• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

For all you 3-D's a gimmick people

dpeagle said:
- first off, my first cell phone was a fujitsu pocket commander circa 1987. it was analog service through cellular one. no digital service, sprint, att, verison, or tmobile. when you make a comment like "maybe in 10 years 3d could be a necessity in a phone". say that. by calling it a gimmick, what you are actually saying (just as the poster in the link) is that the tecnology currently is not yet refined. that is much different then describing a feature as a gimmick.
Click to expand...

He's probably saying that because historically 3D has always been a gimmick. In the 80's, it was a gimmick. In the 90's it was a gimmick. Just follows logically that it's a gimmick now that the public will be come bored with in a few years and it'll fade away.
 
Hopefully the latest 3D tech is advancing the state of the art. I'm not too excited by it yet because it's only 3D from a rather limited viewing angle. When 3D images are 100% holographic, and you can view them from all angles, then it will quickly become mainstream. We're not there yet, but kudos to HTC for giving it a shot and hopefully learning something new in the process.
 
A.Nonymous said:
He's probably saying that because historically 3D has always been a gimmick. In the 80's, it was a gimmick. In the 90's it was a gimmick. Just follows logically that it's a gimmick now that the public will be come bored with in a few years and it'll fade away.
Click to expand...
i totally agree. it may go away just as fast as it showed up. i just hate to see innovation and new features automatically labeled as a gimmick. 3d is a very polarizing technology. some love it, some hate it. lets just try with all new things to give it a chance before bashing it.
 
dpeagle said:
i totally agree. it may go away just as fast as it showed up. i just hate to see innovation and new features automatically labeled as a gimmick. 3d is a very polarizing technology. some love it, some hate it. lets just try with all new things to give it a chance before bashing it.
Click to expand...

I tried it. Gave me a migraine therefore I'm apt to bash it. Your mileage may vary though.
 
dpeagle said:
- first off, my first cell phone was a fujitsu pocket commander circa 1987. it was analog service through cellular one. no digital service, sprint, att, verison, or tmobile. when you make a comment like "maybe in 10 years 3d could be a necessity in a phone". say that. by calling it a gimmick, what you are actually saying (just as the poster in the link) is that the tecnology of that feature currently is not yet refined. that is much different then describing a feature as a gimmick.
Click to expand...

I believe opinions vary. If you put something on a phone for instance, where the technology isnt refined and in the general run of the mill usage doesnt have any real point at all in putting it there, its a gimmick. I say that maybe in 10 years time it wont be a gimmick because maybe by then there would be some actual use for 3D on phones, apart from "cool factor".
 
Bob Maxey said:
I'll assume you are talking about the current state of the art as far as telephones is concerned when you say, "consumer ready glasses free 3D technology."

The idea of glasses free viewing has been with us for many decades. I recall several attempts at a lenticular system that ultimately failed. Re: the Nimslo. Terrible quality and costly to print.

Decades before that we had Eastman Kodak's XOGRAPH process. Spectacular to be sure and costly, without a doubt.

Just want to keep the facts out there. But you are correct, a glasses free 3D camera phone is an infant. Let us hope the infant grows and is not aborted.
Click to expand...

You assumed correctly. Yeah the idea has been around for a long time but the technolgy to make it happen just wasn't there (kinda like the idea of flying cars). It is now closer than ever to being "there". Without a marketing push it will likely go away for a while, consumers need a corporation telling them what they need after all. But if it gets that push then I would think it will be around for a while.

Even without the push it may go away but the technology will still be developed until it meets user expetations. After all I am one of the "kids" you have referenced and I am watching mine grow up in a completely different world technology wise than me, when I was in 6th grade I used the internet for the first time 56k modem and all, if I wanted to see a music video I would let it start buffering and come back an hour later. In 13 years technology has progressed so much my 3 year old son can work netflix on a wii. The technology will progress and in a few years my kids will likely not understand how you could use a phone without 3d.
 
cds0699 said:
Celery isn't bad with peanut butter.
Click to expand...

It is intolerable to me. doesn't give me headaches, but it triggers my gag reflex. And it takes more calories to digest it than what it supplies. pure gimmick.

