3D Blu-ray Disc QUESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS and GENERAL DISCUSSION Thread

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by YodasFootPowder

That's a big thing right there. How many people do you know that have a 40 inch screen or bigger? Personally, I know a lot of people online like all the folks here. But, most of my friends and people I actually know in real life (if they even have an HD monitor yet) have like, a 37 inch or smaller. 3D is not going to be very impressive or worthwhile on screens that small. In fact, I don't even think 3D would be that spectacular on my 52". To truly enjoy it and get the intended experience out of it I feel like you'd need a 60 inch or bigger screen. And even then I think 3D is more of a movie theater/projector experience.

Like I said originally; as long as they offer the 3D and 2D version on my discs they can push 3D crap all they want!

I don't get your point why would size matter any more for 3D thenh it does for 2D?

[seigneur_rayden]

Originally Posted by Franin

I agree it looks amazing but how long would it be before people get tired of it?

Did U ever get tired to watch movies or blu-rays?

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Snake_XRS

I just don't get how 3D works. I bought the Monsters vs Aliens 3D bluray and put the glasses on and didn't notice anything. It looks way better without the glasses. I didn't find a 3D option in the menu anywhere, is there a special way to view this or what?

Are you seriously unaware that only a short was in 3D and the movie had no 3D option. You were watching the movie with anaglyph glasses for a 2D movie. How do you avoid drowning in a rainstorm?

[Jimmy Smith]

Please read the Blu-ray.com sticky on 3D myths

[42041]

Originally Posted by Franin

Exactly it's a novelty.

So were color and sound at certain points in time. Then, as it becomes practical to do routinely, it's just the way you make movies.

I'm not talking about blu-ray 3d. I have no interest in buying a new display right now or being a guinea pig for first generation technology. Don't really get why some people are so resentful of 3D in general though.

[jamal2]

Originally Posted by Spymaster

That's what a lot of people said about HD-DVD and look what happened to that!

HD-DVD was defeated by a similar, competing technology. How is that relevant?

Originally Posted by Spymaster

Look, at the end of the day it comes down to a simple question: are people going to spend thousands of dollars on glorious pin-sharp new displays so that they can sit and watch a handful of movies in their living rooms wearing dark sunglasses.

It's clear that the technology is being streamlined for industry standardization. In 2 years I wouldn't be surprised if most new TV's are 3D-capable, and in 3-4 years all TV's will have it. So those people who say they'll "never buy 3D" are basically saying they'll never buy a new TV ever again.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Gimmick doesn't mean fad. They're saying "gimmick" because a lot of the 3D effects feel like a gimmick. You shouldn't need 3D to enjoy a movie.

true,
but
- before surround sound most films where stereo so you should not need surround to enjoy a movie, it is a gimmick
- before most films where 2.4 most where academy ratio so you don't need wide screen, it is a gimmick
- before colour they where just B&W so colour is a gimmick
- and before that films did not have any sound, so any sound is a gimmick and you don't need them to enjoy a movie.

I can enjoy a Chaplin film even though there is no sound, it is squareish and has no colour, but then I don’t hate Avatar because it did not try to stick to the limitations of the 1920’s, none of what we take for granted is needed and at some time was not even part of the experience of watching a film.

But each of those techs enriched the experience and so does 3D

[42041]

And I think people are forgetting another thing that might drive adoption of home 3D displays: I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next generation of video game consoles are 3D-capable.

[ckenisell]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

true,
but
- before surround sound most films where stereo so you should not need surround to enjoy a movie, it is a gimmick
- before most films where 2.4 most where academy ratio so you don't need wide screen, it is a gimmick
- before colour they where just B&W so colour is a gimmick
- and before that films did not have any sound, so any sound is a gimmick and you don't need them to enjoy a movie.

I can enjoy a Chaplin film even though there is no sound, it is squareish and has no colour, but then I don’t hate Avatar because it did not try to stick to the limitations of the 1920’s, none of what we take for granted is needed and at some time was not even part of the experience of watching a film.

But each of those techs enriched the experience and so does 3D

So true, but let's not forget motion with D-BOX. I suppose most people think that that's a gimmick too.

The ultimate experience for me will be sitting down to watch 3D Blu-Rays on my D-BOX couch.

