3D Consumer Blu-ray 3D will be 3 years old this March! (1 Viewer)

[Paul Hillenbrand]

Thought this blurb also belongs here at the home of HTF. 3D home setups are just now coming out of their infancy. The first consumer Blu-ray 3D wasn't available for purchase until March 2010. i.e. Consumer 3D media will be 3 years old this March! People had to initially experience video quality from their first-generation 3D setups and only after a lucky few got their hands on discrete 3D devices which displayed separate right & left images , did they realize that artifacts that were experienced on home displays were not from the encodes or what was authored on the particular BD 3D disc . The word went out. Reviewers were rightfully skeptical not knowing the credibility of the inquisitive enthusiasts as a source . Now it has become common knowledge that professionally authored BD 3D discs are pristine; The quality viewed from a 2D source of the same media is equal in all aspects to the quality of a 3D version counterpart , ghosting and crosstalk free, any variance the result from initial inception components of a setup. Paul

 

[Carlo_M]

I'll have to admit that despite being an early adopter, I was very late to the 3D game (and extremely skeptical). But a few months ago my bedroom set needed replacement, and I have a friend who works for Sony so I got a sweet deal on a 46" LED TV with 3D capability. Coupled that with their 790 3D BD player and 3D glasses at half price and I've been really enjoying the 3D that I've seen. I don't watch "converted" 2D to 3D television, I only use true 3D blu-ray sources. The TV/glasses is an active combo so I get the full 1080 resolution as opposed to passive glasses, and I couldn't be happier with the result. My main rig is still 2D and I'm of no mind to drop another 2K+ to upgrade to a 60" 3D set, but when the living room TV does die, I will likely pursue a 3D solution (and probably 4K). For the past few months I've opted to spend the addition $5 to make sure I buy the 3D combo pack.

 

[Dave H]

I've had a Panasonic 65ST30 (plasma 3D) for about a year now and still have not bothered with 3D. One of these days I need to try it out.

 

[Persianimmortal]

I've had a Panasonic 65ST30 (plasma 3D) for about a year now and still have not bothered with 3D. One of these days I need to try it out.

I was in the same boat, in that I already had the requisite equipment (GT30 plasma, BDT300 3D blu-ray player, appropriate HDMI cabling, a copy of Avatar 3D which came with the TV) since late 2011, but never bothered with 3D. Then out of sheer curiosity, and due to the announcement of some classic 3D movies coming out on Blu-ray, I bought a couple of pairs of Panasonic 3D glasses online in June of 2012, and I finally saw the benefits of 3D. In my opinion it's worth it if you already have a 3D-capable display, or are going to upgrade your display shortly, to go the full 3D path. I can't say that it's "absolutely amazing", as in some instances the effect simply looks like a pop-up book, rather than a genuine sense of three dimensions. But in general, the added immersion can be quite nice. I only have a few 3D titles at the moment (Dial M for Murder, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Avatar, The Avengers, Titanic, Tintin and Prometheus), but I'm happy to keep buying more. Again, it's not something I personally would classify as a "must have", but more of a "why not?" if you already have most of the gear. As such, I think that as more and more people upgrade their displays to a new 3D capable one in due course, they will, like me, probably feel the 3D itch and spend a few extra dollars to scratch it, and won't be disappointed.

 

[Frankie_A]

