Weekend Open Forum: Did you jump on the 3D bandwagon?

Have seen a few films in 3d but mainly due to the show times than actually wanting to see them in 3D. Not something I'm interest in I'm afraid. Plus my wife isn't able to see the active 3D stuff. Might end up with a 3D tv just because it's thrown in on a decent spec model, but until my old trusty Sony KDL 46X4000 (one of the first 1080P models available) kicks the bucket I'll happily live without 3D as it's just a gimmick to me.

3D is a pile of annoying s**t for the most part. I first saw polarised 3D (the type currently being used in cinemas, opposed to the blue and red coloured lenses 1950's method) on the Terminator 3D show at Universal Studios in the 90's. I have to admit when combined with all the other effects, like animatronics, live actors, smoke machines, etc. it was actually quite fun, gimmicky but still cool nevertheless. It also helped massively that it was kept short (around 10 minutes I think).

However having to watch a regular movie in 3D is one of the most infuriating experienced I've ever had. Firstly, what the hell is the point? It's not actual 3D for a start, it's a complete misnomer; a more truthful description would be "the illusion of stuff poking out of the screen at you occasionally". In addition to that, having to wear the tinted glasses as well as the lower quality footage due to the 3D process makes it look about a hundred times worse than a regular 2D film, having to wear the glasses is an uncomfortable nuisance.

Worst of all ut's only going to encourage s**ty producers and directors to make 90 minute, plotless, incoherent, boring special effect masturbation sessions like Avatar rather than actual decent films. Don't encourage them.

That is really the main reason not to support 3D. Hollywood will get even lazier.

I bought a 3D TV because it was on sale at the time and only slightly more than the 2D version. But it didn't come with any glasses and at £50 a pair I still haven't bought any...

I jumped pretty much straight on the back of 3D and don't really regret it at all (thought I don't use it much) I bought 3x Acer GD245HQ 3D monitors, just to play games in 3D surround (which I never do now of course). It was fun playing burnout for a few races like it, and games like battlefield 3 on the jet level and stuff. I'd usually play a game in 3D just on one monitor usually, or most of the games just lag like hell (which all in all ruined 3D for me in terms of gaming).

When trying to watch movies in 3D on the computer sometimes it's more hassle than it needs to be when downloading mkv's in sbs 3D to watch in the stereoscopic player. So most of the time I just don't bother at all.

I also bought a 3DTV which, kind of the same as the Pc, I'll watch a 3D film on it when my media server and TV want to let me watch it. Half the time something somewhere goes wrong and I just give up wanting to put my fist through the TV. Or just buy a 3D blu-ray and all is good.

And last of all, I bought an HTC EVO 3D, just to top of being a 3D lunatic. Couldn't fault this phone though, absolutely love it. Anyone I've shown the 3D pictures I've taken on it on the phone (glasses free 3D) think it's amazing aswell.

William Castle would be amused to see 3D make a comeback.

3D television is like Laserdisc: a fringe enthusiast interest.

No.

No, up to this date I'm a happy owner of a B&O BeoVision Avant 32, a CRT from 2001 - which to my surprise even more than 10 years later provides 'a better picture' for most non-HD sources Another reason for keeping it: the build-in speakers, which do not necessarily require a home cinema setup fill the room

Nope...

never saw any 3 movie either.

When the 3D market came out my first thought was "I have to have one" Shortly there after I realized that was just the excitement of new tech. I did not purchase anything and I'm glad I did not. As far as I'm concerned it's still a little to pricy to have the gear for 6-8 people with an active setup. Right now the passive version is the most interesting one. If I have a choice to watch the movie in 3D "in a theater" I'll take it. Currently what I'm getting excited about is the growth/development of 4K technology. Currently I'm still happy with my Sony KDF-60XS955 which only has 1080i / 720p. I'm just hoping that 4K projectors will be in the 4-5 thousand range when my current TV has taken it's last breath (minus bulb replacement which I do every 18 months anyway).

I'm one of those people that cannot handle 3D very well. When deciding to go to a movie, 3D is more of a con for me than a pro. So no, I don't want 3D in my living room.

Having to put glasses on to watch tv seems silly to me, you have this amazing 1080p picture then you put plastic lens that blur it over your eyes, no thanks.
Ill wait till it perfected before Ill be getting one.

I don't have anything against 3D.. I am not a hater or anything, I watched The Avengers on IMAX 3D and enjoyed it thoroughly but there are many reasons I won't jump to it.
I will not wear goggles to watch a movie, I already wear glasses. Some of the 3D is very poorly done, the technology is still far from being tweaked properly.
And mostly? I just don't care to have it.
I have a large blu-ray collection and still avoid the 3D bundle packs.
It's cool, just not something I care to have.

I was fascinated as a young boy by 3d comics that came with anaglyph red blue 3d glasses. It was so fun to see something 2d pop right out in front of me. I loved the viewmaster as well, taking me into the jungle to view wild animals, or fun stories from the muppets in 3d.

Now I own a vuzix 920 for 3d on the go, a 3ds xl, and a vizio 42" 120hz 3d tv. I get my hands on every 3d game and movie I can find. (or afford) I enjoy immersion in my media, and the experience of new technology.

To hear so many people claim that 3d is a fad or a gimmick makes me just sick. I do not get eye strain that makes me stop using my 3d devices. If a movie comes out in 3d, I dont want to watch it in 2d. If a game comes out in 3d, I dont want to play it in 2d. The more people who are content to watch a flat moving picture and call it immersive, and the more people who claim 3d tech is just a passing money making gimmick, the less companies will work to get this tech to a point where it is like a holodeck or virtual reality ect.. I enjoy a much more rich 3d experience at home than I do when I go to the movie theater.

Try it at home.

Or you could trade in that 5.1 surround sound system for a mono speaker because the 5.1 just hurts your ears. Perhaps you just shun something you feel you cannot afford, or are afraid to try. Perhaps you feel like 3d is a gamble. I will gamble on 3d becoming the new standard, and push for better usage in software and media. Lack of support has held this tech back enough already.

Please help me support 3d in games, movies, and photos. Art has imitated life, and life, art. You are a 3 dimensional being, not a piece of paper. Shouldn't the world we see in our media also be 3 dimensional?

I rather get a bigger screen with High Definition then to buy a 3d tv.

Jumped on it several times over the years. The first was in '96 I think. I remember that Descent had support for those glasses, as well as Shattered Steel. Problem was they dropped the resolution to 320x200 when playing in 3D, which wasn't a good compromise.

Nowadays I don't have any hardware which supports 3D. I don't play many games nor watch much TV or movies, so there's no point in it, and my wife suffers when wearing 3D glasses, which means that going out to 3D movies with her is out of the question.

I do enjoy the effect, but I think I'll wait until there are good glasses-free solutions at a low price before I jump back on the bandwagon.

@Deltree, while personally I enjoy 3D, for one thing there are many people who do have problem with it, and perhaps more to the point, I don't feel the need for it. It's nice, but I find that I don't even notice that a movie is not HD if it's engrossing enough, and same goes for 3D. I'm also fine with stereo as opposed to 5.1.

"Shouldn't the world we see in our media also be 3 dimensional?" Not necessarily. The best media is still books, which are basically one dimensional.

Seen a half dozen or so 3D movies, including Avatar and the new Dredd movie. But I still leave the cinema with a slight headache or the question of was that really necessary? In Dredd for example the main use of 3D is during the "Slo-Mo" drug scenes, which is neat, kinda like watching a mix of ******* 3D and Timewarp. But after the first couple scenes you start to notice they get dragged out, and I feel my eyes straining more then they should be trying to focus. The High speed camera work could have done without the 3D in my opinion and could have been shortened. But thats the way I feel about most 3D experiences, I rather be able to take the stupid glasses off and enjoy the movie in regular 2D, which you can't because it looks out of focus. So the idea of sitting in my home now with the same stupid glasses on just doesn't appeal. It really is a gimmick, and until they can do it without the glasses I'm just going to wait.
Sorry Deltree, I have to disagree with you, the 3D issue with people's eyes is a damn big deterrence, luckily for you your eyes seem immune but I personally know a whole lot of people who get nausea or headaches from it. Also the comparison between Mono and Surround sound is hardly a comparison, you can turn down the volume if its too loud, you can't simply turn down the 3D, it only goes to off. And personally I'd take 5.1 over 3D any day, I like to feel the bass, the little pieces of whatever "flying" out of the screen don't add to the experience quite like it.

Hell no, but il jump on the "Virtual Reality" bandwagon