I'm convinced that people who like celery or 'don't mind celery' are not tasting what I taste.

And since I don't get headaches whatsoever from watching any 3D for any amount of time, I'm convinced that people who hate 3D don't perceive it the way I do.

And that's perfectly ok. we all have our preferences.

I do like peanut butter. It'd be a travesty to ruin it with celery.
 
dpeagle said:
all you people calling 3d a gimmick need to read the post in the link below. how soon people forget that less then 10 years ago people were calling cameras in phones a "GIMMICK TO SELL SERVICE". (Re: My Camera Phone is Awful - -Gimmick to sell Service: News Discussion Forum: Digital Photography Review)
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I can see why a digital world obsessed with posting images on sites like Facebook would welcome a good camera that is easy to carry and use. So putting one in a cell phone is reasonable. A natural progression if you will. Technology makes better cameras cheaper, so it seems logical to me.

Even though the best cell camera is still not capable of matching the quality of my film camera; a camera discontinued decades before most here were born.

My new phone has a 5 MP camera and I reason it is good enough for most things like eBay. Never for high quality images I really care about.

The problem with the EVO 3D is it is not a great stereo camera. It is designed for dabblers and novices.

Most users will experience making 3D for the first time and the EVO is what will get them there. Most simply do not know there are far better ways to make a stereo image.

And like I said earlier, we are running out of things to stuff into a phone. I am not sure what will come next, perhaps quadraphonic sound and a breathalyser.
 
chanchan05 said:
3D in phones NOW is a gimmick. Camera on phones THEN was a gimmick. Did you own a camera phone then? I did, when the 7650i was newly released. The pictures were what, 100x100 pixels or less? And the only way to export them from the phone was MMS. Pretty useless I would say, especially when compared to today's cameras on phone's where technology has gotten to the point where they are actually USEABLE and ELIMINATES A NEED to carry a separate camera for most people. I just got the girls in school saying ooohhhh... :)

Maybe 10 years from now, 3D could be a necessity in a phone. But NOW, its a gimmick.
Click to expand...

Before the cell phone, stereo was popular but only a very, very tiny fraction of those "into" photography shot stereo. The technology has been with us for a long time, but few takers. So I am not so sure stereo cell phones will ever be popular.

By the way, I shot stereo with my old crappy Casio camera. Not sure what resolution, but the images sucked. They were images of copper specimens from Kennecott's mine.

One important thing about stereo is sharpness and resolution. I recall the arguments over Kodachrome Vs. Ektachrome. Kodachrome won every battle because it was extremely sharp and ultra-fine grained.

I applaud the EVO. It puts stereo in front of the masses. As for quality, that is a different thing altogether. I hope it succeeds; I am sure it wont. At least in a big way.

When photography (film) was a big part of people's lives, even then, stereo cameras were not as popular. Even during the times when everyone had a View-Master viewer and scads of reels, only a small number of people used a VM Personal Camera.

Did you know you can take your own ViewMaster reels?

I have thought about shooting some slide-bar stereo with my new camera and making some Holmes Stereo Cards. Perhaps I'll post a few test runs when I make a cheap Slide-Bar.
 
chanchan05 said:
What tech does the Evo 3D use anyway? I remember the LG using a tech where both eyes would see a different set of pixels when placed on your viewing sweet spot. Sure you see 3D but you also only see half the total pixel count (less sharp) than if you would use the 2D display.
Click to expand...

It's using Sharp's 4th generation mobile parallax barrier technology.

An additional LCD layer lies above the display sandwich. When in normal viewing mode for 2D, that layer is transparent.

When activated by a side-by-side input, the two halves are interleaved and polarization lines are introduced so that every other band of pixels are sent to left/right eyes.

Each eye sees 1/2 the pixels as both eyes do for 2D.

Active glasses systems run at twice the update rate (120 Hz) and then give full resolution to each eye - by flickering the signal each eye at 60 Hz.

However - the additional information given by the 3D experience to the brain - along with the superior color quality of the Evo 3D - makes any loss of resolution not noticeable on 3D movies, to me. Plus - no left/right flickering.

