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

[ole geezer]

Originally Posted by 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.

you got my vote...

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by 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.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly.....

[nichart]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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?

But sometimes movies rely on these optical illusions to make things believable... just look at how they filmed Lord of the Rings for example.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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.

Wait, so movies were around before sound, color, high definition and 3D?


Oh, and if movies should have depth, it should be written into the script. I've seen plenty of movies with depth that were in 2D.

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

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.

No offence anthony, but you sure like listening to yourself talk. Who really cares about this debate. 3d is not a fad, The whole industry is behind it. 2d will never be replaced, but 3d is another way we will watch movies and cable tv. etc. When the industry is behind anything, whatever it may be ,it most likely goes boom!

[happyman]

Trying to decide wether or not to buy the Sim2 C3x Lumis projector $114,999 AUD(add 5% for US$) or the Runco D73d 3D projector for $75,000 AUD,worried they won't be able th handle James Cameron filming at 48fps

[Lemmy Lugosi]

Originally Posted by tvine2000

No offence anthony, but you sure like listening to yourself talk. Who really cares about this debate. 3d is not a fad, The whole industry is behind it. 2d will never be replaced, but 3d is another way we will watch movies and cable tv. etc. When the industry is behind anything, whatever it may be ,it most likely goes boom!

It doesn't matter if every CEO on the planet wants something to happen....if people don't/can't/won't buy it, it'll never happen.

And most people (the vast overwhelming majority) have zero interest in 3-D. It has a really looooong way to go before it becomes a common thing in homes.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Boris Lugosi

It doesn't matter if every CEO on the planet wants something to happen....if people don't/can't/won't buy it, it'll never happen.

And most people (the vast overwhelming majority) have zero interest in 3-D. It has a really looooong way to go before it becomes a common thing in homes.

And as it's already been stated, it would appear then that 3D is no different than sound, color, widescreen and HD on Blu-ray.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

And as it's already been stated, it would appear then that 3D is no different than sound, color, widescreen and HD on Blu-ray.

except you don't have to wear glasses over your glasses for those things, and you also don' have to buy accessories to be able to use color, sound, etc... for every guest you might have over at the time. just saying

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

except you don't have to wear glasses over your glasses for those things, and you also don' have to buy accessories to be able to use color, sound, etc... for every guest you might have over at the time. just saying

Actually technically u do, because if u want to enjoy more than 2.0 sound that tv speakers produce then u have to buy a sound system. Also, to be able to use a blu-ray player u need to buy movies to watch on it, and cables so u can connect the blu-ray player to your tv. They are all kinds of accessories really.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Actually technically u do, because if u want to enjoy more than 2.0 sound that tv speakers produce then u have to buy a sound system. Also, to be able to use a blu-ray player u need to buy movies to watch on it, and cables so u can connect the blu-ray player to your tv. They are all kinds of accessories really.

yeah but i don't have to buy a speaker for every person in the room, big stretch there.

Accessories for every person in the room, not accessories because i am an HT junkie. As it stands now 3d is not a feature the j6p user can use after purchase, at least not if they actually socialize with people.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

yeah but i don't have to buy a speaker for every person in the room, big stretch there.

Accessories for every person in the room, not accessories because i am an HT junkie. As it stands now 3d is not a feature the j6p user can use after purchase, at least not if they actually socialize with people.

The whole purchasing 3d glasses issue isn't as much of a big deal as what some make out, there's plently of free 3d glasses deals going on all year round from all the manufactures (well there is here anyway), I got 6 pairs of glasses for free with my tv last year and I don't even have 6 seats in my lounge room, I don't know how big your lounge is but most don't seat more than 6 people. 3d isn't something that I'll ever want to use when I have more than 6-8 guests over, and seriously as if u would ever want 30 people sitting around a tv watching something such as a 3d sporting event anyway.

At the end of the day 3d glasses aren't any different to buying extra controllers for your game consoles, so all your mates can play with u when they drop around. With Samsung dropping the price of their standard 3d glasses to $50 a pair (and it's almost a guarantee that other manufactures will follow. I'd say manfuctures will drop the price of 3d glasses down to below $20 a pair over the next 2 years), then thats cheaper than what it costs to buy an extra ps3 controller, well at least in my country anyway (extra ps3 controllers here in Australia are $99.95 each).

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

And as it's already been stated, it would appear then that 3D is no different than sound, color, widescreen and HD on Blu-ray.

True, it all of these cases at first people seem reluctant to follow but not as badly as it's been for 3D however. There was a lot of old timers who like the movies without sound and sound was not a decent thing. Same stuff for colors and the rest. However 3D is receiving is jut not being well received.

It's cool that you feel it bring's a new dimension to your movie experience but the fact it seem and from the comments I read on here and else where and with talk's with people, they don't fell the same way you might be about 3D. Most people see 3D as nothing more then a serious money grab from the rich boys in Hollywood and while they may have got along with the previous upgrades, they don't really seem to go along with this new one.

