3D TV
Posted by: Andy S on 18 July 2010
Had a couple of hours free yesterday so called into a dealer I hadn't been into for close on 20 years. They aren't Naim dealers and I specifically went in to see what else was available (they are an ATC dealer and I've been wondering recently just what else is available) and they had the latest Panasonic 3D TV.
I have to say I was underwhelmed (as was the guy demoing it) and that was with the test disc! I really hope it proves to be a fad and dies out in a couple of years. I know that it's very new, but have others experienced it (not yet seen a film at the cinema in 3d, but I think it would be better as it would cover a larger viewing angle). I also think computer generated stuff will be the more impressive than real scenes as it appears that lens focal length has a 3D effect (too short and it appears top be cardboard cutous as far as I can see).
Posted on: 18 July 2010 by Geoff P
I saw AVATAR in 3D on an IMAX screen.
They showed a 3D trailer for an IMAX film coming soon, to open the show. This was shot on board the Space Shuttle when they went up to service the Hubble. Initially there was a WOW moment becuase a shot of the Hubble floating in sunlight with a large 3D depth seeemed mind blowing but after that moment it started to drive my eyes nuts because it was so overdone.
I was quite aprehensive as Avatar started up that I would quickly get a headache but Mr Cameron wisely kept the 3D treatment quite subtle and mainly to the peripheral areas of the film, sort of 'out of the corner of you eye' effects that work well with such a vast screen as you get with IMAX. I have to say it was very immersive without being silly. Quite rapidly the 3D aspect was forgotten and perhaps continued to have some impact mainly at a subliminal level.
These two examples at opposite ends of the spectrum illustrated for me how distracting and unsettleing 3D can become if overdone. That is of course what will happen because the temptation to have arrows and crashing cars etc flying out at the audience will be far too tempting.
Incidentally the system in use in the cinema used Polarising glases rather than the so called shuttering technique, which will presumably be used with 3D TV.
regards
Geoff
Posted on: 18 July 2010 by Andy S
Yup. The 3D TV I saw used shuttering. Quite disturbing as it switched sync rates as the TV switched between different sources. Don't think I could watch a lot of it TBH...
Posted on: 19 July 2010 by Mike Hughes
Two things for me:
1) I have no 3D vision therefore only certain sorts of 3D work for me. Sat through "Up" in 3D with my five year old and saw zilch. Went to an Imax and it was definitely working. Howver, anyone with a squint, astigmatism, nystagmus etc. is going to struggle.
2) I believe you lose up to 1/3 of the colour luminosity with 3D. So much for HD then. Decimated by Freeview and along comes 3D to finish it off.
I have a Pioneer LX5090 and no desire for HD but if you forced me to choose I'd say HD not 3D. I suspect many others will say the same.
Posted on: 19 July 2010 by mudwolf
I only saw Alice in 3D, lots of fun but I'm not going to see everything in 3D. It will get better in time with the best directors.
I'd hate to think of wearing glasses with shutters at home. I rented Avatar on my Samsung and Bluray. Better than I thought it'd be. It was also left open for a sequel.
Posted on: 19 July 2010 by James L
I'd rather go to a cinema (despite the average audio!!) for my 3D 'fix'.
Buying a 3D screen and player and then the software, add all this up and that is a lot of movie passes...
