Watched my first 3-D demo yesterday...and it blows

[paullauth]

I am sorry guys I spent alot of money for laser eye surgery to get rid of my glasses. I am not going to spend the same amount of money to start wearing them again. No 3d for me

 

[ScottyDog]

Hi,
I went for a 3D Vision monitor setup on my PC and I really enjoy the option to use it for games and movies, and I got to say it is fantastic! I am in the market for a new plasma and I am not even considering a 3D panel because of the cost and limited material out there.

 

[emorphien]

The only 3D material I've seen so far that impressed me and was of a consistently high quality (even if it had a few odd spots) was Avatar (I saw it on Imax 3D). Tron's 3D wasn't as good and based on the 3D previews I saw before Tron, we're in for a world of hurt with badly done, exaggerated 3D effects in a lot of movies.

 

[Chitown2477]

I understand surround sound and the impact added to the movie watching experience. Same for very good subs and same for a very nice HD display. But, IMO a good movie experience can come from a simple fat 32" tube television. 3D just seems to add that extra dimension (no pun intended) that is not necessary. Its a gimmick for kids and for video gaming. If all the immersion visually is needed for an entire movie (90 minutes or more), I really think it either distracts from the movie or its likely not a good movie at all.

Also, I do not think 3D will be common unless the price drops dramatically. I have a family of four and the glasses alone at run me $500 to $1,000. I can get a very good 32" HDTV for that price these days. Plus the glasses won't fit my four year old son right now anyway. And it a pair breaks, I have the cost all over again for a pair.

 

[MidnightSensi2]

Immersion is from a big screen. We don't see our world in 3D, we see our world immersed in it. Nothing is popping out at me.

The most immersed I've been is with a dome screen, like the Harry Potter ride at Universal Studios.

I've played with some 3D tv's, and if you think in the theater it was iffy, try it on a lame 50" screen.

 

[stealthrt]

Yeah, i really never understood the hard push to get 3D TV's into living rooms. Maybe, MAYBE, in a home theater setup with a 120+ screen but anything less than that would really be a waste of money IMO. The reason why it looks good in theaters is because of the large screen that "wraps" around you filling you more with the 3D.... not so true at home, though.

David

 

[bigbassdave]

1st Time I saw a 3D demo was at Best Buy. I walked up to the display, tried on the glasses and.... nothing. I flagged down an employee who said the glasses had stopped turning on that morning. I asked if he had another pair. He came back with another set and couldn't get those working either. He made a comment that they "Break all the time." When I finally got to watch the demo on the third pair of glasses I thought it looked pretty good but I'm with most of you when you say you couldn't watch tv that way for long periods of time. I enjoy 3D in the theater when it is well done. If my projector was 3D I think I would be ok with that but for 80% of the time when I'm watching in my living room? No thanks.

 

[GRD]

I'll go against the grain on this one. Because, recently I got a 73" 3D HDTV, Mitsubishi 2010 model open box/with warranty sale for $1000, and Sony Blu-ray player and have to say 3D presentation is pretty impressive, with Sports being really good in 3D.
Also, got 4 3D glasses DLP link for about $180. The more expensvie glasses are active sutter which requires the purchase of an emitter also. Some of the Mits/Samsung models support DLP lowering the glasses cost.
When watching 3D even in theaters breaks are recommended. I find that a 5-10 minute a couple of times during full length movies eliminates the headache/eyestrain issues. Although it's said a % of the population cannot watch 3D due to these issues.
So, my package was about $1350 total and I would reccomend 3D. Cable companies and movie producers are getting on the bandwagon and the number of offerings is increasing monthly.
Further if your selected 2D HDTV model supports it why not as it allows switches to your desired mode.

 

[JaBear]

Yeah I'll go against the grain on this one as well too. While I like it in movies the 3D movies all are made to have stuff come out at you and it just kinda lame imo. However I love it in sports and gaming. When watching football in 3D you get so much more depth when watching the game. Come on have you ever watched a game where it looks like a guy is going to make an amazing play then they show it from another angle and the guy was no where near making that play. However in 3D because you have depth it gives you more of the experience that you are actually there. Also weather you like it or not 3D is here to stay the two big companies that made HD stick was ESPN and Discovery, now they are the first ones on board again pushing more content out each day. TV manufactures are at a point that they can't get the picture much better under current technologies...this year has to have the least advancement in picture quality in TV the big push is 3D in TVs this year all the way from the top to the bottom Samsung selling a 43" 720p plasma for $600. Then your providers...sad fact is it takes up less bandwidth to add a 3D channel then it does 1080p...and they will be talking about all the 3D content they have added to keep your mind of the fact 5 years ago you bought a 1080p TV and you still can't watch a sporting event in 1080p on ESPN.

 

[InTheIndustry]

I will also buck the trend and say that I LOVE 3D!!!! But......

Only for movies and only on a big screen projector. I am NOT a fan of 3D on TV or for sports. The technology is in its infancy and is getting better rather quickly and more affordably.

Emorphien, how did Tron in 3D not blow you away? I've seen it om the huge IMAX screen 3 times with different groups of friends and it was jaw dropping. The movie was OK, but totally entertaining with the 3D & sound.

In our new show room we've decided to go with the new JVC THX projector on a 120" screen. I'm excited about what previously released movies will be like in 3D. The Matrix, Star Wars, The New Star Trek, Spiderman series, and so many more could be mind blowing oj the big screen if done well.

It's technology that is developing and that's exciting. Perhaps some of those with motion sickness will never like it. I have yet to see a technology invented that everyone thought was perfect..... expecially in its infancy.

 

[Pyrrho]

I was at Sears today and they had a Panasonic Plasmsa with 3D playing through a Samsung Home Theater system. So I through the glasses on my face over my regular glasses turned them in and watched the demo DVD play. Yeah ok it was 3D. Big deal. I had to hold the glasses on my face as they kept falling off ( a real ergonomic feature ) and the display itself looked fuzzy when watching 2-D. I think the fuzziness was either a calibration problem or just a poor set-up to begin with. The greatest annoyance were the glasses. I watched the demo DVD which lasted 15 minutes and I thought alot of the scenes looked gimmicky and artificial. I felt dizzy afterwards and kind of nauseous. Will I recoomend 3D to any of my friends or colleagues? Definately not. This demo just reaffirmed by long held believes that the current technology is hoaky at best. Not until holographic displays are perfect will it ever be 3D.

The display looked fuzzy when you were watching 3D material without glasses. That is because the thing is displaying two slightly different images, and you are supposed to only see one image with each eye. Seeing both images with both eyes (which is what happens when you watch a 3D movie without the glasses) makes it look fuzzy.

It is not a calibration problem.

You can only properly judge the picture of 3D when watching with the appropriate glasses. You have to put on 2D material to watch without the glasses.