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.)
3D tv is just a scam. tried every 20-30 years and they just don't learn...
3D TV didnt catch on because its pathetic bling. Its flashy crap to hide the fact they didn't bother to hire writers or decent actors.
Making things louder & flashier is NOT better.
I hate having to wear glasses just to watch something. More so, it looks and feels like a gimmick.
Easily 30% of people can't view 3d tv for one reason or another. Headaches. Doesn't work. Ect.
Most of the 3d shit needs glasses of some sort. And alot of people already wear glasses. Doesn't work. Plus you have to have enough of them for everyone who wants to view 3dtv.
We JUST got done upgrading to hdtv, digital and flatscreens all over the freakin country. And most of us feel that was stupid anyway. But it was all we could buy when our old tvs finally died.
And we found out all our tvs don't work with the cable/sat systems directly and we need another stupid little box sitting there. So we all spent all this money on what is pretty much a damm monitor. And paid a premium to do it.
3d all seems to come down to 'ooo look! object comming right at you!' It's not natural. They use it instead of a good story. And not in addition to.
Who the hell wants 3d tv. Not me.
I remember back in the 90's when ABC arranged to give out 3D glasses so viewers could watch a few of their shows in 3D. I don't remember the other shows, but the main one showcasing it was Home Improvement. They made a couple of gags with it to show it off, but mainly stuck to standard content. It was a novelty at the time and fun to play with but I couldn't imagine watching much on it, headaches aside.
Consumers will flock to 3DTVs when there is basically nothing else on the market: otherwise, it just doesn't provide enough benefit to justify the added cost. This happened with HD too; did the TV makers really expect it to be different this time?
I have decided to forgo the 3D nonsense and wait for 4D...
Just think you'll be able to time travel while in your favorite man chair...
i recently bought a new 55" Samsung LED. I didn't see a lot of products at this size and price class that didn't have 3D capabilities.
So count me in with the 3D TV purchaser statistic.
Have I ever used it? Hell no. Would I have paid less for the same TV w/o 3D if it were available? Absolutely. So even as the 3D-TVs in the home percentage rises as manufacturers stuff it down our throats, the real indicator is who uses the feature? My guess is very few, but I'd love to see a survey on that little tidbit.
Pay a premium for a TV that requires special glasses, which as mine are prescription, means not settling for what's on the market, but waiting for someone to produce prescription lens 3D glasses for that particular model and paying an arm and a leg for them.
After waiting for those non-existent glasses to be developed, paying hundreds or thousands of dollars extra, what will I have?
A TV that gives me a migraine.
No thanks.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Please make it stop!! We're not interested in overly expensive, glasses requiring, headache inducing televisions!
He came not to bring peace, but to write a bad review of those TVs on Amazon.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
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...
...on adding actually useful features like built-in HD tele-presence (integrated with skype and/or google talk).
3D is a fad that, to me, adds very little value to the tv watching experience. Many noted movie critics have already called for the death of 3D. For instance:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html
I only know a couple people who enjoy 3D movies, out of a couple dozen I've talked to about it. My kids didn't even want to see 3D version of Transformers, their favorite entertainment subject. They said it "bothers their eyes after a while."
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!"
I'm going to skip the whole 3D TV craze and hold out for a 4D one. One extra D has to be better, right?
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
I've seen two movies in 3D (well, the same one twice) ... both times it gave me a splitting headache that lasted for hours.
I don't like 3D. I don't want 3D. I'm not willing to pay for 3D. To me, 3D is a pointless failed technology I don't want.
Granted, everyone else is free to choose to have it, and I may actually be in the minority. But I'm not willing to spend a single penny on it. Not now, not ever.
I just view it as yet another reason why new TVs are a moving target. The HD spec has changed half a dozen times since about 99 when I bought my DVD player ... HDMI, HDCP, and now 3D. Do they really think people are going to buy a fresh new TV for another moving target spec every 2-3 years?
Used to be that you could buy a TV and have it last a decade or more ... now it's just baubles and doo-dads they try to change every year,
I finally just replaced my ten year old rear-projection TV with an LCD TV ... and I have no intention of replacing this for at least another 5+ years. As always, 3D is a gimmick that will attract some people, but the rest will simply watch it pass by and fade away.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
HDTV was a reasonable improvement on NTSC and PAL. 3D really isn't. Compare to: DVD was a huge improvement over VHS. Blu-ray isn't enough of an improvement over DVD to be interesting.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Their grandma got them Nintendo 3DS game thingies for Christmas and they both turned the 3D off permanently after a few minutes of playing.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I was one of the first purchasers and the only issue I find with it is the fact that they aren't releasing enough and what they are releasing is sometimes as much as twice the price of the regular blu-ray if you don't pick it with the release day sales.
Are there some downsides? Yes, you have to wear the glasses, not a big deal to me or my wife or my kid, two of us already wear glasses 24/7 anyhow. Millions of people do everyday, and for some reason it's some massive inconvenience. I'll bet everyone who whines about having to wear the glasses to watch 3D tv has no problems popping on a pair of Ray-bans, D&Gs or Oakleys when they head out on a sunny day. "Oh but the sun comes in from the sides and distracts me". Seriously?
If you don't want to use 3D, then don't. No one's holding a gun to your head. There are still plenty of TVs out there that don't have 3D built in, but until someone does hold a gun to your head or you can't buy a TV sans 3D, (In which case there won't be a surcharge for the technology anyhow...) just STFU with all the complaining. The people who are buying it are enjoying it. The 3D is excellent save for the occasional bad job and WE like it. Now go ahead and mod me down because I didn't say "Yeah you're right my 3D sucks".
TV sets should be no more than UV/IR "blue" screen hung on a wall.
Give me comfortable glasses that can overlay reality. Then I can use those glasses for all my general purpose viewing needs, be they 2D or 3D.
