I'm not sure if I can see 3d tv

Post Reply New Topic

I saw Saw 3d in the theater and it looked ok to me but I recently saw a 3d tv in the store and when I watched it even with the glasses on it looked blurry and I was seeing double images. Now I don't know if I'll ever get a 3d tv and will definitely need to do a lot of looking at them in the store to make sure I'm not buying something I can't even use.

I'm also prone to motion sickness from certain kinds of video games and 3dtv could potentially trigger that too.

I don't like the 3d anyways; I find it tiresome and distracting. I feel like I'm peering over a fern to see what's really going on.

The ones in the store use active shutter technology... and it is crap

i was able to see the 3d effect in both passive and active versions, and to me they look similar. both are too dim for my taste, they need to up the brightness to compensate for the luminance reduction via the polarized glasses/shutter glasses.

Which movies? jj abrams star trek was plenty bright in 3d

the only one i saw in a theatre was "captain EO" and it was so dim i thought something was wrong with my eyesight. even with the glasses off and looking at the double images with my naked eyes, it still was too damned dim, about half the brightness of a regular movie. in the stores with the demos, ALL the movies looked too dim for me, and this is coming from a person that has to wear sunglasses all the time outdoors because everything is too bright for me, for the most part, most days. IOW, my eyes are extra-sensitive to brightness in general, so i know i'm not somehow "seeing it all wrong" when i notice the 3D movies that i've seen bits of, are too dim.

Yeah... tvs should use passive as well...

I did not see captain eo... were the glasses red and blue? cause the only listing I find for that was 1986

both techniques [active shutter/passive polarized] dim the brightness by about 30%. but cap't. eo was [i believe] the first big screen passive 3d film using polarized lenses, it was not red/blue. i cannot watch red/blue without getting tired and sore after a short while.

Redacted

Last edited by nat4200 on 21 Apr 2012, 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

a double image is what one sees [in a 3d flick] sans glasses.

Hmmm... I was unaware that passive 3d was active back then... Modern passive glasses only stop your light input down by 1 stop, so most of them shouldn't be dim...

I actually made a set of 2d glasses... most imax movies are coming out in 3d... and I don't like it

Redacted

Last edited by nat4200 on 21 Apr 2012, 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe I was too close but I wasn't much closer than I would be at home and in the store I was in they had it poorly set up so you couldn't get any further back.

No... sitting too close won't do that... It is entirely possible, with how our brains are wired, that you can interpret both images separately, or the glasses might have been out of synch... the shutter glasses make my brain try to crawl out of my ears and my eyes itch...

What's your eyesight like normally? Do you wear glasses? I'm pretty short sighted, with an astigmatism in one eye, and I think this causes a problem, although I do wear my glasses under the 3D specs. I'm not convinced I'm getting the right effect.

I don't wear glasses and as far as I know my eyesight is normal. I have read online that as many as 10% of people can't see 3d tvs right. Maybe it was just a crummy one that was poorly set up.