QOTW: How do you prefer to watch movies: 2D or 3D?

[DanceswithUnix]

3D, but good look trying to get a 3D TV. I have managed to find one and it's out of my price range, which was THE problem with 3D TVs. They were out of the average users price range for a TV, even now the one I could find is over £1,000 when most are spending £300-£600. Make a 3D TV for £600 and it would have stood a better chance of taking off

They weren't always expensive, I bought my 47" LG 3D smart TV for about £450, and I saw them cheaper afterwards when they stopped bundling the party pack of glasses as standard. But as I said in an earlier post, that was a few years ago and they no longer make them. I know someone who just bought an old stock high end 2016 model of a TV specifically because the 2017 model doesn't have 3D.

So put simply, even when you could buy 3D TVs cheap people just weren't interested. I wonder if it is because the added blue ray player and added £10 on the price of media pushed the running cost up too much.

[Ttaskmaster]

c) a manufacturer development lab, system set up by manufacturer experts.

Did they set the system to you, though, or just set up the system in general?
ie did they do the whole Vive thing where you move the green lines to the limit of your vision, tweak the focus and all the other IPD stuff, to specifically match you?

On each, my reaction was as far as I can tell, identical, and within, at most, 10-15 minutes.

While I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it was setup/config problem in option a), and it's plausible that one shop in b) might be slacking, for several tp do it would surprise me. And I'd be very surprised indeed in c).

I've done mostly B and once went to A so the Mrs could see it and hopefully buy me one. They didn't do anything except press PLAY on the demo app, so I was very lucky that she loved it... and hope to fnd a very special Elite Dangerous peripheral in my stocking this year!

But with both B and C, there have usually been other people either with appointments later on, or waiting right there for their go, which meant the demonstrators decided there wasn't time to reconfig everything every time someone new took their turn. It was quite disappointing with the Vive demo, as a bunch of us had 'Road Tripped' quite a way to experience it and I'd had to get up far earlier than is healthy for someone of my condition...!!

The fact that the effect was identical, and the timing very similar, suggests pretty strongly to me that, for me at least, setup/config wasn't the problem, even in PC World.

It can still be any number of things. Some people just cannot marry the image to their sense of balance and will be prone to nausea. Others will simply have an IPD outside the available range for the HMD - I myself am right on the verge as is... and the fresnel lenses seem more of a hindrance for me reading text.

Who knows. All I know is that a lot of factors can be helped by setting it up properly in the first place and it's a mystery why, with so many millions of dollars in budget and at stake in the Box Office, film makers would then be so careless with their production.

[Slogbelly]

Being that I'm partially colorblind, the 3D is kinda "meh" so I prefer 2D. Plus isn't the video quality better in 2D?

[3dcandy]

Being that I'm partially colorblind, the 3D is kinda "meh" so I prefer 2D. Plus isn't the video quality better in 2D?

The need to basically present 2 x images to get 3d means of course the resolution suffers, so by that the quality

[Ttaskmaster]

The need to basically present 2 x images to get 3d means of course the resolution suffers, so by that the quality

Err... You can present both images in whatever resolution you like.

[3dcandy]

Err... You can present both images in whatever resolution you like.

You have to present twice as much information somehow. You either reduce the resolution or the refresh rate

[Ttaskmaster]

You have to present twice as much information somehow. You either reduce the resolution or the refresh rate

No, you increase the framerate. Same image shown 72 times a second for each eye, ie 144fps.
Lower resolution is just the theory in over/under and 70mm single strip film, but again only matters when digitally projected as real life images don't have resolution as such. Just focus. These run at double speed to get 24fps per image.

If you instead lower the fps, you drop below 24fps and the image stutters.

You can try increasing the 'filmrate' as well, ie how many frames you shoot it at, in order to capture more detail and reduce motion blur, which is what The Hobbit did... but it doesn't always work so well, especially if your framing and focus techniques are off. You face the same problem as with the backgrounds, where everything must be both in focus and in 3D, even if it's not normally so in 2D.

[Tropi]

2D for me in virtually every situation. It's sharper, brighter and infinitely less distracting. 3D is pure gimmickry and there is a place for that but that place is NOT mainstream movies.

[3dcandy]

No, you increase the framerate. Same image shown 72 times a second for each eye, ie 144fps.
Lower resolution is just the theory in over/under and 70mm single strip film, but again only matters when digitally projected as real life images don't have resolution as such. Just focus. These run at double speed to get 24fps per image.

If you instead lower the fps, you drop below 24fps and the image stutters.

You can try increasing the 'filmrate' as well, ie how many frames you shoot it at, in order to capture more detail and reduce motion blur, which is what The Hobbit did... but it doesn't always work so well, especially if your framing and focus techniques are off. You face the same problem as with the backgrounds, where everything must be both in focus and in 3D, even if it's not normally so in 2D.

That's fine...but most of the time you run into encoding or bandwidth problems. Plus if you have a 1080p panel you are still trying to show 2 images in the same amount of pixels as you would one image in 2d....
It's all moot - you have to lose some clarity displaying 3d v 2d whichever way you look at it as you are trying to target each eye with a slightly different image however you present it. If your tv is an active tv it will blank each eye separately so you see the 3D image, it is this that gives many people a headache as the brain works hard to fill in the gaps and present the image. Also that means by default you a seeing half as much resolution as only one eye is technically seeing the image. Now perhaps that isn't what you think about a decreased resolution but that is how I meant it. You are receiving half the information in any given time by your eyes

[Ttaskmaster]

That's fine...but most of the time you run into encoding or bandwidth problems.

