Why does everybody hate 3D?
- Thread starter Dindril
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Realistic pictures =/= Good pictures'
If I shoot a movie of a dogs turd that lying on the sidewalk, IN 3D!!! It is still a video about a dogs turd on the side walk...
I don't want games companies to start spending money and development time to created bigger and better visuals. When they could spend that time doing better content and story lines. Same goes for movies.
Better sound quality??? Sound quality IS THE BEST, we can possibly have. Ever tried to record something in 512 bit-rate on 96000hz, you can hear everything in it (assuming you have average hearing quality and understanding. I can tell you, nothing is more realistic than sitting front of real orchestra, the quality is not that great, the quality depends on where you sit and how the orchestra is positioned. When I listen the orchestra trough super quality 3D surround it doesn't sound the same. (I know this very well since I play in a damn orchestra and work with music and listen it ALOT!)
I Don't want to buy super expensive and totally new gear that has more dangers of failing just to play a game for few hours a day with my friends.
I do not want the games to get even more realistic, I enjoy them as they are now...
If I shoot a movie of a dogs turd that lying on the sidewalk, IN 3D!!! It is still a video about a dogs turd on the side walk...
I don't want games companies to start spending money and development time to created bigger and better visuals. When they could spend that time doing better content and story lines. Same goes for movies.
Better sound quality??? Sound quality IS THE BEST, we can possibly have. Ever tried to record something in 512 bit-rate on 96000hz, you can hear everything in it (assuming you have average hearing quality and understanding. I can tell you, nothing is more realistic than sitting front of real orchestra, the quality is not that great, the quality depends on where you sit and how the orchestra is positioned. When I listen the orchestra trough super quality 3D surround it doesn't sound the same. (I know this very well since I play in a damn orchestra and work with music and listen it ALOT!)
I Don't want to buy super expensive and totally new gear that has more dangers of failing just to play a game for few hours a day with my friends.
I do not want the games to get even more realistic, I enjoy them as they are now...
I don't hate 3d, I just don't think it enhances the experiece any. I think that 3d is a gimmick and nothing more, it doesn't add anything for me, in fact it takes away because it gives me wicked headaches. I think 3d just adds another distraction to a game, while not adding any benifit, but that's just my opinion.
I won't buy any 3d game, or console, or movie, or anthing else, unless there is not 2d version. The only reason i even got a flatscreen tv was because i move 4 times a year into and out of college and flatscreens are a lot easier to carry.
I won't buy any 3d game, or console, or movie, or anthing else, unless there is not 2d version. The only reason i even got a flatscreen tv was because i move 4 times a year into and out of college and flatscreens are a lot easier to carry.
I don't because it gives me head aches and most of the time i just want to watch a normal movie.
When 3d is implemented, it tends to be all that the devs/creators focus on, rather than a coherent story and actually GOOD visuals.
3D TV's came out too early for their own good. Everyone in the market for a new tv has already purchased a plasma, lcd, or projection tv, and will not likely buy another one for several years. 3D for me is on par with the motion gaming fad. A little bit annoying, but nothing I cant ignore for the next 10 years, or however long it takes them to be able to beam images directly into your brain.
I think IMAX when I think 3D. I saw the Matrix in IMAX and it was pretty awesome, particularly when Trinity jumps off the building early on in the movie. However, I wouldn't say it would have been worth the price hike for the tickets. I saw it for free as I had won the tickets.
The whole theater experience for me has been killed by the fact that I have had a giant tv since the cost of owning one was prohibitive. I generally don't like people eating f'n popcorn and jabbering on about the movie we are watching or kicking the crap out of my chair, etc. So I watch them at home now. I don't care that I don't see it the day it comes out.
3D is a way to get people to come back to the theaters, but like IMAX it appeals to a subset of potential moviegoers. Even if that subset is 60% (which I doubt it is), it is still a subset. Hike up the price you dwindle the number further.
TV manufacturers jumped on the 3D bandwagon because they don't want to lose the home theater folks to going back to the actual theater. Time will tell, whether 3D becomes like IMAX and is just a gimmick used on some films, or whether it will be like HD (702p then 1080p) where it becomes a standard. I lean towards it staying as a gimmick.
Good thing about everyone buying up 3D tvs though is I got a steal on my 55" Samsung 1080p television. I tend to buy my tvs when the new tech starts to drive the price down. I bought the last model big screen Sony made that was 4:3. It was 720p capable and at the time very little was even in first gen HD on cable/satellite. Even though all the tv manufacturers had put out their 16:9 tvs and the flat panels had arrived. It was years before I found that almost everything was now in HD. This tv is nearing 10 years old and is just now starting to show the bands of watching HD letter boxed.
So now my 1080p tv is in the same boat. Other than BlueRay DVD's and the odd game, it's tech that sits unused. TV is still in 720p (at least in my region), but by the time I am ready to give this one up, again what it was capable of will be used nearly all the time instead of occasionally. 3D tvs are too close to following 1080p to market in order to justify everyone going out and upgrading again. We aren't even getting the bang for our buck on 1080p sets, why the heck would I go buy a 3D tv.
As anything time will tell, but I see 3D being a fad that fizzles, or stays in a niche market.
The whole theater experience for me has been killed by the fact that I have had a giant tv since the cost of owning one was prohibitive. I generally don't like people eating f'n popcorn and jabbering on about the movie we are watching or kicking the crap out of my chair, etc. So I watch them at home now. I don't care that I don't see it the day it comes out.
3D is a way to get people to come back to the theaters, but like IMAX it appeals to a subset of potential moviegoers. Even if that subset is 60% (which I doubt it is), it is still a subset. Hike up the price you dwindle the number further.
TV manufacturers jumped on the 3D bandwagon because they don't want to lose the home theater folks to going back to the actual theater. Time will tell, whether 3D becomes like IMAX and is just a gimmick used on some films, or whether it will be like HD (702p then 1080p) where it becomes a standard. I lean towards it staying as a gimmick.
Good thing about everyone buying up 3D tvs though is I got a steal on my 55" Samsung 1080p television. I tend to buy my tvs when the new tech starts to drive the price down. I bought the last model big screen Sony made that was 4:3. It was 720p capable and at the time very little was even in first gen HD on cable/satellite. Even though all the tv manufacturers had put out their 16:9 tvs and the flat panels had arrived. It was years before I found that almost everything was now in HD. This tv is nearing 10 years old and is just now starting to show the bands of watching HD letter boxed.
So now my 1080p tv is in the same boat. Other than BlueRay DVD's and the odd game, it's tech that sits unused. TV is still in 720p (at least in my region), but by the time I am ready to give this one up, again what it was capable of will be used nearly all the time instead of occasionally. 3D tvs are too close to following 1080p to market in order to justify everyone going out and upgrading again. We aren't even getting the bang for our buck on 1080p sets, why the heck would I go buy a 3D tv.
As anything time will tell, but I see 3D being a fad that fizzles, or stays in a niche market.
Yes, 3D technology has improved significantly in recent years, but that doesn't mean it's not a gimmick. Movies that were originally made for 2D are being (poorly) converted to 3D simply for the sake of not getting left behind. There are some films that are enhanced by it (see Avatar), but because of current filmmakers' fear of being the only kid on the playground without that big "Digital 3D" button is turning it into am unnecessary compulsory expense for moviegoers.Dindril said:
Personally I find the glasses a bit distracting. I watched Toy Story 3 in 3D twice, and both times I was constantly worried about the slight blurriness I was seeing. I kept thinking, is it just me? Did I get popcorn butter on the lenses? Or are the glasses just damaged? Sure, some parts were cool, but I was much more easily taken in when I finally saw it in 2D a few weeks ago.
Plus, there is a lot of talk about how the 3D glasses can be very damaging to the eyes when used in the long-term--like say, watching TV every night. I think until they get the technology to where that isn't an issue, I won't be buying a 3D TV anytime soon.
Oh, and on your unnecessary note, everything turning HD is inevitable. Just like the way CDs phased out cassette tapes and DVDs phased out VHS tapes, HD currently is and will continue to phase out standard definition. What separates that from 3D is that, at this point, 3D is not an inevitability. Eventually in the future, everything will be in HD. It will be present in virtually 100% of the new media you can find on the market. I don't see 3D becoming that present, or at least within the next fifty years.
I'd venture to say that most people don't even have HD TVs yet. I know I don't, and everybody in my family but three don't. And even if they have one HD TV, that doesn't mean everything else they enjoy such media on is HD. Most cars with screens only play DVDs, and even if you have ONE blu-ray player it's useless on anything else but an HD monitor. The transition to HD is barely halfway there. And people who have made the transition are probably still making payments on it. This whole 3D fad (yes, fad) is making the media market very muddled and confusing. And most people will still only buy HD TVs because 3D is making out to be just one, strong breeze that is already on its way out.
And that is why, if I were in a position to buy one, I'd buy an HD TV before I buy a 3D TV. Maybe in a few decades once things settle down, but by then I have a feeling holographic television will be well on its way to phasing out the old HD TVs.
EDIT: And in other news, my caps lock key is feeling very molested after typing this post
I don't care if it's better quality or that it costs more. It takes away from my viewing experience and doesn't allow me to get engrossed into the film because it insists on reminding me that I'm watching a film.
For me, as a consumer, I don't hate 3D.
I just got bored of it. Some films were really good and interesting to watch in this format, but then they just keep coming out. More and more of them. And you know what? I'm bored of collecting plastic 3D glasses and having to see something which is only being sold on the primary selling point of 'SEE THIS IN 3D NOW!'.
I watched a trailer the other day and it was 5 seconds (I kid you not) before it went on about how amazing it was in 3D and see it in 3D and 3D this and that. I didn't even know what the film was about. I didn't even bother to look it up. Why would I?
But that's just me
I just got bored of it. Some films were really good and interesting to watch in this format, but then they just keep coming out. More and more of them. And you know what? I'm bored of collecting plastic 3D glasses and having to see something which is only being sold on the primary selling point of 'SEE THIS IN 3D NOW!'.
I watched a trailer the other day and it was 5 seconds (I kid you not) before it went on about how amazing it was in 3D and see it in 3D and 3D this and that. I didn't even know what the film was about. I didn't even bother to look it up. Why would I?
But that's just me
I dislike it because I am yet to see anything (except maybe that short pixar film beofre Toy Story 3) that it has made better. It didn't change the fact that Avatar was a shite film and it isn't worth the extra costs, it didn't change how good Toy Story 3 was or how average a film Shrek 4 was.
3D is simply a way to keep people going to the cinema. The technology has been around for a long time (not sure how long but at least 20 years in its current form) and the fact that cinema audiences worldwide have plummeted over the last few years and dvd sales have not, meant that cinemas needed to take some action.
The other problem with cost is that people are not buying 3d sets because there is very little reason to considering how much more expensive they are. HDTV had more of an instant impact and there was more technology to make the most of it which meant that it did sell. The more it sold the cheaper it got. Won't happen with 3D.
To be honest I wouldn't be shocked if 3D goes the same way as the minidisc.
3D is simply a way to keep people going to the cinema. The technology has been around for a long time (not sure how long but at least 20 years in its current form) and the fact that cinema audiences worldwide have plummeted over the last few years and dvd sales have not, meant that cinemas needed to take some action.
The other problem with cost is that people are not buying 3d sets because there is very little reason to considering how much more expensive they are. HDTV had more of an instant impact and there was more technology to make the most of it which meant that it did sell. The more it sold the cheaper it got. Won't happen with 3D.
To be honest I wouldn't be shocked if 3D goes the same way as the minidisc.
I don't hate, they haven't really made anything good with it yet though, but they might considering they made TVs with 3D.
