Why does Gene say 3D is a failed tech?

[xboxweasel]

In various youtube videos Gene Dellasala says that 3D is a dead tech for home theater? Why is that? 3D Movies are still coming out. Seems that more new releases are shipping with 3D.

Having 3D at home is pretty neat. I don't get headaches like I did at the theater. But the 3D isn't locked in all the time. I get crosstalk in various cases. These instances are repeatable. I can't find any TV settings that help. The retail store techs are useless and shrug of my concerns.

Cheers.

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

In various youtube videos Gene Dellasala says that 3D is a dead tech for home theater? Why is that? 3D Movies are still coming out. Seems that more new releases are shipping with 3D.

Having 3D at home is pretty neat. I don't get headaches like I did at the theater. But the 3D isn't locked in all the time. I get crosstalk in various cases. These instances are repeatable. I can't find any TV settings that help. The retail store techs are useless and shrug of my concerns.

Cheers.

You seem to contradict yourself. It's ether failed tech as most of AHers agree or it isn't. The 3D at home is a hack and will always stay a hack and this is why it's a fail

 

[ImcLoud]

Its good for kids but even they get sick of it, I can't imagine sitting through an entire 3 d movie in my living room, I think it looks terrible.. I want to disappear in the movie not constantly be ripped from it because the 3d effects are terrible... I am sure someday they can get it perfect but I still cant think of any movies I would care to see in 3d {maybe some of the old baywatch beach running scenes but thats it}... Like I said the kids like it for cartoons, but after the first couple times I never see them messing with it or asking for it again....

 

[xboxweasel]

You seem to contradict yourself. It's ether failed tech as most of AHers agree or it isn't. The 3D at home is a hack and will always stay a hack and this is why it's a fail

I said Gene mentioned it is a failed tech. I thought it was neat to have, but I can't get the TV to display 3D properly all the time due to crosstalk.

How is it a hack versus 3D in the theaters? Are not the two technologies the same?

 

[GranteedEV]

How is it a hack versus 3D in the theaters? Are not the two technologies the same?

The masses dictate success. They pay the extra 6 dollars at the theater for 3D but then come home and want the cheapest "LCD" TV they can get, and are totally satisfied with 2005 technology. And LCD here stands for Lowest Common Denominator.

Unfortunately the big buzz word these days is 4K and not 3D in the upscale market too.

3D basically has failed to find its niche.

I like 3D though. I wish my 3DTV were HDMI 2.0 though.

 

[gene]

In various youtube videos Gene Dellasala says that 3D is a dead tech for home theater? Why is that? 3D Movies are still coming out. Seems that more new releases are shipping with 3D.

Having 3D at home is pretty neat. I don't get headaches like I did at the theater. But the 3D isn't locked in all the time. I get crosstalk in various cases. These instances are repeatable. I can't find any TV settings that help. The retail store techs are useless and shrug of my concerns.

Cheers.

I say it b/c 4-5 years ago 3D was the BUZZ word all over the industry and especially at the tradeshows. Now you barely hear about it and most people don't even use the feature when they have it. You see less and less Display manufacturers promoting it now as they are all going for 4k.

Let's also not forget the potential health risks especially for children:
WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health | Audioholics

OF course now we are promised 3D Sound with Dolby Atmos. I'm holding off for a Star Trek Holodeck

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

I said Gene mentioned it is a failed tech. I thought it was neat to have, but I can't get the TV to display 3D properly all the time due to crosstalk.

How is it a hack versus 3D in the theaters? Are not the two technologies the same?

nope, they are not. In theathers the 3D is passive, in home the 3D is active using shutters in glasses - this is why they need a battery

Active 3D vs. passive 3D: What's better? - CNET

 

[ImcLoud]

nope, they are not. In theathers the 3D is passive, in home the 3D is active using shutters in glasses - this is why they need a battery

Active 3D vs. passive 3D: What's better? - CNET

My screen doesn't need batteries but my old one did and that one was even worse than this one...

 

[j_garcia]

3D looks amazing on my screen and is even CLEARER than the 2D versions in most cases. Yes, it depends on the movie, just like audio quality depends on the master/mastering, but the better quality movies I've seen I almost wouldn't watch again in 2D.

 

[xboxweasel]

Thanks for the feedback GranteedEV, Gene, BoredSysAdmin, ImcLoud, and j_garcia. I checked out the links provided and even read a few other articles.

I knew about the difference between passive and active. Always thought active was better until I watched a 3D movie on a passive display. I was very surprised at the clarify when compared to my Plasma TV (which cost 4-5x more than the passive LCD). But I did really notice the jaggies though. Like I mentioned above, the ghosting in a lot of 3D content on my TV is really putting me off on the tech. I notice it more and more. And it seems there is nothing that I can do about it.

 

[j_garcia]

Often there are separate calibration controls for 3D on a display, which may be able to help. I think you are referring to "aliasing" which would be errors in the encoding itself, and there's nothing you can do about that. Try out some of the better movies: Tron Legacy, Pacific Rim, Despicable Me, Underworld Evolution, and see how those look. If those still look bad, then there's probably something wrong with your glasses or the display itself doesn't cut it for 3D. There's a new 3D Calibration disc out too. I have it and I've checked out the things it recommends, but even their test material already looked pretty stellar to me.

product details pages of OPPO Digital

 

[xboxweasel]

Often there are separate calibration controls for 3D on a display

Such as? I can change refresh rate and adjust the 3D effect (-3 to +3). This last value always defaults to off and 0. If I change it to get a sharper image in the foreground then the background gets a lot blurrier.

Try out some of the better movies: Tron Legacy, Pacific Rim, Despicable Me, Underworld Evolution, and see how those look.

I have Pacific Rim and Despicable Me. I will run watch those again.

If those still look bad, then there's probably something wrong with your glasses or the display itself doesn't cut it for 3D. There's a new 3D Calibration disc out too. I have it and I've checked out the things it recommends, but even their test material already looked pretty stellar to me.

You'd think a VT60 Panasonic (which I consider a high end display - given what it cost) would cut it. I'd like to try different glasses but I hear not all 3D glasses are compatible with all TVs. I have heard of the programmable MonsterVision Max 3D glasses. They seem to be discontinued and I am not sure if they'd even work with my TV.

Thanks for the help j-garcia.

 

[xboxweasel]

I say it b/c 4-5 years ago 3D was the BUZZ word...

Yeah. I totally understand.

...now as they are all going for 4k.

That's something that I am not going to get into anytime soon. First off it would require a new player, and new receiver, and a new TV. Gaming consoles are not going to display 4K any time soon either. I feel the same with the new curvy screens (which baffles my mind). Mind you, if I had to buy another TV (hopefully way down the road) I will get whatever is the norm at that time. Spherical 16k something or other most probably.

That link to 3D being a hazard was interesting.

Of course now we are promised 3D Sound with Dolby Atmos.

No thanks. Seems like a gimmick to me.

I'm holding off for a Star Trek Holodeck

Nah. I think we should go direct. As in Matrix style. It's smaller. Full resolution video and sound. No more hardware upgrades required. Any new feature can be added with a simple firmware upgrade.

 

[xboxweasel]

Darn. I only have Despicable Me 2 in 3D. Is it's quality on par with the original?

 

[j_garcia]

Darn. I only have Despicable Me 2 in 3D. Is it's quality on par with the original?

IMO, the first one is better, but the second on was very good too. Blu-ray.com ranks the first one as one of the best 3D movies available. Expensive, but IMO, worth it. For 3D, Pacific Rim is totally worth owning just because of the 3D.

I wasn't suggesting your display was really the problem too. I do think that is a quality displaym but as a Plasma, 3D is likely a bit different on it than my LED. I don't own any Plasmas, so I can't comment as to whether or not they're good at it, though I thought one of the things they were saying was Plasmas should actually be better with 3D with their high refresh rates. Another factor can very easily be that if you have other things on, like motion smoothing/auto brightness, sort of things, I usually turn them to low or off. For 3D movies, because of the glasses, I tend to crank up the brightness a bit for those movies. That tends to make the aliasing more visible, but the 3D effect is improved also.

I haven't thrown that 3D calibration disc in the player since I bought it, so I don't recall what things could be adjusted. I'm guessing it will require a deeper menu than just the typical "settings" menu, and is probably why I didn't mess with mine either.

 

[xboxweasel]

...though I thought one of the things they were saying was Plasmas should actually be better with 3D with their high refresh rates.

I have heard that comment come up as well.

Another factor can very easily be that if you have other things on, like motion smoothing/auto brightness, sort of things,

All that is turned off. But I did just read something about 3D tech and how that data is coming to the TV. I am going to set the TV to display 3D at 48Hz (instead of 100 or 120hz). Those other settings are only used if 50Hz or 60Hz fluorescent lighting is in the room to reduce flicker.

For 3D movies...I tend to crank up the brightness...

3D video is displayed brighter than the same 2D by default for me. I guess since the inherent reduction in visible light due to the required glasses.

I haven't thrown that 3D calibration disc in the player since I bought it, so I don't recall what things could be adjusted. I'm guessing it will require a deeper menu than just the typical "settings" menu, and is probably why I didn't mess with mine either.

I already talked to the service tech at the store where I purchased the TV. There is no hidden service menu for 3D.

Thanks again j_garcia. I'll look into picking up a used copy of Despicable Me 1 in 3D.

 

[cpp]

I say it b/c 4-5 years ago 3D was the BUZZ word all over the industry and especially at the tradeshows. Now you barely hear about it and most people don't even use the feature when they have it. You see less and less Display manufacturers promoting it now as they are all going for 4k.

Let's also not forget the potential health risks especially for children:
WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health | Audioholics

OF course now we are promised 3D Sound with Dolby Atmos. I'm holding off for a Star Trek Holodeck

And Gene at the last CES show it was difficult at best to even find a 3DTV

 

[Ponzio]

at this point shouldn't we also include Blu-ray discs as another failed consumer product? not technically but commercially.

 

[jinjuku]

I said Gene mentioned it is a failed tech. I thought it was neat to have, but I can't get the TV to display 3D properly all the time due to crosstalk.

How is it a hack versus 3D in the theaters? Are not the two technologies the same?

It's failed because it's use in the market place doesn't meet the adaptation or usage models the dictate success.

It's like film mode on TV's that have it: Everyone I have ever bumped into has it turned off or begging me to turn it off for them.

 

[j_garcia]

It's failed because it's use in the market place doesn't meet the adaptation or usage models the dictate success.

This is true. It failed because even though it CAN BE good, it generally wasn't and also wasn't really brought to a price point where consumers were going to wholeheartedly adopt it.

It's like film mode on TV's that have it: Everyone I have ever bumped into has it turned off or begging me to turn it off for them.

Except that it is likely the best mode to view films in lol. Seems most people like super bright, super contrast, soap opera looking displays. I do not when watching movies.