Hi Bert, Your delta image suggestion is something that wouldn't be lost on engineers learned in the art of analogue colour TV :-) maybe we're losing more that we realise? Maybe the patent trolls want that so they can re-patent all of the forgotten inventions :-(
I agree, a few minutes of 3D here and there may tolerable but I wouldn't buy one. My guess is 3D was revisted to sell BluRay as DVD can't fit it for a full movie so they would have a reason for people to move away from DVD.
I don't buy BluRay, because the additional definition is lost on an average screen at normal viewing distances and I don't care to sit <1.5m from the screen to beable to see the difference.
"One of the really annoying things about 3D TV is that the 2D focal point is further away than the 3D focal point which really screws with the brain, and is why a lot of people get headaches, me included."
Exactly right. And me too, although at least I found Avatar to be carefully enough done that I didn't become nauseated. The convergence of the eyes tells the brain that the object is so far away, but the focus of your lenses is totally wrong. So that's what makes some people queasy.
I've read that people who wear glasses are less impacted by this effect. Which makes sense, since they always focus at the "wrong" distance.
Another thing, though, is that just because people might find the occasional 3D movie to be fun, it doesn't mean they want 3DTV as a steady diet.
The third point is that to date, at least, none of the 3DTV formats have been anything but brute force, unimaginative, and wasteful. As opposed to something that would perhaps transmit a 2D image, and then a lower bandwidth delta image to create the 3D effect.
One of the really annoying things about 3D TV is that the 2D focal point is further away than the 3D focal point which really screws with the brain, and is why a lot of people get headaches, me included. I remember watching Avatar on a large screen in 3D and every 10-15 minutes I would have to take the glasses of and rest my eyes. The thing is that BluRay needs to have something to justify its existence because HD alone can't do that. If you sit down and do the math, 99% of people can't resolve the difference between a HD pixel and a DVD pixel beyond 3-4m unless the screen is 60" plus, and for 60" it's about 5m, both being the average viewing distances for these screen sizes.
When I saw Avator for the first time it was in 3D. I was amazed by the immersive effect of the 3D system. I saw it first on the "Real3D" system , then on the full Imax3D system in Tempe AZ. The large screen of the full Imax3D was incredible and like you mention, the people were life sized. The was no visable pixelization.
@Bert22306, From the very start, it appears to have been one of those answers for which no one was asking the question.
I agree. I've never understood the appeal of 3D, though once I did see a fancy home theater with a huge screen that you could walk up to. A projector was playing a 3D movie about flight and airplanes. The people in the movie were life-sized, so it was discombobulating to be up that close to the screen and have the people walk toward you, like a primitive holodeck. It's fun to experience it but it's not on the wish list.
Did you know that some people are actually "face blind"? They literally can't remember faces. It's not a memory problem, it's perceptual. Weird, huh?
When I see articles about glasses-free 3DTV, all I want to know is one thing: what are the viewing restrictions? Does everyone have to sit in the same spot, to see the stereo effect?
I continue to wonder about 3DTV, though. From the very start, it appears to have been one of those answers for which no one was asking the question. My reaction to the first articles I read on it was, where did this come from? Unlike, say, HDTV, which was many years in the making and desperately needed to get TV images beyond the fuzzy soft apologies they were for way too long.
This is great news and really cool. Does anyone know why some people cannot seem to see in 3D? Is it just the technologies that use the glasses, or is it a problem that permeates across all types of 3D technology.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.