3D Television - Fad or Here To Stay? - Page 70

I don't have any use for it.

Only having a small selection of top quality 3D releases just doesn't appeal to me to spend the money for it yet. There are too many movies that just jump on the 3D bandwagon for profits and to push this on the industry (Thor, Captain America, Green Hornet, last air bender, all 2d releases, etc.). They add the effects in during post production - in other words, what you see isn't what the director saw or intended initially. It's an after thought, a cash cow from unknowing teenage spenders. Unless it's done properly I have no interest in watching it.

Everyone should get the same experience with every movie the way the director intended. If it's filmed in 3D and that's it's sole purpose then only release it in 3D at the theaters so everyone gets the best experience and when it comes on bluray every package should include both the 3D and the 2D versions.

Those are my thoughts. I don't mind 3D, I do hope it's here to stay because I think there is certainly a place for it. Simply put, it's best use is when filmmakers have a vision for a 3D movie that they are certain would enhance the overall experience (aka avatar).

Good points but the same can be said about 2D movies and how they add in visual (CGI) effects later in post production. Then there are movies that add in cheaply remastered 5.1 while at the studios. In other words, just like the 3D post production is done, the same is done by 2D movies.

Movies like Avatar, Tron or Legends of the Guardian are 3D masterpieces but 2D movies are guilty of the same post production remastering that some 3D movies are.

Just like bad 2D movies are made, there are bad 3D movies, but stating because the latter is produced it makes 3D a "fad" is faulty reasoning. Not that you made that point but others have. They watched bad 3D movies and then make the conclusion that 3D is a fad. Yet when they watch a bad 2D movie, they don't come to the same conclusion that 2D movies are a fad.

Back in here from post #17. LOL

Voted " Here to Stay " and still believe that.

I bought a Mitsubishi 3d-Ready back in 2008 but STILL haven't bought the 3D converter. I still have to send my receiver in for the 3D pass through upgrade and buy a new BD player. I'm fine with seeing the occasional 3D movie in the theater but not having it in the home isn't a big deal for me. Bought the TV mainly for the upgraded features but not 3D.

Wearing 3D glasses doesn't bother me at all. Those that are complaining about them being uncomfortable need to try on a pair of X-Specs or Visette 1 goggles used in Virtual Reality content in 1989 and 1991 respectively. The X-Specs were VR shutter glasses made for the Amiga. A company called Virtuality made an Amiga-based VR game seen in arcades in the early 1990's. The game looked like a personal hovercraft and the player wore a HUGE head-piece that covered the entire top of the head down to the ears. Folks playing the game looked like something out of Tron.

I know I'm taking VR, which use LCDs but the current active 3D glasses are feather-weights and comfortable compared to those VR goggles.

I remember broadcast TV back in the 70's used to show 3D anaglyph specials. You would have to go to certain retail locations to pick up the cardboard/plastic eyewear in time to view the program. Since it was national TV, I assume it went to millions of households.

You can't compare post production of 2D vs 3D. 2D Post production is done primarily for budgets reasons (you want Egypt in the background? Here's Egypt) and also for things that can't be achieved otherwise (you want a laser beam? Here's your laser beam).

Post production for 3D however is done as an afterthought, after the movie is shot and done with. It's added in because everyone else is doing it so lets cash in too and release 2 versions of the same movie. We aren't going to tell the world the director meant this to be a 2D movie as that's what he saw while filming it but instead we're going to promote it entirely as a 3D movie. Ya know the one we whipped up because the teenagers will more likely be suckered in when they see the big "3D" logo on the poster that's 5x the size of the title only to be disappointed when they walk away afterwards, complaining that the effects sucked.

Fads come and go and 3D is not a fad but marketers know how to force feed the gullible. Maybe I'm alone on this but I just wish things were a little more black & white with the advertising of them.

