3D Consumer Blu-ray 3D will be 3 years old this March!

Discussion in 'Blu-ray and UHD' started by Paul Hillenbrand, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,396
    Likes Received:
    790
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    I admit that some can't watch 3D due to physical limitations. I'll wager that many who can't watch, wish they could. It's just that the crowd that says "OMG, wear glasses, no way!" Then they go out on a sunny day and put on sunglasses. The internet has greatly expanded our ability to nitpick.
     
  2. Frankie_A

    Frankie_A Extra

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1
    Carlo, that is the most level-headed explanation I have heard in a long time. You are right -- there is a portion of the population who have a hard time viewing 3D as it does cause eyestrain for them -- one figure I heard from an eye doctor no less is some 5 to 10% of the population have some degree of eye stress when their eyes are asked to converge 3D images. That's a good chunk of the populous. Of that percentage, the range is from some who have a very hard time converging artificial 3D (movies, 3DTV), maybe not at all, to varying degrees of how much strain watching will cause some adverse eye problems, like yourself, who experience mild strain but not all the time. I love 3D so much and never experience strain, even as a kid watching dual 35mm projection 3D (those systems were plagued with misalignment and could easily force the eyes to do very unnatural things). You heard LOTS of complaints back then, yet I sailed along never understanding why my parents were concerned about me watching those movies, many times my insisting on sitting thru multiple shows back-to-back of the same movie. I guess I do need to remember that others do feel real eye-strain even though don't. I can honestly say I haven't every experienced any eye-strain from any 3D film, even the time watching DIAL M at Symphony Space in NYC years ago when for the first half hour the polaroid filters were incorrectly oriented Left for Right....which made things that were supposed to be closest to the screen "feel" to be the farthest from the screen. For me it just felt wrong, while others were holding their heads in pain. So to the 10% who have trouble with 3D, I apologize if I sounded unsympathetic -- truly I wish you could get the same magnificent experience from 3D that I do and am very sorry you don't. Just as I would feel equally sad if someone could not enjoy binaural sound because of some techical thing with the way dual speakers created stereo sound for some listeners. On the other hand, I would humbly ask those who do have trouble with 3D, not to malign the process as if it were inherently evil and arising from the bowels of hell and telling the rest of us who have no trouble at all enjoying it that it's a fad, that the glass are uncomfortable, that it's over-rated and that it should be done away with because a small minority have some level of discomfort viewing it. Please don't turn into the jealous boyfriend who says, "If I can't have her no one will."
     
  3. Persianimmortal

    Persianimmortal Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    Real Name:
    Koroush Ghazi
    I just watched Titanic 3D last night, with over three straight hours and no signs of fatigue or headaches. The added depth that 3D brings to the movie is superb, and well worth the insignificant "discomfort" of wearing a 26 gram pair of active Panasonic glasses. However I can definitely understand that for some people, the 3D processing can cause visual problems. I have good vision, but there are a couple of 3D demos that I've watched, including a 720p clip of a basketball match, that did cause me to blink several times to adjust my vision. So I have some sense of what it must be like if viewing all 3D material were like that; it would definitely be a chore to sit through a 3D film that way. Still, I really don't think it's the approximately 10% of people who have genuine problems with 3D as being the culprits behind the hate campaign. This is only a suspicion, but one borne of reading a lot of forum posts and comments on home 3D over the past couple of years: I strongly suspect that the majority of complainers haven't spent any time at all watching 3D at home. Nor do most of them actually say anything about having issues with their eyes. The complaints inevitably focus around nebulous statements that home 3D is a "useless gimmick" or fad, and so forth. I've thought about this repeatedly, especially as prior to getting into home 3D, I too had dubious feelings about it, almost to the point of ignoring it as a fad. The reality is that there is a strong likelihood that the general feeling of resentment towards 3D doesn't come from having to wear the glasses, or eye strain, or any legitimate reason. It just seems like the simple human tendency to disparage something which can't be readily afforded or obtained. I guarantee that if some magic "hack" came out to convert ordinary 2D TVs into 3D capable ones at no cost, overnight you'd have a outpouring of how cool 3D is. Basically, if the choice is between having to buy a new 3D TV, 3D Blu-ray player and glasses to enjoy 3D, or just dismissing the whole thing as a fad, I'd wager nine times out of ten most people will opt for the latter, because it's the simpler, cheaper and more comfortable solution. Much the same reason as most ordinary people often dismiss Blu-ray and stick to buying DVDs (something like 25% BD vs. 75% DVD sales).
     
