# Who had Santa bring them a 3DTV? - 3D Urbex pics.



## magmo (Jan 4, 2012)

I know these will be of little intrest to people who Santa was not so kind to but it does show another dimention to exploring.

The camera is a Fuji W3 3D, the images have been converted from MPO files. 

If you have a 3D TV play the pictures back on the TV and set the 3D mode to side by side.

Enjoy... At least it is another reason to justify having a 3D tv....

mo

Picture 1







Picture 2


----------



## Seahorse (Jan 4, 2012)

At the risk of being accused of punnery... that all fell a bit flat.


----------



## lilli (Jan 4, 2012)

I dont get it ... the whole 3D thing

1. looking at a 3D film gives me a headache

2. If I want to see an ROC post in 3D ... theres one down the road!


----------



## Breesey (Jan 4, 2012)

With those pictures you posted you can also see them in 3d, on your computer screen with no glasses! If you don't mind a bit of eyestrain..

Using the pictures posted (not in 1920 x 1080, unless you step well back), make your eyesight double vision, then move the pictures so they are on top of each other. It create's a 3d effect, which is pretty cool imho! It basically emulates what the glasses do. 

Sorry if I haven't explained it very well...

Although I agree with lilli, I'm not a big 3d fan. A bit gimmicky imho.


----------



## MD (Jan 4, 2012)

not wanting to sound rude but its a bit crap


----------



## smiler (Jan 4, 2012)

Breesey said:


> With those pictures you posted you can also see them in 3d, on your computer screen with no glasses! If you don't mind a bit of eyestrain..
> 
> Using the pictures posted (not in 1920 x 1080, unless you step well back), make your eyesight double vision, then move the pictures so they are on top of each other. It create's a 3d effect, which is pretty cool imho! It basically emulates what the glasses do.
> 
> ...


I got a headache now, Thanks.


----------



## krela (Jan 4, 2012)

Dead horse... you're flogging it. 

3dtv won't ever take off. 3d films are dying on their ass as it is... again.


----------



## UrbanX (Jan 4, 2012)

I was excited to come down Xmas morning to find my wife had bought me a 60" 3D tv and mounted on the wall for me! 
Then I rubbed my eyes and realised it was just the window


----------



## magmo (Jan 4, 2012)

I only have a 3d monitor for viewing the pics and video I take couldn't watch a fulllength movie. It is a bit of a Marmite thing, you like it or you hate it.


----------



## MD (Jan 4, 2012)

like HDR ?


----------



## highcannons (Jan 4, 2012)

smiler said:


> I got a headache now, Thanks.



Headache! You need these...
http://www.2d-glasses.com/


----------



## stevejd (Jan 4, 2012)

3d is fine if you have balanced vision i.e. 20-20 as such but if your like me with a squint in one eye and long sighted in the other then you may as well get £500 odd and put a match to it. there is absolutely no benefit or use to those with visual variences from one eye to the other.
Plain HDTV for me


----------



## Foxylady (Jan 4, 2012)

I must admit I don't get it either. Mind, I don't get the point of TV at all and haven't even got one.


----------



## TeeJF (Jan 5, 2012)

Oh you miserable none believers! I make 3d tv for a living, though far more 2d. Come the judgement day you're all going to burn in 3d hell (so long as you remember to wear your glasses)! 

I'm interested to hear so many of you think it won't catch on, especially as Sky have invested several millions in technology to create it. My verdict is it will catch on, slowly, and only for part of the output , never for all of it. But then im often wrong!  And for those of you it gives a headache that's usually cos you're watching with the poxy polarised glasses rather than the 100hz shutter glasses. Let's wait and see!


----------



## Derelict-UK (Jan 5, 2012)

HDR is good in small doses, just like 3D.


----------



## Krypton (Jan 5, 2012)

I bought a 3D TV last year, and to be honest i dont like it. I have only watched one film in it in 3D since ive had it and even then it gave me a headache. Its amazing quality though so i suppose that accounts for something.


----------



## RichardB (Jan 5, 2012)

My new camera has a 3D function but I've no idea how it works, either for taking them or viewing them.

