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

[tinkertokoton]

especially to those of us who always thought 3D’s natural home was in the movie theater, not the living room.

Perhaps they thought( do you mean think as thought means they once did at some point but now?) wrongly as did the pioneers of cinema, i dont think their dream included more movies being watched in the home than the theatre, but hey unlike time, technology does wait, but only for the men who discover and advance it, and in the 21st century more movies are watched at home on a single continent than at the cinema globally,,so what utter and complete tits would think 3d would and should be an exception?.

[b00st]

i just see it as another medium choice from the director. like doing a film in black and white or 1.78 or 2.39 scope.

i truely enjoyed avatar in 3d. on my 119" screen...it looks amazing. i'm not saying i want to watchin wheel of fortune and everything in 3d. 3d has its purpose and shouldn't be used in a gimmicky way. it should be used if it enhances the film and viewers experience which i believe it did on Avatar.
not saying avatar is a great movie or story....its been done but visually in 3D it was outstanding in my opinion.

[brando79az]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

This is nothing new and not isolated to 3D titles. Avatar was released as a bare bones, movie-only title and then re-released a few months later with all the special features. I believe Batman Begins was also released this way (but I may be wrong about that). In fact, currently in stores there are many 2D titles where you have an option to buy the movie-only, or the one with the special features and the special features edition costs more than the bare bones version.

When Paramount/Dreamworks and Michael Bay announced Transformers 3 on Blu-ray, they specifically stated that they would first release the movie-only, and then later release the 3D version with all the special features. This may be a cheap ploy, but at least they were up front about it. Someone who doesn't own a 3DTV and wanted the special features could buy the 3D version and still watch the movie in 2D. Then, if that person eventually bought a 3DTV, they would not have to purchase the movie again. Sounds like strategic, forward thinking to me.

I do agree their up front disclosure was a good thing. Still, it would not have been difficult to read the back of each version for differences and also, the 2d only MSRP is currently 44.99 and the 3D MSRP is 54.99. If I were to purchase the 3D version I would be paying for something with no value to me. With Avatar I knew ahead of time (like with Transformers that 2 versions would be released and I was fine with that. I waited and then purchased the full edition. I haven't checked in awhile, but I still don't know of a 2d full edition street date. I would have skipped the special features and bought it by now but I really hate double dipping.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by brandoaz79

If I were to purchase the 3D version I would be paying for something with no value to me.

I guess I'm confused by what it is you want then. You said you wanted the movie (in 2D) and that you wanted the special features. The 3D version would provide both - the movie in 2D and special features. How would that be of "no value"?

Originally Posted by brandoaz79

the 2d only MSRP is currently 44.99 and the 3D MSRP is 54.99.

Correct, there is always a price difference between a 2D bare bones release and the 2D special edition, so it only stands to reason that the 3D special edition is going to cost more than the 2D bare bones addition. As I said, this type of pricing is nothing new and not isolated to 3D titles.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by brandoaz79

I do agree their up front disclosure was a good thing. Still, it would not have been difficult to read the back of each version for differences and also, the 2d only MSRP is currently 44.99 and the 3D MSRP is 54.99. If I were to purchase the 3D version I would be paying for something with no value to me.

You don't have to watch it, but you don't have to throw it away, either--
Like Disney tried promoting when they sold the first Blu-rays: Gather ye acorns for later...

(And say, where did that "See, see, here's why a Wired article said 3D is Dead!" thread disappear to all of a sudden? )

[segagamer12]

3d is more like HD DVD to me its dying but nobody wants to admit it.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by segagamer12

3d is more like HD DVD to me its dying but nobody wants to admit it.

Its dying so hard that it has the vast majority of tentpole movies this year and continues to get new announcments for the following

Silly 3D haters

Rumors of my death were greatly exaggerated

[AutomaticDriver]

Originally Posted by segagamer12

3d is more like HD DVD to me its dying but nobody wants to admit it.

Ill be honest, this post gave me a good laugh.

[segagamer12]

well it is true. The sales are down and talking about movies coming out this year movies that have been in production for two to three years that were decided upon oh right around the time Avatar came out is not a good solid argument.

Sales are down, everyone keeps providing article after article and instead of seeing that sales are down supporters come back with crack jokes to feel good about themselves, just like the HD DVD guys did in their time.

Its no different at all every sales chart showed HD-DVD was below blu ray consistently but they would always spin the numbers like "your not counting PS3 sales" or "they count PS3 games as software sales and that's inflating the numbers" stuff like that. Then when studios would slow down on releases they would make excuses.


Now it is the same here, news cast after news cast you know the guys on tv who have no bias for or against the product, continue to say consumers are not interested in 3dtv and polls come out and sales data shows the numbers are on the decline and people spin the numbers to feel good about their investment which is all it is.


Look at all the threads where people say they have to buy anything that comes out on 3D just to have something to watch even though they end up with a bunch of movies they hate. That does not show there is massive support for the tech it shows that there is a desperate bunch of people who got sold on the new shiny tech and jumped the shark when the rest of the world was saying um no we don't need 3dtv and then you will come back with some snarky comment about some random idiot from a decade ago who supposedly said we don't need HD when that was never the case people were wanting HDTV for decades they just always knew it was in the future and when the tvs came they did not fly off shelves true but it was not because there was no demand it was because the prices were way too high.


Now when the same people bring that up as a point they say look at how fast 3D TV adoption has been compared to HDTV see good sign and they forget that for the first five years HDTV sets cost in the thousands of dollars range and 3dtv sets are a fraction of what early HDTV sets cost so those numbers are irrelevant.


The signs all point to it being a passing fad but with all new techs with this level of investment it takes time to fizzle out. Again like HD DVD even once it became apparent they were sunk the big companies continued to invest in new ways to turn things around but consumers had decided they wanted a product that stood out, Blu Ray was marketable HD DVD is a mouthful to say that is bad marketing they teach you this first year of business school so that was mistake number one.


with HD movies have always been superior to home video and tv broadcasting, so people gradually got used to the term home theater and continued to demand a more cinematic experience and every film ever made is perfect for being in HD and on Blu Ray but with 3D you have a limited number of films that exist and you have a craze now where you will get stuck with a lot of crap because there is nothing else to choose from. Now yes they are starting to offer sports in 3D but here is the problem with sports,

most people do not sit in the living room by them selves and watch a basketball or football game most people do that in a crowded bar or a casino or some public place where there is little lighting and optimal viewing angles are not an option. So eventually sports bars and places will notice they won't pay extra for something nobody will be able to use and there goes a huge chunk of the potential market and the handful of people who do sit at home by them selves and watch their sports in optimal viewing conditions will be in a very small minority so eventually companies like ESPN and DirecTV will discover it was a passing fad and discontinue the expense of producing sporting events in 3d when people are not watching them enough.


Now right now in the infancy stage yes there is a big push and they want 3d to be successful because it is an extra revenue stream a way to charge more for the same thing. Just like when HDTV was slow to pick up because the extra charge and sure they can't do that now because they no longer charge for HDTV so they got customers used to that if they start charging extra for 3d they could lose potential customers but if they don't charge extra for it they lose money and eventually stop producing new stuff in the format.


What if Twilight had been in 3D how many people who disliked that film would buy it just because it was 3d for no other reason? Also there is the medical fact that a large portion of the population either can not see the images, get headaches when they do or those who wear glasses already. Then there are the thieves who steel the glasses and say that is a solution to save money when all that does is raises costs on everyone else plus you know breaks the law but people only obey laws they agree with anyways so why should that matter right.




I am not a hater I don't care if 3d lives or dies I just see the signs pointing to it failing and think it is funny to read the proponents defend a dying format so loyally just like the HD DVD boys did.

[Beta Man]

The Grammar and Punctuation thread is in the OFF TOPIC forum, where it belongs (for a reason)

Thanks.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by segagamer12

I am not a hater I don't care if 3d lives or dies I just see the signs pointing to it failing and think it is funny to read the proponents defend a dying format so loyally just like the HD DVD boys did.

The medium itself is valid, and isn't going to "die". Right now it's moribund, due to one of the most inept marketing and sales campaigns for a big ticket item I've seen in a long, long time.

