3D in 2012 -- May send me to DirecTv

[GaryPen]

Love the 2d to 3d mode.

YI really think the 2D to 3D is an aspect that alot of people don't know about, yet may be one of the biggest things to spur 3D if it can be.

I am not that impressed by it. If I'm gonna go to the trouble of wearing the glasses, I want the real thing. There's not enough impact in the simulated 3D.

Now, I have a Panasonic. And, it may use a less effective technology than the LG. But, I find that unlikely.

 

[wkomorow]

Really don't know how it is done, but I can tell you that in most programs I watch, it looks great; it adds considerable depth. I fool a bit with the depth selector to get it right for me. My vision is not what is was 30 years ago, and expected to have isssues - but no really problems with it. This is a passive 3D TV. Not sure if I would have more problems with an active 3D. It will be interesting to see what native 3D looks like on it when the Olympic 3D channels are made available. I did not buy the TV for 3D - I bought it for its HD picture quality.

 

[Tampa8]

Really don't know how it is done, but I can tell you that in most programs I watch, it looks great; it adds considerable depth. I fool a bit with the depth selector to get it right for me. My vision is not what is was 30 years ago, and expected to have isssues - but no really problems with it. This is a passive 3D TV. Not sure if I would have more problems with an active 3D. It will be interesting to see what native 3D looks like on it when the Olympic 3D channels are made available. I did not buy the TV for 3D - I bought it for its HD picture quality.

If your TV is hooked to the internet go to the apps, there is a section with several free 3D selections of short subjects, native 3D. Like you bought for the HD picture quality, 3D simply a fun option. But I agree with you 2D to 3D has more depth certainly than I would have thought. Enough that you know it's 3D, it's just some programs for whatever reason do not come off quite as good as others.

 

[wkomorow]

If your TV is hooked to the internet go to the apps, there is a section with several free 3D selections of short subjects, native 3D. Like you bought for the HD picture quality, 3D simply a fun option. But I agree with you 2D to 3D has more depth certainly than I would have thought. Enough that you know it's 3D, it's just some programs for whatever reason do not come off quite as good as others.

Thanks, I had issues with the wireless connection and have not had time to play with getting the wireless security working from my router to the TV or to snake an ethernet cord down to where my router is.

Now who is ready for Holographic TV? http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/video-holography-0124.html

 

[Tampa8]

Now who is ready for Holographic TV? http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/video-holography-0124.html

Oh no, here we go. Who's first to leave Dish if they don't get a Holographic channel?

 

[GaryPen]

Oh no, here we go. Who's first to leave Dish if they don't get a Holographic channel?

I hear DirecTV already has one.

 

[wkomorow]

I hear DirecTV already has one.

It's part of the fearnet package -isn't it. The horror.

 

[wkomorow]

I go back to black and white TV, in all seriousness back then I could not have imagined color TV, HD, 3d, holographic TV. They joked back then about smellovision - though I don't think they thought of smellovision in its current form - NBC.

 

[The Fat Man]

And many of the cable networks.

 

[harshness]

I am not that impressed by it. If I'm gonna go to the trouble of wearing the glasses, I want the real thing.

So much of the stuff that is done in 3D now is "simulated" (either animated or CGI) to begin with, I'm not sure how 3D can be so staunchly defended.

 

[jbernardi]

I want real live miniature people, vehicles, buildings, mountains, lakes and rivers behind my TV screen enacting their roles in real time.

 

[GaryPen]

So much of the stuff that is done in 3D now is "simulated" (either animated or CGI) to begin with, I'm not sure how 3D can be so staunchly defended.

The reason so many animated/cgi movies are produced in 3D is it can be done relatively easily through digital means. But, it takes a serious amount of time and computing power to render it in 3D. It is rendered that way, not simulated. The simulation algorithm in a 3dTV or BDP, which is simulation in the true sense of the word, cannot come close.

 

[dfergie]

Some of the CGI has great pop out effects, watch the credits after Dispicable Me for an example ...

 

[SpenceJT]

James Cameron just announced that he is concentrating all of his efforts on Avatar 2 and Avatar 3 and possibly Avatar 4. Nobody has done 3D better than James Cameron.

Check out Martin Scorsese's "Hugo", or Michael Bay's "Transformers: Revenge if the Fallen" in 3D, and I think you'll see that James Cameron has increasing competition where directing 3D movies are concerned.

 

[Tampa8]

Except I like James Cameron movies, the ones you list not so much....

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Some of the CGI has great pop out effects, watch the credits after Dispicable Me for an example ...

most the of the Animated 3D movies are very good at showing off 3D or making the scene feel a lot more real. You forget you are watching a cartoon.

I am just not a fan of movies that were shot in 2D and the movie studio decides later to make some extra cash by transforming it into 3D.