Will 3D Blu make your 2D Blu feel obsolete ?

[FIREitUP913]

I don't understand people calling 3D a gimmick. I think movies like Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon show its not a gimmick.
People seem to base some of their thoughts on past technology like blue and red glasses that destroyed the color palette of a movie, which is no more with the new technology.
People here had NO problem upgrading TV's, speakers, recievers and dvd playes to Hi Def for added resolution in both picture and sound, but now people have a problem with upgrading to add another dimension to their picture? So, upgrading TV's for increased resolution is legit, but upgrading a TV for 3D adding another dimension is not cool? Makes no sense. People are either mad or jealous that they got a tv and now can't afford/or wont be buying another tv for a few yrs, thus they won't be able to experience 3D in their home for years to come.
Any 3D is quite popular, recently I have seen Avatar, Alice in Wonderland and HTTYD in 3D and their was a huge line for each one. And the 3D will keep coming with Clash of the Titans and Toy Story 3 and I'm sure there will be plenty more.
We have always mimiced the movie theatre- First we got VHS which brought movies to the home, then we added surround sound systems to mimic the theatre, now we have HD screens to mimic the quality at the theatres and HD sound so we can play the same studio master in our own home. People clearly have always wanted the theatre experience at home, and now that will slowly happen with 3D. The new 3D technology is clearly a success with 3D movies making record amounts and people willing to line up and pay extra for 3D, and eventually people will want this in their home, and with Panasonic showing 3D effects atleast as good if not better than the theatres expect it to catch peoples eyes. Right now the tvs and glasses are expensive, but just like regular HD tvs this will all come down and price and before you know it every tv will have a 3D option built in cause we all know the 3D tvs play a great 2d picture.

[FIREitUP913]

Originally Posted by Briscogun

I can not see a scenario right now that will ever make me buy anything in 3-D. My life is in 3-D, why the heck do I need movies that way? It's a gimmick: always has been, always will be. If we start to need to wear "accessories" in order to watch TV or movies, that has to be one of the seven signs of the impending apocolypse.

3-D only works on movie screens where your entire field of vision is taken up by the screen. When you have 3-D and "normal" eyesight in the same FOV, then it seriously compromises any "benefit" from the additional dimension.

If all the Avatards want to run out and purchase the new sets and players so they can get their Pandora swerve on, then go for it. But don't tell the rest of us that it's the "wave of the future" and we have to get on the bandwagon or get left behind. Trust me, of all the people I know in this world, not one of them is even remotely interested or intrigued by this. That's just me and my world, though. My little 2-D, blu-ray filled world...

Comments like "My life is in 3-D, why the heck do I need movies that way?", "If we start to need to wear "accessories" in order to watch TV or movies, that has to be one of the seven signs of the impending apocolypse.", make it sound like you are anrgy or overly excited.

" It's a gimmick: always has been, always will be."
-Stop talking as if thats a fact, its nothing more than your opinion.

Stop spitting out false information, "3-D only works on movie screens where your entire field of vision is taken up by the screen. When you have 3-D and "normal" eyesight in the same FOV, then it seriously compromises any "benefit" from the additional dimension."
- That statement is completely INCORRECT, this is not an opion, its a fact. 3D does not only work on movie screen where you entire field of vision is taken up by the screen. I saw a 50" panny 3d unit and HDGuru reviewed one, and the 3D effect are better than the movies. Do some research before you spew out false information as if its a fact.

"Trust me, of all the people I know in this world, not one of them is even remotely interested or intrigued by this. That's just me and my world, though"
-Last time I check MILLIONS were paying to see 3D movies and were willing to wear glasses. Right, people are ONLY interested in 3D movies at the theatre and thats it.

You are talking nonsense without looking up the facts and acting like what you are saying is fact when its not.

[Zero_Cool]

The only thing I would like to watch in 3-d would be the Terminator ride.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by FIREitUP913

I don't understand people calling 3D a gimmick. I think movies like Avatar and How to Train Your Dragon show its not a gimmick.
People seem to base some of their thoughts on past technology like blue and red glasses that destroyed the color palette of a movie, which is no more with the new technology.
People here had NO problem upgrading TV's, speakers, recievers and dvd playes to Hi Def for added resolution in both picture and sound, but now people have a problem with upgrading to add another dimension to their picture? So, upgrading TV's for increased resolution is legit, but upgrading a TV for 3D adding another dimension is not cool? Makes no sense. People are either mad or jealous that they got a tv and now can't afford/or wont be buying another tv for a few yrs, thus they won't be able to experience 3D in their home for years to come.

