New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Everyone who compares the failure of 3D tvs to Oculus Rift

2»

Comments

  • notsramnotsram Posts: 1,238
    Wintermute
    notsram wrote:
    Another problem is that, in the UK, Sky have all but dropped 3D. Allegedly due to lack of interest, but IMO more likely that it showed up how hugely they compress film images. Watch a 3D blu-ray and then watch the same film on Sky 3D and there is no comparison. The 3D is nowhere near as impressive.
    There was certainly a loss of picture quality with Sky TV but it was more down to resolution than compression in my opinion... I think Sky was transmitting side-by-side over 1080i which would have been affectively 960x540... not much better than watching a DVD on an HD tv! Bluray is definitely better with full resolution but limited to 24p to keep within the bitrate capabilities of existing cables etc. good for film but not so great for sports events which Sky was at least providing.

    It's difficult to find any info on 3D bluray disc sales but if the shelf space devoted to them in my local HMV is anything to go by it must be less than 10% of the (dwindling) bluray disc sales, and that's with just about every TV and bluray player sold today being 3D capable... so this has to be down to be a lack of interest, or at least not enough interest to warrant the few pounds extra the discs cost.

    The other problem is everything is moving to on-demand... sadly too many people today prefer convenience over quality, so it won't be too long before we lose the choice to buy the good quality discs over the poor quality delivery systems. I have a 4k TV but I have a feeling 4k blurays won't be popular enough to halt the switch to on-demand and I won't ever get the full value out of the TV.

    If you look at the size of an HD movie download on Sky, it's rarely more than 8GB, even for a 3D film. And most movies are around 4. That's dvd storage size. Even stripping out the language options, special feature etc., an average blu-ray movie is a lot more than that.

    I think you're right about 4K. People seem to prefer small download sizes and reduced image quality. Hopefully this will change as more people get access to high-speed broadband.
  • notsramnotsram Posts: 1,238
    Wintermute
    edmg wrote:
    Syrellaris wrote:
    I would not say that 3D tv's failed, in fact I would say that they were actually a success considering what you had to wear for it. If it failed, it was because people had to wear glasses to watch it and nothing else really.

    We bought a new TV recently. Pretty much all the mid-range models we looked at had 3D built in as a 'free' feature, including the one we bought.

    The reason we don't use it much is because there's not much 3D content worth watching. Even when a movie is available on 3D Bluray, it can cost twice as much as the 2D version, and I have to check before buying in case it's a crappy 2D->3D conversion rather than a real 3D movie shot in 3D.

    Also, frankly, most movies don't really benefit that much from 3D. If all the interesting stuff in the shot is in the middle distance, there's not much of a 3D effect. You need action widely separated between foreground and background to emphasize the effect.

    Some 2D conversions can be very good. I recommend Jurassic Park in 3D, if you've not already seen it :)
  • edmgedmg Posts: 1,199
    Wintermute
    notsram wrote:
    If you look at the size of an HD movie download on Sky, it's rarely more than 8GB, even for a 3D film. And most movies are around 4. That's dvd storage size.

    DVDs use MPEG-2, which is an antique video codec. Movie downloads are probably H.264 or similar, which is a much more efficient codec; a DVD movie re-encoded in H.264 should give nearly the same picture quality from 1GB or less.

    I got a free copy of Dredd on iTunes when I bought the Bluray, and I think it's just over 3GB. I haven't compared them side-by-side, but the iTunes version isn't obviously any worse than the Bluray picture, though it's only 2D, not 3D.

    Back on 3D TVs, some of the other problems are:

    1. The TV is too small. We have a 55" TV, and I have to sit a couple of feet away to get a really convincing 3D effect. From the sofa, it looks about the same size as my laptop screen on my lap.
    2. The frame-rate is too low. 24fps can give really stuttery motion that breaks the 3D effect.
    3. Polarized 3D screens (the TVs that use passive glasses) achieve that by alternating polarization on each screen line, so they lose half the resolution. For those, you need a 4k screen to get the same resolution in 3D as a 1080P screen in 2D.

    By far the most convincing 3D I've ever seen was at an IMAX seminar some years ago where they played some CGI 3D shorts rendered at IMAX resolution. The screen was big enough to almost completely fill the field of view, there were very few jaggies, and the CGI had some very deep compositions that emphasized the 3D effects.
  • Current VR tech is basically an advanced version of 3D TVs. Yes, you can move your head and have a 360º view (if you don't kill yourself with the cables), but VR means Virtual Reality, not 360º 3D vision... that's why the best current VR gaming examples are cockpit games like Elite.

    Until motion capture technology gets better and some intelligent minds find a way of really transporting all your senses to another reality, to me VR is just a glorified version of 3D.
  • DigitylRiseDigitylRise Posts: 804
    3Jane
    Saffron wrote:
    Current VR tech is basically an advanced version of 3D TVs. Yes, you can move your head and have a 360º view (if you don't kill yourself with the cables), but VR means Virtual Reality, not 360º 3D vision... that's why the best current VR gaming examples are cockpit games like Elite.

    Until motion capture technology gets better and some intelligent minds find a way of really transporting all your senses to another reality, to me VR is just a glorified version of 3D.

    What we define VR as of today is really not the ultimate Virtual Reality experience that we dream of - True. However, the technology that we call VR today is way more immersive and affordable than any other technology to date; I would arguably call this a fact. It is the most compelling piece of tech that I have ever used.

    Sure, there is a lot of subjective viewpoints here about 3D TVs and VR, but despite that, objectively, I think it's safe to say that VR is not anything near an advanced version of 3D TVs. They are two completely different animals.

    Using a TV, 3D or not, you can always lose your attention to something else. The TV NEEDS you to look to at it. In VR, you cannot look away. There is really no escape unless you take it off. Also, what you view in VR is 100% personal. No one else will see what you see with the ability of choice. You are in your own Virtual Dimension, as you are in real life. To me, that labels the VR we have today in it's own category.

    As we become more adapted to current VR, new technology will be released to enhance VR, leading us towards the complete experience. Until then, I think VR is a perfectly suited label for this kind of tech.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 8,058 Valuable Player
    ennogs wrote:
    Trytiped wrote:
    I consistently see people comparing the failure of 3D tvs to the Oculus and I cant understand why?
    You know why 3D tvs failed? Because everyone ALREADY had a tv! Who in their right mind would spend a couple thousand dollars plus glasses just for a tv they already HAVE!? You know why the Oculus has so much potential is because
    1. Absolutely new technology
    2. Adds entirely new depth to entertainment
    3. Opportunities to be used for medical and business purposes
    4. You don't already have one at your house!

    You know why 3D tvs failed? Because everyone ALREADY had a tv

    If that is the case then HD TV, 4K HD and ultra 4k HD would have failed because people already have a TV. 3D TV didn't fail because people already owned a TV. It failed because 3D gets boring quickly and there was and still is a lack of decent content.

    If the rift doesn't get decent content and lots of it then the rift may also fail.
    You are 100% correct, that is exactly why 3D failed. I got rid of my 3D TV because Avatar was the only film that looked good in 3D. All the other so called 3D stuff was just cheaply added to movies and looked crap. They looked like those pop up books you get and how can anyone watch shite?
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 6,506 Volunteer Moderator
    lovethis wrote:
    You are 100% correct, that is exactly why 3D failed. I got rid of my 3D TV because Avatar was the only film that looked good in 3D. All the other so called 3D stuff was just cheaply added to movies and looked crap. They looked like those pop up books you get and how can anyone watch shite?
    You got rid of your 3D TV?
    You realise 3D TVs play non-3D content right? besides, what did you replace it with? all 32" plus TVs today are 3D capable, so unless you bought something rather small or a 5-10 year old set, it'll be 3D, just without the sticker! did you get rid of your 3D bluray player too?
    Intel 5820K [email protected], Titan X (Maxwell), 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v2004 (19042.662)
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 8,058 Valuable Player
    lovethis wrote:
    You are 100% correct, that is exactly why 3D failed. I got rid of my 3D TV because Avatar was the only film that looked good in 3D. All the other so called 3D stuff was just cheaply added to movies and looked crap. They looked like those pop up books you get and how can anyone watch shite?
    You got rid of your 3D TV?
    You realise 3D TVs play non-3D content right? besides, what did you replace it with? all 32" plus TVs today are 3D capable, so unless you bought something rather small or a 5-10 year old set, it'll be 3D, just without the sticker! did you get rid of your 3D bluray player too?
    Yes, I got rid of both of them and bought a 42 inch Sony Bravia and BenQ 3D vision Monitor to allow me to play games in 3D. I can watch 3D movies on the monitor but they look crap so I don't bother. Take a look at all these TV's though they are 42" and I can't find one that is 3D.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=sr_nr_n_3 ... 1642204031
  • crim3crim3 Posts: 385
    Nexus 6
    Saffron wrote:
    Current VR tech is basically an advanced version of 3D TVs. Yes, you can move your head and have a 360º view (if you don't kill yourself with the cables), but VR means Virtual Reality, not 360º 3D vision... that's why the best current VR gaming examples are cockpit games like Elite.