I have two opinions, because I'm awkward.
Passive 3D, the one where the glasses have differently polarised lens and 2 images shown at the same time, sucks. Looks horribly blurry and is more pop out of the screen type stuff (Headaches inbound!). This is usually used in the cinema and probably where most people experience 3D and therefore why it probably gets a bad rep. Hell, I never see films in 3D purely because it sucks
Active 3D, where images are shown in succession and each lens in the glass gets turned off and on, looks freaking awesome. You get true depth perception (not poppy-outy stuff) and don't lose as much quality, apart from slight darkening when wearing the glasses, I guess. This is what the nVidia sets do and, seriously, playing Metro 2033 in 3D is so crazy scary I could only do it 10 minutes at a time.
Having said that, I won't be investing until the price drops. My friend has an active 3D setup and I am truly jealous of him. I need a new TV so I reckon I'll just by a 120Hz jobby and get a 3D decoder when they're made available for cheap.
Howerver, we do need early investors for this tech else the companies won't have any money to make it better. The main problem is film makers shoe-horning it into films to make a buck or two and the consumers whining about how it's a fad because of that.
Granted, it's a bit annoying to have to where the glasses to view stuff in 3D, but to say that it adds nothing to the experience means you ain't seen active 3D! Let's not discard it too early it's going to get better and hopefully cheaper.
That's my two pennies anyway.
Passive 3D, the one where the glasses have differently polarised lens and 2 images shown at the same time, sucks. Looks horribly blurry and is more pop out of the screen type stuff (Headaches inbound!). This is usually used in the cinema and probably where most people experience 3D and therefore why it probably gets a bad rep. Hell, I never see films in 3D purely because it sucks
Active 3D, where images are shown in succession and each lens in the glass gets turned off and on, looks freaking awesome. You get true depth perception (not poppy-outy stuff) and don't lose as much quality, apart from slight darkening when wearing the glasses, I guess. This is what the nVidia sets do and, seriously, playing Metro 2033 in 3D is so crazy scary I could only do it 10 minutes at a time.
Having said that, I won't be investing until the price drops. My friend has an active 3D setup and I am truly jealous of him. I need a new TV so I reckon I'll just by a 120Hz jobby and get a 3D decoder when they're made available for cheap.
Howerver, we do need early investors for this tech else the companies won't have any money to make it better. The main problem is film makers shoe-horning it into films to make a buck or two and the consumers whining about how it's a fad because of that.
Granted, it's a bit annoying to have to where the glasses to view stuff in 3D, but to say that it adds nothing to the experience means you ain't seen active 3D! Let's not discard it too early it's going to get better and hopefully cheaper.
That's my two pennies anyway.
This post pretty much sums up my opinion.Count Igor said:
Did you know that they're making 3D Blu-ray players now? Yeah, I'm not going out to buy a whole new device and TV for in home 3D. And those glasses.. I'm in the same boat as Count Igor for those damn glasses as well. I wear prescription glasses, and most of my family does as well. Want to convince me that 3D is the next big thing? Making 3D glasses that fit over normal glasses, or removing the glasses all together would be an excellent start. Not to mention that 3D gives some people massive headaches.
One word: HEADACHE.
Seriously, I have good eyes and don't need glasses. Yet, when viewing 3D I can never focus, because my eye's lense focusses on the screen, while the movie wants me to point my eyes to something that isn't supposed to be on that distance. Those two types of muscle seem to be hardwired in me, resulting in a headache not even 5 minutes in the movie.
I dread the day when this 3D becomes standard, I wouldn't be able to go to the cinema anymore.
Seriously, I have good eyes and don't need glasses. Yet, when viewing 3D I can never focus, because my eye's lense focusses on the screen, while the movie wants me to point my eyes to something that isn't supposed to be on that distance. Those two types of muscle seem to be hardwired in me, resulting in a headache not even 5 minutes in the movie.
I dread the day when this 3D becomes standard, I wouldn't be able to go to the cinema anymore.