3D Top 30 Must Own 3D Blu-Ray Releases (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

I think it's possible that Pansonic just want to be the booth where the biggest announcement of the show is going to take place. Fox's booth seems to be the logical place for LFL to make the announcement but maybe Panasonic offered them money or equipment to do it at their booth.

I suppose another possibility is that the CES announcement is where Lucas officially confirms that the "Star Wars" franchise is going to undergo conversion to 3D. Up to now, I think everything regarding SW in 3D has been mainly speculation.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S
I suppose another possibility is that the CES announcement is where Lucas officially confirms that the "Star Wars" franchise is going to undergo conversion to 3D. Up to now, I think everything regarding SW in 3D has been mainly speculation.

The 3D conversion was officially announced on starwars.com in September. Episode 1 won't be released in 3D theatrically until 2012, so don't expect a 3D blu-ray announcement this week.

http://www.starwars.com/movies/saga/announce3d/index.html

Doug

 

[Edwin-S]

The 3D conversion was officially announced on starwars.com in September. Episode 1 won't be released in 3D theatrically until 2012, so don't expect a 3D blu-ray announcement this week.

http://www.starwars.com/movies/saga/announce3d/index.html

Doug

We already know that the SW franchise is coming to Blu-ray and now, thanks to your link, I know that the 3D conversions were announced quite awhile ago. Regarding the SW franchise, I cannot see what earth-shattering news could be announced at Panasonic's CES booth that we didn't already know, except who gets the home distribution rights for any 3D release. Well, I guess we'll find out on Thursday what the big news is supposed to be.

Edit: I should have added.....maybe the official release day and date for the BD versions?

 

[TravisR]

I just read a plausible sounding theory that says that the reason that LFL is making their announcements at Panasonic's booth is because the new Star Wars: The Old Republic game is coming to Panasonic's new handheld gaming system.

 

[Steve Christou]

LAS VEGAS – TV makers are blaming disappointing sales of 3-D TVs last year in part on the bulky glasses they came with. They're trying to tackle that this year by introducing sets that work with lighter, cheaper glasses of the kind used in movie theaters.
Manufacturers don't plan to completely supplant the 3-D TVs that require the heavier, battery-powered glasses, which went on sale last year for the first time. But Samsung Electronics Co. estimates 1 million 3-D sets were sold in the U.S in 2010, far short of its initial estimate of 3 million to 4 million, and the introduction of a competing technology a year later is another sign that the first 3-D TVs didn't live up to expectations.
LG Electronics Inc. was the first major TV to announce new 3-D sets Wednesday, a day ahead of the opening of the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. LG, a South Korean company, said it will start selling two models, a 47-inch and a 65-inch one, later this year that use the lighter, cheaper glasses. Each will include four pairs. Current 3-D sets usually include one or two pairs of the bulkier glasses; some don't include any, requiring consumers to pay about $100 per pair.
"We're meeting consumers' needs by eliminating some of the pain points" by addressing the 3-D glasses issue, said Tim Alessi, director of new product development at LG Electronics USA. "It's going to be the most comfortable viewing experience, just like going to the movies."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110106/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_gadget_show_tvs

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I am so happy Panasonic is abstaining from adopting the passive technology.
Sure, the glasses are lighter but you lose half the HD resolution.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
I am so happy Panasonic is abstaining from adopting the passive technology.
Sure, the glasses are lighter but you lose half the HD resolution.

I don't know the details of the passive tech, but I'd think the reduced res won't matter to most people since they probably won't have the kind of setup to make full use of 1080p res anyway.

BTW, what exactly do you mean by half res? Is it half the pixel count, ie. 1920x1080 / 2 w/ res loss spread evenly across the image area, or half in *both* dimensions, ie. 1920/2 x 1080/2? If it's the first case, then it probably won't matter to most. Even if it's the latter case, it'd still be a tad better than 3D at DVD res.

One other thing. Can't they just make the TVs be able to do both so we can choose for ourselves *after* buying the TVs? How hard can it be to provide that as an option (to switch between passive and active glasses)?

_Man_

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Man, There should be a link that I provided a few posts up to an article that talks more about the downfalls of passive technology. That would be the best explanation as I could provide as it is information from that article I am referencing.

