OT: what's your take on the 3D craze?

Comments

DataMeister wrote on 8/4/2014, 9:25 AM
I think it is still a "craze" for now. I like the 3D effect, but until it is possible without glasses or extra "personal" hardware then it likely won't ever be mainstream. People don't like wearing things to watch TV if it has to be removed to look at the person sitting next to them or to read something in their lap. It becomes to much of a hassle for 99% of the time.
wwjd wrote on 8/4/2014, 10:46 AM
I LOVE 3D. There, I said. Not the "stick things in your face, off the screen" junk, just the emmersion of somewhat realistic DEPTH over a flat screen. 3D depth is way more natural to me than a perspective slider/dolly shot that still looks flat.
Recently watch TOP GUN redone as 3D and it looked amazing! It added to the feel of the STORY for me.
I see 3D movies whenever that is available, and will get a 4K 3D TV when it is buying time, if they are still doing 3D.
GeeBax wrote on 8/4/2014, 5:54 PM
[I]People don't like wearing things to watch TV if it has to be removed to look at the person sitting next to them or to read something in their lap. It becomes to much of a hassle for 99% of the time.[/I]

I would have thought you would be watching the screen, not the person next door or material on your lap?

In any event, the glasses that came with my Sony set are very light, and not in the least annoying to wear.

The only thing I dislike about 3D are the bad movies that do not use 3D well. Bring it on!
OldSmoke wrote on 8/4/2014, 6:14 PM
[I]People don't like wearing things to watch TV if it has to be removed to look at the person sitting next to them or to read something in their lap. It becomes to much of a hassle for 99% of the time[/I]

That was the reason why I bought a LG 3D TV which has passive glasses that are very light and you don't have to take them off to look anywhere else in the room.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

3d87c4 wrote on 8/4/2014, 7:01 PM
FWIW:

I got interested in 3D photography in the early '90s---I forget why. In addition to travel photos I set myself up with a couple of different Nikonos V based underwater rigs---side by side, and mirror based macro---to use while SCUBA diving.

I had to take a break from diving & when I returned a few years ago Nikon had stopped supporting the Nikonos cameras so I got a GoPro 3D rig & got dragged into video.

I enjoy the occasional 3D movie in the cinema, but am too cheap to replace my existing TV with a 3D model 'til it dies (though the current prices are tempting). I can free view 3D in parallel or cross eyed mode so just watch 3D YouTube material on my PC.

The thing I've noticed is that, because we see in 3D normally, after a while we get used to it unless the filmmaker throws in some gratuitous in-your-face stuff or "floaters", like in Avitar.

My concern, at this point, is the TV manufacturers will stop making 3D TV's by the time I actually decide to get one.

Del XPS 17 laptop

Processor    13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-13900H   2.60 GHz
Installed RAM    32.0 GB (31.7 GB usable)
System type    64-bit operating system, x64-based processor
Pen and touch    Touch support with 10 touch points

Edition    Windows 11 Pro
Version    22H2
Installed on    ‎6/‎8/‎2023
OS build    22621.1848
Experience    Windows Feature Experience Pack 1000.22642.1000.0

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Laptop GPU
Driver Version: 31.0.15.2857
8GB memory
 

PeterDuke wrote on 8/4/2014, 8:46 PM
One thing about natural 3D is that YOU can focus your eyes on something close, and if YOU choose, YOU can focus on something distant.

3D videos should therefore not have shallow depth of field to control what YOU look at.
Chienworks wrote on 8/4/2014, 8:50 PM
Peter, that's exactly and equally true with 2D, so it's not a specific 3D issue at all. Close one eye and look at the world and you'll see focusing is no different.
PeterDuke wrote on 8/5/2014, 12:03 AM
Then why are so many people obsessed with shallow depth of field?

OK, I will try to answer my own question. It's about control. The editor/director wants to dictate what you look at.
GeeBax wrote on 8/5/2014, 12:12 AM
My guess would be because they associate it with 'real film', which in earlier times tended to have shallow depth of field in close scenes because the aperture was wide open.
Chienworks wrote on 8/5/2014, 7:49 AM
Some might call it control. Others might call it artistic presentation.

A couple years ago one contributor to one of these 3D threads claimed that if he couldn't "pick up the picture" and turn it around to see it from whatever angle he wanted, then it wasn't 3D at all. He compared it to a football game where every person saw it from a different angle and therefore had a different view. My retort was along the lines of, "ok, show us you picking up that football arena and turning it around so you can see it from any angle you choose". 3D is 3D if it can present spacial depth to the viewer, regardless of what other restrictions may be imposed on that viewing experience.

I guess the point is that any visual representation *HAS TO* choose some point of reference, some angle of view, some moment of time, and to some extent, a field of focus. It's up to the artist/photographer/videographer to make those choices for the audience, not only because they are artists, but because physically they *HAVE TO* make a choice. It's simply an inherent limitation of the process of capturing the image. I'm sure they (we) intend to capture the most interesting or pleasing or provoking view, but they can't cater to every audience member's whim of wanting to focus on that speck over there ...

