For how long though? Once they get 3D's down to £400 you can get standard 3D ones will be in the back corners of Supermarkets while the big stores charge high prices and try and force you to think you need 3D.
Without sounding crass, I think being blind in one eye may effect his "enjoyment" of 3D at any price no matter how long he waits ?
Why can't I just wear glasses and watch my normal TV?
Been bugging me for a while, just wondering really. All the cinemas had to be upgraded too, but why?
Because the systems they now use require different displays.
When it was just red/green anaglyph system, it was true that you could watch 3D on any display (colour of course )
However, the new systems improve the quality of the picture no end in comparison, and don't have the problems with a limited range of colours that could be used with the red/green glasses.
The new systems either use a polarized screen where the image for the left and right eyes are polarized differently (one vertically one horizontally), so that when wearing matching polarized glasses each eye only sees one of the two images as appropriate.
Or they use an 'active' system where the image for the left and right eyes are displayed alternately on the screen at a high frame rate (120ps), and then the glasses black out each lens in synchronization with the screen, so each eye only sees the appropriate image.
Consequently, you need a new display system to be able to support either of these approaches.
Red/Green or Red/Blue Anaglyph work equally as well with black and white photos, cgi or movies.
I have seen B&W 3D images that work with the R/G glasses, but doesn't it still require a colour display to show them? Isnt there still red and green in the source image, even if the result is B&W. They are the only ones I have seen.
(sorry, not 100% sure. Just asking)
I have seen B&W 3D images that work with the R/G glasses, but doesn't it still require a colour display to show them? Isnt there still red and green in the source image, even if the result is B&W. They are the only ones I have seen.
(sorry, not 100% sure. Just asking)
Yes as you said you would still need a colour display (to show the red/blue)
I've made/used it a few times at home with some pictures and the black and white works really well mostly because there are no other colours muddying the mix.
I heard on Sky News earlier during their sports news segment that Sky were showing the Ryder cup in 3D. I remarked "what advantage does 3D really have for golf? A close up of the ball? The feeling the ball is coming in your direction?"
3D has been around for a while now, a lot of films that are coming out are in 3D and work well in 3D, and add a lot to the feeling. The predict by next year %70 of films will be in 3D. It's the next generation, and it's massively popular.
You don't have to use 3D, you don't have to buy a new TV, you don't HAVE to do anything, so what is the problem? A lot of people want it or would like it. If you sit and watch a proper 3D film on one of these sets, you'll see why they're popular.
No one is forcing you to watch it, so why are you 'Anti 3D'
3D has been around for a while now, a lot of films that are coming out are in 3D and work well in 3D, and add a lot to the feeling. The predict by next year %70 of films will be in 3D. It's the next generation, and it's massively popular.
You don't have to use 3D, you don't have to buy a new TV, you don't HAVE to do anything, so what is the problem? A lot of people want it or would like it. If you sit and watch a proper 3D film on one of these sets, you'll see why they're popular.
No one is forcing you to watch it, so why are you 'Anti 3D'
Out of interest, if 3 D film is transmitted,is it the 3D tv that decodes it, like a nicam TV decodes sound? or 5.1 etc
I heard on Sky News earlier during their sports news segment that Sky were showing the Ryder cup in 3D. I remarked "what advantage does 3D really have for golf? A close up of the ball? The feeling the ball is coming in your direction?"
you can get the feeling your being rained on, without actually going outside
I heard on Sky News earlier during their sports news segment that Sky were showing the Ryder cup in 3D. I remarked "what advantage does 3D really have for golf? A close up of the ball? The feeling the ball is coming in your direction?"
You can see all the contours of the golf course and the distance of the ball compared to the flag, Both massively improve the viewing.
It's probably one of the best sports to show 3d in.
No-one's forcing me to buy a DAB radio .... at the moment :-)
My guess, though, is that it will never take over from 2D TV because of the number of people that just cannot watch 3D films because it makes them physically ill. I won't go into details, but it's to do with the eyes sending two different messages at once - the image on the screen appears to move towards you (so the eyes move inwards), but the screen stays the same distance away (so the lenses in the eye don't change focus). This confuses the brain, and makes a lot of people feel sick.
For the last couple of years now virtually every new TV sold has been flat screen plasma/Lcd I have just bought a new 46 inch LCD which I am very happy with. I am not about to dump it for a 3D set for a considerable time yet,and neither I am sure are many others.Also with the pressures on finances in many households caused by the recession stir into the mix all the reports of nausea and headaches and I think the 20% of the population who have eyesight problems and it is difficult to see it having any significant impact. If it is successful however how long before Sky add in a 3D premium and then start with the annual price rises
I'm not against people wanting to go out and buy 3D TVs if they want to; but I just don't really see the attraction. I mean, I've been quite happy watching '2D' TV for years and years, and I like it that way - stuck on my wall, with me watching it, without wearing silly glasses and feeling woozy.
