Anybody else think that 3D is STILL just a fad?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by the-oz-man, Jul 12, 2010.

  1. the-oz-man macrumors 6502

    the-oz-man

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    #1
    I'm a home theater enthusiast and consider myself fairly up to times on technology. But as I see the new movie releases in 3D, Blu-ray 3D, and even TV through DirecTV being in 3D I have to think that even though it's being pushed through all these different forms that it is STILL just a fad.

    Here are two major drawbacks that I see to 3D in your household:

    1. 3D glasses must be worn. Family gather around TVs for enjoyment. With HD TV the picture is great without any headgear. You don't have to have glasses for everyone. Then there is the cumbersome nature of finding them (like the remote!). And what if you don't have enough glasses for your family and friends?

    2. New equipment is required to view the content. You need a 3D TV or Blu-ray player. While this argument is weak since HD essentially required the same thing, but I submit that HD had a far great movement as it was being pushed by the digit switch. Not only that, moving from SD to HD was an instant improvement in viewing where 3D has been around since the 1980's?

    You thoughts?
     
  2. Shyfty macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #2
    It comes and goes every fifteen years or so. Best thing to do is ignore it and let them try to unleash it on future generations... Again.

    Also, it was around a lot earlier than the 1980s.
     
  3. Melrose Suspended

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #3
    It will never take off until they figure out a way to not require you to wear those stupid glasses.
     
  4. the-oz-man thread starter macrumors 6502

    the-oz-man

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    #4
    Yes, this is just my point. Now get me the TV technology from Minority Report or Paycheck and I'm upgrading today! That may be a few years away . . .:rolleyes:
     
  5. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #5
    Sit in front of a 3D TV for more than 5 minutes at your local Best Buy and you'll see why 3D just doesn't work. As has been stated, you need glasses for everyone, and at $150 a pop, the 20 people I had over for the World Cup yesterday on my 120" screen would have been prohibitively expensive. Also, it gave me a headache when I tried it, on top of the fact that you're basically wearing polarized shades so brightness and contrast suffer, on top of the yellow hue that the glasses give the image. It's a fad, and always will be until they develop screen tech for the consumer market that doesn't require glasses, or holograms.
     
  6. Mr. McMac Suspended

    Mr. McMac

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Location:
    Far away from liberals
    #6
    I'll never buy into it as long as you need special glasses to watch it.
     
  7. JediZenMaster Suspended

    JediZenMaster

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Seattle
    #7
    3D movies are most likely not a fad i think they are here to stay and will eventually pave the way for things like holographic Movies.

    3D TV however is a whole different story. We just had the transistion from Analog to Digital TV and a large percentage of the population don't even have HDTV's they only have the set top boxes. And what is it like 60 percent of people have HDTV sets?

    People are still just getting used to HD that coupled with the fact that the US is going thru a massive economic downtown. Most people can't afford a 3D Tv and while the wealthy can. The wealthy aren't the people who lead technology to widespread adoption. It's the mainstream people who earn between 20,000 - 40,000 a year and for the most part when they do buy gadgets and things they make sure it's an long term investment.

    These people just most likey got their HDTV within the last 1-2 years and aren't in the market to keep buying new TV's every year. So will 3D TV's catch on? Maybe in a couple of years but for now it will be regulated to higher income level people or those who are going to put themselves in debt trying to have the latest item.
     
  8. JediZenMaster Suspended

    JediZenMaster

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Location:
    Seattle
    #8
    Well there are some 3D TV's coming out that use a type of technology where you won't need glasses. I'm not sure how that would work though.
     
  9. Xavier macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Location:
    Columbus
    #9
    I am having a hard time adjusting to 3D movies. I still find it more annoying to sit in a 3D film as compared to a regular one. It will probably grow on me though.
     
  10. Mexbearpig macrumors 65816

    Mexbearpig

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    Here
    #10
    I wouldn't mind using glasses. Its just so expensive and my family would kill me if I break a pair. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Arushan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #11
    3d seems so bad, how do you watch soocer in 3d. Thats so pointless. Only things to watch in 3d are 3d movies, which actually come at you
     
  12. the-oz-man thread starter macrumors 6502

    the-oz-man

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    #12
    Having recently watch Toy Story 3 (in 3D) and Shrek, I can honestly say that I never want to watch another 3D movie in theaters. The glasses were a joke and I PAID extra money for this feature. Lesson learned and I'll just watch the regular version when it comes out on Blu-ray. I will be more comfortable and won't have the privilege of wearing glasses with gum stuck them.
     
  13. Schtumple macrumors 601

    Schtumple

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Location:
    benkadams.com
    #13
    It's ok for some films, but a lot of them are just using 3D to create a bit of extra buzz. It'll die out once cinema begins to pick up again.
     
  14. Shyfty macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    #14
    Hahaha... That's what people say every time the gimmick sees a resurgence in popularity.
     
  15. pilotError macrumors 68020

    pilotError

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Long Island
    #15
    Some of the animated / CGI heavy movies look stunning in 3D. Avatar and some of the Disney flicks. I've seen a few that were a waste (Clash of the Titans). For the additional money they charge at the theatre for it, its almost not worth it.

    I would say it's a non starter in the home. Mainly due to the glasses, but also due to the screen size. It's another way to add value for the vendors, because most TV's sold in the last 2 years have been pretty good (in terms of quality). The only way the vendors could differentiate has been lowering prices. They've now bottomed out and are looking for new gimmicks to sell TV's. Internet, Social applications, 3D, etc., none of which are all that appealing.
     
