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

[j2531bel]

And for all who require corrective glasses, it is really annoying having to wear an additional pair. I guess 3D will boost the sales of contact lenses......!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by j2531bel

And for all who require corrective glasses, it is really annoying having to wear an additional pair. I guess 3D will boost the sales of contact lenses......!

That reminds me of another issue; my dad absolutely cannot see the 3-D films because he has one lazy eye. He can't surgically fix it; he's destined to live with it. So if 3-D becomes totally mainstream, I guess he won't be seeing new movies anymore (of course, he'll just have to stick with the old-fashioned 2-D films on a 2-D screen).

There's going to be a population of folks with similar issues who are going to miss out.

[arcadeforest]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

That reminds me of another issue; my dad absolutely cannot see the 3-D films because he has one lazy eye. He can't surgically fix it; he's destined to live with it. So if 3-D becomes totally mainstream, I guess he won't be seeing new movies anymore (of course, he'll just have to stick with the old-fashioned 2-D films on a 2-D screen).

There's going to be a population of folks with similar issues who are going to miss out.

While I do not have a lazy eye like your father, I am very suspectable to motion sickness. I cannot watch 3-D. If I try I get extremely dizzy. So if it gets to the point where movies / TV are only in 3-D then I'm screwed. So needlesss to say while I do not want to "hate" on the technology I would be happy to see it go away as a fad.

[JediFonger]

i don't have a problem w/it. but it's the attitude of the studios that want to make a quick buck w/o giving us quality stuff that is very disturbing. see my thread for more details:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/3d-technol...ars-sides.html

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

I'm curious how many, if any, of the people in these forums have acutally watched a 3D movie with the new technology at home. All of this talk of lowering contrast, dulling the image quality, headaches and so on seems to be a bit off. The technology at home is different from the technology at the theater. There is no way that all the people hating on 3D at home have actually watched 3D at home. Especially with most of them saying that they will never invest in the 3D gimmick.

[tollickd]

Ever since the Cinema started showing movies last year in 3D I have been shrugging it of by saying that it is a waste of time and rubbish. I also made 3D tv's a butt of a lot of jokes in work! A few weeks ago I had some time to see a demo on a Samsung and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised the depth of Monsters vs Aliens! I am so impressed by what I saw that I am now saving for a new TV this xmas to replace my Toshiba 40" 1080p that I purchased a few years back! The glasses do not bother me as I am already wear glasses. If the glasses put you off then you are going to miss out on the next evolution of home theaters.

[snappahead]

Originally Posted by tollickd

Ever since the Cinema started showing movies last year in 3D I have been shrugging it of by saying that it is a waste of time and rubbish. I also made 3D tv's a butt of a lot of jokes in work! A few weeks ago I had some time to see a demo on a Samsung and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised the depth of Monsters vs Aliens! I am so impressed by what I saw that I am now saving for a new TV this xmas to replace my Toshiba 40" 1080p that I purchased a few years back! The glasses do not bother me as I am already wear glasses. If the glasses put you off then you are going to miss out on the next evolution of home theaters.

I'm glad to see someone with an open mind. I was similar except I was just kind of ignoring 3-D, but demoing in the stores really impressed me and I now have a 3-D set. Time will tell if I jumped the gun, but I believe in the tech now.

[farawayplace]

Virtually no titles, save animations the kids have seen already.

One marquee title -- Avatar -- and that's about it.

Anyone can click the 3D link above to see this is true.

Non-glasses technology around the corner in 3 years. Why spend money on something that will be obselete so soon?

Think about it... it's all about selling more TV's and perpetuating the dream. Don't fall for it. Wait three years, until the technology becomes mainstream and matures.

[snappahead]

Originally Posted by farawayplace

Virtually no titles, save animations the kids have seen already.

One marquee title -- Avatar -- and that's about it.

Anyone can click the 3D link above to see this is true.

Non-glasses technology around the corner in 3 years. Why spend money on something that will be obselete so soon?

Think about it... it's all about selling more TV's and perpetuating the dream. Don't fall for it. Wait three years, until the technology becomes mainstream and matures.

Too late..I already have a 3-D set Not much content out now for sure, but don't forget that there's tv channels in the works (a couple on now) and some big video game titles coming soon. Gaming could be a big seller of 3-D.

HD was about selling more TVs too....that's working out pretty well so far, no?

