3D TVs are coming out now

[DudeEMETIB]

Originally Posted by Ansur

nd $150 for each pair of glasses to watch 3D.

How about I just do like I usually do, and keep the 3D glasses I get when I see a 3D movie at the theater?

I don't think 3D TV will catch on for at least 5 years, but hopefully they're focusing more on 3D TV being able to play 3D movies you buy on DVD/BluRay
and NOT making TV programming 3D...that seems like just much to me...maybe some shows, but I really rather not watch ALL tv in 3D.

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by DudeEMETIB

How about I just do like I usually do, and keep the 3D glasses I get when I see a 3D movie at the theater?

The type of glasses you get at the theater are based on a technology that requires a special type of projector. The 3d tv will be at 99% based on a completely different technology and will require people to shell copious amounts of extra cash.

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

I would think of the 3d format as tangible when it becomes affordable and, mostly, is backed up by studios and tv channels. If that doesnt happen it could end up as laser discs or other technological improivements that didnt make the jump.

If it does make the jump it would be awesome, even if 3d will never reach the impact that it has on a big screen.

If you think that "all this technology is worthless and you dont like" then please keep listening to cassette tapes and watch movies on Vhs. And please stay there.

I don't listen to enough audio to comment on cassettes vs CDs, but if we got a new "revolutionary must-have" audio format every 3 years, I wouldn't be jumping on the bandwagon.

As for movies, which one benefited from being on DVD as opposed to on VHS? I first saw The Matrix on VHS and was impressed, when I later saw it on DVD I don't remember going "wow, I totally missed ____ because of more visual detail". The movies that other people seem to enjoy that came after DVDs became the standard and which I can only assume benefit from being on DVD, I consider rather unimpressive: Lord of the Rings trilogy, Batman, etc., throwaway stuff I'd never watch a second time. Would No Country for Old Men lose anything from being on VHS? Doubt it. However, DVDs did add features not easy to implement on VHS: instant scene switching (which I'm not even sure is such an amazing feature), special features/deleted scenes (which I think are useful). Newer video formats don't really add anything similar on top of DVDs. Convenience-wise, you trade cassette tape distortion of worn-out tapes for digital distortion of dirty/scratched DVDs (of course, people first bought brand new DVDs and compared them to their grungy worn-out VHS tapes), and while the DVD is certainly thinner than VHS, DVD boxes are actually larger in the other 2 dimensions.

[Mattman]

I will invest when there's enough media out there. I got plasma before HDMI, so I am still watching that in 1080, and now I have 1920 LED which is awesome for HD. Only problem is that I have to download HD content as local cable has only 6 HD channels, including ESPN who broadcast NO HD programs on it!

If you want a 3D effect, you can use anaglyphic 3D with colour-glasses. Not so good as polarised (like Disney and some IMAX) or active technology requiring headsets or LCD shutter-glasses. A regular TV can do colour-separated 3D. The cinema here is still red/cyan 3D rather than polarised ..... Avatar was still stunning, although the captions were a little off-putting at times. I'll be going to see Alice in Wonderland this weekend.

[Junkenstein]

Jumping on every new format that the industry puts out would be a silly move, but you dont have to fill up your point with nonsense, to make it.

Any movie benefits from the dvd transfer, simply because dvd's respect the orginal movie ratio, and the detail of the image is how it was created. Your personal taste and what you consider throwaway has no matter in this issue.

Same point is valid for blue ray vs. dvd. 3D is another thing, i still have doubts on it.

These are facts, no point to argue about this.

[DudeEMETIB]

Originally Posted by DWarrior

...

Blu Ray > DVD > VHS

Sorry, just the way it is bud.

BUT I WILL GIVE PROPS TO VHS
For being awesome to use in building fortresses and towers and using as dominoes. Ooo childhood.

[Ansur]

I'm still confused why widescreen TVs aren't in the same aspect ration as movie screens. Why go 16x9 when you're still cutting the format or dealing with black bars? Why didn't they make them 2.39:1? We could have watched movies in their full format and have a standard aspect ratio.

[Junkenstein]

Not an expert but recently i've been at the house of a friend who owns a godzilla sized 16x9 screen and watched "2001 - a space odissey" which, like or not, was one of the few movies to use the full 70mm frame, pre-imax.

Well the blu-ray transfer filled the screen amazingly, with no black bars and great definition. The Dark Knight Blu ray, also did the same trick, since it keeps the IMAX sequences in their original form.

On a general level i noticed a recurring path: the movie industry tries a new technological trick to drive the audience in theaters (cinemascope, Dolby surround, Imax, digital 3D), after a while the trick fades off and a format that tries to restore the experience in a home format comes out.

[spooky]

Originally Posted by DWarrior

I don't listen to enough audio to comment on cassettes vs CDs, but if we got a new "revolutionary must-have" audio format every 3 years, I wouldn't be jumping on the bandwagon.

As for movies, which one benefited from being on DVD as opposed to on VHS? I first saw The Matrix on VHS and was impressed, when I later saw it on DVD I don't remember going "wow, I totally missed ____ because of more visual detail". The movies that other people seem to enjoy that came after DVDs became the standard and which I can only assume benefit from being on DVD, I consider rather unimpressive: Lord of the Rings trilogy, Batman, etc., throwaway stuff I'd never watch a second time. Would No Country for Old Men lose anything from being on VHS? Doubt it. However, DVDs did add features not easy to implement on VHS: instant scene switching (which I'm not even sure is such an amazing feature), special features/deleted scenes (which I think are useful). Newer video formats don't really add anything similar on top of DVDs. Convenience-wise, you trade cassette tape distortion of worn-out tapes for digital distortion of dirty/scratched DVDs (of course, people first bought brand new DVDs and compared them to their grungy worn-out VHS tapes), and while the DVD is certainly thinner than VHS, DVD boxes are actually larger in the other 2 dimensions.

You are fucking with us, right?

Do you never listen to the director commentaries? That alone is worth the money for the DVD switch, never mind being able to use an actual widescreen format. I used to buy shitty letterbox VHS tapes before DVD so I didn't miss the 40%+ that was cut off the sides of the movie, but made the whole thing much lower in resolution.

I mean, I guess the story in the movie stays the same, if that's your point, but what the fuck, man? You liked seeing just half the movie or having those annoying black bars on the top and bottom of the tiny old school square screen?

And on you complaining about the 3D crap having depth of field...the blurry backgrounds are fucking blurry in the 2D presentation as well, why the hell are you complaining about it being a problem in 3D? You fucking see that way, man, and it's a guided tour the director takes you on, if he wants you ignoring the focus of the scene and looking at some other shit that is irrelevant, he'd point the camera at it. Pay attention to the film/story and you won't have that problem anymore. Making everything in focus would be unnatural and confusing, as the eye doesn't see that way, 3D isn't supposed to enhance YOUR senses, it's meant to enhance the visuals of the movie.

Also, if EVERYTHING is made in 3D, you'll still always have the option of just watching every other frame without the aid of glasses, resulting in a regular 2D experience. Don't fight progress, man, even if video games and a tiny number of films are all that's ever done with this, it'll be worth it to play HALO in 3D. Nevermind all the peripheral and unexpected advancements that may happen as a result if widespread adoption happens. Remember, it's an added feature, it's not forcing a replacement.

Just out of curiosity, do you frown on surround sound, too? I mean, mono still plays the music and says all the words, right?

[sagzy]

I wont care about this shit until I can afford it, seeing as I am a college student who owns a 27" tube tv this is a long ways off. On the other hand if someone I know is dumb enough to buy one before they become cheaper (with technology this is always inevitable and I follow McNally's advice; be willing to be a few steps behind society and suddenly everything is much cheaper) i will watch every game at their place i.e mooch till the cows come home.