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

[BleedOrange11]

Technically, in regards to image separation, depth (image behind the screen) and pop-out (image in front of the screen) are pretty close to the same thing--just a reversal of the left and right images. You can't have one be possible and the other not. If the display is incapable of wide parallax values (due to physical spacing limitations of the lenticular screen?), then both strong depth and strong pop-out will be hampered. I'd like to see the technology for myself, but I can't imagine buying anything that would diminish the 3D effect that was intended by the director (or anything that looks like a lenticular slipcover).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I really like 3D, and like some others have posted, I feel it's being underutilized in films today (limited depth, few popouts). I haven't seen a glasses-free 3D display in person, but everything I've read suggests it's the lesser experience. I don't buy a TV all that often, so if I'm gonna spring for one, I want one that can best display the stuff I'm into, and right now that's 3D with glasses. I actually did pick up an LG Active Shutter display back in 2012, and while I've had some ghosting issues on "Dial M For Murder", the glasses themselves are not an issue for me - I already wear glasses, so it doesn't feel strange for me to have glasses on my face.

For a brief second, I might be tempted for glasses-free when I think of the ease of watching 3D content with a group of people - and then I remember that among friends and family, I'm pretty much the only 3D fan, so I'm gonna be watching it on my own anyway. Might as well go for the one that presents the best 3D quality, especially since not having enough pairs of glasses, etc., isn't an issue for me. Ideally, one of these days they might come up with a passive set that doesn't involve losing half the resolution. (Or is that already a thing with the new Ultra HD/4k displays?)

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I really like 3D, and like some others have posted, I feel it's being underutilized in films today (limited depth, few popouts). I haven't seen a glasses-free 3D display in person, but everything I've read suggests it's the lesser experience. I don't buy a TV all that often, so if I'm gonna spring for one, I want one that can best display the stuff I'm into, and right now that's 3D with glasses. I actually did pick up an LG Active Shutter display back in 2012, and while I've had some ghosting issues on "Dial M For Murder", the glasses themselves are not an issue for me - I already wear glasses, so it doesn't feel strange for me to have glasses on my face.

For a brief second, I might be tempted for glasses-free when I think of the ease of watching 3D content with a group of people - and then I remember that among friends and family, I'm pretty much the only 3D fan, so I'm gonna be watching it on my own anyway. Might as well go for the one that presents the best 3D quality, especially since not having enough pairs of glasses, etc., isn't an issue for me. Ideally, one of these days they might come up with a passive set that doesn't involve losing half the resolution. (Or is that already a thing with the new Ultra HD/4k displays?)

I know that at least the current Sony 4K displays support passive 3D.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I know that at least the current Sony 4K displays support passive 3D.

Sweet! Making a mental note of that... I'm probably a couple years away, at least, from a new TV but hey, I could win the lottery (right? right??)

 

[Steve Christou]

Oh definitely 'glasses free' display, please. Wearing 3D glasses over my own glasses is uncomfortable and it does strain the eyes. I've never cared much for 'poke in your eye' gimmickry, as long as the 'glasses free' display provides the same illusion of depth we have now with 3D glasses I'm up for it.

 

[FoxyMulder]

Oh definitely 'glasses free' display, please. Wearing 3D glasses over my own glasses is uncomfortable and it does strain the eyes. I've never cared much for 'poke in your eye' gimmickry, as long as the 'glasses free' display provides the same illusion of depth we have now with 3D glasses I'm up for it.

Quick question Steve.

Have you seen A Turtles Tale or Madagascar 3 or T.S. Spivet. ?

Depth out of the screen is not just about poking you in the eye, these glasses free 3D televisions are currently useless.*


*In my opinion.

 

[Steve Christou]

I've seen Madagascar 3 and Turtles Tale, both effective use of pop out but I'll still feel more comfortable with a glasses free display. I just hate wearing the glasses.

 

[FoxyMulder]

I've seen Madagascar 3 and Turtles Tale, both effective use of pop out but I'll still feel more comfortable with a glasses free display. I just hate wearing the glasses.

I wear two pairs, my prescription glasses for short sightedness and 3D ones on top, it is awkward but the alternative is laser surgery, my sister had that and it's effective, yeah laser surgery so i only have to wear one pair of glasses, one day perhaps.

 

[RJ992]

I wear two pairs, my prescription glasses for short sightedness and 3D ones on top, it is awkward but the alternative is laser surgery, my sister had that and it's effective, yeah laser surgery so i only have to wear one pair of glasses, one day perhaps.

Why not just get the clip-on 3D lenses with your glasses?

 

[FoxyMulder]

Why not just get the clip-on 3D lenses with your glasses?

That won't work with active shutter 3D glasses, i think you need a passive system for that.

 

[RJ992]

That won't work with active shutter 3D glasses, i think you need a passive system for that.