  16. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #16
    I always found the colors washed out and gray in a 3D movie also the 3D effect never really appealed to me. One other thing to note is the higher bandwidth requirement for 3D through HDMI which is one of the reasons HDMI 1.4 came out. Some older 1.3 equipment, like my Denon 3808, seem to be able to pass through 3D signals to the TV but others can't. Not worth it to me.
     
  17. the-oz-man thread starter macrumors 6502

    the-oz-man

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    #17
    I haven't even thought about that part. I'm in the same boat then with my Denon 5808, but I can safely say that I'm not too worried about that. Good to know.
     
  18. SlovakApple macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Location:
    In the heart of Europe
    #18
    I am also not excited about it very much for several reasons:
    - During the five minutes which tested it in a store, it was quite nice. But I cannot imagine watching a 2-hours movie. Plus that were animated films made for this technology. I do not know how normal stuff (like soccer for example) would look like.
    - Not much programms running here in 3D(= none).
    -too expensive for me now.
    -you have to sit directly in front of the TV. If you sit a little to the side, it does not work properly.
     
  19. MattG macrumors 68040

    MattG

    Joined:
    May 27, 2003
    Location:
    Fletcher, NC
    #19
    Yes, definitely. I never see it taking off. I can't imagine wanting to watch everything in 3D, and as others have said, wearing those glasses is a pain.
     
  20. Melrose Suspended

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #20
    That's just the thing; you have to wear stupid glasses that are both uncomfortable and don't work well, and you pay a premium for it. If they could make the end product consistently good, it would be worth the extra price - but at this stage it's still just paying for novelty.
     
  21. RawBert macrumors 68000

    RawBert

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #21
    I prefer a great 2D picture rather than a crappy 3D one. I think it's a fad.

    I saw TS3 in IMAX 3D. It was cool (although far from perfect), but now I want to see it in 2D.
     
  22. Xander562 macrumors 68000

    Xander562

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    #22
    I sure as hell hope it's a fad. I have a lazy eye and therefore do not have binocular vision. Since every 3D technology requires binocular vision, I have never and will never experience true 3D. When I go to see a 3D movie, I am required to pay the extra money and wear the goddamn glasses over my regular glasses just to see a 2D picture. And I end up doing this a lot since my friends want to see movies in 3D. I hate it. 3D needs to die a quick death.
     
  23. Antares macrumors 68000

    Antares

    #23
    No doubt, every movie does not need to be 3D. Some are perfectly fine in 2D. However, when done correctly, 3D movies are amazing and way better than the 2D versions of the same film. The problem is, a movie needs to developed as 3D from the start of production all the way through post production. Way too many films are "converted" into 3D simply to take advantage of the 3D hype....which more specifically relates to the extra money that a ticket for a 3D film brings in. This can actually kind of ruin the perception of 3D movies for the general public...and judging by some of your responses, it clearly has already started. This type of practice is a shame and actually a detriment to the industry, as a whole. The "add-on 3D" movies don't look that great. That is because they are not truly 3D.

    For the first time in the history of 3D, the technology is in place which actually allows it to "work." When the technology is used properly, it naturally adds a whole new level to the movie viewing experience. It immerses you more deeply than any 2D movie ever could. The key factor is, it needs to be done properly. 3D does not make a crappy film good. If you have a good story and good cinematography, 3D can enhance it the same way that using surround sound channels of audio can. Some producers treat 3D as a gimmick. A knife flying right at the viewer and what not. Things like this are a gimmick. 3D is good as long as the director/producer/production crew know how to use it properly. Not to throw it in your face but treat it as a natural part of making a good movie.

    3D is most definitely not a fad. Let me ask you this: Is surround sound a fad? I'm guessing most of you would say, "no." Well, many people thought surround sound was merely a fad, early on. Now, it's an ubiquitous part of films. 3D is in a similar position. Eventually, it will be ubiquitous and people would never second guess it's presence.

    Now, some people may complain of headaches from 3D. This is just like some people complaining of nausea from "shaky cam" films like Cloverfield or the Blair Witch Project. That's a physical problem with the individual person and has nothing to do with the film, itself. It's a non-issue.

    The one negative to current 3D films is the glasses. The problem is, they are "universal." The glasses are designed to be "one size fits all." They work well. However, they are far from ideal. It would be better if the glasses were custom fitted to each person. Personally, for me, I think the lenses need to be bigger and the sides should block my peripheral vision....I guess I'm looking for an almost goggle like design. In fact, I would be willing to pay for custom glasses if I could get that. In lieu of that, I think multiple size glasses would be a better option than the "on size fits all" type that theaters currently have. A big problem that some people have with 3D films and the experience probably relates to the glasses, themselves. If they fit people better, I think there would be less complaints from some of you (and the general public).

    Either way, 3D is not a fad. There is too much evidence to prove that, this time, it is here to stay.


    *I don't have much experience with 3D TV and other "home 3D" viewing. So, I don't have an educated opinion on it yet.
     
  24. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #24
    3D for the home theater is not necessarily a fad. It is a gimmick by TV makers to get you to buy purposeless new equipment for dubious reasons. Kind of like Apple and the iPad :D
     
  25. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #25
    My wife gets motion sick and I have poor depth perception due to a lazy eye. It's not for us :D
     

Share This Page