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

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by etype55

Of all I said in that post, thats what you stuck on? And now you want me to clarify the value context in a discussion. Talk about straw man.

Just bow out then, I see no value in discussing this further with you.

I was asking within what context you were granting me permission to post under..... You're obviously more eager to retort back on the defensive then help anyone understand your point, so I concede.



Cevolution:

I agree completely.... I think "slowing" adoption can have disastrous results, because the more profitable something is, the quicker more people enter the market and drive the price down..... but again, I think we both agree something like this isn't a deal breaker....

I understand that there are people who don't like (I didn't either this time last year ) and may never either, as it's not for everyone, and that's fair enough.

There are also those who still have never seen it, and those who don't even know if it's something they'd want..... (indifferent if you will)

Like I said though.... hopefully it does well enough to continue to cater to those who do enjoy it.

[jkwest]

I've been around this site for a long time....I've been a huge supporter of Blu-ray over many years..

I will never buy a 3D Blu-ray player...ever...the image is gimmicky and shitty.

CGI looks like it took a 4 year backwards step when you run it through the crappy 3D players..

Hollywood will look back at these last 3 years and shutter at how it almost killed itself trying to make a dollar selling cheap shitty movies only because they were 3d

[etype55]

Originally Posted by jkwest

I've been around this site for a long time....I've been a huge supporter of Blu-ray over many years..

I will never buy a 3D Blu-ray player...ever...the image is gimmicky and shitty.

CGI looks like it took a 4 year backwards step when you run it through the crappy 3D players..

Hollywood will look back at these last 3 years and shutter at how it almost killed itself trying to make a dollar selling cheap shitty movies only because they were 3d

This is what I don't understand. I can get people not liking 3D, thats fine with me I don't care what you prefer. But to say it looks shitty does not make sense, because it just doesn't look shitty at all. Its in HighDef ...so if HD meet your standards then 3D films also meet your standards as far as picture quality goes. Then I think to myself that perhaps whatever you saw had borked 3D, but the good devices and sources alleviate that problem.

Assuming the viewer has no problems seeing 3D in the first place, and the viewer is satisfied with images in HD, then I cannot come to any conclusion other than the viewer saw crappy 3D. That's not to mean that if these 2 conditions are met the viewer will immediately fall in love with 3D. Liking it and seeing the image properly are different. But calling the image quality shitty on a good device is like saying the mid day sun is dim. It simply fails to make sense.

Tell us what saw that gave you this impression? Was it a conversion? Was it in the theaters or an early set? Have you tried active or passive glasses? Establish point of reference, provide a context for your opinions.

This seems a very difficult concept for some people to grasp. I really dont know why.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by etype55

Establish point of reference, provide a context for your opinions.

This seems a very difficult concept for some people to grasp. I really dont know why.

Last moment I'll spend on this....

1) Don't make snide comments regarding me if you don't wish to continue the discussion with me.

2) You want me to provide a frame of reference as to what again? I'm not trying to prove to anyone why I do/don't like 3D.... I'm providing reasoning as to why it will/won't succeed... you're the one who is getting angry because I'm not doing a good enough of a job explaining why I don't like 3D, but in reality, if you would look at my posts, I never tried to make the argument of why I like/don't like it..... Perhaps if you realized that liking or not liking 3D has nothing to do with one's belief of whether it will/won't survive you'd be better off.

3) Not only am I not making the "Why I don't like 3D" argument.... expecting someone to objectively argue that is about as silly as asking someone what it is about 3D that they do like....





Now is time for you to make a "Oh he's so dumb I don't have time to try to explain myself to you" comment, because after all... it's obviously me who is the one avoiding the questions here

[etype55]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

Last moment I'll spend on this....

1) Don't make snide comments regarding me if you don't wish to continue the discussion with me.

2) You want me to provide a frame of reference as to what again? I'm not trying to prove to anyone why I do/don't like 3D.... I'm providing reasoning as to why it will/won't succeed... you're the one who is getting angry because I'm not doing a good enough of a job explaining why I don't like 3D, but in reality, if you would look at my posts, I never tried to make the argument of why I like/don't like it..... Perhaps if you realized that liking or not liking 3D has nothing to do with one's belief of whether it will/won't survive you'd be better off.

Now is time for you to make a "Oh he's so dumb I don't have time to try to explain myself to you" comment, because after all... it's obviously me who is the one avoiding the questions here

Betaman, I wasn't talking to you. Nor am I trying to engage is a 1 on 1 debate. But you are correct, sorta. I don't want to take your bait as it would only lead to extremely nuanced discussion, which takes more time than I can give to the forums. The mountain of papers looming from behind this lap top is a mean reminder.

