| 3D TVs [message #65122] |
Thu, 02 December 2010 17:25  |
Hoptoit
Messages: 30
Registered: November 2010
Location: Michigan
|
Baron |
|
|
|
Does anyone have a 3D TV? Or are you planning on getting one soon? I don't have one and I don't think I want one. I wonder if the picture is all distorted or if you have to wear special glasses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 3D TVs [message #65608 is a reply to message #65122] |
Thu, 06 January 2011 22:52  |
GoodVibrations
Messages: 75
Registered: November 2010
Location: TX
|
Viscount |
|
|
I've not yet viewed a 3D TV, but my guess is that they are still on the primitive side. Kind of like the first TV, with black and white pictures and a small screen. Isn't 3D TV more like the first step in Virtual Reality? Or possibly the visual equivalent to surround sound? (okay, maybe not equivalent, but headed in that direction)
Music is a tonic for the tired and weary mind
|
|
|
|
| Re: 3D TVs [message #65614 is a reply to message #65122] |
Fri, 07 January 2011 02:22 |
Adveser
Messages: 434
Registered: July 2009
Location: USA
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
After playing around with stereographs, 3D is far far better at texture. Texture looks real in 3-D, not like a pattern.
If they could just get that one thing right and forget the jumping out the screen non-sense, people would be eager to buy after seeing how subtle, yet hugely significant the difference is.
Since our eyes are never fully 100% in focus and one of them must be out a tiny bit, why not just project two images at a very slight angle difference and your eye will naturally "lock on" to each dimension in the picture without having to strain your eyes as much as traditional stereographic images.
It isn't what "Jaws 3D" had in mind in the 80's but it is the realistic portrayal of the images people are after, not the flash in the pan effects.
http://adveser.webs.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: 3D TVs [message #65687 is a reply to message #65614] |
Fri, 14 January 2011 09:58 |
GoodVibrations
Messages: 75
Registered: November 2010
Location: TX
|
Viscount |
|
|
| Adveser wrote on Fri, 07 January 2011 02:22 | After playing around with stereographs, 3D is far far better at texture. Texture looks real in 3-D, not like a pattern.
If they could just get that one thing right and forget the jumping out the screen non-sense, people would be eager to buy after seeing how subtle, yet hugely significant the difference is.
Since our eyes are never fully 100% in focus and one of them must be out a tiny bit, why not just project two images at a very slight angle difference and your eye will naturally "lock on" to each dimension in the picture without having to strain your eyes as much as traditional stereographic images.
It isn't what "Jaws 3D" had in mind in the 80's but it is the realistic portrayal of the images people are after, not the flash in the pan effects.
|
Sounds like a great idea to me. I totally agree. This would be a great measure for advancement in this format. If people can see an improvement such as this, I'm sure the sales would increase. I could see how this would improve 3D for home.
Music is a tonic for the tired and weary mind
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Get a T-Shirt!
