No the CK one you can use it outdoor like normal sunglasses and it costs USD180 available in December 2010

And we can watch Tron 3D in Cinema (not at home) this december 17



Just tell the cinema staff, "Sorry i dont wear public 3d glasses causing allergy problem, you can keep yours, mine made by CK"

Only if you're watching 3D movies in the US, UK, Canada, some European countries and Indonesia.

The glasses you mentioned work with RealD 3D only, which is a circular polarized 3D system. The ones we have in Malaysia are Dolby 3D Digital, which uses color frequency interference system.


fuad

This post has been edited by writesimply: Nov 7 2010, 01:48 PM

Hahaha is it a joke or facts. The fact is malaysian cinema did't using active glass at all. All 3D movie using Dolby 3D passive glass.
If you said like that to cinema staff than they will laugh at you.

I am kinda question/puzzled. Why cant they make the TV/cinema screen wear glass for us, instead of we wear it.

3DTV<--(Glass on)Our eyes
3DTV(wear Glass)<--- our eyes.

As far as my understanding, it is the SAME THING.

Of coz it was a joke. but use it as normal sunglasses outdoor is not

Tell me if you have 3Dtv at home the CK glass doesnt work? Or still need to use your uncle Dolby 3D passive glass?

I don't understand what your question actually. But for you info, current 3DTV only can be view with active glass to get 3D effect and basically it using stereoscopic technique. Passive glass like anaglyph glass or polarize glass cannot be use with it.

Physically, what you suggest can work. The problem is the cost. Instead of costing RM10-20,000 for the 3D HDTV, it's going to cost 1.5 to 2.0 times that for your approach. The reason is that now the HDTV has TWO LCD panels - one acts as the imager while the other as the circular/linear polarizer. The LCD polarizer must not only match the size of the imager, both panels must also work together to create the right L-R image for each eye.

This approach is currently being explored by RealD Digital. They announced it at the last 3D Entertainment Summit where their Z-screen circular polarizer technology will be licensed to CE manufacturers.

The CK glasses won't work at home and neither would the Dolby 3D ones as they are not active glasses. If you buy the LG CF3D 3D projector, you can use the CK glasses.


fuad

Ok thank you for the info, lucky i havent place the order yet.


So if we have normal HDTV and PS3 and Avatar Extended 3D BluRay


What else do we need to watch it in 3D? What type of glass? HDMI1.4 cable?

I read somewhere it can be done without buying HD3DTV.

Regular HDTV + PS3 + 3D BD = 2D HD video. Right now, there is no 3D Extended Edition of Avatar. There's not even a 3D version of Avatar.


Besides a 3D HDTV or projector? High speed HDMI cable from the player/receiver to the 3D HDTV/projector.

And how might that work?


fuad

Everything start at a cost first, the requirement to wear a glass to watch 3D turns down a lot of people that have common sense. (yes people who buy 3D TV have no common sense, no offence)

It is basically a failure overprice product as long as it have physical limit such as wearing glass.

This post has been edited by Boldnut: Nov 8 2010, 08:26 PM

You don't say.

Would you extend the lack of common sense to people who watch 3D in the cinema who wears 3D GLASSES?

What exactly about wearing 3D glasses that creates this lack of sense?
3D HDTVs is not a failure nor a failed product. It works as advertised, just as 3D films in the cinema works as advertised. The fact that you have to use 3D active glasses to experience 3D does not make it a failed product or an overpriced product. Your logic is flawed.


fuad

So you are saying with Normal HDTV there is no way to watch in 3D?

Anyway i watched Avatar 3D and Avatar Extended 3D in 3D cinema few months ago, how come there BD version not available yet?

There is no way to watch color-correct 3D.

20th Century Fox wants to wait until more 3D HDTVs and 3D BD players are being used by consumers.


fuad

Watch 3D in our cinema is just watch fake 3D. If some scene in the movie playing at a dark/night, I cannot see 3D effect at all.
Like writesimply told before, our cinema need to use silver screen to make 3D effect more stunning.

Maybe we'll have to boycott 3D movie in cinema until they do something about their screen.

This post has been edited by minimize: Nov 9 2010, 08:24 PM

3D IN HOME WILL death sooner if the hardware price is not go down.This is main reason is still slow selling on 3D hardware in U.S.

You might wanna have your eyes looked at. Especially before Tron Legacy, since most of that film will be light and dark.

It's not about the contrast between light and dark scenes. Each 3D installation has its own convergence setting. The projectionist can set it by himself but usually it's best not to meddle with it since it would have been calibrated beforehand. While I do notice the lack of depth is more prevalent in the morning show times than afternoons and evenings (the digital projector could be slow to warming up), each 3D film will ALWAYS have a sense of depth in any given scene. you just have to know where to look.

In the case of Sammy's Adventures, it's everywhere!


You only use silver screen with RealD 3D systems. You don't need it with Dolby 3D Digital. RealD polarizes light for the left and right images; therefore it needs a silver screen that can maintain the polarization before it gets to your eyes. Dolby separates each RGB color into their own frequencies which is why it doesn't need a silver screen; in fact, a silver screen may make a Dolby installation look horrible.

If our cinemas want to maintain the screen but increase the lumens, they need to install TWO Dolby 3D Digital projectors per hall. RealD installation has to balance between the projector and the silver screen to increase lumens but avoiding hot spots.


Technicolor has also introduced their method of showing 3D but using regular 35mm. The hall MUST have a silver screen but not a digital projector. The 35mm frame is divided into left and right eye images, stacked on top of each other. Using a Technicolor special split lens - which polarizes the light for left and right images, the projector will be able to show 3D. Technicolor does not deem this as a 3D digital replacement but more like a buffer for cinema chains that already have silver screens but are on waiting lists for digital projectors or can't afford one.




I definitely think that upgrading the equipment would be advisable. Maybe the Technicolor solution would work well in Malaysia, seeing how cheap-skate theater chains are.

At. Home. Die. Does. The. Why. It. Selling. Slowly. Delete. Delete. Delete.

It's not selling well because Americans, who are still wary about the economy, are not ready to pay its premium price. If the price is high but they can still afford it, they'd buy it. That's why the retailers are cutting down prices like mad over there for Black Friday. Content is also lacking. But it is hoped that next year more content will come to homes in terms of 3D channels, 3D games (the potential is enormous) and non-exclusive 3D BDs.


fuad

For you info...

3D is already adopted long time history ago and has FAILED in marketing segment.

Because consumer dont need such a "3D" content to be view at home.

Invest a high money in owning 3D hardware is not reasonable at this moment.

You go to AVscience forum.What are the AV expert say about this 3D thing?

3D TV was adopted "long time history ago and failed in marketing segment"? Really?

First, I need some clarification: When you say 3D, is it for home or cinema? How long was "long time history ago"? Which "marketing" segment?

People don't need things they can live without. You can live without your cell phone, internet, car, TV, golf club, watch, iron and underwear.

People want what they can afford to have. Similarly, people don't need to view Avatar on a 60" 1080p 3D LED screen, a 23" LCD monitor or even a 14" laptop. They can just watch it on an 8" black and white CRT TV. But it is not the same, is it?

I agree there. There's no point for average Malaysians to go buy 3D HDTVs since content is limited to 3D BDs and games. But if 3D BDs and games are what they're into and they can afford one, why not?

They like it. However, that is a rather silly thing to ask me to do since in ANY forum, there are opinions for or against any one thing. That's why it's called a FORUM, not a FANBOY SITE.

By the way, I've been reading AVSF since before DVD was launched.


fuad

Why 3D TV is just a pointless gimmick

According to the industry, 3D is the next big thing. TV manufacturers are chomping at the bit to sell us new monitors.