Well, for all the nay-sayers who even to this day keep saying theatrical 3D, which of course feeds consumer product, was a fad, would die as did all other incarnations of it, seems they are simply wrong about it. While I think Hollywood no longer is having dollar sign orgasms at the thought that every 3D movie is going to be the sensation and cash cow that AVATAR was, and annual 3D releases have declined slightly, neverthless, Hollwood is still pushing out decent 3D titles and there doesn't seem to be any sign at all of them abandoning the process. And since we still have directors that are very much gung-ho about 3D like Cameron, it does look like 3D is here for the long haul and will be in the lexicon of tools filmmakers will have available to them as is color, wide screen, 7.1 and surround sound. Oh yah, and for what it's worth, 3 years is about the length of time the 50s 3D run lasted, so we are about to pass that benchmark and it's still going strong. As a kid who sat in the beautiful Century Fresh Meadows Theatre in Queens NY and watched THE HOUSE OF WAX in dual projection 3D and could reach out and touch the glass tubes as they broke and spewed liquid wax into the air and thought it was the greatest thing I had ever seen, and in fact asked my dad if all movies were going to be in this incredible 3D, I am simply thrilled that we have come full circle to this point again and 3D will be here for a long time to come. And BTW, how long is it going to take for us to get THE HOUSE OF WAX on BluRay, damnit?! :f

 

[RolandL]

And BTW, how long is it going to take for us to get THE HOUSE OF WAX on BluRay, damnit?! :f

September or October 2013.

 

[Ryan-G]

Thought this blurb also belongs here at the home of HTF. Reviewers were rightfully skeptical not knowing the credibility of the inquisitive enthusiasts as a source . Now it has become common knowledge that professionally authored BD 3D discs are pristine; The quality viewed from a 2D source of the same media is equal in all aspects to the quality of a 3D version counterpart , ghosting and crosstalk free, any variance the result from initial inception components of a setup. Paul

I would have to question that. My experience has been that any 3D tends to be softer, if not outright fuzzy, compared to 2D. From what I've read, there's also issues of color shift due to the various glasses.

Well, for all the nay-sayers who even to this day keep saying theatrical 3D, which of course feeds consumer product, was a fad, would die as did all other incarnations of it, seems they are simply wrong about it. While I think Hollywood no longer is having dollar sign orgasms at the thought that every 3D movie is going to be the sensation and cash cow that AVATAR was, and annual 3D releases have declined slightly, neverthless, Hollwood is still pushing out decent 3D titles and there doesn't seem to be any sign at all of them abandoning the process. And since we still have directors that are very much gung-ho about 3D like Cameron, it does look like 3D is here for the long haul and will be in the lexicon of tools filmmakers will have available to them as is color, wide screen, 7.1 and surround sound.

This I would definitely have to argue. 3D is often subsidized in theaters by fairly interesting scheduling. In my experience, it's often it's staggered with the 2D release so that if you arrive at the wrong hour you have no choice but to either sit for an hour or go to the 3D showing. I would argue it's even more subsidized on blue ray, because studios aren't shy about packing it in with the regular BR on some titles, skewing the real sales figures. The Pirates of the Carribean treasure chest set is a great example, You had no choice but to buy both the 2D and 3D versions of Stranger Tide whether or not you ever intended to use it. That said, I think when glasses-free 3D displays come of age 3D will be here to stay, but at the present, I question how much is genuine interest and how much is strategically forced.

 

[RolandL]

That said, I think when glasses-free 3D displays come of age 3D will be here to stay, but at the present, I question how much is genuine interest and how much is strategically forced.

Based on the glasses-free displays that I have seen, very few people are going to intentionally buy one when they find out nothing will come out of the screen, it will cost more, and you can't mount it on a wall since its about 6 inches thick. I have sold many 3D tv's and not one customer was exited about the 3D depth. In fact many of them complained that nothing was coming out of the screen on some of the 3D blu-ray's they were watching.

 

[Greg_D_R]

I think 3D is kind of a cool novelty, and on that basis, I wish it well. If it ever gets to the point that I don't have any choice but to go 3D when it's time to upgrade my projector, that'll be fine. Until then, we'll see what happens.

 

[Jbug]

Happy Birthday Home Theater 3D. I'm looking forward to more 3D movies and larger screens to play them on.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I would have to question that. My experience has been that any 3D tends to be softer, if not outright fuzzy, compared to 2D. From what I've read, there's also issues of color shift due to the various glasses.

