Was in a Sony shop today and had a viewing of their 3D tv, it was seriously impressive. Had a impressive price tag as well @ £4.5K although you do get 2 free 3D glasses.

Does that mean you have stay fixed on the TV when you’re wearing the glasses.
I sit here playing with the computer,TV on in the background, and doing other things. Isn’t that going to be a PITA?

Isn’t that going to be a PITA?

in a word yes. also the glasses are quite bulky.

So not so good then? I can see the point of 3D in the cinema, but at home with so many other things going…

This reminds me of a prank we played on a new intake of apprentices some years ago. It involved a pc running a very early Autodesk Mechanical Desktop, a pair of dark tinted sking goggles & a component being lowered in front of them with a fishing rod & line.

I can also vouch for 3DTV being very impressive & realistic indeed

only the other day, I was watching the Liverpool game & dozed off in the chair [it wasn’t a good game]

I woke to find my wallet & phone had gone

Taki – Remember ‘Max Headroom’ from the 80’s?

Looked like quite slick animated character. Was really a block with a foam mask.

Doesn’t work for me. 🙁

Do you tell your passenger before take off that you have no depth perception? 🙂

i’m not convinced

I think Sony are barking up the wrong tree with the technology they are using. the odd/even frame system is always going to require bulky glasses that need to maintain a frame sync with the panel/playback media

The cross polarized system is a better system in my book and until hyper resolution displays become a reality (think 2 HD displays combined into one with each field being polarized 90 degrees apart) then you’ll be stuck with the sony technology.

I’ve worked with 3D projection on a big scale several times using the polarization method and it is incredibly good and the glasses are throw away items.

I’m also not convinced that the field of view offered by TVs in most households is enough to make 3D a convincing prospect for general television

I’m going to have to accept it’s coming mind, my mate who’s a director has just done some training on how to direct in 3D so clearly it’s being embraced by the media

Why would you direct any differently for 3d, and that’s not a dig, I just don’t understand why, surely it’s the same motion but just captured on 3d cameras. As in the football, they didn’t play any different when sky were doing the 3d premiership games.

Unfortunately because people have paid for 3D they expect to see things in 3D so lots of pointing fingers close to the camera or anything else that relies on binocular depth perception. Alas the scripts and acting don’t get any better in 3D 🙂

a director’s job is to immerse the viewer in the action by clever user of lighting, camera angles, depth of field etc, all tools to help convey a 3 dimensional scene on a 2 dimensional medium. ALL these things change when you shoot in 3D. You also have to think about (for cinematic experiences) not over doing it and making the audience feel sick! Don’t underestimate the effect of your eyes on your balance system!

to be honest, a lot of directors haven’t even got around to coping with the challenges of HD yet, you have to think about the fact that your background is generally far clearer especially when there is a lot of movement which can become very distracting (IMHO) and can flatten the scene

It took long enough for some to cope satisfactorily with 16:9, the BBC went through a phase of using post production effects to blur out distracting parts of the shot which is indicative in my book of lazy directing and poor location choice.

I saw two 3D sets in action yesterday, both Sony. I was not impressed!

First off, both sets produced a very noticeable flickering effect, especially when wearing the supplied polarizing glasses.

One set was showing psuedo/simulated 3d of a live footy broadcast. It just looked a bit fuzzy and the 3D element was barely noticeable – FAIL!.

I then saw the other set which was playing a BlueRay disc. The depth of field was there, but the margins of characters in the foreground were out of focus. This is £1500 technology and £500 sets blow it away – FAIL!

Then I looked at a standard HD TV in all it’s pin sharp glory and wondered why anyone would bother blowing a huge pile of money on such a gimmick as 3D. And who’d want to wear numpty goggles to watch TV?

I’m absolutely convinced it won’t catch on!

3D TV – FAIL!

Aside from that, LCD TV still can’t handle motion (HD or SD). You get a fuzzy mess until the display goes static – FAIL.

Plasma sets faired a lot better, but weren’t perfect.

I looked at a wide range of sets and found the cheapest one viewed from a realistic distance was no worse than the most expensive.

These thin LED sets offer low power consumption and better aesthetics, but the sound they produce is nasty and these sets are expensive – FAIL.

Pursuing HD video has clearly become subject to “The Emperor’s New Clothes” effect!

If you are buying a new flat panel TV, go for the cheapest 1080p set and look for one which has the distinctly low res internet TV capability.

@£4,5K I’ll expect to see a few 3d TV sets appearing on the local council estates soon.

They cost from £1500 in JL. I expect you’ll get them for less elsewhere.

These thin LED sets offer low power consumption and better aesthetics, but the sound they produce is nasty and these sets are expensive – FAIL.

Who spunks IRO £1K on a TV, and then relies upon the standard speakers?

Who spunks IRO £1K on a TV, and then relies upon the standard speakers?

The vast majority of people who but these sets!

Sure, they may well have a surround set up of some sort for movie viewing, but who wants to watch the news in Dolby 5.1?

I’d imagine the pornographers will quickly ascertain the best system and standardise on that. 😆

I saw the new Killzone game demo’d in 3-D and I have to say it did look pretty good, but I think I’d chuck up after 30 mins of playing through motion sickness.

3-D tv for the home is just not for me though 🙂