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

[Mumps]

Why should I be forced to see a movie that, when I leave the theater, has given me a MIGRANE headache! I am lucky I don't drive, cause after Avatar, even though the 3D effects were pretty good (after 2hrs when my eyes finally almost FOCUSED!), I was in no condition to do anything except be a lump in my own bed!

"Oh, but you aren't being foced to watch it" some will say. True. However, the movie theater experience has always been leaps and bounds better than watching a movie at home. You go to the movies to have a good time with your friends, and to watch something you enjoy. 3D movies here have taken the stage. The only movies I have seen since Alice in Wonderland (Which I regretfully watched in 3D) that have been in the theater were completely 2D. The movie I was looking forward to most this year, Dispicable Me, was not accessable to me! Why? Cause they had one screen in the whole city showing it in 2D for only the opening week! So really, if I want to see a movie in theaters, I am being forced to watch it in 3D, because there aren't many movies out there that are 2D anymore. Going to movies was once my favorite thing to do, but now all that fun is GONE. I am very greatful that Iron Man 2 was not in 3D. The fact that there was a movie, in the IMAX, that was in 2D actually gave me a little bit of hope.

People say 2D movies are flat? HOW? It provides you with the viewpoint of... where you are sitting! 2D movies DO have depth, whereas 3D is just the painful illusion of depth. *sigh*

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by Mumps

Why should I be forced to see a movie that, when I leave the theater, has given me a MIGRANE headache! I am lucky I don't drive, cause after Avatar, even though the 3D effects were pretty good (after 2hrs when my eyes finally almost FOCUSED!), I was in no condition to do anything except be a lump in my own bed!

"Oh, but you aren't being foced to watch it" some will say. True. However, the movie theater experience has always been leaps and bounds better than watching a movie at home. You go to the movies to have a good time with your friends, and to watch something you enjoy. 3D movies here have taken the stage. The only movies I have seen since Alice in Wonderland (Which I regretfully watched in 3D) that have been in the theater were completely 2D. The movie I was looking forward to most this year, Dispicable Me, was not accessable to me! Why? Cause they had one screen in the whole city showing it in 2D for only the opening week! So really, if I want to see a movie in theaters, I am being forced to watch it in 3D, because there aren't many movies out there that are 2D anymore. Going to movies was once my favorite thing to do, but now all that fun is GONE. I am very greatful that Iron Man 2 was not in 3D. The fact that there was a movie, in the IMAX, that was in 2D actually gave me a little bit of hope.

People say 2D movies are flat? HOW? It provides you with the viewpoint of... where you are sitting! 2D movies DO have depth, whereas 3D is just the painful illusion of depth. *sigh*

And now you understand the frustration that those of us who like to watch movies at home, because to us it is a better experience, feel when they don't release these movies in 3D on blu-ray. We are being "Forced" to watch them in 2D. Feel our pain buddy, feel our pain.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Mumps

However, the movie theater experience has always been leaps and bounds better than watching a movie at home.

Maybe at your home, but my home theater flat out smokes the local cineplexes around here.

[Mumps]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

Maybe at your home, but my home theater flat out smokes the local cineplexes around here.

Well, maybe I just prefer the theater experience? Ya know, sitting there in front of a GIANT screen with my friends watching a movie we've all been antsy to see. Also, I can't afford a big home theater setup, it was bad enough the money I spent to switch to Blu-ray, I have an HDTV, and a PS3. It'll be 10+ years before I can afford anything more than that.

And besides, even with a super-awesome home theater setup, my preference is the movie theater, and with movies being limited in when they are offered in 2D here, it makes it next to impossible to experience that again.

[Mr.Poindexter]

Originally Posted by Mumps

Well, maybe I just prefer the theater experience? Ya know, sitting there in front of a GIANT screen with my friends watching a movie we've all been antsy to see. Also, I can't afford a big home theater setup, it was bad enough the money I spent to switch to Blu-ray, I have an HDTV, and a PS3. It'll be 10+ years before I can afford anything more than that.

And besides, even with a super-awesome home theater setup, my preference is the movie theater, and with movies being limited in when they are offered in 2D here, it makes it next to impossible to experience that again.

Truly, there is something to say for the experience at the theaters - generally the crowd at a highly anticipated feature on opening night. My screen is not as big as a commercial cinema, but it is about field of vision so sitting 70' back from a 60' wide screen isn't much different than sitting 14' back from a 150" wide screen.

