HDTV Almanac - A “Goofy Glasses” Rant

[alfredpoor]

I apologize in advance for starting the new year off with a rant; I usually try to keep my posts upbeat and focused on the optimistic side of HDTV and home entertainment news and technology. But I want to start off the new year with a message for everyone who is waiting for a wonderful, [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2011/01/hdtv-almanac-a-goofy-glasses-rant.php]Read Column[/url]

[stevekaden]

Didn't they use a head 'holder' for the original portrait picture (1800s) to be sure the person being photographed did not move their head? We could revive those so instead of goofy glasses, we can sit rigidly for 2 hours per movie. Yeah, I just love sitting in one precise position for hours at a time. More realistic is sometimes slouch a bit left, sometimes a bit right, sometimes leaning forward to grab a snack from the coffee table.

This whole spin game of calling glasses goofy is the problem. They are glasses - not all that far from even the most basic wire frame. Just a little bigger, little heavier. But never have I seen any that are actually goofy. Unless of course I want to denegrate mindlessly, then all glasses are goofy - except trendy sunglasses of course.

[alfredpoor]

You're right on the money, Steve. Just search for 3D and glasses and see how many times "goofy" comes up with those terms. I believe that the press has latched onto this association and just rides that pony without thinking. Why would people be perfectly willing to wear glasses in a public cinema, but not willing to wear them in the privacy of their own home? Which is likely to cause more embarrassment? I think that consumers are hesitant about glasses more because of the cost of the active glasses. As the prices for these come down (and passive glasses become a competitive alternative), and as more content that people want to watch comes available, then I expect that resistance to the "goofy glasses" will evaporate.

Alfred

[mhodges]

..Why would people be perfectly willing to wear glasses in a public cinema, but not willing to wear them in the privacy of their own home? Which is likely to cause more embarrassment?. ...Alfred

I'm not willing to wear them in the theaters either. Its not because I want to see 3D without glasses (I understand that just isn't technically practical at this point) its just that I have always found the "goofy glasses" a distraction to the experience rather than an enhancement. It mostly has to do with fit. All the theatre glasses I've seen are absolutley perfect for both my wife and I, if you average our head size. She finds them annoying because they are too big, and I find them annoying because they are too small.

As a non-glasses wearing person most of the time, I notice the frame of the glasses, the weight on my nose, and the tightness around my ears. Its a constant presence and reminds me I'm in the theatre rather than letting me be "immersed in the experience". The few HDTV glasses I've tried are no better. Perhaps something like the Oakleys would solve my problem but do I really want to pay $100 for something I'll wear a few times a year?

With Vizio going to the passive glasses for their systems, "fitted" glasses do seem more practical even at a price of $50 or so per pair. I do wear sunglasses when driving, flying and generally outdoors with the effects mentioned above. Why? Because I try on glasses until I find a pair that "disappears". (By the way I never pay anywhere near the price of Oakleys for sunglasses).

So, the movie theaters and the TV manufacturers can keep their "goofy" glasses. They'll win me over when they offer proper fitting ones at a reasonable price.

[Roger Halstead]

Unfortunately this also hurts the credibility of both NPR and Popular Science. Like many other sources they are going with the sensational and maybe a bit of cheerleading for what they *hope* will happen.

In addition to the position specific problem there is also the fact that each image is only half the resolution of the total. Two half resolution images do not make one full resolution image.

I happen to be one who doesn't like the glasses, be they active or passive, at home, or in a theater. However, IF some one comes up with a system with good enough resolution and dynamics I'd purchase one and wear the **** glasses. After all, I have to wear bifocals as it is, except for driving.

Going back to the 3D without glasses. This 3D is very low tech on the receiving end, much like a Fresnel lens, or grid of tiny lenses placed directly over the the screen. It's physical and static. The effect is similar to watching two images through mirrors. They have to be positioned precisely to see both images in register and 3D. Move a little and the images are no longer in register and the effect is lost.

Research projects aside, I think the technology for practical 3D TV without glasses is a long way off. That's not to say you can't get a 3D image this way as you can, but I'd not call it a practical system even with all the hype and money being invested. It reminds me technologically of where the 3D movies were with the red and blue glasses. Crude, but they did give 3D.

As I said, I think it's a long way off, but some one just might make a breakthrough, then again I'm still waiting for those 3D holograms.