Originally Posted by MaXPL
yeh this poll is not bias at all...
everyone voting against 3D are just haters with sets without 3D. when theyre in the market for a new tv, the majority will buy something with 3D.
At the 3 stores where I demoed the available systems from Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic, the salespeople who "assisted" me where not exactly enthusiastic about 3D's prospects for success. They all pointed to the high cost of the equipment, the lack of content, and the large number of people who cannot physically experience the effect as major barriers to be overcome before the technology can become "mainstream".
I have always been very enthusiastic about 3D, and was looking forward to it coming to TV (I've got both Nuoptix and Cyan/Red cardboard glasses in my collection of AV "gadgets"). But after years of enjoying 3D at IMAX theaters, I am very disappointed at what manufacturers are offering to home viewers. Very few people have perfect, non-astigmatic, 20/20 vision, and it seems that one needs just that in order to be able to derive maximum enjoyment from the current technologies. The poorly-worded health warnings are not helping matters, either...who would want to put their children's health at risk just so they can watch an animated feature in 3D?
I agree with some of the posters on here that there needs to be set standards that are mandatory for all content providers and equipment manufacturers; they all need to make their products interoperable to minimize the cost to consumers of adopting the technology. I also think that they also should stop trying to fool consumers into believing that "2D to 3D" conversion is a process that a Blu-ray player or a consumer display can accomplish convincingly. Visual composition and camera angle are a major factor in achieving the illusion of depth, and most material is simply not shot in this manner. I find that (for me, anyway) the most convincing 3D features sequences with amazing depth of field, where everything from the foreground to infinity is in sharp focus. Unless they can figure out a way to do this with existing material, 3D sources will be limited to material specifically shot as such. But how many "Avatars" are even possible? Many non-videophile friends and colleagues who saw this movie at IMAX theaters loved it yet complained that there was so much going on that they felt "nauseated" during some of the action sequences. And those who saw the "home version" of 3D afterwards all felt that it "wasn't nearly as good". Obviously, manufacturers have their work cut out for them if they want 3D for the home to be anything other than just another fad.