3D HD TV

A forum to share ideas and opinions on the equipment and technical aspects of film, video and AV making.
Post Reply
Lee Prescott
Posts: 213
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:20 pm

3D HD TV

Post by Lee Prescott »

Last Saturday I was "entertained" in the Panasonic shop in Cheltenham Spa watching a large HD 3D TV running "Avatar". Perched in front of the TV screen was a telescopic stand
upon which the 3D spectacles were mounted. (Not your cardboard type but proper framed
specs).
I tried to watch the 3D movie but found that the 3D specs were more or less useless in front of my own spectacles which I obviously need to wear.
Has anyone else had this er "useless" experience, any solutions? If not beware!
The TV cost a modest £1999.99 ! (2000 quid by any other name)!

:cry: Lee.
Pqtrick
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by Pqtrick »

For me a 3D TV is out of bounds because of the cost. Perhaps they will come down to £250 in the future!

However, my only experience with 3D was at the cinema in recent times. I wear specs, although the lenses are quite small, the ones we had to buy in the cinema fitted perfectly over my own 'glasses'. The illusion was incredibly and I was quite taken by the experience. Perhaps, if the glasses you were looking thro', which you say were fixed to a stand. This restricted the head movement, hence your eyes and head were moving and the illusion was lost.
Only a guess!
Michael Slowe
Posts: 807
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 4:24 pm

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by Michael Slowe »

I HATE 3D! It ruins a film for me and also the picture quality. Saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D and although some effects are clever the general picture quality was nowhere near the lovingly shot films that we generally see in the cinema or even on TV documentaries. It's true that at somewhere like IMAX, with the enormous screen and especially shot dramatic effects for 3D, the entertainment can be enjoyable but it's a bit like the circus. I very much hope the idea dies the death that previous 3D revivals have suffered, both cinema and TV.
Pqtrick
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by Pqtrick »

I just cannot agree! We saw 'Alice in Wonderland' here in a cinema a little time ago. I thought the illusion was more than convincing. The picture were crisp and clear. Butterflies were floating about in the cinema, everything had a three dimensional effect to it. In fact we do see in 3D with our own eyes. We only regret is that when we went to see Scrooge, we had missed the 3D version and had to see it in 2D. You could almost detect the effects which were inteded to create the impact of three dimensions. It's fun!

However, last week we went to see 'Another Year', which we found an excellent film. Would there have been a purpose to have shot this in 3D? Especially as it was an everyday scenario. It could be argued that any effects would have been falsly created just of the effect of 3D. But there again, don't some folks at the onset of a film decide that they are going to use blue sceen to create illusion
User avatar
fraught
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:54 pm
Location: Basingstoke
Contact:

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by fraught »

I'm with Pqtrick on this one. I find 3D just an amazing spectacle and adds another amazing dimension to the film experience.

Some films are obvioulsly better than others, and i've seen a large portion of the 3D films released over the last couple of years, the best being AVATAR by far, with Tron Legacy, Megamind and How To Train Your Dragon... not too far behind. The worst example has been Clash of the Titans, as this wasn't shot in 3D, but converted (rather hurriedly) at a later stage. Alice in Wonderland followed the same process, but they spent a bit more time on it!

I've experienced 3D TV at home as a friend has it, and i have to say it was pretty good! We watched Monsters V's Aliens, and it really used the jumping out at you stuff to great effect, and wasn't all about perspective and depth.
I did see a demo 3D setup in the shops the other day, with a set of glasses fixed in an adjustable stand. They showed a demo disc on the tv, and i have to say... it was quite dreadful. The 3D was almost non-existant, unlike the Panasonic TV i witnessed at a friends house. So i would say try before you buy, and research your telly before jumping in.
Only Boring People Get Bored
http://www.fraught.net
ned c
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:39 pm
Location: Dammeron Valley USA

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by ned c »

Wether we like it or not 3D is here to stay. The TV manufacturers have to have a market and now that LCD/LED/Plasma screens are widespread and relatively cheap and the market nearing saturation they need a replacement. Prepare for our future as consumers, HD 3D and then when that is established, SuperHD 3D. I enjoyed the technology and spectacle of Avatar although the film is little more than a video game. I suspect that 3D has the same relevance as the arrival of sound, some hiccups along the way, moaning by the purists that cinema was just talking and finally, when the technology was sorted, acceptance. Note also the three pronged (TV, movies, home video) attack with a number of consumer 3D camcorders at the CES show. So, start saving for your 3D TV and camcorder now, Sony expect it!!

ned c
User avatar
fraught
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:54 pm
Location: Basingstoke
Contact:

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by fraught »

One of the reasons why film companies are pushing the 3D angle so much, is not just down to added profits from hiked up ticket costs... but it also cuts down piracy... as you can't take a camcorder into a 3D film and come out with a watchable picture.

Over the next couple of years 3D is going to go MASSIVE!
Only Boring People Get Bored
http://www.fraught.net
User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by Dave Watterson »

Let's not lose sight (sorry!) of Lee's original point.

