New Hyperion Wharf - makeover Pleasure Island

[theBIGyowski]

An interesting side note on 3D glasses: apparently they're not all the same. We saw "UP" in 3D at a theater when it came out here, and the glasses were so nice that we saved them thinking we could use them on our next trip to WDW. So we brought them and tried to use them in ITTBAB at AK. They didn't work! Apparently the movie makers have the ability to set the 3D imaging in such a way that you have to use the glasses they designed specifically for that movie. There may be some cross-compatibility sometimes, I'm guessing, but obviously all 3D imaging techniques and/or settings are not the same. Interesting....

Yeah...I think the ones you got for UP were RealD...different from what they use in the parks. There is also IMAX-3D...which I believe is different as well.

[mindflipper]

There are currently three types, all three were listed on the POTC stranger tides teaser poster (in theatres May 20 BTW): Disney 3D, Real 3D, and Imax 3D.

[Wizzard419]

I accidentally brought in my regular sunglasses (polarized) when I saw avatar in Imax 3D, so I put them on and it actually was set either at/really close to the polarization of one of the lenses (rendering it 2D). But anyway, Oakley is selling passive 3D glasses (the kind used in theaters) for about $180, but now that you brought up the difference between them, that means you could buy the glasses and they would be useless in your local theater.

[Mousekedude]

Who would spend that kind of money on 3D glasses anyway? Wow!

[MadEye]

Who would spend that kind of money on 3D glasses anyway? Wow!

Apparently, the general public, seeing as how a ton of movies these days have a 3D option. I see it only getting more expensive in the future.

[theBIGyowski]

Once someone comes up with a Blu-Ray Player that can convert a 2D HDTV into a 3D one...you will see 3D explode. But the market is so saturated right now with 2D HDTV's that I just don't see people discarding their 2-3 year old HDTV's and spending another $1,500-$3,000 just to see a few things in 3D while wearing bulky glasses that are also expensive.

[Mousekedude]

Once someone comes up with a Blu-Ray Player that can convert a 2D HDTV into a 3D one...you will see 3D explode. But the market is so saturated right now with 2D HDTV's that I just don't see people discarding their 2-3 year old HDTV's and spending another $1,500-$3,000 just to see a few things in 3D while wearing bulky glasses that are also expensive.

Agreed. They're still in the process of reformatting all the good movies into Blu-ray, and I can see that going on for quite a while before they start putting out more effort to start producing a lot of movies in 3D.
I did notice that Toshiba is strutting their stuff over their newest concept: glasses-free 3D TV. For now it's only in Japan, but it ought to be interesting to see where that goes, market-wise, against all the companies who are very deep (financially) into development and sales of regular 3D products.
Here's a link for ya:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162- ... 01465.html

[Wizzard419]

As for those glasses, I guess technically you're paying $30 more than their normal price. I forgot what model frame they were from Oakley but that's all they did was gimp a normal pair by making them useless outdoors.

Once someone comes up with a Blu-Ray Player that can convert a 2D HDTV into a 3D one...you will see 3D explode. But the market is so saturated right now with 2D HDTV's that I just don't see people discarding their 2-3 year old HDTV's and spending another $1,500-$3,000 just to see a few things in 3D while wearing bulky glasses that are also expensive.

I hate to break it to you but the odds are slim that is possible. One of the big aspects of home 3D is that they presently have to rely on shutter shades (the $150 a pair glasses) and can't use passive lenses like you get at the movies/disneyland. If I recall, the reason you do not see televisions with the passive lenses is that it doesn't work (I think it had to do with the size). But anyway, with present version 3D televisions they have processors that are designed to handle the image as well as drastically higher refresh rates than a 2D television. A lot of this came about when Nvidia introduced their (mostly) failed attemt at 3D gaming a few years back, the problem consumers ran into was that their high end tvs with high refresh rates running at 120hz weren't actually doing it.

On the plus side, Microsoft did use a 3D television that didn't need glasses, and Nintendo made a display that also doesn't need glasses but gives the full 3D effect. So when people eventually start buying the televisions they will not have to worry about glasses.

[theBIGyowski]

I just don't buy the fact that they can't address the shutter issue with software...rather than hardware. You can still use infrared to link the 3D player and the glasses if need be. I'm telling you...if someone came out with a 3D player that could convert your existing HDTV...and it only cost $500 or so...people would buy that over a $2,000 TV. The market is just too saturated with HDTV's right now for people to upgrade.

[Wizzard419]

The main issue is the refresh rates of the display, the physical display needs to refresh the image at least 120 times per second (that's why the movies also look different than their 2D counterparts), any slower and the effect won't work. They also have special graphics processors to handle the different and extra work required. Most 2D televisions are simply too slow to handle the workload and there is no external hardware that can speed up your television. One odd discovery was that many CRT displays can display 3D quite easily because they can handle the faster refresh rates without issue.

[mindflipper]

Personally, I would rather wait until they perfect the 3D TV WITHOUT glasses. You won't find me running gleefully behind to jump on the 3D TV bandwagon...

[Wizzard419]

Same here, the one MS used for a demo was really good (I hear), it has a wider viewing angle than present models and no need for glasses.

Apparently ESPN 3D may get the plug pulled on it since it's not making any money.

[Jacca5660]

The main issue is the refresh rates of the display, the physical display needs to refresh the image at least 120 times per second (that's why the movies also look different than their 2D counterparts), any slower and the effect won't work. They also have special graphics processors to handle the different and extra work required. Most 2D televisions are simply too slow to handle the workload and there is no external hardware that can speed up your television. One odd discovery was that many CRT displays can display 3D quite easily because they can handle the faster refresh rates without issue.

If they went with the Double Helix technology (15 year old technology) like they use for air traffic control you wouldn't need the glasses. With this tech a TV could be in the middle of the room and you could view the movie from many different point of views. It's true 3D and not just a forced perspective!

As far as Blue Ray goes, IMHO, it will be replaced by something else before Sony can steal the market!! I keep saying, "Blue Ray is going to be the 8 track of this generation of technology"!!

[Wizzard419]

Don't you remember HD DVD? That was like the vhs/beta battle.

They are also working on a new format (it's all about storage size) that would dwarf existing formats, while aguraby the format of "disc based media" is dying.

[Jacca5660]

Don't you remember HD DVD? That was like the vhs/beta battle.

They are also working on a new format (it's all about storage size) that would dwarf existing formats, while aguraby the format of "disc based media" is dying.

With the Capacity and size of SD cards now. I don't think disk are going to be the top media for to long. Like I said "Blue Ray = 8 track"!!