  4. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,387
    Likes Received:
    609
    "Difficulty converging 3D" Yes, that's it exactly! Never thought to describe it that way, but yes, when the phenomenon hits me, the 3D image doesn't seem in sync. Sometimes blinking fixes it, sometimes it doesn't. Actually now that I'm thinking about it, it's reminiscent of those darned squiggly lines/dots that if you look hard enough a sailboat comes out? ("A schooner is a sailboat!") I have problems with that sometimes too, at least I did when they were a fad and in every mall, now I don't even know where to go to find those stupid things anymore. Thank god the novelty wore off! :D Yeah I'm superbummed that I have this issue sometimes. I am not color blind, and like I said, I have 20/20 with corrective lenses/glasses. I don't generally have eye strain/fatigue problems. Just when trying to converge 3D images. Maybe it will get better with practice. I just bought my active 3D glasses for home a few months ago and have only watched maybe a half-dozen movies with them over that time.
     
  5. Persianimmortal

    Persianimmortal Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    Real Name:
    Koroush Ghazi
    Have you tried altering the 3D convergence on your TV or Blu-ray player? Most 3D TVs have a setting which allows you to adjust the 3D strength, so perhaps reducing that will ease the uncomfortable sensation on your eyes.
     
  6. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,387
    Likes Received:
    609
    Yes I've tried that. Changing it doesn't help in most cases, because 90% of the time it's fine and then my eyes/brain will lose lock on it, and then I have to blink and concentrate to bring it back into convergence. It also happens in the theater (where there is no setting for me to adjust) so I'm pretty sure it's not the TV. The only exception I've found is the Dial M blu ray. It was off so bad to me, for the entirety of the movie, that I actually fiddled with the setting and changing the value by 1 actually helped tremendously.
     
  7. Frankie_A

    Frankie_A Extra

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1
    Also, there is the half-assed way 3D has been marketed theatrically -- that surcharge. People instinctively resent that. Other than IMAX, theatres traditionally have not applied a surcharge for other visual and aural improvements. Stereo sound, Dolby Digital sound, CinemaScope, even the very VERY costly conversion to digital projection,etc., all were introduced without charging extra for those enhanced technologies. Along comes 3D and although they do give you a pair of glasses, the glasses are useless for anything other than seeing the movie....and not only have your paid for them, but then you are told you to give them back. I talk to patrons routinely as I am in the theatre business and I find the majority feel the movie ticket price is high enough -- many think too high -- so this added surcharge really has turned out to be an unwelcomed thorn in the side, which is then it is psychologically linked to 3D; if there was any way to give 3D a negative punch from the start, they did it with the surcharge. Then there is the worst way it has been marketed for home theatre. I don't think there is a box store that I have ever gone into there the display of the 3D televisions was ideal. Even in a Best Buy that I went to with friends where there was a nice, softely lit video room, they didn't know where the glasses were, the kid couldn't answer any questions about 3D. That seems to be the case in most places I've gone. Plus, there doesn't even seem to be any direct marketing that pushes the 3DTV experience at all. Next there is the proverbial cart-before-the-horse syndrome -- do they push out the hardware first, or the software? Will people buy a 3DTV set if all they see is a few of the animated Pixar movies -- and a very small percentage of them at that -- or a handful of B pictures like CLASH OF THE TITANS and PIRANHA (that you wouldn't want to own even if they gave it to you free) on the shelves? Seems to me with all the available 3D titles that have been released theatrically, MANY more of them should be available once the title has finished its theatrical run. But where are they? Why are they released in 2D but not 3D? It's absured. And the idea of holding AVATAR 3D at bay for two years while releaseing it only in 2D was a huge blunder in my opinion. If anything could have gotten 3D kick-started, it was AVATAR. That whole deal with Panasonic was just stupid. I paid a premium price just to get AVATAR 3D on eBay before the Panasonic lockout ended, and being forced to do that REALLY pissed me off. Plus, there is a whole library of 50s 3D titles that could cost the studios very little to master in BD 3D, but here we are, three years in, and still no HOUSE OF WAX. What are they WAITING for?.
     
