Originally Posted by Deja Vu
That pretty much mirrors my experience. I was seriously contemplating either the Samsung or Panasonic 3D plasma and also purchasing the RS40. For some reason I bought the Acer and on my 120" HP the image has floored me. To be honest I'm no longer interested in the other 3D options. I'm an equipment junkie so at some point I'll buy a 1080p 3D projector, but for right now I'm flabbergasted by what a cheap 720p 3D projector can do!
My hope is that forum members do 3D right so we don't get tons of complaints from JVC and Sony owners about the image being to dim and on and on. This just feeds into the anti-3D crowd and their negativity. So please, if you have to buy something like the HP screen, even if you use it only for 3D, then just do it!
Here's a little rant from Grant. If you don't like 3D then fine. No one is going to force you to watch it, so don't, but please keep your negativity to yourself. Some people just can't handle change. I'm fine with that, but I'm not fine with all the vociferous bitching so let the rest of us enjoy what we enjoy. Listen to yourselves complaining, and I'll bet you'll be surprised at how awful it is. If you have a spouse who is still with you then give her a kiss and some flowers because she certainly deserves something positive for putting up with the likes of you! End of rant.
Pretty good rant, Grant. Mind if I pile on?
I agree with you. Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but some people seem to have made it a mission to convince others that 3D is a gimmick and worthless, and that it will fail. Worse, they throw out comments like, "No one wants 3D," or "NO ONE WANTS TO WEAR THOSE FUNKY GLASSES," or other such nonsense. IMO, even a film critic like Roger Ebert (whose opinion is his business) goes too far when he says that 3D adds nothing to the filmmaking experience. Obviously, there are millions who are at odds with that opinion, and I think he comes off looking seriously disconnected from mainstream sentiment. It's one thing to condemn a single film, but to condemn all of 3D is like condemning the use of wide angle lenses, or certain types of film stock, or the Steadicam, or color. In my mind, someone who does that dramatically lowers their credibility.
Another serious offender is Phil Swan of TVPredictions, who is on record as predicting that 3D will fail. He takes jabs at the technology at every opportunity. I'm sure he's poised to claim he was right when he predicted that 3D would fail in 2010, even though the real reason for slow 3D sales, IMO, has more to do with the fact that there were virtually no 3D titles available in 2010 until November. But that won't stop him from adding the failure of 3D to his list of "correct" predictions.
Anyway, it's pointless to argue whether 3D will fail or succeed. We'll know for sure in a couple of years. As someone who desperately wants 3D to succeed, I choose to remain very optimistic about the prospects. Actually, I see little reason for 3D NOT to succeed this time around. Technologically, there's no reason for it not to, and the theatrical success of 3D says to me that people will want it in increasing numbers in their homes, too. Of course, there's always the difference in screen size, but that doesn't seem to have stopped the popularity of "Home Theater," even though it most often means screens that are far smaller than commercial theaters.