Study: 3D Offers Nothing But Headaches
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
This was said by Fox[footnote]And the author is apparently into enforced bondage of young women[/footnote], so I have to disagree. 3D does enhance the experience, it makes images crisper and sharper.
It's just that such things aren't the be all and end all, otherwise the continuing development of better visuals would mean that nobody would watch antiquated movies of, say, 10 years ago.
It's just that such things aren't the be all and end all, otherwise the continuing development of better visuals would mean that nobody would watch antiquated movies of, say, 10 years ago.
They will continue to pump out 3D movies, for nothing else than being able to charge more for the ticket.
eh, I won't go too far in that direction till I see their no-split split screen. I don't know if the image is 3D for the two people playing, but the fact they watch the same screen(with special glasses on) and see different images is way too neat to just pass on. The price tag associated with a TV that can do this is pretty ridiculous right now though.Fiz_The_Toaster said:
I believed this. Until I saw the source was fox. Now I'm not so sure. I did once try and push a fern out of the way in avatar but that's about it from immersion.
I said it before and I say it now: 3D sucks, 3D must die!!!
when the Hologram is ready we can talk again.
And I don´t care if the source is FOX or not. I know: I GET HEADACHES and EYE-FATIGUE from 3D movies.
when the Hologram is ready we can talk again.
And I don´t care if the source is FOX or not. I know: I GET HEADACHES and EYE-FATIGUE from 3D movies.
I hate watching movies in 3D due to the fact I'm giving them more of my money so that I can leave feeling worse than when I arrived. Every 3D movie I've ever seen gives me a killer headache for the rest of the day. I have the 3DS and I always have the 3D turned off on it. The only reason I watch 3D movies at all is because the theater where I live seems to love only playing 3D movies. I feel that any theater playing a 3D movie should also have the 2D option availabe, which my theater finally did with Captain America and the Harry Potter movie.
i have a 3d ready pc, and haven't used that capability for more than an a night's entertainment all it does for me is cause minor eye strain as my eyes adjust for the game / film and then back again
( i downloaded a few 3d trailers to check it out, and it seems to work best with static pictures, then films, then games ( and some games don't work at all or produce images that seem distorted, but that's reasonably rare, and improving rapidly )
honestly, it could be a failing of my eyes but things allready look reasonably 3d to me as a depth scaled 2d image my eyes say, op yes look that's depth!
the main issue for me it it's as fake as a hooker's smile, the '3d'
( ok let's be technical here, it's false perspective '3d' - as in no such thing at all, all just a funny trick )
to me for the most part it ends up like looking into a small box with tiny cardboard cut-outs inside it, and if you move your head at all it all goes to hell
( personally i get neck strain if i sit slack-jawed in awe at something for more than about half an hour without moving perceptibly )
now for the most part that's fine, but the real big issue is when you play a driving game and your perspective shifts
that's the worst kind of horrible.
for films i'd rate 'Fp 3d' as 'ok, if it really needs to be there to please some people then fine'
i certainly wouldn't go out of my way to go get it
and i'd probably pay a token extra fee if it was not available in 2d but again, if it's 50% extra or something, you can go whistle i may as-well buy the dvd
( cinema films are about £11 here anyway, if i want the works - reserved seat, 3d glasses, and 3d it's just under £15- that's roughly equivalent to 17 euros or 24usd )
for games, i'm certainly putting 'Fp 3d' in the gtfo category beyond a fun gimmick for casual games this technology has no serious place in the gaming market imo
two of my friends also have 3d rigs, and neither of them use them often other than to
'see how a new game looks'
i don't see that as anything more than a minor novelty, and it cost well over £300 at launch, not good value at all.
all in all, 3d is a bit of a flop it's just unessential garnish to something that's already pretty good, like a slab of white chocolate gooped on your sprinkled iced doughnut
it just doesn't add much any-more.
that's because blue-rays are awesome surely?
408960 pixels or
2073600 pixels...
that's a little over 5x the amount of picture detail..
not to mention the audio codec bump
( i downloaded a few 3d trailers to check it out, and it seems to work best with static pictures, then films, then games ( and some games don't work at all or produce images that seem distorted, but that's reasonably rare, and improving rapidly )
honestly, it could be a failing of my eyes but things allready look reasonably 3d to me as a depth scaled 2d image my eyes say, op yes look that's depth!
the main issue for me it it's as fake as a hooker's smile, the '3d'
( ok let's be technical here, it's false perspective '3d' - as in no such thing at all, all just a funny trick )
to me for the most part it ends up like looking into a small box with tiny cardboard cut-outs inside it, and if you move your head at all it all goes to hell
( personally i get neck strain if i sit slack-jawed in awe at something for more than about half an hour without moving perceptibly )
now for the most part that's fine, but the real big issue is when you play a driving game and your perspective shifts
that's the worst kind of horrible.
for films i'd rate 'Fp 3d' as 'ok, if it really needs to be there to please some people then fine'
i certainly wouldn't go out of my way to go get it
and i'd probably pay a token extra fee if it was not available in 2d but again, if it's 50% extra or something, you can go whistle i may as-well buy the dvd
( cinema films are about £11 here anyway, if i want the works - reserved seat, 3d glasses, and 3d it's just under £15- that's roughly equivalent to 17 euros or 24usd )
for games, i'm certainly putting 'Fp 3d' in the gtfo category beyond a fun gimmick for casual games this technology has no serious place in the gaming market imo
two of my friends also have 3d rigs, and neither of them use them often other than to
'see how a new game looks'
i don't see that as anything more than a minor novelty, and it cost well over £300 at launch, not good value at all.
all in all, 3d is a bit of a flop it's just unessential garnish to something that's already pretty good, like a slab of white chocolate gooped on your sprinkled iced doughnut
it just doesn't add much any-more.
SageRuffin said:
that's because blue-rays are awesome surely?
408960 pixels or
2073600 pixels...
that's a little over 5x the amount of picture detail..
not to mention the audio codec bump
Yeah, I'm a little curious to know how that works. They said it was going to be in 3D for both players in split screen, but I guess we'll know when it comes out. The price tag? Well, I looked again and it's not going to be bundled with Resistance 3 anymore, which I find interesting, but instead you get Motorstorm: Apocalypse and one pair of glasses for $500. It all depends on how good the TV is and if it can do what Sony says, and if it is, then the price is debatable.-Dragmire- said:
Fox News is bad (apparently, I'm British so we don't get Fox) , but they just reported it. They didn't do the study themselves, it done by CSU (California State University) so I don't know why people are complaining
But my view on 3D? If i could watch it, I assume it would be ok. But since I can't stand any type of 3D for more than a few minutes before burying my face in my knees to dull the headache (and in more serious cases, me staggering to the nearest bathroom before my stomach gives up). But since I can't, it's useless to me. Some people like it, some don't, some can't because their body doesn't like it XD One reason I don't have a 3DS.
But my view on 3D? If i could watch it, I assume it would be ok. But since I can't stand any type of 3D for more than a few minutes before burying my face in my knees to dull the headache (and in more serious cases, me staggering to the nearest bathroom before my stomach gives up). But since I can't, it's useless to me. Some people like it, some don't, some can't because their body doesn't like it XD One reason I don't have a 3DS.
And yet I barely see any difference between SD and HD XD I can sorta hear a slight difference in the sound (very slight I may add). But image wise, they look just about exactly the same to me (an tiny bit sharper, but still, not much).The Lugz said:i have a 3d ready pc, and haven't used that capability for more than an a night's
SageRuffin said:
that's because blue-rays are awesome surely?
408960 pixels or
2073600 pixels...
that's a little over 5x the amount of picture detail..
not to mention the audio codec bump
Even more telling line from the Fox article (which seems to be the only original source for this story): "The work has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal."
Basically, an unsourced story from Fox about an unsourced piece of science that nobody has actually seen and cant be reviewed or analysed.
It could be true, but until its actually published so people can look at it this is nothing but one single guy saying he doesnt like 3d. I could have found that on pretty much any nerd forum on the internet.
Basically, an unsourced story from Fox about an unsourced piece of science that nobody has actually seen and cant be reviewed or analysed.
It could be true, but until its actually published so people can look at it this is nothing but one single guy saying he doesnt like 3d. I could have found that on pretty much any nerd forum on the internet.
I think the problem with 3d cinema is it's all so big. When an epic piece of 3D scenery comes along, you seem to forget about the story and look at the pretty things. At least that's what most 3D films seem to rely on.
The little puppies and kittens are even cuter in 3D than before. It would help if there were any decent games I could get on it, the ol' nintendo faves didn't interest me last time they were wheeled out, on oxygen, in squeaky wheelchairs.James Raynor said:
"the technology also does nothing to increase a viewer's immersion."
and what kind of scientific study was used for that?
Guess what, I DO find that 3D helps immersion FOR ME. I DON'T get headaches either when I watch 3D.
I guess it's damn shame 3D doesn't work for everybody. Ah well, I guess we'll have to wait until a better immersive technique is invented.
and what kind of scientific study was used for that?
Guess what, I DO find that 3D helps immersion FOR ME. I DON'T get headaches either when I watch 3D.
I guess it's damn shame 3D doesn't work for everybody. Ah well, I guess we'll have to wait until a better immersive technique is invented.