  8. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,387
    Likes Received:
    609
    I will tell you one major obstacle to 3D adoption at home: Consumers have to buy the glasses separately If companies bundled them in with TVs, I have no doubt that adoption rate would be higher. So many people I know have 3D capable TVs but no glasses. They didn't necessarily buy the TV for 3D capability (it was just a good looking TV set at the right price) but because they didn't come with glasses, and glasses cost between $40-$100 (for active) they have zero interest in buying them. My buddy has a great Sony set but to buy active glasses for his family of 4 is an extra $200 for the cheapie ones, and $400 for the nice new stylish glasses. He paid $1000 for the set, so that's asking him to pay 20%-40% of his purchase price for 3D. I owned my Sony set for a year before getting the glasses, and I only did that because my friend who works for Sony got me into her friends and family Black Friday sale and I got the $100 new glasses for $50. They had the cheaper $50 glasses for $25. Even then, they weren't flying off of the shelf in their studio store. My recommendation: for passive 3D the glasses should be included free of charge with the TV. For active 3D, since I understand they cost more to produce, they should be charging $25 per pair. Anything more is a deterrent to 3D adoption.
     
  9. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,396
    Likes Received:
    790
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    Carlo, glasses are being bundled with the TV now. My Samsung ES7100 came with 4. If I want more the cost less than $20 on Amazon.
     
  10. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,387
    Likes Received:
    609
    Good to hear Johnny - I assume at that cost it's a passive set you own? I bought my active TV not more than a year ago and not only did it come with none, but the prices were (and continue to be) outrageous. As I wrote before, passives are so inexpensive to make they should be included. Actives should be no more than whatever the cost of manufacture and distribution is, my guess is around $20-$30.
     
  11. RolandL

    RolandL Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,384
    Likes Received:
    762
    Location:
    Cromwell, CT
    Real Name:
    Roland Lataille
    Best Buy is the one of the worst stores you can go to to ask questions about anything. Their workers are paid a flat low rate like $10 a hour. They get that pay no mater what they sell. You need to find a store that has commissioned salesman that care about their job.
     
  12. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,396
    Likes Received:
    790
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    No, those are active shutter glasses. They are light weight and comfortable and provide a great 3D picture.
     
  13. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,396
    Likes Received:
    790
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    When I went into BB they had a 3D demo display setup. I had to get a rep to find glasses with batteries to try it out. It was one screen with a canned demo. I asked if I could see a specific blu-ray and no can do. They could of cared less in helping me. My 3D demoing was done here and another forum. I bought my Samsung ES7100 without seeing its picture.
     
  14. Carlo Medina

    Carlo Medina Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 1997
    Messages:
    10,387
    Likes Received:
    609
    Wow well if Samsung can bundle active glasses for free, then all manufacturers should be doing so! TV makers need to follow the "blade and razor" sales model, where manufacturers sell you the razors for cheap knowing that you'll have to constantly be buying new blades. The TV and glasses is the razor. 3D Blu-rays are the blades. With that concept, it's even more shameful that Samsung can provide them free with the set and Sony doesn't, since between the two companies, Sony is the one that has studio ownership and a higher software stake to sell you a 3D BD.
     
  15. Persianimmortal

    Persianimmortal Screenwriter

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    Real Name:
    Koroush Ghazi
    But the TV manufacturers are not the ones selling you 3D Blu-rays.
     
  16. Johnny Angell

    Johnny Angell Played With Dinosaurs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1998
    Messages:
    6,396
    Likes Received:
    790
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Real Name:
    Johnny Angell
    With Sony, I've always figured in 10-20% markup for the Sony name over other manufacturers.
     
  17. Steve Schaffer

    Steve Schaffer Producer

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 1999
    Messages:
    3,756
    Likes Received:
    1
    ^^^Johnny's Samsung is active. Samsung's non-rechargeable battery powered glasses sell for $20 a pair just about everywhere. Passive glasses can be had 4 pair for $20 on Amazon. For 2012 model year sets the $20 Samsung glasses will also work with Panasonic active sets, but not Sony or Sharp.
     
  18. Stephen_J_H

    Stephen_J_H All Things Film Junkie
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    5,243
    Likes Received:
    673
    Location:
    North of the 49th
    Real Name:
    Stephen J. Hill
    This is a poor analogy. If the analogy were applied correctly, the glasses would be the blades and the TV would be the razor. The discs exist independently, and many can be played in a 2D Blu-ray player, generating a 2D image. The glasses are the blades because without them, you have no 3D. A 3D TV can be watched either 3D or 2D, much like the discs, but provides an output device. By this logic, the TVs would be loss leaders at ~$500 and we'd be paying $500/pr for 3D glasses. No thank you!
    I'm still waiting for a viable passive projection system.
     

Share This Page