080 with decent details. But I digress, where’s my 8k screen ?.
I am actually going to buy a 3d TV soon, going LG passive 47" as active shutter just isn't for me with the flicker.
I have watched a good few 3d movies and like them (yes clash of the titans was pointless) I will say the animated stuff really works well.
I also plan to plug my PC in and run every game possible in 3d.
Cost wise, small premium on the TV which is excellent for 2d and 80p per pair of glasses.
Personally I gotta say if you think the LG Passive sets are good you probably need an eye test and are basing you opinions on poorly implemented shop demos. The ghosting i've noticed is terrible and being passive is only 720p, not 1080p afaik.
The ative sets are a much clearer picture, but can often look dark at time, and if you think there are issues with light flicker, i've only ever seen that be an issue under shop / show lighting, not uder home lighting.
Either way I'd rather wait and see what the new OLED sets look like, or even wait it out for 4K sets...
It's a fad. It doesn't work very well and is too hard on the eyes. In four years time, we'll all wonder what all the fuss was about.
I bought a 65" Panasonic VT25 in late 2010. I originally purchased it for its stellar 2d picture. Sports are so brilliantly crisp and vibrant who needsa 3d?!
It was rated as the best 2d and 3d quality television in 2010.
I have since expanded to 3d movies - but one has to be very picky. Avatar was amazing. The tree of life scene where the seeds floated down and onto the main character, I had seeds floating in my entertainment room, Simply amazing! The 2 newest Harry Potter movies, the 3d effects were very disappointing. Tron was pretty decent.
However, it is hard to justify the cost to get into quality home 3D. Glasses are 150.00 /pair, movies are nearly double the cost. Also, the 3d image is not as crisp as the 2d version of the film, but on the good 3d films, the depth of field is worth the loss in image quality imho.
I don't think it's a gimmick, but to get a good experience,the mainstream simply cannot afford the 5000.00 price of entry for a good experience.
The technology is still in its infancy, and in 3 or 4 years as it improves and the cost comes down, it will be more widely adopted.
One only has to consider the Bluray format. We are on the 5th version now? it was only in the 3rd version that BR had the same features as Toshiba's HD which was far more affordable, cheaper movies etc ... But that's a whole separate topic... Technology marches on...
I don't see what's so great about 3D, it's just the illusion of things popping out of the screen at you, it's not really that immersive or realistic. That kind of thing is fine for a short presentation (like the Terminator 3D ride at Universal Studios), but there's no way in hell I want to sit through an entire feature film like that.
+1 for 3D. Saw Avatar in imax 3d and was amazed with it, my first 3D experience.
Now have 47" 3D tv and 3D bluray (not on purpose, equipment that ticked all my media/network needs were 3D) and love watching Tron legacy in 3D. But as mentioned above, if a film is not made in 3D and converted from 2D then these tend to look rubbish. But films made in 3D do look awesome and do add to the experience.
Big problem in UK is lack of support and high 3D media prices.
Sky is the only supplier of regular 3D content. I don't have sky, don't want Sky and I believe sky customers have to pay extra for the little 3D content available.
Freeview HD needs to offer more 3D content to make it of any real interest to every day people.
3D Bluray films also hold a premium over standard Bluray and then Bluray holds a premium over DVD, 3D Bluray media is just too expensive for everyday people. £20 + for a film is alot of money, considering the DVD equivalent is like £10 or less after time.
I only own 2 3D filmes, can't afford any more until prices drop.
No interest in 3D and yes I own 3d capable gear. The thing is I have gear that is capable because it was just part of my gear choice spec list and NOT an active buying decision. This is also how most people have capable gear. I did not buy 3d capable gear I bought great 2D gear that could show 3D. Poor media, higher prices, glasses and sickness... what exactly has 3D got going for it again?
Better to put the investment into internet stream etc.
I'd have to disagree, whilst I can understand comments of lack of media and high cost, 3D isn't an illusion as such, whilst the way it's transmitted to your eyes is certainly not the TV carving out a scene in your living room, the end effect is what your eyes would perceive were you there i.e two images at a different angle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malphas
Not only does that bring depth to an image but also allows for lighting effects from real life that aren't possible in 2D such as correct perception of specular lighting, that glare you get from objects at certain angles or a light shone in your face. It's more real than 2D, though I can say I've only been fully satisfied with the quality from a 1080p high-bitrate source (bluray - Sky 3D is too low) or a game with full quality 720p settings.
For superior IQ at 60fps......use 1080p side-by-side instead. Gives 1:1 pixel mapping and therefore is crystal clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribe