I wonder when and if glasses-free 3D comes out mainstream, that 3D will take off?
- Thread starter edisonprime
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 16
- Views 2K
The concept of 3D content has been around since 1922. Anything that has managed to remain a part of the entertainment industry for 94 years is likely not done and over. There will always be interest in content such as this and that group of consumers is likely to grow, rather than shrink, due to each generations williness to accept advances in technology. An interesting idea for glasses-free 3D is Ultra-D. This technology converts all content (even non-3D) to 3D and does not suffer from the limited viewing angles and 'motion-sickness' that other systems had. Their system on a chip was recently demonstrated at ISE2016 and can be integrated into any type or size of panel on any device. It may take some time but I wouldn't count glasses-free 3D out just yet. 
Yeah, and then it always dies again after about 3 years.
I think it is a lot like 9 channel sound, except more intrusive. The problem is that it requires a certain artistry to do it right, and productions don't seem to either have the budget or the desire to hire the right people. Avatar did 3-D right. It is hard to find a second example. Directors have a tendency to use 3-D effects to stick something out at the audience, or throw something. It tends to jerk you out of the film experience.
The reason I compared it to surround sound is that it seems that most films I see have 90% of their sound coming from the center front, even when the image fills the screen. I even check out the action movies, and the whizzy effects only seem to be there a small portion of the film. I actually notice it as a distraction when they kick in.
It is not as bad with surround sound though. You pay your money and install the speakers and then ignore it. With 3-D you actually have to put on the glasses which remind you the whole time it is 3-friggin-D. I suppose that without special glasses it could become more like surround, where you ignore it for most of the film.
Bottom line: surround sound nor 3-D will save a crappy movie. A good movie will stand on its own, but these effects may improve the experience if done by a gifted tech.
As manufacturers seem to have slowed way down on (and in some cases, stopped) producing 3D TVs, it seems likely that interest in producing content is going to trail off as it always has.
I don't blame active 3D for the lack of interest; that's a weak excuse. I blame the shortage of compelling content.
A lot of people also can't see 3D, I am one. For the longest time, I never understood people liking 3D because it always looks like total crap to me, just a bunch of colored lined images that look horrible.
It was only a few years ago that I really realized that it's me, when my wife, daughter and me were in Wal Mart and they had a display setup switching from normal TV to 3D, back and forth. To them, the 3D looked great whenever it switched to it, to me, it was absolutely and totally un-watchable. My daughter looked it up online and there's millions of people who can't see 3D correctly, it seems.
If 3D ever becomes the standard and there's nothing but 3D to watch, I won't be watching much TV, or buying any new TV's.
It was only a few years ago that I really realized that it's me, when my wife, daughter and me were in Wal Mart and they had a display setup switching from normal TV to 3D, back and forth. To them, the 3D looked great whenever it switched to it, to me, it was absolutely and totally un-watchable. My daughter looked it up online and there's millions of people who can't see 3D correctly, it seems.
If 3D ever becomes the standard and there's nothing but 3D to watch, I won't be watching much TV, or buying any new TV's.
I'm waiting for the Holo-deck.
I own two 3D capable Samsung TVs and I've never taken the glasses that came with them out of the boxes the glasses were packed in. Mostly because I need glasses to see and have no interest in wearing a second pair at the same time.
I own two 3D capable Samsung TVs and I've never taken the glasses that came with them out of the boxes the glasses were packed in. Mostly because I need glasses to see and have no interest in wearing a second pair at the same time.
I bought a pair of clip ons they work great I take them to theaters and use them at home
A large percentage of this statistic are those who don't have true binocular vision in the first place. Whether it is due to blindness, optically limited eye (amblyopia, cataract, glaucoma) or wandering eye (strabismus -- a muscular issue), it just isn't possible to see in full 3D for these people.
There are some others that are bothered (or even sickened) by the rate of the shutter/frame flipping and those are the ones that are being denied by technology. This includes those troubled by fluorescent (and often LED) lights.
If you can't see in 3D, a 3D TV isn't going to work but that's typically not the TV's fault.
Oh yes, definitely not the TV's fault. Just making the point that 3D tech for quite a large number of people is useless and so they wouldn't buy 3D equipment.
Some, but not all fluorescent lights bother my eyes. Some LED's too, which I've thought odd. The ones used in automotive applications are really bad on my eyes but the household LED's and indicator LED's and such as that don't bother me at all. I understand the problem with fluorescent lights, but the automotive LED's, I don't understand the problem there.
I think a lot of that has to do with the lights not being controlled by mechanical switches and voltage reducing dimmers. With LEDs, they often strobe them (Pulse-Width Modulation) to achieve dimming and that's what's eating you. Even if your dash isn't digital, the backlights are probably LEDs so turning them to full brightness may limit the amount of time the LEDs aren't on to a minimum.
That makes sense. The LED lights that bother me do seem to have a kind of stroboscopic effect to them. I never thought of LEDs being controlled that way!
Similar threads
