Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: redelitev6 on 29 December 2010, 16:00:08
-
Had a look at a 3d tv demonstration in currys today -WHOA ! this is the way forward for tv ! one of the films was of a rather nice girl in a bikini climbing out of a swimming pool -nice effect! pity about having to wear the glasses though!
-
My employer is banking on 3D TV, I am not fully convinced. You have to give it 100% with those glasses, the more expensive kind of panels the 3D Glasses are £100 a pop :o
I saw half a game of football, I had a headache... Too much in your face graphics. Avatar got it right, they added depth, not things jumping out at you, but give a real depth to what your watching.
3D Computer games though? Now thats going to work...
-
3D definately two minds on it.
Effective but gave me a head ache
Some loss of resolution by the look of it as well.
THe headache aspect was a no way for me.
-
I have never liked the idea of wearing glasses to see a film, and find them very uncomfortable.
Until they find a system where glasses are not necessary I am not interested. Apparently there are many voices in the tv industry who are saying the same in effect; with glasses 3D is going to be limited.
It is just a gimmick, and HD is ok by me! :y :y
-
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9gY653SGj0[/media]
make me chuckle ever time ;D
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9gY653SGj0
make me chuckle ever time ;D
Yes, he is very funny. :y
-
I have never liked the idea of wearing glasses to see a film, and find them very uncomfortable.
Until they find a system where glasses are not necessary I am not interested. Apparently there are many voices in the tv industry who are saying the same in effect; with glasses 3D is going to be limited.
It is just a gimmick, and HD is ok by me! :y :y
same here happy with hd :y
-
Im happy with HD, and have watched 3D movies on it with no problems, but some off these 3D movies are S**T.
-
Very happy with HD, and I think that's going to be the problem, a lot of people have just forked out for a new Panel TV, and I for one won't be buying another for some time.
But yes, the Demos are very very good from what I've seen. Defo a credible 3d image that makes the original Avatar 3d at the cinema look pre historic. Full depth, unlike the one or two layers at the cinema.
If only they could do away with the glasses, is that possible? :-?
-
in china they use lens's on the screen, think that the next gen to come out. make's tv bigger.
-
I don't know if anyone has noticed that programme producers are not making very much of interest. Why they would spend a relative fortune on producing stereoscopic 3D programmes I cannot fathom. Now if a set manufacturer bought a production company?
No.
Still doesn't stack up.
-
I think it will a harder convince than, for example, HD. Esp with the glasses (and the Active type being expensive).
And even with the fact most aren't keen on the idea yet (and the demos and regular programmes are OTT with the effect), most people in a position to spend £1000 on a new TV have likely bought a new, large panel TV in the last 3 years. Assuming they weren't daft enough to go plasma, its likely it they will last a fair bit longer yet.
3D won't be enough to make most people upgrade TVs. And I know more people dropping Sky (the only place to get 3D) than taking it on. Those that are taking it on are doing so purely for sport, and current 3D sport broadcasts are unwatchable (due to the desire to over emphasise), and who wants to sit for hours with the stupid glasses on?
-
3D definately two minds on it.
Effective but gave me a head ache
Some loss of resolution by the look of it as well.
THe headache aspect was a no way for me.
I was the same sitting watching Avatar i found it gave me like a muzzy head , not far of a headache .
I was all for it and so sure it was the way ahead untill this ... now im not so sure :-/
-
isn't watching a live game of football at the ground actually 3D...in fact isn't everything in 3D normally, free of charge (as long as you have vision in both eyes and hence can perceive depth). No, whats being peddled now is an optical illusion, now I don't know about everyone else but I dont watch a car driving into the distance in a movie and think...."thats odd, why is that car getting smaller and smaller" do I? because my brain quite happily processes the information and takes the leap that the car is travelling away from the point of view rather than shrinking. in the same way that theres literally nothing on a clean snooker ball running across a table to show you its rolling rather than sliding, but your brain processes the info and makes the correct assumption. if you want to pay a few grand for some trick photography be my guest :y
as tunnie says tho, interactive entertainment could utilise the technology better, although nowadays games are incredibly good at giving depth to the screen without the stupid glasses.
plus i wear glasses so you have to put glasses over glasses - its all a bit.........meh :(
-
The problem with 3D is that, ignoring how realistic the picture is it or isn't, you have to be 100% absorbed in the programme to the exclusion of anything else for it to work.
When's the last time such a programme was broadcast? The media industry no longer have the capability to produce such a programme. ;) The tv thus remains a distraction to sit in the corner babbling sh1te and throwing out pictures, and my Fony CRT set does that just as well.
