3D, does anyone actually use it on a regular basis?

[admin_exported]

I was just curious as to whether anyone actually uses 3D on a regular basis.

 

[Oldboy]

Nope, If anything my 3D glasses just sit there gathering dust!

I have of course used my 3D system but with such a shortage of content available i would say i've used it at most about once a month and i can't see that increasing anytime soon...a complete waste of time and money really, i'm just glad i never bought any of my equipment because of its 3D capabilities.

If anyone is thinking of going 3D i would always advise that they bought the kit because of it's 2D performance and view 3D as just a little bonus as it won't get used very often.

 

[chris hollands]

No, i was an early adopter for 3D but use it so rarely that when i purchased my projector i got one without 3D, but much better 2D performance and have not regretted it at all.

 

[Juzzie Wuzzie]

Nope - can't see ever doing it.

 

[Ryan92]

I do, mainly when I go though bouts of gaming. For example I played pretty much all of the new Assasins Creed in 3D . . Can't see doing it for movies though . .

 

[Sizzers]

As I already wear one pair of glasses I have no desire to wear two.

I've not seen anything in 3D and have not had the desire to either, so whether it's good/bad/indifferent I have no opinion to offer. It's never struck me as being anything more than a gimmick by desperate TV manufacturer's to try to convince (con) consumers that this is the next "must have big thing" in an effort to make people part with their hard-earned cash to upgrade their TV and BDP's.

Always make me laugh when TV manufacturer's announce all these year-on-year increased sales in 3D TV's; at the quality end of the market at least,you've got no choice but to have a 3D panel whether you're going to use it or not. Some people may argue that it's due to the lack of 3D content; well, if there was a demand for it I'm pretty sure that the studios would be providing it

 

[chebby]

Watched our new 'Hugo' Blu-ray in glorious 2D yesterday.

Magnificent.

It might have been better in 3D, but I don't really care enough to buy into all that (and won't shed a tear if 3D eventually ceases to exist).

 

[Sizzers]

(and won't shed a tear if 3D eventually ceases to exist).

Plus 1 (and it probably will, until holograms come along....)

 

[Anonymous]

i do watch a lot of 3d on skys 3d channel, i like the wildlife programs in 3d i also buy the 3 d movies as well,
i am looking forward to the olympics in 3d,also costs nothing now i bought a 3d 42inch tv 399 and its very good to watch
its not as good as the samsung £1000 tv i bought a year ago but not far behind, so i for one enjoy 3d and so do the children love it.

 

[sonycentre]

Like anything i have to be in the mood to watch 3D puss in boots was great in 3D as was hugo in 3D.Some of skys 3D programmes can be amazing "titanic in 3D" nat geo documentry was an eye opener.I suppose its nice to have the options to watch it if you want.

 

[Crossie]

I have looked at lots of 3D in shop demonstrations and found most of it to be quite unreal, rather like a pop up book. I will give glasses free 3D a look but I doubt I will part with readies until I can see a proper depth to the image and not a series of layers. I would really like this technology to work but I am left feeling disappointed with what is at the moment a novelty.

 

[Anonymous]

I use it quiet regularly, especially the football,and if I'm buying a Blu ray, I always buy the 3d versions, just so I can watch both ways to see if it adds anything to the film or not.

 

[Anonymous]

I think it's now apparent that 3D is not ready for mass consumption,and by all accounts won't be for a long time.

I've never known a format that has been pushed by manufacturers so much with such little uptake. It's a gimmick -i said this years ago, and now it's surely obvious.

Manufacturers should concentrate on picture quilty first ,as this is what is most important. Obvioously companies need to sell new sets constantly so they will push a tech they have stupidly invested heavily in.

I also see "smart tv" to be a waste of time !

maybe i'm just a cynic?

 

[Anonymous]

Chris88,

To be honest I bought a 3D TV for the 2D quality, but with the option for 3D if I so desired.

I have watched about 10 minutes of Avatar 3D and decided that the 2D Blu-Ray transfer was so good that 3D wasn't really necessary for me. Plus, the fact that I already wear glasses has a detrimental effect for me personally.

I did watch some of the Lion King in 3D and can appreciate that some of the scenes do benefit from 3D, but the 2D in Blu-Ray is still a great viewing experience.

The bottom line is that I have owned a 3D TV for over 6 months and have watched a total of 20 minutes 3D footage! I think that speaks volumes, and that 3D is surely just a gimmick that only really appeals to a minority who might appreciate it.

I can understand why manufacturers are pushing 3D as a selling point, which can draw people in when seeing it for the first time in the showroom as impressive technology. The reality, however, is that 3D is just not worth the effort of dusting off those 3D glasses and sitting there watching a film whereby you are continously 'looking' for the 3D effects rather than enjoying the film for what it is.

I'm sure that 3D will be around for a long time to come, but from a personal viewpoint I am not remotely interested.

Paul.

 

[Anonymous]

To me, which I predicted some months ago, I thought it was a gimmick and flash in the pan, fuelled by children pestering to get Toy Story 3 3D. It will be interesting to see where it goes in a year or so from now. There is extremely limited content. Maybe this was said about HD but I still firmly belive so.

 

[bigboss]

I also see "smart tv" to be a waste of time !

It's nice to be able to watch iplayer on TV. But I agree, current "smart TVs" are poorly implemented. Wait until Google TV officially comes here, & Apple iTV launches. Then people will see the real benefit of Internet TVs.

 

[Andrew17321]

I too have a 3D television, because it is a great TV in 2D. I have not watched anything 3D on it, and do not intend to do so, though it is possible that my grandchildren might want to at some time.

I have seen a couple of films in 3D, which were interesting for their effects, but not a pleasure to watch.

When 3D gets to the stage that I can see in 3D with one eye closed (as in a holographic projection), then I may be happy with it.

3D screens have a place in gaming, remote sensing and manipulating, and other areas which will grow over time, and so will continue to be with us in the future, but I do not see 3D TV becoming mainstream.

Andrew

 

[bigblue235]

I don't understand why so many people admit they haven't tried 3D, then go on to claim it's rubbish 🙂

How can you know? From looking at a TV in a shop? I think a lot of in-store displays are set-up with the 3D effect set to max, the same way the picture modes are often set to Vivid. It's just to be eye-catching. But very few people judge a TVs picture quality on an in-store demo with silly settings, so why judge its 3D that way? Wait 'til you see it on a decent set, well set-up, with decent content. Then judge.

I wasn't sure about 3D, but now I use it a lot. I think it's great. IMO, it's not a gimmick. I use it for a variety of things, but mainly watching sport and gaming. Watching the Masters golf in 3D was absolutely fantastic. It showed the undulations of the course in a way that I've never seen with 2D.

I wouldn't say I prefer 3D over 2D, it doesn't suit everything. But when the content is suitable, it's a whole new AV experience, and I'm all for those!