Majority of Consumers Don't Understand Realities of 3D
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Fixed that for you.Tom Goldman said:
If there is such a thing as glasses free 3D, I'd be fascinated to see how it works with myopia.
But generally, there's enough problems with 3D to render it nothing more than a fad anyway. What you're doing with 3D imaging is performing a 2 hour long optical illusion instead of actually focussing on things like Story, Pace, Plotting, Sound or other such ideas.
We've all seen something coming out of the screen at us by now, so just pack it in, please.
Well you should always remember the masses are dumb, consumers don't want to be educated they merely want to consume, to have the latest thing.
This is not attacking the average consumer it is a proven fact, people will follow their herd just like sheep do, they will follow it blindly and without reasoning.
And they don't want to know about what they follow, because they don't need to know, they only need to have something to be part of the herd again.
This is not attacking the average consumer it is a proven fact, people will follow their herd just like sheep do, they will follow it blindly and without reasoning.
And they don't want to know about what they follow, because they don't need to know, they only need to have something to be part of the herd again.
* Rips self form playing Sonic Adventure from Dreamcast*
Huh? Oh the 3D BS again. This is why I hate James Cameron. He makes one movie with no substance and all looks and everyone follows suit.
Huh? Oh the 3D BS again. This is why I hate James Cameron. He makes one movie with no substance and all looks and everyone follows suit.
3D is a doomed technology. Consumers are not motivated to learn about it because consumers are occassionally intelligent. We will not be convinced to buy a new shiny toy with little to no benefit and zero chance of becoming standard just because a few corporations want to show revenue growth. Most of us just bought an HD television. We're not going to rush out and drop a few thousand on another one already.
Glasses-free televisions are not a new technology. They've been tried before, and the tech they use for it is absolutely useless for multiple viewers. It will work for the 3DS because you only have to be concerned about one user. It cannot work for multiple people with different perspectives.
Glasses-free televisions are not a new technology. They've been tried before, and the tech they use for it is absolutely useless for multiple viewers. It will work for the 3DS because you only have to be concerned about one user. It cannot work for multiple people with different perspectives.
You do realise that the way 3D cameras used for things like sports to create 3D is exactly the same as the way you brain and eyes does it?JaredXE said:
Eye = a 2D camera
3D camera = pair of 2D cameras in one case.
Sound familiar.
And Moving pictures on a TV, monitor and Cinema are just a optical illusion, indeed alot of animals dont see it as they persceive things faster than humans.
Personally, I wouldn't mind the glasses-tech if there were a way I could get it in prescription. That way I wouldn't have to wear two pairs......
The glasses-free tech is somewhat fascinating, but for the moment (and foreseeable future), its not quite brilliant enough for a "ZOMG MUST BUY" reaction from me yet.
~self confessed gadget whore
The glasses-free tech is somewhat fascinating, but for the moment (and foreseeable future), its not quite brilliant enough for a "ZOMG MUST BUY" reaction from me yet.
~self confessed gadget whore
I'm not sure how to digest this news, because ill-informed consumers are nothing news worthy (obviously opinion).
Personally, I'm not getting 3D-anything for the next 5-10 years, if ever. The only exception to that is the 3DS, and that's because the price-point is below 1,000.00. Sure, Avatar was a great experience when I saw it, but I'm not going to be breaking the bank to buy a TV that I have to wear glasses over my current glasses (or with the glass-less-TVs sit in exactly the right spot) that will only give me a headache after an hour.
Personally, I'm not getting 3D-anything for the next 5-10 years, if ever. The only exception to that is the 3DS, and that's because the price-point is below 1,000.00. Sure, Avatar was a great experience when I saw it, but I'm not going to be breaking the bank to buy a TV that I have to wear glasses over my current glasses (or with the glass-less-TVs sit in exactly the right spot) that will only give me a headache after an hour.
No... these companies have a long way to go in picking technologies that aren't flash in the pan fads from decades ago.
I think he wants a holographic projector. I do too, but thousands of dollars won't get you that right now.Petromir said:
'New technology'? My mum has a 3D picture that's over 20 years old!
And why is it so urgent that they 'educate' consumers as to why they should spend money on 3D as opposed to say, flushing it down the toilet? I know all I need to know about 3D as it stands now: It's nothing but a gimmicky parlour trick; a crude imitation of the holodeck! Has it not occured to the industry that maybe there are some people who just don't give a space-flying shit about how 3D works and who wish that it would just die again!?
And why is it so urgent that they 'educate' consumers as to why they should spend money on 3D as opposed to say, flushing it down the toilet? I know all I need to know about 3D as it stands now: It's nothing but a gimmicky parlour trick; a crude imitation of the holodeck! Has it not occured to the industry that maybe there are some people who just don't give a space-flying shit about how 3D works and who wish that it would just die again!?
What I know about 3D is that I can't see it in the first place (anymore), but even if I could, what's pushing me to buy some exorbitant television with new technology[footnote]History has shown time and again that jumping on new technology is a BAD idea until it's been available long enough to have the bugs worked out.[/footnote] that will only be used well in a minority of games or movies?
It has a lot of potential, but given the trends already shown with 3D usage, is every movie and every game going to bother making it subtle or tasteful when appropriate? In fact, is it even going to look good off the bat? After the amazing special effects of films now, do we really want to digress so that Film Y can make shoddy CGI elements to pop in the audience's faces?
Meanwhile, the cost of HDTVs the size of my wall are coming down...
It has a lot of potential, but given the trends already shown with 3D usage, is every movie and every game going to bother making it subtle or tasteful when appropriate? In fact, is it even going to look good off the bat? After the amazing special effects of films now, do we really want to digress so that Film Y can make shoddy CGI elements to pop in the audience's faces?
Meanwhile, the cost of HDTVs the size of my wall are coming down...
Ha ha! I choked on that one!buy teh haloz said:
3D does not interest me and it probably never will.
I still have a bulky tv instead of a flat screen.
I still have a bulky tv instead of a flat screen.
Yeah. I have. Makes no fucking difference at all. It actually feels WORSE than the 3D in the theater.Tankichi said: