Why isn't 3D revolutionary?

[BleedOrange11]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

since u responded to my post....i figured i'd respond as well.

i'm not a fan of 3d. i avoid it whenever possible when i go to the theater. i just don't get all the hype over it.

not my cup of tea i guess.

Fair enough. If you've given 3D a fair shot and it doesn't help you enjoy a movie, then there's no need to pay extra for it. We'll be here to discuss the magical wonders of 3D if you ever change your mind.

[Badas]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

since u responded to my post....i figured i'd respond as well.

i'm not a fan of 3d. i avoid it whenever possible when i go to the theater. i just don't get all the hype over it.

not my cup of tea i guess.

+1

I invested heavily in 3D. I got a 40" LED Samsung for the main lounge. 3D turned off, 4 x glasses are flat (no Power).

I'm a projector guy. Always have been.

Purchased a Cineversum Blackwing 3 (US$18,000). 3D was crap. So it is used for 2D (gorgeous).
Then I heard DLP link was the best for 3D, so I purchased a BenQ W7000 (best at the moment) (US$2500)
I ran it for 2 weeks and then moved it into my 7 year old sons bedroom to play playstation on. Eventually
after a couple of months I gave it to my Dad.

I now avoid 3D everywhere (cinema and home). Whole family feels the same way too.

Ta Dono

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by BigJayJay

Ok, but u are aware that there's an alarming amout of people that don't like 3d?

I am aware there are a lot of people who feel "Hurt and want to hurt back! " about bad Warner conversions, obnoxious CGI movies and cineplex shakedowns at theaters outside their house, and want to strike back at the first "guilty party" they can reach....And a Best Buy is a lot closer than a Hollywood studio office.

Not everybody liked HD, either--Some folks thought the FCC switchover was "a big conspiracy by Sony to sell their sets", sound familiar?
What it took to get over the public disgruntlement about selling the sets was to get people watching, and show how harmless they were in somebody's living room, even your own: No, owning a 3D set does not mean that Jeffrey Katzenberg will suddenly burst into your living room with a CGI Yogi Bear and make fart jokes, nor does it mean that the chairman of AMC theaters will grab your kids by the ankles and start shaking their pockets for loose change every time you put on your glasses, and you don't have to "fight against" the very idea of 3D for "freedom of the moviegoer" like the French Resistance....You'll just have a cooler TV set, is all.

[Mrbrownst0ne]

people who trully are cool and awesome have 3d tv's... lame people dont like 3d... panasonicccccccccc for the win

[BigJayJay]

Originally Posted by ACMutd

I have seen many 3D movies and I have to say I hate 3D. I don't want to watch movies with glasses on and most of the movies I have seen have horrible 3D or contribute nothing to the film, for me at least. I get head aches and it hurts my eyes on longer films, Avatar was unbearable to watch. To me it doesn't do anything to the film.

I respect your opinion. But I'm trying to understand these types of claims. 3D has never effected my eyes or caused headaches. I'm wondering why do some people have these issues? Don't like Avatar? Wow! Not to be funny or anything, but are your eyes normal? Do u have vision problems?

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Mrbrownst0ne

people who trully are cool and awesome have 3d tv's... lame people dont like 3d... panasonicccccccccc for the win

Nice avatar pic but i whole heartedly disagree

I have a 3DTV that even today will stand up among the best of them and for me the glasses are pretty hard to wear on top of my own prescription glasses so i always find mysel switching to contacts whenever i want to watch 3D.

In that case, if i ever do go with my glasses on to the cinema, the passive glasses do work out better because they're lighter but to me, the quality at my local cinema with RealD isn't nice at all. IMAX 3D is the best i have seen in cinemas and i think those particular glasses they give would be a bit of an issue but i always as said tend to wear contacts whether watching in the cinema or now at home that i bought a pair of active glasses.

I actually love the 'lift' that comes to the picture via the depth etc but i can't help but feel a slight letdown with the darkening effect of 3D glasses. Now if there was a completely clear lens version of active 3D glasses, that would be perfect when viewing 3D content because essentially, you could use SMPTE HD colour settings etc without worry of having to compensate for the darkening effect of the glasses, but then we hit another issue which is that when in 3D mode, most TVs seem to shift to alternative settings and drive modes which knocks the calibration out from the 'perfect' 2D settings no matter how much you tweak (typically).

Now, when and if clear lens active 3D glasses make their way to TVs etc, with a TV set (hopefully an OLED) that can run the same perfect settings of a 2D image but just add all the great things of 3D, e.g. the depth etc and the glasses themselves are made much lighter (yes, i know they're getting lighter but a little more doesn't hurt ) and basically the whole standard for 3D is established, i think we'll see more progress in uptake.

3D isn't revolutionary because it has much more drawbacks to adoptiong right now than HD sets did. With HD sets you either got HD ready or full 1080p at the start and to a degree now but most are 1080p. Then you had to choose between expensive hardware to play HD movies from two formats when it came. HD-DVD or Blu-ray. The cost of such hardware was also expensive which is why the PS3 was monumental in driving adoption and actually accounted for 50%+ of hardware capable of playing blu-ray disks and why even today it is still listed by manufacturers and retailers alongside others being required to play such movies.

I only bought a single pair of glasses for my own TV just to check 3D out really and although i have started buying 3D titles, i made sure i don't pay much more than the regular edition or i'll wait. I'm not going to fully invest into 3D until the above things happen really and mostly i'm wanting to get into it round the time OLED goes mainstream.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by BigJayJay

I respect your opinion. But I'm trying to understand these types of claims? 3D has never effected my eyes or caused headaches. I'm wonder why is that? Don't like Avatar? Wow! Not to be funny or anything, but are your eyes normal? Do u have a vision problems?

I'm sure there are more medical explanations but this is a very valid point he made, there are people that have eye strain occur when watching 3D content and some develop headaches after sometime. It's a bit like being sea or air sick but for 3D

[Jsmith82]

Originally Posted by Mrbrownst0ne

people who trully are cool and awesome have 3d tv's... lame people dont like 3d... panasonicccccccccc for the win

Bwaaa haaa!


Anyhow, I think people forget that 3D is an option, not a forced format that is bringing extinction to any other source of video entertainment. The beauty of it is if you don't like it, you don't have to watch it! I personally would like to watch anything and everything in 3D because I enjoy the gauge of depth. If somebody else thinks differently, cool beans - get the BR copy and we'll each enjoy our own, to each their own.

Problem solved

Wait, no it's not! This is the interznetz! Fight fight fighT! Game On!!! Your 3Dz are belong to us!!!!

I'll stop being goofy, as to the OP's topic question, I believe this technology of 3D was revolutionary in the sense it completely revamped an almost dead format 10 fold, now millions of people have 3D televisions - pretty much every major studio is working on 3D films, companies are working hard everyday to develop new technology to bring more content to the format, more games have stereoscopic viewing as an option, this is not deniable and doing so is ignorance, or internet lulz. The format is established, now we sit back and see how far it will go - whether one chooses to partake is their own decision, 2D is not going anywhere regardless so there is no worries for either party.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

Anyhow, I think people forget that 3D is an option, not a forced format that is bringing extinction to any other source of video entertainment.

Exactly: Listen to the rhetoric, and count "3...2...1..." about how every discussion about 3D at home will slowly start to turn into paranoia about the studios, and a laundry list of everything they hate about 3D in theaters, starting with either the current glut or the glasses charges.
Those who don't want to rush out and buy/watch 3D are acting like they're fighting against some "final solution" being waged by the studios, that they'll be rounded up and "forced" to watch every movie in 3D, and that fighting the "invasion" at home is one small step at fighting the "invasion" at the theaters.

