3D is part of the natural progression of display technology

Well said!!!

Counterpoint from a non-3D fan.

At least if the Evo 3D is going this way, I'm glad they did it right - no glasses (unlike the g-slate).

I don't even mind that the Evo 3D has tech hardware costs for a feature I expect to not use - I actually expect that as the new leading phone, demand will be up, so support will be there and costs will be reasonable due to sales volume. I can't say if that would be the case if the Sensation (hate that name) were offered on Sprint side-by-side with the 3D.

I also like the differentiation this gives Sprint lovers with the Nexus S 4G - want the opposite of the bells and whistles Evo 3D - the Nexus S is right there.

As for 3D not being a gimmick - you make good points, but some are semantics, to my point of view. I don't think wearing 3D glasses is a lesser evil than 5.1 sound - I think 3D shuttered glasses ARE an evil gimmick. How many people are going to recycle those beasts when the rechargeable batteries die? How many will get more Bluetooth confusion?

But this video sums up, in my mind, what's wrong with active 3D glasses -

YouTube - 3D No glasses by Jonathan Post

My point - just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing.

I questioned on AV boards the truth of needing active glasses for 3D TV in early 2010, and while I was being told that passive was impossible and lenticular would never hit the market (we weren't even talking about parallax barriers) - a panel maker in Asia came out with a large, passive, polarized (not anaglyph) glasses 3D TV set.

Anaglyph - and to an extent, polarized - glasses systems are gimmicks because of the difference between the materials science required and mass production.

So - if we're going to to have 3D to stay, I'm happy with the fact that this tech is glasses-free.

Out of general principle, I won't buy bad tech. I may buy a tech features I don't use if it's good tech under the principle that it's better to have too many features than too few.

If they can put in on a mobile device, have it not suck and not require glasses, and interface with today's 3D TVs, then it's crossed the bend - or beginning to crossover - from gimmick.

Once ubiquitous, it will be up to the content creators. Like crazy.

I saw some Sparta-like trash series sneak peek on my 2D TV in some preview they did last year (forgettable name) - it was clearly made for the upcoming 3D channel, and it clearly sucked.

I wouldn't want to see Casablanca in 3D - and I wouldn't want to see Good Night and Good Luck in color for that matter.

My only concern with 3D as a content fad is when I consider that most new TV programming are reality shows - cheaper to produce. I cringe at the idea of them coming up with something below the reality show because they can do it with a 3D camera (or post-processing), leaving us with the video equivalents of what popular music has become today (whatever that wha-wha microphone is they use, I wish that would die).

We need more of the likes of James Cameron, JJ Abrams, and Ridley Scott making content, and if that happens then we'll see if 3D lives up to any promises - despite 3D being here to stay, my question is: stay how?

I'm not a gamer, but hanging with my son and his consoles, I understand the appeal - sorta. I can see 3D adding a lot to the games where you play Army and that sort of thing (3D seems like the best they can do until they do something about the false reality of looking through a window, unlike in real life). So - I think gamers will really benefit from 3D, despite the fact that - in my non-gamer opinion - anything short of good virtual reality doesn't really cut it.

So - in my opinion - if gamers find a path to good VR, then that will leave 3D serving the passive entertainment market (movies) - and then yes, it will be up to the content creators to deliver, because you can't fool all the people all the time.

OK - this was flow-of-consciousness, a counterpoint, not a rebuttal, so I'm not going to edit it for flow or cohesion.

If Chazz Palminteri were narrating this, he'd close by saying, you can ask anybody from my neighborhood, and theyll just tell you this is just another EarlyMon tale.

Well the way I look at 3d is like any other feature that is optional and not shoved down my throat as a user. Its not like not using 3d will take away from my experience of how much of a beast phone this is anyway. I mean seriously, what percentage of evo users actually use the fm radio that our phones have built in? What percentage of evo users actually use hdmi? Also lets look at regular tv's versus hdtv. Is an hdtv considered a gimmick? Its the same picture just more detailed but is it a gimmick? What about going from standard screen to widescreen? What about going from vhs to dvd or dvd to bluray? It seems like 3d is the next evolutionary step on how we view and interact with technology and entertainment. Now personally I am still not sold on 3d tv's but 3d being on a mobile device is a great way to get that type of technology going mainstream without the premium costs of buying anything else in 3d and I think this will be key to the success of 3d progression.

