3D New 3-D Technology Without Glasses (1 Viewer)

[RolandL]

I'm really not fond of the glasses. I feel the images generated by them tend to be blurry, and less well defined than a 2D movie. I find they appear darker to me than a 2D movie. I also generally have to concentrate to perceive depth in the images, if I'm not actively attempting to perceive depth it just looks like a 2D presentation to me. I've never experienced the whole "Object flying out of the screen" phenomenae.
I've read that there's some people 3D doesn't work on, perhaps I'm one of them. I'm just not convinced that my issue isn't due to the glasses. My visual accuity is excellent, so I don't think it's eye trouble.

What movies have you seen in 3D? Many of them have no objects coming out of the screen. Some people cannot see 3D. Others get sick watching 3D. Its not for everyone.

 

[Paul Hillenbrand]

I'm really not fond of the glasses. I feel the images generated by them tend to be blurry, and less well defined than a 2D movie. I find they appear darker to me than a 2D movie.

IMO, an accurate description and the mass-consumer's point of view.
Not possible at this time for the average consumer, the existing home 3D technology is available to produce and render a 3D experience as well-defined as a quality 1080P 2D picture today; here, and now, looking as focused and clear as an IMAX 3D theatrical presentation! It comes at a high cost by requiring a great amount of effort combining the needed quality components and a motivated driving force - outward semblance and creation of the environmental setup that achieves the goal, duplicating a comfortable and exciting 3D illusion experience. It is hard work, usually from a single dedicated enthusiast working for "a sweet-spot viewing point", with motivated determination, drive, and effort; making-it-happen.:pc:

 

[JamesNelson]

For long-time home 3-D enthusiasts like myself, who suffered through decades of deplorable quality 3-D in the now antiquated field-sequential format (480i resolution with only 240 scanlines per eye, headache-inducing 60 Hz flicker, a dearth of content, etc., etc.) I find it difficult to sympathize with detractors of the current state-of-the-art in 3-D at home.
In a few short weeks I'll be able to view two of my favorite 3-D titles of all time, Dial M for Murder and Creature from the Black Lagoon, in 3-D at home. 1080p per eye. 120 Hz and better refresh rates. I never thought I would see the day.

 

[Richard--W]

Field-sequential didn't seem so bad at the time, compared to VHS and anaglyph.
We didn't have blu-ray to compare it to and theatrical screenings were far and few between.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

Amen to that, James. Not to mention the horrible anaglyph versions that most people have seen since the 1970's. For those seeing CREATURE in the original Polaroid version for the first time, you are in for quite a treat!

 

[Ejanss]

I'm really not fond of the glasses. I feel the images generated by them tend to be blurry, and less well defined than a 2D movie. I find they appear darker to me than a 2D movie. I also generally have to concentrate to perceive depth in the images, if I'm not actively attempting to perceive depth it just looks like a 2D presentation to me. I've never experienced the whole "Object flying out of the screen" phenomenae.
I've read that there's some people 3D doesn't work on, perhaps I'm one of them. I'm just not convinced that my issue isn't due to the glasses. My visual accuity is excellent, so I don't think it's eye trouble.

There are a number of reasons why that don't have to do with anything you'd need prescription glasses for.
Of course, it doesn't help that most movies since Avatar (except for some Dreamworks and IMAX) believe it's all about creating "depth", and we haven't really HAD things "jumping off the screen" since the 80's. (In fact, it seems to be snubbed nowadays, as too "cheap and 80's", and not being true to the spirit of the 50's. Hoity-toit.)
As far as newbies saying it doesn't work like the ads, you think they wouldn't be that naive, but then, fighting the Hate for a new technology, you never now how deep the rabbit hole goes...
My vision's fine, and for reasons above, I rarely get "things jumping off the screen", either. On one promo, there's footage from a fighter-jet IMAX documentary that has a carrier jet sticking its nose a foot out into the living room, and I save that clip to show other folks who wouldn't believe me.

In a few short weeks I'll be able to view two of my favorite 3-D titles of all time, Dial M for Murder and Creature from the Black Lagoon, in 3-D at home. 1080p per eye. 120 Hz and better refresh rates. I never thought I would see the day.

Not to mention that on some sets, 3DTV's have to up the contrast and motion rate to keep image clarity and solidity for the 3D objects, creating a touch of "soap-opera effect" on anything in 3-D--
After having seen it so long on MST3K, watching Bob's Robot Monster clip in 1080p 3D, it's a little disorienting to watch characters in an old B/W 50's movie move like "real" characters.
The Creature should be that much more of a new experience.
(And I'll save my copy of Seven Year Itch to watch as a double feature. )

 

[Bob Furmanek]

If you're looking for good off-screen effects, you'll certainly enjoy THE BUBBLE when we finally get it released on Blu-ray. The 3-D is sensational and it's loaded with off-screen moments.

 

[Richard--W]

Will it come with a free poster & holograms, Bob?
No seriously, do you have an estimated release date?
The single SpaceVision lens captured in very high quality, didn't it?
how exactly does that lens work?
is it true there's only one focal length?
what can you tell us about the capture technology?
I suspect your Blu-ray transfer will do better by the cinematography than any theatrical projection of this film, so far.

 

[Bob Furmanek]

No release date is set for this title right now, I'm sorry to say.
The Space-vision photography is very good.
I have an article somewhere about the lens system. I'll see if I can find it.
The scan off the camera negative is stunning. It will truly look better than ever before.

 

[Richard--W]

Do keep us informed of the progress.
I for one am dying to see it.

 

[RolandL]

Field-sequential didn't seem so bad at the time, compared to VHS and anaglyph.
We didn't have blu-ray to compare it to and theatrical screenings were far and few between.

The other drawback was you needed an interlaced monitor to watch it. It was cool to see the 3D on a six foot screen with a CRT front projector. But when I upgraded to a progressive projector the 3D didn't work. I was left with my old 27 tube TV to watch them on. But, it was a lot better than anaglyph. You could reduce the flicker by lowering the contrast.

 

[Richard--W]

No release date is set for this title right now, I'm sorry to say.

Maybe you should go the Limited Edition route like Code Red does. Only with Blu-rays instead of DVD's. Code Red presses 1,000 copies and maintains a regular customer base. Now they're restricting certain titles to their own online-store (to avoid diluting the profit via retailers) and doing very well.