Future of 3D TVs

[jyeh74]

I keep reading about Sony and their plans to reveal the next generation 3D televisions. Even blu ray players will have firmware to allow it to read 3D blu ray discs. I don't understand how that is different from movies, like CORALINE, which has both 2D and 3D, and comes with 3D glasses. Are they making completely new line of 3D blu ray discs that are different from the ones today that have 3D viewing options that are only compatible with 3D tv's, instead of LCDs/plasmas.

[guns1inger]

You need to do some googling to catch up. In summary, 3D TVs are already rolling out to the stores. They require special glasses that use LCD shutters to sync the frames, and suitable bluray players (some current ones can be upgraded) to play the discs back. The experience is closer to the current cinema experience of 3D than the old anaglyph red/blue 3D that we have been getting on TV to date. Several cable stations will also be rolling out 3D TV stations to go with the TVs.

However, from what I have been seeing and reading, the current conversion techniques for 2D to 3D means that unless a film is made for 3D from the ground up, the experience will be less than exciting - Clash of the Titans is very disappointing because it is only partially 3D, and several films are getting the same pseudo-3D treatment. There is also be a lot of films, like Avatar or My Bloody Valentine, where the 3D experience is what makes the film. Eventually they will either get past 3D as a gimmick, or it will die again as it has every other time it has cycled through. (And yes, I have seen Avatar in 2D, and it is a boring knock-off of Dances With Wolves dressed in video game cut-scene clothing. Without the 3D nobody would have cared.)

[jyeh74]

Yeah, I have been reading up on some of this technology. =)
So in summary, you're saying unless it is true 3D blu ray (watched on a 3D TV), then blu rays like Coraline, which give you the option of watching in 2D or 3D (beginning of the movie), is essentially, not the same thing. I brought home the glasses they gave me when I watched Avatar 3D in the theatres, and was going to try it with Coraline to see how it compares.

[guns1inger]

Coroline in Bluray in 3D requires red/blue glasses that should have come with the disc. The glasses form the cinema will not work with current 3D blurays (which are all re/blue anaglyph) or the new 3D TVs. They only work in the cinemas. Different 3D process entirely. They will continue to release 3D and 2D version of movies, as there is little point releasing 3D only versions if you need to buy a new TV to watch them - it is just bad business.

[jyeh74]

Sad to see that people who spends hundreds, and maybe even thousands of $ on blu ray discs will have to again, revamp their collections when the 3D titles come out.....and buy a new TV.

[guns1inger]

On if 3D is worth the investment to you. DVD won't support the new standard, so if you don't have a capable BD player, you won't care. 3D will either be yet another gimmick, or it will be simply the norm. If it becomes the norm then your next TV will be 3D capable anyway, because they all will. If it is just a gimmick, then you will only lose if you jump in early and info you have an expensive novelty device. I would not bother getting a 3D version of films shot in 2D. That includes many of the up-coming 3D releases, which would be better labelled 2.5D. And we can expect to see Star Wars and Lord of the Rings etc. re-released in 2.5D versions if the studios get their way.

That said, for a long time people said the same thing about DVD and their VHS collections, and a lot are still saying it about BD and their DVD collections. And even in just a DVD world, the studios are forever releasing new versions with an extra here or a new scene there, just to get you to buy yet another copy of the same movie.

But no-one has a gun to your head and is saying that you must buy it. This is your choice, and your choice only.

The only 3D film I have seen so far that I really enjoyed was UP, where the 3D was just part of the filming, and not something thrown in your face. But then I would watch it as a 2D film because it was simply good film making. Avatar, on the other hand, I found disappointing as a film, so the 3D has nothing but gimmick value for me, and I won't buy it in a 2D or 3D version. The criteria has to be great film first and foremost, and 3D adds to that. If it is 3D first and foremost then you may as well just go to a theme park ride.

Like I said, if 3D becomes the norm, then you next TV will be a 3D TV simply because all TVs will have 3D built in anyway. I can wait and see if that is going to happen, and maybe the killer 3D film will come along in the meantime.

[yoda313]

I'll say this about 3dtvs - at least the ps3 is getting a 3d firmware upgrade this year. That would be one less hurdle if you already have one and are getting into the market.

Of course I only have a regular old 1366x768 32" westinghouse hdtv so I am not 3d ready. Of course I think it will be more fad than anything. At least initially. Look how long it took for hdtv to grab the foothold it has now. It will take at least that long for 3dtv to catch on I'm sure. What with new hardware purchases in players and sets that isn't gonna come cheap.

[guns1inger]

The PS3, and many other HDMI 1.3 Bluray players, will support 3D through firmware. However they will not support 1080p, only 1080i. HDMI 1.4 is required for the full 1080p experience apparently.

And then there are the 3D movies, or more to the point, where are the 3D movies worth watching ? UP was good, but is equally as good without 3D. Avatar is 3D eye candy, but it look like a video game and without 3D is a boring CG knock-off of Dance With Wolves in a sci-fi dress. And the next batch of 3D movies are the half-assed late to the party brigade - Clash of the Titans/Harry Potter etc - who are mocking up 3D to cash-in, but aren't actually shot in 3D (or are only partially shot in 3D).

One recent article I read also advised that you should

* not watch 3D TV if you are prone to epilepsy
* not watch 3D TV if you wear glasses
* not watch 3D TV if you are prone to migraines
* not watch 3D TV if you are prone to motion sickness
* not watch 3D TV for longer than 30 minutes at a time

I suspect that most of this is luddite fear mongering, and will be ignored by most punters.

The billions that people blew on Avatar shows they will pay for a novelty, so I don't think it will have too much trouble finding an audience, and will be adopted faster than HDTVs were because people who haven't bought their big screen yet will just go 3D instead when the time comes.

Personally, I would wait another year and see if 3D is still going strong, or fading away like it has the last three or four times it has been fad de jour.

[yoda313]

@ guns1inger - or anyone in the know -

I am curious to know if any hdmi cable will handle 3d. I know you mention that hdmi 1.4 is needed for 1080p 3d. Is the same true of hdmi cables themselves? Do the cables need to have more bandwidth to handle the 3d data? Or are they backward or in this case forward compatible with the 3d transmission rate?

[guns1inger]

1.3 can handle 1080i, apparently, which is how many current players (including the PS3) will be able to handle 3D (after a firmware update, of course), but 1.4 is required for 1080p, which I assume means a matching cable.

[yoda313]

Thanks guns1inger.

I don't know if I'll ever go to 3d. I was just curious about the cable issue.

[lordsmurf]

One recent article I read also advised that you should
* not watch 3D TV if you are prone to epilepsy
* not watch 3D TV if you wear glasses
* not watch 3D TV if you are prone to migraines
* not watch 3D TV if you are prone to motion sickness
* not watch 3D TV for longer than 30 minutes at a time
I suspect that most of this is luddite fear mongering, and will be ignored by most punters.

I know a little about optics, including human vision. All of those things are valid.
I get headaches watching 3D, especially as I've gotten older and my eyes can drift focus after staring at screens for too long.