I was responding to JKwest, which is a great example of my confusion. At the expense of total redundancy I will say again, I respect whatever anyone's preference is. I'm not expecting anyone to qualify that. But statements like "3D is shitty" are not judgements of value, its an assessment of quality. And there's such a huge gap between some peoples 3D experience that I'm curious to know what they saw, and on what device they saw it.

I remember my first demo of a 3DTV when they released. It was a volleyball game, and it wasn't that impressive. Then months later I came across the VT25. My opinion was instantly changed and I have been enjoying my home theater more in the last few weeks then I have for years. That's my point of reference. The picture is simply above reproach. Its crystal clear with no ghosting. Its a virtual hologram. So, from my experience calling such a picture shitty, or cardboard cutout-ish,or whatever would be akin to calling the desert wet.

edit for typo and clarity

I never called you dumb, didn't think it either. Sorry if it came across that way.

[koover]

Originally Posted by jkwest

I've been around this site for a long time....I've been a huge supporter of Blu-ray over many years..

I will never buy a 3D Blu-ray player...ever...the image is gimmicky and shitty.

CGI looks like it took a 4 year backwards step when you run it through the crappy 3D players..

Hollywood will look back at these last 3 years and shutter at how it almost killed itself trying to make a dollar selling cheap shitty movies only because they were 3d

The guys just a troll. No need to even respond to this nonsense. I actually have enjoyed reading all the comments. But when there's a post like this, who cares. He's not worth it etype55.

[NewOrder79]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

There is nothing to notice. The 600Hz "subfield drives" in todays plasmas are more marketing than much anything else. It helps the set achieve 1080 lines of measured motion resolution, but I would argue that the average person would never be able to distinguish the difference between a set with it versus a set without it.

Well "I" noticed a difference between the 240hz and the 600hz so THERE IS SOMETHING TO NOTICE.

[NewOrder79]

I've been around this a site for a short time....I've been a huge supporter of Blu-ray over many years..

I will always buy a 3D Blu-ray player...always...the image is not gimmicky or shitty.

CGI looks like it took a 4 year step forwards when you run it through the wonderful 3D players..

Hollywood will look back at these last 3 years and marvel at how it saved itself trying to make some money selling wonderful fantastic movies only because they were 3d

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by jkwest

I've been around this site for a long time....I've been a huge supporter of Blu-ray over many years..

I will never buy a 3D Blu-ray player...ever...the image is gimmicky and shitty.

CGI looks like it took a 4 year backwards step when you run it through the crappy 3D players..

Hollywood will look back at these last 3 years and shutter at how it almost killed itself trying to make a dollar selling cheap shitty movies only because they were 3d

Your the kind of person I was referring to, I'd bet that u have barely even used or seen a 3dtv, but yet u talk about it as if u are an expert on it, when u have most likely only seen it for 15 minutes in best buy. Comments like yours should be kept to yourself, because u are way off and are just an amateur when it comes to 3dtv as u clearly don't know enough about it, so ANYTHING u say about it is just propaganda, and your opinion becomes insignificant.

Too many people like yourself make your mind up before even using it properly, that's just as bad as making your mind up about anything in life before u have listened to both sides of a story, which is a bit foolish if u ask me. Generally when someone makes their mind up before knowing all the facts, it's because of an already biased opinion, due to a negative u were already thinking.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by NewOrder79

Well "I" noticed a difference between the 240hz and the 600hz so THERE IS SOMETHING TO NOTICE.

You obviously do not understand the technology or how it works. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I suggest you read-up and learn about how these features work and what they do (and don't do).

The "difference" you are seeing is simply the vast picture improvement between LCD and plasma. You'd say the same thing if you were viewing a Kuro, which has none of the 600Hz subfield features. Pixel response times, black levels, ANSI contrast, etc. are all improved, which combined produce a superior picture on plasma. Good choice, by the way.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Your the kind of person I was referring to

One of my points, was regarding the fact that people are making up their minds about 3D for various reasons, and although you, and I, may feel that JK's conclusions were drawn either for incorrect reasons, or perhaps without proper exposure to 3D, or even perhaps he thoroughly researched and came to an informed decision but is being rather exaggerative (Don-King Alert) and blunt in his expressing of his opinion.... but none of that matters, the point is, he feels that way, and it doesn't matter if it's justly so or not..... the problem isn't determining "why" the problem is the fact that he's not alone in drawing those conclusions, which will obviously hamper 3D's foot-hold in the market.


