[MichaelJHuman]

Perhaps off topic here, sorry. But some people may be considering replacing a receiver for one that's fully HDMI 1.4/3D compatible.


I finally saw a 3D movie (feature length, seen a few shorts before.)


Here's what I thought...


There were 5 minutes, or maybe a bit more of...wow, that was a cool use of 3D (the overused shots many of us have seen before, are not cool, just like excessive use of stereo panning got old long ago.)


The problem I had, was that those 5 minutes did not offset the annoyance of having to wear the glasses, and having some stuff that did not seem in focus. Also, it gave me a bit of a headache.


Now if I was a kid, like 15 years old or less, I would think 3D was cool. I am sure of that.


But as an adult, I found it mildly distracting. And I want the cinnematics to focus on the advancing the story, and not just serving up cool 3D moments.


3D seems better suited for shorts. Like bug's bunny or that sort of thing, where you can overuse it to good affect.


I am not trying to convince the converted, but I hope 3D is a passing phase...I would have preferred to watch the movie I watched (KFP 2,) in good ole 2D.


No, I am not a luddite...I hope

 

[John McCutcheon]

3D is a feature, to be used...or not. As such, I think it may be around awhile.

 

[MichaelJHuman]

I see your point. In my case, the only option I had was to watch the movie in 3D. I think it was having no option to watch it in 2D that bothered me.

 

[Gooddoc]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman /forum/post/20764938


I see your point. In my case, the only option I had was to watch the movie in 3D. I think it was having no option to watch it in 2D that bothered me.

3D is in it's infancy. Over time the novelty will wear off and I think it will be used appropriately and to good effect by good directors. Don't get me wrong, I feel the same way you do at this point. But if they eliminate the glasses, improve the viewing angle and peripheral focus issues, and use it to good effect and they'll have my vote.

 

[G_M_C]

At this moment i think 3D is a gimmick. As you described, the effect isn't always present enough. Subtitles seem to fload somewhere in space, reduced contrast en brightness, loss of color-fidelity. Many people complain about headaches etc.


An for the majority of home users, i tink the effect is spoiled by the fact that you can always see the edges of your screen. I have the feeling that 3D only comes across right on big screens, or when your are close to your screen. By that i mean that at least 50 to 75% of your line of sight/view is filled by the 3D screen.


But from the point of view of the movie production companies I can see some benifit: Piracy through camming a movie in 3D wont work. Maybe that explains all the movies produced in 2D, but 'converted to 3D' we see popping up now.

 

[Razal]

I've only seen 3, 3D movies (all at the theatre) and don't plan on getting it home right now, for many of the same reasons you state.


I actually find myself LOSING the story because my concentration seems to be on finding the best 3D effects instead of focusing on the movie itself.


Maybe it's just my inability to multi-task, but I think if 3D movies use it more effectively, it is useful. The glasses don't really bother me but I can see how they could drive some nuts.


Two of the three movies we saw were for our kids and the glasses were NOT very popular with a 6 and 4 year old

 

[gurkey]

3D as a home feature is still in its infancy, as the general public will not accept wearing special glasses with a fixed (and mostly unnatural) viewing distance and angle during a TV or HD session. For many it is causing headaches after some time of watching a 3D movie

My believe is, that several generations of new display and recording technology will be necessary to reach an acceptable standard for the majority of users / general public.


Unfortunately, current technology and devices built for it will be obsolete (again) within a rather short period of time, making it necessary to re-invest into new gear along the way, as it is a moving target.

For the manufacturers it's like a gold mine, creating demand for new gear year by year.

 

[runnin']

Does anyone know if 3D movies are still brand dependent? I heard that each TV brand doesn't display all 3D blu rays, but only some, is this still the case?

 

[SugarBowl]

I saw avatar in IMAX 3d and was really impressed.


I just saw harry potter in 3d and thought the 3d was a waste of $$..

 

[Secret Squirrel]



Quote:
Originally Posted by SugarBowl /forum/post/0


I saw avatar in IMAX 3d and was really impressed.


I just saw harry potter in 3d and thought the 3d was a waste of $$..

I also saw Avatar at the 3D IMAX. It was neat, but I am not a fan of all the 3D stuff being pushed in home theater lately. I don't think that the theater 3D technology and the home theater 3D technology are the same so you cant really compare the two.