 

[DaveF]

A quick read tells me the passive systems will produce a 1080i resolution. You're getting half the vertical fields every frame; once for each eye. I don't know if it cycles at 60Hz for each half field (for a 30Hz full picture) or double that for an effective 60 Hz visual experience. If the latter, it will be a 3D experience that's superior to a 1080i broadcast.

That is, the passive 3D, running in 2D, should be visually equivalent to the best HD broadcast TV (1080i), which is really good and better than much of what you find on cable TV.

But it won't be quite as good as the best 1080p Blu-ray content.

(And I'm doing some extrapolation based on a brief read of how the passive system works and my own bit of knowledge of TVs and stereoscopy. I might have missed an important detail in my hasty analysis .)

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool
One other thing. Can't they just make the TVs be able to do both so we can choose for ourselves *after* buying the TVs? How hard can it be to provide that as an option (to switch between passive and active glasses)?

_Man_

Yes, they probably could. If these systems work they way I think they do, I think you could make a TV capable of using either method. But that will make the TV more expensive, not less, and they're trying to cut costs and complexity to sell these things to Joe Consumer. For what many think is a fad. In a recession.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Top 10 List updated to reflect recent reviews.

Next review: Piranha 3D to be posted Monday 1/10

 

[Charles Smith]

I just got home from Tron Legacy, vowing to buy it in 3D the day it's released.

 

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Next review: Piranha 3D to be posted Monday 1/10

You have 3-D boobs to look forward to.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by ManW_TheUncool

One other thing. Can't they just make the TVs be able to do both so we can choose for ourselves *after* buying the TVs? How hard can it be to provide that as an option (to switch between passive and active glasses)?

_Man_

Ron Epstein posted a thread in the displays forum about Samsung and RealD cooperating on a system where the TV does all the processing work of the present active shutter glasses. The result, apparently, is that people could use the standard RealD passive glasses in order to see a 3D image. The image would also be full 1080p rather than a reduced resolution image like pattern retarder system that is presently being touted. This is the system I would wait for, if it wasn't for the fact that I think all the present TV screen sizes are too small for really immersive 3D. To me, 3D needs to be front projected for real effectiveness. Unfortunately, a good 3D ready front projector is going to be out of my price range for the forseeable future.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Haven't been checking over in the display section, so didn't see Ron's post about the Sammy + RealD collaboration for passive glasses. I'll take a look in a bit...

Also, not sure if this approach by LG has been discussed over in the displays section, but it was referenced in the AVS thread posted a bit earlier (and the particular detail of interest highlighted over there by David Boulet, who used to be a regular here in HTF):

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/05/lg-display-shows-why-it-thinks-3dtv-has-a-shot-with-passive-glas/

If you're actually gonna upgrade from an existing 1080p LCD in the near future just to get 3D and want full res, maybe you should give this some consideration.

For those of us not really looking to upgrade anytime soon (and cannot realistically move to FP), maybe a big 4K2K OLED will be where we eventually land, if this approach pans out.
_Man_

 

[tbaio]

Wow, these 1st generation 3-D TVs haven't even sold to capacity, yet alone died out & we're already talking about getting new 3-D TVs 5+ years from now?! I got a feeling that most people wishing for these new 3-D TVs haven't even experienced the current equipment; they're just complaining for the sake of complaining. Even if these new TVs that everyone is wishing for were to come out tomorrow, you're still not going to buy into them for the same reasons you don't now:

1. You don't want to buy yet another TV.
2. They're too expensive (really, if you think the current 3-D TVs are too pricey, do you think these new ones without glasses & all the other perks are going to be any less expensive??).
3. You don't like the selection of movies (this is the biggest reason I think why most people are on the fence about bringing 3-D home; even more than the economy. If you don't like the selection of movies, it doesn't matter on what TV you view the movie through; you'll still be unsatisfied).

I think 3-D without glasses is an awesome idea. However, 3-D has always been associated with glasses & will continue to be until this new technology becomes available. Until then, if you don't like the current 3-D with glasses..... fine, then don't buy into it; over & end of discussion. My beef is complaining about the glasses when you don't have a 3-D TV, a player or glasses to complain about. Ordinarily I'd say give this current format a chance before condemning it, but that's not possible being that the majority has no intention of buying the equipment in the first place. To your defense, I do understand that you just can't get up & purchase them; after all these things do cost some money.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Thomas,

I have found, from reading opinions across the Internet
that most all the individuals who are attacking 3D are
people who don't yet own a display.

Absolutely, there are too many people condemning the
technology without even spending considerable time
in front of it.

There are some (not on this board) condemning the
format simply because they can't afford it.

Everyone else is waiting patiently until it's time to
upgrade their display and I would estimate at that
point, 3D is going to become more of a standard
option included with the best televisions.

It's going to be a number of years before we get to
enormous displays that don't require eyewear. Even
then, I am uncertain whether it can produce the kind
of depth and/or out-of-screen experience that shutter
glasses can.

As for the passive displays that require lighter eyewear,
I have my doubts that they are as absolutely good as
the shutter technology.
What's interesting is that those few of us here on HTF
that own 3D displays aren't complaining at all about it
or the eyewear. In fact, from what I read, everyone is
exceedingly satisfied with the 3D experience.

I know the technology is still a bit expensive. I know
there's eyewear involved. However, the prices will
continue to fall and the eyewear will be constantly
redesigned. Anything without glasses is still many
years ahead so anyone looking to wait is just missing
out on a terrific viewing experience.

 

[tbaio]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein
Thomas,

I have found, from reading opinions across the Internet
that most all the individuals who are attacking 3D are
people who don't yet own a display.

Absolutely, there are too many people condemning the
technology without even spending considerable time
in front of it.

There are some (not on this board) condemning the
format simply because they can't afford it.

What's interesting is that those few of us here on HTF
that own 3D displays aren't complaining at all about it
or the eyewear. In fact, from what I read, everyone is
exceedingly satisfied with the 3D experience.

Anything without glasses is still many
years ahead so anyone looking to wait is just missing
out on a terrific viewing experience.

With the above comment/quote, the nail has been hit directly on its head. Perfect; no reason to add to the above.

 

[Edwin-S]

I do not see why you would have to own a display to have a legitimate opinion on the value of 3D TVs. There are plenty of demos that a person can view in-store. In fact, most purchase decisions on a 3D TV would be made based on viewing an in-store demo. If the TVs are underselling then, obviously, a lot of potential purchasers are not impressed enough to want to replace displays that they may have bought only a couple of years ago. A lot of people think that 3D is just a gimmick that will once again disappear when the novelty wears off. Secondly, 3D TVs were introduced too soon. Flat panel high definition sets were making finally making big in-roads into homes, as consumers replaced their old CRTs. Many of the HD displays in people's homes were only purchased a couple of years ago and all of a suddenly manufacturers introduce 3D capable sets. Did they really think that people who have two or three year old HD sets were going to shell out big dollars and replace all their equipment yet again? Thirdly, the tech is in even worse flux than Blu-ray versus HD DVD was. There are at least three potentially competing 3D technologies that are on or making their way to the market: active shutter glass displays, pattern retarder displays and (soon?) the Samsung/RealD 3DZ active shutter display. Are all of these systems compatible? If one wins out over the others, does that make anyone who bought into the other two technologies losers?

Personally, I'm like a crow when it comes to shiny, new home electronic toys, but even I'm undecided as to whether 3D TVs are anything more than the 21st century equivalent of CED. Right now, the manufacturers themselves are so unimpressed with sales that they are now introducing yet another variation of the tech in order to try to boost sales.

 

[tbaio]

Originally Posted by Edwin-S
I do not see why you would have to own a display to have a legitimate opinion on the value of 3D TVs. There are plenty of demos that a person can view in-store. In fact, most purchase decisions on a 3D TV would be made based on viewing an in-store demo.

I totally disagree here. An opinion on the demo is one thing. Blasting of the entire equipment, without having experienced it is another. Also, most demos (especially early on) were of only cartoons. Not all 3-D discs are the same. Its like having a bad experience with a cashier & then telling everyone that all cashiers these days are disrespectful. I for one will take the word of someone more seriously if they have a legitimate point based on experience; not just a ramdom "out there" opinion (or, my favorite: repeating what they've heard or read without seeing it themselves). What would you say to someone who had something not so nice to say about you & then finding out that this same person is a total stranger? You'd probably ask how they could say something like that even though they've never talked or worked with you, right? Same thing here. A lot of these people I know don't have the equipment but are complaining anyway. That makes what they say, to me anyway, about as reliable as an ice cube not melting in the summer.