I'm not basing any of my thoughts on the old blue and red glasses, I'm basing it on a viewing of Avatar. I was impressed, but not completely blown away by the 3d effects. The picture seemed to be no where near as sharp as digital projection normally is.

However, my main reason for not being extremely excited RIGHT NOW about 3-d is the extremely limited content available. Nearly every movie ever made and a large amount of television benefits from Bluray over DVD. There are only a few films made each year in 3-d, and the majority of them are animated films for children. Yes I like Pixar films, but I have no interest in Hanah Montana the Movie, Monster House, Bolt, Monsters vs Aliens, etc. If you have interest in these types of films, more power to you. But, I doubt there are even half a dozen titles out there in 3d that I would enjoy. And yes I've heard that some older films will be converted to 3-d in the future, but I remain skeptical on what they can do there. So why would I invest thousands of dollars for new equipment when theres almost no content out there for it? I'm sure for the first couple of months I'd watch anything at all I could in 3-d, I did the same thing when I first got an HDTV in '04 but that wears off quickly.

Also the whole anyone watching TV has to wear a pair of special, expensive glasses is a huge negative as well.

[FIREitUP913]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

I'm not basing any of my thoughts on the old blue and red glasses, I'm basing it on a viewing of Avatar. I was impressed, but not completely blown away by the 3d effects. The picture seemed to be no where near as sharp as digital projection normally is.

However, my main reason for not being extremely excited RIGHT NOW about 3-d is the extremely limited content available. Nearly every movie ever made and a large amount of television benefits from Bluray over DVD. There are only a few films made each year in 3-d, and the majority of them are animated films for children. Yes I like Pixar films, but I have no interest in Hanah Montana the Movie, Monster House, Bolt, Monsters vs Aliens, etc. If you have interest in these types of films, more power to you. But, I doubt there are even half a dozen titles out there in 3d that I would enjoy. And yes I've heard that some older films will be converted to 3-d in the future, but I remain skeptical on what they can do there. So why would I invest thousands of dollars for new equipment when theres almost no content out there for it? I'm sure for the first couple of months I'd watch anything at all I could in 3-d, I did the same thing when I first got an HDTV in '04 but that wears off quickly.

Also the whole anyone watching TV has to wear a pair of special, expensive glasses is a huge negative as well.

Agree with you completely. Its expensive, glasses are expensive and 3d content is not readily available. Totally understandable. I just don't understand why some people seem to mad about it.
I mean if its too expensive and has little content even more reason to not buy it, but why are people mad about it?

I personally believe more and more 3d content will become available and the 3d tv prices and glasses will fall.
I totally understand someone saying "There is not enough content and its too expensive to justify a cost" but some people just seem to be mad at 3D and I dont understand why.

[Vicon]

Originally Posted by Briscogun

Best Buy is the only place I've seen one (it's one of the only places I shop for blu, or most other tech-related things, to be honest). Have I sat there for an hour and gone over every detail? No. Have I been there for 10 or 15 minutes with the sales guy while he showed me what some of the capabilities are? Yes. It's neat, just not our cup of tea. My kids aren't even interested in it. My 12 year old doesn't even like 3-D movies because he doesn't like the glasses. I had to drag someone just to see Avatar! Go figure...

You know, blu was something different. I really sort of waited for the combination of titles available and pricing for the units to reach a point where it became feasible. That tipping point came for me late last year. But the technology was always superior, the picture and audio quality superb. I just don't feel that way about 3-D. None of my friends or co-workers are into the idea yet, either, but like i said, that's just my world.

I guess you just don't like it.

I was in the boat of "3D is a gimmick" until I saw it and experienced it. I was really blown away. The way the water splashed up on me as if I was there. The way the dirt sprayed at me as the bikes took off - just as if I was on the sidelines watching it.

It was so realistic that you could "smell" the dirt and "feel" the water. There were a couple times I reached out with my hand to see if I could grab the image. I knew full well nothing was there but it looked so real.

This IS the next big thing. Whether you like it or not - it's coming and I sure as hell will be there when it does. It's a whole new level of tv watching. As with any NEW technology, it will get better with age. Look at blu-ray and how it's progressed.