I doubt it will die but I doubt it will be a product that will sell well and will be use well. I fact I see 3D a little bit like Laserdisc was for most of it's life. A cute little nice niche product that a few movie fans truly enjoyed but that rest of the world just don't want anything to do with.

[msansoucie]

I know I'm new here and all but I can see both sides of the 3D debate. I just bought a 3D tv and absolutley love the effects. I'm sure after awhile and the newness wears off I wont care about it as much but it's great right now. The one thing I do like about my tv is I can use the glasses you get from the movie theater. My gf's brother works there and he gave me a couple pair so I didnt have to go out and buy any more. I got 4 pair with the tv so I dont have to worry about paying extra for the glasses now.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

The whole purchasing 3d glasses issue isn't as much of a big deal as what some make out, there's plently of free 3d glasses deals going on all year round from all the manufactures (well there is here anyway), I got 6 pairs of glasses for free with my tv last year and I don't even have 6 seats in my lounge room, I don't know how big your lounge is but most don't seat more than 6 people. 3d isn't something that I'll ever want to use when I have more than 6-8 guests over, and seriously as if u would ever want 30 people sitting around a tv watching something such as a 3d sporting event anyway.

At the end of the day 3d glasses aren't any different to buying extra controllers for your game consoles, so all your mates can play with u when they drop around. With Samsung dropping the price of their standard 3d glasses to $50 a pair (and it's almost a guarantee that other manufactures will follow. I'd say manfuctures will drop the price of 3d glasses down to below $20 a pair over the next 2 years), then thats cheaper than what it costs to buy an extra ps3 controller, well at least in my country anyway (extra ps3 controllers here in Australia are $99.95 each).

Thats cool and all, much like getting free blu-rays left and right during the format war, BOGO's, and manufacturers coupon that have kept my average blu-ray price 300 in at around $5 a piece... but most people don't go through the internet lengths you or I might. They see the shelf price of a $30 blu, and think no thanks.

Same deal here, those glasses appear mighty pricey, how does the 3d stuff look without the glasses because thats the only way you can compare it to video game controllers. After all we pass the stick during tiger or watch a buddies beat each other in some madden, or tear up some cod online. Can we also sit and watch that same movie, show, event without the glasses. I know i generally hae 4 plus people at my house on a daily basis, and lord knows i am not shelling out for that many glasses.

I just think comparing 3d to color or sound is a bit insane, comparing the reception might be applicable, but the limitations of 3d make the comparison apples and oranges in any other regard.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

Thats cool and all, much like getting free blu-rays left and right during the format war, BOGO's, and manufacturers coupon that have kept my average blu-ray price 300 in at around $5 a piece... but most people don't go through the internet lengths you or I might. They see the shelf price of a $30 blu, and think no thanks.

Same deal here, those glasses appear mighty pricey, how does the 3d stuff look without the glasses because thats the only way you can compare it to video game controllers. After all we pass the stick during tiger or watch a buddies beat each other in some madden, or tear up some cod online. Can we also sit and watch that same movie, show, event without the glasses. I know i generally hae 4 plus people at my house on a daily basis, and lord knows i am not shelling out for that many glasses.

I just think comparing 3d to color or sound is a bit insane, comparing the reception might be applicable, but the limitations of 3d make the comparison apples and oranges in any other regard.

And I think in addition to the possible costs of the glasses is simply the mere fact that you even have to wear them.

On the one hand, so some extent, wearing a pair of glasses isn't that big of a deal. On the other hand, it does kind of stink.

And that's where the big difference is between 3D and all of those other 'upgrades' comes into play.

If I'm using a surround sound system, I don't need to wear special hearing aids to get the full effect from the content that takes full advantage of it. If watching HD content on my HDTV, I don't have to wear a helmet with a special vizor just to get the 3D effect.

For the most part, once these things are set up, there's little to nothing to do short of pressing a button to switch between one setting or another (and in many cases that isn't even necessary).

The glasses can get damaged and worn from use. And while there is supposed to be a 'universal' standard for the glasses coming down the pipe, right now most glasses are proprietary. And even within the same manufacturer, the glasses for the newer sets aren't even compatible with those of the older sets. So eventually if a set of glasses gets damaged, replacing them may not be an easy thing to do.

I honestly don't think 3D will really become a popular or casually used "common" feature until decent glasses-free options are made available. That way, just as I currently can go from an HD channel to an SD channel on my cable system and not have to do anything special to watch one or the other... people will be able to flip over to a 3D channel or put in a 3D Blu-Ray and not have to do anything other than sit back and watch it.

[etype55]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

True, it all of these cases at first people seem reluctant to follow but not as badly as it's been for 3D however. There was a lot of old timers who like the movies without sound and sound was not a decent thing. Same stuff for colors and the rest. However 3D is receiving is jut not being well received.