One thing that I notice and it's a bit annoying at times, IMO, is I have watched the 2D version of some of the lower budget 3D movies that been made recently, like Piranha 3D and Drive Angry, and it's very obvious where the 3D scenes are. That being said, it tends to take you out of the movie because you know that should have been in 3D. Now these movies are no where near the level of Avatar, but I see where the would be fun just the same. Only now, to see these "B" grade movies in 3D you need the 3DTV, 3DBDP, and the 3D glasses, as compared to years back when you could slip on a pair of cardboard red/blue glasses and still see the 3D effects, lame as they may be, but fun none the less.

Ghpr13

Post Production 3D is not an afterthought. The movie is planned for PP 3D before the first frame is shot. There are many advantages to using PP 3D versus shooting in 3D which has some severe limitations and is more expensive.

Actually that's not always the case and the reason for my rant. There have been just as many "3D" movies that had no intentions of releasing it in 3D from the beginning. Thor, Clash of the Titans, Last air bender, conan the barbarian, green hornet (They did end up reshooting a couple of scenes of green hornet afterwards when they decided to make it 3D during post production). What I'm saying is when the director doesn't envision it, the results suffer yet they sell it like it's the next best thing since sliced bread.

It's official: Thor' and Captain America' will be 3-D films


http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/...arvel-studios/

Thor may be the exception (Not that I really care), it's hard to know though as I've read otherwise:

Planning & Effort
Marvel didn't decide it wanted all of its upcoming movies to be in 3D until after Thor had already been filmed. So Thor is an after the fact post-conversion. It wasn't shot in 3D. Post-conversion can work nearly as well as shooting in 3D, if the film was at least filmed with an eye towards converting it to 3D later, but that didn't happen with Thor. Director Kenneth Branaugh made his movie, then someone said, “hey this has to be in 3D”, and so they went to work trying to force what they'd already done into the format. The good news is that Marvel made their decision some time around November of last year, so they had plenty of time to work on it, but the fact that the movie wasn't originally created to be a 3D film is a big mark against it.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/To-3D...ket-24538.html

secondhander,
Thor aside, you are right about The Green Hornet. After seeing that The Green Hornet wasn't turning out they way they had planned, it was then decided to "make" it 3D to try to ride on the 3D craze.

I find it rather upsetting that since 2009 only Avatar and possibly the new Transformer movie has been noted for their great 3D. And in following what you said, these two movies were made for 3D from the start. Yes, there has been a few honorable mentions now & then, but no real "Avatar like" blockbuster.

Ghpr13

It's a fad. The only way 3D is useful is if it's a 3D environment you can move in. I'm no Trekkie but... yeah.

didn't they shoot Jackass3 in 3D?


Warren

those are both horrible movies..I could say "C" grade
One should watch both of those..in 2D or 3D with a very low level of expectation

Avatar..as you mentioned is incredible in home 3D
Many of the animated films are as well

I think its very clear when they actually spent time and effort in a good 3D rendering...rather than something like you see in Piranha


Warren

NO

You might find this link HELPFUL

curiously

what movies have you watched in 3D in your home environment?


Warren

interesting that its on the list?

from your link

"Jackass 3D October 15, 2010 The first MTV Films release to be released in 3-D."

Here is a link from the director ...He disagrees with the way you said he shot his movie

http://collider.com/comic-con-jackas...kass-3d/41078/

in any case....the best one at the box office to date..in the series


Warren

I have compared mine (LG passive Smart 3D) with that of a friend - a plasma active 3D set. As a glasses wearer I couldn't take the heavy active shutter glasses for too long plus the flickering, to me at least, was noticeable and no wonder people complain of headaches. I also wouldn't recommend them for people susceptible to epileptic fits.

Passive glasses (I got 4 with my TV) are cheap, easily replaced and lightweight and, joy of joys, don't need recharging like the active ones do.

LG's passive system has been certified as full 1080p 3D since June this year I believe and I am very impressed with it. Not only is it just as good as my friend's plasma, the LG set gives pretty realistic 2D - 3D rendering on regular programmes too....if you want it of course. My set is only 47" of course and this would be much more evident on a larger screen I am sure.

My cableco already has one 3D channel and is planning more apparently. So all in all, for someone who said they would never waste the money on 3D, I am impressed and now a total fan.

