3D Support

[eric3a]

Yes, that is the case. Side-by-side encoding should work fine with any 'newer' 3D tv. With the 'older' DLP 3D tv's, which require a checkerboard pattern, this won't work, and it has to be done at the rendering level.

Thanks for confirming my understanding.

So to me it seems SageTV is 3D compatible. Just have to encode your files in 3D SBS to play back on your newish 3D TV (or use an adapter for the older checkerboard ones. Mitsubishi makes one for their DLP TVs).

Eric

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Then frankly, what's the point? Wouldn't that be like using color film to shoot black and white?

The point is the cinematography. You're color film to shoot black and white is not a valid comparison, because the end result would be the same. I never said the 3D effect in Tron was inperceptible, I said you didn't notice it.. like "Woah.. that was just 3D". It simply made the world have a perception of being much larger and deeper. It allows sccenes to work that otherwise wouldn't have.. like looking out across a large valley at a point far in the distance. In 2D, to make the scene work, there would have to be some point of reference spread throughout the valley - otherwise it would not seem so vast. Yet with 3D, it truly CAN be viewed as very far away, so the reference objects would not be required.

As for them choosing to use 2D in some scenes... why were the Kansas scenes in The Wizard of Oz shot in Black and White?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

The point is the cinematography. You're color film to shoot black and white is not a valid comparison, because the end result would be the same. I never said the 3D effect in Tron was inperceptible, I said you didn't notice it.. like "Woah.. that was just 3D".

I guess that's what I mean, if you don't notice it, what's the point.

It simply made the world have a perception of being much larger and deeper. It allows sccenes to work that otherwise wouldn't have.. like looking out across a large valley at a point far in the distance. In 2D, to make the scene work, there would have to be some point of reference spread throughout the valley - otherwise it would not seem so vast. Yet with 3D, it truly CAN be viewed as very far away, so the reference objects would not be required.

That was not my experience with Avatar. The scenes that weren't "in your face" just looked 2D to me.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I guess that's what I mean, if you don't notice it, what's the point.



That was not my experience with Avatar. The scenes that weren't "in your face" just looked 2D to me.

Then it sounds like what you LIKE are the gimmicky in your face 3D effects - in which case, the post conversions would be preferable to you. For me, the best 3D is when it seems like you are just looking through your screen like it is a window, instead of looking at the screen like a painting...

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Then it sounds like what you LIKE are the gimmicky in your face 3D effects - in which case, the post conversions would be preferable to you.

Actually I don't. I went to see Avatar in 3D because it was supposed to not be gimmicky. I left disappointed, the 3D was either annoying or very, very underwhelming.

I don't see the point to 3D if you can't tell it's there, and I've just not seen any 3D that proves there's a middle ground between unnoticable and gimmicky.

For me, the best 3D is when it seems like you are just looking through your screen like it is a window, instead of looking at the screen like a painting...

A good display can look like that without 3D. Maybe that's why I'm so disappointed with "Avatar-like" 3D, on the display's I'm used to viewing I don't need "3D" to achieve a sense of depth. That and the fact that since the focus point is chosen for you, and your head movement isn't tracked it tends to just bug me more than anything. I always felt my self trying to "look around" the scene, at different depths (when I could tell they were there) and failing.

3D just doesn't add anything for me, I don't see the point in movies. Now people will come back and say "You'd have said the same thing about color, or surround sound". No that's not the case surround sound lets you place sound in places that were impossible before, color gave the creators a larger palate to paint with. But 3D doesn't let directors place things differently than they could before. You're still fundamentally creating a 2D world in front of the viewer, you can't create a world that envelops them.

[Fuzzy]

That's really no different then the multitude of people, even on this forum, who don't feel HD is worth it either, because they can't notice the difference. That's fine. If you don't want it, don't buy it. But that shouldn't have much bearing on whether sage adopts the technology. The nice thing about 3D, is it's completely optional.

[jaminben]

My two pence worth,

I went to the cinema to see Avatar and also left quite underwhelmed by the experience, however I've also been and seen other films like How to train your dragon which I thought was superb and a far better showcase of 3D.

I also have a 3D TV at home and while I don't really have much content it does add to the overall ambiance of watching a movie. Yes its a pain having to wear glasses and yes my eyes do hurt afterwards, does this mean I will be watching all my TV in 3D.... no it doesn't. It has its place and will be used when I feel it will be worth it e.g big blockbuster movies.

Where I can see 3D being a big hit with current technology is games, PS3 and Xbox 360 look superb in 3D and it definitely adds a lot more to the experience (even with the constant eye strain).