It's just the latest gimmick to get the stupid to part with their cash and upgrade IMHO. :D
Kevin
-
Referring back to the OP. It's quite easy to create a good demonstration of stereoscopic 3D. It's producing a good enough stream of watchable material that's the problem.
As mentioned, gaming might be a satisfactory long-term realm for such techniques as it usually involves few people and they are motivated to create the environment.
-
There was a news piece very recently about this and apparently because of the cost of the equipment necessary many '3D' films will have the effects added (or fiddled about with) in the post-production stage.
Rather like HD, programmes made specifically for the medium will always look best in it.
The opinion was also expressed that gaming was indeed the likely way forward (in the near term) for this technology.
-
There was a news piece very recently about this and apparently because of the cost of the equipment necessary many '3D' films will have the effects added (or fiddled about with) in the post-production stage.
Rather like HD, programmes made specifically for the medium will always look best in it.
The opinion was also expressed that gaming was indeed the likely way forward (in the near term) for this technology.
Unless the whole film is treated as a CGI creation, the live action has to be shot in stereoscope which is quite complicated to get right. As soon as you add visual bits in post-production it gets quite hairy as it is possible to create invalid perspectives that do people's heads in.
The down side is increased cost of production just when no-one has any money. The up side(???) is that you might put your competitors out of business and get the whole arena to yourself.
As it is, manufacturers are putting resources into making their equipment capable of producing the stuff and may never get their money back, or could even go to the wall.
My verdict is that if mainstream tv production companies keep chasing this fantasy, our tv programme quality will drop still further and we may be back to three channels.
-
There was a news piece very recently about this and apparently because of the cost of the equipment necessary many '3D' films will have the effects added (or fiddled about with) in the post-production stage.
Rather like HD, programmes made specifically for the medium will always look best in it.
The opinion was also expressed that gaming was indeed the likely way forward (in the near term) for this technology.
Unless the whole film is treated as a CGI creation, the live action has to be shot in stereoscope which is quite complicated to get right. As soon as you add visual bits in post-production it gets quite hairy as it is possible to create invalid perspectives that do people's heads in.
The down side is increased cost of production just when no-one has any money. The up side(???) is that you might put your competitors out of business and get the whole arena to yourself.
As it is, manufacturers are putting resources into making their equipment capable of producing the stuff and may never get their money back, or could even go to the wall.
My verdict is that if mainstream tv production companies keep chasing this fantasy, our tv programme quality will drop still further and we may be back to three channels.
That's the very point they were discussing Chris but I have to say that the cameras shown were impressive looking to say the least.
I do agree with you about what may well be misplaced faith in the technology and how doubtful it is (in my view anyway) that technology can make a poorly produced, misconceived or ultimately unwatchable programme morph into something desirable.
With Sky HD, Freesat, Freeview and a Technomate 6800 HD which runs through a Unicorn 1.2 reference dish I suppose I could watch about 2 thousand channels - encrypted/unencrypted - from various providers however I find myself regularly watching 6 or so video channels and listening to a few radio ones.
So you may well be correct - excessive choice while having a certain allure, becomes less urgent when that choice serves up little but dross, and the more that broadcasters and service providers try to saturate the market by this using scatter-gun approach the more likely it is, perhaps, that things will go teats-up with subscribers ending up confused, stupefied and entirely mystified by the whole shebang.
Should it not be for Sky Arts, Jazz FM R3 R4 (sat. delivered) Sky1 BBC4 ITV4 some news channels, (especially Sky to see Alex Crawford, Kay Burley and Sarah Hughes) and the odd delve into Universal - I would have nothing to watch or listen to.
-
I have to admit forking out for a 3D TV this week to take advantage of the sales and get in before the VAT increase. However it just happens that the TV is 3D ready but I was more interested in getting the best panel etc.
I don't plan to invest in the 3D stuff, but should it take off, I'm futureproofed to a degree. As my current TV has lasted over 10 years I'm hoping to get the same amount of time out of this one.
As others have said, as I wear specs, I don't like the idea of wearing another pair on top...
-
I have to admit forking out for a 3D TV this week to take advantage of the sales and get in before the VAT increase. However it just happens that the TV is 3D ready but I was more interested in getting the best panel etc.
I don't plan to invest in the 3D stuff, but should it take off, I'm futureproofed to a degree. As my current TV has lasted over 10 years I'm hoping to get the same amount of time out of this one.
As others have said, as I wear specs, I don't like the idea of wearing another pair on top...
Must admit I came close to upgrading from the Phony 32" CRT today. If anyone had actually had any stock I might have bit the bullet. ;)
Kevin