3D is Not Dead... - Page 6

I've enjoyed 3d for the last year since buying a 51" TV, but use it as a treat, an experience that is really enjoyable if you get the right content to watch. Some of the best films have an element of pop out effect & depth, whilst some only have depth. I don't care what anyone says, most people love the pop out effects and the lack of it in films is always a disappointment. Another pain is the presence of black bars at the top & bottom of the screen. Yes I know this is because of how the director has shot the film, but it detracts from the 3D effect, and I shouldn't have to buy a larger TV to make up for it because some content (not everything is in HD yet) can look shabby in quality. Apart from all this I love the 3D experience... Prometheus, Avatar, Tron Legacy & the free stuff on Samsung smart hub is all great. I've also just got the Fuji W3 3D camera and this always gets a lot of wows from friends and family. So no, 3D is not dead at all, but is a developing experience that, like every technology, doesn't stand still but improves by listening to customer feedback. I don't think the glasses are a problem at all personally, in fact friends and family seem quite exited when handed a pair and really enjoy the whole experience. People new to 3D all love pop out effects and this is what draws most people to it. If all they saw was depth then 3D would die and I would never have bought my TV or camera!!

3D can't die because Hollywood and the electronics manufacturers won't let it. Personally I like the latest and greatest but 3D just doesn't float my boat. It looks too digital and doesn't have enough depth. It's getting a bit better though... or at least less gimmicky shots are thrown out there.

I see 3D TV in the same league as "smart TVs" it's something to try to keep people upgrading. Though smart TV is even worse considering set top boxes keep getting better and do they really expect you to buy a new TV every 2 years?

4k (Which should probably be called 2160p) is much more compelling.

If it really needs to die, please tell my wife and children that! If I didn't have a 3D television I would be dead now.

My 2c.
I'm in the "older" category quoted by several here. I was totally unimpressed with 3D on a (47") LED TV.

When it came time to replace my home cinema projector I did so with an Epson 3D. I had already watched Avatar in 2D (on 120 screen") but when watching it in 3D I was blown away by the extra this added to enjoyment of the movie.
Also the London Olympics 3D transmission by the BBC was spectacular.

So I'm totally sold. I have a rapidly growing collection of 3D Blu-ray's

I don't find wearing the glasses a problem though it would be better if they were not so dark, but I guess this will improve.

Is 3D dead IMHO no it is not!

Just look at the premium prices being charged by the likes of Amazon for the 3D Blu-ray against the much lower price for 2D versions. Plus the rapidly increasing number of 3D movies at the rental outlets.
They certainly would not stock them if there was no demand.

Being the next Jean Dixon has a certain draw to it.

Art

Now that all the manufacturers have invested in the technology for our TVs and DVD players, they're not going to pull it out.

I'm betting that soon all DVD players will 3D capable, like they are now all BR capable (at least all but the lowest end models, I think). Next very important piece of the puzzle is glasses need to be comfortable, effective, and cheap. I think much above $20 and the average person isn't going to invest in a set for the family. Throwing at least two pair in with most new TVs is a great start. For people who didn't get glasses thrown in, places like Target and BB need to have them in stock. I had to buy mine from Amazon because there was like zero selection at out local BB. The average person may not make the effort.

When these two criteria are met, the average household will be ready to watch without doing much extra except put on the glasses.

But what will they watch? Like DVD Audio and SACD, the content makers need to see enough demand from the buying public to keep bringing out titles, which I think is catching on, but there needs to be a critical scale of demand. Unlike DVD Audio and SACD, 3D has way more impact on the senses, and the equipment piece of the puzzle is falling into place so the chance of someone trying out 3D is good since they already have the gear. But I think with the way DVD purchases are headed, companies like Netflix need to rent 3D content. I bought Under the Sea, but personally, there is no way I'm going to purchase all the movies I'd like to try in 3D. If Netflix rents 3D, they will come. If not, ? I don't know if 3D content would work as a streaming option since I'm guessing it's more bandwidth intensive.

