3D Films

TrustedApple

Well Yasterday i got my 3D tv and can i say there something else

Well my 1st 3d blu ray to look at was resident evil afterlife the film was not the greatist but the 3D on it was something else and really made you fell like your in the film.

Also i have played Killzone 3 demo in 3D and can i say that was something else you really fell that your on the battle feld and you can see everything like the snow bullets comeing at you it was like you where in a war

Anyway guys who else has a 3D tv and enjoyed every moment of it and not giveing out about how much a waste of money it was ?

Also the PS3 in some Hub for playing everything

Magic Eight Ball

samapple789 wrote: »

Well Yasterday i got my 3D tv and can i say there something else

Well my 1st 3d blu ray to look at was resident evil afterlife the film was not the greatist but the 3D on it was something else and really made you fell like your in the film.

Also i have played Killzone 3 demo in 3D and can i say that was something else you really fell that your on the battle feld and you can see everything like the snow bullets comeing at you it was like you where in a war

Anyway guys who else has a 3D tv and enjoyed every moment of it and not giveing out about how much a waste of money it was ?

Also the PS3 in some Hub for playing everything

How much money do you actually waste on it if you don't mind me asking? :pac:

I find nothing creative or enjoyable about 3D.
It exists as a pitiful attempt to head off piracy and force audiences to watch films in overpriced multiplexes or on overpriced TV's IMO.

I think if you generally enjoy it then more power to ya but I personally can't stand it.

TrustedApple

My new tv was only 800 euro with one pair of glasses any you get 4 free blu rays via mail in with it to and one of them is avater

Also a year and 1/2 ago my dad paid 850 euros for his Full HD samsung 100hz 37 inch LCD also must tvs with a 100 hz and full hd are about 700 euro or more and 4 years ago for my old HD readdy 26 samsung LCD was 800 euros

Its a Panasonic 42 inch Plasma 600hz full hd 3D

Well i find 3D great and to me it adds a lot to films and games

I am know looking forward to tron comeing out on it

Also 3D blu rays are cheap about 21 euros online each

L'prof

samapple789 wrote: »

Also 3D blu rays are cheap about 21 euros online each

Cheap??? I wouldn't pay that I'm afraid. I generally shop in the €8-15 region for BluRays online unless it's something I really want and I certainly wouldn't pay any extra for 3D as I can't stand it! Anyway, enjoy the new TV.

Magic Eight Ball

samapple789 wrote: »

My new tv was only 800 euro with one pair of glasses any you get 4 free blu rays via mail in with it to and one of them is avater

Also a year and 1/2 ago my dad paid 850 euros for his Full HD samsung 100hz 37 inch LCD also must tvs with a 100 hz and full hd are about 700 euro or more and 4 years ago for my old HD readdy 26 samsung LCD was 800 euros

Its a Panasonic 42 inch Plasma 600hz full hd 3D

Well i find 3D great and to me it adds a lot to films and games

I am know looking forward to tron comeing out on it

Also 3D blu rays are cheap about 21 euros online each

I don't want to take this off topic but I take exception to that comment.

I think If 3D is to have a (creative) future, it's more than likely to be in the medium of computer games.
The interactivity of it seems perfect in the world of virtual reality.

But movies??
3D isn't and has never been the future of cinema.
It is, was, and always will be the past!

IMAX photography FTW

faceman

No disrespect to the OP, but 3D is just a gimmick imo. Although I admit, 3d video games sounds great!

3d movies are just an anti piracy move. When dust floating in the foreground of the frame becomes the focal point of the image, then its nothing more than gimmick, and distracting too.

Ive never seen anything on a 3D tv, so can I ask OP (and i bet you wont be biaised! ), how does it 'feel' when watching it? Obviously you have glasses on but unlike the cinema, the screen doesnt take up your whole field of vision. Does your peripheral vision not become a distraction??

Myrddin

Avatar in 3D was stunning, & Cameron always had 3D plans for that film. However many other films have 3D bolted in at the end, in a very poor & gimmicky way.

Moral of the story? The technology works very, very well when it's done correctly. Bolting it on at the end makes it look cheap & tacky. I'm speaking of passive 3D in the cinema only, I don't really see a use for it in the home cinema world (active glasses are expensive & fragile, viewing angle has to be right, etc etc). Games being the exception, Crysis 2 is apparently incredible on a proper 3d system.

So people who hate 3d just because it's 3d, are missing the whole point. It can add to films (Avatar, A Christmas Carol was also very well done) when done correctly, but yes, it can certainly detract too when the studio houses add 3d in to sell tickets instead.

TrustedApple

faceman wrote: »

Ive never seen anything on a 3D tv, so can I ask OP (and i bet you wont be biaised! ), how does it 'feel' when watching it? Obviously you have glasses on but unlike the cinema, the screen doesnt take up your whole field of vision. Does your peripheral vision not become a distraction??

I think its a lot better then gonging to the moves to look at 3D because the smaller TV will help a lot more on your eyes and things pooping out on you is really cool

Also you dont really fell the glasses on after a bit because you will get used to them very easy

The only thing i am finding hard is seeing if i turned of the glasses

But if you wont to see a 3D tv for real its very hard to test in a shop because you cant enjoy it as much as in your own siting room

phasers

I think 3d can take away from a film. I saw Toy Story 3 in 3d and in 2d and the colours are so much sharper in 2d.

I really don't like 3d because I have no interest in being 'in' the film. A story should be strong enough to draw you in without relying on cheap graphics. I don't really understand what the appeal of it is. Although I loved the visuals in Tron, I see that more like a video game than a film.

ztoical

EnterNow wrote: »

Avatar in 3D was stunning, & Cameron always had 3D plans for that film. However many other films have 3D bolted in at the end, in a very poor & gimmicky way.

Having gone to see Avatar in both 3D and none 3D I felt it didn't add enough to the film to warrent the extra cost of the ticket. Sure it made the end battle scenes feel grander but over all it added little. The none 3D I found just if not more interesting as unlike most other 3D films that are filmed normally and the 3D effect added after, Avatar was shot in 3D so the colours in the none 3D edition were super intense as they are muted down by the 3D effect when you saw it in 3D.

EnterNow wrote: »

Moral of the story? The technology works very, very well when it's done correctly. Bolting it on at the end makes it look cheap & tacky. I'm speaking of passive 3D in the cinema only, I don't really see a use for it in the home cinema world (active glasses are expensive & fragile, viewing angle has to be right, etc etc). Games being the exception, Crysis 2 is apparently incredible on a proper 3d system.

My issue with the home 3D set up is that in the cinema I'm there to watch the film and do only that, when I watch films at home I'm usually doing at least 3 others things as well - I draw with the tv on, I clean, I'm online etc etc I would find it very annoying having to wear the glasses as I already wear glasses that I'm taking on and off when I'm drawing and it would just drive me nuts.

EnterNow wrote: »

So people who hate 3d just because it's 3d, are missing the whole point. It can add to films (Avatar, A Christmas Carol was also very well done) when done correctly, but yes, it can certainly detract too when the studio houses add 3d in to sell tickets instead.

To date I've seen one scene in one film that made me go WOW with 3D and that was in Tangled, I've yet to be really impressed. I don't hate it I'm just not overly bothered. A tv/film screen is creating a sense of a 3D world on a flat surface already having it jump out from the screen...really? That adds to the film?

L'prof

samapple789 wrote: »

I think its a lot better then gonging to the moves to look at 3D because the smaller TV will help a lot more on your eyes and things pooping out on you is really cool

Also you dont really fell the glasses on after a bit because you will get used to them very easy

The only thing i am finding hard is seeing if i turned of the glasses

But if you wont to see a 3D tv for real its very hard to test in a shop because you cant enjoy it as much as in your own siting room

Whether you meant pooping or popping, it's still not cool!

maximoose

I sincerely hope the 3D bubble bursts soon, but the prices on TVs are dropping and more and more people are taking the plunge and investing in them.

3D IMO adds NOTHING to film, causes more of a distraction and the effects can be headache inducingly bad at times. Most of the 3D Films out recently are not even proper stereoscopic 3D, but piss poor converts that make the films look like pop up books.

If it is done well, a la Avatar, it is impressive but the effect wore off after about 20 mins and it got annoying, went back to see it in 2D a day later and enjoyed it so much more. Also, it is impressive in cinema/theatre but I just dont understand the need for it at home.

Dear 3D films, please feck off and dont come back. Thanks.

johnny_ultimate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZFP5HfJPTY

If anyone can convince me 3D isn't entirely redundant, Herzog can. I shall reserve judgment (so far, negative although impressed by my brief go on a 3DS) until then.

Soby

OP for a small fee i can come over with a bucket of water,fans and such stuff and give ya a 4D home experience ..Since Avatar,Every 3D have been a gimic, and the rare one with a decent bit of 3D has been a rubbish film.

The Mad Hatter

The only things I've found that 3D added to films are a headache and a slight feeling of nausea.

I'm sorry, OP, but there is little or no reason to buy a 3D TV. You'll only have some games, movies and sports. That's it.

TrustedApple

Will what i get from this your all pissed that i have goting my self a 3D TV but i work a 50 weak and i am 19 so i think i can buy my self nice things

Well 3D hasint done anything to me ever because its all in your head thinking this is going to make me sick and give me a pain in the head

Also i will love if lord of the rings gets made in 3D because that will look something else after looking at one of them last night i was thinking to my self this would have looked great in 3D

samapple789

samapple789 wrote: »

Also i will love if lord of the rings gets made in 3D because that will look something else after looking at one of them last night i was thinking to my self this would have looked great in 3D

I hope this will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever happen.

Robert ninja

I don't mind 3D. Unlike a lot of people I know, it doesn't give me a headache or make me feel ill in any way (just need to rub my eyes after watching for a few hours)

I'm not mad into getting or playing 3D games or movies but I am curious to see what a home set up is like. The big problem I have though is the whole 3D TV stuff. Now, I have no idea how 3D technology works so I could be completely wrong about some things here but I think it's just another scam to make people buy expensive TVs. First of all, the old red and blue 3D works on the oldest TVs you can find (than are in colour). So the new 3d technology needs a new TV, right?

From what I can see, that's not true. I've seen a few 3D movies in cinemas and I know how they work. A projector shoots the light onto a big sheet of some material. It doesn't come off a screen, no special technology is needed. So why does a TV need to be specially made while elsewhere this 3D technology can work off bed sheets? I call bull****... but like I said I don't know the technical aspects of how it works so there could be a good reason why it doesn't but knowing the corrupt market and how much they milk gimmicks like this, I'm guessing it's just a spin.

To really enjoy 3D you have to not focus on the 3D bits. I bet this is way easier to do when playing a game since you're focussing on playing the game but for movies people can sometimes be focussing too much on the 3d. It's better to just watch as normal and let the 3d do its job in giving you a greater sense of depth.

TrustedApple

Robert ninja wrote: »

I don't mind 3D. Unlike a lot of people I know, it doesn't give me a headache or make me feel ill in any way (just need to rub my eyes after watching for a few hours)

I'm not mad into getting or playing 3D games or movies but I am curious to see what a home set up is like. The big problem I have though is the whole 3D TV stuff. Now, I have no idea how 3D technology works so I could be completely wrong about some things here but I think it's just another scam to make people buy expensive TVs. First of all, the old red and blue 3D works on the oldest TVs you can find (than are in colour). So the new 3d technology needs a new TV, right?

From what I can see, that's not true. I've seen a few 3D movies in cinemas and I know how they work. A projector shoots the light onto a big sheet of some material. It doesn't come off a screen, no special technology is needed. So why does a TV need to be specially made while elsewhere this 3D technology can work off bed sheets? I call bull****... but like I said I don't know the technical aspects of how it works so there could be a good reason why it doesn't but knowing the corrupt market and how much they milk gimmicks like this, I'm guessing it's just a spin.

To really enjoy 3D you have to not focus on the 3D bits. I bet this is way easier to do when playing a game since you're focussing on playing the game but for movies people can sometimes be focussing too much on the 3d. It's better to just watch as normal and let the 3d do its job in giving you a greater sense of depth.

No the Big sheet of material is a spacial thing because there is 2 layers of it with the film going on both to give 3d

On tvs you need 200 hz to run 3D because 100 hz to each eye so you see it

humanji

My dad picked up a 3D tv the other day. They didn't have the standard tv he wanted and the 3d one was cheaper and is a fantastic tv on it's own. He's waiting for the free 3d bluray player to arrive, so hasn't been able to see anything except what's on Sky 3d (which isn't much).

But it is fairly impressive, particularly with some sports. Was watching tennis and rugby on it and it was fantastic looking. Had a gander at Clash Of The Titans which is a sh*te movie, but looks grand in 3D.

I don't doubt it's a gimmick and I can't imagine it lasting too much longer, but it's still pretty cool to see. You'd never spend the whole day watching it though. You'd just watch the one thing you wanted (a movie, a sport or a game, etc) and then go back to standard tv. It's a gimmick, but it can be a fun gimmick.

ztoical

samapple789 wrote: »

Will what i get from this your all pissed that i have goting my self a 3D TV but i work a 50 weak and i am 19 so i think i can buy my self nice things

And your quite right OP, if that's what you want to spend your money thats your choice but on the flip side you can't expect everyone else to want to rush out and buy one as well.

samapple789 wrote: »

Well 3D hasint done anything to me ever because its all in your head thinking this is going to make me sick and give me a pain in the head

It's not all in someones head I'm afraid as we don't all have 20/20 vision. 3D is set up to work for the majority of peoples vision range but there are alot of people that it doesn't work for. Because I wear glasses I find I can't move my head very much or the 3D effect just goes. I know several people who can't see anything at all and the whole screen just look dim to them and I know a number who can't sit through it without feeling sick or getting a headache. It's one of the issues that I have with the current 3D set up and why I've zero interest in spending my hard earned cash on 3D products at this time.

samapple789 wrote: »

Also i will love if lord of the rings gets made in 3D because that will look something else after looking at one of them last night i was thinking to my self this would have looked great in 3D

If by made do you mean the whole film series remade using 3D cameras or take the current films and just turn them into 3D films - well actually both options are stupid so it doesn't matter. If they want to make films in 3D thats fine but taking older films and applying the 3D effect to them is really really annoying.

rednik

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zKL3_-nXtY

Now that's 3D.

Any word on whether David Lynch will ever make a 3D movie? Mark Kermode has said that he will eat his own shoe if this ever happens.

L'prof

Deleted User wrote: »

Any word on whether David Lynch will ever make a 3D movie? Mark Kermode has said that he will eat his own shoe if this ever happens.

A little bit of originality would be nice!

Galvasean

Can't see myself shelling out on a 3D TV until they make one that doesn't require glasses (besides, I've only made the jump to HD recently). I don't mind putting them on the odd time in the cinema, but having to use them at home seems like a niggling distraction to me.
3D gaming sounds class. I'd say it's particularly nice for first person shooters. Haven't played the 3DS yet. Would be interesting to see how it works without the glasses.

paulieeye

side note on this,

i've seen 2 3d movies in the cinema. both times there were short periods when it looked like the picture to my right eye went dark for a bit. Anyone else have this? I wear glasses normally, maybe somehting to do with that as 1 poster chap touched on

ztoical

paulieeye wrote: »

side note on this,

i've seen 2 3d movies in the cinema. both times there were short periods when it looked like the picture to my right eye went dark for a bit. Anyone else have this? I wear glasses normally, maybe somehting to do with that as 1 poster chap touched on

Do you wear your glasses under the 3D glasses when watching the films? It could be that one eye is slightly weaker then the other and as you need both eyes to get the 3D effect as your viewing two projected images.

Having a look round to see if anyone has done any studies on short and long sighted vision and 3D effects but most appear to be on limited to no vision in only one eye. There are alot of anecdotal comments about headaches and the effect not working right but I can't see a proper study on the issues anywhere. We have had a few workshops at my job [television production] on 3D and I asked about it but the person giving the talk was def more into the sales pitch side trying to get all the producers to pay for 3D to be added on to exisitng productions and brushed me off.

To all that have a 3DTV I recommend you get:

IMAX Space Station 3D
IMAX Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk 3D
Despicable Me 3D

I have IMAX Space Station 3D and the 3D is brilliant, especially the parts inside the space station. I've seen trailers for the other two I mentioned and they look just as good, can't wait to get Tron Legacy

ztoical

hellboy99 wrote: »

can't wait to get Tron Legacy

Have seen several people saying this and have to say after seeing it in 3D in the cinema [and none 3D] it wouldn't be top of my list if I got a 3d tv....the 3D effect is only present in the digital world not the real world so you've got the first 15/20 mins of nothing and then frankly really limited 3D effects through. Tron Legacy is the only film after Avatar that I bother to go see both versions to see the difference and even as someone whose not overly impressed by 3D I was amazed at how crap the 3D effort was to the point were I don't know why they bothered.

ztoical

ztoical wrote: »

Have seen several people saying this and have to say after seeing it in 3D in the cinema [and none 3D] it wouldn't be top of my list if I got a 3d tv....the 3D effect is only present in the digital world not the real world so you've got the first 15/20 mins of nothing and then frankly really limited 3D effects through. Tron Legacy is the only film after Avatar that I bother to go see both versions to see the difference and even as someone whose not overly impressed by 3D I was amazed at how crap the 3D effort was to the point were I don't know why they bothered.

I was really disappointed by the 3D in Tron legacy, I was taken to see it on my birthday and after years of wanting to see a sequel to Tron my anticipation was at fever pitch and while I enjoyed the film the 3D was entirely meh. Avatar which I'd seen on my previous birthday looked absolutely stunning and is one of the few films I would like to see again in 3D but Tron Legacy is one which I think will work much better in good old-fashioned 2D. The one good thing about many 3D films is that the Blu Ray releases arent forcing you to double dip again in future, looking at Saw 3D I was pleasantly surprised to find that there wasnt a number of different versions but rather one which offered both 3D and normal for under 20 euro.

The Mad Hatter

ztoical wrote: »

Have seen several people saying this and have to say after seeing it in 3D in the cinema [and none 3D] it wouldn't be top of my list if I got a 3d tv....the 3D effect is only present in the digital world not the real world so you've got the first 15/20 mins of nothing and then frankly really limited 3D effects through. Tron Legacy is the only film after Avatar that I bother to go see both versions to see the difference and even as someone whose not overly impressed by 3D I was amazed at how crap the 3D effort was to the point were I don't know why they bothered.

jaykhunter

jaysus lads samapple was just happy with his purchase and wanted to say something about it, no need to sh!t all over it!

800 quid for a 3DTV and 20 quid for 3D blurays are pretty reasonable IMO, it's an extremely niche market and i expected them to be more.

What Blurays did ya get? Up and Toy Story were great in 3D in the cine....

What's the footie like in 3D?

barrackali

Man I have to say 3DTV's are crap, I've watched pretty much all that is available on 3D(and thats not much)...but the experience has been dire.

Until they develop the technology without glasses..forget this gimmick.

ztoical

ztoical wrote: »

Tron Legacy is the only film after Avatar that I bother to go see both versions to see the difference and even as someone whose not overly impressed by 3D I was amazed at how crap the 3D effort was to the point were I don't know why they bothered.

I haven't seen Tron Legacy yet, I was hoping it would be better than Avatar 3D Blu-Ray as I felt a bit let down with the 3D effect in it to be honest.

hellboy99

hellboy99 wrote: »

I haven't seen Tron Legacy yet, I was hoping it would be better than Avatar 3D Blu-Ray as I felt a bit let down with the 3D effect in it to be honest.

Are you referring to the lack of things being thrown at the audience?

Avatar is by far the best use of 3D yet, it used the technology in a manner which immersed you in the world rather than constantly diverting your attention with pointless scenes of things being thrown our of the screen. The opening scene where they come out of cryo sleep is absolutely astounding to watch.

barrackali

barrackali wrote: »

Man I have to say 3DTV's are crap, I've watched pretty much all that is available on 3D(and thats not much)...but the experience has been dire.

Until they develop the technology without glasses..forget this gimmick.

I have to disagree with you, I have a 3DTV. For PC / console gaming I think it's brilliant, depending on the of course. The same said for 3D films, for me so far the IMAX 3D titles are excellent, best I have seen so far is IMAX Space Station 3D.

For me I was and I wasn't going to get a 3DTV, I was sceptical, I thought it was just another gimmick, which to a great extent it is but in my case I pleasantly surprised. I was looking for a new TV / PC monitor and €850 for a 40" full HD TV that is also 3D capable and comes with a pair of 3D glasses I couldn't knock the price.

3DTV's will always be hit and miss when it comes to 3D but this not the TV's fault, if you watch something that has been filmed properly in 3D and the money has been well spent on it then you will be surprised at how good it is.

johnny_ultimate

I think the "some scenes are not in 3D by design" warning at the start of Tron was a warning sign :pac: But even in the 'Grid' scenes it just seemed wanting. Was one of the last straws for me in regards to 3D in the cinema - unless I've read that 3D genuinely benefits the film (as was the case with Avatar and apparently Cave of Forgotten Dreams and then nothing else) I think I'll be sticking with 2D in future. A brighter, clearer image is more preferable than shoehorned 3D IMO!

Oh, everyone should give the 3DS a whirl though. The depth to the image is wonderful. Only tech that has my potentially excited about an extra realm, although word is it becomes rather headache inducing after prolonged play.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you referring to the lack of things being thrown at the audience?

Avatar is by far the best use of 3D yet, it used the technology in a manner which immersed you in the world rather than constantly diverting your attention with pointless scenes of things being thrown our of the screen. The opening scene where they come out of cryo sleep is absolutely astounding to watch.

Agree with you on all points, what done me was all the hype to be honest, it is good and a lot better than most other 3D films I've seen.

CrinkElite

b1tch b1tch b1tch, we'll all be lappin up 3d media in 3-5 years. the only reason why people are resisting it is because they invested in high quality 2d screens or just don't have the money to buy a 3d screen in the first place.

More power to ya OP. 800 rags for a 600hrz tv!

Best of both worlds.

Sad Professor

I think eyesight is a big issue and the main reason why 3D isn't going to be around very long. A lot of people don't have perfect vision in both eyes. My left eye is quite weak and I'm convinced that I'm not getting the full 3D effect as a result. I could definitely see the 3D effects in Avatar, but found them far from impressive. However, I saw absolutely no 3D in Tron: Legacy, nothing whatsoever. I don't know if that was just the film or me or what.

L'prof

CrinkElite wrote: »

b1tch b1tch b1tch, we'll all be lappin up 3d media in 3-5 years. the only reason why people are resisting it is because they invested in high quality 2d screens or just don't have the money to buy a 3d screen in the first place.

More power to ya OP. 800 rags for a 600hrz tv!

Best of both worlds.

Ridiculous statement to be honest! If I was as impressed with 3D as I was with HD then I'd make the jump, plain and simple. At the moment it's not worth it, but I do admit that with the right technology then one day it might be.

ztoical

CrinkElite wrote: »

b1tch b1tch b1tch, we'll all be lappin up 3d media in 3-5 years. the only reason why people are resisting it is because they invested in high quality 2d screens or just don't have the money to buy a 3d screen in the first place.

Nope haven't invested much of anything in my tv set up and have the money to spend on it but frankly my tv and dvd player work fine so I don't see the point in up grading them ever 5 mins plus the effect doesn't work perfectly with my vision. As mentioned earlier when I watched tv it's usually in my studio were I'm drawing or in my bedroom were I'm cleaning/ironing/online....I'd find it a pain in the ass to have to wear glasses [over my own glasses]. I don't agree 3D is the way it's all going at least not until they get rid of the glasses and make something that is effective for everyones vision. As it is I think we're moving more towards digital downloads of film and tv like we have with music and more people will be buying ipads or similar products. My friend and his wife opted to buy two ipads over a 3D tv for their bedroom as they both like to watch different things and really like using the ipad for that and switching between watching tv and reading on it. I only use my tv to watch dvds, I've no channels on it as I watch nearly all my tv online....the irish channels online set up sucks but I'm based in the uk currently and the bbc iplayer content is fantastic. I've a dual monitor system set up in my studio so can work on one screen and have movies/tv playing on the other and no glasses to be messing with.


Edit: Just to add people aren't bashing the OP for buying a 3D tv...it is their money and they are free to spend it as they like and frankly if they are going to get milage out of it that suits them more power to them. People are just saying that they aren't rushing out buying 3D tv's for a wide selection of reasons.

The Mad Hatter

CrinkElite wrote: »

b1tch b1tch b1tch, we'll all be lappin up 3d media in 3-5 years. the only reason why people are resisting it is because they invested in high quality 2d screens or just don't have the money to buy a 3d screen in the first place.

Er, no. 3D ticket sales are falling, proportionally. And here's why it doesn't work, and never will.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think eyesight is a big issue and the main reason why 3D isn't going to be around very long. A lot of people don't have perfect vision in both eyes. My left eye is quite weak and I'm convinced that I'm not getting the full 3D effect as a result. I could definitely see the 3D effects in Avatar, but found them far from impressive. However, I saw absolutely no 3D in Tron: Legacy, nothing whatsoever. I don't know if that was just the film or me or what.

Hm, thought that was just me. My experience with Avatar and Tron was identical. I even took off the glasses a couple of times in Tron to check whether I was supposed to be seeing 3D.

ztoical

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

And here's why it doesn't work, and never will.

Fixed the link as it wasn't working - very interesting piece.

ztoical

Deleted User wrote: »

Avatar is by far the best use of 3D yet, it used the technology in a manner which immersed you in the world rather than constantly diverting your attention with pointless scenes of things being thrown our of the screen. The opening scene where they come out of cryo sleep is absolutely astounding to watch.

+ 1 that's one of the biggest failings I find with the 3D films...they don't immerse you in the world. Alice in Wonderland was the one that really turned me off the whole idea of 3D - ignoring how muted and dulled all the colour became in the 3D version it really was a case of film moving along then remebing they're doing a 3D version quick chuck something directly at the camera. Tangled had one scene were I really felt like I was part of the world

when they are in the boat and the lights are floating all around them I really thought wow, if all 3D felt like this I'd be sold on it

A great deal of that has to do with the fact pretty much every film, bar Avatar and a handful of others, has had the 3D effect tacked on after. Some knew when shooting it would be added and put in the few token to camera moments while others it was clear that it was a choice made during post. Producers are clearly into it as they see $$$ with it and cinemas after spending the $$$ on the projectors want the films to justify the cost but what the film makers? Other then Cameron whose pushing 3D? I know more directors who want to avoid it. Ignoring animated films as the process is different for them, there's only a handful of films in 3D coming up that have been filmed using the same system as Avatar but sadly it's films like Final Destination 5 and Spy Kids 4...alot of the big 3D films coming up were filmed flat and the effect added after [Priest, Green Lantern]

JOSman

Well done samapple789. Enjoy your purchase. I bought one last year and the Shrek movies were great in 3d. Anything else I've seen has been rubbish (poor 3d effects). I'm still not sorry I bought it.

Anyway its a high end TV with excellent bluray quality.

jaykhunter

ztoical wrote: »

frankly my tv and dvd player work fine so I don't see the point in up grading them ever 5 mins plus the effect doesn't work perfectly with my vision.

I think this is a huge reason why 3D won't take off. People in general are content with standard def, and how HD movies look on DVDs. I don't think the public en masse have accepted HD/Blu-Ray (especially in Ireland) as DVDs are cheap and have great picture quality, which is good enough for most people.

DVD adoption was definitely very quick, but Blu-Rays are still spluttering despite being out for a few years. If DVD is good enough for most people, only a portion of people want HD (enough to pay to upgrade) and only a portion of those want/will upgrade again to 3D. Although the plusses of HDTV is instantly recognisable, most people are more than happy with upscaled DVDs, if they even care about it. The limitations of having to wear glasses/having to be in a certain viewing angle/extra strain on one's eyes/brain is also an off-putting problem.

In short 3DTVs will have a really hard time becoming the norm, as it's predecessor is still having problems being accepted. We'll just have to wait until the future arrives and we have holographs

The Mad Hatter

jaykhunter wrote: »

I think this is a huge reason why 3D won't take off. People in general are content with standard def, and how HD movies look on DVDs. I don't think the public en masse have accepted HD/Blu-Ray (especially in Ireland) as DVDs are cheap and have great picture quality, which is good enough for most people.

DVD adoption was definitely very quick, but Blu-Rays are still spluttering despite being out for a few years. If DVD is good enough for most people, only a portion of people want HD (enough to pay to upgrade) and only a portion of those want/will upgrade again to 3D. Although the plusses of HDTV is instantly recognisable, most people are more than happy with upscaled DVDs, if they even care about it. The limitations of having to wear glasses/having to be in a certain viewing angle/extra strain on one's eyes/brain is also an off-putting problem.

In short 3DTVs will have a really hard time becoming the norm, as it's predecessor is still having problems being accepted. We'll just have to wait until the future arrives and we have holographs

To be honest, the reason I haven't adopted Blu-Ray is because I don't see it lasting - download is the way of the future, and I'm not willing to shell out huge amounts of cash on tech that'll only last a couple of years. (Said the Apple geek.)

jaykhunter

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

To be honest, the reason I haven't adopted Blu-Ray is because I don't see it lasting - download is the way of the future, and I'm not willing to shell out huge amounts of cash on tech that'll only last a couple of years. (Said the Apple geek.)

That's an excellent point; i imagine the cross-section of audio/videophiles and techies are quite large; so the potential audience that would flock to new tech (HD, 3D etc) might also know that downloading/streaming is the future of media....

The Mad Hatter

ztoical wrote: »

Fixed the link as it wasn't working - very interesting piece.

Fixed.