3d tv

Turn_to_Grey

3D TV... seems to have peaked, emphasis on sales seems to have tailed off. Anyone bought one and likes / regrets the purchase ?

Johnmcl7

I have a couple of 3DTV's although I didn't buy either for the 3D feature, I wanted a very good 2D panel and these models happened to come with 3D. It's not something I'm fussed about at the cinema or at home as I prefer watching in 2D, I find when the 3D is noticeable it becomes intrusive but if it's subtle you don't really notice it. I don't like have to wear any type of glasses and I prefer the sharper 2D image.

Although James Cameron claims otherwise it looks very much like 3D is on its way out having failed to gain traction, there was little mention at tech shows this year of 3D TV's as manufacturers are giving up and now going to put their weight behind 4K or 'Ultra HD' as it's known. I think that's going to be a tough sell as well given for many people the benefit is not going to be noticeable.

John

S0litaire

I bought Passive 3D TV a few months ago and personally I like it.

I have a regular "3D" movie night once a week thanks to my LoveFilm subscription.

3D might not be on the way pout but it's levelled out for the moment. Due in part to the terrible 2D>3D conversion that were rushed out to cash in on the fad.

Also the 3D cameras are coming down in price and size so when it gets small enough and cheap enough for Indie / Uni movie makers to get their hands on a 3D camera it might start to pick up again.

Niowrtt

Although I don't get enough use from it, 3D films off bluray are really great. Any 2D programme looks flat and uninteresting for days afterward.

The glasses are a faff so for TV it's too much effort, and broadcast TV (on FreeSat at least) is effectively in SD resolution due to using side-by-side which totally ruins it. From Bluray the 3D is in true 1080p.

For watching films I tend to spend some time setting up (hifi on, chairs moved for even audio, crisps and drinks prepared :cool: ) so putting on the glasses is little extra effort.

I'm worried a few negative people are going to ruin 3D for everyone else. It's a little like surround sound. I guess relatively few people have an actual 5.1 / 7.1 system, but for those who do it's really transformative to the experience. The key difference being that while 3D is expensive to record and transmit, 5.1 can be mixed in post-production by one person with a few hours to spare. (Yes, 3D can be 'faked' in post-production too but films done like that tend to look terrible and could well be part of the reason some people dislike it).

I hope 3D keeps going and that the technology continues to improve. After all, it's true that we do see the world in 3D, so why not TV/film?

S0litaire

Most films for the past 6-8 years are shot using "RED" digital cameras. These are now industry standard for digital film making and are cheap enough for Uni/Indy film producers to get access to.

RED cameras are also 4K native (they record at the new 4K resolution as standard.) it's resized down for Blu-Ray and DVD. So once 4K capable players and Screens become more common (and larger capacity disks are commercially available!!) it won't be long before every movie made in the past 5 years or so gets a quick 4K release. ^_^


For good 3D you need a huge computer controlled contraption to mount 2 "RED" cameras (which are bulky themselves) and have their lenses only a few inches apart (to mimic human eyesight). This is the expensive bit. their is no current 4K 3D unit that's easy to use outside of hollywood. But give it a few years and when 4K cameras are smaller the 3D rigs will get more portable and hopefully more good 3D movies.

(The things you learn when watching the extras on the "The Hobbit" Blu-Ray is amazing!!) ^_^ lol

paddyrg

Just a bit of general info for people here - I work in this industry so some insights might be interesting to some.

RED make some decent cameras for sure, but they're certainly not used for 'most' films. Different productions have different demands, the RED cameras (they have a range of several models) fil some of those needs. Recent movies which didn't use RED cameras - War Horse still used ARRI's and 35mm. Skyfall used the ARRI Alexa (digital).

When you shoot in 3D, to do it properly, you have 2 cameras and a jig with mirrors. It is a pig to get right, even a small skew in registration means you have extra postrpoduction to re-register the images. In this digital age, that's possible, back in the previous generation of 3D, it wasn't. You have to do calculations and keep the same lens length and other camera settings identical. Experience counts for a lot here. It is expensive, slow, and a PITA. Rain/dust on a mirror can wreck a shot you could otherwise get away with.

You can get prosumer 3D camera units - they've been about for 5-odd years. http://business.panasonic.co.uk/professional-camera/broadcast-and-proav/3d They're clever in that they do away with needing 2 cameras and they do the sync stuff for you. Quality is markedly lower, but it's a great bodge for day to day stuff like sport and football. Students did knock out some dodgy shorts using them, but frankly there just isn't the interest in the indie community.

