3D is Not Dead... - Page 2

I love 3D and don't mind the glasses either. But, and it is a big but, after watching Avatar in two different theaters in 3D I have to say that although I absolutely loved the film and own the DVD now, watching in 3D was an extremely painful process. I have good vision and nearly identical in each eye. I can buy and use over the counter glasses and do not require prescription, just slight magnification at close range (book, newspaper and to a lesser degree, computer). Watching Avatar in the theaters in 3D caused my eyes to tear constantly. I must have wiped my eyes 50 times during the film and it was worse the second time (a week later) than it was the first time. The film also brought on a slight but persistent headache that took an hour or so to dissipate. Meanwhile, the DVD, watched at home in HD on a 106" Da-Lite High Power with a Projector gave me absolutely no problem and the depth of the film without glasses was breathtaking, The only thing missing was the "gimmick" of phony 3-D ...the kind of 3D that does not exist in the real world. And that does not bother me either...its an experience, but its artificial and unless they make it painless, it virtually destroys the value of the medium for entertainment. I'd rather go jogging or lift weights...it hurts less.

We see in 3D and our brains will resolve it just fine, as it does every time we step out the door (or stay in!) as long as there is sufficient detail and information available. I think when 4K video hits, real 3D will be very evident to everyone, as it is already for me and many others at 1080P. So I don't have any use for the current 3D that is being marketed and when I bought a Panasonic Plasma this year, I got the single processor U50 model and am extremely happy with it and the $499 that it cost me with 12 months no interest. Panasonic wised up part way into the year...competitors less expensive "regular" plasmas were outselling Panasonic's much more expensive ST, GT and VT series. Basically, if they continued to insist on 3D, they were losing customers for the current generation and the next generation. The 3D push was a marketing play supported by the movie industry that is concerned with not just copyright, but also keeping the viewing public going to the theater.
For the first time, we can produce at home a video and audio experience comparable to the best theaters and not for a huge outlay either, just carefully chosen and assembled equipment. I'm not against 3D but let the people decide. If Panasonic had not come out with their U50, I might have bought a Samsung or might just keep watching the 32" CRT for the NEWS and continue watching the 106" screen for movies and sports.

Presently, I am augmenting my "Home Theater' with 2 centers, 4 fronts (upper and lower), double subs, 2 side surrounds and 2 back surrounds along with two pairs of speakers for just music. I have seriously considered a 9.2 channel Pioneer Receiver. "40% of a film is the score"...Sergio Leone said that and I think he was absolutely right. If you want to augment your immersion and enjoyment in cinema and sports, do it with great sound and a bigger screen. The "real" 3D will be there if the detail, color and shading is there. And the 3D sound will make it even more real.

I think Dredd 3D is one of the greatest 3D movies so far, maybe the best. It's not just good film, but the 3D itself fits perfectly to it.

Agreed I say the same thing about 3D it should be as if you are looking into the world not as if the world is coming into your own.

Also you forgot Hugo on that list, I loved Prometheus I think that is by far the best 3D movie I have experienced at home. Shockingly Hugo was my second until I purchased Titanic 3D and wow!

Titanic 3D shows us 3D is not dead, it's alive and kicking. When viewing that film you see that you can actually take. Movie shot in 2D and make it look just as good as a native 3D film.

That to me is almost as if 3D can be the Dr Frankenstein of old flick if done correctly makes them new again!

It really needs to die.

Why?

Oh I get it is evil like that "Rock n Roll" or "alcohol" or even the "Internet".

Dead or alive, I am not a fan of 3D. I prefer good 'ol 2D.

YEAH! That's pretty cool, isn't it? We're in the same boat. As a kid, those red and blue paper glasses did nothing for me, but active forces the perception to my lazy (I'd say "shiftless") eye, and ergo my brain.

Active seems to work a lot better for me too.

This is why I'm secretly rooting for active. But I don't want to handicap the industry because my peepers are defective. May the best tech win.

I want a 3D Plasma !

It seems to me that for 3D to become a household success it must be available on the major TV networks and it must be top quality. Relegating 3D strictly to movies will never move it out of the nitch category.

I always wonder when peope remind us that a large part of the population has eye problems... do those people not see 3D in real life? I have to imagine that for those who really can't see 3D the percentage is small and for those who see hampered 3D... well that's how they see it IRL too so if that's howt hey see it in the movies, what's so bad about that?