So to sum it up, if Sage want to include it in a firmware update then I'm all for it.... if not, meh, I can live without it for now and rely on other devices for playback.

[stanger89]

I have a feeling I'm going to sound like a snob below and that's really not my intent....

Originally Posted by jaminben

I also have a 3D TV at home and while I don't really have much content it does add to the overall ambiance of watching a movie.

I wonder how much of that has to do with watching movies on "small" screens. I mean the theatrical presentation of a movies puts you somewhere in the range of two to three screen heights (yup, I said heights ) away. That results in a very large and immersive experience, something that's really simply not possible with anything but front projection at this point.

Yes its a pain having to wear glasses and yes my eyes do hurt afterwards, does this mean I will be watching all my TV in 3D.... no it doesn't. It has its place and will be used when I feel it will be worth it e.g big blockbuster movies.

FWIW, I really want to want/like 3D. I mean it sounds really cool, and I like the idea, I just haven't seen a presentation that sold me on it. IMAX 3D might be the closest, but the RealD presentation of Avatar wasn't it. I personally am skeptical that stereoscopic 3D, at least kids that use glasses. 3D just "feels" like it should be interactive, and for me at least, the non-interactiveness of 3D movies is often distracting more than anything.

Where I can see 3D being a big with current technology is games, PS3 and Xbox 360 look superb in 3D and it definitely adds a lot more to the experience (even with the constant eye strain).

Yeah, GT5 in 3D is something I'd like to see (almost as much as Forza 4 in 3D if that were to happen). Too bad it would cost on the order of $10k to get there.

So to sum it up, if Sage want to include it in a firmware update then I'm all for it.... if not, meh, I can live without it for now and rely on other devices for playback.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Sage enabling 3D support (if the Sigma chip supports it), I'm just skeptical of 3D's long term survival still. We'll see if "shot in 3D" becomes the norm or not.

[jaminben]

Originally Posted by stanger89

I have a feeling I'm going to sound like a snob below and that's really not my intent....

No, not as far as I can tell

Originally Posted by stanger89

I wonder how much of that has to do with watching movies on "small" screens. I mean the theatrical presentation of a movies puts you somewhere in the range of two to three screen heights (yup, I said heights ) away. That results in a very large and immersive experience, something that's really simply not possible with anything but front projection at this point.

This is probably where 3D in the home comes out on top compared to watching in 2D.... my 3D TV doesn't really do much "poping" out of the screen as its more depth of field which results in you getting sucked into the picture and is probably why I get eye strain.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Yeah, GT5 in 3D is something I'd like to see (almost as much as Forza 4 in 3D if that were to happen).

I do believe games will have the overall casting vote for the success of this generations 3D TV's.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Too bad it would cost on the order of $10k to get there.

Have you been a good boy this year? You never know, Santa may just bring you something tonight if you have

[Fuzzy]

FWIW, Games were my primary purpose for stereoscopic display about 10 years ago (MechWarrior 2 and Descent were awesome in 3D). That, still, is the reason i purchased the glasses for my TV (2 1/2 years ago, before there was a Bluray 3D standard). I never did buy a single 3D DVD, but played madden and eve online in 3d often. Well, madden disappeared form the PC world, and I got a bigger monitor i my office, so eve is better there... so that leaves just movies. I had previewed some extremely well done small projects a couple years ago (I have a VERY awesome skydiving video shot in 3D that is pretty impressive).. but it wasn't until the BluRay 3D standard that I feel I'm going to enjoy 3D at home more often.

[jaminben]

Ha, EVE Online.... that brings back some memories. I wasted over a year of my life on that one, although in saying that I did sell my character on eBay for a nice little sum (couple of years ago)

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by jaminben

Ha, EVE Online.... that brings back some memories. I wasted over a year of my life on that one, although in saying that I did sell my character on eBay for a nice little sum (couple of years ago)

I've played it VERY casually for about 5 years now.. sometimes not logging in for weeks at a time... can't get myself to cancel my account for more than a month though, simply because I keep coming back to see the next big thing. It's amazing how far they've already taken that game, and they aren't slowing down...

FWIW, this is "The Next Big Thing" currently... looks amazing... I'm not sure I should be so impressed by just the character generator.. but damn, that's good (still work in progress, also).

[jaminben]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I've played it VERY casually for about 5 years now.. sometimes not logging in for weeks at a time... can't get myself to cancel my account for more than a month though, simply because I keep coming back to see the next big thing. It's amazing how far they've already taken that game, and they aren't slowing down...

