Stereoscopic 3D, when and how?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I've been thinking alot about 3D lately, and as I'm nearly 3000 posts into my Escapist career and haven't made a single thread of my own yet, I feel that now is as good a time as any to start. I would like you to keep in mind that I'm deathly allergic to criticism(got a note from my doctor and everything) and of a dying species, so this would ideally be a flame-free zone...we've already had a 3D bashing thread, I don't think we need another, and you don't need my death on your conscience, so let's play nice.

So, Escapist. Do we have plans to upgrade to a 3D set anytime soon? If so, what make and model are you interested in?

Or if you already have chomped on the bullet, could you share your experiences?

I am looking at a rather fetching 50" Samsung, it's a plasma...which would be a new thing to me. It has 2D/3D conversion built into it, some say this is really good, others are less convinced...I'm interested in finding out for myself. And as it supports side-by-side 3D I should be able to hook it up to my PC as well as my PS3, with the help of some Iz3D drivers I should be able to play PC games in stereoscopic 3D. Fun!!

So let's hear it.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I haven't even upgraded to HD yet.

Probably will never upgrade to 3D if I can help it.

 

[zfactor]

I won't upgrade to 3D until they I invent the holodeck. If you don't know what that is, look it up.

 

[imnot]

I haven't even upgraded to HD yet.

Probably will never upgrade to 3D if I can help it.

This im not spending my money on something I dont want/need.

 

[Sampler]

I bought a 42" LED LCD recently and was tempted by a Samsung 3D model but it was half as much again for a 40" unit, transponder and two pairs of active shutter glasses and there's just not the content available to warrant the price. There's very few movies available and few planned releases over the next year nevermind how much of that content I actually want to watch.

I don't play games much on my main TV, if I were to go 3D it'd probably be the computer first. I'm thinking the next set I buy in four to five years I may go 3D - hell I may not have an option by then, but it'll also mean the market will have worked out which of the three main types that're jostling for your cash right now is the best and go with that or we have decent parallax barrier tech so no glasses are needed.

Though I'm not getting my hopes up as I was hoping by now we'd have at least decent size/price OLED sets.

 

[DiMono]

I'm still watching TV on a CRT tube. It works just fine for my purposes, I don't need anything else.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I bought a 42" LED LCD recently and was tempted by a Samsung 3D model but it was half as much again for a 40" unit, transponder and two pairs of active shutter glasses and there's just not the content available to warrant the price. There's very few movies available and few planned releases over the next year nevermind how much of that content I actually want to watch.

I don't play games much on my main TV, if I were to go 3D it'd probably be the computer first. I'm thinking the next set I buy in four to five years I may go 3D - hell I may not have an option by then, but it'll also mean the market will have worked out which of the three main types that're jostling for your cash right now is the best and go with that or we have decent parallax barrier tech so no glasses are needed.

Though I'm not getting my hopes up as I was hoping by now we'd have at least decent size/price OLED sets.

Fair enough. It seems that the big producers are definitly working towards making 3D as standard(I've read as such), so that may well be the case a couple of years down the line.

You're right about the lack of content, that's why I was particularly interested in the Samsung set. 2D to 3D conversion sounds interesting, I've read on other forums that it can work pretty darn well(it adds depth, it doesn't make things fly out of the screen at you), but I intend to go demo a few Samsung screens tonight so I can decide for myself whether this is a good feature or not.

The fear of early adoption is legitimate, but I don't think I could go that far wrong with the set I'm looking at. I know the risks though...thanks for the considered response anyway, it was the first of the thread.

 

[Subzerowings]

I'm still waiting for 3D to die again, so I'm going to say no.
I actually genuinely hate 3D, it makes everything darker and doesn't give me a sense of "immersion" at all.
It also gives me eyestrain if I watch it for about 2 hours.

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

I will upgrade to 3d when you stop needing glasses, like with the nintendo 3DS.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'm still waiting for 3D to die again, so I'm going to say no.
I actually genuinely hate 3D, it makes everything darker and doesn't give me a sense of "immersion" at all.
It also gives me eyestrain if I watch it for about 2 hours.

You want it to die? Is there any reason why simply ignoring it isn't the optimal response for someone who has no interest?

 

[Starnerf]

I've been playing games in 3D for around 3 years now, and I would say the effect is not for everyone. You really need to be able to change the IPD to get a comfortable viewing experience because not everyone's eyes are the same distance apart. And some games are much better suited for 3D than others. It's definitely an interesting experience that I would recommend giving a try if you can. The tech is only going to get better, but it won't evolve if we don't make content and generate interest.

 

[antidonkey]

When I get a new I probalby will get a 3D one just because. However, I have no intention of replacing my 46" Toshiba anytime soon.

 

[newwiseman]

I won't be upgrading to 3D until consumer level 3D cameras becomes affordable.

 

[Sampler]

I'm still waiting for 3D to die again, so I'm going to say no.
I actually genuinely hate 3D, it makes everything darker and doesn't give me a sense of "immersion" at all.
It also gives me eyestrain if I watch it for about 2 hours.

Certain 3D does, especially if it's post production 3D but when shot Stereoscopically (that a word?) the result is no different to any other movie, it's the post product conversion to 3D that causes the darkening.

This is then enhanced by passive 3D glasses which tend to be slightly darker too.

But if that's your bag.

*snip*
Fair enough. It seems that the big producers are definitly working towards making 3D as standard(I've read as such), so that may well be the case a couple of years down the line.

You're right about the lack of content, that's why I was particularly interested in the Samsung set. 2D to 3D conversion sounds interesting, I've read on other forums that it can work pretty darn well(it adds depth, it doesn't make things fly out of the screen at you), but I intend to go demo a few Samsung screens tonight so I can decide for myself whether this is a good feature or not.

The fear of early adoption is legitimate, but I don't think I could go that far wrong with the set I'm looking at. I know the risks though...thanks for the considered response anyway, it was the first of the thread.

Thank you.
I can see the fad now for producers, especially as there seems to be a standard additional fee for 3D movies at the moment which people are paying so it's netting them extra revenue for little outlay (if they're using post production conversion and aren't overly bothered about the quality) but it's still not a great deal of the content that interests me, for now.
If the conversion works well then it may be worth it though, my concern with that would be how well it keeps up with high motion - I'd presume you'd need something relatively powerful for on the fly re-encoding, especially in a high motion situation and I don't believe they're going to put something that powerful in a relatively well priced TV set. Though I don't know how much you're paying or even if money's an issue for you.

For gaming I've seen a few things that nVidia are doing in the PC market and tempted to look at but nothing's blown me away enough to say "I must have that" yet. Especially as it'll mean a new monitor, glasses and gpu to do it.

One thing that may sway you away from 3D for the time being is the quad pixel TV. Sharp are added a yellow pixel to sit alongside the traditional red, green and blue which means the image is actually better - one thing to really differentiate in this market where nearly all TV's look as good as each other and are throwing silly features on just to make them stand out this feature actually does make an impact on how well the content looks on your TV and may be worth some research before you jump on the 3D unit.

I really do want 3D TV to work, I want there to be content - or at least a decent transcoder, but I feel it's not going to happen. Like in the '80s when there was a brief blip of everything being 3D I believe it's going to tail off again when the vast majority of people get bored of it and it's no longer in the interest of the content producers to make 3D as the return no longer offsets the outlay.

You can see this to some extent already with the new Harry Potter movie which they made a big fan fare about being in 3D and now they've released it in 2D - no doubt to get people to come back to the cinema and pay for it again when they do release it in 3D but the fact they've not bothered with it from the outset shows producers just aren't interested that much in even post production 3D nevermind all the extra work and cost shooting in 3D creates (at least Milla Jorovich was on about all the extra shooting she needed to do for Resi-Evil).

