3D TV, I don't get it

N

nasum

CAGiversary!
So why on earth do I need a new TV, a new BR player and some very heavy and uncomfortable glasses to watch 3D, when I can watch Coraline in 3D on everything I already have with some slightly less heavy and uncomfortable glasses?

I mean really, the image on your TV is based on source material, and the Panasonic rep even admitted that to me. It isn't like the new 3D TV actually turns everything you watch into 3D.

It all seems so absurd.
 
[quote name='nasum']So why on earth do I need a new TV, a new BR player and some very heavy and uncomfortable glasses to watch 3D, when I can watch Coraline in 3D on everything I already have with some slightly less heavy and uncomfortable glasses?

I mean really, the image on your TV is based on source material, and the Panasonic rep even admitted that to me. It isn't like the new 3D TV actually turns everything you watch into 3D.

It all seems so absurd.[/QUOTE]

When you say "the old 3D" are you talking about the blue/red glasses?
 
The new TVs will give you a 3D experience more like seeing a 3D movie in a Real D 3D theater as I understand it.

Having seen Avatar in such a theater, that's a much better 3D than the old kind--saw a couple cheesy 4D movies this weekend taking some family around to tourist attractions and the 3D sucked in those compared to Avatar in the Real D 3D theater.

That said, I'm not that huge a fan of 3D and have no interest in buying a 3D TV. Maybe once the technology improves to where no glasses are needed.
 
Well how do you expect these people to make money when the old thing they invented that nobody needed has already saturated the market? You've got HD, now you get 3D. Either buy it or tell the kids to get off your lawn.
 
I cant say I really like 3d at all or even care about it.

Even a movie like avatar which was done by special effects pioneer james cameron that is always pushing things forward in good sized jumps and spent like 200 million on avatar and had a specially built camera to film the movie in did nothing to interest me. Avatar was the best use of 3d so far but it still interest me. Despite his expertise, all the money spent on it and the very nice theater I saw it in the picture quality still suffered greatly, it wasnt as sharp and crisp as the movie in normal 2d format and I was dissapointed because of it.

I dont want to buy a new tv, I dont want to wear glasses and I just really dont think 3d is very cool to me.

Im not trying to be the cranky guy that doesnt want stuff to change but I would prefer we just tried to get some standardized form of HD going and leave it at that. I like change and evolution but to me 3d is just one of those changes that isnt for the better.
 
It's all forced evolution. People who bought a high-def TV two years ago will now think they have to buy a new 3D TV. More money for the industry. It's kind of like the evolution of the media we buy movies on. VHS, for all it's flaws, had a nearly 30 year run. DVD had less than 10 before Blu-ray (and HD-DVD) movies were introduced.

All I know is, I won't be buying a 3D TV anytime soon. Having an image pop out at me just doesn't impress me. It's a gimmicky fad that'll (hopefully) die quickly.
 
[quote name='gargus']I cant say I really like 3d at all or even care about it.

Even a movie like avatar which was done by special effects pioneer james cameron that is always pushing things forward in good sized jumps and spent like 200 million on avatar and had a specially built camera to film the movie in did nothing to interest me. Avatar was the best use of 3d so far but it still interest me. Despite his expertise, all the money spent on it and the very nice theater I saw it in the picture quality still suffered greatly, it wasnt as sharp and crisp as the movie in normal 2d format and I was dissapointed because of it.
[/QUOTE]
I felt the same way. I wanted to see it in 3D; came away wishing I had watched the 2D version. The fact that foreground objects "stop" at the edge of the screen was disorienting, and I can't imagine it being less so on a smaller tv. Not to mention the headache-inducing blur when things were moving quickly.
 
I can't even get all my channels in HD yet. There is no way I'm buying another main room tv anytime soon.
 
Hockey in 3D is pretty sweet. Golf wasn't as impressive. And (this kind of) 3D isn't about having things "pop out at you."
 
[quote name='lmz00'] And (this kind of) 3D isn't about having things "pop out at you."[/QUOTE]

Then...what is it about? Last time I checked, that's exactly what 3D was.
 
It's just a ploy to get more money because almost everyone that's going to get an HDTV now has one so they have to have something new to entice sales.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to see a 3D movie. The more people watch them, the more 3D is going to be shoved down our throats, including gaming.
 
That's stupid, Jason. Do you think people should not have gone out and bought HDTVs and/or Blu-ray players because then, high def would be "shoved down our throats"? No, because you own an HDTV and a PS3. And that's the exact same deal as what you said about 3D.

I find that 90% of people who complain about 3D haven't seen a 3D movie. And if you haven't seen one, you (the general you) can't expect to be taken seriously when criticizing it. Avatar, while merely above average as a film, was the most amazing visual spectacle I have ever seen in an entertainment medium. You have no idea what you're missing.

That being said, I won't be buying a 3D TV anytime soon... but only because they are way out of my price range for the time being.
 
[quote name='Matt Young']That being said, I won't be buying a 3D TV anytime soon... but only because they are way out of my price range for the time being.[/QUOTE]


I agree...and I wish I could afford a 3D HDTV right now, but like you stated, not in my price range...maybe 3-5 years down the road.
 
I hope it's closer to 3 than 5. I don't want to wait till I'm 30 to experience 3D in my home.

I do think the prices of 3D TVs will drop at a more rapid rate than did those of HDTVs.
 
Very forced, yes. It's bad enough to not see regular TV's among all the goofy HD sets but now even those are being pushed aside for worse products. Who asked for 3D anyway? Nobody wants it yet the companies are going crazy over it. I hope not because of some shitty 'smurf people' movie that nobody watched. I sure didn't.
 
32060_512x288_generated__hkDjTqLR7Emu-0w4wB6IGw.jpg
 
3d porn could be cool. imagine being able to mototboat some 3d titties......course on the flip side a 3d money shot could leave you scarred for life.
 
When they actually have fully 1080P on cable networks and satellite, then they can start trying to interest me in 3D. And when I say fully, I mean that every single channel is 1080P with no down/upscaling between the station and my house. I work as a salesmen for this type of stuff and the amount of people who have no idea that what they're getting through cable/satellite is not 1080P is generally 90%. I actually got into an argument with a guy the other day who said that 3D is the greatest thing ever and I said that I don't think it'll really catch on citing that we don't have 1080P tv and that Jaws 3D came out ages ago and it sure as hell didn't catch on then.
 
[quote name='Chairman_LMAO']Then...what is it about? Last time I checked, that's exactly what 3D was.[/QUOTE]
It's more about depth, like if you were looking through a window. It's not as if you're going to be watching the world cup in 3D and be able to see soccer players run around your living room in between your TV and your coffee table or anything.

OP would've been better off posting this on AVS Forum, not on a site full of "cheap asses."
 
[quote name='LinkinPrime']Go to your local Best Buy, check out the 3D HDTV demo they have, then you'll know why.[/QUOTE]

I did exactly this a few weeks ago...and was pretty impressed. I watched a bit of Monsters vs Aliens in 3d and the experience is pretty similar to Digital 3D one would see in a movie theater (not IMAX 3D).

To the OP, Coraline in 3D on a regular HDTV has nothing on these new 3D TVs. I watched maybe 10 min of Coraline at home with the red/green glasses and had to stop because of a headache.
 
Myself, I never cared for 3D Movies and personally, I think 2D is just fine.

HOWEVER, if done right, maybe it could be good. Such as sporting events. To provide an example I heard on the radio a couple months back, pretend you're watching a Jets game (or wherever Braylon Edwards is playing at that time). If you throw a nerf football at your tv, he'll drop it, just like he normally does. So in this case, it's quite realistic. :razz:
 
I'm sorry, but I saw Avatar in full 3D, and it was definitely NOT good. I've seen 3D movies before, none of them were special, and Avatar was no exception. It wasn't worth the extra $2 I spent on glasses. I can understand the desire for HDTV, because it makes everything more clear. Images look more crisp so you get more detail. But 3D to me is absolutely useless. I don't plan on buying a 3DTV now or in the future.
 
Well, if you ever wind up having to replace your current HDTV, you might not have a choice in the matter, as I'm sure it'll only be a few years before all but the ghettoest of entry-level model HDTVs are 3D ready.
 
[quote name='rvdrock']What about for us people that already wear glasses?!?![/QUOTE]

The glasses are made so you can wear them over glasses--same in the theaters.
 
[quote name='rvdrock']What about for us people that already wear glasses?!?![/QUOTE]

I wondered about that, myself. I have been wearing my glasses more often than my contacts these past few months. I had no idea that I was going to see Avatar until right before the showing. I was at Staples Center for a game, and then my friend who I was with told me he got 2 free tickets to the new Regal Cinemas theater complex in LA Live, so we went to see Avatar in 3D. Luckily, I had my contacts in. I don't see how those glasses could be worn over eyeglasses.
 
