What do you think about 3D? Do you like it? Hate it? Think it's better than 4K?

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Considering your HT gallery is full of stars wars toys, I reckon u will use the 3d feature after Lucas releases the star wars films in 3d, u just won't tell anyone and will continue to say u hate it.

Actually not in Star Wars in 3D is interesting for me. I am not even going to see them in theaters when they get release. Everyone really does have a hard time understanding I have no interest in 3D.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Actually not in Star Wars in 3D is interesting for me. I am not even going to see them in theaters when they get release. Everyone really does have a hard time understanding I have no interest in 3D.

I don't have a hard time understanding that at all, you're entitled to your opinion, but like each of us, you're only 1 small speck of dust in this world.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

I don't have a hard time understanding that at all, you're entitled to your opinion, but like each of us, you're only 1 small speck of dust in this world.

I know very well. But Anothy was asking who would buy a 3D movie and not use the 3D, I responded, I am one of these people and probably one of a lot more then you might think. I was talking about that in another thread on how can they go about seeing how popular 3D is for the home? The number of TV set being sold is not the best way for them to find out. Now it's not that easy to find a TV without the 3D option. It's a difficult thing to judge cause there are too many variable. Even in theaters, the number of ticket sold but how many people would have gone to 2D if it was available? For certain movies you can't always find a 2D option. You can't blame the theater owners, it's more bucks so why should they bother showing 2D? But there are people who will pay to see it in 3D because they want to see the movie but would have taken a 2D option if it was available. It's not so easy to judge just how popular 3D really is. But I do think it's going to be sticking around this time around because of the home option and there is one or rather in two segments of home entertainment where 3D might well catch on and catch on big. Video Games and sports in 3D. I think these two options may well be the kicker for 3D in the house. Movies, they might as well be popular but there is a chance that after a time in become's a novelty. The other factor helping 3D to really stick around will be no glasses. If they manage this in the next 5 years, then it's going to stick without any doubt and anyone saying it won't well sorry but you won't be too happy I sort of think glasses at home will quickly become a dust gathering object for a good portion of people, maybe not for you and others who really are into 3D but for the majority of people. Like you said for me, you are just one small speck of dust in this world but if they get it without the glasses then that will be the real win for 3D

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I know very well. But Anothy was asking who would buy a 3D movie and not use the 3D, I responded, I am one of these people and probably one of a lot more then you might think. I was talking about that in another thread on how can they go about seeing how popular 3D is for the home? The number of TV set being sold is not the best way for them to find out. Now it's not that easy to find a TV without the 3D option. It's a difficult thing to judge cause there are too many variable. Even in theaters, the number of ticket sold but how many people would have gone to 2D if it was available? For certain movies you can't always find a 2D option. You can't blame the theater owners, it's more bucks so why should they bother showing 2D? But there are people who will pay to see it in 3D because they want to see the movie but would have taken a 2D option if it was available. It's not so easy to judge just how popular 3D really is. But I do think it's going to be sticking around this time around because of the home option and there is one or rather in two segments of home entertainment where 3D might well catch on and catch on big. Video Games and sports in 3D. I think these two options may well be the kicker for 3D in the house. Movies, they might as well be popular but there is a chance that after a time in become's a novelty. The other factor helping 3D to really stick around will be no glasses. If they manage this in the next 5 years, then it's going to stick without any doubt and anyone saying it won't well sorry but you won't be too happy I sort of think glasses at home will quickly become a dust gathering object for a good portion of people, maybe not for you and others who really are into 3D but for the majority of people. Like you said for me, you are just one small speck of dust in this world but if they get it without the glasses then that will be the real win for 3D

It's debatable at the moment whether glasses free will ever be able to duplicate the exact same effect as what 3d glasses currently do, some people might actually end up settling for a product that isn't quite as good, sacrificing quality just so they don't have to wear the glasses. I certainly didn't buy my c8000 for 3d (I bought it because I wanted the next size up from my old 40" and because it's silver, I don't like black tv's and it was the 1st silver tv to be released for a few years), in fact I didn't really like 3d before I bought it, but after using 3d at home, I started to like it.

