Hmmm........ the Sony advert doesn't do much for me. If they're informing me that all TV will look like this UNLESS you get a 3D TV, they're making a good point. But it won't, and they're not saying that, so I don't find it effective.
John, have you ever recognized that when someone fails to agree with your comments or opinions that all of your subsequent remarks are reduced to calling people names?
And just for the record, yes, I have watched a 3D demo (on a number of occasions) and I have yet to be impressed. That is my opinion of what I saw and I am entitled to it as much as you are entitled to yours.
You are an intelligent person, but when someone disagrees with you, you're not a very nice person.
"How many of you have actually gone and watched a 3D demo? " Everyone? I have watched, a number of 3D demos, from sony products. I "follow" research in 3D surgery by remote robotics and "other" DARPA projects that require specialize computing hardware and software. I have "worked" (lightly) on a number of 3D "projects, blending optics and hardware, no perfect solutions but always looking for the "clean" model. ;-)
Comparing 3D imaging to 8 track audio carts and quadraphonic sound is flawed. 8 tracks were one step on the path to a compact portable audio player. The idea was far from a failure, it grew to the point where today the majority of us have some form of portable audio player, even if it's simply part of our mobile phone. Quad sound was technically flawed but the idea of surround sound wasn't, Dolby 5.1 is standard fare today, almost every cinema has surround sound.
Is the current stereoscopic imaging system perfect 3D?
Not by a huge margin. But it's currently good enough to be commercially viable and for creative people to find new ways to tell a story. The next step will be holography but that's still a very long way off, we seem stuck at several impasses on making that leap.
The big problem for 3D TV is the lack of product, so without question that is an immediate opportunity. This is also the reason that sport will initially fill the programs (just as easy to shoot in 3D and events last for hours). At present shooting 3D adds significantly to costs for a small production house, but that can be expected to change. However when budgets are already tight you must appreciate that there are traps that we all like to avoid. Often we are told that clients want only SD and that few have HD sets anyway; maybe 3D will be the thing that causes all those old sets to be replaced. Or maybe not, or not for some time. It's not really a question of whether or not producers are impressed by 3D TV; they/we are. The market likes 3D in the cinema, but we haven't yet seen the market's response to 3D in the home.
Edit: Ed, the difference between the technology now and that in the 50s is precision. L&R images don't wander because of gate weave and sprocket wear. So eye strain is greatly reduced.
well, since not one of my clients has yet demanded hd, i suppose i can sleep easy about 3d ;-)
frankly it's good talking about this and other blossoming technology (eg. dslr video), but i think for the average producer it's more fun to sit back and watch the sparks fly among the 'luddites' and 'cutting-edge' brigades.
personally i found that being on the cutting edge usually meant i was bleeding money.....
, the difference between the technology now and that in the 50s is precision. L&R images don't wander because of gate weave and sprocket wear. So eye strain is greatly reduced.
I agree that is a contributor but there is one major problem that 'modern' 3D has failed to solve and that is to dynamical adjust the spacing of the 2 image to the match the intraocular distance of the eyes of each viewer (glasses). Yes, the eyes can move left and right independent of each other to converge the images but not without some degree of eye strain and why Samsung, and others, have a paragraph of warnings. To the viewer they detect something is not right but they are not sure. It is similar to watching subliminal perception. You know something is happening but you are not sure what it is. For short times there is no problem.
The thing I dislike about all the 3D commercials that I have seen is that they almost always end by showing you things that pop out the screen. That is the worst thing you can do 3D wise.
Best advice I have read for 3D production is that the TV should act like a window which means things don't pop out at you. 3D behind the screen tends to be the most relaxing for your eyes.
I have been dabbling a bit with 3D. Currently I do 'Ken Burns' affect with 3D stills. It is definitely a lot more challenging production wise working in 3D. There are lots of limitations, but I do generally adjust parallax whilst zooming as that really does prevent you from getting a headache. Text overlays are another major challenge.
I do like 3D, but not enough to go and buy these expensive 3D TV sets and blu-ray players.