# Masters in 3d



## hawk2202 (Jun 24, 2008)

i have vip722k and the ota module. what or can i even watch the masters in 3d this weekend?


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

No satellite carrier has 3-D. None. Why would you want to watch GOLF in 3-D? Want the ball to come at you?


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

From Masters.com

"The 3D telecasts are also available on the Internet for users with PCs enabled with 3D media players, 3D monitors and, of course, the 3D glasses also required for viewing the TV product."

For what's needed go to www.masters.com/3d


----------



## hawk2202 (Jun 24, 2008)

so my local cbs affiliate would not be broadcasting it? and hey if its in 3d why not i love golf i want to see if it is any good.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

hawk2202 said:


> i have vip722k and the ota module. what or can i even watch the masters in 3d this weekend?


They don't have all channels in HD yet. Do you have a 3d set?


----------



## Rikinky (Mar 4, 2010)

This whole 3D crap is so ridiculous. It should have never left the theatres. It's not meant to be viewed from our living rooms and ecspecially not standard television programs. You guys have fun spending all the money on this stuff. I am totally satsfied with HD. ....Just Sayin..


----------



## renpar61 (Aug 5, 2006)

Rikinky said:


> This whole 3D crap is so ridiculous. It should have never left the theatres. It's not meant to be viewed from our living rooms and ecspecially not standard television programs. You guys have fun spending all the money on this stuff. I am totally satsfied with HD. ....Just Sayin..


I was saying exactly the same thing to a friend this morning.
The manufacturers just want to push some new (and expensive) things out, now that HD is mainstream.
I'm usually the early adopter (who gets screwed...) but they are not getting me this time.


----------



## werinshades (Oct 11, 2007)

coldsteel said:


> No satellite carrier has 3-D. None. Why would you want to watch GOLF in 3-D? Want the ball to come at you?


:lol:


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Rikinky said:


> This whole 3D crap is so ridiculous. It should have never left the theatres. It's not meant to be viewed from our living rooms and ecspecially not standard television programs. You guys have fun spending all the money on this stuff. I am totally satsfied with HD. ....Just Sayin..


Ridiculous in your point of view. And why should it have remained in theaters? And why isn't it meant for TV in our living rooms? I'm looking forward to whatever becomes available later this year. It'll be great watching it on my new 82" Mits. Yes, I know I will have to switch to D*. And yes, I know I'll have to spend a bundle on glasses so the grandkids can all watch with us. But that's what granpa's are for. To spend money on the grandkids. That is what my money is for. And I can assure you, I enjoy it. If you choose to not spend yours on 3D fine.


----------



## clapple (Feb 11, 2003)

The World Cup or the Masters won't do it. But when NFL games are broadcast in 3D, I'll get interested. At 80, not sure I can wait that long!


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

While this will be a bit off topic, my take on 3D TV is this, the manufactures decided to chose a more expensive technology than what has been employed in the theatres. My first exposure to 3D came a couple years ago at "Biblical History" exhibition in Columbus, Ohio. That had an Digital Projector which projected the image on a screen and we wore glasses similar to the use used for "Avatar".

It is supposed that the 3D format used for "Avatar" cannot be sent for broadcast on standard HDTV. Which is strange, because "blue"/"red" HD can. The manufactures claim that the polarization used will only work in theatres. Even though the digital projectors use the same LCD technology to project the image on a screen. Similar to the old style "blue"/"green" 3D of the 1950s.

In my mind, the new active 3D glasses, and the TVs that go with them, is a means to make money because it uses more expensive technology than one's local movie theatre. It is my hope that when "Avatar" is released on blue-ray that the distributor provides the 3D version shown in theatres packaged with two pair of passive 3d glasses. To prove to the world that the manufacturers are playing an expensive game here. Such a move would be a coup for the consumer in saving them thousands of dollars in needless expensive equipment.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

renpar61 said:


> I was saying exactly the same thing to a friend this morning.
> The manufacturers just want to push some new (and expensive) things out, now that HD is mainstream.
> I'm usually the early adopter (who gets screwed...) but they are not getting me this time.


They're not getting me until 10 years from now... I just got HD three years ago.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

The 3D used in theatres requires two projectors (WAG), one for each eye, each polarized at 90 degrees of the other, not possible to do that with any kind of LCD display or even rear projection TV without doing the same 2 sources each 90 deg. polarized.

I suppose it could be done with one projector if there was some way to alternate polarization with the scan. I'm doing a lot of speculation here - any one have first hand knowledge of exactly how they do 3D in theatres?

This would require a whole new layer of right angle polarizers that can be switched on and off in sync with the picture - I don't believe that technology exists today (I could be wrong), maybe someday.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

3D is cool occasionally but do I really need it all the time. And I hate wearing the glasses. 

Read a review of one of the new 3D TVs recently. Added cost for the TV wasn't bad but it required glasses that cost $149 each. So I would have to spend nearly $2,000 on glasses to have 3D at my Super Bowl party. Insane!


----------



## renpar61 (Aug 5, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> The 3D used in theatres requires two projectors (WAG), one for each eye, each polarized at 90 degrees of the other, not possible to do that with any kind of LCD display or even rear projection TV without doing the same 2 sources each 90 deg. polarized.
> 
> I suppose it could be done with one projector if there was some way to alternate polarization with the scan. I'm doing a lot of speculation here - any one have first hand knowledge of exactly how they do 3D in theatres?
> 
> This would require a whole new layer of right angle polarizers that can be switched on and off in sync with the picture - I don't believe that technology exists today (I could be wrong), maybe someday.


To the best of my knowledge what you describe is exactly how they are implementing 3D for home TVs. 
While Avatar was actually shot in 3D (two images, one for each eye) and reproduced in theater by 2 projectors, home TVs will obtain the effect by doing some sort of frame splitting alternatively for left and right eye, and the glasses will alternatively shut off left or right in sync with the picture.
Until we actually see it in stores, there is no telling how effective this really can be for everyday watching. IMHO we are still years away from a reliable and effective mainstream 3D technology.


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

renpar61 said:


> To the best of my knowledge what you describe is exactly how they are implementing 3D for home TVs.
> 
> Until we actually see it in stores, there is no telling how effective this really can be for everyday watching. IMHO we are still years away from a reliable and effective mainstream 3D technology.


I watched 3D TV at Best Buy a couple of days ago. The glasses are surprisingly small for an active system. They charge by connecting to a USB port. The picture was phenomenal, though the Blu-Ray demo they were showing was an animated feature. In the short time I viewed it the effect was quite good with no flickering or other strange artifacts.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

The following is from Wikipedia concerning Real3d:

"To present a stereoscopic motion picture, two images are projected superimposed onto the same screen through different polarizing filters. The viewer wears low-cost eyeglasses which also contain a pair of different polarizing filters. As each filter passes only that light which is similarly polarized and blocks the light polarized in the opposite direction, each eye sees a different image. This is used to produce a three-dimensional effect by projecting the same scene into both eyes, but depicted from slightly different perspectives. Since no head tracking is involved, several people can view the stereoscopic images at the same time. Either linear or circular polarizing filters can be used, as long as different orientations (horizontal vs. vertical, or clockwise vs. counterclockwise) are used for each eye.

In the case of RealD a circularly polarizing liquid crystal filter which can switch polarity 144 times per second is placed on front of the projector lens. Only one projector is needed, as the left and right eye images are displayed alternately. Sony features a new system called RealD XLS, which shows both circular polarized images simultaneously: a single 4K projector (4096×2160 resolution) displays both 2K images (2048×858 resolution) above each other at the same time, a special lens attachment polarizes and projects the images on top of each other.[5]

Thomson Technicolor have produced a system using a split lens which allows traditional 35mm projectors to be adapted to project in 3D using over/under 35mm film. This is a very cost-effective way to convert a screen as all that is needed is the lens and silver screen rather than converting entirely to digital.[6]

Polarized stereoscopic pictures have been around since 1936, when Edwin H. Land first applied it to motion pictures. The so called "3-D movie craze" in the years 1952 through 1955 was almost entirely offered in theaters using polarizing projection and glasses. Only a minute amount of the total 3D films shown in the period used the anaglyph color filter method.

In the 2000s, computer animation, competition from DVDs and other media, digital projection, and the use of sophisticated IMAX 70mm film projectors, have created an opportunity for a second wave of polarized 3D films."

So, "Avatar" was projected with one projector with a polarized lens to provide the "3D" affect. When one looks at "Avatar" without the Real3d glasses, it looks similar to the 1950s blue/red 3d projection without the blue/red hues around the images. The images seem to have various shades of browns and greens around the images.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

olguy said:


> Ridiculous in your point of view. And why should it have remained in theaters? And why isn't it meant for TV in our living rooms? I'm looking forward to whatever becomes available later this year. It'll be great watching it on my new 82" Mits. Yes, I know I will have to switch to D*. And yes, I know I'll have to spend a bundle on glasses so the grandkids can all watch with us. But that's what granpa's are for. To spend money on the grandkids. That is what my money is for. And I can assure you, I enjoy it. If you choose to not spend yours on 3D fine.


Go ahead & spend thousands and oh don't cry when corporations dream up some other thing you don't need.


----------



## spunkyvision (Oct 12, 2006)

> And why isn't it meant for TV in our living rooms? I'm looking forward to whatever becomes available later this year. It'll be great watching it on my new 82" Mits. Yes, I know I will have to switch to D*. And yes, I know I'll have to spend a bundle on glasses so the grandkids can all watch with us. But that's what granpa's are for. To spend money on the grandkids. That is what my money is for. And I can assure you, I enjoy it. If you choose to not spend yours on 3D fine.


I hope it is awesome but I am not going to be jumping on the 3D wagon yet. Let me know how Grandkid Johnny's friend feels when comes over and everyone has to "share" glasses and when they all fight to get the center seat so they can really enjoy the 3d shows. 
I am not making fun of you but I am making fun of 3d. I don't mind seeing an "event" or special movie in 3D but I do not want to have to purchase 20 3D glasses when I host my superbowl party. When they perfect a non-glasses 3D version with excellent viewing angles then I will consider it.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> Go ahead & spend thousands and oh don't cry when corporations dream up some other thing you don't need.


I did and I don't. I buy what I want when I want. That's why I bought an 82" Mits. Don't need it - want it. And that's why I bought another computer yesterday to use for home theater. Don't need it - want it. In fact, the vast majority of stuff in my house is because it's wanted, not needed. We're 72 years old and our philosophy is spend it on us or the daughter-in-law will be spending it in a few years. :lol:


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

spunkyvision said:


> I hope it is awesome but I am not going to be jumping on the 3D wagon yet. Let me know how Grandkid Johnny's friend feels when comes over and everyone has to "share" glasses and when they all fight to get the center seat so they can really enjoy the 3d shows.
> I am not making fun of you but I am making fun of 3d. I don't mind seeing an "event" or special movie in 3D but I do not want to have to purchase 20 3D glasses when I host my superbowl party. When they perfect a non-glasses 3D version with excellent viewing angles then I will consider it.


Since our youngest grandkids live about 75 miles away they don't bring friends. And grandma has already said there will be glasses for all 4 grandkids, us and she'll think about our son and daughter-in-law. :lol: And we don't host big TV viewings of anything so we won't need a bunch of glasses. If I did have a superbowl party with the 82" Mits I would probably not use the 3D. Or not even turn it on and use the 65" Tosh upstairs in the game room.

Believe me, I understand there are folks aren't going to get on the 3D wagon and I don't think you're making fun of me. Shoot, I didn't have HD until 3 years ago.

What does bother me are the folks who, for whatever reason make the negative posts regarding 3D and we idiots who are buying into it. If they don't want it, fine but there's no need to go negative on those of us who want it.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

olguy said:


> I did and I don't. I buy what I want when I want. That's why I bought an 82" Mits. Don't need it - want it. And that's why I bought another computer yesterday to use for home theater. Don't need it - want it. In fact, the vast majority of stuff in my house is because it's wanted, not needed. We're 72 years old and our philosophy is spend it on us or the daughter-in-law will be spending it in a few years. :lol:


I'm sorry.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

renpar61 said:


> I was saying exactly the same thing to a friend this morning.
> The manufacturers just want to push some new (and expensive) things out, now that HD is mainstream.
> I'm usually the early adopter (who gets screwed...) but they are not getting me this time.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20002438-503983.html?tag=mncol;lst;1


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

Paul Secic said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-20002438-503983.html?tag=mncol;lst;1


As I stated in another post that's Samsung CYA. Panasonic has a different view of the hazards.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

3D baseball is good, lots of close camera shots. 3D conversion of course. I have my doubts about 3D broadcast sports, the resolution is going to be half what I'm watching.


----------



## t1guy (Apr 19, 2010)

Until the NFL goes full 3D, I dont think too many will be interested...Golf is too slow to be interesting in 3-D, basketball might be cool


----------