This is not my experience at all. Ive watched several 3D movies at home (Avatar, Titanic, Madagascar, CFTBL, Piranha 3D , and I'm skipping some I know) and I've observed no fuzziness or color shift or fuzziness. Promethius (aha! I missed one) is a visual feast and very sharp and clear.

This I would definitely have to argue. 3D is often subsidized in theaters by fairly interesting scheduling. In my experience, it's often it's staggered with the 2D release so that if you arrive at the wrong hour you have no choice but to either sit for an hour or go to the 3D showing.

I don't think this is unique to 3D vs 2D. When 2D only movie is in more than one auditorium, the showings don't start at the same time, they are staggered. Because I plan my excursions to the theater, I show up for the version I want.

I would argue it's even more subsidized on blue ray, because studios aren't shy about packing it in with the regular BR on some titles, skewing the real sales figures. The Pirates of the Carribean treasure chest set is a great example, You had no choice but to buy both the 2D and 3D versions of Stranger Tide whether or not you ever intended to use it.

I haven't observed this. Every 3D blu ray I've noticed has a with and without packaging. I'm not familiar with the POTC chest, so I won't comment on it. Of course, the Universal Monsters Box came with the 3D version and 2D version of CFTBL, but that set was priced pretty well. I doubt many felt put out by the inclusion of the 3D version (I loved it).

That said, I think when glasses-free 3D displays come of age 3D will be here to stay, but at the present, I question how much is genuine interest and how much is strategically forced.

I agree that the holy grail of 3D is glasses-free, but there are many that have a genuine interest and want for 3D now. Count me in that group.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Passive 3D has lower resolution, obviously (540 x 1920) and would appear fuzzy at greater distances. Close up, it looks like higher res old school TV, because you can see gaps between the lines. My experience with active 3D is that it is sharp as a tack, even if the depth isn't particularly ground-breaking.

 

[Ejanss]

Passive 3D has lower resolution, obviously (540 x 1920) and would appear fuzzy at greater distances. Close up, it looks like higher res old school TV, because you can see gaps between the lines. My experience with active 3D is that it is sharp as a tack, even if the depth isn't particularly ground-breaking.

My eyes have gotten used to the tack-sharp Active set at home, so when I stroll through the Best Buy, I sneak a look at the Passive display set, just to see how the other half lives--And yes, I see that ribbed video effect, and wonder whether it's just a bad display setup. Frankly, I've never even heard that many defenses of Passive apart from "Wow, my new first-time set looks terrific, I have 3D now!", or "I brought free glasses home from the theater and saved money!" What's worse, though, is that I've started noticing the comparison when I go to the local passive cineplex. I now found i couldn't watch The Hobbit (even in 48fps) without seeing the Passive fuzziness and ribbing, and thinking "This would look so cool at home! " ...So much for sparking theater business.

 

[fxrh]

What's worse, though, is that I've started noticing the comparison when I go to the local passive cineplex. I now found i couldn't watch The Hobbit (even in 48fps) without seeing the Passive fuzziness and ribbing, and thinking "This would look so cool at home! "

You make an interesting point that had not occurred to me. Is it the case that passive 3D at the movie theaters operates the same way as passive 3D on TVs? Is each left-eye / right-eye image per film frame displayed at half resolution? I'm not trying to start an argument here... I have two active 3D setups and no passive 3D at home.

 

[Johnny Angell]

I have never noticed a lack of resolution in the theater like I did when I demoed a passive TV in BB. There was no comparison. I do not believe the theater system is lower resolution, though I can't document it.

 

[Ryan-G]

I have never noticed a lack of resolution in the theater like I did when I demoed a passive TV in BB. There was no comparison. I do not believe the theater system is lower resolution, though I can't document it.