That is true...a shot in the dark, in case he had a passive system

 

[Ldizzle]

Hi everyone, new member here and I voted for the current 3D tech. I remember being about 7 years old and The Creature From the Black Lagoon was being advertised for an upcoming broadcast. You had to go to 7eleven to pick up the anaglyph glasses and for me, at that age it was exciting. I saw the glasses as a special treat and I was already a 3D fan who loved his ViewMaster.

Funny thing is, since that time (oh so long ago) my feelings about 3D haven't changed much. Having 3D glasses to wear (especially cool electronic ones ) still gives me a bit of a thrill, I've never experienced any discomfort while wearing them and thankfully the family hasn't either.

I'm a huge proponent of strong stereoscopy so unless the Dolby (& other) technology displays a massive improvement, I say long live glasses 3D!

 

[Stephen_J_H]

My plans for my next 3D display will involve an HTPC and this: http://studio3d.com/omega3d/index.html

 

[FoxyMulder]

My plans for my next 3D display will involve an HTPC and this: http://studio3d.com/omega3d/index.html

Just buy a DLP projector, they are already ghost free without the need for Omega equipment.

:EDIT: I guess you want the extra brightness for 3D and are considering a dual projector setup.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I don't understand why the Dolby system exists. By its very design it changes the color and worse, each eye sees a different color rather than the typical implementation where color might be changed due to shutter glasses tinting but each eye sees the same colors.

 

[RolandL]

I don't think the will ever sell. The 3D market is small, glasses free will be even smaller. Waste of time and money.

 

[RJ992]

I don't think the will ever sell. The 3D market is small, glasses free will be even smaller. Waste of time and money.

Not that small. (Which, even without the 2013 stats below, I can see for myself that 3D BD sales seem to be doing well...some titles more than others, of course.)
3D TV-sales growth SEOUL, March 18 2013 Yonhap) -- Worldwide sales of 3D TVs jumped 72 percent last year despite an industry-wide slump in the global TV market, data showed Monday.

3D TV shipments totaled 41.45 million units last year, compared with 24.14 million units in 2011, according to the data by DisplaySearch. The figure marks a nearly 18-fold growth from 2.26 million units in 2010, when the market researcher began compiling the data.
On the back of sales growth, the proportion of 3D TVs in the flat-panel TV market almost doubled to 19 percent from 11 percent.
By company, Samsung Electronics Co. controlled the market with a 27 percent market share. The company's stake, however, slipped from 31 percent in 2011 and 37 percent in 2010.
LG Electronics Inc. emerged as No. 2 with an 18 percent market share, up from 14 percent in 2011 and 6 percent in 2010.
Japanese manufacturer Sony Corp. came in third with 7 percent, trailed by Chinese and Japanese manufacturers such as Panasonic Corp. and Changhong Electric Co., according to the data.
Meanwhile, the data showed that 3D TVs incorporating LG Display Co.'s film patterned retarder (FPR) panels first surpassed those using Samsung's shutter glasses in the fourth quarter.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Just buy a DLP projector, they are already ghost free without the need for Omega equipment.

:EDIT: I guess you want the extra brightness for 3D and are considering a dual projector setup.

You would be correct. I think this may be the best way to watch Dial M for Murder on a 3D setup.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don't understand why the Dolby system exists. By its very design it changes the color and worse, each eye sees a different color rather than the typical implementation where color might be changed due to shutter glasses tinting but each eye sees the same colors.

I've only seen it in action a couple times, but it was enough to make it an instant "last choice" of how to see a film in 3D. It's really more like anagylph than anything else. From a movie theater's perspective, I get it -- they make a single projector attachment theaters can get, that doesn't require the installation of a silver screen, like RealD does, so it saves the theater money. But it didn't look nearly as good.

I saw the documentary "U2 3D" in several different formats - IMAX 15/70 3D, RealD 3D, and Dolby 3D. The IMAX was the clear winner to me. Not counting the larger screen, which definitely helps, the IMAX format used two projectors vs. one, and the extra image brightness always helps. The RealD version was second, but not far behind. Their circular polarized lenses are a little easier on the eyes than the linear polarization of the IMAX glasses. (With RealD, you can turn your head up, down, side to side and back and forth and the image will stay aligned. With IMAX, if you tilt your head sideways, you'll start to see ghosts.) The Dolby version had colors that didn't look quite right, sharpness that wasn't quite there, and I got a little bit of a headache, which doesn't happen to me with IMAX or RealD or even active shutter glasses at home.

That said, I've never had the opportunity to see the Dolby 3D in a setup that used two projectors, so maybe that would make a difference. But I'm wary of their technology and in the recent past, where there's been a choice to see a 3D movie in either RealD or Dolby, I've chosen RealD every time.

 

[Martino]

Not into the 3D thing - and just completed my 2D theater -- but if I were to upgrade, would go the whole way and get the most out of it - I would want the pop out effects and not just a little added depth...glasses don't bother me.