I'm not against people wanting to go out and buy 3D TVs if they want to; but I just don't really see the attraction. I mean, I've been quite happy watching '2D' TV for years and years, and I like it that way - stuck on my wall, with me watching it, without wearing silly glasses and feeling woozy.
to be fair, just becasue you are quite happy with the status quo, does not mean it can not be improved.
Would the human race have created all my have, if we had taken that attitude, we would be stuck sitting around fires in caves, telling the story of how our grandfarthers once killed a great beast, to the same 20 people we will ever see all our lives, as we never go more than a few miles from our caves.
Comments
or more likely, the new minidisc, betamax or HDDVD.
Why can't I just wear glasses and watch my normal TV?
Been bugging me for a while, just wondering really. All the cinemas had to be upgraded too, but why?
Without sounding crass, I think being blind in one eye may effect his "enjoyment" of 3D at any price no matter how long he waits ?
Because the systems they now use require different displays.
When it was just red/green anaglyph system, it was true that you could watch 3D on any display (colour of course
However, the new systems improve the quality of the picture no end in comparison, and don't have the problems with a limited range of colours that could be used with the red/green glasses.
The new systems either use a polarized screen where the image for the left and right eyes are polarized differently (one vertically one horizontally), so that when wearing matching polarized glasses each eye only sees one of the two images as appropriate.
Or they use an 'active' system where the image for the left and right eyes are displayed alternately on the screen at a high frame rate (120ps), and then the glasses black out each lens in synchronization with the screen, so each eye only sees the appropriate image.
Consequently, you need a new display system to be able to support either of these approaches.
Red/Green or Red/Blue Anaglyph works equally as well with black and white photos, cgi or movies.
I have seen B&W 3D images that work with the R/G glasses, but doesn't it still require a colour display to show them? Isnt there still red and green in the source image, even if the result is B&W. They are the only ones I have seen.
(sorry, not 100% sure. Just asking)
Yes as you said you would still need a colour display (to show the red/blue)
I've made/used it a few times at home with some pictures and the black and white works really well mostly because there are no other colours muddying the mix.
You don't have to use 3D, you don't have to buy a new TV, you don't HAVE to do anything, so what is the problem? A lot of people want it or would like it. If you sit and watch a proper 3D film on one of these sets, you'll see why they're popular.
No one is forcing you to watch it, so why are you 'Anti 3D'
Out of interest, if 3 D film is transmitted,is it the 3D tv that decodes it, like a nicam TV decodes sound? or 5.1 etc
out of interest
You can see all the contours of the golf course and the distance of the ball compared to the flag, Both massively improve the viewing.
It's probably one of the best sports to show 3d in.
No such thing as a 3D film or a HD film
Reason all films 70MM and 35MM have always been HD
1960s and 70s,80s films are now being decoded to view in 3D even though they were not filmed in 3D
I would disagree...
There most certainly is a 'thing' such as 3D film.
That some older non-3d films are being converted, does not detract from the fact that films such as Avatar are made in a 3D format to begin with.
Avatar, and other proper 3D films are filmed using 2 cameras recording separate left and right images. So they most definitely are '3D films".
There is that
Do you not live in a 3D world?
(other than those unfortunate to only have sight in one eye)
Who plays or watches golf or football in 2D in the realworld? No one.
It's 2D that is totally false. We have just been conditioned into watching it for decades.
OK, some people may not want to wear glasses. But surely the concept of watching TV in 3D isn't itself a problem is it?
Depends if they do what the cinema does and make some movies 3D only.
That's why they don't do as well at the Box Office as many people are put off.
Lower camera angles for football because of 3d, they worsen the experience if 99.9% of viewers for the sake of a fad.
No-one's forcing me to buy a DAB radio .... at the moment :-)
My guess, though, is that it will never take over from 2D TV because of the number of people that just cannot watch 3D films because it makes them physically ill. I won't go into details, but it's to do with the eyes sending two different messages at once - the image on the screen appears to move towards you (so the eyes move inwards), but the screen stays the same distance away (so the lenses in the eye don't change focus). This confuses the brain, and makes a lot of people feel sick.
This is the most worrying aspect of the drive toward 3D. Perfectly fine camera angles that have been dropped to enhance the 3D experience.
Would the human race have created all my have, if we had taken that attitude, we would be stuck sitting around fires in caves, telling the story of how our grandfarthers once killed a great beast, to the same 20 people we will ever see all our lives, as we never go more than a few miles from our caves.