If prices were aligned with standard 2D - with a small premium, if any - and they lose the electric glasses, it could dominate in a few months. That hasn't happened, intentionally. This thing could pick up ten times faster.

I'm going to see what happens with the OLED market, which is a natural for 3D. I have no interest in anything under 70", and would prefer to see an 80" version, so I'm in no rush. It could take two or three years, but I currently have a 70" Sony, a 60" Kuro, and a 52" Sony, so I'm in no rush. Neither, it appears, are the manufacturers and content providers. We'll see how long it takes to go mainstream.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by segagamer12

I am not a hater I don't care if 3d lives or dies I just see the signs pointing to it failing and think it is funny to read the proponents defend a dying format so loyally just like the HD DVD boys did.

facepalm

I would never insult your intelligence by assuming you actually believe what you just typed

3DTV adoption is growing faster then HDTV adoption was when launched.

By comparing it to HD-DVD you miss so many points its not even funny. HD-DVD was a competitor to Blu-Ray thus it was inevidible that one of these two competing formats was going to die. Blu-Ray 3D is not competing with 2D Blu-Ray it supplements it

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

If prices were aligned with standard 2D - with a small premium, if any - and they lose the electric glasses, it could dominate in a few months. That hasn't happened, intentionally. This thing could pick up ten times faster.

I agree with everything in this paragraph...except for the "intentionally." If you know of a way to improve on the current glasses-free prototypes and make them cost-effective for release to market within the next year, I suggest you patent your ideas, approach the manufacturers and show them how to do it. They would all welcome you with open arms.

ps - also be prepared to show them how to increase production at all their manufacturing plants that were impacted by the earthquake, tsunami and floods of 2011. This includes not only television manufacturers, but also the manufacturers of processing chips that go into the televisions as well as the companies that develop the materials that make the processing chips.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I agree with everything in this paragraph...except for the "intentionally." If you know of a way to improve on the current glasses-free prototypes and make them cost-effective for release to market within the next year, I suggest you patent your ideas, approach the manufacturers and show them how to do it. They would all welcome you with open arms.

I mentioned "electric glasses". Normal polarized lenses are not out of the question, and I have questions about the glasses-free types. Even making electric glasses less unwieldy and costly would be a tremendous gain. These are technology hurdles, bypassed in the rush to bring this to market.

These are achievable concepts, already presented in one form or another, so it wouldn't be possible for me to patent anything. With Samsung presenting prescription electric glasses, Real-D presenting polarized options, and several manufacturers trying to reach the Holy Grail of glasses-free 3-D, what is there to patent? This is all about engineering, and I fully expect it to yield results, within a fairly short time.

After mentioning these things in the group, it seems that early adopters - those who went ahead and bought 3-D as it currently exists - are objecting to any big changes in 3-D to validate what they currently have. This is based, I believe, on the very real fear that manufacturers will sideline 3-D, and perhaps kill it, based on a perceived lack of success. I am in the opposite camp; I think that it can and will be improved, upgraded by necessity, and not discarded. Look to America's space program. We are looking at the Mercury version of 3-D, perfectly functional, but which will be followed by Gemini and Apollo versions of the technology.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

ps - also be prepared to show them how to increase production at all their manufacturing plants that were impacted by the earthquake, tsunami and floods of 2011. This includes not only television manufacturers, but also the manufacturers of processing chips that go into the televisions as well as the companies that develop the materials that make the processing chips.

Considering the languishing inventory at big box stores of perfectly functional and affordable 3-D televisions, that isn't the problem. The economy began its nosedive two years before 3-D was introduced, after a boom sales season of HDTV 2-D acceptance - 17 million sets were sold, in a down economy, in the Christmas season of 2009 alone, due to aggressive pricing and a surfeit of inventory. Replacing them at a time when the economy really began suffering a lack of discretionary spending in most homes, with equipment requiring a family of four to by (at the beginning of 3-D) approximately $800 worth of electric glasses, with limited content, on top of that new $1,200 set, simply sat most of the public back on their heels.

We are not looking at limited production (which, I agree, limited Asian facilities for electronics, automobiles, and other big ticket items), we're looking at a fairly rapid R&D phase, which simply hasn't reached production yet. The OLED intro by Samsung is a clear example. Great product, well developed; limited production, for myriad reasons.

