3D TELEVISION, YES OR NO.

[TWARDLAW]

CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN TO ME THE REASON FOR THE EXCITEMENT OVER 3D TELEVISION, I HAVE TRIED IT AND FOR ME IT IS PLAIN RUBBISH.

WHEN I WAS A CHILD MY PARENTS WOULD BUY ME POP-UP BOOKS, WHICH IF YOU LOOKED AT THEM GAVE A 3D EFFECT, I SAY EFFECT AS THE IMAGE WAS PURELY A BUILD UP OF 2D LAYERS ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER BUT STILL CONSISTING OF FLAT PICTURES.

WATCHING PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF 3D OVER THE YEARS HAS DONE NOTHING TO CREATE A SOLID 3D EFFECT AND THE IMAGES STILL LOOK JUST AS THEY DID ALL THOSE YEARS AGO

NOW WE HAVE THE LATEST VERSION AND LOW AND BEHOLD, TO ME IT LOOKS JUST AS BAD

TO ME IT JUST SEEMS A WASTE OF MONEY AND EXPERTISE THAT WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON IMPROVED BROADCASTING AND MEDIA MATERIAL

 

[The_Lhc]

TWARDLAW:TO ME IT JUST SEEMS A WASTE OF MONEY ... THAT WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON...

...a keyboard with a CAPS LOCK key?

You're absolutely right though, for all that...

 

[Anonymous]

I watched a bit of Avatar in a shop t'other day and was quite impressed.

Nonetheless I get the impression making 3D TV/movies is hideously expensive and the idea of sitting for hours on end with a heavy pair of 3D glasses perched on my nose holds no particular joy for me. Interestingly my kids (10, 12, 14) said the same thing, which was a surprise.

In the fullness of time I wonder if this will probably become a 'niche' rather than mainstream technology. Until glasses free 3D comes along that is...

 

[mcjwalters]

A big NO from me.
What a waste of time and effort from all concerned with this technology.

 

[Deleted member 2457]

3d on these tvs does work though, you clearly see more into the picture and images do pop out, i saw a demo on mine with the fish in the sea and when a shark comes towards you, you can actually see the full length of the shark then watch it pop out - i thought that was great.

Some 3d tvs have made my eyes water and feel quite strained but i have to say my one while demoing i found it to be the best.

 

[Anonymous]

I bet there's as many people buy a 3D TV in the sales as join a gym after Xmas. And you'll get the same amount giving up on both shortly after too.

Too many people will buy into it without really trying it and finding that they don't like wearing the glasses to watch a full football match or film. There will end up being a large number of 3D TV's being sold but, within a short space of time, no-one being interested in watching 3D Sky or buying 3D blu rays IMO.

 

[Anonymous]

TWARDLAW:
CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN TO ME THE REASON FOR THE EXCITEMENT OVER 3D TELEVISION, I HAVE TRIED IT AND FOR ME IT IS PLAIN RUBBISH.

WHEN I WAS A CHILD MY PARENTS WOULD BUY ME POP-UP BOOKS, WHICH IF YOU LOOKED AT THEM GAVE A 3D EFFECT, I SAY EFFECT AS THE IMAGE WAS PURELY A BUILD UP OF 2D LAYERS ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER BUT STILL CONSISTING OF FLAT PICTURES.

WATCHING PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF 3D OVER THE YEARS HAS DONE NOTHING TO CREATE A SOLID 3D EFFECT AND THE IMAGES STILL LOOK JUST AS THEY DID ALL THOSE YEARS AGO

NOW WE HAVE THE LATEST VERSION AND LOW AND BEHOLD, TO ME IT LOOKS JUST AS BAD

TO ME IT JUST SEEMS A WASTE OF MONEY AND EXPERTISE THAT WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON IMPROVED BROADCASTING AND MEDIA MATERIAL
its yes from me and also each to there own, some buyers will love it others wont simple as that
go for it imo.

 

[Anonymous]

WHICH IF YOU LOOKED AT THEM GAVE A 3D EFFECT, I SAY EFFECT AS THE IMAGE WAS PURELY A BUILD UP OF 2D LAYERS ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER BUT STILL CONSISTING OF FLAT PICTURES.

I agree, when I had a look at 3D this is how it appeared to me. Just a number of flat images.

 

[Chewy]

Hemmy:

WHICH IF YOU LOOKED AT THEM GAVE A 3D EFFECT, I SAY EFFECT AS THE IMAGE WAS PURELY A BUILD UP OF 2D LAYERS ONE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER BUT STILL CONSISTING OF FLAT PICTURES.