Though this is all my opinion and who am I? If your hearts set on it, you can afford it or at least you'll use it enough to justify the cost difference between that and a regular set (or even a nicer image creating quad-pixel set) then go for it.

Least the more people whom buy 3D shows there's the demand for the rest of us sitting on the fence (what? I like the way it feels ok)

I won't be upgrading to 3D until consumer level 3D cameras becomes affordable.

How much content do you watch that's made on consumer level cameras?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'm still waiting for 3D to die again, so I'm going to say no.
I actually genuinely hate 3D, it makes everything darker and doesn't give me a sense of "immersion" at all.
It also gives me eyestrain if I watch it for about 2 hours.

Certain 3D does, especially if it's post production 3D but when shot Stereoscopically (that a word?) the result is no different to any other movie, it's the post product conversion to 3D that causes the darkening.

This is then enhanced by passive 3D glasses which tend to be slightly darker too.

But if that's your bag.

*snip*
Fair enough. It seems that the big producers are definitly working towards making 3D as standard(I've read as such), so that may well be the case a couple of years down the line.

You're right about the lack of content, that's why I was particularly interested in the Samsung set. 2D to 3D conversion sounds interesting, I've read on other forums that it can work pretty darn well(it adds depth, it doesn't make things fly out of the screen at you), but I intend to go demo a few Samsung screens tonight so I can decide for myself whether this is a good feature or not.

The fear of early adoption is legitimate, but I don't think I could go that far wrong with the set I'm looking at. I know the risks though...thanks for the considered response anyway, it was the first of the thread.

Thank you.
I can see the fad now for producers, especially as there seems to be a standard additional fee for 3D movies at the moment which people are paying so it's netting them extra revenue for little outlay (if they're using post production conversion and aren't overly bothered about the quality) but it's still not a great deal of the content that interests me, for now.
If the conversion works well then it may be worth it though, my concern with that would be how well it keeps up with high motion - I'd presume you'd need something relatively powerful for on the fly re-encoding, especially in a high motion situation and I don't believe they're going to put something that powerful in a relatively well priced TV set. Though I don't know how much you're paying or even if money's an issue for you.

For gaming I've seen a few things that nVidia are doing in the PC market and tempted to look at but nothing's blown me away enough to say "I must have that" yet. Especially as it'll mean a new monitor, glasses and gpu to do it.

One thing that may sway you away from 3D for the time being is the quad pixel TV. Sharp are added a yellow pixel to sit alongside the traditional red, green and blue which means the image is actually better - one thing to really differentiate in this market where nearly all TV's look as good as each other and are throwing silly features on just to make them stand out this feature actually does make an impact on how well the content looks on your TV and may be worth some research before you jump on the 3D unit.

I really do want 3D TV to work, I want there to be content - or at least a decent transcoder, but I feel it's not going to happen. Like in the '80s when there was a brief blip of everything being 3D I believe it's going to tail off again when the vast majority of people get bored of it and it's no longer in the interest of the content producers to make 3D as the return no longer offsets the outlay.

You can see this to some extent already with the new Harry Potter movie which they made a big fan fare about being in 3D and now they've released it in 2D - no doubt to get people to come back to the cinema and pay for it again when they do release it in 3D but the fact they've not bothered with it from the outset shows producers just aren't interested that much in even post production 3D nevermind all the extra work and cost shooting in 3D creates (at least Milla Jorovich was on about all the extra shooting she needed to do for Resi-Evil).

Though this is all my opinion and who am I? If your hearts set on it, you can afford it or at least you'll use it enough to justify the cost difference between that and a regular set (or even a nicer image creating quad-pixel set) then go for it.

Least the more people whom buy 3D shows there's the demand for the rest of us sitting on the fence (what? I like the way it feels ok)

I won't be upgrading to 3D until consumer level 3D cameras becomes affordable.

How much content do you watch that's made on consumer level cameras?

