or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › 3D in the Home? Do you care?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3D in the Home? Do you care? - Page 8

Poll Results: 3D In the Home?

 
  • 39% (568)
    Got It
  • 11% (164)
    Want It
  • 18% (259)
    Don't Want It
  • 30% (439)
    Don't Care
1430 Total Votes  
post #211 of 413
Good 3D is a work in progress, and the evidence of this is how people keep repeating the same 3 perfect 3D movies over and over (I won't even bother), not allowing themselves to appreciate newer 3D masterpieces such as Prometheus, Madagascar 3, and the recently released Brave. That alone should tell people their equipment will consequently be improved exponentially. Five words:

It

will

only

get

better.

cool.gif
post #212 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlosMeat View Post

Jerry Sandusky said that at his trial.

This, and what it implies, has to be the single worst comment of the thread. So far at least!

In regards to 3D vs other technological developments, note how many people got a 3D TV simply because it was the best quality 2D TV available. Manufacturers are not in fact using 3D to compensate for low quality displays.

Yes, in movies 3D is sometimes used to try to compensate for poor quality. People naively say, they should have spent less effort on the 3D and more on writing a good script. But the script writers themselves weren't involved in shooting it or converting it to 3D, and you wouldn't want the cinematographers working on the script. Remove 3D from the process and all you'd have is the same crappy movie in 2D and people would still be complaining about bad movies, just as they always have and always will. Better to just not worry about bad 3D movies (3D didn't make them bad), or bad movies in general (they exist but you don't have to see them).

In TVs, active 3D technology has improved pixel response time. In projectors, it has led to brighter projectors. Continued development in 3D technology will lead to good glasses-free displays, which many here have said they're waiting for. If you're only interested in 4k, guess what, everyone who likes 3D is going to want a 4k passive display. 3D increases the demand for 4k, which will eventually help drive down the costs.
post #213 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlosMeat View Post

I think you are mistaking a feeling that effort should be put elsewhere for hatred of 3D per se. So many films with poor writing and money going into 3D, projectors with insufficient light, poor intrascene contrast, poor panel alignment and poor stability of light source but hell they are 3D. Enjoy your 3D but don't be upset with those of use who would much much rather see the CE companies putting effort other places.

The effort to put 3D in a display is not overly complicated at this point. You are deluding yourself if you think we would have a significant increase in quality and other image enhancements if 3D wasn't available. I'll enjoy my 3D and 2D for that matter. At least 3D is a real feature whereas 4k is going to be nothing than up scaling for the vast majority of owners for a very long time.
post #214 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post


In regards to 3D vs other technological developments, note how many people got a 3D TV simply because it was the best quality 2D TV available. Manufacturers are not in fact using 3D to compensate for low quality displays.
Yes, in movies 3D is sometimes used to try to compensate for poor quality. People naively say, they should have spent less effort on the 3D and more on writing a good script. But the script writers themselves weren't involved in shooting it or converting it to 3D, and you wouldn't want the cinematographers working on the script. Remove 3D from the process and all you'd have is the same crappy movie in 2D and people would still be complaining about bad movies, just as they always have and always will.

Many folks, as indicated in posts here, got the 3D whether they really wanted it cared or not. The idea isn't if there was some sort of collusion between the poor writers and the guys deciding it would be 3D but just that if the bean counters want to make money they look at ways they can sell a film. I'd personally,as others here, like to see it in a good script. If they didn't see the gimmick as an out they might think in a different way before putting out a $hitty story .
post #215 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

You are deluding yourself if you think we would have a significant increase in quality and other image enhancements if 3D wasn't available. .

I'm confident that you have no idea if this is true or not.They will apply changes they believe will sell sets. 3D is a detour ,IMO, and one that most, even in this thread, don't really want or don't care about.
post #216 of 413
i dont hate 3d, im simply not going to put on some space goggles to watch a movie
post #217 of 413
Two movies, only 2, shot in native 3D, with 3D cameras, and you will understand:

1. Prometheus (disc not theater version, that one got botched at the distribution level),
read below to understand the tech involved in shooting it:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Prometheus-3D-Blu-ray/39474/

2. Under the Sea

HC9000D fed by a PS3 here, one sentence:

"They took my breath away!"

Before that i thought i was watching 3D, when in fact the plethora of old movie
3D remasters, or new movies in native 2D remastered as an afterthought, are
nothing compared to how native 3D will look.

Remember, the Earth was flat one time and people were burnt at the stake for
denying it, but then again we now legally teach kids in the cornfields of the foodbelt
about people having "intelligently" walked with dinosaurs.
Edited by bobpaule - 12/1/12 at 4:14pm
post #218 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlosMeat View Post

I'm confident that you have no idea if this is true or not.They will apply changes they believe will sell sets. 3D is a detour ,IMO, and one that most, even in this thread, don't really want or don't care about.

