Reply to: Question about 3D TV

[kevpuk]

I know they're making them thin nowadays but aren't all tellies 3D? Otherwise they'd not exist.

Depends on your viewing angle

[stek]

I know they're making them thin nowadays but aren't all tellies 3D? Otherwise they'd not exist.

[VectraMan]

3D is OK, but nothing like the shift to HD......4K will ramp things up further, but let's not forget that most sources are only chucking out 720p HD anyway, and not 1080p

That myth never dies.

Read the above Reg article about frame rates. Keeping 1080p and going for 96/100fps would be a much better use of the bandwidth than doubling the resolution again to 4K, and still using the antiquated 24fps developed for the first "talkies".

[d000hg]

4K for home TVs seems a bit pointless to me - for proper home cinemas perhaps but that's a niche market. I don't see why we shouldn't stick with 1080p for the bulk of TVs - 30-50" - and introduce 4k in parallel for top-end TVs.

[kevpuk]

BBC are putting their 3D stuff on hold, as are ESPN in the US - BBC News - BBC 3D programming 'on hold' indefinitely

Yup, saw that too.....
3D is OK, but nothing like the shift to HD......4K will ramp things up further, but let's not forget that most sources are only chucking out 720p HD anyway, and not 1080p

[ee61re]

BBC are putting their 3D stuff on hold, as are ESPN in the US - BBC News - BBC 3D programming 'on hold' indefinitely

[kevpuk]

Well, I watched the first 2 sets of yesterday's Wimbledon final in 3D (via Virgin Tivo box on Panasonic ET50 47") - pretty good, all in all, but I ended up switching back to regular BBC One HD for the 3rd set - of everything, I found the angle of play was not as engrossing as regular viewing; seems the 3D camera's were placed more or less directly behind the baseline, meaning less of the court could be seen.
On the flipside, went to see latest Star Trek film a few weeks back @ BFI Waterloo, largest IMAX in the UK and all that - that was mighty impressive....

Anyway, not a huge 3D viewer, but just my tuppence worth.

[SueEllen]

4K TVs from Sony

Currys sell various makes but the URL was too bloody long.

[amcdonald]

3D is yesterday.

4K is tomorrow.

No 4k is available, so they must have something ready to replace it already

If it's sold commercially it's yesterdays technology

[VectraMan]

3D is yesterday.

4K is tomorrow.

Interesting article as to why higher resolution is the wrong approach:

The future of cinema and TV: It?s game over for the hi-res hype ? The Register

[AtW]

3D is yesterday.

4K is tomorrow.

[Spacecadet]

You could say the same about colour Vs B&W, stereo VS mono sound, etc. If you only define how good a film is by the plot and acting, almost like you're treating it as a book, you have a point... but films are about immersing the viewer in the experience and grabbing their attention. It's the difference between films and theatre - the latter works on a dusty wooden stage with painted sheets.

The problem is that "3D" as it is being filmed and projected isn't really 3D, its a stereoscopic effect which only gives an illusion of depth.

Personally I find the whole thing off putting and find a regular "2D" film actually gives a better sense of depth.

Having seen 3 films in 3D, Tron was the only one which used it well.

[d000hg]

You could say the same about colour Vs B&W, stereo VS mono sound, etc. If you only define how good a film is by the plot and acting, almost like you're treating it as a book, you have a point... but films are about immersing the viewer in the experience and grabbing their attention. It's the difference between films and theatre - the latter works on a dusty wooden stage with painted sheets.

[DaveB]

Like with any technology, some films use it because it's there and some films really make it work.

Avatar is still the reference for good 3D, but Life of Pi is stunningly beautiful in 3D, the first part at least really is better because of it.

I think the films that are hailed has being great use of 3d are generally the ones that would otherwise be a bit tulip due to poor plotting, storyline etc.

The better the film as a vehicle for the story, the less it needs 3d to make an impact.

[d000hg]

Only been to one film in the cinema in 3d, The Hobbit, put me off to be honest (the 3d, not the iffy interpretation of the book)

Like with any technology, some films use it because it's there and some films really make it work.

Avatar is still the reference for good 3D, but Life of Pi is stunningly beautiful in 3D, the first part at least really is better because of it.