Also, that video is totally fake if you didn't know that already. Makes for a good laugh though.

I'm too drunk to taste this chicken.

bravo, novox! I agree.

Yes, the video was fake.

Yes, that's what active glasses do the equivalent of.

That tech wasn't a growing pain, it was marketing forcing R&D to rush 3D to market when faced with sales projections turning down because the last bit of early-adopter cream had been skimmed in HDTV - and suddenly, there was the Avatar phenomenon.

People not laughing at active glasses and thinking them perfectly acceptable laughed at that vid - precisely underscoring why so many of us called that a gimmick.

My minor point remains: just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing.

People are lucky that they didn't release anything worse than LCD glasses.

PS - The same show that introduced active 3D - Samsung showed a really nice lenticular tv. I found exactly one vid and one minor report on it. It was dismissed by dinner-bought media. After all, they couldn't sell the nice accessory with it. Active glasses = evil.

I was at a tech event last week and saw LG's passive 3D tv in action, using a cheap (

And when they've sold enough of those, the no-glasses "breakthru" will finally come to the name-brand 3D TVs in the US.

Meanwhile, the glasses become disposable, like our income.

PS. We'll never really know what the right frequency for 3D is. We'll only know what they delivered in 2010, and that's legacy now.

EarlyMon said:

That tech wasn't a growing pain, it was marketing forcing R&D to rush 3D to market

Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with your points, but it sounds like you're saying active shutter glasses are a new tech. They're actually pretty old -- CrystalEyes has been selling the things since the 80's, I think, and I know they were quite popular in some professional circles in the 90's. Heck, even in the early 2000's NVIDIA was selling a 3D vision kit for consumers that worked with their GeForces; the latest "3D Vision" push from them is actually round 2. Any CRT could support it, but you really needed one with a high enough refresh rates, and that's what's really changed most recently; LCDs got fast enough (e.g. 120-240Hz) to support page flipping at a rate that wouldn't induce seizures. So marketing push, yes; rushed, possibly; but it's a very mature technology, so not much R&D required.

novox77 said:

I read Early's disapproval of active shutter to be this:

the technology was utilized in HDTVs to take advantage of the explosion of 3D interest from the public, even though said technology is inefficient and expensive. Consumers have to pay more for a poor implementation of 3D.

Essentially, it was reuse of older crappy tech, a quick and dirty solution just to cash in.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was trying to be clear that it was definitely a small thing I was picking on, and I didn't even mean to suggest Early's statement was intended the way I interpreted it. I just wanted to clarify that particular point in case others read it the same way I did.

I've never understood why active shutter-based stereo TVs were so expensive anyway; it needs almost nothing special, as LCD TVs ware already quite capable of the required refresh rates -- 240-480Hz was already pretty popular. Other than splitting frames out of the incoming signal, we we basically there already. Mostly what I don't like about active shutter tech are the glasses -- not just that they exist, but that they are expensive and relatively heavy, with batteries, and likely a limited life. Plus, in they past they could easily lose sync and get left/right reversed, and could have ghosting problems (dunno if those problems still exist). I'm less opposed to passive technologies. Personally, I may wait to jump on it until we can effectively simulate a hologram; that would have unlimited viewing angles, no glasses, and real optical depth, too!

I'd never thought of this before, but the active glasses probably had a profound and marketing-positive psychological effect.

Were consumers ready to believe that no glasses 3D in the home was effective when Avatar required glasses in the theater?

Seeing is not believing - preconceptions influence the senses - sad but true.

But it cost more and took more gear, so maybe that helped the illusion.

Maybe this phone will help usher in the final wave of TVs.

As for prior tech - let's remember that 3D with glasses alone - no tv at all - has also been out for quite some time. No incentive to develop those further due to economics - not many people know they give the impression of a large screen at a fraction of the price. And they didn't take off - back years ago when I asked people their thoughts on it, everyone chided me: who would wear glasses just to watch tv? (I was going to buy it, changed my mind.)

