I'd rather have something one must enjoy only at a real theater.
(More of a social event)

None of the 1950's 3D movies that I saw (including the Three Stooges shorts) had a problem with extending the whatevers into the audiance past the screen. Everybody was screeming when that happened. The 3D I viewed on a conventional LCD with yellow/blue glasses on NBC was very good. (Chuck). You have to look past the jerk/ass opinions of some of the old people who have problems seeing 3D in real life along with 270 degree periphrial performance.
JJK

Interesting article, but I detected the reviewer had a negative bias right off the start where he says, "Both displays require you to look like a dork by wearing a pair of 3D glasses." This is despite that his credit reads, "Richard Baguley writes for Televisioninfo, who produce in-depth, " The reviewer is probably right in saying that buying a 3D-TV right now is a bit premature.

Personally, I'm really looking forward to the use of 3D in documentaries and other programming where the purpose is to transport the viewer where they can't normally go.

lol, good one. Try using your imagination. Far better than a 3d tv at least mine is.

3D is a passing fad as always, surprised so many haven't learned from the past they actually lived in.

If I just used my imagination then it wouldn't be a documentary, now would it?

I hear in stereo and surround sound has caught on pretty well, I see in 3D so why wouldn't I want that to extend to my television viewing experience? Is there some law that says television and movies must remain in 2D? Why didn't movies and TV remain in black and white?

Besides, you have "Fish Eyes," can you even see in 3D? Do you know what the term "Luddite" means?

The most impressive 3D I have seen was from the Japanese moon orbiter. As you said being taken to a place you'll never go to is one very valid use of this technology.
One can read about how high the mountains are on the moon. Seeing them in 3D is the only thing that bought it home to me.
I guess NHK will be showing the same footage at NAB this year. It was certainly way more impressive than their Super Hivision 8K system. Highly recommended, made the long flight to Vegas and back worthwhile.

Bob.

The black and white analogy is just wrong.

1D characters in 3D are not worth paying for. (maybe you are easily amused)

I'd rather sit down with a book.

3D is a gimmick. History has proven this time and time again.

Do you know what a gimmick is?

Have fun with your ignorant arrogance.

"The black and white analogy is just wrong."

In what way? We see in color and 3D.

"Have fun with your ignorant arrogance."

I'll cop to occasionally being a bit arrogant but I'm far from ignorant. I have been involved in some advanced 3D development at Los Alamos Labs and I assure you that it is NOT a gimmick. All history has proven is that the technology has not been perfected or used correctly but that doesn't mean that the concept of 3D itself is flawed.

Interesting article, but I detected the reviewer had a negative bias right off the start where he says, "Both displays require you to look like a dork by wearing a pair of 3D glasses." This is despite that his credit reads, "Richard Baguley writes for Televisioninfo, who produce in-depth, unbiased scientific reviews of televisions."

Are you saying he was biased against dorks?

C'mon, John, IT WAS A JOKE.

If, in your opinion, an activity required you to look like a dork, from the outset it doesn't seem to me that you could have a completely unbiased opinion about the activity.

As an aside yesterday I received an email invite to a 3D nightclub in Vegas. Pretty well all the kool people wear shades in nightclubs anyway:
http://www.3opolis.com/3opolis.html

Bob.

I'm sure when the wheel was invented it was just a passing fad. Who needs wheels anyway when you can walk?
JJK

Hey, if you want to put words in mouth so you can sound intelligent be my guest.

But the facts about 3D History remains.

"But the facts about 3D History remains."

No one is disputing that historically 3D was mostly used as a gimmick. Worse the studios went for the cheapest technology that created horrid color rendition.
This has little to do with where we're at today. People have learned from history, well I hope they have because there's still some really horrid 3D hitting the big screens so I hear.
I have reservations about 3D in the home, heck I'm still not convinced about OTA HD, do the public want to watch the evening news on a giant screen while they eat dinner, I don't know.
On the other hand cinema is escape and anything that takes the viewer out of their reality into another place has got to have some value to it, be it surround sound or 3D.

Bob.