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by farawayplace

Virtually no titles, save animations the kids have seen already.

One marquee title -- Avatar -- and that's about it.

Anyone can click the 3D link above to see this is true.

Non-glasses technology around the corner in 3 years. Why spend money on something that will be obselete so soon?

Think about it... it's all about selling more TV's and perpetuating the dream. Don't fall for it. Wait three years, until the technology becomes mainstream and matures.

As for the marquee titles, there are many coming up including Resident Evil, Tron, and bunches next summer.

Proove it.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by farawayplace

Non-glasses technology around the corner in 3 years. Why spend money on something that will be obselete so soon?

Think about it... it's all about selling more TV's and perpetuating the dream. Don't fall for it. Wait three years, until the technology becomes mainstream and matures.

No way we see non-glasses 3D in 3 years and even if we did, you would be buying into first generation tech that would be obsolete in 2 years, much like regular DVD players got upstaged by the progressive scan player and then by upscaling players.

Wait 3 years and you will likely save your money because 3D might not last that long as a viable home format.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by MyBlu-rayBrotherEd

I'm curious how many, if any, of the people in these forums have acutally watched a 3D movie with the new technology at home. All of this talk of lowering contrast, dulling the image quality, headaches and so on seems to be a bit off. The technology at home is different from the technology at the theater. There is no way that all the people hating on 3D at home have actually watched 3D at home. Especially with most of them saying that they will never invest in the 3D gimmick.

I looked into upgrading my theater to 3D as well as the system in the game room. The projector was $85k for a DPI Titan Reference 1080p 3D and then I was told the 3D front end server was going to be another $35k plus I would need glasses at $150-200 per pair. I have seating for 9 so I figured 9 pairs, but I have kids as well and kids can't wear adult glasses and vice versa so that put me at about 15 pairs of glasses for $2250-3k.

Adding a flat panel TV to the game room was a lot cheaper, but I got cheezed off when I found out I would have to buy glasses for that room too and those glasses would not be compatible with the ones in my theater.

On top of all that, the contrast ratio on the 3D projector was lower than I could have for a 2D projector. They had to push out a tremendous amount of lumens to get 3D to have the pop and brightness it deserves but that caused them to lose the ability to push the black level down farther and it is something I don't want to do on my next projector.

In short, I was looking at a $125K "upgrade" to my system that would do 3D but for 2D films would be lower performing than a $45k "upgrade" would get me. Now, I am not against 3D per se, but I don't want to spend an extra $80,000 to watch movies in 3D AND have all the non-3D movies not look as good.

I had even gone as far as to order the 3D projector but then when the extra costs started rolling in, the incompatibility of the glasses, the 3D vs 2D performance dropoff, it just did not make sense and I cancelled my order.

I will also say that the image I see at the theater is not exactly overly bright on 3D. Upping their lumens would help a lot, but a dim 3D image isn't that much of an upgrade over a nice bright 2D one. If I were to push for an upgrade for movies, it would not be 3D. It would be D-BOX motion seating. There is substantially more content for it, it can be added after production of the film quite easily and it adds more immersion than 3D does.

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

I looked into upgrading my theater to 3D as well as the system in the game room. The projector was $85k for a DPI Titan Reference 1080p 3D and then I was told the 3D front end server was going to be another $35k plus I would need glasses at $150-200 per pair. I have seating for 9 so I figured 9 pairs, but I have kids as well and kids can't wear adult glasses and vice versa so that put me at about 15 pairs of glasses for $2250-3k.

Adding a flat panel TV to the game room was a lot cheaper, but I got cheezed off when I found out I would have to buy glasses for that room too and those glasses would not be compatible with the ones in my theater.

On top of all that, the contrast ratio on the 3D projector was lower than I could have for a 2D projector. They had to push out a tremendous amount of lumens to get 3D to have the pop and brightness it deserves but that caused them to lose the ability to push the black level down farther and it is something I don't want to do on my next projector.

In short, I was looking at a $125K "upgrade" to my system that would do 3D but for 2D films would be lower performing than a $45k "upgrade" would get me. Now, I am not against 3D per se, but I don't want to spend an extra $80,000 to watch movies in 3D AND have all the non-3D movies not look as good.

I had even gone as far as to order the 3D projector but then when the extra costs started rolling in, the incompatibility of the glasses, the 3D vs 2D performance dropoff, it just did not make sense and I cancelled my order.

I will also say that the image I see at the theater is not exactly overly bright on 3D. Upping their lumens would help a lot, but a dim 3D image isn't that much of an upgrade over a nice bright 2D one. If I were to push for an upgrade for movies, it would not be 3D. It would be D-BOX motion seating. There is substantially more content for it, it can be added after production of the film quite easily and it adds more immersion than 3D does.

Comparing a projection system to a system with a TV is kind of two different animals. Either way, if you can afford either of those set-ups the added cost of glasses is a moot point anyways. Home 3D, under it's current format, is a new technology so prices will come down assuming it doesn't fail like so many seem to want it to. There are many things that can be improved about home 3D, proprietary glasses is one of them. Perhaps over time they can fix the brightness issue, which isn't an issue to me.

The major thing that bothers me is why so many people seem to want 3D to fail. There is always a 2D alternative, if not in the theater then at home, and to wish for it to fail makes absolutely zero sense to me. I've asked the question many times in many different ways, and have only heard one answer that makes sense, and that was a theoretical answer. All the "I hope 3D curls up in the corner and dies" comments are absolutely absurd to me. It's like people who like apples wishing that oranges would fail because they don't like the taste of an orange. Well, guess what, you don't have to eat an orange, so why do you want to take the oranges away from those who do enjoy the flavor?

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by greenray

It seems obvious that one can enjoy watching a film perfectly well in 2D, just as people used to enjoy movies in black-and-white, and even in black-and-white without sound. So 3D is not essential, any more than colour is (or was). But surely it is better to have this extra dimension than to not?

3D is not necessarily going to make all films better. Case in point would be Schindler's List. Hell, they didn't even film that in color and that wasn't a budget choice. 3D would have massively killed the emotional feeling of that movie.

Originally Posted by greenray

People have two ears and can hear stereo sound, and so now nearly all sound is recorded and played back in stereo. We have color vision, and so now that we have the technology to reproduce color, nearly all video is recorded and played back in color.

Well we human beings also have two eyes and stereoscopic vision, and we see the real world in 3D. Why deliberately avoid 3D video? It seems to be a simple logical progression. What do we gain by leaving it out?

Any new technology has problems. It is a marketable thing to add and some people will make movies to "showcase" the technology but then you are getting away from the primary reason to have a film - to tell a story. You want to see some breathtaking visuals, go watch Ultraviolet. The story was so horrible I could not even finish the movie even though I think Mila Jovavich is a super hot.

Avatar is a good example of a film that did not use the availability of 3D as an excuse to create a movie centered around the plot of throwing shit at a camera. While it did well at the box office, I was not impressed. I already saw Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves. I did not need to see it again. Really, it was Fern Gully in space. I did not even buy the movie. Some people may like it, but the underlying issue is that if for example there are 20 titles in 3D in the next 6 months, that does not mean there are 20 titles that interest every person. 3D is easy to do for animation and they are generally well done. Animated films are just not my cup of tea.

Films that I prefer are more story and dialog driven. For those, 3D is not going to add much. It can add something to a sci-fi flick (and I generally like Sci-Fi) but it won't add much to a lot of drama or comedy films. It would not have made The Hangover any funnier. It would not have made Darth Vader any more bad ass. It doesn't make the famous lines we love to quote any better. The memorable part of movies is the story and there is no enhancement of that. Sadly, sometimes it might distract the production to the point they don't get the story right.

Originally Posted by greenray

3D is not the be all and end all of movies - it won't make a bad movie into a good one, anymore than it being in color does. 3D movies won't cure cancer either (unfortunately), but does it really do so much harm we have to exclude it?

Its really all about getting the most realism. And an image will never be truly fully realistic if is it is flat. All we need now is to improve the resolution - 4K here we come!

This last part is the whole reason I wanted to respond. Movies are not about realism. They never have been. They are about telling a story and evoking an emotional response or entertaining or educating you. A great one might do all 3. But it isn't about realism. They don't shoot the movies with the same focal length as human vision. They play with angles and depth of field to guide your eyes to what they want to show you.

There was this push a while back for interactive TV. That just made me think of the Choose Your Own Adventure books. Sure, they worked, but they were not Shakespear. There is a push for 360' vision and surround vision where you can see all around you. That might work for some documentaries, but I don't want to direct the action. I want Speilberg to do it for me - that is why I am paying the big bucks to see his movies.

Even if you push for more reality, you won't get it. At some point there might be a point where it becomes too close to reality but yet also not enough and that would be creepy. I saw an animation once of a person who was almost lifelike. It was both the best animation I had ever seen and also the worst because it looked like an animated corpse and was totally disgusting.

I already hate "Reality TV". I dread the day we get "Reality Movies".

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by MyBlu-rayBrotherEd

The major thing that bothers me is why so many people seem to want 3D to fail. There is always a 2D alternative, if not in the theater then at home, and to wish for it to fail makes absolutely zero sense to me. I've asked the question many times in many different ways, and have only heard one answer that makes sense, and that was a theoretical answer. All the "I hope 3D curls up in the corner and dies" comments are absolutely absurd to me. It's like people who like apples wishing that oranges would fail because they don't like the taste of an orange. Well, guess what, you don't have to eat an orange, so why do you want to take the oranges away from those who do enjoy the flavor?

I agree with that a lot. I would just say that we are not likely to get both IMAX and 3D for our next film upgrades across the industry. I would prefer IMAX 2D over 3D 35mm or the 1080p-3D digital system. Another issue I have is that 3D and higher resolution are pushing up the costs of films and so Hollywood studios are going to have to invest more money are will be less likely to take risks, which means more formulaic storylines. While independant studios can make movies for less, if they get squeezed out because they are not 3D and won't be able to charge higher ticket prices then that is a very sad thing for the industry.

I am not hoping for 3D to fail as my main cause to champion. I would rather derail Congress. I just feel it is not the best path towards a better film experience and that would would be better off with motion via D-BOX seating or with higher resolution/IMAX presentations.

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

I agree with that a lot. I would just say that we are not likely to get both IMAX and 3D for our next film upgrades across the industry. I would prefer IMAX 2D over 3D 35mm or the 1080p-3D digital system. Another issue I have is that 3D and higher resolution are pushing up the costs of films and so Hollywood studios are going to have to invest more money are will be less likely to take risks, which means more formulaic storylines. While independant studios can make movies for less, if they get squeezed out because they are not 3D and won't be able to charge higher ticket prices then that is a very sad thing for the industry.

I am not hoping for 3D to fail as my main cause to champion. I would rather derail Congress. I just feel it is not the best path towards a better film experience and that would would be better off with motion via D-BOX seating or with higher resolution/IMAX presentations.

So, you're worried that 3D, by itself, is going to make movies, in general, worse? I don't see that being the case. Especially with all of the complaining about how so many movies suck already these days.

All I'm asking for is that the studios release 3D movies in 3D for the home market. Many, many, many people in these forums oppose this, and for no real good reason. I look at it as an option. Many people enjoy a disc that has a lot of extras. I could care less about the extras, but I'm not pissed off that they are there. It would be the same for a 3D option. If one prefers watching it in 2D, then watch it in 2D, but why do so many wish to take away the 3D option from those who enjoy it.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Well if the film already exists in 3D then sure, release it in 3D. The bit rate would suffer a little but I think BR is capable of putting 48 fps of 1080p on a disc and not having too many compression issues.

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

Well if the film already exists in 3D then sure, release it in 3D. The bit rate would suffer a little but I think BR is capable of putting 48 fps of 1080p on a disc and not having too many compression issues.

That's what I'm saying. Just don't understand all of the hate. And I don't understand why they havent released Avatar, Alice, Toy Story 3, How to Train Your Dragon, etc. in 3D for the home yet. Almost all of the 3D movies available are solely available with the purchace of a 3D TV. Hardly any are available for general purchase. Hopefully next year will be better for this.

[dirkblack]

I can understand some of the negativity, perhaps if they had launched it with a few more titles, it may have taken off faster.

However my main point is this, if you are in need of a new TV, then why not a 3D one, i will be investing in one at xmas, but my reasons are 90% 2D, 10% 3D.

If it takes off...Fine, if not you still have one of the best 2D tv's on the Market.

It's Win Win.

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by dirkblack

I can understand some of the negativity, perhaps if they had launched it with a few more titles, it may have taken off faster.

However my main point is this, if you are in need of a new TV, then why not a 3D one, i will be investing in one at xmas, but my reasons are 90% 2D, 10% 3D.

If it takes off...Fine, if not you still have one of the best 2D tv's on the Market.

It's Win Win.

Exactly.