Do people actually want to watch 3D TV all the time?

jaykhunter

After seeing Avatar, and knowing the next big impending gimmick for TVs is the 3DTV (starting at 10,000 euros guys! Act now!)...It got me wondering. Who wants to watch 3DTV all the time?

I enjoyed the 3D aspect of Avatar, but I couldn't stomach watching something like that all the time. Please let me know below if you plan on getting a 3DTV and I'm nuts.

(For the purposes of this debate, say a 3DTV was how much a HDTV costs now, and there are multiple channels showing in "3D" as well.)

Schism

It depends, do I have to wear those feicin glasses too?

meoklmrk91

No I wouldn't it always makes me feel a little bit sick for some reason. Besides I think its nice to go to the cinema just for that experience.

Fysh

Nope, with Avatar serving as my example as to why.

I think the tech is spectacular, and would love to see something like a 3d version the Life documentary series (assuming that it could be framed suitably, etc).

For the average TV show that I'm interested in, 3D as used in Avatar won't add anything much and could easily get in the way. And you just know that for the first year or two there's going to be a lot of 3d-heavy gimmicky shows to try and make people feel like their investment was worth it, rather than concentrating on using the tech in ways that will enhance the viewing experience. (Which does also raise the question of whether a "true" 3d experience as we know it from the cinema can be even approximated on a 26-52" home television screen, something that I'm not at all convinced of...)

johnny_ultimate

Have very little interest in it myself. The only films it really benefits are huge event movies on the big screen. It can distract from other parts of the production, so I see little benefit in applying it to the largely character based nature of television series. And for the vast majority of films, I think the tech is more or less pointless. It adds depth to amazing computer generated images, but it has no effect on the other content of a film / TV show.

MagicMarker

I've never seen anything in 3D, and honestly couldn't give a ****.

m83

This is what I want.... if the technology can be applied to film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

chopperbyrne

Some day, yes, but not until they can make it so that it doesn't give you headaches.

funkyjebus

Why only all of the time or no. Can't we watch some shows in 3D (eg Lost,etc) and not watch others in 3D (eg the simpsons). Much like it is done with HD now (yes I know the simpsons are now in HD). Who's gonna watch eastenders in 3D. Your question is stupid, and It will be decades before all TV is in 3D, at that stage you won't need glasses, (Some 3d TV alreadty use technology that negates the need for glasses).

Also Digital 3D does not give headaches. Fair enough you might get one, but thats you. The general population has no problem watching 3D. You are a minority and nobody cares. I'm sure there are people how get headaches from watching normal tv, you're one step up.

Bring on the 3D games as well.

faceman

Im not a fan of 3D. however technology will improve and Im sure that at some stage we will have "real projected 3D" that doesnt require glasses.

I dont think 3D images are as beautiful to look at as a 2D image, from an aesthetic perspective. (yet?)

funkyjebus

faceman wrote: »

Im not a fan of 3D. however technology will improve and Im sure that at some stage we will have "real projected 3D" that doesnt require glasses.

I dont think 3D images are as beautiful to look at as a 2D image, from an aesthetic perspective. (yet?)

Technology is there, it wil look the same just without glasses. It just expensive.

How can a 3d of a 2d image not be a beautiful. It is the same image in the same quality with depth of field. Thats kinda like saying you think a photo looks better then the real subject matter. 3D is very clearly more visually arresting than a standard 2D frame. Can you really not see this? did you see avatar? have you seen the same shots in 2D and 3D?

There really is not question IMO and that of the majority of anyone I know and from critics online.

jaykhunter

funkyjebus wrote: »

Your question is stupid

Hilarious! It's just a theoretical question. I personally don't want to see everything in 3D (although i'd like to see everything in HD or iMAX quality) so I'm wondering if the majority here have taken to 3D more so than me. It's not a slight on 3D, you big fanboy :pac::pac::pac::pac: just kidding, don't get so worked up

You could apply it to, do u want to watch Eastenders in 3D? I don't like "sit on the fence" poll options. Make a decision! :D

faceman wrote: »

I dont think 3D images are as beautiful to look at as a 2D image, from an aesthetic perspective. (yet?)

I find that 3D images aren't as sharp as 2D, but that could be the ****e projector CineWorld uses. In Avatar i found fast-moving 3D to be blurry, but looked great when stopped moving. But i'm sure 3DTVs will do a much better job. If/when 3D looks as sharp as 2D, i'd think it'd be more impressive!

MelissaLahive

Avatar was the best 3d I've ever seen outside an IMAX but as for all the time..... I'm not quite sure I could take a 3D Brian Cowen in my living room

funkyjebus

jaykhunter wrote: »

Hilarious! It's just a theoretical question. I personally don't want to see everything in 3D (although i'd like to see everything in HD or iMAX quality) so I'm wondering if the majority here have taken to 3D more so than me. It's not a slight on 3D, you big fanboy :pac::pac::pac::pac: just kidding, don't get so worked up

You could apply it to, do u want to watch Eastenders in 3D? I don't like "sit on the fence" poll options. Make a decision! :D



I find that 3D images aren't as sharp as 2D, but that could be the ****e projector CineWorld uses. In Avatar i found fast-moving 3D to be blurry, but looked great when stopped moving. But i'm sure 3DTVs will do a much better job. If/when 3D looks as sharp as 2D, i'd think it'd be more impressive!

Fair enough, The fact does remain that neither of your above optikns will happen. 3D tv is coming, not all of it will be in 3D. They are the facts.

Not a fanboy of 3D, just really like it. I don't want everything in 3D, but some non film mediums would be great in 3D (planet Earth). I also don't want to have to go to the cinema and pay 12.50 everytime I want some depth.

I agree that 3D can be blurry at high movement - but the image is just as beautiful if not more so than 2D.

qwertplaywert

funkyjebus wrote: »

Also Digital 3D does not give headaches. Fair enough you might get one, but thats you. The general population has no problem watching 3D. You are a minority and nobody cares. I'm sure there are people how get headaches from watching normal tv, you're one step up.

I don't believe for one second thats true. During Avatar, I was incredibly close to walking out after half an hour, due to the incredible migrane the 3D brought on. However, the pain numbed as time went on.
I was there with a group of about 20 people, and about 11/12 of them experienced a similar[if not the exact same] problem.

Pushtrak

Bring in 3D TV, and with it, naturally will come 3D advertising which I think most will agree can f right off.

funkyjebus

qwertplaywert wrote: »

I don't believe for one second thats true. During Avatar, I was incredibly close to walking out after half an hour, due to the incredible migrane the 3D brought on. However, the pain numbed as time went on.
I was there with a group of about 20 people, and about 11/12 of them experienced a similar[if not the exact same] problem.

Believe what you want, believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns if you wish.

But facts are facts, unicorns don't exist and your in the minority if you get a headache from watching 3D (note: we are talking about digital 3D only). You could have underlying medical issues I don't know about (slight Vertigo), you all could. Because out of the 16 people I personally know who went to see it one had a slight sore right eye for the first while, that was it. So if you want to make general assumption based on a really small comparison group out of the 36 people we know who went only 11 had a headache, 1 had a sore eye (for a bit) and 24 were fine. Seems like you are indeed the minority.

But none the less, studios have been screen testing 3D for years to eliminate the headache problem, and in particular, millions where spent on Avatar for this reason.

Point is, wheather you believe it or not, the stats that I and hollywood go by put you in a minority, this is the technology, it won't change, only tweek, and from what I can make out they've done all they can with any headache issues. If you cant sit through a 3D movie now, you never will.

qwertplaywert

funkyjebus wrote: »

Believe what you want, believe in the tooth fairy and unicorns if you wish.

But facts are facts, unicorns don't exist and your in the minority if you get a headache from watching 3D (note: we are talking about digital 3D only). You could have underlying medical issues I don't know about (slight Vertigo), you all could. Because out of the 16 people I personally know who went to see it one had a slight sore right eye for the first while, that was it. So if you want to make general assumption based on a really small comparison group out of the 36 people we know who went only 11 had a headache, 1 had a sore eye (for a bit) and 24 were fine. Seems like you are indeed the minority.

But none the less, studios have been screen testing 3D for years to eliminate the headache problem, and in particular, millions where spent on Avatar for this reason.

Point is, wheather you believe it or not, the stats that I and hollywood go by put you in a minority, this is the technology, it won't change, only tweek, and from what I can make out they've done all they can with any headache issues. If you cant sit through a 3D movie now, you never will.

A minority it may be, but its still a target audience- your assumption that nobody 'cares'- so based on the small comparison group you mentioned, lets say 11 out of 36 people are experincing problems. That may be a minority, yet its still, in theory, about 30 percent of the audience- a sizeable share of the market, that I'm sure the studios will desperately not want to alienate.

funkyjebus

qwertplaywert wrote: »

A minority it may be, but its still a target audience- your assumption that nobody 'cares'- so based on the small comparison group you mentioned, lets say 11 out of 36 people are experincing problems. That may be a minority, yet its still, in theory, about 30 percent of the audience- a sizeable share of the market, that I'm sure the studios will desperately not want to alienate.

Correct and I'm sure they hope you enjoyed the 2D showing which is available nationwide.

What would you have them do? The technology is what it is, and your reaction to it is what it is?

qwertplaywert

funkyjebus wrote: »

Correct and I'm sure they hope you enjoyed the 2D showing which is available nationwide.

What would you have them do? The technology is what it is, and your reaction to it is what it is?

Technology is a wonderful thing.There are new ideas being thought up every day etc. I'm sure eventually we will see 3-D that does not give poeple problems.

Personally , the way it is atm, I'm willing to give it one more try. I have only been to 2 3D movies- Monsters Vs. Aliens[which gave me a slight head pain] and Avatar[which, as previously mentioned, gave me extreme discomfort for the first half hour or so]. The way the pain reduced the longer Avatar went on , gives me hope that I am adjusting to the technology.

funkyjebus

Correct again, but billions have been invested in the current technology, as with any format agreed upon, it will be years before it is changed. At best they can only learn to get the most out of the current system.

The migrane you experience isdue to your eyes trying to focus on out of focus objects on screen.

Check this out. See if you think there is a difference for you.

http://www.shadowlocked.com/index.php/component/content/article/41-editorial/69-how-to-avoid-getting-a-3d-headache-while-watching-avatar

Personally I never had an issue which Digital 3D, but the old anaglyph killed me.

Yey, Time to go home. see ya

qwertplaywert

funkyjebus wrote: »

Correct again, but billions have been invested in the current technology, as with any format agreed upon, it will be years before it is changed. At best they can only learn to get the most out of the current system.

The migrane you experience isdue to your eyes trying to focus on out of focus objects on screen.

Check this out. See if you think there is a difference for you.

http://www.shadowlocked.com/index.php/component/content/article/41-editorial/69-how-to-avoid-getting-a-3d-headache-while-watching-avatar

Personally I never had an issue which Digital 3D, but the old anaglyph killed me.

Yey, Time to go home. see ya

Cheers for the link, I'll certainly give it a go next time I'm at a 3D film.

Voodu Child

Good article about why 3D Cinema causes eyestrain and headaches for a lot of people.

Link

It was written before Avatar, but in truth the tech hasn't changed over the years, only been refined slightly. And the problems (with headaches, eyestrain, etc) are still pretty much caused by the same thing as the very earliest 3D movies.

Personally I don't mind watching in 3D for the odd blockbuster. But unless the tech improves, I definitely wouldn't want to watch everything like that. And as the article above states, it might even be unhealthy/dangerous to watch everything using current 3D systems. Thats why I don't think it'll catch on, even though it seems like there'll be a push for 3D TV sets over the next few years.

Tar.Aldarion

Either that post above me has been made before or I'm pyschic. O knew what it would say before I read it...how odd...

Anyway, i would like to see it in everythign, yes.

faceman

funkyjebus wrote: »

Technology is there, it wil look the same just without glasses. It just expensive.

How can a 3d of a 2d image not be a beautiful. It is the same image in the same quality with depth of field. Thats kinda like saying you think a photo looks better then the real subject matter. 3D is very clearly more visually arresting than a standard 2D frame. Can you really not see this? did you see avatar? have you seen the same shots in 2D and 3D?

There really is not question IMO and that of the majority of anyone I know and from critics online.

3D still feels plastic for me Im afraid.

m83

Sooner than we think:

http://mashable.com/2009/12/29/first-us-3dtv-channel/

krudler

Christ no, a 3D Graham Norton is a fcuking terrifying prospect

RoyalMarine

qwertplaywert wrote: »

I don't believe for one second thats true. During Avatar, I was incredibly close to walking out after half an hour, due to the incredible migrane the 3D brought on. However, the pain numbed as time went on.
I was there with a group of about 20 people, and about 11/12 of them experienced a similar[if not the exact same] problem.

i went with a smaller group of 5 the first time, and 11 the second.

first time, i had major headache's, but no one else did.
second time, i was hoping i was just ill the first, 7 out of 11 had headache's, ranging from slight to severe.

jaykhunter

krudler wrote: »

Christ no, a 3D Graham Norton is a fcuking terrifying prospect

Apologies for crude-ing up the conversation, but porn would be terrifying in 3D!

I don't think i'd ever want to watch 3D all the time. Especially if it meant that some parts are intentionally blurred so we "know where to look".