The problem with 3D is that it's inconsistant. You'll get one out of every 5 titles that is decent, especially with non animated stuff. 3D can be really well done if they apply themselves whether it be shot in 3D or post 3D. Avengers was post 3D and looked great, and so did Titanic. Spider-Man was shot in 3D and doesn't look too good. The culprit here is the studios that are trying to push this technology but don't actually put time in it. The equipment also varies too much from one to the other. There is also a big difference from 3D at the theater and at home. I absolutely hate it in the theater but love it at home. But again, there is a vast inconsistancy from equipment to equipment. My setup absolutely blows away any experience I've had in a theater, but my friend's setup is really poor quality, dim, and headache inducing. I haven't had one person come watch Tron: Legacy, Prometheus, Avatar, or Titanic that hasn't left my house stunned. 3D is a novelty though and it's not for everyone.

Wow, 9 days of debate here! I guess I'll add my .02.

I have nearly 20/20 vision in both eyes for distance viewing. I only wear corrective lenses for reading, but I have very bad depth perception, and always have. I see the real world with much less depth than the average person. The real world is not quite like watching a 2D TV or looking at a 2D photograph for me... because there are other depth queues in the real world. For example, I can tell how far away a car is because there are lots of queues... the lines on the road, the buildings, the telephone poles, the apparent narrowing of the road as it disappears in the distance, etc. But, I couldn't hit a baseball with a bat if my life depended on it. I've managed to hit a baseball exactly ONCE in my life. I made it to 1st base, but the next batter hit a ground ball right to the 2nd baseman.

In my childhood years, I continuously complained that I didn't have very good depth perception. Everyone thought it was just an excuse for my poor performance in just about every sport. In my early 20's, I was finally tested for it. I was correct.

For me, 3D is amazing! When a movie is well made, it allows me to see things like normal people do. It's wonderful.

The key phrase in that sentence is "well made". When a live-action movie is actually filmed with 3D cameras, the 3D effect is usually very good. But when the 3D is computer-simulated in post production (like Alice in Wonderland), it sucks. The people in Alice in Wonderland looked like cardboard cutouts. I hated it. The thing is, the director planned Alice to be 3D from the very start, but chose to do the 3D in post production! Crazy.

I also enjoy fun movies (kids movies, slapstick comedies, scary movies, some adventure films) where things pop out of the screen. But for a serious movie... I prefer not to have things popping out of the screen.

I haven't seen Dredd yet. I saw the first one in the movie theater (2D) and I thought it was crap. It wasn't on-par with many of the other "comic book comes to life" type movies.

The glasses vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. The comfort of the glasses was a high priority for me when I purchased my Samsung PN64D8000. I sat for more than an hour each watching 3D offerings from Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung. The Panasonic glasses were very uncomfortable. The Sony glasses were OK, and the Samsung glasses felt like wearing a pair of sunglasses. I got the TV on sale at the end of 2011, and I also got the dealer to throw in four pairs of glasses. Since then, I've bought three more pairs, used, on e-bay for about $20 each. That gives me enough of the glasses for everyone in the family to watch, plus one guest. I also bought 100 of the batteries on e-bay for $10. When you can get batteries this cheap, the additional cost of the rechargeable glasses doesn't make sense.

I have a friend who bought a passive 3D TV, and it definitely doesn't look as sharp in 3D as my active TV. Sure, he can get the glasses cheap (or steal them from the movie theater), but it's just not as good as active 3D.

My only complaint about 3D is that there isn't enough content, and I can't rent them on NetFlix. It was almost criminal that the biggest blockbuster 3D movie (Avatar) was limited to only be included with the purchase of a high-end Panasonic TV. I refused to pay $90.00 for it on e-bay, so I had to resort to other means.