The best test would be to look at the same movie in a side by side comparison looking at the same movie

IMO...there is a big difference

I feel that 3D is best viewed on a plasma screen as opposed to an LCD.
They haven't really gotten the crosstalk issue handled as well on the LCD technology I have seen

As for the flickering...I don't find its an issue...though it would have to be mostly related to changes in line of sight from the 3D emitter to the glasses

The newest Bluetooth technology is supposed to have solved the line of sight issue needed for the older glasses

I have never had to replace the batteries in several hours of using my 3D glasses...They use the batteries that ate bought very inexpensively online

In fact the keyfob to my car remote uses the same battery as my 3D glasses


Warren

I agree, side-by-side comparison would be best.

DLP is on par or slightly better than plasma, in regards to 3D viewing.

Unless there has been massive improvements recently, DLP is more than on par, it significantly exceeds plasma's performance.

I was trying to be "nice" to plasma

interesting

I have never viewed 3D on a DLP

but if what you say is the case the performance value between LCD and DLP must be massive


Warren

Warren,
As of yet none. I'm in the process of deciding on what to do about a second TV for our home. I have a Sammy LN40A550 that has an incredible picture on it. So I don't know if I want to move the Sammy out of the TV room and get a bigger TV (probably 3D), or just save some bucks and get a 32" for the front room. Also, I'm up in the air on the old "Plasma vs LCD/LED", specially when considering 3D. The main argument against a Plasma TV is the amount of light in my TV room. Right now with my Sammy, it has a matte screen and light reflection has never been a problem.

I will say this though, I was at first totally against buying a 3DTV, but now I've learned that 3DTVs have been noted for their great 2D PQ, and since CE manufacturers seem to be slowly fading away the 2D only TVs, it just seems the next progression. Rather 3DTV flourishes or not, great 2D PQ is always something to want.

Ghpr13

I can attest to this. With DLP, there is no crosstalk. I can't believe 3D LCD even exists, why in the world would people be willing to live/struggle with crosstalk? If everyone had a DLP setup, the world "crosstalk" wouldn't exist.

I personally can't stand 3D tv's...I don't know why but every time I put on the glasses I feel like singing "Only the Lonely"

I had a Samsung Plasma for two weeks. My theatre room, a converted office, has a lot of light. The reflections were just terrible so I returned it. Replaced it with an LED LG 6500. We are so much happier with the LG, no reflection and the passive glasses are so much more comfortable that I am glad we had a month to decide. The 2D is very good. The 3D is great. We have a 60" Kuro in the living room and we are finding we prefer watching the LG LED set during the day. The Kuro is great for Movies but I think it is going on Craigslist soon, we can live happily with the LG 6500.

I would say...first off
IMO..you should cite the fact that you have not viewed a 3D television in your own viewing environment when you offer your opinion

Its helps us put some relativity to the matter

Secondly
I had a Sammy 40A750..that I recently sold at my neighborhood garage sale. I had a for a few years and it had a nice picture

But I will say this..while it was the second in the line of Samsungs back then( the 860 series being the top of the line)...there has been a lot of improvement since then..just staying withing the Samsung line

Their LED's of today would put my old 750 series, from back then ,to shame..in 2D

No where even close to black level, motion control, or features
I am comparing old 750 series to today's D7000 series LED

The old stories about plasma don't really hold as much water today
They are much better in lighted conditions.
Even Samsung's LCD( from years back) above your 550 series TV had the Ultra clear panel...something they still use with its reflective screen
It can be extremely reflective...so sunny rooms can be an issue with many LCD/LEDs as well

As far as 3D capability meaning a better 2D TV
Not so much anymore...most mid line TV's today are 3D capable. LG makes several that have mid level picture quality at best..but are 3D capable

The best 2D TV's are 3D capable...but 3D capability is not exclusive to high end sets anymore


Warren

which Samsung plasma?

If you had the 8000 series model it had the true black filter which makes a lot of difference

I have the 8000..and it works well in my environment..though I only have windows on the opposite of the room where the TV is located

Interesting that you have a Kuro...and you prefer the LG

I can honestly say that is the first time I have ever heard that


Warren