My gaming monitor does 144Hz.
The HTC Vive refreshes at 90Hz.
No problems with either.

Plus if you have a 1080p panel you are still trying to show 2 images in the same amount of pixels as you would one image in 2d....

No, you're not.
You're still showing one image at a time, alternating between L and R at a speed sufficiently high to avoid the eye perceiving flutter. For motion video, this only needs to be 48fps with passive polarising lenses and is perfectly adequate at 60Hz.

It's all moot - you have to lose some clarity displaying 3d v 2d whichever way you look at it as you are trying to target each eye with a slightly different image however you present it.

Not at all, as proven with numerous modern systems.

If your tv is an active tv it will blank each eye separately so you see the 3D image, it is this that gives many people a headache as the brain works hard to fill in the gaps and present the image.

That is one of many causes, primarily because that then halves the framerate.
TBH, though, field sequential type shutter glasses is basically 1980s technology and I don't know why you'd ever bother using it unless you're on a nostalgia kick.
There are plenty more systems that do not induce headaches and plenty more reasons why a few people get headaches even without active systems.

Also that means by default you a seeing half as much resolution as only one eye is technically seeing the image.

WHAT???!!!
So if I look at a 4k still photograph and close one eye, that image immediately becomes 2k, yes?
Even *I* know that is ridiculous!!

Now perhaps that isn't what you think about a decreased resolution but that is how I meant it. You are receiving half the information in any given time by your eyes

Nope.
3D works by showing a different image to each eye. That image can be as high a resolution as you like, so long as only the correct eye sees it.
If you think you're not seeing something, either you're not paying attention or the film makers have mis-framed the shot.

[3dcandy]

Right...go back to the title of this post... we're on about movies. Having a 144hz monitor or a vive makes no difference when the movie is being played, thus all the comments about headaches by people above. The effects on a vive are different and *most* people don't wear a headset to watch movies. I WAS generalising. The systems people would watch a movie on either at home or in the cinema rely on blanking the output to each eye to create the 3d effect. The brain has to work harder because it does still recognise the blanking and has to work around this

[3dcandy]

And the quip about a photograph... nope it doesn't become less resolution but you don't see as much as your brain cannot use BOTH eyes to form the resolution and get it's depth information...

[DanceswithUnix]

You have to present twice as much information somehow. You either reduce the resolution or the refresh rate

In a cinema they can use two projectors to double the information flow, so there shouldn't be any reduction in quality. Sometimes you can spend your way out of problems.

I gather from people who have 4K passive 3D screens that 3D content looks very good, again the TV has more pixels than a 1080p 3D movie requires.

[Ttaskmaster]

Right...go back to the title of this post... we're on about movies. Having a 144hz monitor or a vive makes no difference when the movie is being played, thus all the comments about headaches by people above.

Actually it does, because 144Hz is up into the relams of commercial cinema projectors, such as the DLP triple-flash systems, which are far better than 3D TV sets.
As for movies - Any image, really. The basic principles work the same regardless of whether it's a movie, game, or static 3D image.

The systems people would watch a movie on either at home or in the cinema rely on blanking the output to each eye to create the 3d effect. The brain has to work harder because it does still recognise the blanking and has to work around this

Not at the cinema, because of the higher framerates, as discussed above and earlier in the thread.

And the quip about a photograph... nope it doesn't become less resolution but you don't see as much as your brain cannot use BOTH eyes to form the resolution and get it's depth information...

Huh? It's a 2D image. There is no depth information.

[3dcandy]

Actually it does, because 144Hz is up into the relams of commercial cinema projectors, such as the DLP triple-flash systems, which are far better than 3D TV sets.
As for movies - Any image, really. The basic principles work the same regardless of whether it's a movie, game, or static 3D image.


Not at the cinema, because of the higher framerates, as discussed above and earlier in the thread.


Huh? It's a 2D image. There is no depth information.

Right...we're on about movies at home or out - so lowest common denominator. TV's still have much lower refresh rates and use blanking. People can tell the difference
The photograph thing...your brain interpolates images from both eyes... try wearing an eyepatch and walking around for a couple of weeks or driving and see how you fair. Also you are saying you have a great refresh rate, but movies are still using lower frame rates (unless you are talking about the Hobbit etc.) especially when presented in the home environment. Your brain has spent years finetuning itself to use both eyes. Faking 3D in any form unless like your vive it presents 2 wholly different images at the same time to each eye will result in some information loss. Same as encoding the movie. This is why makers are pushing towards 4K sets etc. etc.

Oh and as regards the cinema..yes higher framerates and such but I can still discern the blanking effect. I know I have to focus harder to see the 3D and it makes me more tired. Mileage varies between people and that's why it's not as easy as saying.

Oh and the 144hz argument.... movies are never encoded to you in such high refresh rates or frame rates, which ARE different at home.

[DanceswithUnix]

Right...we're on about movies at home or out - so lowest common denominator. TV's still have much lower refresh rates and use blanking.

Passive 3D TVs (the cheap ones like I have) provide an image to both eyes at the same time. That is done by sacrificing vertical resolution, but as you point out the eyes tend to work together so in reality the sacrifice isn't as bad as it sounds.

Edit: Here is a rather good article on how a high end laser cinema projector works, you can see here that each eye has its own projector and so gets its own image, but as both images are projected on the same screen you need filter glasses to separate them out again. So like a VR headset each eye gets its own image, but without the head tracking your eyes can't easily focus on things hence it can get tiring.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015...dio-awesome/2/