So - it's a tradeoff, in my opinion, and also imo, a good one.

We perceive detail via color first, resolution last, in moving pictures. The theoretically correct gamma is around 2.2 for a color display - the Evo 3D I have seems to be at about 2.6~2.7 -- closest to correct I've personally encountered on a mobile display. So - while some also claim the screen is washed out compared to other display technologies, it's still slightly on the vibrant side of being color-correct. It's just not as vibrant as other displays.

I have no opinion on 3D still pictures.

Hope that helps!

PS - Not a lenticular display. ;)
 
Bob Maxey said:
Porn, Porn, Porn. I now support porn.

Follow me for a moment. To really drive the sales and subsequent improvements and more phone makers building 3D capable phones and iPads, we need the porn industry involved. I can't believe anyone but me has not thought that like pie and coffee, burgers and fries, brandy and cigars... 3D and phones is a winner. At least for amateur dirtiness on the silver screen. Or OLED or some such

Write your local pornographer today. We need 3D debauchery because the public wants it.
Click to expand...

I dunno. I'm not convinced the general public wants to see porn in HD at this point much less 3D.
 
There are some things that need not be in 3D with regards to porn. 3D porn...now thats a gimmick!
 
Knewz said:
There are some things that need not be in 3D with regards to porn. 3D porn...now thats a gimmick!
Click to expand...

That's why we need a long ***** with ***** nubbins of soft rubber, and an adjustable *** that will automatically**** when you reassembly after cleaning. It is designed for *****, *****, *****, and only if their *****'s are properly *****ed, adjustable vacuum and a sleeve with a ***** monitor, and a app for that.
 
Bob Maxey said:
That's why we need a long ***** with ***** nubbins of soft rubber, and an adjustable *** that will automatically**** when you reassembly after cleaning. It is designed for *****, *****, *****, and only if their *****'s are properly *****ed, adjustable vacuum and a sleeve with a ***** monitor, and a app for that.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to get an i********n and possible permanent b*****g?

:D
 
I didn't want to bring it up (glad someone else did) but I do agree if the adult film industry would embrace 3d then it would be here to stay. If you don't believe that look at the VHS vs Betamax

Ultimately, VHS won the battle, and tech lore has it that the porn industry played a big role in that victory. Sony reportedly wouldn
Click to expand...
 
chanchan05 said:
We dont see in 2d simply because the world we live in isnt 2d. D'oh.3D phones now a re a gimmick simply because the technology they are using to make it is flawed, its not real 3D, works bad, and you cant even brag about it. Each person has a different visual angle for what it works, and if you dont find that sweet spot, it causes headaches. Basically, its just so the manufacturers can say, hey our phone can do 3D! but at the level of todays 3D display technology, it isnt worth it to buy a 3D phone. Therefore its gimmick. Maybe in 3 years when they manage to make decent 3D displays.
Click to expand...

you can sell an eye in chinese black market and see everything in 2 D. DUHH

and with that the money u got from selling your eye, you can get precious 2D phones.

but in all seriousness, 3D is gonna be big in the fugure. especially "non Glasses" 3D. hell, the 3D tech is even being used in surgery equipments and such. Probably military soon if they arent already. Cinemas are already quite big with them.

its just matter of time.
 
BringItSon said:
but in all seriousness, 3D is gonna be big in the fugure. especially "non Glasses" 3D. hell, the 3D tech is even being used in surgery equipments and such. Probably military soon if they arent already. Cinemas are already quite big with them.

its just matter of time.
Click to expand...

They dont use the same 3D tech in surgery as the 3D projections the phones or movies have. The "3D imaging" used in hospitals are the same tech used in 3D games like Assassin's Creed, Starcraft 2, WoW, or those 3D cartoons. They just use a normal computer screen, not those polarized screens or parallax barriers where the images are jumping out of the screen. Have you ever tried reading CT scans? If you have you'd understand why recompiling those scans into 3D images is necessary, even life saving. But they arent the same "3D" as whats being discussed here. SPB Mobile Shell is 3D, but it doesnt use 3D displays. That's the same type of "3D" that's in general use in hospitals nowadays, not the same one as in IMAX or the Evo 3D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom