3D in the Home? Do you care? - Page 3 - AVS Forum
View Poll Results: 3D In the Home?
Got It 569 39.73%
Want It 164 11.45%
Don't Want It 260 18.16%
Don't Care 439 30.66%
Voters: 1432. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 12:44 AM
Newbie
 
blackrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I want it, but only in passive 3D (I think, autostereoscopic without glasses is not quite ready for good picture quality).

I'm eagerly awaiting a 4K passive 3D monitor for my PC at reasonable price. Hope they can finalize the new HDMI version in the first half of 2013 (or produce a 4K monitor with DisplayPort).
blackrat is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 03:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
ThePrisoner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Have had it since late 2010. Not as into it as I was when I first got my Panasonic 50VT25. Now I have a Panasonic 60GT30 and only enjoy 3D done well, which sadly isn't always the case.

My 3D fav's,

Avatar
Titanic
Prometheus
Hugo

"The powerful will be ripped from their decadent nests. And cast out into the cold world that we know and endure. Courts will be convened. Spoils will be enjoyed!"

 

-Bane

ThePrisoner is online now  
post #63 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 03:22 AM
Member
 
PurdueAV2003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a Panasonic TC-P54VT25 and I can't remember the last time I took the 3D glasses out of the box. The only reason I have 3D on my living room TV is because it was included on a TV that had great picture quality. For me, 3D does not excite me on smaller displays. I do think that 3D works on larger screens, though (100" +), so I will probably look at 3D capabilities more the next time I go to update my projector. My old AE2000U is plugging along just fine, though, and I doubt it will need replaced anytime soon.

"Smart people become engineers. Smarter people don't."
PurdueAV2003 is offline  
post #64 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 04:45 AM
Member
 
neurorog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
3D movies are fun on a home projector (W7000). The three biggest negatives are 1) the relative lack of content that appeals to a broad audience, 2) the difficulties in renting 3D blu ray movies, and 3) the silly surcharge they add to ticket prices at the theater. Other than that, the home experience is immersive and adds to the movie watching experience.
neurorog is offline  
post #65 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 05:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Bladerunner1959's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pittsburgh...Preferably the Virgin Islands....
Posts: 1,070
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Got IT!...didnt care at first. I only got the 3d ability because the Samsung tv I wanted had it...NOW that I've seen amazing top shelf 3d...I love it. Not for every day viewing of course but it is a superior quality entertainment option to have when you have great gear. Imax "Under the sea" Avatar, Tron etc etc...even some FIOS source material at times is very entertaining in the 3d conversion mode. ...What I thought was going to be a fad is thankfully not.


VIVE le3D

Love for all things Hi-def...Losing count; 200 plus bluray, 500 plus dvd, 30 plus HDdvd and a rapidly growing 50 plus in the cloud.

Bladerunner1959 is offline  
post #66 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 06:05 AM
CIH USER
 
Franin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 17,297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 157 Post(s)
Liked: 213
I have a 64" Samsung in the living room with 3D, used it once and never used it again. Dont care for it.

_________________________

Frank

Franin is offline  
post #67 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 06:36 AM
Member
 
Lepus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 131
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 11
3D will be taken over by holographic images like you see on Star Trek holodeck. That will be the next advancement in home entertainment. Once they break into that things will start to change.
Lepus is offline  
post #68 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 07:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Toknowshita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 44
I have a 3D projector, the Sony HW30ES. I personally feel if you are interested in 3D you really need a large projection setup to fully appreciate it.

Toknowshita is online now  
post #69 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 07:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kimeran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,203
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 115
I personally would not go buy a new TV to have 3D.

That said, if it was available, it is a possibility that i would use it on occasion. However, seeing movies in the theater in 3D gives me a headache and I dont know if the shutter glasses would do the same...

Trying to enjoy the simple things in life.

 

Steam: madbrayniak

Kimeran is offline  
post #70 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 08:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,901
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 777 Post(s)
Liked: 441
I find I enjoy a movie more without the 3D. It's a distraction to the storytelling... and, yes, story is king. Too often, even with native 3D content, it looks like a layered pop-up book... it looks fake and not even close to true-to-life stereoscopic eyesight.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #71 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 08:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rdclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Philadelphia Vicinity
Posts: 4,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 189
I'm firmly in the Ebert camp: a 3D effect generated in a 2D plane forces the eyes to function in a way that's not natural. This is where the headaches and nausea come from. We are supposed to be able to move our eyes around and refocus them on things at varying distances, Fooling the eye into trying to focus on "3D" objects in a movie makes your brain think it can then re-focus on other things in the movie, but it can't -- only whatever the filmmaker *wants* you to focus on is sharp, while the background objects are fuzzy and can't be resolved by the eye. In the real world you would be able to focus on the background.

Some people -- many people -- don't have an adverse reaction to this, but some do. I'm one. Flat-frame 3D is simply not for me. It will take some new imaging technology that lets the eye focus wherever it wants to on any visible object for 3D to work for me.

I don't begrudge the enjoyment people get from this. I've seen a couple of 3D movies, and I think the effects are fun and can add to a movie -- but not for me. It's not worth the discomfort.

Wide Awake

on the Edge

of the World

 

rdclark is offline  
post #72 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Toknowshita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdclark View Post

I'm firmly in the Ebert camp: a 3D effect generated in a 2D plane forces the eyes to function in a way that's not natural. This is where the headaches and nausea come from. We are supposed to be able to move our eyes around and refocus them on things at varying distances, Fooling the eye into trying to focus on "3D" objects in a movie makes your brain think it can then re-focus on other things in the movie, but it can't -- only whatever the filmmaker *wants* you to focus on is sharp, while the background objects are fuzzy and can't be resolved by the eye. In the real world you would be able to focus on the background.
Some people -- many people -- don't have an adverse reaction to this, but some do. I'm one. Flat-frame 3D is simply not for me. It will take some new imaging technology that lets the eye focus wherever it wants to on any visible object for 3D to work for me.
I don't begrudge the enjoyment people get from this. I've seen a couple of 3D movies, and I think the effects are fun and can add to a movie -- but not for me. It's not worth the discomfort.

Completely accurate. The 3D effect is nothing like viewing real 3D objects and I wouldn't want to view everything in 3D, but when done well it can add to the viewing experience. The popout effects are fun but the ability to see depth looking into a 'surreal' world is where 3D shines. Again I still think you need a large screen to fully appreciate it.

Toknowshita is online now  
post #73 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 08:45 AM
Member
 
CalgaryJames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I don't watch 3D and I don't allow my kids to watch 3D neither. The current implementation of 3D does weird things to your brains, like frying them.
CalgaryJames is offline  
post #74 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 08:46 AM
Senior Member
 
Taranteacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 83
Wait till you see Madagascar 3 3D! Reference quality 3D, folks! And a very fun movie, BTW! cool.gif
Taranteacher is offline  
post #75 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 08:48 AM
Member
 
Vico38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Do I care? Hell yes I care! When I bought my flat screen a couple of months ago, I looked for one that had 3D included. Fortunately, I was able to find a 60" Samsung plasma that came with 2 pairs of glasses and a free 3D ready blu-ray player. The wife and I have been enjoying it immensely ever since we got it. I agree its not for everyone but for us it adds an additional level of fun to our home theater experience.

Vico38 is offline  
post #76 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 08:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
SaviorMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: I'm Jackie Treehorn
Posts: 1,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass addict View Post

As I've mentioned before. I wish the 3d craze would die already so projector mfg's can spend the money and R@D on things that matter; like brightness, black levels, and sharpness.

YES. Every consumer product represents a set of compromises; I wish that 3D display R&D costs, and hardware costs, could be removed entirely from any set I will buy in future because the compromises that they invoke are much more bad than the weird, unnatural special effect that they deliver is good. IMHO tongue.gif

Once again, I am sorry to take a sledgehammer to so small and fragile a nut. -- Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show On Earth
SaviorMachine is offline  
post #77 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 09:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 228
I've had a 3DTV for a couple of years at this point now. Do I care about 3D? Nope.

After the first week I've never used it since. I've tried various other 3D displays but until we have 4K panels that can do 1080p passively (preferably with a checkerboard rather than lines) and displays that accept 1080p 3D at 60fps per eye, I have zero interest in 3D.

