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
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
Comment