It's more than credible that you can turn off the lights in your bedroom or TV room and have the equivalent resolution experience of a movie theater, be it 2D or 3D.
They just need a short range transmitter with enough bandwidth that can match the resolution of both eyes for up to ten people in a room. Have an aux input that can plug into an external receiver for a specialized receiver for occasions where your in a larger crowd such as a theater. Everyone they can have the quality glasses they can afford. It opens up a world of augmented reality. Just like cell phones they will be big at first and then they will get smaller and more fashionable.
Then much further in the future we will have implants that plug directly into the optical nerve and augment what you see more directly.
To quote:
"It's nothing like the jump from black-and-white to color, or even the jump from my old 19" Trinitron TV circa 1993 years ago to a flat panel display."
I never knew they had this model of TV back in the year, 19 AD... Well, I guess Jesus missed it too.
Seeing Avatar in theaters is the only time when 3D enhanced my experience rather than detracting from it like all the other movies over the past few years that used 3D as a last second gimmick. So it is possible to make 3D work if done right but I cant yet speak for the quality of the 3D TV experience. IF there is enough content of the same 3D quality as Avatar, AND the quality of ordinary 2D content on 3D tvs is not compromised, AND if the slight peeves like glasses, and viewing angle are overcome, AND when the price of 3D TV becomes comparable to that of their 2D counterparts, THEN there will be a feasible market for 3D TV and I will gladly go out and buy one.
I think the problem is that 3D movies and TV are not really "3D", they are 2D movies using a stereoscopic effect that can fool the brain into thinking that the picture has depth. But it's not really 3D, which results in headaches and other effects that make it uncomfortable for many people.
If they could come out with a holoscopic projection mechanism that shows true 3D, maybe then people will be more interested, but high quality full-color holoscopic projection is probably decades away, if ever.
Even in a galaxy far, far away, the holographic projections created by R2-series droids have flickering low-quality images.
I honestly can't tell you if my current TV even has picture-in-picture, because AFAIK, I've never once actually used it on any TV I've owned. But I can remember when it was touted as this "must have" feature by the industry. So it got added to the new TV's. The general public was at first kind of interested. Then after the hype died down and users actually got to try it out a few times and realize that it wasn't really all that useful, it quickly became a "Who gives a shit?" feature.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Even if it worked perfectly, no headaches, glasses, extra cost, etc. I still wouldn't want it. Not on the big screen either. It doesn't offer anything to me, and that "whoa, dude!" feeling you get when they chuck crap at the camera just fails to impress...
This is an artificial, useless parlor trick that has no purpose...
3D is all the makers had to get you to upgrade your set. Once you're on 1080P/Blu-Ray it's pretty much good enough for any kind of viewing you want to do.
I'm looking forward to the new super thin OLED sets: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2012/01/lgs-55-inch-oled-tv-at-ces-to-have-almost-no-bezel.html
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Some of us paid thousands of dollars on LASIK surgery specifically for the purpose of not having to wear glasses. I'm not about to pay thousands more so that I can again.
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...
The current passive 3d tvs use half the vertical resolution. If you are close enough, that shows. If you use the motion enhancing features, that shows too. Shutter glasses aren't perfect either. Even though my TV is a 3D one (for the very small price difference between non-3d and 3d, I decided to get it), I'm not using it much. Perhaps with more usage you can forget about the artifact, but so far I'm not running after 3d movies.
Why do passive glasses work well for movie theaters but not for TVs?
Doesn't the cinema version use polarisers on the projectors? Not easy to do with a TV.
It's a technical thing. The theatre is actually using 2 projectors with opposite polarization, and the glasses each filter out half of it.
At home, there's no projector. There's just an LED/pixel/whatever there and it has to do double duty and the glasses turn off each eye to match.
There -are- actually home systems that can do passive 3d, but they require 2 projectors, or a tv with 2 projectors in it. Since those are huge and expensive, it's not very popular.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I find it surprising that all the comments above are focused on 3D movies, and none mention gaming. Hello people? Gaming in 3D is freaking amazing. It really adds to the immersion, and looks pretty fantastic. That's the only reason to get a 3D-capable TV in my opinion. 3D movies suck even in theaters, and "converted" content is just plain wrong. Gaming in 3D, on the other hand... If you haven't tried it yet, you should.
Oh, it was useful if you liked sports - but things got complicated when we moved to satellite TV and digital cable. You needed two tuners to get all your channels, and that just started getting silly.
If your point is that 3D is a niche product and many people won't want it, then I agree. Colour TV is something everybody wants; HD television is something almost everybody will want once they see the improvement in picture quality; 3D just isn't that much more interesting.
I watched Avatar and Tron in 3D, and I have to say it was a whole new experience for me. Also, you can enjoy 3D games on your PS3 which is much more immersive, especially racing games.3D may not be for everyone, but that's what people said about HD several years ago.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
... wonkavision
-- if you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine
I've been looking around for a new dvd player that also would let me connect to the internet to stream content. The best one I could find, for my requirements, is also 3D capable. That's a feature I will simply never use, but there is nothing out there comparable that is without 3D. It's ridiculous and wasteful.
http://transformativeworks.org/
Having the TV on while you make dinner is a problem? I didn't realize preparing the daily meal was such a noble pursuit as to require your full attention.
I have glaucoma, giving me the classic arc-shaped loss of visual field in each eye. Bottom line is that I really need both eyes at the same time to get a decent 2D view. Persistence of vision notwithstanding, alternately displaying images to each eye just doesn't add up well when each eye is depending on the other to fill in missing data. I can usually perceive the 3D effect, but at the cost of most detail in the middle of the image, and overall dramatic reduction in brightness vs. a 2d display.
I'd rather have a high quality 2D image than a crappy 3D one.