Avatar I didn't notice it, but that was one of the main takeaways I had from The Avengers in the theater. It was just very soft almost to the point of being blurred. Of course, my other takeaway from The Avengers was that it used 3D artistically, such as the scene with loki in the glass cage where the 3D was used to create reflections I would expect in the real world. For the record, same theater for both movies.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Saw Avengers in a theater and did not notice the blurring. YMMV

 

[Frankie_A]

You make an interesting point that had not occurred to me. Is it the case that passive 3D at the movie theaters operates the same way as passive 3D on TVs? Is each left-eye / right-eye image per film frame displayed at half resolution

Except that the theory posed here is simply incorrect; commercial theatres use DLP projection at 2K resolution for BOTH Left Eye and Right Eye images -- no lines and no halving resolution. 2D and 3D projection is the same at the cineplex except for the drop in light value in 3D due to the polaroid filters, but even there, the digital content is "authored" to compensate as much as possible for the drop in lumens due to the polaroid filters both in the projector and on the audience. And light loss in the polaroid system is a lot less than in the LCD shutter glasses home system. The passive HOME system is a totally different beast than the DCinema system that you see in the theatre. Your passive 3DTV costs, say, $1,000 and has to half the resolution. The theatrical projector that is displaying a 3D image on a movie screen cost about $80,000 -- in the case of IMAX 3D, which uses the largest of the DCinema projectors. uses two of them; one for each eye each eye, and that system is more than double the cost. IMAX, btw, IMHO, is the BEST way to see any 3D film. When you see the spectacular clarity and depth of an IMAX 3D presentation, any complaint that needing to put on a pair of lightweight glasses -- so lightweight that you barely know they are on, even on top of regular glasses -- to me is just childish whining. Millions of people wear glasses every day their whole waking lives and don't complain, and millions more seem to have no problem throwing on sunglasses for hours on end without ever even thinking to complain. To whine about needing to wear glasses them for 120 minutes, sometimes less to be able to get the feeling of depth of 3D is just, well, 5 year old-ishy. I'm just sayin.

 

[Johnny Angell]

When you see the spectacular clarity and depth of an IMAX 3D presentation, any complaint that needing to put on a pair of lightweight glasses -- so lightweight that you barely know they are on, even on top of regular glasses -- to me is just childish whining. Millions of people wear glasses every day their whole waking lives and don't complain, and millions more seem to have no problem throwing on sunglasses for hours on end without ever even thinking to complain. To whine about needing to wear glasses them for 120 minutes, sometimes less to be able to get the feeling of depth of 3D is just, well, 5 year old-ishy. I'm just sayin.

Thank you for saying what I've been thinking. One of the features of the Internet has been to facilitate whining. These days, everybody is a critic.

 

[Carlo_M]

What about the concept of eye fatigue that can be associated with 3D viewing? I know it's not a universal phenomenon but it does happen, and I suffer from it. Full disclosure, I have worn glasses since I was a kid, wear contacts during the day now but glasses at night, and sunglasses all day. I am no stranger to having a pair of glasses on me. I have 20/20 vision when corrected with my glasses/contacts. However when I wear 3D glasses, both in the theater and at home on my active 3D Sony system. I get some kind of eye-fatigue. It's hard to describe. Also, sometimes the 3D doesn't seem to align right (this happens both in the theater and at home, so it's not a calibration issue on my Sony). Blinking sometimes fixes it, sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't I get a light headache/fatigue on the eyes. Don't get me wrong, for 90%+ of my viewing experience, 3D looks and feels good. But for maybe 5-10% of the time, I get something that I would call eye strain (I know it's not the right term, it's just the one I'm using). And some friends of mine have described similar things when we talk about whether or not to see a 3D movie. Not everyone I know have suffered from this, but a couple have, which tells me that I'm likely not the only one. I haven't given up on 3D. I buy all my Blu-rays in 3D/2D combo when available, but there's a segment of the populace out there who may be sensitive to the phenomenon I've described (some maybe even worse than I am) who aren't just whining about the weight of, or having to wear, glasses. I have never gotten this type of fatigue before in any other viewing setting.