I hope the madness is ending, and this phone really delivers on 3D, and influences people positively. I'll be finally able to stop saying the sky fell every time those two letters are brought up.

A question about near vs far 3D ...Do glasses provide for a better near 3D effect (which i define as an object on the screen appearing to leave the tv and come toward you)? I would imagine that evo 3D would be more of a far 3D (depth of image) ...but has anyone seen glasses-less 3D to be able to comment on that?

If this is as good as other lenticular displays, there's no difference.

3D happens only in the brain, not in the tech.

But - if you start out dubious, it may not look as good.

After all, it's just a clever illusion.

Besides, many content creators look down on the come-at-your-face effect, although it has its place.

Here's the thing (for me anyway). I have seen 3d in the theater, on a bigscreen tv, and on a gaming console. It was ok, but nothing like it was seeing my first HD movie, where it literally looked like I was seeing through a window rather than seeing a grainy picture on a television screen. This boost in realism was likely experienced by those jumping from black and white to color. 3D technology, to me, doesn't make viewing feel any more real. It just makes me feel like I have turned the images into a popup book. It's definitely cool, but not something I would prefer all the time, like I would ALWAYS prefer HD over SD and (almost) ALWAYS prefer color over black and white.

FWIW - a 4.3" screen at about 10 inches is about the same size as a 52" screen at 10 feet - a bit too small of an apparent viewing area to meet THX but still pretty reasonable for decent viewing, per SMPTE.

I can certainly say that I cannot see the difference between my 720p 32" display and my 1080p 47" display at normal viewing distances.

novox77 said:

Which means every screen is a retina display if you move it far enough away from your eyes. and why you might as well stick with a 720p TV set if the distance of the screen to your couch is far: at or beyond the retina display threshold.

This chart comes to mind:
http://3dtvscdn.3dtvs.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/3D-TV-Resolution-Chart.png

Click to expand...

Ja wohl, exactly what I've posted here for some time - ever since that cursed display started the confusion.

At sufficient distance, any display is one resolvable dot to the eye - holds true for entire galaxies in the night sky, too.

FWIW, I like and use the graphs, but would note that they're general, like everything else. My eyes exceed them when I wear my glasses, leading people to doubt me, but they're guidelines, not law.

That said, I like this calculator in addition to that graph you provided - Viewing Distance Calculator

As I mentioned in the other thread, pixel resolution is the last factor to influence the perception of detail.

I've lost track - in one of the threads, we were speculating about parallax barrier vs. lenticular displays - and I'd mentioned achieving a lenticular display using an active panel being already out there (think I provided a link from last year).

Anyway - as this is about the progression of 3D display technology, I thought this press release might be of interest to some - Toshiba : News Release 20 Apr, 2011

EarlyMon said:

Anaglyph - and to an extent, polarized - glasses systems are gimmicks because of the difference between the materials science required and mass production.

Click to expand...

I must ask what you mean by "Polarized," EarlyMon. Are you talking about those costly polarized glasses that function by electrically switching the polarization axis for the left and right eye views, or electrically switching the eye views so they act like shutters? I do not study those methods much.

Clarify kindly.

I actually wrote a lab manual for Polaroid when there was a renewed interest in their Vectograph process and long before they left the polarizer business altogether. They produced some amazing products for projecting 3D as well as materials for creating flawless hard-copy.

Or . . .

Are you talking about simple, cheap, and effective polarized glasses that are nothing more than polarizer stock and cheap cardboard? Those are dirt cheap in quantity.

I know all about the latter because it was my job to know some time ago, when Bill Shipler Photo still existed and we sold stereo products in a big way.

When the projectionist is knowledgeable, the projectors properly filtered, and the film is well made, it is possible to obtain fantastic stereo images. Projected slides or film, it it a by-God thing of beauty. When something in the chain is poor, it is quite insufferable.

By the way, you should research the various techniques used to create 3D hard copy. The best methods are not anaglyph as some insist, it is the Vectograph. But, the latter is iffy because materials have long left the marketplace. Flawless and stunning if done well.

I hope there is enough momentum to keep 3D alive because it is cool. But, 3D has always gone through periodic revivals and declines.

Bob