Well, IIRC the thing that made those glasses "3D" was that it's polarized, right? In that case, it wouldn't really matter to me if my lenses were polarized, plus I could watch a movie without glasses.
Then I could be the one making fun of the four-eyes for a change! HA!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's the lousy content. TV still a "vast wasteland", and no amount of technology or gimmicks will make up for that. First get quality programming in 2D, then we can look at technologies like 3D. Technological solutions to non-technical problems don't actually solve the problem.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
The only use for the 3D technology that I've seen since it came out doesn't even involve the 3D aspect. Someone was talking about using it to let two people play an FPS together on the same TV without a) being able to screen look and b) getting the whole screen to themselves. To do this they were just talking about assigning the left eye to one player and the right eye to the other, and setting the glasses up to only pick up images for one eye, instead of displaying 3D images.
I love playing Halo multiplayer (or MarioKart) but hate split-screen. But I don't have enough room or money for a second TV. So if this feature could be added (seems doable to me) and it wasn't too much more for the 3D set, I'd pay for it.
Even now years after 3D tvs came out, there's literally only about 10 blu-ray titles that are actual movie blockbusters that people might want to watch more than once. The bulk are just obscure documentaries, tepid TV or kids animation. Glee 3D or Kung-Fu Panda anyone?
Furthermore, you pay a significant price premium for a 3D version of a movie that is available alot cheaper in 2D. I cant see how that can be justified.
Broadcast 3D TV at least in my area doesn't even exist.
The £500 LG Optimus 3D, the world’s first 3D smartphone, has been delayed until June, possibly due to 3D on a phone being stupendously pointless rubbish that doesn’t work.
3D technology has been the next big thing for only the last sixty years and is readily available on television, movies and video games. It offers amazing improvements over ordinary moving images: darkness, muddier colours, blurriness, headaches from watching for more than twenty minutes and slower action sequences so the viewer doesn’t throw up.
In video games, the Nintendo 3DS has been a huge hit with tens or even hundreds of end users, some of whom have left the 3D on for a whole day before switching it off forever. 3D on a phone has been heralded by manufacturers, mobile operators, the entertainment industry, the technical press, optometrists drumming up business and everyone else except the actual consumer.
“Five hundred quid for this tremendous advance in telephony?” said industry analyst Mobile Salestwat. “Who wouldn’t bootleg Avatar onto their phone for that! It’s worth every penny for the athletic catgirl boobs to actually poke out the screen at you.”
The phone’s dual five-megapixel cameras also offer the opportunity to drunkenly send grainy 3D photos of your tits to precisely the wrong person, and not remember until you get copies forwarded to your work email via ten other people three days later. “With 3D, people can take the photos and turn them into a 3D-printed plastic sculpture. Just the thing for your desk. Or theirs.”
(source)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
And I really do not want to have to pay a premium for 3D I will never use on a set that otherwise has all the features I want. So maybe I'll just keep using my old CRT HDTV from 1999 for another few years. God knows it'll hold up...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Seriously, there's nothing wrong with the idea of 3d so much as the execution. The technology isn't there yet and the biggest hurdle is the most obvious one: having to wear glasses at home. People want to be lazy in front of the tv, not run around looking for glasses the same way they search for their remotes. Until that particular problem is solved it will continue to be a niche thing.
Better content wouldn't hurt either.
Result? No takers. The stereoscopic display maker who would accept plain OpenGL input but render in stereoscopic 3D went under and we scrapped the project. Though we did not have much to do. The hardware was compatible with our software without too much of modification on our side.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Every TV is going to have it, nobody is ever going to use it.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I've seen a few movies in 3D and I'm not sure I really care all that much about it.
But, I was thinking about eventually getting a 3D TV more to support games than movies. It seems like games are a much more interesting use, since all of the content is in 3D already they could (in theory) do a better job at getting the depth right, and of course games are more immersive so you would tend to ignore some artifacts.
The only thing that seemed a downside to me, is that you might get a lot of eyestrain playing 3D games for long periods of time... so I was really on the fence about it. Has anyone else tried extended 3D game playing?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You can, apparently. There are people setting up 3D using twin projectors with polarized filters in their home theaters now. These screens are more expensive than regular projection screens, but well within the budget of a 3D afficionado.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
(Yes, I realize the majority have been "marketed" into thinking stereo-vision is actually really 3D. But that doesn't mean they won't notice when real 3D displays replace this lame 2D hack. The first time they stand up and the POV changes so they can look down the cheerleader's cleavage will be the very last time they ever even *think* about purchasing a 2D set.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There simply isn't enough of it and of high enough quality. Avatar had some good 3D sequences, but even that flagship production was spotty. And, who cares about watching home movies of your 2 year-old flinging her own poo in stereovision? I appreciate the effort by the industry to push this advancement, but it's not there yet. I think it's doable, but when the 3D Coke ad is more visually stunning than the Resident Evil flick that follows it, there's room for improvement.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
It just hasn't caught on yet. It took some years for color TV to catch on. We don't have very good glasses-free 3D yet.
You'd have a lot of fun reading your typical LCD screen with polarized contact lenses. Not to mention your watch, car gauges and any aircraft window would be pretty wonky.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Funny you mention microwave ovens. Those were considered gimmicks, too, at the time.
Someone had to do it.
"Up!" Enough said.
Try out a projector. It is easy to jump to a 120" screen. I think that the OP was correct in calling a 52" screen tiny.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
3D is just frankly laughable for us all.
if there was some tangible improvement beyond 3D effects, as high fidelity is a basic improvement over the AA5 radio even if you have one ear and can't hear the stereo, there might be tangential sales to folks like me.
but there aren't.
as for the "art" of 3D, let us all remember SCTV's Dr. Tongue's "3D House of Stewardesses" and other mocking comedy. that is the classic 3D "art" model.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Unless they can somehow fix the blurry problem, 3D is worthless.
