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

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.

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.

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 Epstein said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.)

Changed vote to glasses

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.