Somewhere between 4% and 10% of the population cannot see stereo anyway. A large percentage, like Lee, will have problems using the various types of spectacles needed. That means a significant section of the potential market cannot enjoy stereovision movies or tv. Most of those people will have families. Will families buy stereo equipment knowing that one of their number cannot enjoy it?

Have you noticed that there are not yet very many sets on shop shelves. There is a lot of hype but we are a long way from a mass market so far.

"Avatar" made masses of money, but so have most of James Cameron's films. The secret is in the director's talents more than the 3D gimmic!

- Dave
Brian Saberton
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:00 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by Brian Saberton »

I saw Avatar in 3D and enjoyed it, but I also have the film in 2D on Blu-ray and I enjoy watching it just as much. I thought Clash of the Titans looked awful in 3D but, as fraught says, it was filmed in 2D and adapted at the post production stage. At least Avatar was shot specifically for 3D, so James Cameron could frame his shots for the 3D format. Recently I saw Toy Story 3 in 3D and, again, enjoyed it, but the 2D Blu-ray is I think just as enjoyable and I think the reason is that the story is good. I'm sure that both Toy Story and Avatar would have been just as successful if they had been offered only in 2D.

Having said that it looks like modern 3D is going to have more staying power than the old system that came out in the 1950's. The TV manufacturers and cinema industry are throwing plenty of resources at it and now we have 3D camcorders appearing on the market. I suppose this will be ok for people who just want to point, shoot and show but I foresee problems for those of us who prefer to edit our films. At a time when editing HD is proving to be something of a challenge I don't think we are ready for yet another format that will, no doubt, require even more computing power.

I saw a similar demo to Lee's on a visit to the national media museum last November. The picture quality looked good but the TV system is a different format to that used in the cinema (I understand that the spectacles use a kind of rapid change shutter system to alternate between left and right eyes) and isn't it true to say that the spectacles alone cost about £100 each? How many of these do you get when you buy a TV?

For myself I think I would find 3D TV a bit tiring to watch after a while. It was just about ok watching a 2 hour movie in the cinema but I can't imagine a whole evenings viewing at home.
Brian Saberton
Chrisbitz
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Orpington, Kent

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by Chrisbitz »

When I saw Avatar at the cinema, I could see the 3D effect, but to me it looked like cardboard cutouts of things at different depths. Real life has objects at an infinite number of different depths, and I'm guessing this is why the effect fails for me as 3D only has a very limited number of depths available...

I kind of have the same feeling of 3D as I do of HD. It's nice to have, but it's not going to make a crap film good, or a good film any better. If a film is good, it's good, whatever faddy bells and whistles you add on.

I do however like colour over black & white, so is that different or am I just being unfair against new technology?
I like to make films, this is- my Youtube account. What's yours?

"all of the above is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings, and definately should NOT be misconstrued as anyone's official policy"
Mike Shaw

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by Mike Shaw »

... me as 3D only has a very limited number of depths available...
I don't understand that - if you're talking about the 3D created with a two lens camera, replicating the eyes, which is how Avatar was shot. Artificially created 3D would be limited. Similar differences occur in animation, where '3D' is emulated by different layers (or cells in the Disney days - Snow White) or by '3D modelling', as in the Pixar creations (Toy Story).

But I most definitely agree with the idea that HD or 3D won't maker a bum film any better.

My Dad went that extra mile - he was a Press Photographer and always maintained a good black and white photo is always infinitely better than a rubbish colour photo and, he also said that, when learning to use a camera, until you can take a good photo in black and white, don't even think about using colour.
Not sure the same applies totally when learning to film - but I'd rather see a good film in B/w than a bummer in colour.
Chrisbitz
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:31 pm
Location: Orpington, Kent

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by Chrisbitz »

Mike Shaw wrote:
... me as 3D only has a very limited number of depths available...
I don't understand that - if you're talking about the 3D created with a two lens camera, replicating the eyes, which is how Avatar was shot. Artificially created 3D would be limited. Similar differences occur in animation, where '3D' is emulated by different layers (or cells in the Disney days - Snow White) or by '3D modelling', as in the Pixar creations (Toy Story).
You're absolutely right Mike, I was thinking of animation. But that makes it even stranger that in live action 3D everything looks like a cardboard cutout!

Or am I the only one that thinks that?
I like to make films, this is- my Youtube account. What's yours?

"all of the above is nothing more than nonsensical ramblings, and definately should NOT be misconstrued as anyone's official policy"
Mike Shaw

Re: 3D HD TV

Post by Mike Shaw »

Depends whether the 3D was created with a camera (AVATAR) or by animation processes (CLASH of TITANS). One of the problems that exists even with camera generated 3D is that it is then viewed 'through a peephole', so the action appears to be taking place within a box rather than behind a wall with a hole in it - so the eyes compensate. If truly 'behind a hole in the wall', perception is constant. If within a box, scaling alters the eye's/brain's perception of what is being seen outside and inside the box, and it knows that that huge panaorama couldn't be viewed through that 'hole'. For true 3D to work properly, it would have to fill everything the eye can see - in other words, if one wore glasses with the separate images on each lens, it would look more realistic.

Or something.
Post Reply