It's cool that you feel it bring's a new dimension to your movie experience but the fact it seem and from the comments I read on here and else where and with talk's with people, they don't fell the same way you might be about 3D. Most people see 3D as nothing more then a serious money grab from the rich boys in Hollywood and while they may have got along with the previous upgrades, they don't really seem to go along with this new one.

I doubt it will die but I doubt it will be a product that will sell well and will be use well. I fact I see 3D a little bit like Laserdisc was for most of it's life. A cute little nice niche product that a few movie fans truly enjoyed but that rest of the world just don't want anything to do with.

Nothing but conjecture or worse. No offense, but I could write your statements from other side of the argument and they would be equally qualified. That is to say, they wouldn't be qualified at all.

You have no data or research to support your claims. Nothing , nada, rein. Make an argument, give your anecdotes but don't speak for the millions of people that compose the market. I will always respect your opinion, but just keep it in check.

In regards to how much affect 3D can bring to a cinematic experience is still up in the air, if we're being honest. I think 3D is a superior viewing experience to 2D, if done well. But I can definitely see how many would disagree with me which is fine, I don't care.

However, we are all of us jumping the gun. Despite there having been various forms of 3D tech for some time now, it's never been this clear or crisp and it's never had the opportunity to be used with all the other goodies film makers have today. We should, all of us, give the film makers more time to learn how best to use 3D before we weigh it's contribution to film. IMAX for instance, really knows how to produce a nature flick. And there's simply no comparison between 2D and 3D Under the Sea. Can narratives benefit as much? That's yet to be determined but the potential more than deserves a fair shake.

I wonder if the early audio engineers could have imagined our current level of audio sophistication.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

And as it's already been stated, it would appear then that 3D is no different than sound, color, widescreen and HD on Blu-ray.

I disagree.

Let's look at the history of industry leaders offering us new and innovative ways to watch film.

When the first "Talkies" were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today.

When the first Color fims were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today.

When the first Widescreen films were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today.

When the first HD optical media was produced there was a buzz and the public embraced it. And they are still with us today.

When the first 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public lightly accepted them for a brief period. Then it failed and disappeared for a couple decades.

When the second generation of 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public lightly accepted them for a brief period. Then it failed, and disappeared for a few decades.

When the third generation of 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public accepted them. And the future is not known.

Not counting the higher theater prices and the need to buy more expensive home equipment, I believe that there is a genuine "novelty factor" that a lot of people enjoyed on their first (few) experiences that wears off.

One thing is certain, if 3D movie ticket sales slow, and 3D equipment is not purchased en masse, 3D will go the way of the dinosaur, for a third time.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by etype55

Nothing but conjecture or worse. No offense, but I could write your statements from other side of the argument and they would be equally qualified. That is to say, they wouldn't be qualified at all.

He shared his opinions and did not claim them as fact. They dont need to be qualified.

You have no data or research to support your claims. Nothing , nada, rein. Make an argument, give your anecdotes but don't speak for the millions of people that compose the market. I will always respect your opinion, but just keep it in check.

Keep his opinions in check? What does that mean?

[etype55]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I disagree.

Let's look at the history of industry leaders offering us new and innovative ways to watch film.

When the first "Talkies" were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today.

When the first Color fims were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today.

When the first Widescreen films were produced there was a buzz and the public embraced them en masse. And they are still with us today.

When the first HD optical media was produced there was a buzz and the public embraced it. And they are still with us today.

When the first 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public lightly accepted them for a brief period. Then it failed and disappeared for a couple decades.

When the second generation of 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public lightly accepted them for a brief period. Then it failed, and disappeared for a few decades.

When the third generation of 3D films were produced there was a buzz and the public accepted them. And the future is not known.

Not counting the higher theater prices and the need to buy more expensive home equipment, I believe that there is a genuine "novelty factor" that a lot of people enjoyed on their first (few) experiences that wears off.

One thing is certain, if 3D movie ticket sales slow, and 3D equipment is not purchased en masse, 3D will go the way of the dinosaur, for a third time.

It seems a fair argument but I'm not sure if those are fair comparisons. Mostly in that all the examples your gave would affords an easily recognized effect size. HD to SD is night and day, wide screen compared to regular, easy ..sound, it's even easier. Relatively speaking all such advances may have been comparable in technological development, but were far simpler in application. Use them or don't.

3D differs from all the other examples greatly in that regard. 3D requires both an artist's touch as well technological finesse. There's a lot of room to screw it up.

I see where you were going but I don't think the examples given carry the weight.

Keep his opinions in check? What does that mean? :rolleyes

You can try to condescend me if it makes you feel better - whatever emotion you want to exercise go for it.

and did not claim them as fact

Actually, he does.

Sorry if disagreeing with you makes you angry.