Sony's HMZ was the best 3D I've seen so far, but it's too low resolution, the image was too small, the optics were terrible, contrast was too low, and it's incredibly uncomfortable. But the quality of 3D was excellent with a bright image that had zero crosstalk or other 3D problems. If a 4K passive set can approach that quality of 3D, I might be interested again.

On the plus side, supporting 3D generally means faster panels, which is not a bad thing at all. For that reason alone, I don't understand why someone would go out of their way to purchase a set that doesn't support 3D - 3D support improves 2D image quality.

It's too bad that nothing offers anything above 60Hz input yet. With sequential 3D at 60fps, the panel is operating at 120Hz, so why not let me use 120Hz in 2D? (same goes for 48Hz support when the panel can do 24p in frame sequential 3D)
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #78 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 09:55 AM
Member
 
scupking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Didn't want it but then was looking for a TV for the basement. Ended up getting the Panasonic 55ET5 with passive 3D and watched Titanic on it. Now I'm a believer in good 3D. Also I only like passive 3D.
scupking is offline  
post #79 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 11:38 AM
Member
 
Randy28211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 28
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
3D literally makes me sick. I become nauseas when trying to watch it. In theater, and on tv even if it's a slide show. it's either leave the room or close my eyes to prevent throwing up. And I hate glasses over glasses. So it's a good thing my 4 year old Kuro has many years left before it needs replacement. By then maybe 3D will be gone. Screw 3D.
Randy28211 is offline  
post #80 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 12:22 PM
Senior Member
 
JD NC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ejs71 View Post

Ive had a Panny 60GT50 3D tv for over 2 months and I don't even have glasses.. Plan on buying some as soon as I get Avatar 3D on Blu ray. Other than that, are there any movies really worth getting on Blu ray that are 3D???

The only three I've seen that I think really benefit from the format are Avatar, Prometheus and Hugo, and all three of them are just as good in 2D, IMO. Even for a movie like Hugo with "pop-out" effects, I was surprised at how much of the 3D effect in Hugo carried over into the 2D version from things like shot composition and cinematography. For example, there's an early shot in the clock tower with the pendulum swinging overhead that looks nearly 3D by itself, even on the 2D disc. Of the three, I'd say Hugo is the best 3D presentation, but even that one is not really essential. Definitely makes me glad I didn't bother with 3D for my home theater.

None of the other 3D presentations I've seen are objectively bad, but for most 3D movies I've seen, I was just indifferent to the 3D presentation, and mostly ignored it. Finding Nemo in particular introduced another problem: my three year old refused to wear the glasses and insisted on watching the blurry screen in the theater through the entire movie. By the 10 minute mark, the lenses were also hopelessly smudged with fingerprints and little-boy-schmutz, and no amount of cleaning did any good, so he wouldn't have been able to see the screen even if he wanted to wear the glasses.

For now, I'm happy to get the "2D discount" on my gear, and start saving up for 4K. smile.gif

JD NC is offline  
post #81 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 02:45 PM
Member
 
Steve1939's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeastern Idaho
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a passive LG display and an active 3d projector. We love 3d and have Directv with 3d channels and watch 3d Blu Ray movies. Admittedly 3d isn't for everyone, but at my house it is enjoyed and used very often.
Steve1939 is offline  
post #82 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 06:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
Alan Dail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wooster, Ohio
Posts: 895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass addict View Post

As I've mentioned before. I wish the 3d craze would die already so projector mfg's can spend the money and R@D on things that matter; like brightness, black levels, and sharpness.

how are they mutually exclusive? Things like brightness, black levels and sharpness are relevant for 3D too.

custom printed apparel
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Alan Dail is offline  
post #83 of 413 Old 11-13-2012, 07:46 PM
Senior Member
 
1HD_addict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Boston Hills area, NY
Posts: 246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
LG 47LW5600 passive 3D. Got it because of the deal not because I was looking for a 3D TV. 1st 3D movie I bought was Tangled. Was glad i got the 3D TV. Now watching a new 3D movie is a treat and something I look forward to. Buy them for around $20 when on sale. Madagascar 3 this weekend! Wish Netflix or Redbox rented them. Now own 15 3D movies - no plans to stop any time soon.

OTA with free HD is the only way I watch TV
1HD_addict is offline  
post #84 of 413 Old 11-14-2012, 01:16 AM
Newbie
 
lluther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I recently upgraded my 3D ready TV to 3D just to play black ops and now black ops2 in 3D on the ps3, it's a lot better than 2D for this in my opinion.
lluther is offline  
post #85 of 413 Old 11-14-2012, 04:58 AM
Member
 
Vaison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Delaware
Posts: 116
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
When I looked for a new plasma last year, I asked around to see if I could find a TV that didn't have 3D. I ended up buying a TV that has it, but I don;t have the glasses and I have no desire to access it. It looks horrible to me. They should call it 2.5D because only a few things pop out and the background is still flat.

Vaison is offline  
post #86 of 413 Old 11-14-2012, 05:02 AM
Member
 
MANiaC3173's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 26
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Love 3D! really good when the content is well done. i enjoy on my tiny UE32ES6300 which is i guess entry level. 3D youtube had everyone gasping in amazement and always entertains. 3D Bluray is amazing as its all HD3D. if the 3D is well done then its always the preference for 3D. Prometheous was mind blowing!
MANiaC3173 is offline  
post #87 of 413 Old 11-14-2012, 05:24 AM
Senior Member
 
nirvy111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Perhaps it depends on ones setup. I've 'Got It' but I don't think it works that well, I would have to see a fair improvement to take it seriously, but again maybe it's my setup that's at fault. (Epson tw9000/6010 projector and 160" High Power 2.8gain screen)
nirvy111 is offline  
post #88 of 413 Old 11-14-2012, 08:14 AM
Member
 
triumphrider74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 73
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The verdict is still out for me. In the last few months I bought a 3D blu ray player and, this week, a 3D Plasma. I still have to order glasses before I can try it. I plan on checking out the video with my 3D copy of Avengers and, if I like it, I'll have to upgrade my Blu Ray Player to one with two HDMI's out to be compatible with my legagy AVR that I love. Anyway, that's where I stand.

FYI, I voted "Have it".
triumphrider74 is offline  
post #89 of 413 Old 11-14-2012, 09:01 AM
Advanced Member
 
Alan Dail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wooster, Ohio
Posts: 895
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaison View Post

When I looked for a new plasma last year, I asked around to see if I could find a TV that didn't have 3D. I ended up buying a TV that has it, but I don;t have the glasses and I have no desire to access it. It looks horrible to me. They should call it 2.5D because only a few things pop out and the background is still flat.

You say you haven't tired it then tell people how bad it is? It's gotten so inexpensive to give it a real try it doesn't make any sense to not even try it.

The best TVs are 3D capable
3D Blu Ray players are marginally more expensive than equivalent ones that don't support it. $10 or so.
3D glasses are under $20
There are plenty of 3D Blu Ray disks that get rave reviews around here in the $25-$35 range. 3D movies come with 2D copies, so they incremental cost to try a reference quality one is $5 to $10.

So the incremental cost to give 3D a real try is $40 or less vs not ever trying it.

I haven't watched Avatar since I saw it in the theater because the 3D was so spectacular that I can't imagine that movie in 2D. I'm installing my 3D projector for christmas.

IMax: Under the Sea 3D is supposed to have outstanding 3D.

If you haven't watched either of these on your 3D capable TV, how can you say it doesn't look good. Of course there is "3D" content that would be better labeled 2.5D. But that doesn't mean there isn't any high quality 3D content.

custom printed apparel
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Alan Dail is offline  
post #90 of 413 Old 11-14-2012, 11:02 AM
Advanced Member
 
dbailey75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Marietta, Georgia
Posts: 674
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Got it, and if you treat 3D movies like an event, and not like an everyday occurrence, I think its great, good way to spend family time, but I can see how it could get old if it were as common as well, HD programing. 3D is good for some titles and not others, just got Madagascar in 3D, high recommended, great 3d effects, one of the best I've seen, lots of depth.

One negative comment,
With 3d, you realize how small your TV actually is, 55" does not do it justice. Wish I had space to set up a projector, that would be the bomb.

PSN: CAPTDANMAN
dbailey75 is offline  
Reply Community News & Polls

Tags
Polls

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off