3D Poll: Would You Buy A Glasses-Free 3D Display? (1 Viewer)

[Paul Hillenbrand]

It is my hope that both these technologies can co-exist together



Now in answering this poll, please imagine these circumstances....


You are in the market for a new 3D display.

You go to the store and there are two types of displays you can buy, both
being sold for the same price, and same screen configuration you are interested in.

You can afford to buy either, but only one.

The first display is either the active shutter or passive technology......

* The second display, is the glasses-free display. It offers 3D without the need for
eyewear. However, the level of 3D intensity is less than what you would get with the
current/older technology, and there is no pop-out.

* This is solely based on what I perceive the quality of glasses-free to be at the moment --
not what could be improved when this scenario may actually exist.

* And if you already own the current 3D display technology, imagine that you could only
own ONE of the two formats being offered.

Don't want to choose a technology in a survey when significant unknown variables may remain when offering only the Dolby/Philips technology as the verified glasses-free display scenerio choice.

 

[SFMike]

I would go with the glasses, even though I have to put them on over my own RX, because I want the full 3D effects. From my experience the real negative to glasses free displays is finding the sweet spot and holding your head in that position to get the 3D effect. Just like viewing a lenticular postcard or poster, move you head a little and the image becoms unviewable. Very annoying.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

I'm in the minority and went for glasses free. I love 3D and gotcha moments and I have two active sets and would love to add an active PJ in the next year or two, but I don't often have the time to devote to exclusively watching a move. Currently watching a 3D movie has to be an "event" at our house where time is carved out just for that, so I find myself watching a high percentage of movies that I have on 3D in 2D. A glasses free set would let me multitask while still enjoying a large portion of the movie in 3D. Echoing the comments of several others here, while not perfect, I was impressed back when we saw the demo in late 2012 how far along glasses free 3D was. It wasn't up to the level of active, but it was better than I thought it would be.

I know its not a choice, but I draw the line at consumer passive. Interlaced video just doesn't do it for me anymore In theory 4K could make that workable since you could get 2K in each eye.

 

[Ejanss]

Glasses-free 3D was envisioned back when we thought there'd be lots of living-room broadcast 3DTV on a regular basis--
The whole ESPN 3D problem proved that there's still a lot of technical problems to overcome before we have that (can't do much "on-the-go" 3D camerawork), so for now, it IS just for Blu-ray and special events.
And for those, I can afford to use glasses, like bringing out the good dishes (and I don't even have the lite Panasonic 3rd-Generation yet). I don't wear full-time spectacles, and I'm not a whiner.

 

[Ned Vogler]

Great conversation!

I, too, viewed the Dolby glasses-free demo back in 2012. While I agree with most of you that it didn't really have a "wow" factor, I definitely did appreciate the added depth of the image. I have certainly enjoyed 3D presentations of movies with glasses both in the theater and at home, but I have never really considered it a "must-have" option. With all that said, I think I would go with the glasses-free 3D display.

PS - I don't wear glasses normally, but I do wear them frequently to watch both TV and movies.

 

[Todd Erwin]

I have viewed passive 3D on a Sony UHD set, and was very impressed. The image was just as clear as viewing active 3D on a 1080p 3D display. I've demoed passive 3D on LG's 2013 line of 1080p LED TVs, and, unfortunately, can see not only the degradation in picture quality (540p/eye), but also the horizontal lines of resolution.

I know its not a choice, but I draw the line at consumer passive. Interlaced video just doesn't do it for me anymore In theory 4K could make that workable since you could get 2K in each eye.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

The only glasses-free display that actually "works" for me would be Nintendo's 3DS XL, but that's because it's aware of its limitations: it's a parallax barrier display with a narrow sweet spot. Once you're in that sweet spot though, what a 3D image! Items float off the screen and there is some forward projection, though nowhere near what's possible with either passive or active, simply because of the size of the display. I'm giving serious thought to setting up my next home theatre with dual projectors and interference filter 3D, because the cost of two solid projectors, filters and glasses is not too far from the cost of an active projector and glasses.

