samsung have just started mass producing their 3d tvs today and they do not suffer from the problem you are describing.
Sky 3D
- Thread starter Jimmy1983
- Start date
samsung have just started mass producing their 3d tvs today and they do not suffer from the problem you are describing.
samsung have just started mass producing their 3d tvs today and they do not suffer from the problem you are describing.
How so? You will need to wear polarized glasses, so that takes away 30% of the brightness. Got a link to the tech they use to remove this? Would be interested to see how they do it without just upping the brightness level.
Not quite. I think Panasonic and Samsung (amongst others) are going for active shutter, rather than polarised glasses. Basically electronic glasses synced to the tv that turn each lense clear/dark in turn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD_shutter_glasses
And the ELSA Revelator of a decade ago. Everyone's going active shutter for the home because as a manufacturer you can make minor changes and sell your kit again as 3D compatible.
What's old is new again only this time technology's caught up and you don't get as many headaches
Last edited:
I see, interesting.
Although does the content not need to be shown at 240hz? Meaning you'll need to buy new hardware that can display and stream it at that rate? Not really up on refresh rates, but i assume the frame rate will need to be double that of an ordinary moving image to achieve the same result?
Pretty much - they'll definitely need new hardware, it's just they won't have to modify the old hardware too much to get it to work with active shutter. For your ordinary 24fps blu-ray, they'd need a framerate of 48fps, I suppose.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,563
- Location
- Warwickshire
Only sci-Fi and animated? That's very debatable considering the fact that 3D football is about to take off in a big way and by all accounts, adds a great deal to the experience. Mark Kermode, as much as I find him intelligent and entertaining, is wrong on this occasion I'm afraid.
Anything that makes a film look more true to life cannot possibly harm it as long as it's done well technically, imo. Why would The Godfather 3D be a 'terrible experience'? It would surely be more immersive as it would feel more like you were in the room, which could add to the tension / fear / shock / empathy in certain scenes.
Until they have perfected 3DTV without the need for glasses, then yes i would support it 100%. But wearing glasses (and another pair since i wear glasses already) is a real pain.
3D football actually being good is debatable. I have seen a demo of it and whilst its good for a few minutes, it becomes extremely annoying as you can't get a sense of long shots for example. Just doesn't work right. I personally don't see how 3D could improve something like The Godfather. It would make you feel more 'in' the movie, but why? The director didn't intend you to feel that way. They had 3D when The Godfather was made, if the director wanted to use the gimmick then he could have, but he didn't cause he knew it wasn't needed.
3D is what made Avatar, not the story, script or characters. Take 3D out of the picture and then it would be an extremely average film. There isn't a 3D film out there has been made better due to 3D (excluding Avatar). "Up" for example, i seen it in 2D and it was a brilliant film, story wise and character wise. Seeing it again in 3D will not add to that. It will probably look better, but it doesn't make it a better film.
3D isn't need, High Definition is. 3D has happened and failed, and i think will again. I think it will become a medium for people who want the latest tech for watching films at home. No way will it appeal to the mass market. Only the cinema can do that, and thats where 3D should stay.