I'm just back from checking out the PS50C680, I like what I saw. Aliens vs monsters looked absolutely stunning, the black eyed peas concert clip showered me in confetti, I even tried some 2D>3D conversion though I don't think I had the right source material...Eggheads in HD...show looks freaky in HD to start with, I did catch a few minutes of hairy bikers before that, and didn't look half bad! I can imagine it being good with my blu-ray collection.

As far as money goes, it's not such a ridiculous investment. I'm young, working, and have no real responsibility to anyone or anything in my life right now. The set is £760 in richer sounds, add on another £60 for the glasses, if you register the tv online they send you another pair free...there is also a Shrek 3D box-set bundled with it. Elsewhere it is £900 with 4 pairs of glasses and a 3D blu-ray player...and the Shrek box-set.

I'll get £200+ for my current set, so I'm only £600 or so out of pocket...if the set lasts me 2 years I can justify it. May well dive right in at some point over the next couple of weeks.

edit(for having more time to read your post properly) - I've heard that you do get motion stutter during games using 2d>3d conversion on LCD and LED screens, that's why I was specifically looking at the plasma screen. I've been stalking through pages of forums, reading peoples experiences using this function(on the specific set I'm looking at)for games and films, and it seems it's pretty decent. Apparently it has a pretty big effect on brightly lit and outdoor scenes, and a more subdued effect indoor and darker scenes.

Given the fact that I still get giddy frills over the quality of picture that blu-ray gives, I'm guessing I will have some fun with 3D, both native and converted.

I hadn't heard of the Sharp screen you mentioned(I've largely been focused on Samsung, with some interest in Panasonic too), I'll give it a look a little later.

Cheers.

 

[Subzerowings]

I'm still waiting for 3D to die again, so I'm going to say no.
I actually genuinely hate 3D, it makes everything darker and doesn't give me a sense of "immersion" at all.
It also gives me eyestrain if I watch it for about 2 hours.

You want it to die? Is there any reason why simply ignoring it isn't the optimal response for someone who has no interest?

If 3D is to succeed, it has to become an integral part of life in my opinion.
This is because of it's cost and implementation.
It needs support from major studios to survive and if it recieves it, more and more movies will come out in 3D.
I'm against that because I fear that 3D movies will sell better and thus studios will stop making "2D" movies because they simply aren't that profitable.
For investors, money is the only thing that counts and I don't want to have to watch a movie in 3D when I go to the cinema.
Does that make me selfish?
Of course, I'm not going to deny the fact that I choose my own happiness over the happiness of people I don't even know.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

I wont be investing until the price of the equipment comes down, and even the i'm not sure about it. I think 3D is just a stopgap technology, the next real innovation will be holographic displays but i think that's a good few years down the line yet. To me that's the logical next step as they are an upgrade to 3D in every way.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'm still waiting for 3D to die again, so I'm going to say no.
I actually genuinely hate 3D, it makes everything darker and doesn't give me a sense of "immersion" at all.
It also gives me eyestrain if I watch it for about 2 hours.

You want it to die? Is there any reason why simply ignoring it isn't the optimal response for someone who has no interest?

If 3D is to succeed, it has to become an integral part of life in my opinion.
This is because of it's cost and implementation.
It needs support from major studios to survive and if it recieves it, more and more movies will come out in 3D.
I'm against that because I fear that 3D movies will sell better and thus studios will stop making "2D" movies because they simply aren't that profitable.
For investors, money is the only thing that counts and I don't want to have to watch a movie in 3D when I go to the cinema.
Does that make me selfish?
Of course, I'm not going to deny the fact that I choose my own happiness over the happiness of people I don't even know.

As of yet, 3D has been an option rather than a standard, I don't see that changing.

You might have to be a little more selective about which cinema you visit if you want avoid 3D, but other than that it's a minor inconvenience.

 

[Subzerowings]

-snip-

We have one cinema in our city and almost all other cinema's in Belgium are run by the same company: "Utopolis" or "Kinepolis".
They're renovating their cinema's to house a special "3D only screening room".
They're already hopping onto the bandwaggon. I can only hope they don't make too many major changes.