Cool News
2010: The Year We Get 3DTV!!
I am – Hercules!!
Are you ready to start wearing glasses over your glasses to watch TV?
The Consumer Electronics Show is making news with the coming of 3DTV. A timeline:
* MAY 2010: LG's first 3DTV set hits the market. The new sets are expected to cost $200 to $300 more than comparable 2D sets. More manufactures are expected to make announcements about 3DTV sets Wednesday.
* JUNE 2010: DirecTV launches three HDTV channels. "At launch, the new DIRECTV HD 3D programming platform, powered by Panasonic, will offer a 24/7 3D pay per view channel focused on movies, documentaries and other programming, a 24/7 3D DIRECTV on Demand channel and a free 3D sampler demo channel featuring event programming such as sports, music and other content," according to a Jan. 6 press release.
* SUMMER 2010: The Entertainment and Sports Programming Network (ESPN) launches a 3DTV channel.
* 2011: Discovery, Sony and Imax team launches a 3DTV channel.
Expect a lot of original programming and movies like "Chicken Little" and "Avatar" that were made in 3D. While it's a relatively simple process to convert an old film print to HD, converting old-fashioned 2D movies and TV shows to 3D is apparently proving much more labor-intensive.
Follow links to stories on the sets and the channels.
Follow Herc on Twitter!!
New From Darth Vader’s Daddy!!
Cousin? Business Is A-Boomin' Feb. 2!!
-
+ Expand All
-
Damn it.
-
But I've just go through watching all 5 seasons of The Wire over the last 10 days.
Wow, seriously that show is the best thing I have EVER seen. I'm from the UK and it puts our dramas to shame. I just wish that I had started to watch it sooner so I could get in on some Wire talkback action.
Oh yeah, 3D tv is cool, but the real clincher is the story. It's one thing to sit in a cinema for 2.5 hours with glasses on ooohing and ahhhing at explosions, it's another to tune in week after week for months at a time.
Gimme a show like The Wire with a gimmick free 3D (I mean depth of field rather than stuff flying at you) and I'll drop the coin.
But if the execs try to spoon feed me shit like Hereos with Hayden Pantiesinatwist's breasts intruding into my front room then I'm out. -
Y a new TV? Can't they just make the channel/show 3D?!
-
I don't think I have to explain why that'd be a brilliant idea ANNAPAQUINSTITS.
-
My guess is the new sets come with (and synch up with) the new battery-powered "active glasses" as opposed to the horrible old red-green "passive" glasses that turn everything a muddy purple. More on the difference between old and new 3D here: http://bit.ly/8Pk9Ro
-
If/when ESPN has college football on the channel. I bet it's called ESPN 3D. Something "imaginative" like that.
-
No one wants this 3D CRAP !!!!
No one wanted it in the 50s.
No one wanted it in the 80s
And no one wants it now!!!
.
Every time TV hits a mild technology lull this crappy technology, which no one wants and has never worked right, rears it ugly head and we have to endure story after story on it.
No one wants it OK?
I am sure you have worked very hard on making it better, but no one wants.
It adds little to the experience, and involves a lot of hassle.
Stop pushing this shit!!!! -
While I like going to the theatre and seeing the odd movie in 3D (like Avatar, Christmas Carol, or Beowulf).. I'm not sure I'd want that at home. My TV is 42" and thats a little big, to be demoting to the bedroom tv already. I'm also thinking, how good can 3rd look on smaller tv's compared to giant theatre screens. I always felt bluray and HD would catch on (slowly but surely), but 3d.. I dunno probably more a novelty.
-
Avatar made a billion dollars in 17 days. No one wants it? No. You don't want it. You aren't the most important person on Earth, and you are wrong. The world changes. Sorry.
-
....between 3D movies, home viewing, and computer gaming, this time it's here for good....
-
goddamn some of you mofos are shortsighted....no shit you wouldn't buy it now because there is no programming. Once there are 50 channels of cool 3D content and larger screens are less expensive, everyone will have one.
-
Complete fail until the glasses can come off, otherwise it's just a big yawn-y gimmick that's going to cost companies' millions.
-
and that is that due to restrictions on bandwidth allocations it is impossible for tv networks to broadcast full 1080p or 720p in stereoscopic 3d. This is because in order to acheive the 3d effect 2 signals have to be broadcast a the same time and there simply isn't the bandwidth avaliable to do it.
3D tv can be broadcast in standard def, but who wants that?
I'm not a tech guy really, so I can't explain the full in and out of the situation, but here is a link to an article all about it;
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Industry_Trends/HDMI/3D/HDMI_1.3_Will_Support_3D_After_All/4002
As always, remove the spaces.
-
for people with really good eye sight.
-
Yet another TV set to buy. Yeah.
-
Never going to catch on. Higher resolution TV made sense. Higher resolution DVD made sense. This is a gimmick that's going to be dead in 5 years.
-
It's not like they couldn't make it so 3D broadcasts can't be watched on old TVs. If they do the encoding right, it'll be no different than listening to a stereo cassette on a mono player. So, even 50 channels of gimmicky "jump out at ya" in pseudo-double vision with sunglasses wouldn't be enough for me to buy a new TV. And if they do the bastard thing of making it so you can't watch unless you get a new TV, I might just boycott the lot. Wearing prescription glasses kinda screws up the thing anyway.
And, Herc, polarised frame slicer glasses have been around since the '80s. I remember some Sega console had them (Genesis, maybe?). So, yeah, that's probably what they're doing, but again, not that novel.
Like some others, I'll pay attention when it's glasses-free technology. I still feel burned about DVD being usurped by Blu-ray after such a short time. -
if this flies, i'll eat my fucking hat. total nonsense.
-
In other words, it'll rocket in popularity for about a year, then fade into obscurity like a warm fart.
-
Don't got those? You're fucked.
-
I think 3D is cute when it's the shit-coming-out-at-you amusement park experience, but bad 3D just sucks, and good 3D (like Avatar) stops being novel before the film is even over. And, like I said before, 3D will be over when we get our first 3D tittays.
-
In the awful "My Bloody Valentine 3D". It was the only good part of a shitty, dull looking movie.
-
Then 2D glasses
-
it's no different than when they shoot films now and do a digital intermediate. They're just scanning the negative, converting it to a digital codec. And most older films, if the print is in good shape, are nearly twice the resolution of HD. If we're talking about Lawrence of Arabia, a 70mm print has about 10 x's the information of 1080p. Only something like 4k on the Red camera is equal to film, and even then, it still lacks the dynamic range... but they're getting close!
-
And ultimately, just as instantly obsolete. Now Holographic TV...That's the future right there!
-
Here's the problem: When you're watching sports on TV, for the vast majority of the time, the camera is way the hell far away from the action. They have to zoom in to get up close. Imagine sitting on the second level at a football game. Not a whole lot of depth perception of the actual players. Imagine watching a baseball game from the outfeild bleachers. Again, the distance between the pitcher and the batter is insignificant from this vantage point, yet that's where the camera is that seem to be at 2nd base. If they simply replaced the main cameras with 3D ones, you'd still have to same depth perception from that point. The only noticeable pop-out-at-ya would be if someone hit a home run, but that's just a baseball. Unless depth can be greatly exaggerated, people will be disappointed en masse when this great new wave of 3D sports hits.
-
Looking forward to 12 months of that.
-
There are enough people out there who get headaches from the current 3D technology and a large number more who are not going to be willing to sit around their living room with glasses on their heads that require them to always watch the tv straight on, never tilting their head sideways or backwards that this technology will NOT go mainstream.
When the day of George Jetsons' 3D tv comes along, I will welcome our robot maid overlords but until then.. glasses and blurry screen = fail. -
Yes I did watch Avatar in IMAX 3D and 2 1/2 hours was pushing it for my tolerance of those glasses.
-
Avatar made $1B because it was heavily marketed as a must see, NOT because it was in 3D!
Plus that $1B wasn't ALL in 3D sales. It was mostly in 2D sales. Until you give me a break down of Avatar 2D vs Avatar 3D it means nothing.
Using that $1B figure to prove a demand for 3D is like using LOTR's box office to try to prove a demand for IMAX. And let us be honest, 3D movies fight for about the same niche as IMAX. Yes, it is "better" but not better enough for most people to demand it or go a few extra miles for it.
-
Jan 06, 2010 10:54:58 PM CST
If it's designed 2D, keep it 2D: remember Turner's "Colorized" B
by stereotypical evil archer
-
As in "It's going to be AWESOME watching this crap fade faster than HD-DVD." Jesus fucking Christ, you morons can barely sell BLU-RAY...what the fuck.
-
Hey douche, do some reading before spouting off revenue numbers for Avatar. 75% of UK revenue is from 3D, 65% of domestic gross is 3D.
-
It's the natural evolution of video media. Going back to 2D movies after Avatar felt like watching a silent film they day after the first Talkie. And I can guaruntee the naysayers, if they can put out RealD TVs that are only a tiny bit more expensive than normal ones, people will snatch them up. And they will demand more 3D content. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but in the past 2 years the TV industry has been flooded with cheap, HD tvs, which resulted in people buying them, realizing there was almost no HD content to watch on them, which resulted in them constantly harping their cable providers to get with the program, and the cable providers did. The exact same thing will happen with 3D Tvs. People will buy them because they're cheap and cool, then collectively bitch and moan about the lack of 3D content...companies that are willing to step up and provide the content will get all the 3D tv-owners, forcing the competetition to do the same, etc. It's a machine, you can't stop it.
-
just slap me really hard in the right eye -- same effect. 3D movies make vision seem dim and blurry in one eye.
-
I usually watch TV with my lazy ass lying on the couch. Some times I sit up. Some times there are five people watching the same TV. 3D requires glasses, will will only work if you are looking straight-on. If you ly on your side, the 3D sucks. So that's a no-go. You can do no-glasses 3D in a controlled environment where the screen is perfectly angled to your eyes and you never move your head even a little. That will also be a non-starter for real TV viewing. So if you can't do it with glasses, and you can't do it without glasses, then you have a failed format.
-
If you don't think so, check out some of the other zombie garbage bullshit that's out there. I love great zombie flicks, and Zombieland is up there with the best of them.
-
It'll own your asses in 2011.
-
DLP's currently have 3D technology built into them and you can even buy the gear to watch movies and play games in 3D. Just do a google search for DLP 3D and click on the first DLP.com link you see.
-
But seriously, I have to wear 3D glasses in my home now? I can't keep track of the fucking remote, and I've lost every pair of sunglasses I've ever owned (and a few pairs of prescription lenses) Oh, the future does not look bright for me.
-
...is retarded. You can't compare watching a 3 hour movie to having your TV in 3D 24 hours a day. Sure, it's always fun to go see a big 3D event movie. That doesn't mean people want to watch Sportscenter that way. 3D is a novelty, a gimmick, a fad that can be used to enhance certain movies but not everything needs to be in 3D. Who wants to go to some lame 3D Superbowl party where it's filled with a bunch of nerds wearing goggles? Everybody stabbing themselves in the face with chips and pouring beer down the front of their shirt because they can't see what they're doing?
The thing to me is that if I do buy a 3DTV why isn’t everything in 3D? That is the technology that makes sense to pay for. A 3DTV should just take whatever signal it's getting and turn it into 3D at the push of a button so you can decide when you want to use it and when you don't. There shouldn’t have to be special 3D channels. Anybody can make 3D videos. I found an easy tutorial on the internet, uploaded some home movies into my computer and made them 3D in less than an hour. Mine worked 10 times better than that Chuck episode or the Superbowl halftime did. So don’t tell me they couldn’t put a device in a 3DTV that would format normal images into 3D images if an idiot like me can do it.
This is nothing but another sickening attempt by these people to try to sucker more money out of our pockets. Spend $5,000 on a 3DTV, spend $500 on a 3D Bluray player, spend $24.95 per glasses, spend $9.95 a month for the 3D channels, rebuy your movie collection on 3D Bluray discs for $29.95 each and add $2 dollars to your Netflix subscription so you can rent 3D movies. Oooh, I look forward to that!!!
-
I will be shocked if this is a big seller.
-
Saw it advertised in front of Avatar. I wonder how many program makers will make genuine 3D shows though, it will be years before everyone catches on, in fact I only just got an HD television, so I wont be getting another one for a good few years.
I heard there are plans to do an episode of Doctor Who in 3D with glasses. -
In the cinema, sometimes. But at home? No way do i wanna watch tv wearing glasses, at least not til my eyesight leaves me no choice. Even then, though, no 3D at home, thanks.
-
How about getting HDTV saturation first? Still see too much pillar-boxed content now, and I shouldn't have to tune into special HD versions of channels. They should all be in HD! And you know what, the 3D channels are going to suck back all the bandwidth that was freed up going to digital broadcast.
-
I can only speak for myself here, but frankly, I'm getting pretty bored with 3D in theaters. It rarely adds to a movie and most of the time I get so tired of the glasses they distract me from the movie. So, I've got no urge whatsoever to watch my TV in 3D. Doesn't help matters that most movies add 3D as an afterthought just to garner the extra money.
-
I agree with jbs9200, it's a fad technology which returns every so often and goes away again when the novelty wears off. Yes Avatar made a lot of money from it as did other (less financially successful) 3D films in the past but people soon get bored of wearing the funny glasses. Once the glasses are gone (holographic) then that will be the next logical step until then enjoy what you already have, go to a theatre, sit by the ocean or stand on a mountain and enjoy full peripheral 3D vision widescreen, smell-o-vision and the best audio you can have. Either that or read a book cause the mind is the best medium we will ever have.
-
what's been happening on Europa anyway?
-
that they stop making those ridiculous new years glasses with the zeros for the eyes
-
Has anyone given any thought to how 3-D imaging will effect combat choreography? So much of the basic hand-to-hand fighting you watch on TV and in the movies depends on the lack of visual dimensionality between the opponents. The editing and angles of each shot allow the illusion that the punches and kicks are making contact. This is due to the 2-D nature of the image. Once you allow for a 3-D visual, you'll be able to tell that the fist is a good foot away from the face. The punch never lands! It will all look FAKE like in a staged wrestling match.
-
The glasses are a small price to pay. All you people afraid to put on the glasses are pussies and whiners. STFU bitches. It's the future.
-
WB is making Netflix customers wait an additional 4 weeks for their new releases! Fuck that!
Oh and I didn't mean fuck this news. 3D tv is going to be cool. -
'It's the future.' That's exactly what they said in the 1950s, not exactly moved on has it?
-
Looking forward to sitting down and watching JAWS 19 on my spiffy new 3-D TV. Maybe I'll go down to that quaint '80s cafe afterward.
-
I know that blu-ray has adopted a standard for content, but from what I understand, that covers getting the 2 signals out to HDMI and the display tech can be any number of technologies. The active glasses break quickly, by the way. The display ones at the local electronics store have been replaced 3 times in the last month. Passive is the way to go when it comes to glasses. Easy to replace, cheap to replace. And trust me, you do NOT want to be paying for a new set of actives every time your sister's snot-nose little brat visits and insists on seeing UP for the 20th time. (and why shouldn't he? it's awesome!) I have finally seen this "converted after the fact" 3d and it's SHIT. There's a huge back catalog of existing material already shot in 3d (most of it crap, sure) and honestly, this all reminds me of (was it TNT?) TNT's attempts at colorizing films that should always remain B&W. Just concentrate on what IS 3d and leave everything else alone. Trust me, there will be enough content over the next few years now that Avatar has made all the doubters eat not only it's lunch, but it's lunch on it's way back out of it's body. It also looks like CES this year should have been renamed CES-3D.
That reminds me, if anyone is interested in basically non-stop, live streaming coverage of CES, here's a place that's doing it.
http://live.twit.tv/ -
The world of tomorrow: Today!
-
I'd love a 3d tv and Blu-Ray player and game machine, but I'm not gonna run out to drop the coin. I've got 7 televisions in my house, and one of them is an inexpensive HD TV, the rest are old fashioned CRTs. We got our first Blu-Ray player this Christmas . . . the price premium is going to have to get down to maybe 5% before I buy any of it. And I'd love to have it. Just not enough to pay real money for it . . . That being said, active glasses have certain advantages. It doesn't matter what angle you view the screen at, for example. You can lay on your side and watch it that way, if you want. It's old fashioned polarization that screws up the image when you tilt your head (which, I'm sure you've noticed, isn't nearly as much of a problem with the stochastic polarization RealD uses, so you can move around a bit watching Avatar without having the 3d just disappear. If they can translate the stochastic 3d to passive glasses on television, then I think passive would work well. The most important thing is the TVs need to be bright. Avatar was the first 3d movie I've seen where it seemed like the movie was as bright as a regular 2d movie. And 3D for gaming? It's a no-brainer. All the game machines will probably start moving to 3D, and it's going to drive sales more than 3D tv channels or Blu-Rays.That being said, I'm in the camp that loves retro-3D. I saw Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D, and I loved it. I'm looking forward to Beauty and the Beast in 3D. I'd love to see Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Back to the Future movies in 3d, as well as the Lord of the Rings trilogy (and I'd go to the theater to see it). I'm all for it . . . they're just gonna have to get the price down before I actually buy any of the home 3d stuff. $300 per set? Make it $30 and I'm there. ;)
-
It won't. It's going to take years for programming to catch up to 3D standard. I wouldn't put down any money on a 3D TV next year. Shit, I just got finished paying for my plasma HDTV.
-
3D is pointless distracting bullshit.
-
Okay, this is really a techie question. I noticed in the link that Samsung is one of the companies who is going to sell "new" 3d TVs. I currently have a 3d capable set, a Sammie DLP LED rear projection model. It has the snyc out jack, and I have the shutter glasses and the emitter. It currently only works with signals delivered via computer, which has the capability to separate the two signals. I haven't tried it with the new Avatar game, but I am told that the PS3 will deliver stereoscopic 3d if you have a 3d capable TV. The TV is 120 Hz, which means that the 3d, I think, delivers two 60 Hz signals, one to each eye. The effect on 3d content is amazing, especially the games (Crysys...). My question is whether this "new" technology will work with the current batch of 3d capable televisions (Mitsubishi also sells them), or whether it would require a new television. If so, I think a class action lawsuit against Sammie would make sense. If less than a year ago they sold me a television that was 3d capable, knowing that they were at the end of the design phaze for a new television that would render mine oblsolete, well, that just wouldn't be right, but about on par for the electronics companies. The question, therefore, is whether anyone knows the answer. As for the artistic merits of 3d, the technology will allow for interesting filmmakers (and game designers) to use the technology to do interesting things with it. Avatar is a great example, because the 3d is only used to enhance the experience, not dominate it. This was also the case with Nightmare Before Christmas in 3d, where the movie wasn't changed at all, and the 3d just added depth perception, greatly improving the experience. Cameron said that Avatar should work equally well in 3d or 2d or whatever "D" you saw it in. This is a good way of looking at it. Think of the films that have been released in the past few years in 3d; when you watch them at home in 2d, do they still work? The answer depends on the films themselves, obviously. Polar Express, MVAliens, Beowulf...all these films worked fine in 2d, and I suspect that Avatar will as well. The answer to any new technology in film is always the same, and that is if the filmmaker uses it for the right reasons, the medium is loose enough to accomodate it.
-
As I understand it, the PS3 will be able to transmit the 3d signal with only a firmware update, and that goes for other blu-ray players as well.
-
so let me get this straight, one of the reasons 3D came back to theaters was a reason to entice people to go out and see movies since it was something you couldn't get at home. but now its coming to televisions....so then people will just stop going to the theater again and wait to rent it or until its on tv. way to go hollywood!!
-
oh yeah, i can't wait for that.
-
don't worry, those fake eyelashes and fake tits coming out your tv won't hurt you.
-
i'll take "Lame Technologies" for 1000, Alex.
-
help, i'm being attacked by a giant chin!
-
They used a polarising grating on front of the screen instead.
-
I think the new 3D is 240hz so you might be shit out of luck.
-
you have 2 years to perfect it, in time for Dakota Fanning to turn 18
-
It's doesn't make the story better. Doesn't make the acting better. Despite what people say it doesn't look more real. Will people really care if The Big Bang Theory is in 3D? My whole life is in 3D, why do I need my entertainment to be?
-
Those things really require that you look at 'em "just right". Until they get some form of iterative 3d TV that looks good from numerous angles, we're stuck with the glasses. I want to the see the Active 3D glasses in action, though. The last time I used "Active" 3d was back in the 80s, with the one 3D game from Intellivision. Which, I think, adjusting for the interlacing, came to 15 fps per eye--man, it was hard to look at. Not to mention that the graphics on the Intellivision were terrible. And the game--some sort of 3d missile attack thing--was impossible to play. If you're getting 60 fps per eyeball, now we're talking.
-
Feel free to bleed some cash into the first incarnation of this tech. I, for one, am going to wait this battle out.
-
figure out how to lose the glasses. Home entertainment is about entertainment in "comfort" of your own home. I want to be excited about this, but unfortunately I'm not a fighter pilot.
-
The wait is over - before it even began!!!!
-
Jan 07, 2010 11:23:21 AM CST
I'VE BEEN WAITING TO GET A NEW TV FOR THE LIVING ROOM
by bringingsexyback
Apparently fate had a hand in that.
-
or do I have to get a bluray thingamajig?
-
Anything that will deliver Chelsea Hightower's barely concealed crotch to my face cannot be considered a hindrance.
-
Home Smell-O-Vision.
-
Finally we get to experience Chumlee the way he was meant to be.
-
You think 3d is bad my theater has this shit. The seats move and vibrate to what is happening on the screen and the tickets are 17.50 a piece. It's dumb.
-
Jan 07, 2010 11:49:56 AM CST
Just a stupid gimmick. When they get holography right,
by hey_kobe_tell_me_how_my_ass_tastes
I'll be there with cowbells on though. Never waste money on new tech - it always has bugs and is always to expensive. Buy it in the second or third year if you must.
-
Nobody wanted them. They never went to market. I remember looking at one. It was neat but it changes your interpretation of the medium in a way movies can handle and TV can't.
People GO to see movies. TV is often passive back ground noise of dismissible entertainment.
Now VIDEOGAMES on the other hand. THAT will work. -
. . . the image takes up your entire field of vision.
To get that at home, you'll need to sit really close to the TV or you'll have to buy a really massive TV. -
Those lips will fly at your face.
-
... videogames. They've never sold that well.
Hell, I remember playing good ol' Doom while wearing something similar to a Virtuality helmet. It was fun, but I wasn't willing to pay the amount they wanted for it. -
'nuff said.
-
It's not gonna replace 2D tv, it's just a nice to have feature. Now I can finally rewatch Coraline. My HDTV is ten years old anyway, so I've held off on a new TV long enough. Fad or not, I'm totally in.
-
Nuff said indeed. Me likey.
-
T.V.s are going to be 3D ENABLED, meaning you can DISABLE it at any time. The real draw of a 3D enabled tv is going to be stuff like 3D blurays and videogames. I could care less about 3D ESPN, but to play a game and have bullets wizzing by my head is definitely something I'd pay for...
-
With subject lines that float off the screen?? I'm telling you - itls a great time to be alive.
-
they make one that plugs directly into my brain-jack.
-
I was at AVATAR in IMAX3D on opening night and was handed a pair of pretty decent glasses. But I was there two weeks later to see it again and had to ask for several sets before I got a pair that were not scratched or scrapped to the point of messing up the polarization. Unlike ReadD where you get a new pair of glasses wrapped in plastic every time, IMAX glasses are "recycled" which basically means a bunch of high school aged teens in some back room of the theater wiping the glasses down with sanitizer without the slightest concern for doing this job with extreme care. The deterioration of these IMAX glasses are probably the single reason there is any negative word of mouth concerning IMAX3D, which is a shame because it’s vastly superior to standard movies in 3D. People will have this same problem at home with glasses unless someone starts making them out of REAL GLASS or hard plastic instead of that mylar crap. With so much riding on AVATAR and 3D in general, you would think that the studios would be on these theaters asses more over the quality of the cheap plastic glasses they expect us to use over and over again.
-
It, just like everything else, will have to proceed in steps, with each step being less inconvenient and more reliable than the previous. Yes, eventually it will be glassless, and eventually viewing angle won't matter as much. Those begging it to fail are no different than those that decried Hi Def, color broadcasting, television over radio, stereo sound, and every other evolution of home theater. Cameron, Spielberg and Lucas are all heavily invested in it, and the next generation of filmmakers are sure to follow once they can afford to. The basic progression here has always been to better mimic in your living room and theater seats what you can see with your living eyes in the real world. Except your living eyes can't see far off planets, fantastical creatures and baffling action sequences, that's the hook, always has been. No, you don't need to rush out to buy a brand new set yet, the vast majority of consumers didn't rush out immediately to buy brand new bluray/HD players, color televisions, widescreen televisions when they first came out either. They waited until they were cheaper and the kinks were worked out. Feel free to do the same with 3D, I know I will. But you and me both will own the technology eventually.
-
FEEL-A-ROUND! See John Landis DID have a vision of the future when he made Kentucky Fried Movie!
-
I'm not knowledgeable on the inner workings of the technology, so if this is a stupid question, forgive me. Why is a specific set needed to display the 3D-ified picture? Without the glasses, they're still flat images, right? I distinctly remember watching 3D videos on my computer using those cheap blue and red paper glasses.
-
I'm not buying a new TV... I'm not... Nope... Not doing it...
-
Jan 07, 2010 2:35:15 PM CST
MattmanReturns: I still don't have a bluray, and don't intend to
by royston lodge
I have no problem suffering through standard-definition, and I download mosta my movie rentals offa iTunes anyways.
-
I don't own a Blue Ray player and have no plans to buy one until the content is the same price. I'm not paying 50% more for movies, no way in hell. And I'm not rebuying my entire library for BlueRay when I still haven't replaced my VHS collection.
Same with 3D, it's not worth the markup and the cost of all the new hardware and media.
3D can be a gimic for those lucky enough to have piles of money to piss away. But for us mere mortals, forget it. I'll convert to 3D when it's free. -
I'm just saying it's pretty popular now, even though a lot of talkbackers were saying it would never take off. I wish I had the fortitude to resist these new technologies, but I'm all about getting the best possible picture and experience. I actually prefer Blu-Ray to the theater now.
-
With support for 3d gaming and 3d blu being put in a firmware update, the ps3 is unmatched as an entertainment device.
-
It's totally win-win! Either you get a three-way with the sister, or you get a 3D tv!
You lucky bastard. -
Jan 07, 2010 3:33:33 PM CST
To bad it'll cost you $150+ if you don't want the red/green glas
by geomancer21
If you are looking for theater experience 3d better break out them wallets, those glasses ain't cheap. Other wise you are stuck with the crappy colored glasses.
-
Jay Leno is getting 11:30pm back. Just a rumor now but it's catching on. So far TMZ is the only one reporting it. Totally sucks.
-
But everybody's just quoting TMZ.
-
I can just assume the technology will change/improve fairly rapidly and buying one of the first 3D sets could be a mistake.
-
for hours at a time. Your eyeballs would bleed. And what if you have to drive after watching 3DTV all day, will your eyes adjust in time? And don't potheads have enough shit that freaks them out without stuff jumping out of the
TV at them? These seem like important questions to me -
nice to see people are still so uneducated. i guess i live in a special magical world where blu-ray movies are 2-3 dollars more and my blu-ray player actually plays dvds so nothing is replaced unless i choose to. i will call this land Fantastico.
-
You and me both. I got my PS3 free with my new tv, and just bought The Dark Knight on Blu-ray (incredible picture & sound btw) for $16 (Australian, about US$15). Life's good.
-
and i wont at all be surprised if the world continues to sputter to a slow sludgy near death for a while. but all this crazy shit piling up on itself, c'mon, how far can it go??
-
BY CONSTANTLY SAYING,"COME ON!!"
-
3D is obviously not meant to be watched 24/7, like the porn you guys devour. 80% of your viewing would be 2D, and you'd have a few specialized things you'd choose to watch in 3D, like a flick or discovery channel show, or NBA game...people are bitching and moaning on here, like they feel they'll ALWAYS need to wear the glasses while watching TV. No one will hold a gun to your head...3D will roll out slowly, the TVs still play 2D content...5 or 10 years down the road, you wont even need glasses and 3D content will begin to saturate more, but there will still be plenty of 2D programming. jesus christ you are a bunch of whiny cunts who just REACT like sheep and don't think. And anyone who thinks 3D wont catch on is a fucking moron. Avatar is at 1.3 billion dollars in 3 weeks, with 75% of fucking ticket sales being 3D or IMAX 3D with people going back multiple times...translation, they like 3D and will gobble up the TVs...by next Christmas they'll be everywhere and you nearsighted faggots will still be bitching.
-
Stand in the way of me and my 3D porn. We're a few years away from making women obsolete. Go progress.
-
We view the world in 3D...just like we hear the world in SOUND, which is why it caught on after the silent film era. Stereoscopic 3D is a brand new thing, it's going to take time to perfect, like every new technology, but over time. We view the world in 3D, it's time to start getting our motion pictures that way too. People are so blind and shortsighted...if it were up to faggots like you, we'd still be living in the dark ages. "Sound? Why do we need sound in movies? Too distracting! Movies are a visual art form!" "Visual FX? What the fuck??? I want reality dammit, movies are supposed reflect reality!" "HDTV??? What the fuck man, I like my 8,000 pound sony trinitron just the way it is, I don't need no high res images, who can watch that shit 24/7, it would hurt your eyes, too much reality!!!"
-
I like the idea of seeing things in 3-d but seriously while watching avatar i was actually straining my eyes.
It was hurting. Why do we need to wear the fucking glasses? I thought we be able to have holographic imagery by now. We already got translucent see through lap-tops developed by samsung.
I am not paying for 3-d flat screens right now, until it becomes optional. Not everything should be in 3-d.
I think video games in hi-def 3-d would be pushing the envelope and would be something i would love to see. but right now. it's too much. -
Big deal, just seemed to be a HD tv with glasses (not powered in any way either). Surely it is the delivery mechanism that has to be 3D rather than the tv anyway?
Can't say I was impressed. Certainly won't be buying one -
George Lucas is already thinking, "Great...now I've got ANOTHER reason to go back and tamper with the trilogy and the prequels! I can give the world Jar Jar Binks in 3D!!!!" And you know what, you'll bend over for it and take it anyway he wants to give it to you.
-
This shit will be cool for a short period of time. It will be supported by a tiny fraction of consumers and it will die off very quickly. People dont want to wear glasses to watch 3d and it's even worse when it's shutter frame tech that requires a wire to the set (lame) or batteries. Theres are tons of other 3d display technologys out there. It would be nice to see a tv that does the same thing real D does, so no batteries or wire is needed. then you have the systems that ac tually can manage a somewhat 3d image using multilayered lcds or the perspecta technology. Surely something better will come. This way is the Fad way......
-
to compete with the home theater market. Now the home theater market adopts 3D. So I guess its back to Odorama and Feelavision ala Kentucky Fried Movie for the theaters.
-
Here, here on The Wire love.
-
It took talkies like 3 years to take over. 3D is on its third try. People hate those fucking glasses and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around in my living room wearing shades over my glasses to watch "NBC's Jay Leno: Clinton LOL" every night.
-
With a CED player attached. And I shoot my home movies on Pixelvision. Fuck all this shit.
-
terrible, terrible, terrible...3D is STILL absolutely shite. I doubt this will catch on anytime soon. If ever. I weep at the amount of money being wasted on this gimmicky nonsense. Avatar is composed with 3D in mind, but apart from a couple of scenes it added very little substantial artistic benefit to the experience if you watch it in a normal sized cinema(in proper hug-o-saurus IMAX it was admittedly pretty immersive). And no ones gonna have an IMAX sized TV in their living room. Not for a long time anyway.
-
Concept is Stupid!
-
was the Sega Master System, the system from before the Genesis, which ostensibly was competing with the NES. I say ostesibly, because in the US at least, it wasn't doing much competing. The 3-d games were pretty cool though, esp. the one with the missles coming at you off the screen.
-
I think I'm hearing the same speculative, armchair arrogance/ignorance that I heard before AVATAR launched. 3-D is the future, always has been. With everything going on right now it will take less than 5 years to completely saturate all media. Bitch about the "glasses" all you want but the gross majority would much rather see a movie in 3-D or even their favorite TV series. If you haven't figured out that immersion is the corporate end-game now, then you're WAY the fuck behind the curve-ball on this one. This is a complete reboot of both cinema and network television. I for one can't wait!
-
I hate to tell you this but corporations are meant to make money forever. Thats how the capitalism works. They don't make money until saturation/emmersion/insert marketting gobbledigook here happens. They are meant to keep making more and more money forever. Thats it. There is no end game. Make more money this year than last year....and repeat. Thats it.
-
How much does it really add to the viewing experience? I wouldn't have liked Avatar any differently if it had been in 2-D. And one thing I know for sure is that The Wire wouldn't be improved by 3-D. I'll save my money...I don't even have a HDTV yet, and amazingly I still enjoy my movies and broadcast TV just fine.
-
Actually, those glasses are cheap, I have a bunch of polarized 3D theatre glasses at home. Every time I go to the movies in 3D, they give me a pair.
-
Does anyone watch the Wizard of Oz in the original mono soundtrack?