I agree, when I had a look at 3D this is how it appeared to me. Just a number of flat images.

I agree entirely, I don't think it should be called 3D at all, because it clearly isn't, its just multi-layered 2D in a lower resolution than HD.

I don't believe it will hit mainstream usage (even if the screens people own can do it) perhaps until the tech can survive without glasses.

The manufacturers know this, which is why their all beavering away trying to come up with tech that doesn't rely on glasses.

 

[Anonymous]

3D TV = rubbish on toast

 

[Simon Lucas]

gdavies09031977:[I don't think it should be called 3D at all, because it clearly isn't, its just multi-layered 2D in a lower resolution than HD.

'Active' 3D TVs deliver an HD (1920 x 1080) resolution.

 

[DandyCobalt]

As I understand, the future success (or not) of 3D TV hardware will be based on the same people as decided the VHS vs Betamax battle...the porn industry. If the porn industry go for it, then 3D tv hardware will be the norm. If they don't, then it will fizzle out, or whatever the porn industry term for "rapid decline" is.

 

[TheHomeCinemaCentre]

It is a yes from me and with 3D projection now available that is a big yes.

 

[lobby]

Totally agree with Nick yes on projector no on tv. By the way Nick what 3d projectors are now available, looking at one for next year budget won't allow before xmas .

 

[chudleighpaul]

Big NOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[laserman16]

the_lhc:TWARDLAW:TO ME IT JUST SEEMS A WASTE OF MONEY ... THAT WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON... ...a keyboard with a CAPS LOCK key? ...

You're just to sharp sometimes........

 

[Anonymous]

Big Yes from me, Just hooked my new system including the sony hx803 and it looks amazing in 2d or 3d. It really annoys me when people say they dont want to wear heavy glasses all the time. First of when im watching a 3d film i forget that im wearing them because they dont weigh anything. Plus i cant wait to watch 3d blu rays like, transformers 3, green lantern, captain america!

But each to there own i guess.

 

[chebby]

bootstrapwill:Plus i cant wait to watch 3d blu rays like, transformers 3, green lantern, captain america!
But each to there own i guess

Indeed.

 

[Anonymous]

Since I already wear glasses to watch TV does that mean I have to wear another pair on top of my normal ones to watch these things?

 

[Anonymous]

No.

The kids will be pestering mammy and daddy because of Toy Story 3 in 3D this Christmas then it will die a quiet death.

Waste of money IMHO.

 

[chebby]

bootstrapwill:It really annoys me when people say they dont want to wear heavy glasses all the time.

You would be absolutely livid with me then.

I wear prescription glasses and hated having the Sony 3D specs on top of them even for the 10 - 15 minutes the demo took.

.

 

[SteveR750]

Probably, if the proles are convinced by the media that its a *good thing to have*, then people will come Ray; in the same way that if you listen to the BBC, iTunes would appear to be the only source of dowloadable and PC based music.

 

[strapped for cash]

chebby:
bootstrapwill:It really annoys me when people say they dont want to wear heavy glasses all the time.

You would be absolutely livid with me then.

I wear prescription glasses and hated having the Sony 3D specs on top of them even for the 10 - 15 minutes the demo took.

.

Actually, Chebby, while I'm also in the anti-3D camp, I'm ambivalent about 3D's influence on filmmaking techniques. On the one hand, if filmmakers persist with the "poke things in your face" approach, this is rather tedious. As 3D cameras are cumbersome, however, we don't get the "rapid editing, endless whip-pan approach," which panders to viewers with miniscule attention spans and is equally tedious and distracting, in my opinion.

Take the last two Bourne films, for example. I know the consensus is that both are great, and Greengrass refused to hold a shot for more than three seconds to replicate Bourne's sense of disorientation, but I found each quite irritating for this reason. Another notable example was Transformers. I have no idea why I watched this, or why I soldiered on till the end, but the climax of the film was incomprehensible to me -- I couldn't tell which robot was fighting which, or what the hell was supposed to be happening (this might simply have been because I didn't care, however). Nonetheless, I'm sure that, as 3D cameras become increasingly portable, more fluid techniques will be incorporated into 3D filmmaking. Imagine how exciting that will be.

I'm intrigued to see what Werner Herzog and Martin Scorsese do with 3D (both have 3D projects in the pipeline: Herzog a documentary on French caves, Scorsese a children's film)...

 

[Anonymous]

i agree re. the bourne movies strapped, they were good but hard to keep up with, too many scene changes.. i didnt like the way public enemies was shot either, i found it hard to get into..

 

[Andrew Everard]

SteveR750:the proles

As opposed to...?