You couldn't pay me enough to watch some willy-waving CGI-laden film in 3D (or 2D for that matter) but I think it's an interesting way to view old buildings.


----------



## jools (Jan 5, 2012)

,,,,,,,,,,,when a kid I used to get 3d every week,,,,,,,,, and nobody thought it special,,, so what's the fuss now???


----------



## krela (Jan 5, 2012)

TeeJF said:


> Let's wait and see!



Yes let's wait and see, but 3d films are dying in the cinema, and there's only the very odd program on TV that's 3d (which is almost exclusively football). I can't see it happening, the technology is far too expensive (both to produce the programs, to buy the TVs and to subscribe to 3d channels), and it will only ever appeal to the top end of the market. The cost simply isn't worth the end result. People don't have much spare money at the moment and by the time they do in a few years time it will already have failed.

So long as they rely on stereo images and glasses they will never be mainstream (not that there's any other way of doing it short of hologram technology!


----------



## TeeJF (Jan 5, 2012)

krela said:


> 3d films are dying in the cinema, and there's only the very odd program on TV that's 3d



I can't comment accurately other than to say if they are dying in the cinemas how come they are still making them when a feature film costs several millions to make? It's not like Hollywood to waste money.



krela said:


> which is almost exclusively football



and rugby, and darts, and snooker, and golf, and ballet, and the Strictly Come Dancing final, and movies on TV, and wildlife docs, and and and... the fact is though that it is very heavily sports biased - on average 1 out of every 2 football matches I cover is simultaneously covered in 3D at this time. There are two dedicated 3D trucks on the road now with a company called Telegenic and the main OB facilities provider is also knocking out 3D albeit from their conventional HD trucks. It's sad that Sky have decided to put the technology to use on football as of all the sports it is the one which singularly fails due to the angles of coverage but their logic is that football reaches out to something like 8 out of 10 sports subscribers. 




krela said:


> the technology is far too expensive (both to produce the programs, to buy the TVs and to subscribe to 3d channels)



At the moment the subscription is not an issue as Sky 3D broadcasts are free to anyone with the HD channel. That's not to say it will stay that way as Sky are NOT altruistic. As soon as they have a sufficient number of subscribers hooked they will make it pay per view in all likelihood - they are robbing bastards. But currently it's FOC. The BBC 3D output is free and will remain so. At this time no other broadcaster is putting out 3D in the UK. As to the cost of making the programmes it is less about a difference in cost, more about the quality of covereage in terms of things like replays etc. On a typical 2D football shoot we use upwards of 20 cameras at this time (last night for example at Newcastle we had 23 cameras on the game in 2D) and we are stopping just short of 30 on big games like the Champions League final. The same match in 3d is covered with around 12 cameras so the number of replay angles suffers dramatically and the speed of panning is dramatically reduced (it doesn't workj with fast, tight panning shots) - the reality then is that 3D coverage is rather dull. The cost of a 3D TV is comparable now with the cost of buying a conventional HD screen a couple of years ago. But the problem is that the smaller 3D TVs just don't cut it. In order to enjoy 3D properly the viewer needs an immersive experience and so a 42 inch TV is far too small unless you sit a few feet away! So you have to go for 50+ and sit closer. But remember, a 3D TV is only a hi end HD screen with an extra decoder built in and as such they will and are falling in price constantly. My TV was close on £2300 (60" Samsung) but it is already a quarter cheaper in 12 months. And you can buy a 50" now for as little as £549 - my first 42" Panasonic COMPONENT plasma (a long way short of HD let alone 3D!) was over a grand around 6 years ago!



krela said:


> People don't have much spare money at the moment and by the time they do in a few years time it will already have failed.



That's a distinct possibility.



krela said:


> So long as they rely on stereo images and glasses they will never be mainstream (not that there's any other way of doing it short of hologram technology!



Hmmm... I agree partially with your comment - polarised glasses are a major bugbear and in the main the people reporting problems or dislikes are those using the polarised glasses. We see visible light in all polarities at the same time so restricting one eye to one polarity and the other to a polarity at 90 degrees has got to mess with the brain! The old 3D films at places like Alton Towers where you watched standing up caused some very extreme nausea. But shutter glasses do NOT cause any perceiveable "wierdness" as the eyes are being "switched on and off" at 100hz. The perceived 3D effect is far better too with shutters as the polarised glasses bleed some of the opposite image into the wrong eye as they are nothing like 100% obscuring of the wrong polarity - does that make sense? The shutter glasses suffer only from making the picture somewhat darker but then the screen compensates by winding up the output level. We can't perceive flicker at anything much above 60 Hz so it's an artifact free system.

As to 3D without glasses it is already here, albeit in a very limited prototype capacity. Philips have a screen which uses bars of tiny prisms on the screen front to offset images to the left and right and it needs no glasses - think if you will of the old seaside 3D postcards. The problem is, it will only work if viewed from a very narrow "sweet spot" and I think it is a 3D only screen rather than an "also 3D" screen.


----------



## Em_Ux (Jan 5, 2012)

I don't get it either really. I have watched a 3d film at home but prefer normal.


----------



## krela (Jan 5, 2012)

Chances of me buying a 50" TV. Zero... 

Chances of me wearing glasses to watch TV. Also zero. 

My interest in 3d tv. Also Zero.

It's just not that appealing, it just doesn't add a whole lot. 

I've seen 5 3d films at the cinema including the 2 really big supposedly best of the best ones, in fact I saw the new Scorcese 3d film "hugo" last week, and it's really no more exciting than watching in 2d. It's not like you can actually walk round the 'scene' and find your own angles etc, it's just that the picture has a tiny bit more depth than it does in 2d which gets very gimmicky very quickly. 

Plus the gratuitous bits they put in 3d films like soot, and snow etc just get on my tits. It's so contrived.


----------



## TeeJF (Jan 5, 2012)

krela said:


> Plus the gratuitous bits they put in 3d films like soot, and snow etc just get on my tits. It's so contrived.



Amen to that! Do you remeber the gore dripping axes and swords and the like in the old twin colour 3D horrors of the 60s and 70s?

As to the succes or iminent demise, well only time will tell!


----------



## krela (Jan 5, 2012)

Sorry Magmo we've completely derailed your thread. =/


----------



## mersonwhoopie (Jan 5, 2012)

Although I'm not a fan of 3D either.. Jackass 3D was amazing.


----------



## cogito (Jan 6, 2012)

Is it just me, or are these photos L:R rather than R:L? Meaning that you have to use the straight eye technique rather than the much easier cross eye technique to view them?


----------



## TeeJF (Jan 6, 2012)

cogito said:


> Is it just me, or are these photos L:R rather than R:L?



Or just get bladdered before you look at them then the cross eyed technique isn't required at all...


----------



## magmo (Jan 6, 2012)

cogito said:


> Is it just me, or are these photos L:R rather than R:L? Meaning that you have to use the straight eye technique rather than the much easier cross eye technique to view them?



They are left right because they are for viewing on a 3d tv and that is how the are ordwered for that, if you try to view them cross eyed you will get a headace.

mo


----------



## magmo (Jan 6, 2012)

krela said:


> Sorry Magmo we've completely derailed your thread. =/



No problem... Debate is good though a lot of peoples only experience of 3d has been full length films where still pictures playd back in high res through a HDMI 1.4 conection is very good. 

One thing I do agree on and it is the same case for HDR and that is that it can be over done. Some subjects are great in it, the wrong subject can be crap. I think a subject such as Pystock would be ideal.

I see you said you had seen 5 3D films, that is 5 more than I have 

Anotrher thing that some people seen to think is that 3D photography is a new fad, it has been around for over 100 years in one form or another, I have been into 3D photography since I was 11.

My camera has a Lenticular lens on the lcd panel, like the Nintedo 3d but higher res and you don't need glasses, whe the screens get larger and cheaper that willbe the next step, but not the final step.

It is good that everyone has given an opinion and it would be a boring world if everyone had the same opinion.

Happy New year.

mo


----------