I think there are enough supporters to keep it a niche market, but I just don't see the practical applications deeming widespread adoption necessary.... I mean.... I saw the Masters was going to be presented in 3D, and I can't see the point in that Also, not a fault of 3D at all, but directors are still in the "Cash in on 3D" phase, which leads to "punching the camera" and "Throwing the knife at the guy running away" just to showcase the 3D effects, and it really adds a nice heavy layer of cheese to the story..... They don't all do this, but many of the clips of 3D movies I've seen are guilty of this.... People don't want it to be a gimmick, but as long as the directors use it as such, then it's going to be one in my opinion.

[NewOrder79]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

You obviously do not understand the technology or how it works. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I suggest you read-up and learn about how these features work and what they do (and don't do).

The "difference" you are seeing is simply the vast picture improvement between LCD and plasma. You'd say the same thing if you were viewing a Kuro, which has none of the 600Hz subfield features. Pixel response times, black levels, ANSI contrast, etc. are all improved, which combined produce a superior picture on plasma. Good choice, by the way.

Maybe i do i guess, but when i saw the 600hz plasma next to the 240hz lcd and they had transformers playing it seemed in my eyes that transformers especially the action scenes were running a lot smoother on the plasma. I mean the 600hz is the reason they tell you to buy a 3D plasma over a 3D lcd is it not?

[NewOrder79]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Your the kind of person I was referring to, I'd bet that u have barely even used or seen a 3dtv, but yet u talk about it as if u are an expert on it, when u have most likely only seen it for 15 minutes in best buy. Comments like yours should be kept to yourself, because u are way off and are just an amateur when it comes to 3dtv as u clearly don't know enough about it, so ANYTHING u say about it is just propaganda, and your opinion becomes insignificant.

Too many people like yourself make your mind up before even using it properly, that's just as bad as making your mind up about anything in life before u have listened to both sides of a story, which is a bit foolish if u ask me. Generally when someone makes their mind up before knowing all the facts, it's because of an already biased opinion, due to a negative u were already thinking.

Most of the posts on here are intelligently thought out with meaning and education behind them. But his post is when i think it's just a jealous kid that can't afford one so they bash it as a reassurance post. IMO.

[Beta Man]

Originally Posted by NewOrder79

I mean the 600hz is the reason they tell you to buy a 3D plasma over a 3D lcd is it not?

It's not the reason I would tell you to buy a plasma over an LCD, but it's one of the reasons I suppose.

I believe plasmas have better color reproduction/contrast, which is more important in my eyes, but everyone should make their own informed decisions.

Originally Posted by NewOrder79

Most of the posts on here are intelligently thought out with meaning and education behind them. But his post is when i think it's just a jealous kid that can't afford one so they bash it as a reassurance post. IMO.

I think that's assuming a little too much.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by NewOrder79

Maybe i do i guess, but when i saw the 600hz plasma next to the 240hz lcd and they had transformers playing it seemed in my eyes that transformers especially the action scenes were running a lot smoother on the plasma. I mean the 600hz is the reason they tell you to buy a 3D plasma over a 3D lcd is it not?

Most definitely plasma runs smoother than LCD, but the whole 600Hz subfield drive thing is much more marketing hype than substance. Don't get me wrong, it does help the panel achieve 1080 lines of motion resolution, but the difference between older sets without it and the newer sets is not something most could discern with their naked eyes. It was mainly something the plasma manufacturers could market and point to as a "bigger number" versus the heavily marketed 120/240Hz from LCD manufacturers. In reality it is in no way even remotely similar to 120/240Hz or its effects.

[basketb]

Originally Posted by NewOrder79

Maybe i do i guess, but when i saw the 600hz plasma next to the 240hz lcd and they had transformers playing it seemed in my eyes that transformers especially the action scenes were running a lot smoother on the plasma. I mean the 600hz is the reason they tell you to buy a 3D plasma over a 3D lcd is it not?

Yes, but it's all marketing. When I did some research before buying my 3D TV (which happens to be a VT25), I came across this article: What does 600Hz Sub Field Drive mean? It's nicely written and contains the following:

Sub field drive is a term introduced by Plasma panel manufacturers to combat the growing disinformation being spread by LCD TV manufacturers who were claiming higher LCD Refresh rates and using these claims to bolster false arguments about the superiority of 240Hz or 480Hz LCD panels over 60Hz or 120Hz Plasma panels. While most people in the industry are well aware about the truth behind these numbers, and that they refer to completely different things in the case of LCD or Plasma TVs, the average consumer has been left confused and tends to naively go with the assumption – “Higher numbers must mean better”.