Sky is planning a huge 3D blitz this year, including the launch of a dedicated 3D TV channel. Games are an obvious contender for the 3D treatment, thanks to the fact that they have all the data they need to produce an effective world already built in.

Verily, the planet is on the cusp of an incredible 3D revolution and we should all be excited! But I'm not. To hell with 3D. If I could change one thing about the cinema-going experience – other than shooting bloody Pearl & Dean into the sun – it would be to watch every blockbuster in IMAX. That would be a genuine improvement.

3D is just another gimmick, right down there with Smell-O-Vision, electric shocks coming through the seat, vibrating cinema chairs and, of course, the last 17 times that the industry has tried to make 3D into the Next Big Thing. And we still don't need it. I've never, ever seen a 3D movie that so much as breathed softly on my socks, never mind blew them off.

Realistically, the technology offers exactly two tricks of note. There's the annoying one, as demonstrated in Monsters vs Aliens, which opens with a guy batting a ball at the screen just to go, 'Ooooh! 3D in your face!' If I never see that trick again, it'll be too soon.

The other one, which is largely pushing the 3D revolution, is all about adding depth to scenes. This trick can work, I'll admit, and it can also be effective. You definitely notice it – especially in a film such as Avatar – but, more importantly, you can actively not notice it and still get some benefit, which is what really matters. At least, in theory.

Expensive headaches

The problem is that, for all the potential benefits, 3D just seems to be Hollywood's most expensive way to give me a headache, even including the Bourne movies and the continued acting career of Shia LaBeouf.

Yes, this is probably just a question of my rubbish eyes, all maggoty with astigmatism and myopia as they are, but I don't care.

By the end of Avatar's seven-hour running time, my whole face felt as though someone had just opened the Ark of the Covenant over on the next row. My eyes oozed blood and gooey eyeball juice into my popcorn. Still, at least it stopped anyone else from stealing any.

Even before that point, though, Avatar only gave me about five minutes of genuine 3D 'Oooh!' before the effect faded, as any effect inevitably does.

From that point on, the glasses, the popping tricks and the background shimmer – in fact, all the pieces of technology that were meant to be immersing me in the action – served only as a constant lingering reminder that I wasn't in fact on a distant jungle planet with lots of sexy blue people, but in a cinema and in need of some aspirin.

The trade-off simply wasn't worth it, especially when coupled with the dark tint that the obnoxious 3D glasses put over all the film's beautiful bright colours. Also, the film was a bit rubbish.

Even watching great 3D movies, such as Pixar's Up, I've never been able to settle in and just enjoy the film or get completely lost in the action, not with every background shimmering away like a desert mirage and each character popping into the screen.

I quite often lift up the glasses just to compare the two images and every time it's the same: any power that the 3D version of the film has ultimately comes from the 2D version being exquisitely made. I've never wanted for that extra half a dimension as much as I craved the brighter colours and a lack of intense eye-trauma after leaving the cinema.

The industry wants 3D

Of course, it's no wonder that the industry desperately wants 3D technology to be a big deal. Right now, it's the only real benefit cinemas can offer over home theatre systems, aside from ever-more obnoxious advertising and snot-smeared pick 'n' mix.

Looking ahead, hardware companies see it as the next big reason to make us all upgrade our kit. And good for them. It's still not an upgrade I can see myself rushing out to make, or can imagine recommending anyone else to go and do likewise.

When we finally get TVs that can add that illusion of depth without needing glasses, we'll have a genuine step forward. Until then, it's just a gimmick – an effect we'll all get accustomed to and subsequently bored of in a couple of weeks.

If anything, the best thing for 3D would be for it to stay as popular as it is now – an occasional treat for people who like it, something that's to be savoured and allowed to maintain what power it has.

Taking it mainstream can only ruin the effect in ways that my astigmatism and quick-drying contact lenses can only dream of – and you can bet that losing the magic won't come cheap.

Computer generated movies (animation film) have an advantage in 3D because all objects on the screen can be perfectly in focus 100% of the time.