The interesting thing about Avatar, was that I saw it in a 3D movie theater... and I wasn't impressed. I didn't see the "depth" that everyone was talking about. On my TV, it looks great! I think the movie theater passive glasses must have been defective. Maybe they had two left lenses, or two right lenses in my glasses. When I watched it on my TV and closed one eye, it looked just like what I saw in the movie theater. My wife's glasses must have worked correctly in the movie theater, because she said it looked identical on the TV compared to what she saw in the theater.

All the talk about 4K (UHD) and glasses-free 3D makes me chuckle. I'll believe it when I see glasses-free 3D work for a wide audience. I just don't believe it's going to be possible. There will always be a "sweet spot" where you have to sit... and even then, it won't be the same as 3D with active shutter glasses. I have a glasses-free 3D smartphone, by the way. I've watched The Green Hornet on it in 3D. I prefer my TV.

And... 4K (UHD)... that's just another marketing ploy to get you to go out and buy the shiny new TV. Many of you are complaining about 3D because it was just a gimmick. Well, 4K is even more so, and here's why... I challenge those of you who have a 1080p TV to find (or make) a still 1920x1080 image that has alternating vertical lines of black and white pixels. They need to be exactly one pixel wide. Put the image on your screen, and make sure your TV is set to 1:1 pixel matching (called "Screen Fit" on my Samsung TV). Make sure your video source (computer) also has over-scanning turned off, and that the resolution is set to 1920x1080. Now, stand or sit close enough to your TV to see the individual vertical white and black lines. Back up until the screen appears gray. This is the maximum distance that will allow you to appreciate the full 1080p resolution. If you normally sit any further than approximately HALF of this distance, you will not benefit from 4K (UHD).

I did this test on my 64" TV. The black/white vertical lines blurred into a gray image at 5-6 feet from the screen. So... if you get a 64" 4K (UHD) TV, and you plan to sit 3 feet from the screen, then you should definitely buy a 4K TV. If you plan to sit further away from a TV this same size, then you don't need 4K.

I am one of the many 3d supporters on this site I love the movies I own on 3d bluray and gaming is bliss in 3d minus the fact i have Panasonic 50St30 that has image retention issues at times. The next gen of games will support 3d a lot more and I am ready for it. Theaters and Hollywood itself has invested too much money into 3d that its not going to die or go anywhere it. It just will improve over time and more people will have 3d capable sets in due time.

3D IS NOT DEAD! I have reviewed over 170 3D Blu-ray Disc in Widescreen Review (see searchable database at www.widescreenreview.com) and written and published numerous articles on the subject. This is an incredible visual experience that is always advancing.

Hi, Gary. I didn't even know you posted on AVS. You have a terrific magazine, and I love your insights on the home theater market. It's different than what I get anywhere else.

Slight OT:

I have only seen 2 3D movies, both Blu-Rays, and liked them. Would like to see more, but can't afford to buy everything I want to see. Where are you guys getting all your 3D content? Are you buying all your movies, or is there a good option for 3D movie rental? Netflix does no carry them.

Best deals I've found are regular weekly sales at bigbox stores, used titles on Amazon (just like new), places like that. So far I've paid 9.99 to 18.99 for Blu-Ray 3D and then of course, when and if you've had enough of a title, just sell it back to Amazon for a pitance. Better than nothing and move on...

There seem to be a few 3D online places, but not much except kids stuff. I haven't found a good place to rent 3D - strange.

Thanks, Spin9k.

I second that. What we need to do is pester the hell out of Netflix to start getting some 3D titles. I asked a rep why no 3D yet, and he said "We're studying customer interest to see when there is enough to justify carrying them". I told him to record one Yes vote for me!

3d is a gimmick. And as long as the manufacturemedia continue to make it, there will be some sheeple who will gorge upon it because they like doing what the MAFIAA tell them to do.

But the fact remains: 3d is a gimmick, and a piss-poor one at that.

Why?

Because they have to fake it. It "appears" three-dimensional, until you try to focus your eyes on a part of the screen that's not the focus of the director (say, a background item, or someone to on side, or even a foreground item). In real life, our eyes focus on EVERY element in the field of view, and interpolates the distance based on lens focus, iris opening, and (primarily) eyeball angle; not to mention surrounding referents. 3d as rendered today, despite the super-fine pixel technology, still has the same problem: what's off the focus point of the screen is out of focus, even moreso than with a 2d rendering.

And, until they fix that pesky little problem, 3d will be nothing more than a gimmick. I'd rather not waste money on special equipment, glasses, widgets, etc, on something I won't enjoy. Keep it all 2d, I'm far happier with that on my 58" Samsung plasma goodness.

I didn't buy my last TV with 3d in mind. It turned out that the store had such a good deal on a 3D Samsung LED tv that buying anything else didn't make any sense. I will say that I do prefer to watch movies in 2D at the theatre as the 3D showing tends to make me feel sick and I get a wicked headache afterwards. And to boot, they charge me an extra $4 to see it in 3D. Sorry, I'll just save my money.

Now I will admit that I do own several 3D movies. Of the ones that I own, I'd say that Prometheus was the only one that I watched and said "now that was a good movie in 3D". Most of the junk they do to just too overboard and makes the film just seem too unreal to watch.

But that isn't the reason that I think that 3D is not going to work. The force that is driving 3D into the grave is GREED. I don't understand why a Blu Ray cost significantly more than a DVD? And then you look at the price of getting a 3D and you are forced into getting a 5 disc combo with both DVD, Blu Ray + digital copy (that they now make you download) just to get that elusive 3D disc. And for that priviage, they charge double that of a vanilla Blu Ray ( or 3x the cost of DVD ). Sorry, but the cost of printing the media is just about the same be it DVD, Blu Ray or Blu Ray 3d. I just don't see the point in paying $45+ to watch a movie possibly twice.

They force me to put up with junk advertisements in the start of the disc, and there are many disks that are mastered so poorly that they will crash your blu ray player if paused for over 3min, but if you stop watching midway through a film, will not allow your payer to resume from where you left off. Then to throw into the mix, sheer greed to pay more for watching it in 3D just pushes me over the breaking point. If I can't get the 3D version for a few dollars more than the 2D film, then I simply wont pay for it.

I know I am not alone in this thinking, and until the studio's smarten up and start giving us the options at a better price point, then we all know who the pirates are when they warn us the piracy isn't a victimless crime. We the consumer are the victims of the studio's greed to maximize profits.

One post. Figures. You don't know what your talking about.
3D Rules!!!

I hadn't bought a TV in 8 yrs until recently. The last one before this December was one of the very first 1080p TVs available, an HP 65" DLP monster. It was, and still is, an excellent TV, great smooth picture, high uniformity, bright, a stunning sight then and an adequate one still today. I still enjoy it greatly every day nearly. I bought into its technolgy "before its time" simply because it was the latest and greatest and had the potential to last in the developing 1080p HD scene. There was little content, Blu-Ray was just getting started, and broadcast HD was still a rarity, even around Boston. It did have great HD upscaling however, and that was mighty useful at the beginning.

Can you imagine that it was a short 8 ys ago?! (I dig out the invoice every now and then just to be sure I'm remembering right, only 8 yrs!)

The ONLY reason I bought another TV this December was 3D. 3D adds another dimension, just like HD did back in the day. I want to see, hear, and experience everything possible that the technology gods can produce for my enjoyment. I think buying NOW is the 'sweet spot' between maturing technology, cost, and longevity. Delivery technology is good enough, the content is on a roll, but far from adequate, and far too little of it. But there is no going back. 3D is here to STAY. It may seem kludgy at times, forced and weak even, but everyone is learning all the time. The future is ahead of us and it is 3D and I want to experience all of it as it unfolds into our future!

Anyone who sticks their head in the 2D sand is denying the facts, that is, denying that there is a large group of "experience junkies", for want of a better term, that want to enhance their viewing experience in every possible way. Not that there's anything wrong with staying in the 2D sands, but their sacrifice and railing against getting closer to reality, however flawed it may be, won't change what will be happening all around, and without them.

The future (and the present) is and always will be in all dimensions possible. Today we have 3D plus 7.1 for 11D really.

What will 8 yrs from today be like?? I can't wait!!

Many of us know that 3D when used correctly can be very good. The problem is that many copycats put out inferior product and that turned people off.
Avatar, The Life Of Pie, Hugo and a few others were great. I could also make a long list of bad 3D films that were made. With few exceptions 2D-3D conversions also hurt.

I do thing 3D will survive but only for that special film. Maybe that is the way it should be.

I think 3D is idling at the moment, tossing us some good films here and there, and is awaiting the next masterpiece from Mr. Cameron. I'm sure once Avatar 2 hits the screens, 3D will blow up once again. Avatar is by far the best 3D film I've seen yet. Call me insane, but I watched it six times in the theater so I could pick out cool details that I miss during regular viewing. I'm hearing alot of talk about Dredd and might check it out tonight. I hear redbox rents the 3D version but I can't confirm it. I held back on watching it since I hate remakes of originals. Prometheus was good enough to me to buy it but I wouldn't say it was amazing though. I kinda lost interest in the 3D aspect of it halfway through the film and went back to 2D version.

We watched Wim Wenders/ Tanztheater Wuppertal's Pina last night at home - 2d. It is the first film I have seen that elicited a desire to experience it again in 3d.
I'm kicking myself for not seeing it in the theaters when I had the opportunity (twice! In it's initial release in Europe, and then the US theatrical run.)
Until the content is of this level of quality on a regular basis, I'm not going to worry about bringing it home.

Just watched Avengers 3D on my Panasonic 55GT50 and loved it, building my 3D collection. Just like I did with my surround music collection. people are missing out on things they don't know about.

I'm with you here. 3-5 disc combos drive me nuts. Shouldn't it be obvious that if I'm buying a 3D BR I have a system capable of playing it? I don't need a 2D BR too. If I want to watch it in 2D, I'll just put my display in 3D->2D mode. Or better yet you could just take off the restriction that keeps it from playing in a 2D BR player in the first place. And the DVD... WTF? Who that's buying a 3D BR is ever going to need that? It's never going to be touched. The digital copy is maybe an exception. I own a bunch of them and have never used one yet. But maybe one day I'll figure out a use case.

One thing though roadkill. Blank BR media really is more expensive than DVD. You'll easily spend 4$ or more per disc.

I'd agree, its like all the other features that are thrown into TVs today that drive up their prices. Long live the HiDef monitor!

Having just upgraded to a 3Dtv over the holidays I really hope it's here to stay because I'm a convert now! Just give me the option for new releases going forward or better yet do like Dredd 3D and put both 2D and 3D on the same disc...that way everyone's happy!

3D Blu-ray discs already have the 2D version of the film. Regular, non-3D Blu-ray players can play them just fine (unless the studio prohibits it), because to regular players they look like standard discs. The information for the other eye view is a separate compressed file, usually about half the size of the 2D version. A 3D player decodes that file to create two full HD 3D images, one for each eye.

You can not complain about prices on a free market. Well you can, but that doesn't make any sense. In general, studios don't set prices, market does. There's no monopoly there.

Maximizing profits is the best way to go, for everyone. Don't you try to maximize your $$ just as well when buying something? Or selling.
Socialism does not work, trust me, I still live in it.

Cry me a river.

Most of my friends and family that have seen 3D on my plasma seem to enjoy it.

So is it painful to have a TV with 3D built in.

The 3D functionality is of optional use you do know?

Ummm, did the US models have them? I just bought he flagship model from 2012 (VT50) 65" and there are NO glasses in included