Jump to content



Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo

Poll: Would You Buy A Glasses-Free 3D Display?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

Poll: Which Display Would You Buy? (57 member(s) have cast votes)

Which Display Would You Purchase?

  1. I would purchase the current 3D technology Display that requires eyewear (42 votes [73.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.68%

  2. I would purchase the Glasses-Free Display (15 votes [26.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.32%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 of 61 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 40,579 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted February 23 2014 - 03:10 AM

First, before even delving into this question and poll, I would invite you 

to read my recent article on revisiting Dolby's Glasses Free Display.

 

...and I am not here to attack Dolby and Philips (or any other manufacturer)

for what they are attempting to create.

 

Perhaps there really is a market for a glasses-free display, catering to those

consumers that don't like wearing eyewear and don't care about pop-out

effects.  In all, they want a simple 3D display.

 

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 that currently exists

that requires eyewear.  This is the technology that offers unsurpassed levels of depth

and pop-out that can come inches from your face.

 

* 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.  However, you want something that

allows you to get a "standard" sense of 3D while not having to wear eyewear, and at 

the same time, allows you to quickly divert your eyes to multi-task with other things (laptop,

iPad, book, etc.).

 

 

* 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.

 

 

PS:  I have solicited the opinions of the dozens of HTF members that have seen the

Dolby/Philips technology in person.  I am expecting many of them will vote in this poll.


 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#2 of 61 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,048 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted February 23 2014 - 03:27 AM

I've seen the technology, but I wear glasses so I don't have a problem with wearing 3-D glasses.  Since, I already own two 3-D displays I'm not in the market for buying a glass-free display at this moment.  That could change in the future though.


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#3 of 61 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 40,579 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted February 23 2014 - 03:29 AM

Robert,

 

Perhaps you already knew what I was aiming for, so my apologies for reiterating...

 

This is an imaginary scenario where you are in the market for a new 3D display.

 

I am just trying to gauge which format members would purchase, if both were available

at the same time, at the same affordable price.

 

And for those that already own a 3D display, think of it as only being able to own only

one of the technologies.


 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#4 of 61 OFFLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator



  • 25,048 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted February 23 2014 - 03:36 AM

Robert,

 

Perhaps you already knew what I was aiming for, so my apologies for reiterating...

 

This is an imaginary scenario where you are in the market for a new 3D display.

 

I am just trying to gauge which format members would purchase, if both were available

at the same time, at the same affordable price.

 

And for those that already own a 3D display, think of it as only being able to own only

one of the technologies.

As I stated I viewed the technology beforehand, but I would stick with the glasses as I don't have a problem wearing them and to me they give you a better 3-D experience than the non-glasses technology.  I haven't seen a recent demonstration so perhaps the non-glass technology has made enough advances to change my mind later on.  


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Listing

 


#5 of 61 OFFLINE   Matt Hough

Matt Hough

    Executive Producer



  • 11,595 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 24 2006
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted February 23 2014 - 05:04 AM

I was completely underwhelmed by the glasses-free display we saw a year and a half ago (no forward projection, narrow viewing angle, only adequate depth in the picture). The technology would have to come a long, long way for me to choose it over a 3D display that requires glasses.


  • Bob Furmanek likes this

#6 of 61 OFFLINE   RolandL

RolandL

    Screenwriter



  • 2,397 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 11 2001
  • LocationCromwell, CT

Posted February 23 2014 - 05:16 AM

If nothing comes out of the screen, the amount of people who would buy a glasses free TV would be so miniscule that company would never make a profit. I use to sell 3D TV's and there were less than ten a year that would say they were waiting for glasses free 3D.


Roland Lataille
Cinerama web site

 


#7 of 61 OFFLINE   Scott-S

Scott-S

    Test Subject



  • 2,042 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 08 2001
  • Real Name:Scott Sturdevant
  • LocationThe Land of Zion

Posted February 23 2014 - 05:47 AM

I am one who voted for the Glasses free.

 

I am not really interested in the pop-out of the screen 3d. The pop-out stuff is gimmicky (is that a word?). I don't need pokers sticking out in my face, or blood spatter spraying out. I like the 3d that feels like I am watching the real world. I like the background to feel like it is farther away.

 

I guess I prefer to be watching the action from a respectful distance from the actors, not right in the blood spatter zone. More like watching the world behind a pain of glass.