[NewOrder79]

I was in the process of doing research before i bought my tv, I knew i wanted a 3D tv and was looking to spend maybe $1400 tops but i got a Panasonic 50 inch VT25 for $1599 with a 3d bluray player a avatar glasses pack for free which i think was a good deal considering what other stores were selling the tv's for. So i kind of stopped looking and just bought that one since it was only a weekend sale. Besides the 3D i'm just amazed at the picture quality, i have this tv in my living room http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-VF552XVT...1083575&sr=8-1
and i couldn't believe how much more clear a movie like toy story 3 is on the VT25 then the lcd. I mean there both clear but the Plasma is nuts.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by NewOrder79

I was in the process of doing research before i bought my tv, I knew i wanted a 3D tv and was looking to spend maybe $1400 tops but i got a Panasonic 50 inch VT25 for $1599 with a 3d bluray player a avatar glasses pack for free which i think was a good deal considering what other stores were selling the tv's for. So i kind of stopped looking and just bought that one since it was only a weekend sale. Besides the 3D i'm just amazed at the picture quality, i have this tv in my living room http://www.amazon.com/VIZIO-VF552XVT...1083575&sr=8-1
and i couldn't believe how much more clear a movie like toy story 3 is on the VT25 then the lcd. I mean there both clear but the Plasma is nuts.

Excellent choice in displays, as you couldn't have picked a better one (for 2D or 3D), and an excellent deal, too.

This still doesn't change the fact that I don't like 3D!

[NewOrder79]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Excellent choice in displays, as you couldn't have picked a better one (for 2D or 3D), and an excellent deal, too.

This still doesn't change the fact that I don't like 3D!

Thx man forgetting about the 3D the 2D picture is amazing and i obviously watch more 2D on it then 3D lol. I definitely respect that people truly don't like 3D I know a lot people don't like wearing glasses i actually enjoy wearing the glasses kind of feels like i'm stepping into a new dimension corny i know. I just personally love it since the first time i saw it in theaters (monster house in 2006) . The one thing i will personally say negative about it, depending on how i feel at the time it can give me a headache. Not often but if i already have a headache it seems to aggravate it. Or if i watched it for more then 2 - 3 hours my eyes tend to have a tired feel to them. With that said it always clears up after about an hour and the headache thing has only happened when i had a headache at it made it worse.

But other then that i love it not much more to say, I'm excited for tangled to come out next week and when i get some money can't wait to buy How to train your dragon.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

One of my points, was regarding the fact that people are making up their minds about 3D for various reasons, and although you, and I, may feel that JK's conclusions were drawn either for incorrect reasons, or perhaps without proper exposure to 3D, or even perhaps he thoroughly researched and came to an informed decision but is being rather exaggerative (Don-King Alert) and blunt in his expressing of his opinion.... but none of that matters, the point is, he feels that way, and it doesn't matter if it's justly so or not..... the problem isn't determining "why" the problem is the fact that he's not alone in drawing those conclusions, which will obviously hamper 3D's foot-hold in the market.


I think there are enough supporters to keep it a niche market, but I just don't see the practical applications deeming widespread adoption necessary.... I mean.... I saw the Masters was going to be presented in 3D, and I can't see the point in that Also, not a fault of 3D at all, but directors are still in the "Cash in on 3D" phase, which leads to "punching the camera" and "Throwing the knife at the guy running away" just to showcase the 3D effects, and it really adds a nice heavy layer of cheese to the story..... They don't all do this, but many of the clips of 3D movies I've seen are guilty of this.... People don't want it to be a gimmick, but as long as the directors use it as such, then it's going to be one in my opinion.

It most certainly is gimmicky at times, but jkwest also said that the image is shitty (his words not mine) when it's not, the image quality is just as good as any 2d 1080p blu-ray, (I assume he hasn't spent much time using a 3dtv based on what he had to say about them) if he had spend enough time using a 3dtv, he still might think it's gimmicky, but in no way would he think the image quality is shitty. People who make comment similar to what jkwest said simply haven't experienced it properly, comments such as '3dtv's looks like cardboard cut outs layered over the top of one another' are wrong, and if anyone who has said that actually spends enough time properly using a 3dtv in the future, then they will see that they are wrong, but whether they admit it afterwards is another story altogether because some won't want to look like a hypocrite. Sure people are entitled to their opinion, but far too often in today's society, people are against things before they give them a chance, they make their mind up based on an already existing negative thought (I suppose similar to the movie inception), where they already have the idea in their head, and once it's there it's hard to change their opinion or get them to see any different, even if they are proven wrong after seeing it properly for themselves.