Jay Gladwell wrote on 5/26/2010, 4:24 PM

"3D-TV is officially out of the labs and into consumer's living rooms."

And so was 8-track, at one time.

lynn1102 wrote on 5/26/2010, 4:43 PM
Which kind of glasses should I be wearing to watch this and where do I get them?

ushere wrote on 5/26/2010, 4:53 PM
just what i need, glasses on top of glasses.....
Coursedesign wrote on 5/26/2010, 4:56 PM
Which kind of glasses should I be wearing to watch this and where do I get them?

For the TV ad, none.

The concept was to give viewers a feeling that they are missing out on something cool.

Jay Gladwell wrote on 5/26/2010, 5:08 PM

"The concept was to give viewers a feeling that they are missing out on something cool."

Huh... I got the feeling there was something wrong with their camera's lens. ;o)

Geoff_Wood wrote on 5/26/2010, 5:19 PM
Oddly the 3D TV ads on regular TV look plenty 3D enough for me already !

Besides, 3DTV cannot be considered a valid product until the " i3D" comes out ....

apit34356 wrote on 5/26/2010, 5:44 PM
" i3D"...................Brilliant! ;-)
dibbkd wrote on 5/26/2010, 6:19 PM
That video made me feel I was in 1991 watching Nightmare on Elm Street 3D.
Serena wrote on 5/26/2010, 6:42 PM
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.
Coursedesign wrote on 5/26/2010, 7:48 PM

You may not be in their target group.

I suspect that at this time 3D TV is more of a "guy" thing from looking at how it's marketed.

It's early days. And no guarantee of success.

Lots of hassle to produce currently, so the story risks being set aside to give more time to deal with the technology.

It could be 8-track or quadraphonic sound, it's just too early to tell.
Rory Cooper wrote on 5/27/2010, 12:36 AM
Just place a DDD bra on a glass table top and pan around it “3Ds tv ”

the guys can imagine it and the chicks can understand it and understand why the guys want to see it.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 5/27/2010, 4:06 AM

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.

apit34356 wrote on 5/27/2010, 4:07 AM
"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. ;-)
farss wrote on 5/27/2010, 4:52 AM
There's a great article on COW about the filming of a stereoscopic production "Magic Journey To Africa":

Page 3 has a great photo of the challenge facing the in-the-field editor with a Meerkat on his laptop.


farss wrote on 5/27/2010, 5:00 AM
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.

ECB wrote on 5/27/2010, 6:14 AM
Excuse my ignorance but what techical advancemenst in 3D have been achieved from the technology of the 50s other than the way the images are delived to each eye ie shuttering vs polarization?

Serena wrote on 5/27/2010, 6:25 AM
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.
warriorking wrote on 5/27/2010, 6:30 AM
Maybe in a couple of years when the prices drop will I look to 3D TV's, by then we will see if its just a fad or not....
ushere wrote on 5/27/2010, 6:41 AM
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.....
ECB wrote on 5/27/2010, 6:55 AM
, 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.

Xander wrote on 5/27/2010, 7:37 AM
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.
Byron K wrote on 5/27/2010, 6:33 PM
Like many other video format standards we have now, imho, it will probably be the porn industry who decides what 3D format consumers will end up with and/or if it takes off.

Just my opinion based on observation. (:
apit34356 wrote on 5/27/2010, 8:23 PM
"Just my opinion based on observation. (: " And what have you been observing? ;-)