Video Asylum

Posted by Audiophilander (A) on February 15, 2010 at 23:36:26

In Reply to: RE: "I feel like enough of a moron..." - I think that there may a good reason for it. Can we quote you? posted by Time_Stands_Still on February 15, 2010 at 15:04:13

IMHO, the market already exists and is pretty strong even though the prospects for home theater are still up in the air. That, I suspect, will be determined by marketing and MSRP.

>>> "A 40 inch screen in a normal room will be way too small to get anything out of 3D. Only a front projection system may be adequate in size to get some credible effect." <<<

You apparently didn't see the JVC 40+ inch LCD TV and system that I had the opportunity to check out at CigGraph. The visuals virtually leaped off the screen. It was a very impressive presentation even when the rotated material being shown wasn't so great (Brendan Fraser in the otherwise terrible film Journey to the Center of The Earth for instance). The 3D presentation, even with such a lackluster film, was so eye-popping that you just didn't want to walk away from it.

>>> "These are 3D Achilles heels." <<<

But it's 3D Telephus which is king (Mysia TV) and will survive in spite of Achilles reluctance. ;O)

>>> "1: You need glasses and the better 3D systems require rather pricey glasses. You gonna have a Super Bowl party, go and buy what 6-8-10-12 sets of glasses. Yeah and your kids breaking these glasses as they use them?" <<<

True, but not for every system (there are 3 or 4 posible systems as I understand it, and at least one of them will require no glasses. If these competing systems are compatible and a protracted "war" over the 3D market can be averted then the future looks bright and multi-dimensional!

In most cases some of the polarized glasses are required. Most are comfortable, light weight and inexpensive so that replacement for damage won't break the bank. Again, it depends on which system is used.

>>> "2: Colour and contrast are much reduced over standard hi def t.v. imagery." <<<

Marginal loss of brightness and color resolution; yes, there may be a trade-off with some systems, but there will always be ways to compensate and with 3D images the immersive factor should more than make-up for any loss in other areas.

>>> "3: 3D for sports, PFFT! Really football for one from standard camera views are generally further away the 3D effect is minimal at best. Same for any of the other sports unless you set cameras on field where you are in the middle of the action, and that is not the way we watch sports." <<<

Before criticizing, maybe we should wait and see what can be achieved. Right now, you're speculating. We see things in stereo, but televised sporting events are only seen in 2D. So why can't stereo-optic cameras produce a more involving 3D interpretation of the action?

>>> "4: Content will be few and far between worth watching." <<<

Again, that's pure speculation, not to mean a matter of subjective judgment.

>>> "5: Some people get headaches and nausea from the effects." <<<

True, but that's a very small percentage of folks and as the 3D systems improve the side effects of watching stereo-optic films and sports should decline as well for most folks.

>>> "6: There is no consumer demand crying for 3D." <<<

That's a pretty weak argument. Avatar's worldwide success in 3D is a fair indication that there already is a demand for 3D product and that the demand will be there for 3D capable HT systems if the technology is perfected and interchangeable, backwards compatible with existing media (hardware and discs) and pricing makes it reasonably accessible to a wide audience.

Some version of MasterImage 3D will likely be the most accessible for many folks due to cost dependent upon application (see link), but it's still too early to tell which system or systems will prevail. Nevertheless, I wouldn't be too quick to write off 3D in home theaters if I were you.

>>> "3D will be to video what DVD-A and SACD were to audio a NICHE!" <<<

Perhaps, but SACD, and to a lesser extent DVD-A were great formats, albeit incompatible at the time. Some form of high resolution audio format will gradually replace the CD (probably BD-Audio, as Neil Young and Tom Petty have experimented with). The success of stereo-optic 3D will depend upon cost and whether it's compatible with existing media and other 3D systems. Of course demand will be a factor, but that's what marketing is all about. :O)

>>> "4K broadcasting, NOW THAT IS SOMETHING TO FOLLOW! Double the resolution of 1080p." <<<

I won't argue with you there, but 3D technology will be one of the areas of R&D that will further that prospect; it's part of the 1.4 HDMI standard that is expanding the perimeters of all HD.

Cheers,
AuPh

• MasterImage 3D...   (Open in New Window)