Ok...Holidays are now over, so, how about 3D now? - Page 61

Sure there are, but you don't get charged a extra premium price to see them, like you do with most all 3D showings.

The topic of which movies people like is a highly subjective one. "One man's junk is another man's gold" applies.

Cameron is the one who would know the best way to convert 2D to 3D... (or should I say picky enough to make sure it is done correctly )

Titanic has scenes that would lend themselves to 3D pretty well....

But I'm still waiting for him to get the Bluray release of "ABYSS" , and I'd love to see that converted to 3D, it would be awesome I'm sure

Have to admire him for trying to prove a point about how well a 2D film could be convered to 3D if enough care is put into it. But again, it being so much a dramatic and love story, we will have to wait and see the reaction of the fans of the film feel about as to viewing it in 3D for it's entirty, not just the action sequence. That feedback will be interesting, indeed.

Gold, like in all the other films that have tanked this year, 3D or 2D? Not too sure how many times people will pay again to see a film like "The Lion King" on the big screen because it's now in 3D. In fact, the article that you posted centered on a big factor to the Disney box office success - there is a whole new generation of children who have yet to see what was being hailed as the best family picture of it's time.

Plenty of great kids movies in Disney's library. Not the same watching it in your home versus watching it in 3D in a theater from a kid's perspective.

I believe Beauty and the Beast is next for a 2D to 3D conversion

Disney might be the only one that could make box office lightning strike over and over if they can continue to convert their 2D animated movies into 3D. Along with the "generation" thing, I have a feeling 2D animation (specially in the hands of Disney) could be converted into great looking 3D. Like I posted earlier, The Lion King was very 3D-ish to begin with. So with the right touches I guess it turned out to be pretty awesome in 3D.

I'm hoping the wife & I will see this weekend.

Ghpr13

I've seen a few examples of 3D Technology on TV's and must say it's impressive but, still think it's a fad. The pricing has already started to come down and I'm wondering if that's due to the pressure companies are facing have 1000's of unsold units out in the market.

What data have you looked at that gave you this idea? Can you provide a link to them please.

Interesting article:
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/3d/3...s-prefer-3dtv/

Brought to you and paid for by Panasonic.

Ghpr13

Agreed, it's just another public relations spin.

See posts 1745, 1769 and 1788 as a few examples of how all HD monitors are not selling, especially 3D, and production is being cut-back on all levels.

Joe, it's tiring. You're just obsessively cynical about 3D to a level that's, honestly, a little odd. This research is negative, that research is positive. Enough already, it wasn't the magic bullet the industry was counting on, neither is it a dead-wieght.


Just move on already.

Addicted,

Had a feeling you were going to misunderstand the points many are trying to raise. It's not just about the popularity of 3D as a form of entertainment but rather a whole array of economic, behavioral and consumer issues that have to be considered as well. These factors all combined makes it more than a simple question of wanting 3D in the home and purchasing a set -- to discuss the issue only in those simple terms is ignoring business and economic reality - just ask any stock holder of Best Buy and other consumer electronic retailers. The shift has been to other products.

Perhaps in five years when both the economic situation has changed (hopefully) and there is renewed interest in television viewing which causes consumers to be looking for new HD monitors things might be different but for now it's the non-entertainment factors that have limited the purchasing of 3D televisions (and all HD monitors in general) . If there was big money to be made, the industry wouldn't be reducing their production planning.

Went to see Final Destination 5 in 3D a couple months ago and when I bought the tickets, the girl at the box office actually apologized that there wasn't a 2D screening (something I already knew). I asked if most people request 2D if they have a choice, and she said almost all 3D sales at that theater are either people with small children or movies where there is no 2D option available at the time.

The movie would have been bad in 2D as well. The 3D was equivalent to what I saw back in the 80's with Friday the 13th III in 3D right down to the cheesy "in your face" 3D shots.

Avatar was done so much better because the 3D was far more natural. But even that wasn't as apparent until I periodically removed the glasses and then put them back on - that's when you appreciated how much subtle 3D was always present in the film. If I didn't remove the glasses every once in a while, the effect was basically lost because your mind automatically converts everything to 3D anyway.

Looks like starting in May 2012, there will probably be another added cost to the consumer to view a 3D film over and above the usual surcharge for a 3D movie, if it's a film that is put out by Sony.


http://www.ifc.com/news/2011/09/sony...rease-2012.php

I don't think 3D should be something we're constantly reminded of while watching a movie. If 3D is done well, like Avatar or Tf3, the viewer should have a more visceral/immersive movie experience. So much so that taking the glasses off is akin to returning to planet earth. That is it's effect on me anyhow. Never has 2D been able to suck me into a film the way surround sound + big screen + third dimension does.

Don't think most care one way or the other about 3D judging from the small handful of us from that 1,900 polled that even participates in this discussion anymore.

LOL - Joe, there is a whole world outside of AVS.

Lots of discussions going on in the 3D forums here at AVS. This thread has prertty much played itself out.

its really a gud experience with sony 3d...)

But Lee, don't forget this was a forum based not on the subject of specific equipment, set-ups, tweaking, problems, recommendations, etc. as it was the future viability of a new feature.

It's a survey and nothing more. It asked a question. A subjective question at that. Has that question been answered? How far has 3D progressed since the OP was posted 8 months ago? In available content, 3DTV adoption, industry support, etc.

My vote is FAD....The glasses are a pain, and I don't think that there is technology for creating 3D tv without having to wear polaroid glasses. I think the next fad will be virtual headsets and interactive tv. The prices just have to come down for the masses.

Never heard of Autostereoscopic 3D displays huh?