3D is not a gimmick. I can only imagine how Planet Earth or Life would look in 3D. Absolutely MIND BLOWING!

[Briscogun]

Originally Posted by Vicon

I guess you just don't like it.

I was in the boat of "3D is a gimmick" until I saw it and experienced it. I was really blown away. The way the water splashed up on me as if I was there. The way the dirt sprayed at me as the bikes took off - just as if I was on the sidelines watching it.

It was so realistic that you could "smell" the dirt and "feel" the water. There were a couple times I reached out with my hand to see if I could grab the image. I knew full well nothing was there but it looked so real.

This IS the next big thing. Whether you like it or not - it's coming and I sure as hell will be there when it does. It's a whole new level of tv watching. As with any NEW technology, it will get better with age. Look at blu-ray and how it's progressed.

3D is not a gimmick. I can only imagine how Planet Earth or Life would look in 3D. Absolutely MIND BLOWING!

I'm sure you are right. I'm sure that it is the nect big thing. I'm sure that at some point everyone in America will have a 3-D capable TV. I'm not saying the technology isn't amazing.

Fire... you gotta chill. You automatically assume that because I'm not into it, I must be either mad or frustrated at my inability to take advantage of it. I can assure you, I am niether of those things. I would address your points one by one again, but this is obviously going nowhere. People in this world are going to have different views from you, and that doesn't automatically make them emotionally compromised because of it. And just because I don't embrace the technology, that doesn't make me "uninformed" and "spewing"... well, whatever it was that I was accused of doing.

I only gave my opinion. I think it's a way for manufacturers to ride the current popularity of 3-D movies and they are trying to cash in. I could be wrong, and I hope for all you that are truly excited by this technology that I am. All that I am saying is that it is not for me. That's it. The thread asked if 3-D was going to make my 2-D TV feel obsolete. Correct? Wel, my answer is "no", it will not.

I apologize for any other transgressions I may have made other than to state the above. I guess I picked the wrong place to share a divergent point of view. Good thing I didn't walk into the Healthcare Debate thread! Good Lordy, have mercy...

Fire, you have the floor. (me bowing gracefully, turning and walking out...)

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by FIREitUP913

You need to calm down a bit. I saw the Panasonic 3D demoed at best buy and I would say the 3D image quality was better than the theatres. Do you visit the HDGuru website? He reviewed the panny 3D tv and ALSO states the 3d quality is better than what he saw at the theatres. Here is the link to the review: http://hdguru.com/panasonic-tc-p50vt...t-review/1391/
Let me quote "Overall, I find the 3D image outstanding with considerably more brightness and pop than the motion picture theater 3D movie experience."

So no, you do not need a movie theatre sized screen to enjoy the 3D as this tv is only 50 inches. Do some research before spouting out nonsense.
And yes some movies have 3D added later which can be gimmicky, but I saw saw How To Train Your Dragon in 3D and the 3D was absolutely amazing and added to the experience in a big way, especially the 3D flying scenes.
As 3D becomes more popular (it already has, I saw Avatar, Alice in Wonderland and HTTYD all within a month) there will be more competition to create better and better 3D effects.
Also, I know sony plans on doing 3D gaming with the ps3 which can add to gaming in a big way.

It seems a lot of people are mad about 3D and I dont understand why. If you like 2D, watch 2D and be quiet. All 3D blurays will play the 2D version on a regular 2d screen, so why all the hate? If you want it buy it, if not you can enjoy everything in 2D and don't have to be bothered with 3D so why bother hating?
I think some people are just really mad because they recently bought new equipment and now 3D is out and they don't have the money to buy another new tv. Once someone buys a 2000-3000$ tv they most likely will not be buying one for another few years, which makes sense why people are so mad. They just bought a 2-3K TV before 3d was out and they know they will not be able to get a new tv for another few years, so they hate on 3D.
Why else would you hate on it? If you were happy with your 2D TV purchase and you dont like and don't want anything to do with 3D, why would you even care enough to write why you hate and dislike 3D on a forum? It makes no sense. 3D blu ray are BC with 2d players, so there is no reason for hate unless you're jealous.
Some people are frustrated, they got a new tv, 3d came out, and now they know they can't upgrade for a few yrs because most people are not gonna buy another 2-3K tv for a few yrs, so they hate. Sorry, but if you really were satsified with your 2D setup and considering 3D blu ray is completely backwards compatible and will play in your 2D setup there would be NO reason to even care about 3D, yet alone take the time to comment your hatred for it in an online forum.

It's called sour grapes, Fire. That's the difference between not wanting it and therefore having no interest, versus feeling a need to inveigh and get angry and bent-out-of-shape and cast a lot of put-downs and ugly talk. Sour grapes means you have to convince yourself and others that the object you cannot attain is undesirable. I have observed several people saying something along the lines of "3D sucks because I already bought a new TV"... that is the classic definition of sour grapes. You are certainly correct, there are a lot of emotionally disproportionate responses against 3D blu-ray. I'm as annoyed as you are, I don't have a lot of patience for such immaturity. If someone doesn't want it, they can just leave it alone, there is no excuse for getting up in arms and acting like 3D blu-ray is some kind of humanitarian crisis. Expressing your opinion is one thing, a childish need to affirm your opinion onto everyone that passes is something different.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Briscogun

You know, blu was something different.

I really sort of waited for the combination of titles available and pricing for the units to reach a point where it became feasible. That tipping point came for me late last year.

I think we can all understand that. And I don't think anyone is trying to force anyone to buy something they are not ready for. Let's face it, it would not even make sence since you can't force someone to buy anything.

But the technology was always superior, the picture and audio quality superb. I just don't feel that way about 3-D. None of my friends or co-workers are into the idea yet, either, but like i said, that's just my world.

but why is audio/video quality important? and what does it mean? Let's say there is a movie, in the movie you see someone behind a semi-transparent curtain or frosted glass or coloured glass does that mean the PQ is not good because you can't make out the detail in the person behind it (even on BD) no, you where not meant to see the person just to know he is there. PQ/AQ means making at close to what was created WRT picture and audio. Assuming you agree with me and PQ means how close something is to the picture that was intended and AQ means how close something is to the audio that was intended. Now a movie like Avatar was shot in 3D and meant to be enjoyed and seen in 3D so how is watching it in 2D any less destroying the picture created (which is 3D) then BD vs DVD? that is why for me this is big, it is not just a bit less pixels but a whole dimension of the intended picture that is missing.

[Canada]

I will still love 2D

Casablanca, Shane, Heat, Goldfinger, T2, Aliens, Terminator, Star Wars, Das Boot, Goodfellas, Speed, Platoon, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight. Are all these movies some how lessened by having 3D I say "Hell no." First and foremost movies are about the story, directing and acting, end of discussion.

"God, some people can be so fickle"

[movieboy]

I'm as annoyed as you are, I don't have a lot of patience for such immaturity. If someone doesn't want it, they can just leave it alone, there is no excuse for getting up in arms and acting like 3D blu-ray is some kind of humanitarian crisis. Expressing your opinion is one thing, a childish need to affirm your opinion onto everyone that passes is something different.

I say bring on 3d movies, Im still to watch one though. Its a matter of time before it will replace 2d thats for sure.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Briscogun

If all the Avatards...

You lost me right there.

I have 2D gear; I'm buying it in 2D when it comes out, and never went to the theater to see it. I don't expect to fall into a swoon over it. I hate theaters.

3-D is more than one movie, and this current iteration of 3-D has all kinds of issues, as I see it. But I see no need to insult the medium, or the people who like it.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

It's called sour grapes, Fire.

It's more complicated than that.

[Chevypower]

It is a bit of a fad right now, and some fads make it, while some don't. It's hard to say if it will become mainstream. The industry is pushing it pretty hard, like it's the only way they can see they can boost sales significantly coming out of a recession. I personally think it will continue to be be a luxury/novelty, and not something you have going all the time. (After the hype has come down a bit). I don't think it will come to every channel on TV being 3D, with 99% of content being 3D. I don't see every camcorder model on the market being 3D, and I don't see everyone walking around the house with their 3D glasses on. I hope I am not wrong. The active shutter glasses bother me, it would have worked with standard polarized glasses, but they couldn't charge as much for them. I think I would have preferred 2160p 2D to 1080p 3D. I base that on seeing two LCD screens exactly like that, almost side-by-side.