[MyBlu-rayBrotherEd]

Originally Posted by Mr.Poindexter

Truly, there is something to say for the experience at the theaters - generally the crowd at a highly anticipated feature on opening night. My screen is not as big as a commercial cinema, but it is about field of vision so sitting 70' back from a 60' wide screen isn't much different than sitting 14' back from a 150" wide screen.

Ah yes, the guy with the head 3x the size of a normal head sitting in front of you, the people behind you kicking the back of your chair, the people sittin on either side of you hogging the arm rests and needing to get up and go to the consession stand and or bathroom, the cell phones, the over inflated prices.....nothing quite like the theater experience.

[Mr.Poindexter]

The ticket prices might be high, but add up how much you spent on your theater and discs over the years and then divide it by the number of movies watched and that might be a shocking number to swallow too.

And quit complaining about the size of my head and just move. You don't have to sit behind me and kick my chair for 2 hours, texting all your friends about how big my head is.

[Lovemy3D]

That1guypictures and Jimmy Smith were right about the 3D quality of Piranha. I know I should have skipped it but I couldn't resist. Especially because I wanted to see the upcoming 3D previews. Here is a copy of what I posted about it in the Piranha thread.

As far as the movie goes, it was great. A lot of fun. But the 3D was pretty terrible. It was mentioned in the 3D smackdown thread that the 3D looked about the same as the 2D to 3D conversion on the Samsung TVs. I have to agree. I could watch anything on my TV and get about the same quality 3D as this movie. There were moments when it looked Ok, but it's the same with the Samsung conversion. It did help a little that it was on a giant screen. There was also a lot of blurring that I've not seen on any of the new generation of 3D movies. It's too bad, this movie could have been so cool if it had been done with real 3D.

On the bright side. There were three awesome 3D trailers before the movie.

#1. Resident Evil Afterlife looked spectacular. I can hardly wait to see that next month. And I'm even more excited to get it on Blu-ray 3D a few months later.

#2. Saw 3D. They didn't really show a lot of it, but from what they showed it looked really cool.

#3. Tron 3D. Wow, now that just looks darn right beautiful in 3D. It's a longer wait, so I try not to think about it much. But I sure hope it's going to have a day to date Blu-ray 3D release like Resident Evil.

As far as I'm concerned. Just getting to see those trailers in 3D alone was worth my $8.00. I'm psyched.

[tollickd]

Buy now or wait a year

I love the 3D but I am unsure about how many movies will have it next year.

What would you do?

I already have a 40" Toshiba 1080P

[Lovemy3D]

Originally Posted by tollickd

Buy now or wait a year

I love the 3D but I am unsure about how many movies will have it next year.

What would you do?

I already have a 40" Toshiba 1080P

It's a hard decision. I guess it just depends on how much you want it, and how much money you have.

I guess if it was me I would go for it if I had the means, even if I already had an HD TV. I don't have the patience to wait long, I love 3D too much. Maybe you should just wait and see if Avatar 3D comes with an exclusive package with Panasonic, and get that. That would be a great way to start out your 3D collection.

[CasualKiller]

We just had a Best Buy open here a couple of weekends ago and I flew down to check out the new 3D stuff.

I was totally not impressed, very grainy image and a lot of ghosting on the images. Is it any better for gaming?

After what I've seen for how much it costs and the lack of 3D titles I'm seriously second guessing buying it now. Although all they had was a generic underwater 3D demo thing running, you couldn't test any games or Blurays.. but still if you're going to demo it, it better look good.

[BillieCassin]

Buying a 3D TV right now is a pretty large investment for just a couple of available titles (how many times can one watch "Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs").

Plus, as many have known for awhile, this whole "3D glasses" thing isn't going to last - models will be out next year that don't require them (http://www.electronista.com/articles...d.tvs.in.2010/).

I wonder once the current technology is obsolete (which seems pretty soon) how much people will have paid per hour to watch 3D. If you add up the price difference in the TV and Blu-ray player, add on all the glasses, and the price of the scant few movies available, then divide by how many hours you actually watched in 3D - I bet some people will have paid $100+ an hour just to watch the same couple of movies in 3D at home.

Like any technology, early adopters are liable to get burned - and it looks like 3D is going to scortch many. I won't even consider it until an actual library of 3D films is available (i.e. 100+ titles) and they settle on a real standard that doesn't require buying $150-200 pairs of goofy glasses for everyone who may stop by my house to watch. So, in a couple of years I assume.

