Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

3D Will Die On The Vine


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 8:55:41 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 7:50:11 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 9:31:22 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 7:50:26 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 9:43:01 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Sep 26, 2011 10:05:18 AM PDT
3D is more an added feature on the newer sets that you may or may not use, like streaming, than anything else. This is how most of the video reviewers are looking at 3D. Also, it is considered not very immersive on a home tv like it is
at the movies.

Costco TV people told me just last week they are discounting to try and move large 3D sets out.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 10:41:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 26, 2011 10:42:05 AM PDT
They cut the resolution in half for 3D? That isn't on the product page. That is pretty cruddy(sic). Guess that is why that info is not on the product page. So, that only impacts blu-ray viewing, since broadcast 3D cuts the resolution in half on its own. So, the tv and the signal would match resolution.

I should have saved "Watchoo talkin about Chellis?" for a better time, eh?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 12:23:29 PM PDT
decipher says:
Current 3D is not layers of flat images. A 3D camera films from two separate view points. Hence the brain can interpolate the two separate images, and you can perceive depth throughout entire objects, in a truly 3D presentation - the same way that you perceive depth in the real world (by seeing from two different viewpoints).

And you do not lose detail. The images are all still the same 1080p resolution, and in fact you get more detail because you see from 2 perspectives. Each eye sees a unique 1920 x 1080 image. For example, from your right eye you can see a little more around the right side of objects, and from your left eye you can see a little more around the left side of objects.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 12:38:45 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 7:51:04 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 12:42:43 PM PDT
WolfPup says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 1:03:54 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 7:51:42 PM PST]

Posted on Sep 26, 2011 1:04:39 PM PDT
I'm waiting for Steven Spielberg to come out with a blockbuster 3D movie, I just bought the Mitsibushi 92" 3D TV with 5 year extended warranty, WOW, I love it. I have it hooked to my surround sound system with 5 subwoofers, I can blow the windows out of my house with it. I have over 3000 watts of power. One of my subwoofers says caution, will crack cement.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 1:20:14 PM PDT
decipher says:
<<<WolfPup says:
The actual experience of watching "3D" in a movie theater is a handful of flat images with distance between them.

That's what I'm trying to tell you -- it is not. It IS NOT layers of flat images. If that's what you think then you don't understand the technology. Maybe it *feels* like that to you. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. What you are stating though, as if fact -- that it "is a handful of flat images with distance between them" -- is wrong (unless you're just talking about what it seems like to you rather than trying to assert what it actually is).

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 1:26:25 PM PDT
Talking to Wolfpup is like pulling the string on one of those dolls that only has one saying to repeat, eh?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2011 1:37:42 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 7:51:57 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 6:36:00 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Are you capable of anything but trolling?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 6:37:23 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<decipher says:
That's what I'm trying to tell you -- it is not. It IS NOT layers of flat images. If that's what you think then you don't understand the technology. Maybe it *feels* like that to you. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. What you are stating though, as if fact>>>

It is not an "opinion", and yes, this is a fact-this so-called "3D" is just a series of flat scenes on top of each other. If you have the misfortune of viewing it, you can verify this for yourself.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 8:19:29 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 7:52:15 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 8:30:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 27, 2011 8:31:42 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<Michael De Chellis says:
In "the real world" it is the same thing:>>>

Not it isn't.

<<<Why your eyes & brain can't make the transition and do this with 3D stereoscopy from a film image>>>

It doesn't do it for anyone. The technology just creates a handful of flat layers. Zero to maybe 3 or four seems typical, depending on the scene. You know this if you've ever seen it in action.

Are we to believe you've never actually seen a so-called "3D" film that you keep harping about?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 8:45:47 AM PDT
EdM says:
If anyone goes up to a movie screen in a theater when the movie is over, you can in theory [if they don't prevent it] touch the screen and the screen is flat. In some cases, it's also curved like for some Cinerama screens, but even if curved, it's still a "flat" surface anyhow. Likewise, watching a HDTV, when it's off, there's only a flat surface. 3D entertainment is not in any way "real" or have real depth, as real life does.

OTOH, to talk about "layers" may be part of the language problem. 3D "layers" are not like a "Layer cake" for someone's birthday, physically separated by actual, physical distance. Instead, each 3D "layer" is unitary in itself, but offset, separated in time, or in polarization direction, e.g. Either way, the "Layers" that form a single unitary "half view" needed to provide 1/2 of the 3D experience are both flat and overlap in some way on the same flat surface, either overlapping in time from 1/120 sec to the next [via using shutter glasses] to provide a whole thing in 1/60th sec, e.g., or overlapping in polarization, or similar.

Each such "layer" thus has a unitary structure for the whole of that instant or field, while the next "layer" is likewise faithful to the harmony of it's image fundamentals. The two layers actually are displayed on the same flat surface, but each is a 2D layer, in and of itself. Only in the human brain [for most] does Stereopsis [or the mental fusion of the two images into a single "3D" view] take place. 3D is not on the screen in any respect, only in the mind. Different people's minds individually have better or worse ability to carry out that process.

Tom's Hardware has a good explanation of 3D theories, issues, etc. 2D movies do in fact have some properties that living beings with two eyes use in viewing real scenes for distance cues, like perspective, and a knowledge base about the relative size of real objects, etc. So, yes, 2D movies [and still photographs] do have depth cues that relate to the real world. Some of the problems with 3D movies is that each single eye view may have manufactured aspects where the perspective cues of 2D images do not line up with the artificial 3D single eye view, as explained at Tom's Hardware.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/blu-ray-3d-3d-video-3d-tv,2632.html

"Although each eye sees a different image, we don't perceive two images. In a process called stereopsis, our brain combines the view from each eye into a single picture, and the combined image includes three-dimensional objects and depth perception. The word "stereopsis" is from the Greek words stereo, meaning "solid," and opsis, meaning "sight." ...

"While most of the population can see 3D, a small percentage of the population (estimates range from 3 to 15%) suffers from some stereoscopic vision impairment. Depending on the quality of the 3D presentation, this population will see no 3D effect or limited 3D depth perception. ..."

Either people are willfully being obtuse, there's a language incompatibility, or people are uneducated or ignoring the facts, to carry on this argument. In the end, RealD 3D or 3D of any other kind in the entertainment field is in fact shown on a flat surface. It may provide, to a greater or lesser degree, the appearance of real life, but it's all on a flat screen in the end, regardless of how different people may conceptualize it in their minds' eye. In fact, there are a minority of people, who medically cannot perceive 3D images by these technical means of showing "3D" on a flat screen, as Tom's Hardware points out.

Other issues are covered in the Tom's Hardware article near the end, in the section "Other Considerations".

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 8:52:28 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
The "layers" that so-called "3D" produce are flat 2D images that appear to be separated by physical space (that's of course not actually there).

In Avatar amusingly there's even a part where a gun jumps from one layer and bends onto another layer as it's swung across the screen.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 11:37:16 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 7:52:38 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 11:57:41 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<Michael De Chellis says:
Yes, it is. I gave you this information from a scientific paper. It is how "the real world" works. Did you/can you read it? or do you think science is wrong?

...
The brain actually recreates a 3D world from the 2D images the eyes capture.>>>

Everyone knows this. This isn't what's being discussed. We're talking about your "3D" not the real world. Your "3D" is just a handful of flat planes, it doesn't actually look three dimensional like the real world does, or like regular film does, it just places flat images at seemingly different distances.

Maybe you should actually go suffer through a "3D" movie before singing its praises?

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 11:57:45 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Dec 23, 2011 7:53:00 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 12:02:24 PM PDT
WolfPup says:
<<<Michael De Chellis says:
I see them in full 3D. Apparently you don't.>>>

Maybe you don't, which is why you don't see the layers?

I see exactly what most people see-a handful of flat layers seemingly at different depths. This is not what the real world looks like. Regular film does a MUCH better job of capturing what the real world looks like.

<<<As the scientific paper I provided said; in real life our eyes send 2D images to the brain which converts them to 3D. >>>

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your so-called "3D". The real world does not work the same as your "3D", hence citing a paper about how we process the real world is meaningless.

Posted on Sep 27, 2011 12:09:25 PM PDT
Gin says:
I wonder if enough people "ignore" someone, if they lose their posting rights or just plain get banned in amazon world =\... Suppose I'll never know.

3D won't die on the vine, it's that simple... Like wolfpup I know people who care less about 3d and give me the same silly excuses and then I know people I've converted or are completely gun-ho over it.

Just purchased a 42" Passive 3D tv for my small living room, just as a kind of test it out thing (otherwise I use my projector in the other room). $600... I bought a "Best-Buy" (Dynex) brand 46" lcd just last year for $700! I mean wow! $100 cheaper, sure it's 4 inches smaller, but it includes Smart Apps (Netflix, Vudu, Amazon, etc) and budget 3d (Passive technology). You're absolutely crazy if you think 3D will die on the vine when so many movies are already announced for 2012-2013 in 3d (Natively, as in shot in 3D).

Not to mention Transformers DOTM 3D-Bluray will most likely be out before Christmas.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2011 12:09:45 PM PDT
Anyone else notice that miss puppy gets always gets a yes vote simultaneously with her post? Not only is she way off base with her 3D observations, but also feels the need to bolster her failing ego with false acceptance by voting on herself with another id. Talk about meaningless!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  217
Total posts:  1465
Initial post:  Sep 11, 2011
Latest post:  Jan 21, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 20 customers

Search Customer Discussions