Until such time a we can deliver the entire real universe to our viewers, this is the limitation we must work in, as well as what the audience must accept.
JJKizak wrote on 8/5/2014, 8:06 AM
What's after 4K? It will be 21 x 9, like it should have been in the first place.
JJK
Chienworks wrote on 8/5/2014, 8:10 AM
21x9? Ewww, please no. 16:9 is already too wide.
Serena Steuart wrote on 8/5/2014, 8:27 PM
>>> 16:9 is already too wide.<<<

Is it? Depends on the subject, but we had this discussion not so long ago.
Geoff_Wood wrote on 8/5/2014, 11:59 PM
... just as the script-writer decides what you hear, and the sound editor decides how you hear it !


geoff
Geoff_Wood wrote on 8/6/2014, 12:00 AM
People were talking 8K a while go, but then retrenched to the currently more realistic 4K (and some even an in-betweenie 2K).

geoff
Geoff_Wood wrote on 8/6/2014, 12:03 AM
Haven't you noticed even at 16:9 many movies are horizontally letter-boxed ?

But yes, who wants to get a sore neck just from watching TV....?

geoff
Serena Steuart wrote on 8/6/2014, 1:10 AM
>>> to be removed to look at the person sitting next to them or to read something in their lap<<<

I understand now that people "watching" TV are expected to be simultaneously Googling information about the actors while gossiping on the phone and Twittering comments about the TV program (or about one of the programs open on the screen) all while grooming the cat for its YouTube video. Which might have some relevance to the low quality of programs.

I think either a program is worth watching or its isn't (i.e. the TV is on or it isn't), but I'm rather old school. So I don't find a problem with glasses for 3D.
Richard Jones wrote on 8/6/2014, 4:34 AM
I suppose you could sa that, at my age, I'm old school as well but, unlike you, I do object to having to wear special glasses to watch 3D. I wear glasses all the time as it happens so that would mean putting another pair over my regular frames just to watch a programme. No thanks!

Richard

BRC wrote on 8/6/2014, 6:01 AM
I have been reading these posts over the past few days and felt it best not to join in the 'debate'. However some of the posts seem to deem the writers as experts on the subject and are quite curt in dismissing any opinion that does not concur with theirs.

I shall be up front - I have had a Samsung 50'' plasma 3D tv for 3 years and 9 months, which involves active 3D glasses. I am a spectacle wearer, so does it present problems? Yes - i have to put the 3D glasses over my spectacles, adjust them for comfort and sitting right, which takes sometimes as long as 3 seconds. I am a few months away from my 66th birthday which means every second is precious, however I can easily spare those few seconds.

Do I enjoy 3D films/programmes? Not of all of them as it depends on the quality of production and care that has gone into the presentation of the visuals and the content thereof. There are some really good 3D films - and I enjoyed 'Avatar' as the 3D was very well done, not simply 'in-your-face'. I know some of you have already disagreed, and some will still wish to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine and my opinion is still valid. I have watched a good deal more 3D productions, some of which have been excellent and some of which do a great disservice to entertainment. That is my opinion.

I have a Blu-ray surround system, DTS-HD etc and enjoy the immersive sense of this with 3D. That is my opinion and I am happy with that.

We all have our likes and dislikes and what works for one person does not necessarily work for another so when posting to this 'debate' please feel free to express your opinion but please don't be so dismissive of others. Who knows you might be right - or you might be completely wrong. By all means comment or express your view on the technicalities, though remember by the very nature of moving pictures and sound reproduction we are all being fooled one way or another in to believing what we see and hear is reality.
Richard Jones wrote on 8/6/2014, 10:51 AM
I just find wearing a second set of spectacles very uncomfortable - but then I'm much older than you:(.

Richard
Rob Franks wrote on 8/6/2014, 11:04 AM
"I just find wearing a second set of spectacles very uncomfortable - but then I'm much older than you:(. "

I'm quite surprised that those who regularly wear glasses aren't used to doubling up by now?? I certainly am. Ive been in glasses since the age of 4 (I'm 53 now). I have to double up in the car (sunglasses), in the theater, at home in front of the 3d tv.... been doing this for decades.

It's life for people wearing corrective lenses.... deal with it.
PeterDuke wrote on 8/6/2014, 8:02 PM
I never double up for sun glasses. I have prescription sun glasses.
Richard Jones wrote on 8/7/2014, 4:34 AM
Rob, who do you think you are to tell me to deal with it --- or was your rude comment aimed elsewhere?

FYI, I've worn glasses for nearly 65 years and these incorporate reactolite to avoid having to use or add a second set as sun glasses. And after all these years of wearing glasses I still dislike adding a second frame --- so to use your own language, accept it.

Richard.
ushere wrote on 8/7/2014, 6:44 AM
+1 previous two posts.

i also dislike wearing two pairs of glasses.