All items must meet the Blu-Ray standard, which is excellent, no matter what's used to augment viewing. The next huge hurdle is getting the industry to develop across the board content, not just animated or CGI productions, using mediocre conversions. Perhaps we need the cart before the horse, something improved and low cost to carry content, before the studios truly buy in.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

By comparing it to HD-DVD you miss so many points its not even funny. HD-DVD was a competitor to Blu-Ray thus it was inevidible that one of these two competing formats was going to die. Blu-Ray 3D is not competing with 2D Blu-Ray it supplements it

Also, stubborn Haterz may sneer or roll their eyes at 3DTV , but Sony, Disney and Samsung aren't AT WAR with the public the way HD-DVD was:
More studios were going Blu, even the curious folks who weren't ready to buy were ready to see one format adopted and the price go down, and Toshiba stayed in the game almost petulantly, as if they were trying to schoolyard get back at us for not buying the format.
Every time Toshiba said "You think you're so smart, Warner will save us, wait and see!", even non-committal folk started shouting "You've lost, get off the freakin' STAGE! "
(You remember, we didn't start making those YouTube Hitler videos just because they had a lot of funny cussing in them...)

Here, we have haterz who can't talk about the format for three unbroken sentences without talking about the snooty ol' prices (ending in the inevitable stingy-tech-fear "Something else'll be along in five minutes, betcha, and we'll have to buy that too!"), or Ten Things I Hate About the Cineplexes, neither of which exactly focused against the format, or discussing it in any firsthand detail.

[Dotpattern]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I mentioned "electric glasses". Normal polarized lenses are not out of the question

Correct, LG is already utilizing passive 3D. But by saying "intentionally", you are implying that manufacturers are holding something back. Hence my comment that you patent your ideas - not for the technology itself - for your ideas to produce the non "electric" glasses and 70" 3D screens at, as I said, a "cost effective" way to bring them to market.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

and I have questions about the glasses-free types. Even making electric glasses less unwieldy and costly would be a tremendous gain. These are technology hurdles, bypassed in the rush to bring this to market.

Glasses are already less unwieldy and costly. As I said, LG uses passive 3D glasses, and Sony just introduced their new lightweight, USB-charged glasses.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

These are achievable concepts, already presented in one form or another, so it wouldn't be possible for me to patent anything.

Achievable, yes. Cost effective, profitable and at a quality that consumers should expect? No.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

After mentioning these things in the group, it seems that early adopters - those who went ahead and bought 3-D as it currently exists - are objecting to any big changes in 3-D to validate what they currently have.

I'm not sure what brought this up or what was said to make you think that. But me personally, I'm very excited for the next gen of 3D at home - be it smaller glasses, no glasses, bigger screens, etc. Just as I was excited about HDTVs and Blu-ray after having already amassed a huge DVD collection.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I am in the opposite camp; I think that it can and will be improved, upgraded by necessity, and not discarded.

I agree.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Here, we have haterz who can't talk about the format for three unbroken sentences without talking about the snooty ol' prices (ending in the inevitable stingy-tech-fear "Something else'll be along in five minutes, betcha, and we'll have to buy that too!"), or Ten Things I Hate About the Cineplexes, neither of which exactly focused against the format, or discussing it in any firsthand detail.

A lot of people are just frustrated with the new format, and not much has happened to alleviate it. I wouldn't try to play "cult vs countercult" with this, generating terms like "haterz" or anything. If you care to look at the brief history of this format, even fans were astounded by the exclusivity deals carved up by some manufacturers and studios, most notably the Avatar deal. It really stopped a lot of casual interest cold, from non-enthusiasts just looking for a new TV, to hardcore advocates wanting to buy a specific brand, and holding off on it.

This thing about "stingy-tech" is also off the beam for casual buyers, and even more for those who are better able to make discretionary purchases of this size. Something that winds up with a $2,000 plus price tag (screen, player, glasses, possibly a receiver, and certainly some media to start with) do tend to be people who want some longevity for it. The manufacturers started this thing off with an electric glasses war; I understand there was considerable amusement when people found that Samsung glasses actually worked with Panasonic televisions, if you wore them upside down. This isn't a very good selling point.

Despite the chanting from the fan clubs, 3-D had many things about it that made the average tech-savvy purchaser a bit reticent. One was the experiences of Mitusbishi owners who had purchased "certified" units that were 3-D capable. It turns out they weren't directly compatible - and they had to buy a black box that gave them 3-D, albeit not 1080p 3-D. Not only did Mitsubishi get some scorn for that, people on the sidelines didn't have their confidence built up by that episode. Televisions aren't cheap; if you trust the manufacturer, and get burned, which manufacturer do you rush out and trust next?

Most objections are to the electric glasses, especially from people who, often being older (and sometimes, possessing higher amounts of discretionary spending), prefer to wear them - especially if they don't have a gargantuan screen, or optimal seating conditions. So, right on cue, the manufacturers started another format war - this time, electric glasses vs. polarized glasses. It's now a marketing war, and the unfortunate precedent of Toshiba's Mad Hatter HD-DVD war has people waiting to see who wins - it's the best position to be in, they think, after that episode. Toshiba did more to scare people away from change in video than anyone else, and in a shorter time, too. Right now, 3-D is suffering the effects, only five years later.

Perhaps the most pervasive mess is 3-D pricing. Excoriating people for being "stingy" doesn't work when they can go to the local big box store, and see the same film for sale at 50% to over 100% of the price of the standard equivalent. They walk in to get the $17.99 first week price on 2-D Blu - and see the same film for sale for $39.95 in 3-D. Their first thought? "Well, they'll eventually lower the prices, and I'll look for set then, not now," and another buyer walks away. Yelling after him that he's a cheapskate is not going to impress many of these people, since in this economy, there really isn't a race to spend more than other folks on anything.

We're dealing with an industry dominated totally by people making a living on the percentages, and it shows. They've increased their percentages, all the way down the chain, and people aren't groaning and paying it; they've stopped buying. There are more disincentives to buy, than incentives - and at nearly every turn, no one wants to the the one to yield. Manufacturers, content providers, marketing venues, advertisers, no one. We're at stalemate, almost.

It will change when prices are allowed to fall to the level that they become an incentive. For those who bought in the early phase, and paid high prices, enjoy what you purchased. It's a rarity. It's not an excuse to put down those that didn't, for valid reasons, and I'm still in the dark at the ire directed at the audience, not the creators, of this artistic scuffle.

It will get better. I'm just aggravated by the slowness of it.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog
After mentioning these things in the group, it seems that early adopters - those who went ahead and bought 3-D as it currently exists - are objecting to any big changes in 3-D to validate what they currently have.

Originally Posted by Dotpattern

I'm not sure what brought this up or what was said to make you think that. But me personally, I'm very excited for the next gen of 3D at home - be it smaller glasses, no glasses, bigger screens, etc. Just as I was excited about HDTVs and Blu-ray after having already amassed a huge DVD collection.

Oh, people get worked up all the time, if they have the current gear and have become comfortable with any compromises they made to own it, or use it. Then I come along, and say, "What the heck is this, it shouldn't be this way," and they explode - as if they are dealing with implacable laws of nature, not an entertainment device still in the early stages. I question it, and I am somehow dismissing Holy Writ - as sold at Best Buy earning Reward Points, anyway.

I have few dreams about where the format can go - not because it's not viable, but because of the truly strange way that this format was introduced, and the agonized way it's trying to improve. It appears everyone - the buyers, the manufacturers, the content providers, the marketers - are all strapped for cash, so this isn't a casual thing. Lines are drawn. People's income, intelligence, and parentage are questioned. The tag line seems to be, "Well, I like it, so what the eff is wrong with you, you..." and just fill in the blanks.

I'll keep my eyes open for the next evolutionary change - looks like a combo of OLED and 3-D, with whatever glasses or non-glasses works.

[Steedeel]

PS4 will play a key part. Full 3d games, content from the off, marketed aggressively for 55 million or whatever owners would be a big boost for 3D.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

PS4 will play a key part. Full 3d games, content from the off, marketed aggressively for 55 million or whatever owners would be a big boost for 3D.

Absolutely. Anything that is "commonality" among users is a huge plus.