Yeah and those facts are history. The technology has changed significantly since the red/blue glasses of the 1950s. 3D is gaining momentum whether you like it or not. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy into it or even watch it. There were a lot of people like you on this forum just a few years ago that were saying that HDTV was never going to catch on. Not everyone has it, but enough do to be considered to have reached some sort of critical mass.

large screen HD LCDs, iPODs...etc.... were considered gimmicks but they slowly conquered the market.

John right about 3D in scientific field, but almost all big engineering models are being showed in 3D when possible. Of course shooting 3D is more restrictive that just modeling cars, aircraft....etc...

The real different today is that 3D displays are available. I was at a Sony Style Store Saturday ( after checking out the AppleStore iPad--kids) and the 3D display was a hot item, everyone was checking it out, a few were getting of the "list" for pre-ordering. I even offered to buy the display setup... ;-) more for personal testing ;-)

But 3D still needs work but its here for real. The movie business has rediscover how rich this market is...... geek or dork... I doubt many individuals earning 120K to $12m read Richard Baguley and that's the main crowd of expensive gear buyers, besides college students and camera "people".

there's a difference between something like an HDTV & 3D: companies weren't allowed to make & sell SD sets any more. They (and us) had no choice if they wanted a TV. 3D is still an option. I'd say it's closer to replacing your XBox 360/PS3/iWhatever every time a new version comes out.

But I 100% agree on the whole "dork" thing. Seems pretty unprofessional to me: there's many other ways to say you look like an idiot... BUT:
*everybody who talked to their phone while walking around looks like an idiot talking to air.
*Doubly so for those with ear pieces!
*Ever see the clothes kids wear today????
*You look like an idiot when you're in a tiny/large car/etc.
*In general, people look like idiots when watching TV/movies. Watch 'em some time, it's quite fun! :D

So I'm sure people won't care how they look as long as the boobies get closer to their faces. ;D

In case anyone was wondering what FishEyes was referring to as 1D ...

Here it is, on the next line, between the brackets:

[ ___________________ ]

- of course, he might have meant 2D.

Well, the 3DTV review was a bit over the top in the language, for sure. And discriminatory against dorks :O).

But it's easy to get carried away. Just read this breathless article about DSLR aliasing.

Very clear presentation of the facts, with excellent video (especially the first video had me laughing so hard I couldn't speak for at least a minute afterwards) and still image examples.

But he got a little bit carried away with the language, as if he had some fear of the new technology in DSLRs.

Nothing wrong with his facts about them, but these kinds of problems have been solved quickly in many a past technology renaissance.

My only beef with the article is the focus on sharpness as the only quality metric, as I have seen what can be done with contrast rendition, best expressed as the MTF curve of an entire system from shooting subject to final image. This is not "Dynamic Range," as you can have great DR with a saggy MTF curve and vice versa.

Now about 3DTV. I have been watching TV movies in 3D since I was 4 years old.

And so have most of you. Even the one-eyed ones...

Camera movement wasn't primarily created to move the POV from A to B, but to allow the viewers to create a 3D image in their brains, which is where all vision information is assembled, i.e. we really "see with our brains."

Stereoscopic 3D just provides additional depth cues, but it's not adding 100% to nothing.

So I'm sure people won't care how they look as long as the boobies get closer to their faces. ;D

So now we know how the Friar got Happy.... :O)

When they already take up the whole frame, how can you do better? By extending them into the room of course. Attack of the 50-foot Killer Pumpkins.


Watching news in HD? Is there any other way?

Yes, you can get your news off the web without losing a quarter to a third of your life to inane commercials :O).

Seriously, the thought of viewing anything on TV in SD isn't that attractive. And with HDTVs costing as little as $150 nowadays, and the content free Over The Air, why shouldn't everybody?

I've noticed a trend over the past couple years in reviews: use more & more catch phrases, cliches, & "hip" saying.

"Attack of the 50-foot Killer Pumpkins." ha,..mmmm...... imagine Woody Allen remaking his version of the "Attack of the 50-foot woman"......... ;-)