 

If I can get this, without the glasses then I would buy that.

 

When I viewed the glasses free demo at Dolby I was actually impressed at how far they have gotten. I still am boggled that 3d without glasses really works, although subtly. If they can get the resolution up to the glasses required 3DTVs, and can get the banding zones wider (if it is possible) I would buy one.


-----
Scott

View My DVD Collection
Stop the on-screen Bugs!!!!!!

#8 of 61 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 40,579 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted February 23 2014 - 06:34 AM

Scott,

 

I am very happy that you posted that opinion.

 

I really wanted some an assortment of varied opinions on this matter.

 

I understand your position, and imagine there are others who will share that opinion as well.


 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#9 of 61 ONLINE   AlexF

AlexF

    Second Unit



  • 499 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 14 2005

Posted February 23 2014 - 07:16 AM

I find myself a bit halfway between Scott and Ron's opinions it seems. For me, the most effective 3D is the addition of depth and I find that it gives a sense of reality to the proceedings. Having said that, I do like the occasional pop-out effect -- but movies that overuse is (Yogi Bear anyone?) kinda ruin the enjoyment for me.

 

Having said that, if the glasses-free 3D TVs allowed a wider range of viewing positions, then I would definitely be interested in something like that, especially since my other half wears contacts and glasses and typically has to change from one to the other after about 90mins of movie watching (or so), so not having to wear glasses to watch 3D would likely improve the situation for her.



#10 of 61 OFFLINE   Charles Smith

Charles Smith

    Extremely Talented Member



  • 4,263 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 27 2007
  • LocationNor'east

Posted February 23 2014 - 08:13 AM

*
POPULAR

I love 3D and am serious about enjoying all it has to offer, on the wonderful vintage films and contemporary ones alike.  I'm sad that most of the latter do not use the platform to its full potential.  

 

I've always found that after a few moments (at most) of acclimation, 3D glasses don't bother me in the least -- and I often have my own glasses on underneath them if I don't happen to be wearing contacts.  When it was time to buy a good flat panel screen a few years ago, I bought what I believed to be the best available at the time (Panasonic VT25), both for the best image overall, and the best active shutter 3D.  Although that screen would eventually prove to not actually provide the best 3D image when it came to (mainly) Dial M for Murder and a bit here and there in a couple of other films, I've never regretted the decision.  But 3D, in general, for me, has always been about exploiting depth and pop-out, and I never tire of the fun of the latter or of the amazing ability of the 3D format in general to take me "into" a picture and reveal spaces and detail that might otherwise or previously be unnoticed (one example being the Wizard of Oz conversion).

 

That being said (and to repeat myself a little), I'm always a little disappointed when a modern filmmaker chooses to go halfway on a 3D production -- and it follows that I would no sooner set myself up with a 3D viewing system that only goes halfway than I would set up a surround sound system and limit the audio activity to one side of the room.

 

I appreciated the opportunity of seeing Dolby's glasses-free display in 2012, and I spent some time with it to give it every chance of wowing me.  For my taste, and given my own interest in 3D, such a wowing isn't going to happen at the current state of the art.  Again, to use the audio analogy (which may or may not be perfect, but it makes my point), choosing that kind of a display would be equivalent to choosing a soundbar over a real surround system.

 

Therefore (and sorry to have been long-winded about it), my decision -- without hesitation -- would be to purchase the current 3D technology display that requires eyewear.


  • Bob Furmanek, Matt Hough and Ldizzle like this

#11 of 61 OFFLINE   Bob Furmanek

Bob Furmanek

    Producer



  • 3,664 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 10 2001

Posted February 23 2014 - 09:33 AM

As Greg Kintz pointed out in your other thread, the depth was manipulated and greatly diminished in the demo that we saw a few years ago. The opening to HUGO was essentially flat.

 

I'm not a fan of 3-D without depth so I'm voting for the glasses format.