[quote name='Matt Young']I wondered about that, myself. I have been wearing my glasses more often than my contacts these past few months. I had no idea that I was going to see Avatar until right before the showing. I was at Staples Center for a game, and then my friend who I was with told me he got 2 free tickets to the new Regal Cinemas theater complex in LA Live, so we went to see Avatar in 3D. Luckily, I had my contacts in. I don't see how those glasses could be worn over eyeglasses.[/QUOTE]

It's painful and annoying.
 
[quote name='Chairman_LMAO']Then...what is it about? Last time I checked, that's exactly what 3D was.[/QUOTE]

Less gimmicky "whoa that's coming right at me" and more adding depth to the image.

Kind of funny how the OP brought up Coraline. That is the best example of why 3D is need I can think of. It adds depth to normal scenes and cranks other scenes to ahhhhhhhh that is crazy
the ending with the spider mother was fucking nuts
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The glasses are made so you can wear them over glasses--same in the theaters.[/QUOTE]

and its extra annoying.

like other have said, i have no interest in 3D. especially when i only have a small number of HD channels and only a handful of those that i actually watch. when (and god help us if it happens) 3d becomes the norm i hope to high hell they dont require the glasses.
 
Well I don't think it could possibly become the norm really if it requires glasses - at least not in the sense that HD will soon be the norm, they won't be broadcasting everything in it. As long as it requires glasses it won't move past movies and maybe video games. Possibly a few primetime TV series, but I'd doubt that really, unless they broadcast both 3D and 2D simultaneously with a choice between them.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']and its extra annoying.

like other have said, i have no interest in 3D. especially when i only have a small number of HD channels and only a handful of those that i actually watch. when (and god help us if it happens) 3d becomes the norm i hope to high hell they dont require the glasses.[/QUOTE]

That's where I am as well.

I do enjoy it in the theater. But not so much that I have any need to have it in the home.

It's a novelty that's enjoyable every once in a while, but I won't go buy a new TV for it.

If in 5 years or whenever I want a new HDTV all that's available are TVs with 3D capability, then so be it. But I will never by a new TV just to get 3D capability.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well I don't think it could possibly become the norm really if it requires glasses - at least not in the sense that HD will soon be the norm, they won't be broadcasting everything in it. As long as it requires glasses it won't move past movies and maybe video games. Possibly a few primetime TV series, but I'd doubt that really, unless they broadcast both 3D and 2D simultaneously with a choice between them.[/QUOTE]

Yeah because what we really need is Two And A Half Men... in 3D! :lol:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The glasses are made so you can wear them over glasses--same in the theaters.[/QUOTE]

And as the people who wear glasses can tell you- just becuase you can doesn't mean you'll want to. The second pair doesn't balance correctly, is usually painful due to weight and/or pinching around you real glasses... it's a hassle.

Right now, 3D TVs are just a way for the entertainment industry to try and bleed some extra cash out of money-laden early tech adopters. I hope the execs running these companies realize it's, for now at least, just a gimmick- or they could put themselves in a very bad place.
 
I will say that I'm intrigued by the idea of 3D, and I enjoyed Avatar in 3D but I'm really not sold on it while you have to wear glasses. While it was a neat effect, I'm not sold on it to the point where I have to have it compared to my compulsive need to get a HDTV when I bought my PS3 at the beginning of football season.
 
[quote name='DuelLadyS']And as the people who wear glasses can tell you- just becuase you can doesn't mean you'll want to. The second pair doesn't balance correctly, is usually painful due to weight and/or pinching around you real glasses... it's a hassle.
[/QUOTE]

I wear glasses, but wear contacts most of the time.

My girlfriend wore the Real D 3D glasses over her glasses for Avatar and didn't mention any problems.

In any case, fair gripe. Like I said, I'm not fan of 3D. It's a nice novelty in the theater, but I couldn't give a crap less about having it in the home.
 
[quote name='TC']Wait until you see whats after 3D. Its going to blow your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCq_nzlou0Q[/QUOTE]

haha awesome movie.

anyways, 3D sucks balls. Especially if we are now just going to get movies with real weak stories and "mind-blowing 3D FX"... like Avatar. Come on, that movie wasn't good apart from the 3D technology.

The only movie I'll see in 3-D in the next year is Tron and POSSIBLY Jackass, only because it's so outlandish that it's in 3D
 
That post reminded me of the "good graphics = shitty gameplay/glitches" talk from that "graphics war" thread over on the PS3 forum not too long ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top