[farawayplace]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Plus, as many have known for awhile, this whole "3D glasses" thing isn't going to last - models will be out next year that don't require them (http://www.electronista.com/articles...d.tvs.in.2010/).

thanks for that link.

You've got people on hear who have sworn up and down that it'll be several years before non-glasses tech hits the market. Hopefully now, they will admit it.

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by farawayplace

thanks for that link.

You've got people on hear who have sworn up and down that it'll be several years before non-glasses tech hits the market. Hopefully now, they will admit it.

NP .

It's already coming to a handheld Nintendo system in the new year.

Even if it is several years - it's going to take that long for any sort of library to show up. I really couldn't care much less about 3D in most cases, to be honest, but you can be darned sure I'm not dumping several K on a new TV/Blu-ray player until there is an actual library of titles out there to own. And since the technology is obviously rapidly evolving away from the silly little (but very expensive, proprietary) glasses, it just doesn't make a lot of sense for most people.

OH, and a quick correction to my previous post, I misread it : they will be out BY THE HOLIDAYS this year.

[brettallica]

I'm right there with you, BillieCassin, in that I won't invest in this 3D business until it makes sense to me. The main reasons you mentioned (glasses, lack of supported titles), are two big factors. One other is that when I have seen 3D in-person, it really didn't do anything for me. The "dimension" was pretty limited, and it seemed to me like I was looking into a box with cutouts in it, as opposed to being engulfed in the video like they make it out to be — like the images are flying all around the room or something. Definitely not what I experienced. To my eyes, it looked sort of like those shoebox diorama things from elementary school:

[Yourbigpalal83]

i think everyone is jumping the gun with the whole non glasses 3d set.

First off, we're not going to see any of these sets in action till ces 2011 which is 5 months away! Then they might not hit the market till next summer or fall, which then will be EXTREMLEY EXPENSIVE!

Heres why. Its new tech. And when you get it home, i promess you there is going to be a ton of complants about the new sets.

Why? Cause, from my understanding about the new tvs, the 3d effect only works if your in the sweet spot. Usually dead center and not far off to the left or right.

That works great for a handheld device like a 3ds, a new cell phone etc, cause rarely do u ever look at those devices from off angle, let alone share the image with multiple people.

For tv's it dont work so well. Why? Cause people dont sit in the center of the screen when watching tv. They lay down, and worse yet if you have multiple people watching the same tv, you cant fit all of them in the sweet spot.

So people to the left or right, arent going to get the 3d effect! The tech is not there yet!

In time, it will be there. Hell, by 2020 i fully expect 3d glasses less screens to be a common standard feature on ALL DEVICES, but not next year. Next year will be the starting off point!

But dont expect it to be perfect

[farawayplace]

Brett, that photo is HILARIOUS, and spot-on perfect!

[BillieCassin]

Originally Posted by Yourbigpalal83

i think everyone is jumping the gun with the whole non glasses 3d set.

First off, we're not going to see any of these sets in action till ces 2011 which is 5 months away! Then they might not hit the market till next summer or fall, which then will be EXTREMLEY EXPENSIVE!

Hehe, you just perfectly described how I feel about "regular" 3D with glasses, LOL.

It's STILL not really here. There is no standard for the glasses, and there are only a couple of films available, mostly through special manufacturer deals that cost $100's.

And whoa...5 months? Wow, how will we survive.

Expensive? Gee, these current 3D sets are so cheap aren't they...

Point is, by the time a decent library of 3D titles is out (and I'm not just talking a few badly written/acted blockbusters and a smattering of kids movies, the dozen or so we'll have available by the end of this year), these new TV's without glasses will be available.

It's what many of us have been trying to say for awhile - 3D is not yet ready for prime time, and it's never going to have any market penetration while people have to wear big silly electronic glasses.

This whole thing has been one big scam by the manufacturers to make up for sub-expectation Blu-ray sales. They knew that Blu wasn't growing new owners as much as they had predicted, so they went back to the well of early-adopters knowing some would jump right back and replace brand-new equipment with 3D versions for thousands again. I mean, people have had these things since before you could even walk into a store and buy a SINGLE disc to play in it! Just like the only reason they push it into theaters is because they can charge twice as high ticket prices. It has nothing to do with art or filmmaking, it's all marketing.

