Hey All!

I want to get an in-depth discussion going here about 3D in the home. I have a couple of questions myself, which I am curious to hear the various responses to, so I'll get it moving.

1. What do you really need to experience 3D in the home? Just a 3D capable TV? What about 3D capable receivers, blu-ray players, cables, content, accessories, etc?

2. Are you currently using this as a sales tool when you speak with clients?

3. Has anyone already installed a "3D home entertainment system" yet? What were your experiences?

4. Anyone seen DirecTV's 3D yet?

Naturally there's a lot more to cover than just these questions, so let's get the ball rolling!

Thanks!

1. You need a 3D capable everything.

2. You need to wear those stupid glasses.

3. You need to decide on a format before doing #1 and #2 above.

4. You need to provide Acetaminophen, Ibuprofen, Aspirin and a barf-bag to your clients that may be prone to headaches and nausea from watching 3D programming.

5. Tell them to save their money for 4K HDTV

I am waiting for these to be in stock at amazon.

I saw a new 3D subforum at AVS, haven't looked at it yet, though.

Might be a good source of information...and misinformation. ;)

I think it will catch on better when they ar using the same tech that is used in the theaters and people can get their own custom-fit or prescription 3-D glasses.

Personally, I hate wearing glasses over my glasses. Afterwards, I feel like my ears are sticking out another 1/4".

I agree. Ive used the system that Mitsubishi is supporting and was not impressed at all. From what I understand, the major formats are required to be played through a windows based os. Also, the glasses are really uncomfortable... I received a headache and disappointment my first experience with them. I just dont think theyve got it down right yet...

and, as i understand it, this means three things:

1. 3d tv (plus glasses) that has equivalent of dual 1080p (essentially one complete HD pixel matrix for each eye)

2. 3d source component and media (i.e. 3d blu-ray player and disc; believe 3d cable standard is just being worked out)

3. 3d switching/repeater capabiliy for any avr, etc. in the signal path from source to display. this is required because hdmi 1.3a does not recognize 3d signal format. however, i believe (most) hdmi 1.3 cables will fly.

LMAO

3D TV, glasses and 3D BD player. You also will most likely need a receiver, but this one is more complicated for three reasons. 1) Sony, and others, said the PS3 will be a 3D player, so is 1.4 necessary? 2) 1.4 in the player and TV most likely means it is needed in the AVR if you pass through it, but is it necessary? 3) Panasonic showed a player that had two HDMI out one 1.4 for video and one 1.3 for the sound so that the 3D video does not need to pass through the receiver, so with that player a new receiver won't be needed.


As for cables the answer is no, as long as you are using HDMI now. And except for some mention of 3D TVs that can turn 2D into 3D, but obviously for real 3D you would want real 3D content.

I almost can't believe we're all talking about 3D for home viewing.  Whenever I watch a 3D movie I feel like it looks like this:



Then you go to IMAX, where the entire idea was to have a screen so large that it takes up your peripheral vision and tricks your brain...then they added 3D to it and you have to wear glasses that work like blinders on your periphery...so you completely lose the IMAX effect and gain the crappy "everything is flat and exists on a different plane from everything else" effect.

Until they get an actual three dimensional image, whether it's through some sort of projection system or holographs or whatever, I'm totally not interested and I hope none of my customers are, either.  I think we're going to look back on the 2010 3D technology and cringe...

(yes, I know the technology has to start somewhere...I'm just feeling resentful that the manufacturers are running with this and it really isn't even standardized yet...)

More money than sense! Whatever is spent, will quickly result in something else winning, as the specs for the content are still in flux. Whatever is spent will result in a marginal system, that is replaced by a second generation system at 1/2 the cost, which will be replaced by a third gen system that is decent, likely at 20% of the first gen system.

For the real deal 3D setup, "everything" has to be 1.4 including cables or it wont work. From my understanding there are connection points in the cable and component's that are required for this to all work together. In 1.3 and before there is no physical connection for these contacts to be active.

As flaky as HDMI is already, I dont know if I even want to touch this, they should concentrate on getting it fixed first. I look at 3D  as just more lipstick on the pig.

Yeah, but it's 3D lipstick, much better than that 2D crap they've been putting on that pig for years.

I'm interested to see what Sony does with the PS3 because it seems to defy current requirements.

Also, it almost seems that any display capable of accepting a high framerate could be capable of 3D with an appropriate addon for LCD glasses syncronization. Couldn't even a standard 60p set with glasses synced to 2-3 on a 24p source do it? Might be stuttery and flickery, but that hasn't stopped them before.

It's not really HDMI 1.4 but HDMI 3D certified. That is what we have been told by a couple of mfg we have been in discussions with. As far as will the standard 60p screens work, somewhat would be the answer. The Sony solution so far looks the best from what we have seen. They are using an IR transmitter either built into the display or added via dongle that syncs with the glasses. The system is pure 1080p in both eyes. As for content, that will be the big issue. If all that is being done is to take standard movies and put them into 3D then it will be weak. But when you have movie like Avatar which is filmed fro 3D then you will have a nice image.

This discussion will be a long term discussion for months to come.