Don't expect all programming to just be magically 3D either, to do it right they would have to re-recreate every frame on anything previously shot 2D in a 2nd eye perspective. It's a relative cakewalk for anything CGI made in a computer, one could just program another camera view in Maya. But to see Star Wars in 3d, every frame of the film would have to be digitally manipulated and the entire film would have to be re-created to look like it was shot from 1 1/2" over. (which I've heard they've been working on for a few years)
This will NOT be like Star Trek: TOS in HD since that was originally shot on Film and downgraded to SD for broadcast.
The only stuff will be newly shot 3D content, anything CGI or anything else originally filmed in 3D (Dial M for Murder!)
This won't catch until you ditch the glasses. Imagine being at a party, someone's mp3 playlist is blasting and the TV's on mute, everyone would have to be wearing these 3D glasses to see it right. TV is generally passive, it's furniture.
This'll rule video games though, you already have to go out of your way to set that shit up, wait for updates to load, wait for the game to load, you have a freakin' 20 something buttoned motion controlled analog device in your hand, sometimes a mic headset, what more is a pair of glasses to fully immerse yourself in the experience?
-
Exactly...the ignorance and lack of vision on display here is typical. No wonder most of these freaks will never amount to anything.
-
Jan 09, 2010 4:54:25 PM CST
Reality is in 3D, therefore that's where everything is headed
by mattmanreturns
The ultimate goal has always been to get as close to reality as possible. You can't do that with a flat image, sorry. 3D has always been the ultimate goal, hence why they've persisted so long attempting 3D, despite repeated failures. If you don't think three dimensional images are the ultimate future, then you're seriously naive. I agree though that glasses are clunky. The ultimate 3D experience will be without glasses... but that's still a decade off, unfortunately. Still, it WILL happen.
-
Fuck.
-
is smell-o-vision next?
-
Now the whales in the documentaries and the helicopters in action movies will look like they're 18" when poking out of 40" screens. This is why 3D only works (marginally) on big screens or in VR helmets.
-
Yeah, Reality is in 3D.
But NOT the crappy crapfest that is any existing 3D process -- reality doesn't care if you are watching with your head sideways.
The gimmicky illusion of 3D is never going to be successful. I missed about 1/3 of the scenes in the first 3rd of Avatar because my eyes couldn't adjust -- so when you watch TV, do you always sit with your head still, at no angle and properly aligned so that you can enjoy the picture? FAILURE -
All that will happen is that TV companies will churn out crap like reality shows(Big Brother etc),soaps,confrontational-type shows(Jerry Springer,etc),kids shoes,X-Factor/American Idol"talent"shows,game shows,makeover shows,cookery shows etc-all in glorious 3D.That stuff is total and utter shit in 2D,it wont be any better in 3D.Th TV companies will boast"we broadcast x-hours of 3D programming per week",which may sound impressive,but will be mainly the aforementioned cheaply produced rubbish.I would far rather see the TV companies spend money on decent programmes,than new technology.Also,I see everybody here is citing Avatar as an example of how 3D is the way ahead.Well,I saw Avatar in 3D at the cinema,and while I cant deny it was visually impressive,it was one of the most tired,hackneyed stories Id ever seen.All those millions on new technology-and a few pennies on the script.If 3D truly is the way forward,at least marry the fancy visuals to a decent story.
-
Just noticed a few peeps here mentioning classic movies being"colorized",and that TNT or whoever has committed sacrilege by interfering with perfection.Well,while I pretty much agree,can I please cite on exception-King Kong.We have all seen this great movie,but only in black and white.However,you can,as I did,get the colorized version in a box set(along with the b+w original and two horrendous Japanese 60s abominations)and I can only say this-WOW!Its like watching a completely different movie.I couldnt believe the difference-scene after scene looks incredible,hard to pick out a favourite.Fay Wrays hair looks fab,the native chiefs ceremonial costume is neat-Kong himself looks amazing,as do all the other prehistoric creatures.I wouldnt watch the original version again after seeing this.To think,this was done in the late 80s/early 90s with old technology-I would love somebody to give it a colour makeover with todays technology.I realise everyone wont agree with me on this,but thats ok.But do yourself a favour and at least watch the colorized version before dismissing the idea.It may not be a good idea to colorize Casablanca or Citizen Kane,but with a fantasy movie like King Kong,it works a treat.Oh how I wish that movie had been filmed in colour!We can but dream....
-
my first post meant to be titled "To hell with 3D tv",not To hell wiyh 3D TV.I blame last nights beer.Or rather,the amount of it I drank.Good at the time....
-
Seeing a movie in a theater and watching your news broadcast at home are two different things. As a person who doesn't use glasses I don't want to use glasses when I am watching TV.
-
My neighbor has a 73" Mitsubishi DLP TV that is already 3D capable. As for 3D, true 3D to me is holographic. I'll wait until it is at least as good as the chess game that 3PO played against Chewie on the Falcon.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 151 total posts 140 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 128 total posts 94 posts
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 92 total posts 91 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 474 total posts 70 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 64 total posts 64 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 51 total posts 51 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 41 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 71 total posts 40 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 35 total posts 34 posts