 

[bfreedma]



Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' /forum/post/20765177


Does anyone know if 3D movies are still brand dependent? I heard that each TV brand doesn't display all 3D blu rays, but only some, is this still the case?

This is no longer true, if it ever was. I have a good deal of the available 3D content and have not yet had an issue with compatibility.


Some 3D titles are sales exclusive to a brand. For example, Panasonic bought the rights to Avatar, so for a while, the only way to acquire it was to do so from Panasonic or in a Panasonic package with on of their 3D TV's. These disks will play on any other manufacturer's TV's and BR players, so no built in technical restrictions appear to exist.


There are occasionally hardware incompatibility issues with specific disks which are corrected (hopefully) with firmware updates to the players, but I don't think that issue is what you were referring to.

 

[runnin']

Thanks, that clears it up for me. I'm not a fan of 3D as it exists, but Avatar was some pretty good eye candy.

 

[thebland]

A simple trick for kids and some adults. I saw Harry Potter on opening night in 3-D and it was more of a distraction than a 'wow'! Dims the picture, need to wear glasses and loss of a normal color space. I'm sure, for movies, it will soon fail but it maybe a winner for gamers.

 

[SpotcheckBilly]

At this point I think that 3D (for home use) is definately in its infancy. I'm not an early adopter and therefore will not invest in 3D until it matures. It'll have to do away with the need for special glasses, give me a viewing angle comparable to my Pany Plasma, and brighten up before I even begin to consider it. Oh, and before I forget, there better be a wide selection of 3D discs available, not just kiddie shows, for me to take the plunge.


Cheers,

SB

 

[CGMneon]



Quote:
Originally Posted by John McCutcheon /forum/post/20764888


3D is a feature, to be used...or not. As such, I think it may be around awhile.

Truer words were never spoken.

Emphasis on feature, as in Picture-In-Picture is a feature....

 

[MichaelJHuman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by CGMneon /forum/post/20765908


Truer words were never spoken.

Emphasis on feature, as in Picture-In-Picture is a feature....

As I said above, true as long as you have the choice. I assume we will always have a choice for Blu-ray movies. In the theater, that may not always be true.

 

[mjpearce023]

I got a 55ST30 not to long ago because it had a great 2D picture. I would have bought the S30 if it had the same panel without the 3D. At first, I said I wasn't going to mess with 3D but I couldn't help wanting to try it out. I bought the 400$ 3D glasses/avatar set from best buy but ended up returning them. I felt Avatar had more than 5 minutes of cool effects but not a lot of movies have done as good a job. I had to stop it every 45 mins and take a break because of the eyestrain. I changed some of the picture settings and it got a little better but I have never had eyestrain other than watching 3D. I am still up in the air on weather I'm a 3D fan or not. I will get the new Panny glasses when they come out because they are much cheaper. I got a 3D blu-ray player free with my TV so that's already covered. I did upgrade from a 3310 to a 3311 for HDMI 1.4 but the price I paid for the 3311 I should break even once I sell the 3310. If I already had a good TV and was happy with it I wouldn't go out and spend a lot of money for 3D. I hope the movies get better because right now Avatar was the best I've seen. I plan to try out Tron when I get my new glasses so hopefully it looks good. I love the 2D version because the soundtrack and visual effects are great. I don't see a lot of good 3D movies right now so hopefully the content will improve. 3D may just be a fad now like in the 80s but maybe it will keep getting bigger. I think once there is 3D with no glasses it will be a lot more popular for home use.

 

[KidHorn]

It will be here forever. It doesn't add much to manufacturing costs so there's no reason to not include the capability in all devices.


I don't think 3D can be done without glasses. You need slightly different images in both eyes and the only cost effective way to do this is with glasses. Without glasses you would need something like a hologram.


I'm not a huge fan of 3D, but everything I buy going forward will support it. Just in case.

 

[mjpearce023]

I've read that it's being worked on. Here is an artical that talks about it.
http://www.lgblog.co.uk/2010/06/a-3d...thout-glasses/


I don't know how long it will be before we see that tech on TVs.

 

[rnrgagne]

I think it's a fad.

Unless they get to a glasses-less technology that doesn't degrade the overall quality of the image. I can't see consumers continuing to put up with the wearing of these goggles for long... it'll wear thin pretty quick.


I can see an Imax experience being worthwhile where the illusion of being "immersed" is greater, (providing the material is worthy of the venue) but for Joe Average on his 50" screen at home... well, not so much.