 

[DaveF]

I didn't vote, since I just don't know.For the bedroom TV, it's neither: don't want or need 3D there.For the living room TV, probably glasses free. It's almost all TV, and lots of general viewing. Glasses would only add to the clutter of the living room, for the once-a-month viewing they'd get. And for casual watching, if there was 3D on TV, I'd want glasses free for more comfortable watching.For my hopeful, near-future basement projection system, I'll go with glasses (hopefully RF) for the best quality 3D for movies and maybe even videogames(?). Perhaps there's even some 3D TV series to enjoy on a big screen?But after my initial tremendous enthusiasm for 3D movies, with the spectacular Avatar, I've lost most interest. Coraline was brilliant. Toy Story 3D, solid. Gravity, best movie of the past year. But mostly, 3D movies worth the premium have been infrequent. And unless it's done really well, action movies can be easier to watch in 2D because of the shearing that happens in fast motion and with rapid cuts. I have no regrets over seeing The Lego Movie in 2D.I want to love 3D. But while great 3D is far beyond conventional 2D, I'd rather watch mediocre 2D (at less cost and greater comfort) than mediocre 3D.

 

[DavidJ]

I'm in the minority and went for glasses free. I love 3D and gotcha moments and I have two active sets and would love to add an active PJ in the next year or two, but I don't often have the time to devote to exclusively watching a move. Currently watching a 3D movie has to be an "event" at our house where time is carved out just for that, so I find myself watching a high percentage of movies that I have on 3D in 2D. A glasses free set would let me multitask while still enjoying a large portion of the movie in 3D. Echoing the comments of several others here, while not perfect, I was impressed back when we saw the demo in late 2012 how far along glasses free 3D was. It wasn't up to the level of active, but it was better than I thought it would be.

I know its not a choice, but I draw the line at consumer passive. Interlaced video just doesn't do it for me anymore In theory 4K could make that workable since you could get 2K in each eye.

I voted active, but I can relate to this point of view and as a result, we don't watch many 3D movies. If glasses free advances enough, I'd consider it.

 

[Persianimmortal]

Currently watching a 3D movie has to be an "event" at our house where time is carved out just for that, so I find myself watching a high percentage of movies that I have on 3D in 2D. A glasses free set would let me multitask while still enjoying a large portion of the movie in 3D.

Call me crazy, but I actually like the fact that watching a 3D movie is sort of an "event" that requires a bit of forethought and no multitasking. Also, I don't normally turn all the lights off to watch a movie on my TV (I leave a side lamp on), but I do switch off all lights for 3D movies (to prevent any flicker on active glasses), and this just adds to the cinematic experience. Basically, what I'm saying is that I find the whole routine of lining up a "special night", donning a pair of 3D glasses, and settling in to focus entirely on the movie to be a rare treat. I average only a couple of 3D movies a month, but I really savor them. Like I said, maybe I'm just crazy

 

[Matt Hough]

Great point! I really wouldn't want a steady diet of 3D movies every night, but for an occasional change of pace, there is really nothing like watching good ones. I like the mix of live action (Life of Pi and Hugo) and animation (Megamind and Wreck-It Ralph). I rewatched Dredd over the weekend and really couldn't imagine wanting to watch this in 2D. 3D gives it a much more visceral charge.

 

[Dougofthenorth]

I have tried several times, several types of 3D glasses with different TVs
As I wear eyeglasses, it is not a comfortable experience at all.

I also always get what others have described as a tightness in the forehead - not the headache.
I also got a very slight bit of vertigo.
I also find the screen to be dark.

As I wear eyeglasses all the time, and they are Photogray (light reactive dimming) - the lenses have a very slight yellowish tinge to them. They don't affect any normal TV viewing.
In any scenario, I would be best served to get a clear lenses for any 3D viewing.

So I might at some distant point, buy a glasses-free 3D set.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I have tried several times, several types of 3D glasses with different TVs
As I wear eyeglasses, it is not a comfortable experience at all.