Even on a 3DS, activating 3D clearly reduces image quality since it makes it blurry.
Why would I want to purposely reduce image quality of a movie? 3D makes it pretty hard to see anything when rapid motion is going on.
I still have a CRT TV, and won't be upgrading it until it dies. TiVo takes care of downconverting HD content for it. I have little incentive to upgrade, especially with money so tight. 3D? Who needs it. I've been to 3D movies, they're OK, but I wouldn't pay extra to see them. Finally: I don't think I'm alone, far from it in fact.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
It's not really so much that they use "half the resolution" as it is that they have big black lines between pixel rows (per eye). This gives a rasterized look. Also, the passive sets don't have a great viewing angle.
If it weren't for manufacturers royally screwing up protocols and timings, the active glasses have come down in weight to the point where passive doesn't offer much bulk reduction.
However with the current clusterf**k going on with glasses, the best bet for being assured quality 3D that just works right, at this moment, is actually DLP, believe it or not.
Someone had to do it.
I'm sure to some CEOs that seemed like "perfect timing" and they were foaming at the mouth at the prospect of high product turnover rate in their industry.
Someone had to do it.
... It's just that it uses different effects to convey the 3rd dimension. Your eyes and brain fill in the 3rd dimension on 'regular' TV by using hints from the size of objects relative to other objects, and by focus and movement. What we now call '3D' is forced stereoscopic perspective, which is a fun effect but ultimately no more useful. It also has the downsides of being uncomfortable after some period of time and all sorts of other things such as brightness and those awful glasses.
They fail because they are a silly gimmick. I can't wait for it to pass. Damn kids with their 3D.. grumble.. get of my lawn!
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
While watching 3D, you can gradually get accustomed to the infra-ocular distance used to film the scene, which may differ from your view of the natural world. When adjacent scenes use different camera configurations, your mind takes time to make the adjustment to the new 3D perspective. This is one of the contributors to the headache effect.
In sports, the action is unpredictable, and may move towards or away from the camera(s) unexpectedly. Cuts from one view to another are frequent. This causes the viewer to continually readjust to new 3d perspectives. IMHO, this problem is the unavoidable Achilles heel of 3d sports. Remember, this is technology-independent. It doesn't matter what kind of glasses are being used, or whether no glasses are used -- this problem still exists.
Computers obey me.
Here's something you can do in your own home, or in some lucky offices:
1) Go to the refrigerator.
2) Open it and look inside.
3) Wow! You can see everything in the refrigerator in 3D! Do you care?
(Um, no... )
4) Okay, don't run away just yet. Notice the tasty beverages inside. Don't you think you deserve one?
(Um, sure...)
5) Reach in, grab one, and enjoy a beverage!
(Cool!)
6) You did that with your ability to view the world in 3D! Cool?
(Um, yeah, I guess...)
See, 3D matters a lot for humans because we need it quite a bit to interact with the world: to drive, to walk down stairs, to grab tasty beverages without spilling them.
But we don't need it to just watch things happen. It doesn't really matter then. If you think it would be cool to watch sports in 3D, just do this:
1) Attend a baseball game live
2) Wait for a someone to hit a long fly ball
3) Watch as half the stadium, who are watching it in 3D, jump up like that ball "is out of here".
4) Watch as outfielder catches it eight feet in front of the warning track. Whoops, silly us.
Even watching sports in 3D doesn't really enhance much; it only matters to the people who *actually have to interact with the ball*.
Actually it sounds facetious since it is already a thing but the "next big thing" is user generated content, and that is 2D.
Already we geeks and some definitively non geeks have hooked our TVs to the net but that's still not a reality for the vast majority of people. Most people still watch regular TV, either via cable or air waves. Even Netflix is in many ways "Old Media".
But as HTPC become the norm more and more people will start watching user generated content predominantly. It is already the case that I can be entertained for weeks just by watching and reading stuff that's not only completely free but desperate to get any attention at all. And as technology improves, the quality of content will only improve. And the content that doesn't improve in production quality will improve in other ways. As wifi access becomes more ubiquos and SSD become cheaper more people will start making recording on the spot, Meaning that there won't be a public event small enough to not be filmed.
And on top of that there is the rise of public domain content. Yes there is a market for old movies, and old movies are getting newer each year, and it's not only old movies, public domain content includes government funded productions too, including educational and artistic stuff that doesn't sell well but is popular enough when free.
Big Media will always exist but their market-share can only shrink. I see the insistence on 3D as an attempt at making themselves seem irreplaceable. If they convince people that content must be 3D, then they are the only ones making content. But I don't see that happening.
Bonus point: Last year scientist made a humble first step into reconstructing images from the visual cortex activity (link) , a previously though impossible feat. If that technology only doubles each year we might be watching dream movies in less than a decade.
But... the future refused to change.
Some tv manufacturer needs to get the porn industry behind them - it helped VHS win the format war with Betamax.
The day's not coming where film enthusiasts will find it acceptable to appreciate Hugo in 2D. This means that sooner or later, I'm going to have buy one of these TVs. Without Hugo, that day wouldn't have come. Yes, this means that Martin Scorsese has saved 3DTV. Film snobs will all have 3DTVs for Hugo, and imitator wannabe geeks who want to pretend to be as appreciative as film snobs will follow suit, keeping at least a small long term market alive for the technologies involved in 3DTV. To improve the casual viewing experience of 3DTV, try not looking at it. I've never understood casual TV viewing. If I'm not going to actively watch something or play a game, the TV stays off. No complaints here.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
I'll tell you what will end yet another foray into 3D...... 1. Price!! 2. Price!! 3. Price!! just before Christmas I was so excited to have got my new 3D TV, I rushed out to buy CAPTAIN AMERICA. After a few minutes of looking inwardly dejected at the shelf with people going about their shopping around me I had no other option but to do the 180 degree shuffle. I mean, come on, £23 for a film!! Is this some kind of joke that I'm not in on? More than twice the price of a DVD release!!! I didn't want it that badly. I almost heard the box cry out to me as I walked to the exit "But no wait theres a shiny DVD and a digital copy!!" The problem is I didn't want a DVD I wanted a 3D bluray. I didn't want a digital copy (which btw I could physically ingest the DVD and fart a better transcode than what you get on the disk) I wanted a 3D bluray. I don't know about you but I'm not fooled by the triple play scam. Extra disks does not mean extra value. If I want extra copies I'll make 'em myself. Its a shame really because I like 3D and I think it deserves to do well this time round but as usual some Grey haired Just for men using board room stiff in a suit is going to kill it off because what they lack in foresight they more than make up for in greed.