...No. We're just saying that if there IS a movie designed for theaters in 3D--and thanks to more filmmakers actually knowing how to use the darn thing, there probably will be--you won't have to suffer the technical gap at home.
Think there's too many at the theaters? Mebbe so, but that doesn't mean we should spray-paint a red "V" over every theater poster of Battleship.
(Or, if you don't like 80's TV series, insert your own "Red Dawn" quote here... )

[vertigo12314]

I'm starting to like 3D because of quality films like Hugo, Tintin, and now Prometheus.

[-shadow-]

As a direct question to the topic title: It's been around since what..? The 20's, nothing revolutionary about it

[TheBluRayPrince]

Originally Posted by -shadow-

As a direct question to the topic title: It's been around since what..? The 20's, nothing revolutionary about it

Well, yes the old school 3D were things popped out at you and jumped out of the screen. But I think he's talking about the new school 3D that's out nowadays.

The 3D out now is beautiful and wonderful with movies like Hugo and Avatar, but unfortunately the reason why it isn't as popular, and now i am sure this has been discussed so forgive me if I repeat anything that's already been said, is because studious have gotten greedy and tried to do post conversions on almost every movie coming out.

WB just realized that they got lucky on Clash of the Titans. Seeing domestic profits for Wrath go way south has made them realize that people are sick and tired of being cheated. I don't think they'll stop trying though. Even Hugo suffered because of it even though it was shot in 3D and was a really good film. It just barely made it's budget domestically.

The concept has also been around since 1915 on film so people get the misconception that things will pop out at us and such. Nothing new here, most people think.

So is it revolutionary? Yes and no.

Yes to people who see it for what it really is and its awesomeness. No to people who think its just a gimmick for studios to make more money, and sadly studios prove them right time and time again.

Oh and also, the glasses are bothersome. I can't wait for glasses free 3D. But I hope it's not like Nintendo 3DS

[brian9229]

I purchased a 40in samsung smart 3dtv awhile back and i havent looked back since! With all the horror stories ive heard about other samsung 3dtv's, and 3dtv's in general, i feel quite lucky ive had nothing but a great experience. The quality of the 3d blurays on my set has made me keep an eye out constantly for upcoming titles in 3d. I also purchased a, near the top of the line, samsung 3dbluray player, and it plays bluray's and 3dblus perfectly, but as for the smart hub on it lets just say its a miracle i havent taken a sledgehammer to it yet. Ive had lots of issues with all the apps on it, so its strictly now only for playing discs.

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by therainberg

I wear glasses to see long distance and wearing 3D glasses over them has never been a problem in the slightest. People who complain must wear huge bifocals that don't fit under their 3D glasses or Dame Edna style show queen glasses.

My wife and two of my children wear glasses and they never complained at all as the glasses seem to fit just right over their prescriptions our 3d glasses even have a removable nose piece but my kids say they fit on better with the piece on.

[mseeley]

Originally Posted by Jsmith82

Bwaaa haaa!


Anyhow, I think people forget that 3D is an option, not a forced format that is bringing extinction to any other source of video entertainment. The beauty of it is if you don't like it, you don't have to watch it! I personally would like to watch anything and everything in 3D because I enjoy the gauge of depth. If somebody else thinks differently, cool beans - get the BR copy and we'll each enjoy our own, to each their own.

Problem solved

Wait, no it's not! This is the interznetz! Fight fight fighT! Game On!!! Your 3Dz are belong to us!!!!

I'll stop being goofy, as to the OP's topic question, I believe this technology of 3D was revolutionary in the sense it completely revamped an almost dead format 10 fold, now millions of people have 3D televisions - pretty much every major studio is working on 3D films, companies are working hard everyday to develop new technology to bring more content to the format, more games have stereoscopic viewing as an option, this is not deniable and doing so is ignorance, or internet lulz. The format is established, now we sit back and see how far it will go - whether one chooses to partake is their own decision, 2D is not going anywhere regardless so there is no worries for either party.

Bravo!!! 100% agree!!!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by BigJayJay

Ok, but u are aware that there's an alarming amout of people that don't like 3d?

