BBC Says 3D TV is a Hassly Experience, Takes 3-Year Break

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have a 3D vision 2 monitor and love it. It makes games look so much better and the 3D offered by it is so much better than what you get in the movies.

I love my multi-monitor setup and my 2560 x 1440 monitor as well, but if a game does a good job supporting 3D, I always plug it in first.

But I can understand why some people don't care for it too much.
 
Something like only 40% of the population can see the fake 3D the way these TVs intend it to work anyhow (I forget where I got those numbers, but that was the bigger example). I'm one of the greater percentage that just doesn't get it. I've seen many, even have 3D units at home that never get used just cause that's all you can get anymore in a higher-end unit. But I just don't SEE the 3D thing... Even at the IMAX, it's very rare that it works properly for me. Avatar was about the best so far and honestly the ONLY one that worked to some extent for me. But even still at home I never use 3D mode.

Again, 4K units are far more attractive a proposition for me, but then we get the next version of BluRay, etc. to handle 4x the pixel count, etc... And I have to start the process all over again of replacing my collection.
 
3D is good, but it is not worth these things

1. Wearing the damn glasses, I have to wear them everyday as it is.
2. The price is very off putting, like "smart" TV.
3. It isn't that good anyway, feels slightly fake, looking forward to Rift.

So I would much rather they hurry up with 4k TV' and monitors more than anything else, and I think I could of told them this 5 years ago, like most of the rest of us would have.
 
I have a 3DS and never used the 3D effect. It looks weird.

3D doesn't work well because current techniques don't completely fool the eye. Until that hurdle is surpassed, 3D won't be more than a gimmick.
 


Yep! The first allmost good 3D was the Hobbit because of the high definition and higher refress rate than in normal. All other 3D even in very good movie theater have been really bad in fast moving scenes. The Hobbit was guite good, but I supose that the refress rate should have been even higher, to really work well. I slow moving parts that 48 Hz was allmost enough... so that there was very little flickering and jerky movent. We need much better 3D until it is fine. The 4K/8K instead is a valid upgrade.

 
sux 2 b all of you in this comment section. i love 3D! 3d movies when done right like Star trek into darkness are amazing. movies like iron man 3 just hurt someone who might be curious about 3d. my 3ds? i love it too. some games suck but some are really great and 3d can make the games even better. i consider myself lucky to be able to enjoy 3d since so many hate on it.
 
The problem lies in the cheap glasses I think. The cinema 3D with those cheap plastic glasses looks terrible and adds almost no depth. Even on Avatar it was lackluster and only a small improvement.

However, sit down in front of a 3D vision 2 monitor with a pair of $150 electronic 3D shutter glasses and crank up the depth %. The result is simply amazing. Nothing else I've seen, TVs, movies, 3DS, even come close to how good my VG278H looks.
 
When 3D TV first started I said it was a waste of time and effort.
Half the population find it irritating and headache inducing.
Many of those who do like it are busy people and haven't got time to mess about setting it up, glasses etc.

Now TV manufacturers have finally woken up to what they should have been developing all along. That is producing 84 inch and larger TVs with 4K resolution.
 
3D Movies are awsome, i think pricing on the 3D Blurays is what scares people away from it. The Studios have put high price tags on movies that are 3D. I think the average 3D movie is $ 39.99, how many people can afford that??? I love 3D but i am staying away until they get real with pricing!
 
Looks like I'm the only one here that is a fan of 3D. I always buy a 3D Bluray over a standard because I prefer to watch a film in 3D, although I have to admit animated movies benefit much more than standard movies.

I also think than LG's passive Cinema 3D is superior to that of active shutter, where technically it shouldn't be. When I purchased my last TV I had no interest in 3D as all past experiences were not good. Once I started looking more closely at variousTV's I realised the Samsung and Panasonic TV's I'd favoured for years were no better than the likes of LG models, and the 3D on these models blew me away. Technically the resolution is poorer than the active glasses, but the 3D effect is outstanding. There is no charging of glasses, no dimming of brightness and best of all no flickering associated with active shutter. Once sat at a good viewing distance you really don't notice the resolution. I know for many techies (of which I am one) what I've said here defies logic, but if you've never witnessed good 3D then go checkout the passive cinema 3D models. Finally, I'd like to point out that I've never had a good 3D experience at the cinema, so don't let that out you off. A good 3D TV gives a much better experience than that experienced in a cinema.
 
3D will only take off in the home properly when it is glasses-free, the technology already exists, they won't roll it out till they have squeezed the last drop of blood from the old tech
 
Decades ago this kind of "3D" had a much more modest name: "stereo".
It sucked back then, it sucks today.

3D is something different, we are not there yet.
 
Decades ago this kind of "3D" had a much more modest name: "stereo".
It sucked back then, it sucks today.

3D is something different, we are not there yet.
 
The problem was the format, 24p into each eye is a stutter fest of issues for so many people bar the film buffs (if you could even call them that, I would not) that carry on about 50yr old tech saying faster motion looks like video. What a load of hog wash. Play games at 60fps to each eye and then go watch a blu ray, its terrible and the majority of people (not these so called film buffs) have voted with there wallets by not buying into it plain and simple as that, make a product good and it well sell. Next thing should be 4k at 60fps to each eye, yeah you need to wear glass's but at least it will look like the format was done correctly without any nasty shudders that people hate.
 
#d is a good niche thing, but it's not gonna become more than that unless technology changses I think.
firstly the 3d producs state that if you have heart issues, unevenly matched eyesight or are young or are sensitive to light, you shouldn't use 3d. That's quite a bit of potential customers gone.
Then there's the price. The cheapest sainsonic glasses are around 20€ a piece - and not every system works with these chinese univeral glasses.
Thirdly, there's so much confusion with the different technology types (side by side, top bottom, anaglyph etc) that the ordinary joe has to pray the auto detect feature works.
And also, there's the bandwidth issue. 1080p with 3D requires more bandwidth than hdmi can handle (or so I've read), so you need to shift to 1080i @ 24hz or something for it to work - or go to 720p ; and who'd want to make that tradeoff for 3d effects?
Lastly there's the problem with the light getting so much darker with active glasses (and price with the passive ones).

Also for gaming there's the extra issue with having to buy or pirate a middleware software to play most games and if you're on the green team, buy special(ly expensive) glasses.

Bottom line, it's just way too darn complicated and expensive for most people to care.
 

3D Gaming and 3D TV are two entirely different experiences. Typically, 3D games are meant to make you feel enmeshed in the game. One DOS game from years ago, Descent 3D, was extremely good at putting you in the environment of the game when played in 3D mode.

Movies and TV are not the same experience as 3D gaming. They both have nowhere near the sophistication that would be required to put you into the scene that you are currently viewing. For the foreseeable future, they will undoubtedly lack that technical sophistication as the technology has progressed little from the 1950's. What would be required, technology wise, is well beyond current movie and TV capabilities. For 3D movies and TV, there is little added depth, and the 3D versions of any movie or TV show are substantially dimmer than the 2D version. For the movie and the TV industry, my opinion (which is echoed by others) is that 3D is a gimmick to charge higher prices at the box office and get consumers to buy new TVs. As I see it, there is no added value in either.

Personally, I have only seen one movie that had content that was best suited to 3D. It was called "Cave of Forgotten Dreams." Even that movie, though, would have provided a great experience in 2D only.

I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D, and later bought the 2D Blu-ray version. After viewing the 2D Blu-ray version, I concluded that 3D added nothing to the movie.

IMHO, the sooner 3D disappears completely from the TV and movie market, the better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom