HDTV Almanac - Avatar Blu-ray Goes Flat!

[alfredpoor]

You are likely one of the many who helped push Avatar into the record books, grossing more than $2.6 billion worldwide (and still counting!) So you may be anxiously awaiting the release of the high definition Blu-ray version of the movie so you can enjoy it all over again at home. (It will also be [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2010/03/hdtv_almanac_avatar_bluray_goes_flat.php]Read Column[/url]

[spartanstew]

This has been common knowledge for months.

[cpto]

Flat, as in they are selling a basic version, followed by one with extras in a few months. That's the same strategy being followed by LOTR and which was followed by Watchmen (although the extra edition snuck in a few months after the initial release without much prior publicity). For Avatar, I guess there will be at least three separate releases, possibly four if the 3-D version is released both in basic and collectors' editions.

I don't have any problem with the current theatrical release 3-D movies, but when I auditioned a Panasonic setup, it felt unpleasant for a reason I can't quite quantify. A friend with me felt the same way. After a couple of minutes we took the glasses off and neither of us wanted to continue the experience. I'm really baffled at my impression since it was not quantifiable beyond the fact that I just didn't enjoy it.

At this time, for me, the release of a 3-D version is not an issue. I don't think I'll buy it based on the present technology, and I won't buy the initial BR release either.

[alfredpoor]

Viewing distance is a critical factor for 3DTVs, much more than for a 2D HDTV.

Without getting too technical, your brain knows how much it is working your eye lens to focus on an object at a given distance. It also knows how much your eyes are turning in (or not) to aim at an object; they turn in more to view an object closer to you. If these two sensations are in conflict with each other, it can be unsettling, and for many people, eventually lead to vision fatigue and even headaches.

The problem with stereoscopic images is that it works exactly by creating a conflict between these two sensations. The image is a fixed distance away -- the screen of the HDTV -- but the objects may appear either closer or farther away than that distance. The problem is most pronounced when the object appears closer than the screen ("negative Z" in stereoscopic parlance). However, if you're standing too close to the screen, you will increase the problem. At a movie, you're eyes are focusing closer to "infinity" so you're less prone to have a problem, but with an HDTV, you're focusing much closer.

I recommend at least a 6 foot viewing distance for stereoscopic HDTV, which would be about right for a 42" set. Even better would be a 50" set from about 8 feet away. See if getting a bit further from the screen helps with the odd sensation.

Alfred

[alfredpoor]

This has been common knowledge for months.

Good point. My goal is not to try to "scoop" the industry, because I don't have the resources or inclination to do that. And I don't think it's all that helpful to just repeat the same headline that is bounced from blog to blog like lightning.

Instead, my goal is to point out a bit of news or some other development, and try to put it in context and add some analysis of why it might be (or not be) important to you. In this case, the industry thinks so little of the installed base of home 3DTV equipment that it won't even bother releasing one of the greatest-selling movies of all time in the 3D format that helped make it a hit, and I think that is worth a comment.

Note also that Voltaire once wrote "Common sense is not so common." There's a similar risk about "common knowledge" as well.

Alfred

[spartanstew]

Even better would be a 50" set from about 8 feet away.

Of course, you'd then have to move your seating up to watch 2D, because you don't get the full benefit of 1080p from 8' away on a 50" display. You need to be 6' away.

If you're at the correct seating distance for 2D, you'll be fine for 3D as well, and I think they're equally as critical. Too far away from a 1080p display (like 8' from a 50"), and you're missing detail.



One other thing worth mentioning regarding this topic is that the second release of Avatar on Blu Ray, sometime before xmas, will be packed with xtras, but it won't be 3D either. You'll likely have to wait until summer or xmas 2011 for Avatar in 3D.

[alfredpoor]

Of course, you'd then have to move your seating up to watch 2D, because you don't get the full benefit of 1080p from 8' away on a 50" display. You need to be 6' away.

If you're at the correct seating distance for 2D, you'll be fine for 3D as well, and I think they're equally as critical. Too far away from a 1080p display (like 8' from a 50"), and you're missing detail.

We agree on the principles, if not the numbers. I was shooting from the hip, but I've gone back to my book where I made the calculations based on my research into the physiology of the human vision system, optimal field of view considerations, and display resolution. You're correct; my optimum recommendation for a 50" 1080p display is a viewing distance of 6 feet. 7 feet is about right for a 50" 720p display.

So I'd recommend 6 feet from the 50" screen to see if that works okay for the stereoscopic vision, and I'd avoid using images with a strong negative Z component for the test.

Alfred