Bob Furmanek

www.3dfilmarchive.com


Bubbleweb_edited-1_zpsc986b444.jpg


#12 of 61 OFFLINE   phulman

phulman

    Auditioning



  • 12 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 21 2012

Posted February 23 2014 - 09:46 AM

As someone with glasses it's a pain in the ass to use another set on top of them. Yes, the depth was a slight issue but I liked what i saw at Dolby.
  • Ned Vogler likes this

#13 of 61 OFFLINE   FoxyMulder

FoxyMulder

    映画ファン



  • 5,027 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 2009
  • Real Name:Malcolm
  • LocationScotland

Posted February 23 2014 - 10:36 AM

I also wear glasses, it's a pain in the ass wearing glasses because i'm short sighted, so putting another pair on top is no big deal, i voted for the regular glasses and superior 3D experience, now all i need is Hollywood to start giving us better 3D films, filmmakers....please don't forget the pop out.

 

I need the WOW factor to put those glasses on, i'm not going to be watching Iron Man 3 or Man Of Steel in 3D because for me there is no wow factor in the 3D for those films, give me depth and great pop out and make me go wow and i'll buy your 3D product, otherwise forget it, i know many think conversions are as good as native shot 3D, i disagree, in my opinion native shot 3D always works better, the conversions have improved considerably though but i wish we had more native shot 3D productions.


     :Fun Movie Quotes:

"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself"   

"Maybe it's a sheep dog... let's keep going" 

"Please doctor, I've got to ask this. It sounds like, well, just as though you're describing some form of super carrot"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


#14 of 61 OFFLINE   DavidMiller

DavidMiller

    Extra



  • 18 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2004
  • Real Name:David Miller
  • LocationKirkland, Wa

Posted February 23 2014 - 01:06 PM

I saw the Dolby screen while it had it's shortcomings I liked it a lot. I have been using a glasses version for awhile (panasonic plasma). I like it but keeping the glasses charged,etc is just a pain. I also agree with Scott I like the depth one reason well done post converted don't bother me. I don't need the in your face aspect.



#15 of 61 OFFLINE   Sam Posten

Sam Posten

    Moderator



  • 17,083 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 30 1997
  • Real Name:Sam Posten
  • LocationAberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ

Posted February 23 2014 - 01:52 PM

I would definitely not buy THIS generation of glasses free. If they can get it to market and keep improving it year over year I would buy the 3rd or 4th generation if it brought it to near parity with what glasses on tech has today.

I lost my signature and all I got was this Nutter t-shirt


#16 of 61 ONLINE   Ejanss

Ejanss

    Screenwriter



  • 1,842 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 23 2012

Posted February 23 2014 - 02:01 PM

I know what I'm buying:  If I don't get no pop, they don't get no corn.

 

(Either way I get "rich, atmospheric depth", but I'd rather pay for two directions than one.)


  • FoxyMulder likes this

#17 of 61 OFFLINE   phillyrobt

phillyrobt

    Stunt Coordinator



  • 166 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2012

Posted February 23 2014 - 07:34 PM

Changed vote to glasses



#18 of 61 OFFLINE   Ronald Epstein

Ronald Epstein

    Studio Mogul



  • 40,579 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 1997

Posted February 23 2014 - 09:59 PM

I voted for glasses-free as a 3rd tv after my active Hisense and passive LG

 

The scenario, as I wrote it, was that it would be your ONLY 3D display and

that was what the vote was to be based upon.


 

Ronald J Epstein
Home Theater Forum co-owner

 

 Click Here for the latest/hottest Blu-ray Preorders  Click Here for our complete Blu-ray review archive

 Click Here for our complete 3D Blu-ray review archive Click Here for our complete DVD review archive

 Click Here for Blu-Ray Preorder Release Schedule  Click Here for forum posting rules and regulations


#19 of 61 OFFLINE   Persianimmortal

Persianimmortal

    Screenwriter



  • 1,058 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 2012
  • Real Name:Koroush Ghazi
  • LocationCanberra, Australia

Posted February 23 2014 - 10:29 PM

I voted for 3D with glasses. I don't normally wear glasses, but I've never found that popping on a pair of (active) 3D glasses is particularly hard to bear. If glasses free can evolve to give an identical experience to current 3D with glasses, then I'll make the switch.

 

In short: I'm not interested in "3D lite" for the sake of marginal convenience.



#20 of 61 OFFLINE   Jari K

Jari K

    Producer



  • 3,227 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2007

Posted February 24 2014 - 07:12 AM

At the moment I don't have high hopes for the glasses-free 3D TV. Current one works fine, they should just keep the glasses light weight and easy to wear.

For me 3D is not something that I watch every day or even every month. I can live with glasses.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users