FWIW, this is "The Next Big Thing" currently... looks amazing... I'm not sure I should be so impressed by just the character generator.. but damn, that's good (still work in progress, also).

Yea, it was/is a very cool game but truly addictive..... and to level up could take months so I can see why you leave it for a couple of weeks at a time.

That Character Creation tool video you just posted is damn amazing... probably the best I've ever seen.

[Fuzzy]

I never once left because of something in game (like waiting for a skill to train) skills no longer train when a subscription expires anymore anyways - It's all been for RL issues keeping me from playing for months at a time (like going out to sea). If you can't enjoy the game with the skills you've got, you're doing it wrong. I still find myself doing the same stuff I was doing 5 years ago, even still flying frigates a lot, because the beginning stuff in the game really is just as much fun as then 'endgame' content (which is really a misnomer). To be honest, though, I've never played any other MMO's - eve's all i know.

Oh yeah, and it's not often PCGamer does a cover story on the FUTURE of a game that was released over 5 years ago: http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/12/22/pc...ue-eve-online/

[Tomahawk51]

Hey guys, mind sharing a quick confirmation:

I shouldn't spend any time looking at getting 3D recording setup in my SageTV setup from the cable co...right? I say this because I use Cablebox >-(Component)- > HD PVR - HD200 (or I'd buy HD300 if needed) > TV.

I am guessing that the Comcast 3d enabled cablebox I'd need would require HDMI for 3d output (and thus is a non-starter for any Sage HD recording as I see it).

Is this right? Thanks!

P.S. I think Comcast only has ESPN in 3d...so not a big loss.

[Fuzzy]

I don't THINK the broadcast 3D is anything special. I think it's just Side-By-Side in the broadcast, so it would probably record it as such.

[Bacon2002]

Hi,

I've had a 3D TV for a few weeks now and I've seen a fair amount of 3D contents thanks to a combination of the Blu Rays and the 3D channel which we have in the UK.

3D seems to be more about when there is something special or exciting on like a sporting event or a blockbuster movie like Avatar (which I thought was brilliant in 3D) rather than for general viewing.

I suppose it's a bit like surround sound and HD, it all adds to the experience, I was recently watching a documentary that Sir David Attenborough created about Terrasaurs, it was excellent and really added to the experience especially when looking at fossils, the feeling of perspective felt very real and added to the experience.

http://tv.sky.com/3d-attenborough-do...ebut-this-xmas

I also play GT5 in 3D and it's a lot of fun adding to the feeling of the simulation, with or without glasses I hope 3D is here to stay and I'm not sure why people wouldn't.

Some programs appear to suit 3D and some just wouldn't be worth the trouble of putting on the glasses (let alone the additional expense for program makers) but I'd be surprised if this incarnation of 3D doesn't become main stream over the next couple of years.

SageTV already supports 3D in SBS and as a long term SageTV user I hope that the SageTV developers can find a way to implement somekind of native 3D support including a way of switching the TV into the correct mode.

David

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by Bacon2002

with or without glasses I hope 3D is here to stay and I'm not sure why people wouldn't.

This is why.

WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

This is why.

WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health

There are plenty of other things that will cause health problems with 'prolonged' use. I'm pretty sure the consensus is that 3D isn't really ever going to be for 'prolonged' use, but for occasional special event type viewing. The amount of time spent watching 3D video is so much LESS than the amount of time watching the real world.

There's also the point that the effects are minimized on adults - since most of the eye's behavior is set by then. There is still the ability to lose some stereo acuity as an adult, but not from just a few hours a week of false perception. I have developed some stereo acuity problems after many years in submarines, where I spent many months at a time never looking at anything more than about 4 feet away. This causes me problems with night driving, where I have trouble focusing on distant objects - optically, my eyes are still better than 20/20 - but I have trouble converging at long distances. In actuality, having a 3D display/game on the boat would have allowed me some 'distant focusing' time, and probably would have alleviated some of the problems.

[Bacon2002]

Hi,

An interesting article, but lets face it, everything in moderation. Looking back it was amazing that Sega actually thought they could produce the hardware required for VR at an affordable price that would have had the 3D capabilities required for actual VR.

Most people probably have no interest in watching TV (let alone 3D TV) for excessive or prolonged periods of time, 3D looks more like something for special events or blockbuster films, not normal viewing but it does add to the experience.

I cannot imagine a 4, 5 or 6 year old wearing 3D glasses for more than a couple of minutes before becoming uncomfortable anyway.

The article is thought prevoking and shows some potential issues with artificial 3D both with or without glasses that I wasn't aware of.

David