Wow you are really full of yourself aren't you?

Look the whole point is people like you keep hating on 3D and think it should go away just because you don't like it. Keep deluding yourself thinking we would have projectors with perfect pixel alignment and such if it wasnt for 3D
Edited by Toknowshita - 12/1/12 at 6:54pm
post #219 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuts of iron View Post

The idea isn't if there was some sort of collusion between the poor writers and the guys deciding it would be 3D but just that if the bean counters want to make money they look at ways they can sell a film. I'd personally,as others here, like to see it in a good script. If they didn't see the gimmick as an out they might think in a different way before putting out a $hitty story .

There are some aspects of a movie where you can generally throw money at and get results. Visual effects, including 3D conversion, is one of them. A script isn't. How exactly do you take the money spent on 3D and turn it into a better script? Maybe that buys time to put the production on hold and hope the writers can come up with something better. Maybe they can, maybe they can't.

The other problem is, how could you take a movie like Piranha 3D and say "You know, if they just worked on the script a bit more, they really could have turned this into something special."? The bigger problem is that what we could call a good script isn't always what sells, and isn't always what Hollywood is looking for. There's any number of great films with great innovative scripts that have bombed at the box office, and we've had silly films with bad scripts long before 3D. I just think blaming 3D for bad scripts relies an an overly simple, naive view of Hollywood and movie production.
post #220 of 413
While it may be true when looking at the poll numbers that "Most don't want or care for 3D in the home", it is not appropriate or correct to lump these 2 groups into some broadly based statement to support one's perspective that 3D has no place in the home theater market. mad.gif

Clearly, 11% want it, 18% dont want it.

In addition, 36% already have it... and yes there are some in this last group that have it and don't care for it, but we don't know what percentage/how many those are in that group. From the posts I've been reading over the last 2 1/2 years, I think it is fair to say that those who purchased a set for the 2D quality (like me) most have been pleased with the 3D capability they now enjoy. Again, we don't know what percentage/how many those actually are.

In regards to the "Don't Care" group, 33% ( the second largest group after the "Got It" group)... These votes can not be attributed to the "Don't want it" group any more than they can be catagorized as "Want it". They currently don't care either way! Otherwise the would have voted in the "Want it" or "Dont want it" catagory. They are happy with the HDTV they currently watch, so it does not matter one way or the other to them!. When it comes time for them to get a new set, that also may or may not change... those scoping out the $200-300 WalMart set, those looking for the best picture available, those looking for the biggest screen size for the cheapest price (regardless of the picture quality)... there are just too many variables that would potentially affect this large group. rolleyes.gif

I won't go so far as to say "the vast majority of poll responses show overwhelming support for 3D, with 461 wanting/having 3D, and only 180 not wanting 3D" tongue.gif
Like wise, those who don't like 3D should not include the "Don't Cares" as "Dont Wants"... They are not saying they do not care for 3D, they are saying it makes no difference to them. These are 2 entirely different things!

I must agree with many of the posts made by other 3D supporters... it does seem that those who do not want 3D are obsessed with no one having it! eek.gif
(But then they probably think we should all be driving a 2002 Camry like them too! biggrin.gif)
post #221 of 413
If you look through the thread I disagree that those who don't care can be equated with anything other than plain apathy toward home 3D. The thread responses also indicate that some who have it have it because it coat tailed on the set they wanted anyway. No matter how you divide it, even after the time 3D has been with us, more, even on an enthusiast forum, either want nothing to do with 3D in the home or are apathetic about it.

I hope you guys who like it are enjoying it;it's my opinion that it will hang on, perhaps forever, but like a brain dead patient it contribute nothing and drains resources.biggrin.gif
post #222 of 413
Is it me or does 3D seem to look better in the home than in the theater.

The movies that I have seen on both seem better for the most part on the home screen.

I have a 60" Sammy plasma.
post #223 of 413
Don't care Member, but do watch it occassionally. Especially when Avatar 3D and 3D I, Robot went on sale for $19.99. Will watch, then go back to my 2D Videos. So, percentage wise, 2 to 3% of my viewing is 3D, the balance 2D.
So, maybe the better question to have been asked would have not been the categories presented, but more a question of what percentage of your viewing is 3D versus 2D.
Now you can go from 0% to 100%. (Although, I bet very few would even come close to 100%! Not even 75%))
post #224 of 413
CarlosMeat,
Apathy... a lack of interest or concern; abscence of emotion, feeling, concern or passion; indifference.

