why are ppl here against 3-D?

[Knight-Errant]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

WHat sort of annoys me is that there a guys here that don't need prescription glasses that ***** and moan about putting some plastic polarised glasses on for 2 hours. Yet people requiring glasses have to put up with it everyday for several hours and they don't ***** and moan and cry about having to wear them.

LOL that's funny

[quexos]

I'm against 3D cause I don't want to be accidentally sliced up by a light saber as I watch Darth Vador duke it out with Obiwan Kenobi.

[Knight-Errant]

We seem to be getting along fine in this thread lol

[potterD]

Originally Posted by skygreenleopard

Man, fans of 3D are pretty defensive around here.

My opinion is that it's often used poorly - someone mentioned shots of "3D for 3D's sake" of an axe coming at the audience. In addition, most of the movies they're used in are terrible. Monsters vs. Aliens was good, Avatar might be, but I can't remember a good 3D flick beyond those. My Bloody Valentine 3D? Please. That was a 2-hour gimmick. The sad part is that most movies are just like this.

I'm not ready to commit to spending thousands on a gimmicky technology. I can't see the tech going anywhere other than cheesy action movies or product placement. Blu-Ray has its picture and audio fidelity as its main selling point, which is why I love it. 3D, though, does little to add to the quality of most movies. There's no demand for Citizen Kane in 3D or No Country For Old Men 3-D. I'd rather watch The Godfather on VHS than some new movie that sucks in 3D.

Me and my wife watched My Bloody Valentine 3D and we loved it. To each his own I guess, but some cinemas only presented MBV in plain ol 2D, so whats the "gimmick"?

[[1080-p]]

I'm against 3d in blu-ray because of red and blue anaglyth
3d shouldn't be that way it should look like autostereoscopic http://www.electronista.com/articles...d.display/---- http://www.alioscopy.sg/fr/contenu/3d_display.phphttp://a13dvision.com/autostereo.htm


yuckhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RKI0mtedZw

[RiseDarthVader]

Seems like people here are against 3D because of the red/cyan glasses that are used for BDs of 3D movies. Well I want more movies to come out in 3D because of Digital 3D at the cinemas. With polarised glasses just like the ones used in IMAX. They don't mess up the colours they are just basically like putting on a pair of singlasses.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by DVDave

Nope. I've seen many a 3D film with polarized lenses ever since Captain Eo and that's not the issue. It's still gimmicky. 2D FTW.

Then don't buy it, grouch! Jeez, if you hate it so much, then how is it that you've seen so many of them? Is somebody literally holding a gun to your head and forcing you to spend your time and money on 3D movies?

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by DVDave

Just as you have proven mine. Obviously someone can't post a dissenting opinion without you making personal attacks and insults. This thread could have been a forum to debate the issue but it was you and Hale-bopp that began throwing insults around from the get. Go back to page one since your short-term memory seems to have failed as epic as this thread has. I hope the mods close it down.

Haha... that post of mine that you quoted specifically answers the question "why are people here against 3D?". It would seem that you are in fact the one who had a disproportionate emotional response to me expressing my opinion "from the get" (which I managed to do without cursing, raving, singling anyone out, or generally blowing a fuse). You chose to paint yourself right into that general description I gave, and irrelavant rants about Lucas and CGI and redundant interjections of "3D sux!" hardly qualify as a sensible debate about 3D, so it's a waste of time playing the martyr. Nice try.

I get it already: you hate 3D, CGI, and Lucas, and you're one of those special people all too common on the internet, who feels that you have the right to an undisputed opinion, and anybody who dares to disagree with you is attacking and disenfranchising you.

[Chris60119]

3D in the theatre is amazing these days, but at home it sucks...Technology isn't there, well at least i don't have it.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by DVDave

So according to you I can't post my reasons as to why I think it sucks, because, after all, anyone who doesn't share YOUR opinion why 3D is so great you feel the need to make a personal crusade against.



I used George Lucas as an example of how technology doesn't matter if you can't tell a good story. Lucas USED to tell good stories but ever since he went digital he has become lazy and his films have sucked and I would never want to see Star Wars in 3D because Lucas has already ruined his films enough with his constant meddling changes. I saw the opening sequence of Star Wars on Imax and it was spectacular. My point was that Imax in 2D is far superior to digital 3D or polarized glasses or any of the other technological gimmicks used. But I guess I can't post my opinion here because it offends your fragile sensibilities because you obviously cannot provide an intelligent response to the contrary and have to keep resorting to petty insults to every one of my reasons as to why I am against it.

Are you paying attention at all? You haven't noticed that there isn't a problem with any of the other people that don't like 3D, because they're not having a hissy fit like you? You're not debating, you're threadcrapping. How many ways do I have to explain it: your right to express an opinion doesn't include a right to be protected from other people expressing their disagreement. You don't have a leg to stand on, as you're the one belching "GTFO" and "STFU" (those are fighting words, and you know it)... I don't see anyone cursing at you and telling you to shut up and get out, so you are being a massive hypocrite. No one is resorting to petty insults, though you have been very quick to hostility. I should have just reported you, as you should totally get suspended for the way you're behaving. Grow up.

[Big Daddy]

To all members:

Please express your opinion without attacking or insulting other members.

[Hale-Bopp]

You got it, Big Daddy.