Imo 3d at home is MUCH better than at the cinemas (and when more and more people see it at home they will think the same), Avatar is a lot better at home in 3d than at the cinemas, same with other 3d films. A very good mate of mine hated 3d, then his parents bought a Panasonic 3d plasma last November and now he really likes it, only at home though, he still hates it at the cinemas. I don't use the feature all the time (in fact I think people who want to watch 3d content every second they watch tv are a bit stupid), but it is a good feature to have for some movies, especially movies that were filmed with 3d cameras and are meant to be seen in 3d.

An example is Resident Evil afterlife (not the greatest movie ever), the colours are over saturated in the 2d version, because the movie was shot in 3d and they compensated for the glasses being darker, so when u watch RE afterlife in 3d u are seeing the correct tone of colour meant for viewing the film.

I don't know about your local cinema, but mine has 2d screenings of movies that are also in 3d every 3rd showing, maybe if you are a person who just rocks up to the cinemas and has no other choice but to watch the 3d version of a movie, then that might be inconvenient if u want to watch the 2d version, but really who does that often? I always check session times before I want to go to the cinemas, so if I want to see a certain movie in 2d, then I will make sure I arrive at the cinemas in time for that session.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Imo opinion 3d at home is MUCH better than at the cinemas (and when more and more people see it at home they will think the same), Avatar is a lot better at home in 3d than at the cinemas, same with other 3d films. A very good mate of mine hated 3d, he couldn't stand it, then his parents bought a Panasonic 3d plasma last November and now he really likes it, only at home though, he still hates it at the cinemas. I don't use the feature all the time (in fact I think people who wants to watch 3d content every second they watch tv are a bit stupid), but it is a good feature to have for some movies, especially movies that were film with 3d cameras and are meant to be see in 3d.

That I have heard a lot and I can also believe it since most theaters suck with their equipment. They do not take the time to adjust it properly nor do they take care of it properly. Someone at home will take the time to calibrate it and will take care of it. Theaters are a bit leasy with their equipment.

What I want to try is 3D without glasses but I doubt it will be available as demo anywhere soon.

[Falconer]

Sorry, but I refuse to wear those goofball glasses in my own home. I also refuse to pay extra for an effect that does nothing to enhance the story itself.

3D is a money-making scheme, plain and simple. Higher ticket prices mean more box office revenue. Doesn't take a man of advanced education to figure that out.

Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M For Murder (hugely under-rated film, by the way) was released in 3D...in 1954. Sure, the technology is better today, but that's the only thing that's better - the technology. The effect does little to nothing in the way of creating a better viewing experience the same way that color, sound and high-definition have.

There may be a few films to benefit from 3D effects and use them to the full potential (Avatar, for example), but not every film - hardly any, in fact - require such effects. But when you have a fantastical world that is supposed to appear strange and wondrous to the viewer, 3D helped greatly in that regard. But how can it help an ordinary comedy or drama? It just can't.

It's a fad that will sadly be around for as long as Hollywood is making a profit from it, guaranteed - but it will not replace "standard" movie-viewing. That is also a guarantee.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

(in fact I think people who want to watch 3d content every second they watch tv are a bit stupid)

Well, Anthony P seems to think that not using 3D on a 3D-capable television is the equivelant of watching it with the sound muted.

An example is Resident Evil afterlife (not the greatest movie ever), the colours are over saturated in the 2d version, because the movie was shot in 3d and they compensated for the glasses being darker, so when u watch RE afterlife in 3d u are seeing the correct tone of colour meant for viewing the film.

Well, I guess that's nice for viewing in 3D, but it would be nice if the colors had been properly adjusted for the 2D version, then (mind you, I haven't seen this movie myself, so I'm basing this purely on your description).

I do feel that no matter what, 3D should be a choice, and that any movies with a 3D option should be properly optimized for both 3D and 2D viewing (even if that means putting those verions on separate discs in the same 'combo' pack as opposed to making 1 disc with both options). If 3D ever becomes the same level of an issue around here like OAR often is (and I defend OAR the vast majority of the time), I won't be giving 3D the same defense that I do OAR. That's for sure.

[Dotpattern]

Fixed!