"Don't care" pretty much sums that up in my opinion. Of course you may not agree with this, and that's okay by me too. Almost 1000 votes total in the poll, and this will be the 225th post in the thread, with many of us posting several times. Most of the posts I have read here have been submitted by the "Have it/Want it/Don't want it" crowd, not the "Don't care" group (few and far between) who saw some in a store (a less than optimal situation, even in the best of circumstances)... sounds like apathy to me! I do not see the "Don't Care" responses reflecting positively or negatively, or having more or less credit to the "Have it/Want it" or the "Don't want" numbers. It is simply the lack of interest, the indifference they have, since they are not in the market for a new HDTV set at this time. Again, this may or may not change when they are looking for a replacement in the future. I don't have any crystal ball to see if they would consider this option in the future... and yes it is an option (but one that is finding it's way into more and more sets as time marches on).

I did mention that there are some that got 3D when it was included in the set they purchased, and were not specifically looking for a 3D capable set... just like me! But I have also noticed that in the last poll, as well as this one, that the majority have come to appreciate what it has added to their viewing experience versus those who don't like/never use this option. I have also noted that many enjoy the experience at home (like msantti above) more than a theatrical presentation at the local cinema, especially if they are fortunate to have a projector set up (seems like bigger is better! biggrin.gif)

If there was a poll on 4K, I am completely confident that the results would show an overwhelming "Don't Care" majority at the present time (especially considering the cost, complete lack of available content, and lack of available sets capable of this). Following your thinking, this will fail miserable in the future due to the lack of support from the general public.

Your assertation that even after the time 3D has been available, more are not wanting 3D or are entirely apathetic to 3D is a false assumption, and flys in the face of reality. More (and better) sets, more media availability ensure that this option will enjoy further growth as time goes on. (3D contributes nothing and drains resources? What nuerological impairment are you suffering from?biggrin.gif)
Edited by AVTrauma - 12/2/12 at 10:39pm
post #225 of 413
p5browne.... so do you enjoy 3D presentations when you watch? Does it add anything to your viewing experience? (Again, the quality of the content can be a huge factor in determination of this) Would you prefer the viewing the 2D or 3D presentation of Avatar, or are both equilly acceptable, and it really doesn't matter to you? Just curious.

There is probably little arguement (even from enthusiastic supporters) that the majority of viewing time is spent on non 3D presentations. But as time goes on, and the content availability increases and technology improves/increases, those precentages will most likely increase also. I love it (when done well) when I do watch a 3D presentation, and look forward to quality 3D in the future (Life of Pi, The Hobbit Triology...) in my home viewing experiences, regardless of any percentage of time I do utilize this option. (That's why I'm curious why "Don't Care" was your vote.)
post #226 of 413
I'm one who voted don't care because I've seen it and I really have no use for it but I'm not sure that at some point there maybe something that changes my opinion of it. I do agree with those who feel that 3D is used to promote poor films and in that I mean poor writing primarily. I'd much rather see the manufactuers spend time on producing the best 2D we can get including better color ,better intrascene contrast etc rather than 3D efforts.
post #227 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarqueeMarc View Post

I do agree with those who feel that 3D is used to promote poor films and in that I mean poor writing primarily.

But 3D doesn't cause poor writing. CGI, high paid popular actors, advertising dollars, all of these are used to promote poor films as well. But you can have good scripts with geat CGI. You can have bad scripts with no effort spent on CGI. You can have great films with popular actors. We've got plenty of popular actors appearing in crappy films. You can have great films with unknown actors. You can have great films with little money spent advertising them. You can have advertising promoting a bad film. You can have poor scripts with no CGI, no name talent, 2D crap festivals. Have I covered all the bases yet? You can have good 3D movies and you can have bad 3D movies.

Don't mix up cause, effect, and correlation.

Hugo is a good example where 3D brilliantly complements the script and the greater meaning of the movie and the history it contains. On the other hand, yes, there are bad 3D movies too. I deal with them quite simply- I don't see them. Same as how I deal with bad 2D movies.
Edited by Airion - 12/3/12 at 6:50am
post #228 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve S View Post

I wanted a new tv anyway, found that virtually all sets above entry level have 3D capabiity, so I've got it. I already have an updated PS-3 and the set I chose (LG 47LM6400) came with 6 pair of 3D glasses so the only extra expense involved was to purchase a couple of 3D Blu Ray movies.
I think it's sort of like the cruise control that's pretty much standard on all but entry level cars--I'm not going to use it very often but it's nice to have when I do want to use it and it didn't really cost me any extra.
...

Exactly how I feel.

I bought my PN65D7000 for the picture quality. 3D came bundled. Have used it maybe 8 to 10 times.
post #229 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

But 3D doesn't cause poor writing. CGI, high paid popular actors, advertising dollars, all of these are used to promote poor films as well..