From memory, everybody liked HDTV

well your memory is wrong. There have always been sour grapes and there will always be sour grapes. I remember people *****ing when WS came out and when HDTVs came out. People always complain because new tech is expensive and if you want it you need to pay money. So for some it is easier to ***** and talk about how evil it is because it is a way for them to cope with not having something they want.

I think this time it might be a bit worst just because back in 2009 NTSC was replaced with ATSC. Now imagine having all those people that bought a new HDTV 2008/2009 because their old one would be useless (and they are proud about being cutting edge ) and a year later they find out they are behind the times again.
.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

well your memory is wrong. There have always been sour grapes and there will always be sour grapes. I remember people *****ing when WS came out and when HDTVs came out.

Oh, takes you back five years, don't it?
- "I have to replace my analog set? Just shows what Sony's money can buy in Congress!"
- "Why would I WANT to watch everything in HD? Ew, would we see all of Katie Couric's pores?"
- "And what about porn in HD?...Double eww!"
- "Yeah, but HD-DVD's gonna win 'cause it's got porn..."
(er, sorry, got sidetracked, there )
- "Why should I spend all that money to buy a set, when they're just gonna come along with 3-D sets or something, five minutes later?"
(....Shaddup! And 4K's going to tank! )
- "Yeah, and it's going to kill old movies, because nobody's going to want to watch 4:3 movies on their set!"

That's as much as I can remember off the top of my head without actually using the Search function. Guess we'll have to wait for someone to necrobump another 2007 thread, and see what the archaeologists dig up.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Oh, takes you back five years, don't it?

Further than that. I remember when one of my friends bought a (for the time) big WS TV (late 90's might have been real early 2000's). He invited a bunch of people for the hockey game that Saturday. One of the guys was complaining how WS TVs sucked because they make everyone look fat (my friend had it in stretch mode) so I pointed out that it was because of the AR setting (and I agreed that it was not correct to show it that way) and so at the intermission I went to look in the menus and changed the AR, then the guy started complaining that it was useless to buy a WSTV just to have black bars taking up a big part of the image (my friend agreed with that second part and had me switch it back to stretch).of the image.

[Big3dfan]

3D isn't revolutionary because of some very poor strategy that industry followed and because of prelavant ignorance as you can see in other thread starting with "good new haters...." where some believe that it's an expensive hobby. But that's all changing....slowly but surely.

Here is what I posted there and I think this thread has some more mature people who can engage in intelligent discussion.

This site has been awesome for me in terms of finding best deals on 3d blurays...many times much below what I used to spend for my 2d Blu ray collection.

Also for those who are genuinely curious about 3d, let me tell you that cost of 3d displays has gone down dramatically in the last 2 years (120" 1080p 3d at home can be had for under $1299 as of last week).....don't let anyone else tell you that 3d is an expensive hobby....it's only expensive if you go to theater....now I never go to theater anymore..it actually works out a lot chaper to buy some good 3d movies for your collection...if you do the math, entire family can enjoy a3d bluray for the price of one ticket. Other than Avater I never really enjoyed 3d in theater as it used to give me headaches...now I never feel the strain at home and thoroughly enjoy every 3d movie....

Don't let anyone tell you that glasses are expensive because with m3di standard you can get some dirt cheap glasses for under $20 now and the cost will only sink down further as competition picks up. It's just a matter of time !

As for content, now I can't keep up with the number of 3d releases and between these, some awesome ps3 games and user generated content on YouTube, I rarely feel the need to subscribe to a 3d cable channel. The quality of 3d has gone up off late with even low budget movies using awesome native 3d.....while quality on Conversions has really improved to a point where it's getting hard to tell it apart from native 3d.

The only gripe I have is that mainstream rentals have not adopted 3d yet which could drive down the cost even further. Even so there are some niche websites renting them for reasonable prices now.

[mrpants]

I want characters and story telling to be three dimensional, I don't need to turn my living room into a fair ground ride.