Prices gone high this year. 94k a pair.
Thanks! Is denon 1611 able to drive them well ?
3D Scam Thread in Techrepublic
- Thread starter jatinmalhotra
- Start date
Thanks! Is denon 1611 able to drive them well ?
square_wave
Well-Known Member
The roller coaster is a breathtaking experience! It comes with some discomfort but that is forgotten in the temporary stomach churning thrill.
But do you want to do it everyday ?
The 3D TV is a temporary fad. It will fade away soon !
But do you want to do it everyday ?
The 3D TV is a temporary fad. It will fade away soon !
They actually are power hungry. 1611 kind of does the job but a 120w AMP will drive them much better. Creek AMP is best choice to pair with Epos(for stereo).
For those who think 3D will fade away soon, just have a look.
The Illustrated 3D Movie List
The Illustrated 3D Movie List
Agreed, but remember that 3D is here because it makes money for production houses, manufacturers and cinemas. The day people shirk away from it, it will go away.
However, it may not happen anytime soon since there is way too much money being pumped into it at present.
Every technology is expensive when its new. When LCDs were launched, nobody ever imagined they would buy a TV of 2 lac. When BluRay players were launched they were of 30-40k and ppl still bought. The use of 3-D for printing, the movies, and even TV is not new. It has been envisioned, promoted, and implemented for more than 100 years.
3-D theatrical releases are now generating more revenue in movie theaters than 2-D releases. For the theatrical release of 20th Century Foxs Avatar, nearly 70% of the revenue in the first week was generated from 3-D cinemas which comprised only 28% of the total theaters screening the film. Because tickets to 3-D versions of films cost more than their 2-D counterparts, people are clearly willing to pay more for 3-D.
Why? Because now people like it. Earlier the Anaglyph 3D movies could not make much impression on people as the technology was still not fully matured. Now we have "Frame Sequential" 3D formats where you do not loose a single bit of resolution. Even Checkerboard, SBS are old technologies now. The main disadvantage of these formats was half resolution.
However, I tried playing Avatar in Checkerboard format and telling you it was just amazing. Definitely "Frame Sequential" is better but what I'm trying to say is, 3D is in much matured stage now.
3-D theatrical releases are now generating more revenue in movie theaters than 2-D releases. For the theatrical release of 20th Century Foxs Avatar, nearly 70% of the revenue in the first week was generated from 3-D cinemas which comprised only 28% of the total theaters screening the film. Because tickets to 3-D versions of films cost more than their 2-D counterparts, people are clearly willing to pay more for 3-D.
Why? Because now people like it. Earlier the Anaglyph 3D movies could not make much impression on people as the technology was still not fully matured. Now we have "Frame Sequential" 3D formats where you do not loose a single bit of resolution. Even Checkerboard, SBS are old technologies now. The main disadvantage of these formats was half resolution.
However, I tried playing Avatar in Checkerboard format and telling you it was just amazing. Definitely "Frame Sequential" is better but what I'm trying to say is, 3D is in much matured stage now.
I have few SBS movies but there is no comparison with 3D BluRay discs. One thing in SBS is half resolution, another depends on the Ripping technique. Only few SBS movies which are encoded properly can give you quality close to BDs. But if you have not seen the 3D BDs yet then you will still like the SBS format.
santanusinha
New Member
In theaters, you are actually sticking a polarizer between your eyes and the screen. Whoop goes 50% of the light!! I did not see a single movie (including avatar), where the 3D space has actually added anything to the cinematic elements of the movie. Do I like to watch 3D? Yes, in theaters it's still tolerable, but the lack of brightness and subdued colors sometimes make things far more bland than they actually are. Some directors (like Christopher Nolan) have held up as long as possible against going to 3D. They are all happy to shoot IMAX, where the large screen can be actually used to give a sense of scale.
In home AV setups, it's junk. No innovation at all. They increased the refresh rates, so you get 60 fps per eye. The glasses sync with the TV (and sometimes they loose sync leading to strange distortions), weigh a ton and cost a shit-load of money. The 3D BD format is not a standard (even in it's non-standard form it is a load of crap) and Sony is shoving it down peoples' throats just like they did for HDMI.
Biggest problem for both these setups is for us people who have glasses. I still manage, but my wife has completely stopped going to 3D movies. If you ask me, it's damn irritating to watch with a movie 2 pairs of glasses sitting on your face!!
To summarize, the way 3D is being done and delivered is crap. The standards are in their infancy and the companies are going to try to keep it that way, so that they can develop custom extensions and make sure that you are bound to use hardware that only they make (or license).
- Santanu
The way 3D is being done is NOT crap. Unless you know how exactly how it is being done, which I do, I suggest you don't use strong generalizations. A lot of people spend a lot of time, money and effort to produce good visuals.
The way it is being delivered is crap because cinemas refuse to run their very expensive bulbs at full strength. If they do, the colors as well as over intensity of the image improves a lot. Almost all cinemas run their bulbs at 30% lesser intensity than is needed, so as to prolong their life.
In theaters, you are actually sticking a polarizer between your eyes and the screen. Whoop goes 50% of the light!! I did not see a single movie (including avatar), where the 3D space has actually added anything to the cinematic elements of the movie. Do I like to watch 3D? Yes, in theaters it's still tolerable, but the lack of brightness and subdued colors sometimes make things far more bland than they actually are. Some directors (like Christopher Nolan) have held up as long as possible against going to 3D. They are all happy to shoot IMAX, where the large screen can be actually used to give a sense of scale.
In home AV setups, it's junk. No innovation at all. They increased the refresh rates, so you get 60 fps per eye. The glasses sync with the TV (and sometimes they loose sync leading to strange distortions), weigh a ton and cost a shit-load of money. The 3D BD format is not a standard (even in it's non-standard form it is a load of crap) and Sony is shoving it down peoples' throats just like they did for HDMI.
Biggest problem for both these setups is for us people who have glasses. I still manage, but my wife has completely stopped going to 3D movies. If you ask me, it's damn irritating to watch with a movie 2 pairs of glasses sitting on your face!!
To summarize, the way 3D is being done and delivered is crap. The standards are in their infancy and the companies are going to try to keep it that way, so that they can develop custom extensions and make sure that you are bound to use hardware that only they make (or license).
- Santanu
You should really get a demo of LG Cinema 3D TVs.
Your concerns:
Brightness (Light): You cannot watch movies in more than 50% brightness. Its just too much. You are talking about old technology actually. The new TVs are not dull at all in 3D.
3D experience: If you saw Avatar in India then you are absolutely right. Because the actual 3D technology is not even there in Indian Theaters.
Even my experience was CRAP.!!!Refresh Rate: The refresh rate of 3D BD is 24Hz. Who says 60 per eye?
When you play a 3D movie the TV will reduce its refresh rate to 24Hz to play the 3D properly.Glasses: You dont need to sync and wear 5KG glasses. Thats why saying, demo the new LG Cinema 3D TV. The glasses are lighter than the spectacles i wear.
Oh, they are not expensive to make hole in your pocket.Yes, I noticed that in Checkerboard format but its not clearly visible. And its not even on the subjects which are focused. Only in the background and that too if the image is too bright like "fire" or something. But in Frame Sequential format, I didn't see any distortion. Played Avatar in FS format only but only once and i was blown away with the 3D experience. Crystal clear picture and really good color production.
All in all; I am a 3D enthusiastic.
True.! Completely agreed.
The technology is not being questioned because most members here know that it will get matured at some point or other infact that is not the bone of contention , but the way companies are using "3d" as a marketing tool is what is annoying.'
Its like how they used to market datacards "saar lightning speed saar, very fast 3g broadband" ofcourse you would rather wish to be struck by a lightning than wait for the page to load in eternity...
Its like how they used to market datacards "saar lightning speed saar, very fast 3g broadband" ofcourse you would rather wish to be struck by a lightning than wait for the page to load in eternity...
santanusinha
New Member
Congratulations on your knowledge. However, I suggest you read a post properly before making comments like the above. It is you who seem to have unfortunately derived a generalization when none existed in my post.
I never said that they don't. All good movies, (and believe it or not) even the 2D ones, take a lot of all of the above. We do acknowledge that and show our appreciation by queuing up and buying tickets at ~ 300/- and BDs at ~1500/-.
Most of the so called "3D" movies, are actually post processed from 2D images (Ex: Clash of the Titans etc). Since you claim some authority on this topic, I'd imagine you already know that.
Having said that, however, I would like to mention (as I had already done in my original post), that I do like to watch good 3D movies in a theater (Ex: How to train your dragon, Kung Fu Panda 2). It's just that I do not agree with the current implementation of the same as available to us lesser mortals. I don't know what is used in the studio, and I doubt whether it would affect my opinion in anyway if I did. At least one other person, with (I guess) some authority on film-making seems to have a remarkably similar opinion: The Escapist : News : Dark Knight Director Doesn't Like 3D. So I know I'm not totally off the mark with this.
I am not calling into question the amount of effort that goes into making the movie, just the technology that is being used to develop and deliver the end result. And I think the way it is begin done is crap.
I think we (viewers) have to judge the technology from what we get to see as consumers, not by scenarios (like bulb intensity) that we have zero control on. I am, therefore, unable to comment on what 3D would look like if the bulb intensity is set to a particular value as I do not believe in wasting time on useless conjectures. We get to see what the theaters show us, and that are pictures that are duller and less colorful than their 2D counterparts. So, I maintain that the way 3D is being delivered is crap.
Regards,
Santanu
Last edited:
santanusinha
New Member
You should really get a demo of LG Cinema 3D TVs.
Your concerns:
Brightness (Light): You cannot watch movies in more than 50% brightness. Its just too much. You are talking about old technology actually. The new TVs are not dull at all in 3D.
3D experience: If you saw Avatar in India then you are absolutely right. Because the actual 3D technology is not even there in Indian Theaters.
Refresh Rate: The refresh rate of 3D BD is 24Hz. Who says 60 per eye?
Glasses: You dont need to sync and wear 5KG glasses. Thats why saying, demo the new LG Cinema 3D TV. The glasses are lighter than the spectacles i wear.
I think you have misunderstood me on a couple of counts.
1) Brightness is an issue in theaters not on a 3DTV.
2) About 60Hz, that is not with regards to 3D BD. 3D BDs do not even support that refresh rate. Optimally, for 3D gaming, it would be desirable to have 60Hz per eye pictures (60fps is considered desirable frame-rates in the gaming community). At this moment, the HDMI standard (1.4a) supports 720p/60Hz over/under configuration. (Notice the lower resolution?)
So finally 3D tv's would need to match up to 1080p/60Hz over/under config to deliver full-HD 3D games.
[So they will shove this down again our throats in the recent future in a new HDMI spec. The cables have the required bandwidth, but the transmitters/receivers don't.]
Regarding LG Cinema 3D, no, I have not seen it. Personally, I like plasmas, but, since you recommend them so highly, I plan to take a look. I think I read somewhere that they give you half the resolution (correct me if I am wrong), since they use different polarizations for even and odd lines on the display. If yes, wouldn't that be like taking a step backwards?
I like Po's initial fight sequence in Kung Fu Panda 2 as well as the next man (in fact, I was completely blown away by it). But, to tell you the truth, I had a terrible headache after I came out of the theater.
Right now, I think the equipment manufacturers are just experimenting with the different options at our expense. That is what I do not like with the current state of affairs in 3d. And this, as I understood, is the exactly the point that the original author was tying to put forward in the actual article that started this thread.
- Santanu
PS: Ref: 3D HDTV and HDMI Explained | HD Guru
There is nothing to feel bad about dear... We all have some phobia or other... Especially Stereo vision is something very SYNTHETIC and hence not even related to real world phobia some of us haveVery much possible. Iam not denying that. Thats why I have mentioned specifically that it is MY perception.
I have mentioned that the first 15 minutes are enjoyable though. Would have been happy if all the good scenes were in the first 15 mins lol..
I have also watched the 4D movie in prasads.. It runs for ~15 mins on haunted house, space voyage etc with 3D + additional effects of water splashing, moving chairs, vibrations, blowing wind etc (Pretty good experience for ~100 I would say). I was feeling great when I came out of the theatre and was wondering it might me due to the (only) 15 mins runtime of the movie. But thinking now, It would be very well due to the 'distractions' in the form of water, vibrations etc (the 4th D basically) which prevented me from perceiving two different frames at the same time.
Eitherway, the way forward is to bring in the 4th D as mentioned or cutting out 3D in to 10 minutes chunks split throughout the movie so that people get out of the phobia.
Having said all that, people who came with me and also the others I enquired felt some kind of uneasiness.. Only the degree varries..
Talking of 4D, that is what I suggested, if we divert our attention from perceiving 3D instead of what comes naturally (like in this case), you may feel better than what you felt watching Avatar..
I would also like to answer on this one - I believe the 3D display need heavy calibration as the glasses we wear adds a color tint to 3D which needs to be rectified through accurate calibration of display to avoid distortion.
Honestly, during my brief demo of this year's LG Cinema 3D and Samsung's 3D, they were much brighter with better color calibration than last year's model..
3D refresh rate (other than 3D BR) is 50/60Hz mostly on Plasma panels and this years cheaper 100Hz LCDs... However they are 100/120Hz for 200/240Hz LCD panels..They increased the refresh rates, so you get 60 fps per eye. The glasses sync with the TV (and sometimes they loose sync leading to strange distortions), weigh a ton and cost a shit-load of money. The 3D BD format is not a standard (even in it's non-standard form it is a load of crap) and Sony is shoving it down peoples' throats just like they did for HDMI.
Biggest problem for both these setups is for us people who have glasses. I still manage, but my wife has completely stopped going to 3D movies. If you ask me, it's damn irritating to watch with a movie 2 pairs of glasses sitting on your face!!
To summarize, the way 3D is being done and delivered is crap. The standards are in their infancy and the companies are going to try to keep it that way, so that they can develop custom extensions and make sure that you are bound to use hardware that only they make (or license).
- Santanu
I believe 3D BR is a standardized format and I love HDMI despite it limiting the Refresh Rate to 60/75Hz and resolution restricted to Full HD. HDMI is particularly useful in carrying lossless 7.1 channels audio and ARC for 1.4a implementations (though most ARC implementations currently support only 2.0 LPCM).
Talking of 3D BR, again you don't see 24Hz on each glass! Its ATLEAST doubled to 48Hz for each eye (in plasmas and other 100Hz LCD TVs). 240Hz TVs multiply them 4 to 5 times (96 to 120 Hz) for each eye. Such conversion happens in 2D 24Hz playback also...
I agree, 3D is still in its infancy.. However this is one technology which is DEFINITELY going to be the future of displays (like you see in Avatar). Almost every technology goes through such evolution and 3D is no exception.
I agree! Ideally all the 100/200Hz TVs should support that much external refresh rates instead of 60Hz.
I don't think being rude/blunt will get you too far, Santanu. You clearly wrote that the way 3D is being done is crap which I think is a generalization since you don't mention whether you are talking about the converted movies (2D to 3D in post production) or genuine 3D movies (like the ones made by DWA). Your post makes it sound like all 3D is done in a crappy way which is not true.
Also, its very easy for you to dismiss other people's knowledge as conjecture and say you have no time for it. In my opinion, the whole point of being at a forum is to learn and share from others. Please try to add some finesse to your posting so as to not offend others.
I wholeheartedly agree with you about the technology aspect of 3D. In fact, I'm an ardent non-believer in stereo and am hoping it goes away. It will surely reduce my workload!
A beautiful, well-constructed speaker with class-leading soundstage, imaging and bass that is fast, deep, and precise.
Similar threads