[Dr. Skill]

Originally Posted by Canada

I will still love 2D

Casablanca, Shane, Heat, Goldfinger, T2, Aliens, Terminator, Star Wars, Das Boot, Goodfellas, Speed, Platoon, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight. Are all these movies some how lessened by having 3D I say "Hell no." First and foremost movies are about the story, directing and acting, end of discussion.

It is like saying that you will still like black and white movies. Sure, many of them are great but they still belong in the past and so is the 2D. 3D is the future and there is no turning back.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Dr. Skill

It is like saying that you will still like black and white movies. Sure, many of them are great but they still belong in the past and so is the 2D. 3D is the future and there is no turning back.

How old are you?

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by Dr. Skill

It is like saying that you will still like black and white movies. Sure, many of them are great but they still belong in the past and so is the 2D. 3D is the future and there is no turning back.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

It is a bit of a fad right now, and some fads make it, while some don't. It's hard to say if it will become mainstream. The industry is pushing it pretty hard, like it's the only way they can see they can boost sales significantly coming out of a recession. I personally think it will continue to be be a luxury/novelty, and not something you have going all the time. (After the hype has come down a bit). I don't think it will come to every channel on TV being 3D, with 99% of content being 3D. I don't see every camcorder model on the market being 3D, and I don't see everyone walking around the house with their 3D glasses on. I hope I am not wrong. The active shutter glasses bother me, it would have worked with standard polarized glasses, but they couldn't charge as much for them. I think I would have preferred 2160p 2D to 1080p 3D. I base that on seeing two LCD screens exactly like that, almost side-by-side.

The technical goal is 3-D - but the current implementation method has huge hurdles to overcome before it gains mainstream public acceptance. Both the technical solution and the the introduction to the market are problematic.

It appears that the format is not really a luxury; 3-D equipment won't be that expensive, if it's still primarily a 2-D playback method. Smaller televisions, under 52", simply won't be a good platform for 3-D. They need to be large - 60", 70", or greater - unless seating distance will be VERY close to the set. As people see demos of this equipment, this will become increasingly clear.

The glasses really have to go. This is a first generation platform, and with technology moving as fast as it does, one can always hope that a glasses-free solution is not that far away. Glasses will always be seen as a burden, without regard to cost, and that alone will limit the adoption of this setup.

With slower adoption, and a smaller user base, a drop in cost for glasses and other peripherals will not be very quick - unless manufacturers take on the cost, and somehow recoup the expense from other sources. This is not likely, as hardware manufacturers really don't have other revenue streams to pass the cost to, for the most part. 3-D will have to stand on its own.

This was a pretty hasty move. The Blu side of it is fine; the end results are satisfactory. It's the delivery method that has issues.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

How old are you?

what would that have anything to do with what he said?

[Vicon]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

The technical goal is 3-D - but the current implementation method has huge hurdles to overcome before it gains mainstream public acceptance. Both the technical solution and the the introduction to the market are problematic.

It appears that the format is not really a luxury; 3-D equipment won't be that expensive, if it's still primarily a 2-D playback method. Smaller televisions, under 52", simply won't be a good platform for 3-D. They need to be large - 60", 70", or greater - unless seating distance will be VERY close to the set. As people see demos of this equipment, this will become increasingly clear.

The glasses really have to go. This is a first generation platform, and with technology moving as fast as it does, one can always hope that a glasses-free solution is not that far away. Glasses will always be seen as a burden, without regard to cost, and that alone will limit the adoption of this setup.

With slower adoption, and a smaller user base, a drop in cost for glasses and other peripherals will not be very quick - unless manufacturers take on the cost, and somehow recoup the expense from other sources. This is not likely, as hardware manufacturers really don't have other revenue streams to pass the cost to, for the most part. 3-D will have to stand on its own.

This was a pretty hasty move. The Blu side of it is fine; the end results are satisfactory. It's the delivery method that has issues.

A no glasses solution is not anywhere in the near future. Technology has not advanced that far yet. Let alone, the cost of something like that would be prohibitive to the consumer market. That is bordering holographic displays. Which again, the technology is not there yet. Not even close.

So, in the meantime - glasses it is. What's wrong with them? First it was the blue/red that everyone complained about. Now you get glasses that don't have that problem and quite frankly, you can put on and take off without any problems (no eye strain/headaches). The REAL issue? The DESIGN of the glasses. Get that right and it's a non issue.