You can also convert 2D footage to 3D - either 'properly' where some poor soul will sit and create a 3D map for each frame, then a bit of resizing, interpolation and fudging and you get a pretty decent 3D image. Takes forever, costs a mint, best bet if you have Cameron's budgets. JVC have a 3d-ifier box for approx £20k which you can rent - HDMI in, 2 x out for L and R. Dirty, uses some clever algorithms to make best guesses, especially for tracking shots, the bulk of 3D films you got in that first flush used this. Many still do.

Obviously you can make 3D models for animations - most modern cartoon movies are modelled in 3D, so a 3D render isn't a big extra ask. This is how Avatar was made.

When you make 3D, you have to pick a neutral plane. Some films look like they were shot through a window, with all depth behind the screen, nothing jumping out. This is how the Queen's Coronation was filmed in 3D (yes, really. Unfortunately, that skew error I mentioned above meant it couldn't be viewed until the digital technology came along to correct it). It is simpler to always use that plane, and it makes people less sick than stuff jumping out, too.

Speaking of making you sick, it's a real thing. This is why a lot of hasty re-releases are so horrid. When you see the 3D image, your brain has to work out where that neutral plane is and reconstruct the 3D world based on the visual cues. It's not instant, it takes time. If that plane jumps around, your poor brain cries and wants to go home. This is why 3D football coverage is not the same angles and shots as 2D. 2D is cut fast from maybe 15-20 cameras, 3D is cut slowly from 5 cameras. You don't just replace the 2D ones, you have to add the 3D ones.

I have worked on various 3D projects, from big high-ticket pop concerts (where they cobble the DVD together over 3 different shows to get the mix of angles) to 2D-3D converted features with global distribution. But I hate watching 3D. To me, it makes me tired and feels like a gimmick. The different cutting style can affect the pacing of an edit, which means the film can lose something. Some people like it (although not nearly as many as the hype predicted) and so there will still be 3D features made of varying qualities. Cameron is doing Avatar parts 2-4 now. Personally I'm underwhelmed, but they will be well produced and look good for sure.

Will 4k be the next great thing we all absolutely MUST have? Maybe for some, but the fact is that each round of gimmickry isn't adding anything to the storytelling except in really rare examples. Crazy thing is better stories are much cheaper to film and distribute, but also to pirate, and that's the main thrust behind the new levels of technology that are promoted. Would I swap 28 Days Later (filmed in SD, not even HD) for a 4k 3D Avatar? Not on your nelly.

BillTrac

I bought a 50" plasma 3D tv a few months ago, and as said before the 3D is a bonus rather than what the tv was bought for.

I have a few 3D films and I do watch them in 3D. It's active rather than passive so the quality, in my opinion, is better anyway.

Personally I don't care if this format is slow to mature, or on the way out...I still have a great tv to watch. :-)

S0litaire

BillTrac wrote: »

I have a few 3D films and I do watch them in 3D. It's active rather than passive so the quality, in my opinion, is better anyway.

Active 3D gives me a sore head and eyes after a few hours. @_@
I can watch passive 3D all day with no effects.

but that's just me ^_^

BillTrac

That's why I said in my opinion.

I watch a film then take a break, not because of any effects, just because I like to have a break.

Never used the glasses for too long, but I will have a go at a longer stint and see the difference, if any.

I think that the passive glasses halve the resolution, does anyone know if that is easier/ better on the eyes?

comeandgo

Yup, have a 3D with glasses. Used to watch Sky 3D channel but it was a bit of a bother setting tv to 3D and putting on the glasses - felt a bit of a twit sitting there but never felt sick. Also have some 3D films. Now we use the 3D functions less and just watch the HD channels. Would I buy this function again - no.

S0litaire

BillTrac wrote: »

I think that the passive glasses halve the resolution, does anyone know if that is easier/ better on the eyes?

Their is no flicker with passive that you get with Active 3D glasses so their is less eye strain. It's done by polarized filters (to separate left view from the right) that means the glasses are cheap (same ones as the cinema use)

I'm going to try hooking my PC up to the TV sometime to see what 3D gaming is like ^_^

I've not noticed much in they way of loss of resolution between 1080p 2D and 1080p 3D Blu-Rays.