Sony 3D television

[VJ]

Hello,

Yesterday, I got a chance to experience a Sony 3D television (on demo at at Sony Center here). It requires the use of some clumsy looking shutter glasses but the fit OK over my normal prescription glasses.

But I was really disappointed! They played a number of demo sequences: football match, nature documentary, Killzone, ... Esp. the first two didn't feel like 3D, but more like a 2D with depth: the different objects (players, animals) appeared still flat to me, but they did look to be positioned at different depths. It was also surprisingly uncomfortable to look at the part of the scene that was out of focus: in the football example, they focused on a player celebrating his goal, but the rest of the scene was blurred to a ridiculous level (IMO). For photographs, a narrow depth of field can yield very nice effects, but for 3D images it feels wrong (and eyes fail to put it in focus). The Killzone demo had a bit more of a 3D feel to it, but still not what I'd expect (there was a bullet flying in my direction, but it didn't really seem good, nor did I feel like dodging it). After just these few minutes, I had a bit of an uncomfortable feeling (wouldn't call it a headache, but sort of the prelude to one).
By contrast, some 10 years ago (!!!), I attended a technical demo of a 3D cinema by Barco Graphics (2 projectors + polarized lenses). While the resolution was too low to be commercially useful, the 3D effect was much more prominent and much more comfortable to watch.

If this is how they see 3D television, I sincerely hope it will evolve, because this is IMO not yet market-ready.


Jörg

[Fat Tone]

One of my complaints of the 3D in Avator was the frequently narrow depth of field. That's not a technique that transfers well from 2D to 3D imho. Having said that I know my eyesight makes me a poor judge of any 3D technology.

I'm almost releived you didn't find 3D TV too amazing, having recently had to replace my TV; I had been hoping to wait until 3D sets became affordable.

[VJ]

I will say that the 3D effect Barco showed 10 years ago blew me away, but the technolgy is "simpler": two projectors, polarizing filters, polarizing glasses. There are of course the technical problems of alignment, colour matching, synchroznization, ... but when these are dealt with properly, the effect really is there. I did not have too high expectations for these 3D TVs, somehow hoping to be proven wrong, but wasn't...

There have been numerous attempt at 3D gaming in the past (in which case content is "easily" created: just render it), usually involving shutterglasses, but they never got widely accepted. I suspect the hyped 3D technology now still isn't that different: maybe higher refresh rates, resolutions and filmed content, but that is not fundamentally different.

The whole hype looks a bit like the emporer's new clothes...
edit: I did have a problem with a 3D vision test at the university (which I failed!), but they used this device in which you looked which gave a suggestions of 3D, so maybe I also have problems with this fake-3D thing. But my medical for pilot yielded no problems, and the Barco 3D thing worked..

Jörg

[Wulfman]

how large was the screen you looked at 10 years ago, and the TV now? for me it makes a big difference if the entire field of view is covered by the "3d screen". a 600m² imax screen (sitting at half height) was aweseome (!!!), while even at the "new imax-type" cinemas with 170m² the effect was far weaker. probably because the seats were arranged on a gentler slope, so you had the heads in front of you within your field of view...

mfg
wulfman

[VJ]

Could be...
The screen 10 years ago was a small movie theater where Barco can showcase their stuff (inside the Barco Graphics building, so everything will have been set to perfection), whereas the Sony TV was something 50"-ish... I can imagine it makes a difference for objects coming towards you, but still I expected it to be sort of like a box with "miniature 3D" objects inside (the nature film and football example looked more like a 3D box with flat figures at different depths).


Jörg

[Fat Tone]

http://gizmodo.com/5443165/im-sold-on-3d-tvsand-i-kind-of-hate-myself-for-it

[VJ]

I read the article too...
I find it a bit puzzling: the author writes:

Even though every technology coming to market this year requires glasses, even though 90% of 3D implementation is unwatchable, even though the tech will inevitably be dated within the next few years...

But that isn't deterring him from buying... For me, that is more than enough reason to hold off...

[Fat Tone]

I suspect his gadget lust is off the scale

[VJ]

Yes, we all have that sometimes... I usually take months or years to decide for a purchase, so that evens it out somewhat.
Still, I'm going ahead with getting the projector (which I know has no 3D support). There are other (even cheaper) models that have it, but they have less image quality than the one I have my eye on. Having seen that has actually helped my decission: if this 3D were to be really good, I might choose to go for a cheaper projector, but as it stands, also considering the huge amount of purely 2D content, I'll go for the high quality 2D model..

[VJ]

I'm not the only one!

http://gizmodo.com/5445626/dwhat-it-feels-like-to-watch-3dtv-viewing-a-digital-diorama

Sports are a vastly different, inferior experience. Basketball, for instance, is interesting in 3D but also indicative of the format's limitations. For one, the court has depth, but the players are quite flat, like a few paper cutouts are dribbling a ball back and forth instead of fully corporeal, 6'6" titans. Your mind can't quite reconcile the image, as it's somewhere between 2D and 3D, meaning it looks more fake, in a sense, than the simple 2D presentation we've always seen (the term "uncanny valley," though not quite suitable in this context, certainly comes to mind)