Slashdot Mirror
Makers Keep Flogging 3D TV, Viewers Keep Shrugging
A Wired article (as carried by CNN) attempts to answer the question of why 3D television hasn't caught on. The reasons listed there (high price, paltry content, the need for 3D glasses for typical sets, headaches and strain) all seem to be on the money, in themselves, but I think don't go far enough. 3D on a set small enough for home use outside a high-end home-theater rig seems to me like a clever novelty that I can't even enjoy unless I've given it my full attention. It's nothing like the jump from black-and-white to color, or even the jump from my old (circa 1993) 19" Trinitron to a flat-panel display. On the big screen, it's another story — there, 3D can be arresting and involving, even when it's exaggerated (and it is). On home sets, even quite large ones, to my eye 3D usually looks phony and out of place. Never mind that the content is limited and often expensive, or that there are competing standards for expensive glasses to wear — I just don't like that the commitment is greater than that required for casual, conventional TV; I can't readily scan email, skim through a magazine, or keep watching out the corner of my eye from another room. (I'm hoping to find some actually watchable no-glasses 3D sets at CES next week, but I'm skeptical.)
My girlfriend and I tried a couple of 3D TVs at Best Buy. They all appeared blurry and none had a 3D effect, so either the displays were set up wrong or they just plain suck. However, we did go to a 3D viewing of some movie (there was no 2D showing of it at the time) a while back and that impressed me. Not enough that I'd pay to have the 3D effect at home, but enough to pay a couple extra bucks for the odd movie in theaters.
I find that 3D on larger television sets (55" and up) does work. It is not as good as viewing the same movie in the cinema, but sometimes it's good enough, and I usually pick up the 3D version of a movie instead of the regular one, if available.
But just as in the cinema, you need to settle down to watch the movie in order to get "sucked in" by the 3D. Same as in the cinema, were you generally won't "scan email, skim through a magazine, or keep watching out the corner of my eye from another room.". If you let yourself be distracted every minute, 3D is going to suck, whether you're in your home theater or a proper one.
By the way, I too am curious about no-glasses 3D but I'm not holding my breath. LG is already selling sets with passive 3D glasses, but the viewing experience is decidedly poorer than with good shutter glasses.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I hate having to wear glasses just to watch something. More so, it looks and feels like a gimmick.
Gimmick aside, the glasses aren't necessarily requisite.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
I experimented with a 50" 3D set on display and found that if I was any further away from it than about 6 feet the scale on screen was all wrong. Basically, for stereoscopic TV to work, you have to fill your field of view such that the images hitting your eyes are the right distance apart. Change that distance and the scale changes so people start to look like marionettes rather than real people. This is especially bad in a typical home setting where you wouldn't sit so close or so face on. I can see 3D for home cinema and I might consider replacing my current 100" HD front projector with a 3D rig but for regular TV use it doesn't work.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
About two to 12 percent of the population can't see 3D, and I'm one of them. That's why we will probably never spend the extra money for a 3D TV.
I thought the same, I bought my TV without really wanting 3D but it's pretty much standard now so it came with it anyway, I'd not really tried it much, I tried the BBC Wimbledon 3D test, I tried Street Dance 3D when it was on the other day but none of it was anything special.
Then I noticed Assassins Creed on the 360 supports it, and thought I'd give it a go. It really is pretty fucking good, I know a few other games like Crysis and Gears 3 support it but I've not tried them yet.
At the end of the day I guess it's just like at the cinema, Avatar was phenomenal in 3D but little else has been, likewise, it appears games are suited to 3D too.
I'll assume it's the difference between something genuinely built in 3D, and that shitty cardboard cut out version of 3D.
Still, it's early days, and Toshiba is already testing glasses-less 3D TVs so I think it'll only get better. All in all, I don't think it's a bad technology, in some cases it certainly adds something, when you're stood at the top of a massive tower in Assassins Creed looking down, you can really feel the height.
It does make football marginally more enjoyable, but that's the only thing I've seen it be an improvement with. So, not totally a scam, but not worth much value at this time.
note: I have one, not for that feature, but for the other features it has.
It's because of the way cinemas project the movie. I'm not sure about the exact setup they generally have, but they project the left and right frames on top of each other using opposing circular polarisation. This works well with passive glasses and is very easy to achieve with a special projector. On a TV where you don't project anything but stare at the pixels themselves, managing varying polarisation is a bit harder. LG somehow found a way to get 3D on a TV panel with passive glasses; you do get proper 3D but the quality suffers visibly.
By the way, any 3D will work a lot better with less ambient light, be it a cinema, shutter glasses at home, or a TV with passive glasses
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Wearing prescription glasses is one thing. Wearing 3D OVER my prescription glasses is another. Not going to happen!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.