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

[SteelPen]

Short answer, yes!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

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.

I'm not calling you a lier, nor did I mean to imlpy that in my post. I was just pointing out that I hadn't seen it myself, and since it's a movie that I'm really not interested in personally (nothing against anyone who likes it), I never bothered looking into the reviews on the matter.

I'm just saying that there should be a contious effort to make sure that the coloring is adjusted properly for the 3D version, and also adjusted properly (and separately) for the 2D version. One version shouldn't have to suffer in favor of the other... and since 2D is still pretty much the common, current standard (since the vast majority of people don't have 3D TVs), it certainly shouldn't be the 2D version that suffers for movies currently coming out.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I'm not calling you a lier, nor did I mean to imlpy that in my post. I was just pointing out that I hadn't seen it myself, and since it's a movie that I'm really not interested in personally (nothing against anyone who likes it), I never bothered looking into the reviews on the matter.

I'm just saying that there should be a contious effort to make sure that the coloring is adjusted properly for the 3D version, and also adjusted properly (and separately) for the 2D version. One version shouldn't have to suffer in favor of the other... and since 2D is still pretty much the common, current standard (since the vast majority of people don't have 3D TVs), it certainly shouldn't be the 2D version that suffers for movies currently coming out.

I didn't think u were calling me a liar, I mentioned the reviews only because u said u haven't seen it and don't own the film, and thought u might be interested.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

Fixed!



History repeats itself...

because of the truth inherent within your point.

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.

because high-definition doesn't enhance story. Also because, as each of the items in your list became new technology in theatres, 95% of the filmmaking and audience population believed each to "not benefit storytelling." I wonder what those people would say if they jumped directly into a modern theatre from those days.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

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.

HEAR HEAR! The preacher speaks words of wisdom!



Now, I'm not saying that 3D is important enough to become the standard upon which every film presentation will be presented. Nor am I saying that it deserves to be. However, it is simply human nature to dislike change... especially if it involves a higher price tag for your wallet! But, over time? Who knows what 3D could do for film presentation (both in theatres AND at home)? However, that does not mean that it CAN'T be considered a worthy attempt at advancing the viewing experience over time. Unfortunately, my crystal ball is in the shop, so I can't confirm the future for you. I'm glad that so many other people's abilities to see the future are so finely tuned these days.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

Almost 70% of US households currently have an HDTV but even counting PS3s a little less than 20% of US households have a BD player. That's a pretty significant gap. Basically half of US households have a high-def tv but don't have a high-def player. I'm sure we all know people who have newer sets that haven't even upgraded their cable/sat packages let alone gotten a BD player.

Do they all hate HD content? Of course not. But they do seem pretty indifferent to it. It's just not a big deal to them.

My impression is a lot of people are in a simlilar place with regard to home 3D. They don't hate it but it's not worth dealing with glasses or paying a higher price for content.

Might that change? Sure. There's too much money and big-name talent behind it to write it off. But it's not a lock and the tv numbers won't tell us if/when it happens. Those numbers are likely to go up regardless of whether consumers embrace home 3D or not.

your analogy does not make sense. If someone has an HDTV and does not have a BD player then obviously he can't watch BDs but he is not turning off the BD players BD playback. It costs money to buy a BD player and maybe the person decided not to buy one because he either does not have the money or does not watch movies. In your original post you said "If you measure success by how many people actually use it then it seems 3D could still go the way of BDLive - it looks good on a sticker but people turn it off the second they get it home."

Now I agree 3D in the future might be a standard option on a Tv. But in your OP you are assuming they have access to 3D. The only way your analogy would work is if you said 20% of US households have BD players (BTW I think that it is a low estimate –but it is not important) but X% refuse to watch BDs and only watch movies on DVD on them.

[octagon]

Feel free to replace 'turn it off the second they get home' with 'don't actually use it'.

[Anthony P]

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.

But saying something and it being right are two different things.

The issue is:

How does sound help story telling? let me ask you a simple question two people are talking some none-Kligon alien language (went with alien since I know what ever human language I pick some guy will say "I understand what they are saying) and you read the subs to understand what they are saying. How would the story telling change if these aliens used something other then sound to communicate and it was silent?