Played right into it, some did. And those same people will probably replace their goofy-glasses TV's next year with the new ones that don't need them. The rest of us will wait until they finally get it all figured out - and by then this whole "3-D craze" may very well be over. People are already getting sick of the novelty, just like they did in the 50's, just like they did in the 80's. Storytelling, acting, cinematography - that's the stuff that matters, not the cardboard cutouts of layers of "View-master" that really is what most use of 3-D boils down to.

[turkwhip]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Played right into it, some did. And those same people will probably replace their goofy-glasses TV's next year with the new ones that don't need them. The rest of us will wait until they finally get it all figured out - and by then this whole "3-D craze" may very well be over. People are already getting sick of the novelty, just like they did in the 50's, just like they did in the 80's. Storytelling, acting, cinematography - that's the stuff that matters, not the cardboard cutouts of layers of "View-master" that really is what most use of 3-D boils down to.

Here's what I COMPLETELY don't understand. All you guys that put this 3D technology down and try to convince people that are excited about it, that it's bad... what are you doing posting here? Are you just trying to kill their excitement for the fun of it? Do you get something out of that? I mean if you're not interested in this tech and you think it's nothing but 'cardboard cutouts of layers of View-master' then just find some other forum to hangout in. Let those of us that are actually interested in this stuff have useful discussions that build our interest and help us to focus our attention better tech. (Now I'm not saying I post a lot of stuff on these forums myself... but I do read them often.)

After all, the bottom line is that you should be thankful for people that are early adopters. These are the people that make it possible for other people to discover what they like and dislike. Without them, virtually no new commercial endeavor would be possible. It's these people that pave the way for mass market availability of functional products at reasonable price points. So... instead of putting them down, you should be thanking them. Even if this particular tech isn't up your alley.

In my case, I have my doubts about 3D TV's that will work (I mean really work) without glasses. But, If there are other folks excited about this prospect and are willing to wait for it... more power to them. It's nice to have choices. And I hope for them... it does work in the end.

Just my 2 cents.

[brettallica]

Originally Posted by turkwhip

Here's what I COMPLETELY don't understand. All you guys that put this 3D technology down and try to convince people that are excited about it, that it's bad... what are you doing posting here? Are you just trying to kill their excitement for the fun of it? Do you get something out of that? I mean if you're not interested in this tech and you think it's nothing but 'cardboard cutouts of layers of View-master' then just find some other forum to hangout in. Let those of us that are actually interested in this stuff have useful discussions that build our interest and help us to focus our attention better tech. (Now I'm not saying I post a lot of stuff on these forums myself... but I do read them often.)

After all, the bottom line is that you should be thankful for people that are early adopters. These are the people that make it possible for other people to discover what they like and dislike. Without them, virtually no new commercial endeavor would be possible. It's these people that pave the way for mass market availability of functional products at reasonable price points. So... instead of putting them down, you should be thanking them. Even if this particular tech isn't up your alley.

In my case, I have my doubts about 3D TV's that will work (I mean really work) without glasses. But, If there are other folks excited about this prospect and are willing to wait for it... more power to them. It's nice to have choices. And I hope for them... it does work in the end.

Just my 2 cents.

If I could just touch on that really quick...I don't think people in this particular thread are putting others down. I am sensing that this thread is more for those who aren't into the 3D tech and we're just all kind of chatting about how it doesn't work for us. I mean the title is "I don't get it" with a fairly unambiguous reference to the the current 3D technology. I might be mistaken, but I don't think people are saying "3D is bad;" rather they're saying more something along the lines of "the current 3D technology really isn't executed well," and then most state their reasons. For me, it's that the 3D doesn't really feel three-dimensional; it feels like you're looking into a box with cutouts and that those cutouts are layered. If the image was actually engulfing the viewer and shapes were flying all around the room like the commercials make it out to be, then I would definitely have a different stance on the state of this technology and would probably be wondering when I'd be able to buy my own set.

I think most people on this forum are big fans of early adoption and new technology in general, including me and probably others in this thread. I'm with you in that I hope people can have choices, and I personally would never call someone out or imply that their choice to buy into 3D is lame or that they're idiots or something. If I did attempt to do that, I'd spend a lot of time in the 3D section of the forum, and probably arguing on a lot of one-sided e-battles.

If I could speak for myself here, I personally hope that 3D does become something that is not only great to watch, but convenient and simple as well. I would love to have the choice to press a button and instantly switch over to watching something in 3D (meaning the 3D that I envision — one that actually has dimension to it). Right now, to me it's kind of this fringe novelty that doesn't really work all that well; or at least as well as advertised.