Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 2:51 pm
I need to post an update here, as I just spent a day evaluating a major company's new 3-D Blu-ray offerings. I will not say the name of the company or the titles, as it's not my place to do so, (although I will say it wasn't Samsung) but I will say that their products are solid, and the idea, while still forming, has potential.
Essentially, what I saw was a new generation of HDTVs which incorporate the ability to display the new iteration of 3D, using polarized shutter lenses rather than the old anaglyph idea. The Blu-rays we watched (including 2 full movies in 3D and several trailers for other films) were certainly more satisfying than the old-style anaglyph features I have seen. I noted that the depth was convincing to me, in terms of the menus standing out in front of the screen by about 6 inches, the subtitles standing out in front of the action by about 2 inches, and by the various layers within the picture standing out from each other. I also noted that when I moved my head to the right or the left, the foreground layers moved slightly and I could see more of the background layers on either side.
We were watching the materials on a 50" plasma screen, and we went back and forth between the 2D and 3D modes of the movie so we could check to see if the 3D versions were dimmer. What we saw was that when the HDTV went into 3D mode, the image became considerably brighter - almost washed out - when viewed without the glasses. When we put the glasses on, the dimming effect actually restored the image to the proper color timing. This is similar in my mind to the anamorphic encoding idea, only in terms of color brightness and intensity. In other words, the dimming is a compensation, not a detraction or even a distraction, since the end value is the same.
Now, none of this is to say that these films could only be viewed in 3D or that 3D was a be-all and end-all. The movies themselves work fine without it, and they should. I would say that, assuming the 3D trend lasts, you'll see the newer generation of HDTVs incorporating this technology as part of their general specs. So when you upgrade a set, or purchase a new one, you may well have a set that is 3D-capable. It still works great as a 2D HDTV, but it has that extra feature if you want to use it. If you don't, you still have the latest HDTV. If you do, you get an extra plus. And if the 3D idea goes away, the set still works in 10 years anyway, the same as any other set would. So I think my comment about 8 track players was premature. That would only be meaningful if the sets could only play 3D content.
I also have issues with the idea of making people pay high amounts of money for additional glasses, and I would support the idea now forming of independent companies making cheaper, rechargeable glasses that can work with any 3D HDTV. I also have issues with the various TV makers having exclusive deals with studios so that the only way you can see these discs for upwards of 6 months is to purchase the TV - ridiculous.
As for programming that can really make use of 3D, I noted that some footage of the Olympics had a depth to it I wouldn't normally have seen, and that some of the footage felt more interactive. (Downhill skiiing included snow being kicked up in a foreground layer as the skier passed the camera.) For the most part, I think it works best in animation, but I'll need to see more live action material to be sure.
One final thing. We sat through 2 full movies and more, probably over 3 1/2 hours of 3D material. No headaches. I will say that I think the glasses need to be made to better fit over people's existing glasses, but the "3D headache" issue wasn't there for us.
Essentially, what I saw was a new generation of HDTVs which incorporate the ability to display the new iteration of 3D, using polarized shutter lenses rather than the old anaglyph idea. The Blu-rays we watched (including 2 full movies in 3D and several trailers for other films) were certainly more satisfying than the old-style anaglyph features I have seen. I noted that the depth was convincing to me, in terms of the menus standing out in front of the screen by about 6 inches, the subtitles standing out in front of the action by about 2 inches, and by the various layers within the picture standing out from each other. I also noted that when I moved my head to the right or the left, the foreground layers moved slightly and I could see more of the background layers on either side.
We were watching the materials on a 50" plasma screen, and we went back and forth between the 2D and 3D modes of the movie so we could check to see if the 3D versions were dimmer. What we saw was that when the HDTV went into 3D mode, the image became considerably brighter - almost washed out - when viewed without the glasses. When we put the glasses on, the dimming effect actually restored the image to the proper color timing. This is similar in my mind to the anamorphic encoding idea, only in terms of color brightness and intensity. In other words, the dimming is a compensation, not a detraction or even a distraction, since the end value is the same.
Now, none of this is to say that these films could only be viewed in 3D or that 3D was a be-all and end-all. The movies themselves work fine without it, and they should. I would say that, assuming the 3D trend lasts, you'll see the newer generation of HDTVs incorporating this technology as part of their general specs. So when you upgrade a set, or purchase a new one, you may well have a set that is 3D-capable. It still works great as a 2D HDTV, but it has that extra feature if you want to use it. If you don't, you still have the latest HDTV. If you do, you get an extra plus. And if the 3D idea goes away, the set still works in 10 years anyway, the same as any other set would. So I think my comment about 8 track players was premature. That would only be meaningful if the sets could only play 3D content.
I also have issues with the idea of making people pay high amounts of money for additional glasses, and I would support the idea now forming of independent companies making cheaper, rechargeable glasses that can work with any 3D HDTV. I also have issues with the various TV makers having exclusive deals with studios so that the only way you can see these discs for upwards of 6 months is to purchase the TV - ridiculous.
As for programming that can really make use of 3D, I noted that some footage of the Olympics had a depth to it I wouldn't normally have seen, and that some of the footage felt more interactive. (Downhill skiiing included snow being kicked up in a foreground layer as the skier passed the camera.) For the most part, I think it works best in animation, but I'll need to see more live action material to be sure.
One final thing. We sat through 2 full movies and more, probably over 3 1/2 hours of 3D material. No headaches. I will say that I think the glasses need to be made to better fit over people's existing glasses, but the "3D headache" issue wasn't there for us.