How does colour improve story telling? Ar you saying the story in Schindler's List was compromised because they decided to make it in B&W?

How does HD improve story telling? Don't get me wrong HD might show detail that was not visible in SD and so add to the film, but is the story as a whole ever helped with HD? No since most of the stuff important in the film are BIG and not small where HD adds to the experience. (i.e. guy walks into the room and it is important for the story but SD or HD can do that, on the other hand seldom will the detail on the guys colar be important where SD might lose out)

On the other hand if I am supposed to know that X is closer while Y is farther, 3D helps with that but 2D kills that information. Obviously in a 2D world such plot points where impossible, but in real life that is not necessarily true. Some of our ancestors got eaten because they did not realize a small predator was close and they thought they had plenty of time to hide/escape while others did not realize the real danger because they thought that big predator far away was no threat, that is why we have stereoscopic vision today. And this optical illusion works because we are looking at a 2D pic, but if it was 3D then the real story would be obvious.

[AutomaticDriver]

Originally Posted by 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.

. Are you serious? You must be joking. Nobody is that self conscious. I cant believe somebody is so concerned about how they look while watching a movie.

You say you refuse to pay extra for something that doesnt enhance the story itself. Well,HD doesnt enhance the story. But yet you are paying extra to buy a blu ray movie.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

Feel free to replace 'turn it off the second they get home' with 'don't actually use it'.

so how many people buy BD players and "don't actually use it" for BD playback? I never used turn off BD playback. My point is simple, there can be a few people like Pat who, according to him, is not a hater but the only way you will get him to watch something in 3D is if he is tied down, his locked in place and toothpicks holding his eye lids open. But the vast majority won't buy something and then not use it. If X 3D TVs are sold and they say that equals Y households (since there is always the assumption that some people will have more then one thing) then any such marginal people won't change the numberY in any significant way. And anyone else will just say, “I have a 3D set, the content is 3D, well I might as well watch it in 3d”

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

so how many people buy BD players and "don't actually use it" for BD playback? I never used turn off BD playback. My point is simple, there can be a few people like Pat who, according to him, is not a hater but the only way you will get him to watch something in 3D is if he is tied down, his locked in place and toothpicks holding his eye lids open. But the vast majority won't buy something and then not use it. If X 3D TVs are sold and they say that equals Y households (since there is always the assumption that some people will have more then one thing) then any such marginal people won't change the numberY in any significant way. And anyone else will just say, “I have a 3D set, the content is 3D, well I might as well watch it in 3d”

I would argue that most (if not all) people who buy a Blu-Ray player specfically do so with the intention of watching Blu-Rays on it at least sooner or later.

But people who have no interest in Blu-Ray can stick with their DVD players and even older players can be hooked up to an HDTV with component cables to improve the output quality. It's not like they are forced to buy a Blu-Ray player just to watch their DVDs if their existing DVD player craps out.


The trend is moving towards almost all HDTVs having 3D built in. There was already someone who works at Best Buy who posted in a thread on this board stating that right now most of the options in the store for HDTVs 50 inches and up include 3D. There are very few non-3D options, and the few that exist are mostly cheap off-brands. Anyone wanting a major name-brand HDTV is going to have to get a 3D set.

Now, it doesn't mean that they will never use 3D, but whether they like it and make it a part of their regular viewing experience is another matter altogether.

And in that sense, I somewhat agree with octagon's comparison to BD-Live. The discs that include it just come with the option on there. It doesn't mean people actually use it. I have many Blu-Rays that have it. I only ever tried it once with one movie and didn't care for it. I haven't used it since. And it seems that I'm not alone in this as some studios (i.e. Disney) who were formerly very gung-ho about BD-Live seem to be shying away from it on their more recent releases.


Granted, BD-Live isn't exactly the same thing as 3D. But then again, 3D isn't exactly the same thing as surround sound, color, or HD either.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I would argue that most (if not all) people who buy a Blu-Ray player specfically do so with the intention of watching Blu-Rays on it at least sooner or later.

But people who have no interest in Blu-Ray can stick with their DVD players and even older players can be hooked up to an HDTV with component cables to improve the output quality. It's not like they are forced to buy a Blu-Ray player just to watch their DVDs if their existing DVD player craps out.


The trend is moving towards almost all HDTVs having 3D built in. There was already someone who works at Best Buy who posted in a thread on this board stating that right now most of the options in the store for HDTVs 50 inches and up include 3D. There are very few non-3D options, and the few that exist are mostly cheap off-brands. Anyone wanting a major name-brand HDTV is going to have to get a 3D set.

Now, it doesn't mean that they will never use 3D, but whether they like it and make it a part of their regular viewing experience is another matter altogether.

And in that sense, I somewhat agree with octagon's comparison to BD-Live. The discs that include it just come with the option on there. It doesn't mean people actually use it. I have many Blu-Rays that have it. I only ever tried it once with one movie and didn't care for it. I haven't used it since. And it seems that I'm not alone in this as some studios (i.e. Disney) who were formerly very gung-ho about BD-Live seem to be shying away from it on their more recent releases.


Granted, BD-Live isn't exactly the same thing as 3D. But then again, 3D isn't exactly the same thing as surround sound, color, or HD either.

3d isn't being forced on anyone (well maybe at the cinema's it is a bit, but at home it's certainly not), If u think about it logically 3d is a free feature u get with the tv, because before 3d tv's were available the best 2d tv's were the same price as what current top of the line 3d models are. Realistically 3dtv's shouldn't be called 3dtv's at all, they should be called hdtv's just like every other tv, as that's what they are. 3d is just an extra feature added much like 240hz, 24p etc, and u don't have to use any of those features if u don't want to.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by 3DForLife

You say you refuse to pay extra for something that doesnt enhance the story itself. Well,HD doesnt enhance the story. But yet you are paying extra to buy a blu ray movie.

HD enhances the story as it brings you more detail and therefore lets you "in" to the story.

HD doesn't enhance the story? .... You seriously said that? ... You must be joking. Presentation has a lot of effect in drawing people into the story.

-Brian

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

3d isn't being forced on anyone (well maybe at the cinema's it is a bit, but at home it's certainly not), If u think about it logically 3d is a free feature u get with the tv, because before 3d tv's were available the best 2d tv's were the same price as what current top of the line 3d models are. Realistically 3dtv's shouldn't be called 3dtv's at all, they should be called hdtv's just like every other tv, as that's what they are. 3d is just an extra feature added much like 240hz, 24p etc, and u don't have to use any of those features if u don't want to.

Don't get me wrong, I agree in the sense that it's not "forced" since it is an optional feature.

But my point is simply that since things are heading in a direction in which there is no option to buy a TV without the 3D option, it becomes very hard with any degree of accuracy to determine how many people actually want it and use it on a regular basis.

I figure with BD-Live, since it's an online feature that people have to log into, the studios probably are able to track statistics on how often it is actually used and get a pretty accurate picture of the use of BD-Live compared to the number of discs sold.

HDTVs with 3D built in don't really give them that same kind of option. So, it may be an option going forward that not many people use, yet the studios, TV manufacturers, etc, think is doing better than it actually is since it's selling 'by default'. It would be nice if there was just a better way to track these things if it's going to be a built in feature in the majority of HDTVs.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I would argue that most (if not all) people who buy a Blu-Ray player specfically do so with the intention of watching Blu-Rays on it at least sooner or later.

But people who have no interest in Blu-Ray can stick with their DVD players and even older players can be hooked up to an HDTV with component cables to improve the output quality. It's not like they are forced to buy a Blu-Ray player just to watch their DVDs if their existing DVD player craps out.


The trend is moving towards almost all HDTVs having 3D built in. There was already someone who works at Best Buy who posted in a thread on this board stating that right now most of the options in the store for HDTVs 50 inches and up include 3D. There are very few non-3D options, and the few that exist are mostly cheap off-brands. Anyone wanting a major name-brand HDTV is going to have to get a 3D set.

first you can buy DVD players today and you can buy 2D TVs today, I agree with you that eventualy maybe all TVs will be 3D, but then again I also think one day (and probably sooner) every player will be BD. And if today someone wants a PS3 then they are forced to buy a BD player just as much as someone picking a specific Tv and it has 3D capabilities.

Now, it doesn't mean that they will never use 3D, but whether they like it and make it a part of their regular viewing experience is another matter altogether.

The issue is that no one can give a reasonable reason why they won't use it. It is also not that important how much they use it. if a guy watches one show once a week in 3D or 4h a day or 30 minutes a month, why does it matter? Is anything else viewed that way? Do you say we should not count that houshold as having/watching a TV since they only watch x minutes a week/month? The only reason some pretend it should matter for 3D is because they don't like what is actualy happening.

And in that sense, I somewhat agree with octagon's comparison to BD-Live. The discs that include it just come with the option on there. It doesn't mean people actually use it. I have many Blu-Rays that have it. I only ever tried it once with one movie and didn't care for it. I haven't used it since. And it seems that I'm not alone in this as some studios (i.e. Disney) who were formerly very gung-ho about BD-Live seem to be shying away from it on their more recent releases.

but BD-live is an extra, it is not the content

Granted, BD-Live isn't exactly the same thing as 3D. But then again, 3D isn't exactly the same thing as surround sound, color, or HD either.

forget if someone says they don't like it, how is it technically different from sound, colour or HD?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by bhampton

HD enhances the story as it brings you more detail and therefore lets you "in" to the story.

HD doesn't enhance the story? .... You seriously said that? ... You must be joking. Presentation has a lot of effect in drawing people into the story.

-Brian

the issue is that it depends how one defines "adds to the story". Using the pic I linked to earlier, why is it important to see the detail in the Taj and the guy but it can't be just as important to know if this is a guy real close with the Taj real far or a guy and a model of the Taj close together?

everything that the OP mentioned (sound, colour, HD) is similar to 3D.

They can all "add to the story", most of the time are just there and at some point in time where and where thought of as gimmicks.

Think about it, movies existed before any of these things, so obviously they are not necessarily necessary.

There is no difference between all of them.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

The only reason some pretend it should matter for 3D is because they don't like what is actualy happening.

And what exactly do you think is 'actually happening'?

I'm honestly curious.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by octagon

And what exactly do you think is 'actually happening'?

I'm honestly curious.

I don't think u should have even asked that, cause if u think for a second it's not hard to figure out. A lot of people have upgraded from SD equipment to HD equipment over the last few years, and dislike 3d more so because they are unhappy about having to buy new gear so soon for 3d after buying what they have now, so instead they hate on it because they don't want to spend anymore money, not because they actually truly dislike 3d. If 3d was a feature in HDtv's from the start, then a lot of people (though not everyone) who currently claim that they dislike 3d probably wouldn't mind it so much. The 1st thing that most people think about with every purchase is money, and if they have to spend more on something when they either don't want to, can afford to or feel they have spent enough already, then quite often they find negatives and over exaggerate them, to make themselves feel better.

[john_1958]

here to stay because 3d is improving every year

[nichart]

So I used to really like Oscar Meyer bologna. Then I tried bologna from the deli. Deli bologna just had so much more flavor and just tasted better. Almost like it was how bologna was supposed to taste and therefor, well worth the small price difference. Then, after I had established my love for deli bologna, while at my local grocery store, I went on a whim and purchased deli bologna with extra flavor (AKA - pimento loaf) for just another small price increase. I tried it, and sadly didn't like it. I really hope that my deli does not stop carrying regular bologna in favor of pimento loaf, because while yes, I can just pick out the pimentos, somehow it's just not the same.

Sadly, this is not the most ridiculous comparison on this thread.

[Halfwasted]

I just cannot get behind 3D, I find it does not add alot to a movie, and I find after awhile it hurts my eyes.

God only knows the long term damage of watching alot of 3D programming.