I love 3D but hate those that choose to thread c*** in every 3D thread just because they can... stay in your 2D world and leave us alone!

I love 3D too, but, wow, I hate when people tell others to stay out of a thread just because their opinion differs to their own. Who cares that some choose to denigrate 3D? If the tech is good enough it will eventually flourish.

Hehe, no. Because it really doesn't add anything and is actually fighting the way we view movies naturally on a chemical level. It really is a gimmick.

I enjoy 3D, I watched Prometheus, Fright Night and IMAX Hubble so far. I have a few more I havn't watched yet but so far these look very cool! I have a VT50 and Oppo 105 and the 3D quality is very good to me. The more good releases in 3D the better, plus you can always watch the same movie in 2D also!

Well, that's where higher rez TVs come in: with higher resolution screens, you can view 3D on passive screens at higher resolutions than you currently are able to. That means you won't need to stick with a system that uses shutter glasses. The result? You can get a pair of prescription passive glasses, possibly for less than the cost of a pair of shutter glasses and you won't have to wear two pairs of glasses any more. The bonus is, if it's a Real-D compatible system, you can use those glasses out at the theater.
Opinion, pure and simple.

Many people think 3D adds a lot to the movies they watch. That's also their opinion.

For me, I'll watch it in 3D if I feel the movie will really benefit from it, but I really don't care normally. If I upgraded to a 3D TV at home, I'd likely buy the 3D option on more movies just to give myself the option, but I'm not one to seek it out deliberately.

You sound like some of the people in the 90's that said surround sound doesn't add anything to home theater viewing. It does they both do its call immersion.

A well done 3D movie put you there make it look like you are looking into a window of the world on the screen. Not to say movies without 3D do not put you in there, it's just that 3D adds a little something, and I do appreciate that.

Well, I was not out looking for a 3D set when I set out to buy a new TV last summer.

But, I did want a top notch picture so I got a Samsung PN60E7000 60: Plasma and that of course has 3D capability.

I have now watched a number of movies in 3D and have gotten to like 3D quite a bit.

So I do not think its dead. I think it is going to show up in more mid priced TV's and is already baked in most high end sets.

Its maybe more dependent on Hollywood continuing producing more 3D movies.

As long as there are movies still being shown in 3D, then for me 3D is not dead and with it 3D movies for home viewing, I'm still happy with my 3DTV purchase and do not regret it.

I don't regret my purchase either. It's an LG 65LW6500 passive 65" set. I don't watch 3D all the time, nor would I want to. But every 3D movie that comes out, I buy the 3D/2D set. Assuming I'm interested in the movie enough that I'd get it anyway.

I could see getting an 84" passive 4k set in the future and having a full 1080p for each eye. When it's cheap enough!

BTW, you can buy clip-on passive glasses if you normally wear prescription glasses.

There's a difference between not being hyped and being dead. 3D wasn't hyped this year at CES because it's old news, but that doesn't mean it's dead.

I'm no fan of 3D, but it's certainly not dead. I think some film studios have gotten carried away with it. For example, I think it's ridiculous that the upcoming Great Gatsby is in 3D. I see about 35 features already scheduled for 3D in 2013, 14 for 2014, 5 for 2015 and 2 more for 2016, but about a third of those are animated kids movies. As far as glasses-less 3D is concerned, you can't get past physics: you have to send a different signal to each eye and that's never going to work out well without glasses (it barely works with glasses) until we get to true holographic displays, which can't happen with current TV technology.

My personal opinion is that just as in the 1950s, I think people will get bored with 3D and there's already a backlash against paying extra for it in movie theatres, especially in markets where ticket prices are already high. A 3D movie on an RPX, ETX or LieMAX screen in Manhattan can set you back $20 these days. While anecdotal, I've already seen people get off the line when they find out it's only playing in 3D. Frankly, even if I liked the 3D (I did like "Hugo" in 3D), IMO, it's not worth giving up the screen brightness and proper color for. There are no proper whites when wearing 3D glasses. I thought "The Hobbit" in 3D and HFR was simply horrible.

What would be useful to know is how many consumers actually watch movies in 3D at home. Those numbers are hard to come by. The number of 3D glass in consumers' hands is not an indicator because many glasses were given away with sales of sets - it doesn't necessarily mean that consumers are watching 3D.

If the studios were smarter, they wouldn't let streaming services have 3D versions -- they would reserve those for media sales. But since they're greedy and look at the short term, not the long term, they probably will let streaming services take the 3D versions.

Meanwhile, I wish 3D would go away if only because theatres using the Sony 4K projector leave the 3D filter on when playing 2D movies, which softens the image and changes the color, although not as badly as it initially did, so they must have made some adjustments. (You can tell if a theatre is doing this by turning around and looking at the projector glass. If you see two images, one above the other, even though it's a 2D movie, the 3D filter is in place.)

3D may not be dead... but was it ever alive?

My theory is that 3D is desirable but that it isn't as critical to a good viewing experience as a few other factors. For many years it seems that when given a choice, the majority of people tend to pick larger screens over absolutely every other factor. Theoretically this is because it gives them more enjoyment than spending their budget on other options such as picture quality, native frame rate or sound quality.

Good bass comes at the price of annoying family members, annoying neighbors, consuming space and of course more money. Surround sound comes at the price of running wires everywhere and having speakers everywhere, etc.

Given the current tradeoffs, I suspect that the trend will continue in regard to 3D. People will still opt for a larger screen if having to choose one or the other. Once it comes basically for free on any set, that might change.

But then again, video calling is now possible for much of the populace but it still isn't that popular.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is illogical or bad to love 3D. Nor does everyone value the tradeoffs the same. Everyone should buy what pleases them the most.

Personally, when my projector finally dies, 3D will be fairly far down on the list of priorities. More important to me brightness, native frame rate, no dlp-rainbows, and low fan noise. But if 3D comes in the projector I buy, you can bet I'll have a handful of glasses and join in the fun.

3D film makers have issues they need to deal with to make it better.
film today is done with open lenses and then darkened to suit color.
what this causes is poor 3D in night shots. there is a lack of depth of
field from it.
let me explain that. the open lens focuses a narrow range; things close
or things far are only things in focus, you can't have both.

during day light scenes, you will notice many things are in focus both near and
far, at the same time. it is more a photography thing.

however computerized movies the issue can be addressed.

I think 3D is here to stay but needs improvement.

Depth of field is something I think needs to change with 3d... I find t very distracting (one f my least favorite parts of avatar) and think its something best suited for 2d.

In 3d I don't need the visual queue of depth like that and its distracting when I inevitably look at an out of focus object...

3D is certainly not dead. Passive, Full HD, 3D on the 84" LG has been rated as the best seen by some reviews, even better than the theater. I don't think the glasses are a big deal for most people when they are the light-weight passive type. Cheap, free of batteries and recharging or loss of synch. Simple physics and optics dictates there will always be a compromise and "sweet" spots for glasses-free 3D. And that lens system will, by definition affect 2D viewing as well, since it is part of the screen, and still allowing each eye to see only half the screen's pixels at all times. Just the opposite of the problem with half-resolution 3D images on 1080P 2K screens. Give me Ultra HD and passive 3D any day, with nearly disposable glasses and bright, flicker-free images. And uncompromised 2D viewing. 3D will always be around, regardless of the victorious technology for delivery.

Just got my Panasonic 55GT50 based on Scott Wilkinson's recommendation and I'm loving the set, just waiting for my glasses to arrive to check out The Avengers 3D
3D is like surround sound once was slow to catch on but at some point all will have it if they choose to use it.

I think there can be less interest in movie industry but game industry will get into 3D fast when next gen consoles from Sony and MS launches. Consoles need more raw power to do 3D right and this i think is "fixed" with next gen. Most popular game engines support 3D at the moment so i think 3D is here to stay this time.

Some games are already impress me in 3d. I enjoyed Dragon Age 2 in 3D and on the PS3, super stardust HD actually works in 1080P 3D, a rare example but made possible due to the arcade-like gameplay/graphics. It's a sight to behold, I wish there were more games like it, I'd still have a PS3. I actually bought the PS3 to play Motorstorm Apocalypse in 3D and that was very satisfying but 720P can be annoyingly jaggy, as has been discussed, next-gen consoles should have that issue resolved. 3D in 720P on a PC is not nearly as bad, with higher frame rates and much better anti-aliasing which is absolutely key, but I am ready for 1080P 3D gaming. Bring it on.
Edited by imagic - 1/21/13 at 10:51am

You can adjust 3D depth and convergence for most games with 3D Vision so they could had too much depth or convergence or both when you saw it at CES2009.
Edited by JaMiR - 1/21/13 at 11:02am