I also always get what others have described as a tightness in the forehead - not the headache.
I also got a very slight bit of vertigo.
I also find the screen to be dark.

As I wear eyeglasses all the time, and they are Photogray (light reactive dimming) - the lenses have a very slight yellowish tinge to them. They don't affect any normal TV viewing.
In any scenario, I would be best served to get a clear lenses for any 3D viewing.

So I might at some distant point, buy a glasses-free 3D set.

This is where buying a meter and calibrating your set via software would pay dividends as you can calibrate the tint out, of course you can also pay for an ISF calibration and they will do the same job for you, point is you don't have to put up with the tint.

I also have photo reactive glasses as i am short sighted and want to block the sun out in the summer, also good for snow.

 

[Carl Johnson]

3D is great for IMAX, and it's ok for standard theatrical projection. I neither own nor anticipate getting a glasses based home 3D viewing system. My display isn't big enough where it would be worth the effort, and has been mentioned before I typically multitask when viewing and 3D glasses would get in the way.I would consider a glasses free 3D display if the quality was good enough to consider paying a premium over a non 3D display. As with video game consoles it's hard to predict if or when the format would reach the point of being a worthwhile investment.

 

[Dougofthenorth]

This is where buying a meter and calibrating your set via software would pay dividends as you can calibrate the tint out, of course you can also pay for an ISF calibration and they will do the same job for you, point is you don't have to put up with the tint.

I also have photo reactive glasses as i am short sighted and want to block the sun out in the summer, also good for snow.




Agree - BUT wife doesn't wear glasses nor do any of my friends

"also good for snow." - had to rub that in eh! - you tam wearing haggis eater you!
- worst Canadian winter in about 20 years!


 

[FoxyMulder]

This is where buying a meter and calibrating your set via software would pay dividends as you can calibrate the tint out, of course you can also pay for an ISF calibration and they will do the same job for you, point is you don't have to put up with the tint.

I also have photo reactive glasses as i am short sighted and want to block the sun out in the summer, also good for snow.




Agree - BUT wife doesn't wear glasses nor do any of my friends

"also good for snow." - had to rub that in eh! - you tam wearing haggis eater you!
- worst Canadian winter in about 20 years!


Send some snow our way, not had any this year in the Scottish Borders.

 

[Scamp]

I chose the current glasses-required 3D set as I'd prefer to get the most out of my 3D experience. I currently wear glasses as it is, and don't really have a problem wearing a 3D set over my normal ones for the most part, such as the ones on my home set or the ones in real 3D theaters. However, I can't stand the glasses I have to wear in 3D Imax shows, so unfortunately I avoid seeing a film in Imax if it is in 3D.

As for the glasses-free set allowing a person to multitask, well if I'm going to go through the effort of watching a 3D film, I'm going to focus my attention on the film, not on performing a bunch of others tasks while I catch glimpses of the film. If I want to have a film on while I do other work around the house, then the 2D version is just fine.

And personally, I like pop-outs. A film doesn't have to go crazy with them, but it's nice to have that pop-out wow factor at least somewhat if you're going to do a film in 3D. So, wouldn't want to lose the ability to see that with a glasses-free display.

 

[Wayne_j]

I voted for the current technology with glasses. This could change in the future IF the glasses free technology improves.

 

[Dougofthenorth]

3D is great for IMAX, and it's ok for standard theatrical projection. I neither own nor anticipate getting a glasses based home 3D viewing system. My display isn't big enough where it would be worth the effort, and has been mentioned before I typically multitask when viewing and 3D glasses would get in the way. I would consider a glasses free 3D display if the quality was good enough to consider paying a premium over a non 3D display. As with video game consoles it's hard to predict if or when the format would reach the point of being a worthwhile investment.

I believe we are just about at the point of being forced to buy TVs with the 3d capabilities premium.

Although I have heard many times, that 3d capable sets exhibit better 2d performance.

My recently bought TV has 3d looking depth when viewed with 2d (no pop-outs of course), when full out-of-the box settings are in effect.

 

[ahollis]

Nope. I am underwhelmed.