when it stops looking like parallax 2D
Let's say I throw a superbowl party. I know, this is slashdot, nobody here knows what the superbowl is...
It's a big TV event with food, beer, and an unknown number of people, since some might show up and others may bring a GF or a friend.
Now, I've got my 3-D TV and four sets of glasses. Oh, and did I mention that half of my friends already wear glasses, so wearing these 3-D glasses on top of their existing glasses is a PITA?
Now, for the final essay answer on this quiz: How many pairs of glasses do I need to purchase for a Superbowl party?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I'm curious what you (and others) think of the trend that's currently in its infancy; 4K. ( For those who have missed it - more cameras and displays supporting 4k have been announced in recent months than new 3D announcements at trade shows. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
A lot of people have suggested that HD was a very noticeable improvement over SD, while 3D is marginal (and gives headaches, needs glasses, etc. etc.). Somebody replying down below is already noting that 720p over 480p was a huge step, but 1080p over 720p just wasn't as interesting. So what about 2160p over 1080p? Will people find that more interesting, or would that pretty much hit a "isn't enough of an improvement" barrier?
4K? Yeah, I know about it. My opinion: Not just "no", but "hell no". As I've said in other articles, at some point, as the eyeball remains the same and display equipment improves, we hit the point of diminishing returns, and I think for video entertainment that's about 720P. 1080P is overdoing it. 4K is just an excuse to sell nerds a new TV and yet another copy of The Phantom Menace (no doubt with additional cute graphics and squeaky CGI creatures).
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Bump... I was going to post this if I couldn't find someone else saying it. Unfortunately it's an AC.
I have a studio apt and was using my 30" monitor as a TV. It's not g/f friendly though, and I've wanted a projector for a long time. When I broke down and got one, I went the 3d route. I paid less than I would for a big LCD, and got a 120" screen, 720p 3d projector, and it looks amazing. Accessories are a pain - had to get a 3d converter box cause the projector doesn't do native HDMI 1.4, so the box takes that and spits out the right signal for the projector, and had to buy glasses, but got really good ones that cost way less than the common bestbuy ones (ultra-clear brand for $55 a pop).
PS3 games in 3d looks amazing. 3d bluray and downloadable movies on PS3 look awesome. The problem is content - Avatar isn't even out on 3d bluray (unless you get it through special offer with the purchase of specific panasonic sets), and even PS3 3d game selection is very limited. On the 3d game front, I was VERY disappointed when got some for their 3d and co-op or head-to-head features, and found out you can't do both at the same time - split screen takes more PS3 cpu power, and so does 3d, so you get one or the other. Cars 2 PS3 game in 3d with 4 people split screen on a 120" screen is really really fun though :-)
In the end, I don't think it was worth it, but I personally love watching 3d movies as does the g/f (even if they're mostly kids movies). My home setup looks as good or better than the theater (cause your really immersed at the right distance from the screen, and it's big enough to do that), plus I can pause whenever I want and drink/eat what I like. The whole setup was still less than a grand, and that's in the ballpark for nice big tv's these days, and it takes up far less space when it's not being used, so it's a win for me.
Well, even with games it seems to depend on the engine/game. Most of valve games look absolutely amazing, especially l4d 1/2. TF2 looks great as well, portal, not so much.
But I imagine in a game that changes the focal point on the fly depending where I'm looking at with the mouse. Imagine looking at a enemy close to you and then shifting the mouse so your cross hair is on the enemy in the distance and the focal point changes (and add some blur to what you are not focusing on for good measure). I could picture that working fairly well. At least until they have some eye tracking hardware so they can 'see' what you are looking at.
Now since doom3 source has been released will someone please port it to d3d so I can play it in 3d. Never thought I'd want a d3d port of an id game but...
I have a Fuji W3 camera.
It produces still pictures in MPO format and video in interlaced AVI.
It works well. I had a couple of pics printered on lenticular film so others could see them.
I bought a Dell laptop with the nVidia 3d card and active glasses.
>With a little tinkering (required every time) it will play the stills in 3D and a few of the videos I shot.
I bought a Samsung 55" 7050 series tv.
It can browse my directories on my network.
>It will play the interlaced AVI files only in 2D. It requires Over/Under or Side-by-Sideformat for 3D video.
>It ignores the still MPO pictures, they won't even show up in the file list...
These are not new, unique, or complicated formats!
No brain, no pain.
Forgot to mention:
The Dell/nVidia and Samsung both us 'Active' glasses.
You guessed it, not compatable.
No brain, no pain.
Well, more to the point 720p non-interlaced vs. 480p interlaced was a substantial difference. Old 480p interlaced made it blurry and annoying (and effectively like have 240 vertical scan lines). So, yeah, 3x resolution and sharper images was huge. Added bonus: TV's become thinner and vastly lighter. A modern 55" LED flat screen weighs less than a 27" CRT box.
If 4K wasn't better, then they won't add new effects to take advantage of it because there would being advantage.