Originally Posted by Falconer

Sorry, but I refuse to watch movies in color in my own home. I also refuse to pay extra for an effect that does nothing to enhance the story itself.

Widescreen is a money-making scheme, plain and simple. Higher ticket prices mean more box office revenue. Doesn't take a man of advanced education to figure that out.

There may be a few films to benefit from sound effects and use them to the full potential (The Jazz Singer, for example), but not every film - hardly any, in fact - require sound effects. But when you have a fantastical world that is supposed to sound strange and wondrous to the viewer, sound helped greatly in that regard. But how can it help an ordinary comedy or drama (Chaplin movies or Wings)? It just can't.

These are fads that will sadly be around for as long as Hollywood is making a profit from it, guaranteed - but it will not replace "standard" movie-viewing in black and white and in 4.3 aspect ratio and silent. That is also a guarantee.

History repeats itself...

[Falconer]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

History repeats itself...

Thank you for completely missing the point where I proclaimed that 3D does not benefit storytelling the same way sound, color and high-definition do.

Please try again.

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Falconer

Thank you for completely missing the point where I proclaimed that 3D does not benefit storytelling the same way sound, color and high-definition do.

Please try again.

Waste of time

If you do not like 3D like they do, you are a hater
If you feel it's a gimmick that does nothing for you, you are a hater
If you feel it could be fun sometimes once in a while but not at home, you are a hater
if you feel it does not have the same importance as sound, you are a hater

In short no matter what you say, you are a hater

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Falconer

Thank you for completely missing the point where I proclaimed that 3D does not benefit storytelling the same way sound, color and high-definition do.

Please try again.

Again, you don't know that yet, since the format as it is today is still in its infancy. Early talkies didn't use sound as movies do today either. Filmmakers needed to learn to use color and widescreen photography too. 3D simply needs filmmakers to be inventive with the format.

[Icedburden]

These conversations are exactly like the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray and X360 vs. PS3. Pointless. To each his own. If you like it, good for you and if you don't same thing. I really think if we treat that system wars crap like poison on here we should ban these conversations as well seeing as few people are mature enough to handle it.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Falconer

Thank you for completely missing the point where I proclaimed that 3D does not benefit storytelling the same way sound, color and high-definition do.

Please try again.

And you completely missed my point that your reasons are the exact same reasons people claimed sound, color and widescreen didn't benefit storytelling and were only gimmicks during their introductions to cinemas.

It doesn't matter what the new technology is, there will always be people claiming it's a fad. Well sound, color, widescreen and now Blu-ray have not gone away despite being called fads.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Falconer

Thank you for completely missing the point where I proclaimed that 3D does not benefit storytelling the same way sound, color and high-definition do.

Please try again.

Pretty much all 3d movies which have been released over the last few years have used 3d in a gimmicky way in some scenes (like having stuff fly out at u as if its about to hit u), but once that starts to fade a bit from 3d film making, we will be left with just better depth, which will help make stories better in some circumstances, especially considering we see in 3d everyday in our lives, so if done right 3d movies will be more life like.

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Pretty much all 3d movies which have been released over the last few years have used 3d in a gimmicky way in some scenes (like having stuff fly out at u as if its about to hit u), but once that starts to fade a bit from 3d film making, we will be left with just better depth, which will help make stories better in some circumstances, especially considering we see in 3d everyday in our lives, so if done right 3d movies will be more life like.

+1
3D (at least to me) is about adding that realistic sense of depth to a movie to help immerse me in the experience. I do agree that a lot of the 3D movies over the past few years (especially animated films) have relied on the cheesy "stuff in your face" effect, but films like Avatar and Tron:Legacy had very few cheesy shots and instead just used the tech to create a more believable world. For me personally, it made the movie more immersive and realistic, although I can understand some people not being as excited about it. I do think at this point it's here to stay though, with names like Spielberg, Cameron, Jackson, and Lucas endorsing it the rest of the industry will pour more money into it and give us a better 3D experience.

P.S. And I can understand why some people get pissed about "having" to buy 3D tv's to get the best 2D tv's, but the sets are still cheaper than the older high end sets were

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by Falconer

Thank you for completely missing the point where I proclaimed that 3D does not benefit storytelling the same way sound, color and high-definition do.