Originally Posted by frettless5

3D in the theatre is amazing these days, but at home it sucks...Technology isn't there, well at least i don't have it.

Word. That's basically what it boils down to at the moment.

I'll just say that when the day comes that the option for high quality 3-D is available at home on standard HDTV's, I will be the happiest guy I know. Furthermore, I'll crap my pants if it turns out that down the road I'm able to use my current HDTV for high quality 3-D...like maybe by this time next year, but I won't hold my breath.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

WHat sort of annoys me is that there a guys here that don't need prescription glasses that ***** and moan about putting some plastic polarised glasses on for 2 hours. Yet people requiring glasses have to put up with it everyday for several hours and they don't ***** and moan and cry about having to wear them.

The difference is that the people wearing prescription glasses AVOID getting headaches by wearing them, as opposed to GETTING a headache from the technology.

There's reason enough for me to be against it, as it gives my wife a headache automatically, and me one intermittently depending on how well it's been done. We enjoyed it at Disney and Universal in Florida last year, and I enjoyed it in the superbowl, but a two-hour flick is guaranteed to give some people eyestrain. I'd much more prefer a technology that doesn't cause my eyes to try and focus on something that's not really as near or far as it appears.

[john_1958]

to me if movie industry is going to improve advancing they should do away with anaglyth 3d

all they would have to do is convert 2d to 3d http://www.est-kl.com/aufbau_general...stech/psp.html

without the need of glasses

3dtv no more geeky glasses but if real-d comes out with hdtv so be it http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0610074155.htm
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...0500115&pgno=2

would like to see a movie actually filmed in 3d that doesn't require glasses

anyone ever heard of this camera? http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives...camcorder.html

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Hale-Bopp

I will gladly put glasses on top of my glasses to enjoy me some 3-D. I did it twice this year in theaters and will do it plenty more times, because I really enjoy it that much. So while I may be in the minority on this now, I do believe it's catching on and will be fully mainstream this time next year, with many movies premiering in 3-D across more digital screens than ever before. It's inevitable. Embrace it or get left behind.

So, how about the home video release?

Do you not care about 3D then, or does the lack of good 3D mean you're less likely to purchase the video release?

I'm one who wonders if the film makers and studios are rushing to push goose killing guns.

Gary

[Hale-Bopp]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

So, how about the home video release?

Do you not care about 3D then, or does the lack of good 3D mean you're less likely to purchase the video release?

I'm one who wonders if the film makers and studios are rushing to push goose killing guns.

Gary

For home video releases, I'll simply wait until the time comes when those movies are released in a 3D format for home that works just as well as it does in theaters. If that's a ways off, so be it. I'm not one for double dipping though. For my own tastes, if a movie was created with 3D in mind during production, then that's how I want to see it.

[mjbethancourt]

Originally Posted by Hale-Bopp

For home video releases, I'll simply wait until the time comes when those movies are released in a 3D format for home that works just as well as it does in theaters. If that's a ways off, so be it. I'm not one for double dipping though. For my own tastes, if a movie was created with 3D in mind during production, then that's how I want to see it.

That's the frustrating part: a lot of movies were made with 3D in mind, that have yet to be presented in 3D. I myself first got geeked-up about this latest wave of 3D because of comments I'd read from Peter Jackson about 4 years ago, where he said his blockbusters (LOTR & King Kong) were made ready for 3D, and that it was cineplexes that were dropping the ball.

[tron3]

3-D movies are clearly novel experiences but a matter of taste. As long as I have the choice it isn't much of an issue.

As I understand it, because you now need two video streams to make a 3-D image with glasses, it effectively cuts the movie quality in half to fit on a disc.

The (bi)Polar Express is a prime example. It was a port over from a 15GB HD-DVD. Somewhat better looking than the DVD, but not as bad as Total Recall(ed). With the re-release many of us had hoped The Polar Express would have that remastered quality. Alas, no. Same crappy transfer doubled up to make 3-D.

I'll wait for the remastered edition, thank-you. Then I will make my third and FINAL dip.

Besides, if I have wear additional glasses just to watch TV, then TV becomes a chore and not a passive pleasure.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

That's the frustrating part: a lot of movies were made with 3D in mind, that have yet to be presented in 3D. I myself first got geeked-up about this latest wave of 3D because of comments I'd read from Peter Jackson about 4 years ago, where he said his blockbusters (LOTR & King Kong) were made ready for 3D, and that it was cineplexes that were dropping the ball.

Lotr and king kong may have been converted to 3d (kind of like The Nightmare Before Christmas), but they where not filmed in 3d (such as Coraline, look at the camera's on the special features that where used to film the movies).

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by aramis109

The difference is that the people wearing prescription glasses AVOID getting headaches by wearing them, as opposed to GETTING a headache from the technology.

There's reason enough for me to be against it, as it gives my wife a headache automatically, and me one intermittently depending on how well it's been done. We enjoyed it at Disney and Universal in Florida last year, and I enjoyed it in the superbowl, but a two-hour flick is guaranteed to give some people eyestrain. I'd much more prefer a technology that doesn't cause my eyes to try and focus on something that's not really as near or far as it appears.

But you see your talking about the red/cyan 3D glasses I think most of the guys here pushing for 3D are talking about the polarized ones used at IMAX. What I want is more 3D theatrical releases but 2D versions of it on Blu-ray until we can get polarized 3D working at home.