    Until motion capture technology gets better and some intelligent minds find a way of really transporting all your senses to another reality, to me VR is just a glorified version of 3D.
    Give it an alternate name then, because the awe and magic that the DK1 and DK2 (specially the DK2) made me feel is not achievable with 3d TV's and monitors, so it needs a name. I'll keep using VR in the meantime.
    Paradoxically, the screen is not even specifically 3D because it isn't doing any fancy trick to display passive or active 3d video output.
  • zork2001zork2001 Posts: 569
    Trinity
    By far the most convincing 3D I've ever seen was at an IMAX seminar some years ago where they played some CGI 3D shorts rendered at IMAX resolution. The screen was big enough to almost completely fill the field of view, there were very few jaggies, and the CGI had some very deep compositions that emphasized the 3D effects.

    I remember that! It was like 2007 or something. I was like holy crap this is the future, I heard they were using special film to take up the whole Imax screen. I remember thinking at the time if they will ever have an HMD that could replicate what I am seeing now; that being the only way since you will never get a screen anywhere close to that size in your home. Than I was no I will be long dead before that happens, but the way things are turning out I might actually be alive to see that.

    What is funny to I saw the second Hobbit like 5 years later in that same theater. A movie boasting about 3d and being innovative. It was not using the whole screen, just wide screen mode, it made it darker, I could not even really see a 3d effect at all. Bravo way to push this medium forward.
  • crim3 wrote:
    Paradoxically, the screen is not even specifically 3D because it isn't doing any fancy trick to display passive or active 3d video output.

    Both HMDs and 3D TVs uses fancy tricks to get the user to experiment a false 3D sensation, that's why both of them have problems. 3D TVs has to share the same screen space for each eye while HMDs have it separated and use lenses, and both need a custom rendering process. But in the end of the day there's no real 3D screens (maybe curved tvs? :lol: ), only screens that are able to simulate 3D.
  • Saffron wrote:
    crim3 wrote:
    Paradoxically, the screen is not even specifically 3D because it isn't doing any fancy trick to display passive or active 3d video output.

    Both HMDs and 3D TVs uses fancy tricks to get the user to experiment a false 3D sensation, that's why both of them have problems. 3D TVs has to share the same screen space for each eye while HMDs have it separated and use lenses, and both need a custom rendering process. But in the end of the day there's no real 3D screens (maybe curved tvs? :lol: ), only screens that are able to simulate 3D.

    I'm wary of calling what HMDs do "tricks". They effectively replicate exactly what your brain expects - two separate screens with images that are slightly offset. 3DTVs accomplish something similar, but it's far more complex requiring special passive or active eyewear that have a resulting loss of brightness (since light is divided from a single screen). Where TVs will likely never escape the need for manipulation of the eyes, HMDs just show two images. It's elegant, it's simple, and it works.

    We just need some major strides in GPUs to up the resolution per eye ;). VR HMDs will, short of convincing holograms, rule the 3D viewing world of the future.
  • HMDs don't "just show" two images, they need to be adapted and use lenses because they still use flat panels, so you're losing pixel precision in certain angles. And there's lots of other problems like screen door effect, screen resolution is halved, discomfort caused for trying to fool your brain to look at a screen that is in front of your eyes, etc... Current VR tech is still a long way to go.

    Currently, VR does a lot more tricks than 3D TVs in order to fool your brain. And they need to, because they are looking for total immersion.
  • crim3crim3 Posts: 385
    Nexus 6
    They use lenses because the panel is a few cm from your eyes.
  • crim3 wrote:
    They use lenses because the panel is a few cm from your eyes.

    yup, that's one of the problems I listed.
  • crim3crim3 Posts: 385
    Nexus 6
    Saffron wrote:
    and use lenses because they still use flat panels
    I mean, they use lenses because the panels are a few cm from your eyes, not because they are flat.
  • god_alomgod_alom Posts: 546
    Nexus 6
    It's too early to say if Oculus will be failure, we will see once the consumer product releases.
Sign In or Register to comment.