Please try again.

No offense but having a movie in HD doesn't enhance the story, it just makes it look prettier.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by SkillzthatKillz

+1
3D (at least to me) is about adding that realistic sense of depth to a movie to help immerse me in the experience. I do agree that a lot of the 3D movies over the past few years (especially animated films) have relied on the cheesy "stuff in your face" effect, but films like Avatar and Tron:Legacy had very few cheesy shots and instead just used the tech to create a more believable world. For me personally, it made the movie more immersive and realistic, although I can understand some people not being as excited about it. I do think at this point it's here to stay though, with names like Spielberg, Cameron, Jackson, and Lucas endorsing it the rest of the industry will pour more money into it and give us a better 3D experience.

P.S. And I can understand why some people get pissed about "having" to buy 3D tv's to get the best 2D tv's, but the sets are still cheaper than the older high end sets were

I can understand those things too, though 3dtv's (even if u only want it for a 2dtv, as like u said they are the best 2d models as well) aren't that expensive. In 2006 I paid $2800 for my 1st Sony bravia 32" lcd hd tv, which had no hdmi ports (only component) and only did 1080i/720p, in 2007 I paid $3500 for a 40" sony bravia and $3000 at the begining of 2008 for another 40 inch bravia. Compared to those prices, today's are much better, we can get 65 inch 3d models for the same price, so really there's not much for anyone to complain about if they are in the market for a new tv.

[Battra92]

Originally Posted by Allforce

Another problem with 3D catching on is how many consumers over the last few years have just finally jumped on the HDTV bandwagon? Hell I had to convince my parents to get just a cheap LCD TV for their living room when they wanted to upgrade, and they won't even pay for the HD signal from the cable company at that. That's anecdotal but definitely not an isolated situation, as I'm sure millions of other consumers are in the same boat and NOT ready to shell out for a new TV that's incrementally better than the one they just bought in the last few years.

My parents are of humble circumstances and are enjoying that they have the largest TV they've ever owned. It's a CRT that was only barely used before HD took off. Heck, they don't plan on buying another TV for another decade or more (if ever.) To them, they just don't care. There are enough analog CRTs out there and as long as they have a converter box that will display cable they are cool with their 35" CRT.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Well, Anthony P seems to think that not using 3D on a 3D-capable television is the equivelant of watching it with the sound muted.




Well, I guess that's nice for viewing in 3D, but it would be nice if the colors had been properly adjusted for the 2D version, then (mind you, I haven't seen this movie myself, so I'm basing this purely on your description).

I do feel that no matter what, 3D should be a choice, and that any movies with a 3D option should be properly optimized for both 3D and 2D viewing (even if that means putting those verions on separate discs in the same 'combo' pack as opposed to making 1 disc with both options). If 3D ever becomes the same level of an issue around here like OAR often is (and I defend OAR the vast majority of the time), I won't be giving 3D the same defense that I do OAR. That's for sure.

If u read a few reviews on the RE afterlife blu-ray then u will find they all say the same thing I have about the colours in the 2d version compared to the 3d version.

[GunZenBomZ]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

Waste of time

If you do not like 3D like they do, you are a hater
If you feel it's a gimmick that does nothing for you, you are a hater
If you feel it could be fun sometimes once in a while but not at home, you are a hater
if you feel it does not have the same importance as sound, you are a hater

In short no matter what you say, you are a hater

Also pointing out the side-effects of 3dtv means you are a hater..you missed that one out mate I will not be buying anything with a 3d-tag on it.

I have no interest but I do enjoy reading about peoples trials & tribulations with the latest round of mandated 3d tech. The lovers of 3d eg: AP are under the influence of a mass hypnotic indoctrination plan. It succeeds with the simple minded.

Ow yeah & if you criticize 3d the mods, well one. Will give you an infraction point (whatever that was suppose to do!).

Argh yes the future is here...mods will ban people if they don't like the new latest gadget. Basically if you are a dissenting voice, you will/should be quelled & any trace of dislike swept under the proverbial carpet.

Roll on dec2012