People - Ignore this guy he is suffering from classic old guy Syndrome.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Half the glass out there has strange effects through polarized lenses. Automotive glass (especially small car rear windows for some reason) looks like a dot-grid, the windows outside my workplace turn into rainbows, and even the sunlight reflecting off of the road gets brighter or dimmer depending on how I tilt my head with my sunglasses on.
The first week that I wore polarized sunglasses was very interesting.
If you don't care that you see your fridge in 3d, talk to someone who can't.
Personally, I love seeing in 3d.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I really like 3D photos, they allow me to see the separation of depth and this makes the photos more memorable. I use mirror stereoscopes which are crystal clear with no ghosting and 3D slide viewers which also have no ghosting and give an impressive field of view. We purchased a plasma 3D TV from Samsung, and the experience was not good. The TV suffers from very bad ghosting. After exploring this it would appear that the plasma just goes not decay fast enough to switch between the left and right images fast enough. We then looked at many other models in stores and even $5000 models had bad ghosting. They also had poor brightness and thus poor color - the loss of brightness due to the glasses switching from left to right and the filters they required. I don't think TV manufacturers should be selling such TVs as '3D' and feel cheated - the technical problems are just too great. Then there are the content issues. 3D content needs to have an appropriate separation for the field of view. With a mirror or slide viewer the field of view is known and the content can be produced to match and look realistic. For a TV the field of view changes with the viewing distance. Content made for iMax is not going to suit viewing on a home TV from a good distance where the field of view is much smaller. Perhaps 3D content needs to be produced with more than just two camera views to allow the viewer some selection. There are a lot of good reasons that 3D TVs are not going to be well received, but please don't let this put you off 3D content as it has been done much better in the past and is improving. I note that Sony are producing a 3D TV Helmet, and this could solve many of the issues, and I look forward to giving this a try.
Yeah, "better". At some point you're just playing with numbers.
But on reflection, I'm sorry to ruin your excitement about new consumer opportunities. Someone has to keep the economy going, I guess.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Customers don't want 3D because they don't want to spend the $$$ replacing their VHS libraries with DVDs then "directors cut" DVDs then "collectors edition" DVDs then Blurays then "3D".
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
> Well, more to the point 720p non-interlaced vs. 480p interlaced was a substantial difference.
You mean 480i. 480p is progressive scan, non-interlaced by definition. Owning a newer progressive scan DVD and an earlier (but still high quality) non-progressive scan DVD player, the difference is glaring. Merely going to non-interlaced bought us at least as much as the increased resolution.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Get off my lawn.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
See, this is the problem. Your all-in-one-paragraph comes across as a defensive, slightly hysterical rant attacking those on the perceived "other" side who you think are attacking your beloved 3D. Towards the end, your tone is that of a religious zealot whose persecution simply makes him stronger in his own beliefs and the fantasy of his eventual victory over the ignorant oppressive masses all the sweeter.
Well, sorry to disappoint you, but most of us- or indeed, most 3D owners- don't see it that way. Good or bad, it's just a f****** TV system. Get a grip!
Simple fact is that 3D is something the industry is trying to push at the minute, and this is a tech site. The article didn't strike me as being particularly biased, and the comments simply reflect the fact that the Slashdot readership in general aren't as enamoured of the technology as the industry would like people to be.
If the tech improves to the point that it's good enough for casual viewing, and it becomes cheap enough, and there's enough worthwhile content out there, I suspect that a lot more people *might* go for it. But as things stand, people are indifferent.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
You get two individual half resolution images, after reconstruction in your brain, it looks better than the same source in 2D at half resolution.
I really must say I'm impressed with the LG passive 3D, if the movie is available in 3D, I usually get it.
What the fuck? What the GP was saying (and is entirely correct in doing so) is that the Mark I Human Eyeball has not meaningfully changed between Philo Farnsworth's first televisions and today's 1080p monstrosities. Besides human physiology our houses haven't gotten a whole lot bigger either.
Going to 4K resolution isn't going to do much for anyone because we're not going to get any additional visual information from the increased resolution. On a 55" 1080p TV every pixel is about half a millimeter. At any reasonable viewing distance you can't distinguish that the screen is even composed of pixels. At 4K a pixel would be roughly half that size. If you can't distinguish pixels today increasing the screen resolution isn't going to give the human eye any more visual information.
Before you mention computer monitors, consider the use case for them. You're almost always within three feet of a computer monitor when using it, often much closer. The difference between 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 is noticeable. Even on something like a cell phone the higher DPI screen is worthwhile because it's held so close that the increased pixel density is viewable by the human eye. A television which is viewed at much longer distances doesn't need the same sort of pixel density until it gets bigger than will fit in most homes.
4K cinema projectors make sense because the screen you're viewing is far larger than that of a TV even accounting for viewing distance. 4K in the home is a pointless endeavor that would only exist to get people to throw away perfectly good 1080p televisions because a stupid marketing campaign told them that they weren't good enough.
The move from tiny highly curved CRTs to larger flatter ones was a visual improvement. Moving from those to the totally flat Trinitron style CRTs was an improvement. 480i to HD was an improvement. Now we're really at the limit of what the human eye in the average person's house can actually use effectively. There's no magic special effects tricks that would make 4K displays in the home all that better to use.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I'd rather see HDR and framerates of over 50 FPS. Personally, I think that would make for better viewing than 3d. d no special glasses required.
"In the theater" makes no difference. Some people just dislike 3D, include me in that group. I really wish they'd stop trying to shove it down everyone's throats.
I would, but I'm too cheap with my mod points. ;)
[UID-HeinzIntel]
they are stereoscopic. People are not sold on them because they are not really 3D and everyone knows it, it just an enhanced view, still taken from a single point. Your can't see around an object by changing you position, it's simply not a great leap forward.
There was an unknown error in the submission.
3D TV already flopped in Japan the PREVIOUS Christmas, but producers are still trying to dump the remaining stock in the West.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
People who have 46" or larger screens with a playstation 3 to play video games on tend to enjoy it. The thing is, if the content is generated, designed and rendered in 3D it's not too awful. Of course, those same games look pretty damn good without it.
What bothers me most about 3D is that it's a gimmick.
When people upgraded from CRT to LCD, it often was because they could now have a larger screen size and not use up their entire house to get it. Rear projection screens were popular for a while because they used less floor space than the equally large CRT screen. Sometimes they were popular because you couldn't even buy such a large CRT. But these days, you can purchase from 4" to 110" LCD or Plasma screens so you can get one that fits the space.
I personally justified the switch from our 28" CRT to a 46" LCD because it used 1/6th the power. So throwing away the CRT to cut down on my power consumption was justified. I also threw away all my halogen and incandescent bulbs in favor of LED lighting years ago. I rebuilt all the servers and desktop machines in my house to use 25 watts or less when idle. etc... The switch for me was to pretend I'm green (though I'm a hypocrite)
3D doesn't satisfy any practical need. All it does is add a feature which requires replacing your LCD, BluRay (sometimes) and buy additional accessories to gain a feature. What's worse is that the screens today are utterly shitty quality. The best of the ones using the glasses are still pretty crappy for seeing 3D and the ones which are auto-stereoscopic are just "Look what I can do" type items. They will need to be replaced as time progresses and new technologies that look less shitty comes out. (We have a few of those screens here in the office... top of the line ones... they suck).
So... if people buy a screen for 3D, they're almost certainly replacing an otherwise perfectly good screen for no reason... well other than to get a IR transmitter which is synchronized to the vertical sync of the screen. Most screens could be upgraded to the needed frame rate with a firmware patch. All screens can do 48 FPS anyway, and since the source materials IS 48 FPS, there's no need for 120 or 240Hz unless you want to flip the same frame back and forth more often... which accomplishes... well nothing.
Now, what's really quite surprising is that over HDMI when displaying in native resolution (so 1080p), the vertical sync is known... or at least predictable. So, if an enterprising person wanted to, they could make a device which places itself between the HDMI source (like set-top box, bluray player, game console or pc) and the TV, then by running a simple calibration using a color detection element, it could find the retrace delay and then broadcast the shutter flip just as well as the TV would have otherwise. Maybe using a remote control, it can be fine tuned a little.
So... they want us to buy new TVs... but in reality, all we need is another set-top box... and that can easily be done (plus a lot more) using a $25 PC, a LED and a photo transistor.
Doesn't the cinema version use polarisers on the projectors? Not easy to do with a TV.
It can be done on an LCD TV, as there are commercially available pattern retarders that can be bonded on to an LCD that will alternatively circularly polarize each row of pixels. However, the process is expensive and it cuts the 3D vertical resolution in half. Nevertheless, the result is passive 3D with an OK viewing envelop.
Google xpol for more information
> tell the difference between an upscaled
> DVD and a Blu-ray disc
Really? I'm not knocking you, I'm asking seriously? Can you do the following? I like to travel, and when I can I love movies that are in places not in bailiwick, i.e., NYC, east coast, or the USA. So I will check out the _on-location_ scenery in Sweden's GirlWDT/Stig Larson's trilogy---CLOSELY. I'll zoom in 4X, try to read street signs, store names, and Google Maps my ass off!!! I'll check out sat views, Street View images, photos, their plain street maps, their topographical maps, overlaid Wikipedia entries---and prior to Google Maps discontinuing real estate sell/rental ad overlays several years ago, I'd check out how affordable living there was, more atomically, you know---etc. All on my TV and plain non-upscale DVD player. But you know what? 75%+ of those DVDs did not allow me to, were not highly defining the background enough in their scenes that I could not determine street sign names! It typically was/is a blur at best. Oh and God Save the Queen on BBC, Dr Who, Torchwood, etc. productions. Their resolution, frame rate is gad awful that a simple disc pause will readily show smeared scenes.
How can an upscaled DVD improve/greater define data that is not there? Seriously, I am asking, can it?
I would expect Blueray discs to 100% of the time show legibly background street signs, am I wrong? Seriously, I am asking, can it?
I find this post WAY off base. I will just address his points in order. A 3D setup is no more expensive than a 2D setup. Sometime around 2005 I bought my first HDTV (a 42 inch 720p LG) for $2k. It was just below top of the line. In January of 2011 I bought a 55 inch Panasonic 3D TV, 3D blu-ray player, 2 3D glasses, and a new audio receiver to handle all the new HDMI connections. ALL FOR UNDER THE SAME PRICE OF MY FIRST TV!! The content is in no way paltry, at least in my experience. Watching Tron and Avatar in 3D with my setup just blows away anyone that I have shown it to. I have found that the best 3D movies are usually entirely made with CGI because any object on the screen can be looked at and be in focus, which is not currently possible 2D or 3D live action. My experience with watching 3D at home is at least equal to, if not better than watching it in the theater. The depth and clarity at home is virtually identical. Just a side note, but a lot of people skip out on setting up a good audio system. To me, this is what gives my setup the theater experience. I think people have this expectation that if they get a 3D TV that they will be watching everything in 3D. That will most certainly give you a head-ache and that would get annoying pretty quick. This won't happen until glasses free sets are available. In it's current state, with having to use glasses, 3D is best with movies that you are going to focus your entire attention to. And not every movie is appropriate in the 3D format. The 3D has to add to the experience. I watch a 3D movie maybe once a month if that, and maybe a 3D special on satellite on occasion. That's enough for me and it is still totally worth it. Also, you will get the most out of a 3D movie if you aren't tired. I find if I am tired, my eyes get strained and I just don't get the same experience. Yes 3D has been tried in the past and failed. It was very much a novelty in the past because you had to wear colored glasses that sacrificed the color quality of the movie. No one making a serious film would use 3D, and no one would watch it. Today, 3D does not do this. This is why big blockbuster films are coming out in 3D. It's here to stay! In fact today's 3D DOUBLES (except for passive 3D TVs, the TVs that use glasses with out batteries) the amount of visual information you get. Each eye gets a different perspective at the same frame rate.
3D for CAD/CAM would be nice. No one that I know of regularly broadcasts 3D so whats the point? Even if a sports event is 3d like last year US Open if you get it over cable tv you are SOL. I bought a 42' 3D 1080p Panasonic Viera Plasma because the price was just too good; cheaper than the 2D at the time (about 6 months ago).
I love the concept of 3D TV but the glasses they make you wear interfere with my actual glasses and the headaches, ugh. It makes a spot between my eyes ache terribly. And the cost! Why bother paying that much extra for it? I'm perfectly happy with my old monster of a TV and it's not even HD. Where I think it might really take off is with gaming. There's a huge wealth of potential there, especially if they can make it more cost effective and remove the painful aspect of the headaches.
First we had the CRT rear projections, which had limited penetration due to cost and size.
When rear projection (LCD and DLP) and plasma came out and the sets became almost flat panel and more flexible, people upgraded from tubes and CRT rear projection. They gained better pictures, bigger size, wide screen and high def capabilities.
When LCD panels came out they quickly dropped in price, allowing pretty much everyone to justify an upgrade -- CRT-RP, glass tube owners and people wanting an upgrade from their older/smaller LCD/DLP RP sets. Similar quality gains for most people -- better picture, widescreen (for some), bigger picture, no burn in (for people dropping cheap plasmas), etc.
Not long after that came 3D. Content was slim and most people had already upgraded and had a 1-3 year old set that did everything they wanted and the new set offered 3D with glasses, little content and not much else, maybe Netflix or something integrated.
IMHO, it will take no-glasses 3D with amazing quality to get people to upgrade to 3D but even then only if the content is there (like major name TV shows).
I'm sorry but you are wrong in some details about NTSC. Also there is the problem of trying to reproduce the analog way of video "resolution", its currently pointless to use the ancient method despite the marketing. "HD" Video is just 1920x1080p, 1440x1080p or 1280x720p, omitting the horizontal resolution is silly. (Or you could use the now entrenched "megapixel" standard just to embarrass the industry and awake others... 1920x1080 is 2MP, 1440x1080 just 1.5MP, 1280x720 a mere 0.9MP). Want to spend a fortune for a 2MP monitor with tuner?
NTSC and all analog variants have a variable horizontal resolution, but fixed vertical resolution. The number of dots each line in the screen has depends on the bandwidth used but will get stretched regardless. NTSC has 525 lines BUT only 486 are viewable, or about 480 lines, (480i). But thats for luminance, we know they use half resolution for chroma (color), and a quarter in some media, so the color "bleeds", etc (this practice continues with compressed video).
If we try to approximate the resolution of NTSC to modern usage, lets say under optimal (broadcast over the air) conditions it would be something like 360x480 (luminance), and something like 180x240 (color) chroma.
Why is NTSC 4:3? Movies used an aspect ratio very close to that when it was defined; later, computer displays simply borrowed the TV screens, so it remained for a good while, UIs were designed around it, etc.
Size is proportional to distance. More resolution allows you to get closer but there is still a limit where you start noticing each pixel apart and becomes annoying. At some point you CAN remain close to a big screen, but then you are going to lose content due to escaping your field of vision, even if what you can see is crystal clear. That might be desirable in a computer screen with smaller windows, but not for full screen watching. A big screen doesn't need much resolution if you cannot stay close enough to it anyway, as is the case in public displays, etc. Similarly you will want HD content in your small screen if you are very close to it (eg computer display or portables).
For that reason you just can't say "x is good, y is bad", it depends. a 19" NTSC TV was probably good in a living room during the 70ies. Laserdisc had good performance, but you could do even better with betacam tapes or c band satellite, which wasn't considered "consumer" market, but studio/distribution use.
1080i is an issue of the digital formats the way they originally defined them, But, it is hard to tell an mpeg decoder to reject a 1080p stream, especially considering it can use less bitrate so quite pointless and stupid in practice. 1080p quickly became defacto and then sanctioned.
My personal opinion about optical spinning media is that its obsolete, even if the industry doesn't notice. it is simply too much a hassle to get a slow, scratch-able optical disc spinning when you could simply use a flash card/stick or net-stream the content. I wouldn't buy a blueray, instead opting for a very small computer (like those with atom cpu you can attach in the back of your screen). And some TVs are already bundling the machine inside anyway. If the industry had any clue, they would be already using SD cards. But perhaps this way is better, because people won't DRM the content.
Also digital vs analog, digital is simpler to setup and much more resilient than an equivalent analog counterpart. Also in HD broadcasting it needed an insane amount of bandwidth (yes, the Japanese did it in the 90ies). To have good analog you need very expensive equipment, digital will allow you a "close enough" experience with a much cheaper setup. Unfortunately Americans designed a dttv format which is not very friendly indoors or while moving, so this might sound the opposite to their experience. BUT, watch in youtube the tests done in japan and south america of what a decent dttv format can do and you won't miss anything from analog (do remember Japan also used NTSC before).
PS: "3D" is a gimmick, junk not wor
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
Doesn't the cinema version use polarisers on the projectors? Not easy to do with a TV.
Most new TVs are LCD. Polarizers is how they show every pixel in the frame. I tested this with my sunglasses and regular screen, and it looked pretty uniformly linearly polarized. As in, there was an angle I could rotate my sunglasses where I could not tell the difference between "lots of attenuation" and 100% attenuation across the whole screen.
I see no reason why they couldn't put a third layer and polarize in two directions. It might not be quite as forgiving of eye pitch as circular, though.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!