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

[SteveAbootman]

I've watched most of the world cup in 3d on ESPN. It was incredible, and you really need to emmerse yourself in front of the tv for more than 5 minutes to appreciate it. Standing around watching a sizzle reel in best buy does not do the technology justice.

That said, after a while i did get a little dizzy, and had to take a 10 minute break. There were also angles that are not conducive to a great 3D experience. While the concept of 3D is nothing new, the # of companies backing these current and future technologies leads me to believe it is not a fad, and is hear to stay.

 

[djellison]

I hate it. This is why...

Take Avatar. A spectacular, but crap film. I'm there watching it in 3D. So tedious was the pathetic script and plotline, I'm just looking around trying to enjoy the scenery.

What 3D movies do is give you two images - one for your left eye, one for your right eye. When your eyes focus on something closer to you - they converge. When it's further, they diverge. This is why you look 'cross eyed' if you try to look at the end of your nose.

At the same time, a near autonomous response tells your eyes to each focus on that closer or further distance. So - if someone walks infront of something you're looking at - your eyes point slightly inward, and they pull focus to look at this 'closer' person.

Now - cut to the cinema. I'm trying to enjoy the things in the scenery - the things in the background, the things in the foreground. The problem is - my eyes diverge or converge to coregister on those things in the background and foreground - but they can't focus on it, because of the depth of field native to the filming process.

So - I want to look at the little floaty jellyfish type things - my eyes converge slightly, but they can't focus. It's out of focus in the movie - I can never focus on them. I ended up with a chronic headache. The movie was crap as it was, to leave with a monster headache just added insult to injury.

I've tried it on a 3D tv in stores - same problem as the cinema. Ditto Imax 3D.

Infact, at work we have a 3D projector for something we're working on - and the output has no depth of field whatsoever - and I don't get the same problem.

It's got to the point where the moment someone says 'Oh - you've got to see it in 3D' - that's a slam-dunk warning to me, that I'm not going to go and see it at all.

 

[4JNA]

disneyworld or nothing...

3D is best left to the theme parks.

as a stay-at-home dad, i would never take my kids to a 3D movie as it harms their eye development (depth perception), i don't like the glasses, and more money on top of the $30 popcorn/drink combo is a bit to much to ask.

we go to 2D movies all the time. regular movies will survive, and 3D movies will slowly become an expensive joke that will fade. i hope. unless it will drive down the price of the bucket-0-popcorn... just my 2NOT3Dcents.d

 

[Ttownbeast]

I think it might remain a fad as long as glasses are required....till they figure out how to make 3-D a technology that doesn't need it cheaply--holography is still an expensive and drawn out process adding motion to it is even more difficult but possible. Anyone know where I can find some good anaglyph style 3-D porn BTW?

 

[0098386]

It will never take off until they figure out a way to not require you to wear those stupid glasses.

Nintendo 3DS.

I thought it was a fad, I still prefer to watch most films in 2D but I'm not so sure any more. The tech is now available for 3D without glasses so I'm guessing it's going to stay. It might not be so useful in the living room or places with a possible very wide viewing angle.

Look at what the DS did for touchscreen gaming... if it can do the same for 3D then it's really going to get the big guys (Microsoft, Apple, Dell) following and pushing the technology even further.