Great ,so because there are other reasons that we are seeing poor films means 3D influence is less valid...BS ! That's like saying more people die from car accidents so murder has no influence on the death rate.
post #230 of 413
Have a Samsung 3D set, bought the set for excellent 2D picture, didn't own a 3D player.. At first didn't care, then I bought a used Sony 3D player, received as a gift "Prometheus" in 3D.
The first hour gave me a bit of nausea, I stopped watching after 15 minutes, then went back and hey, no nausea. I enjoyed the rest of the film, as someone said watching a 3D Blu-ray is an event.
Now I have 3 sets of glasses. I bought the following 3D Blu-rays:
"Avatar"
"Titanic"
"Transformers - Dark Side of The Moon"
"The Adventures of Tin Tin"
and a gift "Prometheus"
overall I'm happy with it.
Plan to get "Tangled" and "John Carter".
post #231 of 413
I thought 3D worked for Avatar but not for anything else I've seen. It's hard to be fan of 3D when it's only impressed on one occasion but I guess a film like Avatar does prove it can be effectively used.
Edited by nirvy111 - 12/3/12 at 10:07am
post #232 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by nirvy111 View Post

I thought 3D worked for Avatar but not for anything else I've seen. It's hard to be fan of 3D when it's only impressed on one occasion but I guess a film like Avatar does prove it can be effectively used.

Prometheus 3D, Hugo 3D, Titanic 3D. Try watching a 2D-->3D conversion of Casablanca BR. Or watch one of those Entertainment Weekly interviews that is shot outdoor with one of the principals with a 3D conversion. None of this is sufficient reason for buying a 3D capable display, but if one has it, then use it whenever one wants.
post #233 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarqueeMarc View Post

Great ,so because there are other reasons that we are seeing poor films means 3D influence is less valid...BS !

The point is, none of those are reasons for having a poor script. They have nothing to do with the script. CGI, popular actors, 3D, all of these can be used to try to compensate in terms of overall quality, but they're not the cause. You're mistaking a band aid for a razor.

With this logic, we could complain about 4k too. It's a gimmick! They should spend less time worrying about 4k and more time worrying about the script! But, I don't believe that.
post #234 of 413
Rob West.... Just thought I'd let you know that there are some who have not been impressed with the post conversion job that was done on John Carter. I would also highly recommend Hugo! Enjoy!
post #235 of 413
IMAX... Under the Sea, Deep Sea 3D, Hubble & Space Station now on sale (12/3 & 12/4, 2 day sale) at Best Buy, $14.99! cool.gif
(Sorry to go off topic, but I just found this while looking for a good deal on "Finding Nemo", and had to spread the word! eek.gif)
Now back to your regular programing....
post #236 of 413
Saw Rise Of The Guardians this weekend...this is one hell of a 3D movie PLUS it says in the credits it comes with an 11.1 sound mix eek.gif. So, go and see it! Happy 3D Holidays!

Will definitely be adding that to my evergrowing 3D BD collection when it comes out!!!

Once more: GOT IT and LOVE IT!

3D better at home or at the theater... I love both. I guess it may depend on the theater, whereas at home everything can be fine-tuned to your liking, eh?
post #237 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by AVTrauma View Post

Rob West.... Just thought I'd let you know that there are some who have not been impressed with the post conversion job that was done on John Carter. I would also highly recommend Hugo! Enjoy!

And from what I read, there are a whole lot of folks that weren't impressed w/ John Carter period. wink.gif
post #238 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by 73shark View Post

And from what I read, there are a whole lot of folks that weren't impressed w/ John Carter period. wink.gif

It seems that those who read the books as a teenager liked it for the most part. Like me. Other folks, not so much.tongue.gif

3D didn't add much to to the movie, IMO. It's okay I guess, and added a bit of depth. It just seems to me 3D was an afterthought, and it wasn't filmed with 3D in mind anyway.
post #239 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airion View Post

The point is, none of those are reasons for having a poor script. They have nothing to do with the script. CGI, popular actors, 3D, all of these can be used to try to compensate in terms of overall quality, but they're not the cause.
I understand but respectfully disagree. If films can be made knowing that the script is poor or marginal but if made 3D could still show a profit this must contribute to the subpar film seeing the light of day.Whether it be directly or indirectly it's still a factor. To say it isn't cause and effect is burying ones head in the sand.
Oh, by the way, I'm not saying that the 4K pitch isn't doing the same thing although I believe that it will ultimately be used for the vast majority of films where 3D will remain as a technique for a very small minority of films and remain near death forever.
post #240 of 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarqueeMarc View Post

I'm one who voted don't care because I've seen it and I really have no use for it but I'm not sure that at some point there maybe something that changes my opinion of it. I do agree with those who feel that 3D is used to promote poor films and in that I mean poor writing primarily. I'd much rather see the manufactuers spend time on producing the best 2D we can get including better color ,better intrascene contrast etc rather than 3D efforts.

I agree with this. 3D isn't and won't be the mainstay of quality in HT or commercial film. I'd so much rather see effort be put in other areas of both.

Art
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Community News & Polls
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › Community News & Polls › 3D in the Home? Do you care?