Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.

jordanm · Post by **jordanm** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:56 am

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

I happen to suffer with the nausea and the headaches.

pmalter0 · Post by **pmalter0** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:58 pm

The basic problem with this article, is that it is wrong. 3-D does not require the viewer to focus on the plane of the screen. Anyone who has watched 3-D at any length knows that. With 3-D your focus is where ever the image is; behind the plane of the screen; in front of the plane of the screen, etc. 3-D is still in its infancy; hence their are a lot of subpar products out there: LCD TVs – – all of which are too slow to produce ghost free images – – buggy 3-D content, etc. But when it's done right, 3-D is so superior to 2-D, that once you see it you will never go back. I saw Avatar on my home 3-D; and it was simply mind bogglingly beautiful – – better than the theater – – an infinitely better than 2-D.

jordanm · Post by **jordanm** » Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:58 pm

That's because you haven't seen the Blu Ray 2-D version on a Pioneer Kuro. It far surpasses the PQ on any TV out now, even the newest Pannys.

stevekaden · Post by **stevekaden** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:24 am

Sorry - but in 3D media the eyes MUST focus on the screen and converge on the image. Think about it, no matter where the image appears to be - the source of the image is always, and MUST be the screen. (think of where the light is coming from - the depth or up close is only a 'trick' of our eyes. I read the link, and I have read White papers on image design for 3D from AutoDesk. Yes a lot of people can not adjust to this difference from the real world.

A lot of people don't adjust to roller coasters - but a bunch of love them anyway. Not everything is universally the same experience for all of us.

On the other hand, what is discussed are other aspects of 3D, more subjective and more dependent on the crafting of the movie. I think the audience has spoken that 3D is just fine thank you very much and we will pay extra for it. Just ask James Cameron - except he is busy working on Avatar's 2 and 3....to pick up another few $billion!!

pmalter0 · Post by **pmalter0** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:19 am

Sorry Steve, after you buy a 3-D TV and use it for while, you will understand why you and the link are wrong. The perception of 3-D is your brain reconciling the two different images from each eye; there is no "trick" to 3-D TV, your brain does the exact same thing that it does in real life: reconcile the two different images. You can focus on anything in the reconciled image – – that is what your eye muscles do. With 3-D theater or TV, you can focus on anything in the reconciled image, regardless where it is in relation to the screen. In the case of the link, this is proof that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing; focus is the one thing that a 3-D TV (or theater image) does not do perfectly: where the depth of field is not great enough, the camera focuses on where the action is and has some of the image out of focus; if you want to focus on the portion of the image which is out of focus you can't do it. In this regard 3-D TV or theater cannot reproduce real-life; however all it means is that you must focus on whatever the director want you to focus on – – not a big deal IMO. I remember when I first saw 3-D in a store, I didn't like it and it hurt my eyes– – like you and many others. I am not completely sure why I am able to fully enjoy 3-D on my without any problems; but this is a very common occurrence. 3-D TV is very critical, to fully enjoy it you have to have a very good system set up properly (inter alia, no LCD/LED, no fluorescent lights on, etc.). Also, it will reveal any vision problems, even those that the viewer is not otherwise aware of. Because of this, many people, like the writer of the link, believe that 3-D TV has inherent problems; whereas the truth is that it that it is the viewer and or the set up which has problems.

stevekaden · Post by **stevekaden** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:32 am

You can choose different words to say the same thing - but using 'trick' for technology, or for implementation or a thesis of description of 3D media is to simplify what it is. To put on a single plane the imagery the eye would normally see that is not at that plane (though the light went through it). In a way, it is as if we were to look at something in a moderate distance, focus on it - then take a slice of light from the plane were we would like to insert a screen. Put that back on a screen and let the eyes/brain do their typical job, and all of a sudden a 2D image looks like it's 3D. Pretty neat trick, especially if you can do it during live action, and maybe even more tricky, contrive it of drawn imagery - and even TRICKIER...combine the two.

At the point where the trick (2 images are on the screen) we must accept - we must focus on the screen and then can receive what ever the implementor give us - we can only defocus from there, we can not focus up and down the imagined depth - we can only concentrate on points in that. We converge the images on that plane, but the brain interprets the convergence as being at the point of depth programmed into the image.

My mundane point is, this doesn't happen by accident - as a technical person, rather than spew lots of technology, I would casaully call it a trick. Then again, I call flying a million pound pile of man made materials across an ocean, and do it with safety, comfortable seats, breathable air, TV (and probably 3D TV sooner or later) quickly and reliably... a trick. A darn good one.

Since we have no way to take a picture of that plane where the screen would be, then I am comfortable calling that a trick. Really it is just using two cameras and control the layout of the two images. We've done that since the first stereo viewers invented almost immediately after photographs were (in a broad, relative sense of immediately).

I think we are in agreement on all that, but also I will at this point agree with you that if I had a 3D TV - I may not like it. I have enjoyed a few moments in a store, but noticed the live images are a bit grainier, and in a situation like live sports that is not 'managed' like a movie, I almost immediately found it not as enjoyable as 2D on a good screen - especially with the gimickry logos and scoreboards shoved out into my face. Cute trick, but like advertising/promo boards during a TV show, it make me want to immediate find something else to watch. I have not watched enough to experience discomfort.

I hope the technology does improve and the techniques so we can improve the situation as it is today.

pmalter0 · Post by **pmalter0** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 7:17 am

I think we are in agreement on all that, but also I will at this point agree with you that if I had a 3D TV - I may not like it. I have enjoyed a few moments in a store, but noticed the live images are a bit grainier, and in a situation like live sports that is not 'managed' like a movie, I almost immediately found it not as enjoyable as 2D on a good screen - especially with the gimickry logos and scoreboards shoved out into my face. Cute trick, but like advertising/promo boards during a TV show, it make me want to immediate find something else to watch. I have not watched enough to experience discomfort.

I hope the technology does improve and the techniques so we can improve the situation as it is today.

Unfortunately, you watched 3-D TV under the worst circumstances: in a store(fluorescent lights) and watching live sports. ESPN 3-D has the very worst picture – – 720p top/bottom(which is essentially one half of 720p resolution)– – which is not high definition. It is interesting that all the negatives the naysayers present are really not problems (or more specifically problems with the setup not the technology). However, there is a real problem with current 3-D; and ironically, it is hardly ever mentioned: ghosting. The two primary sources of ghosting are displays which are too slow (all LCD/LED's and most plasmas) and content. I have a DLP; so with proper content I have no ghosting problems. The second most important issue (which also is hardly ever mentioned) is size. We have no problem observing people who are not life-size in 2-D because our minds know we are watching a picture and not real life. But that is not true with 3-D; with 3-D, observing people or scenes that are not real size becomes disconcerting. I have a 65 inch screen; and even though I usually sit about 6 to 7 feet away for 3-D, I now realize that it is far too small (I would go with an 82" if I had to do it over). As I observed above, it is not only ironic, but demonstrates the ignorance of the naysayers that they argue the non-issues, and ignore the real issues.

regman · Post by **regman** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:39 am

As skeptical as I was on 3D, I went to a Magnolia and checked out a Samsung 55" set with the shutter glasses and I have to admit I was pretty impressed. Not that I would want to watch 3D all the time but an occasional movie might be fun, the resolution in regular HD was superb, contrast was great and the bundle ($2100) with a 3D blu-ray player surely beats the $5K I paid for my 58" Viera plasma (not that I have any complaints about it either). Not to mention it was barely an inch thick.

All depth perception is done by the brain tricking itself so I really don't understand this topic. 35mm movies trick the brain with the frame rate (there is no perceptable flicker) so tell me something I don't know. This goes back to Leonardo DaVinci...

jordanm · Post by **jordanm** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:11 am

I saw the Toshiba 4K glass-less 3D @ CES. That was OK, it did not make feel ill.

Any other 3D TV gives me a headache in 5-15 minutes and makes me want to vomit at about a half-hour. That must be because one eye has a mild astigmatism, and the other has quite a bit. I am well corrected, but the current 3D seems to undo that.

You can all say how great it is, or how great it looks, but I am that 20% that cannot tolerate the present 3D. So as long as the retailers continue sales of those TVs, I think sales will be slow.

We'll see how this week, heading off the Super Bowl, goes.