[Franin]

Originally Posted by 42041

And I think people are forgetting another thing that might drive adoption of home 3D displays: I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next generation of video game consoles are 3D-capable.

Well for Gaming 3D is definitley an advantage.

[Franin]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

So true, but let's not forget motion with D-BOX. I suppose most people think that that's a gimmick too.

Whats D-Box?

[Franin]

Originally Posted by seigneur_rayden

Did U ever get tired to watch movies or blu-rays?

Uh.. Whats that have to to do with 3D and wearing glasses. Come up with a better analogy

[jamal2]

Originally Posted by 42041

And I think people are forgetting another thing that might drive adoption of home 3D displays: I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next generation of video game consoles are 3D-capable.

Definitely. In fact the PS3 will be firmware-upgradable to 3D, so that should definitely drive all the next-gen consoles to utilize the technology.

[Franin]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't get your point why would size matter any more for 3D thenh it does for 2D?

Of course Avatar is going to give you the same 3D effect on a 50" as it did on an Imax screen.

[Franin]

Originally Posted by 42041

So were color and sound at certain points in time. Then, as it becomes practical to do routinely, it's just the way you make movies.

Colour and sound? Have you gone back to black and white. Correct me if im wrong but dont we all see in colour?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

My point was for films that do obvious things to make you go "oh look at this, this is in 3D!!!" Which is also why we use the term "gimmick" because that's what those types of things are.

And just like sound, if not done right, 3D can be more of a distraction than an enhancement.

but that is normal, look at surround sound how many in the early days added stupid sounds in the back just so that "hey look it is coming from the back.

Look at movies like the wizard of Oz or TV series like ST:TOS (both available on BD) that came out when colour was new all the colours are exaggerated everything is way more colourful then it needs to just because colour was new in the media.

It is normal for new tech to start of almost exaggerated because it is expensive and the filmmakers want to push that expensive new tech they invested in. (plus if someone else like a person/theatre needed to also invest the money they feel better of it as well.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ckenisell

So true, but let's not forget motion with D-BOX. I suppose most people think that that's a gimmick too.

The ultimate experience for me will be sitting down to watch 3D Blu-Rays on my D-BOX couch.

I would love that too, but for now it is out of my price range. On the other hand my point was that technology always advances and what was a gimmick at some point can with time become the norm. The "it is a gimmick" or "it is not needed because we lived without it at a time" is nuts. Now not all techs become ubiquitous, cinemascope, cinerama and polyvision all where wider screens then academy but did not catch on because the tech was not ready yet for wide screen until panavision. For sound there was quadraphonic (before the term surround became popular) but I am sure many here have never heard of it and think the idea of surround sound started with 5.1 when it went past stereo. I went with these techs that did not catch on just in case someone states "but 3D was tried before and it did not catch on". It is a different generation with different techs and this time it actually works.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Franin

Of course Avatar is going to give you the same 3D effect on a 50" as it did on an Imax screen.

depends what you mean, if you say you see watchiungh any 2D movie on a Imax screen is the same experience as watching it on a 50" then yes I would say the 3D will have the same effect as well. But I would dissagree with that statement, and that will hold for 3D as well. On the other hand on my screen which is 10' I do feal the same immersion as a theatre, and I am sure that the 3D experience will be the same.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Franin

Colour and sound? Have you gone back to black and white. Correct me if im wrong but dont we all see in colour?

no, some are colour blind and don't see some of the colours, but then again for people who are not blind in one eye (or almost blind in one eye) everything they see is also in 3D.

[YodasFootPowder]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I don't get your point why would size matter any more for 3D thenh it does for 2D?

My point was, the average consumer doesn't have a 50" HDTV in their house. Hell, I only know a couple of people personally that have HDTVs and the ones that do have HDTVs have HDTVs that are under 40". They're barely interested in Blu-ray or high-def let alone 3D movies. And even if they decided to try a 3D movie, how spectacular is a 3D movie going to look on their 32" HDTV? Not very if you ask me. Point is, Blu-ray is just really starting to take off. HDTVs are just starting to get hugely popular. And now they're already trying to roll out new technology and expect the millions of people that just went in on HDTV to upgrade and buy a 3D capable HDTV? It's not gonna take off very fast. Like I said, it doesn't bother me as long as I have a 2D version along with the 3D version.