Sign up for a new account or log in here:
Home › News › Weekend Open Forum
Weekend Open Forum: Did you jump on the 3D bandwagon?
A couple of years ago it seemed like not a day could go by without someone announcing something 3D-related. TV manufacturers raced to one-up each other with 3D-capable television sets, some requiring no glasses but offering poor viewing angles, while companies in the gaming world also worked -- and still do -- to offer stereoscopic 3D gaming experiences alongside the traditional 2D mode for those who want it. Hell, even Nintendo went all out launching the 3DS gaming handheld.
Fast forward to today and besides a few high profile movies showing in theaters, it doesn’t seem like much progress has been made to spur 3D's transition to people’s living rooms. In fact, only 2% of TVs in the U.S. are able to show 3D programming, according to the most recent data from research firm IHS Screen Digest.
Those of us who live and breathe technology are often the ones taking the leap to buy the latest gizmos. So, today we want to know: did you jump on the 3D bandwagon at home? If so, do you regret your purchase? Also, tell us if you use it for gaming or movies, and how often you find yourself wearing your not-so-fashionable 3D spectacles.
User Comments: 62
Got something to say? Post a comment-
avoidz said:
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.
-
Deltree said:
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?
-
Littleczr said:
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 Jackass 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 :P
-
I went to a couple 3D movies and they gave me headaches. I decided that was enough 3D for me.
-
I saw a large high-end 3D TV being demoed at a Costco, using the movie Avatar. The image did NOT look three dimensional. It looked like a normal background with some of the characters on an acetate sheet about a foot in front of the back plane. The "3D" effect seemed gimmicky and less realistic than a regular 2D image.
The biggest improvements in the current HD sets over their regular definition predecessors are (a) the digital signal, eliminating ghosting, etc., (b) flat screens that do not take up as much space as the old CRTs, and (c) the much lighter weight, so that one does not get a hernia moving them. The higher definition and wider screen are definitely nice but do not significantly change the viewing experience.
Slightly off topic:
I would like to see TVs with stereo or quadraphonic sound and with quality wireless speakers, so that one can have decent sound without having to buy a separate home theater system. I would also like to see 26" and smaller TVs capable of higher volume sound so that one can hear them over background noise in a kitchen. (The 32" and larger sets generally have adequate sound volume but are too big to put on a table or counter in a kitchen.)
-
LNCPapa said:
I did not jump on the 3D bandwagon... but I do think I just found my next TV. Time to start saving up for the US release of this set: http://www.sony-asia.com/product/kd-84x9000
-
Xclusiveitalian said:
Just got a new 55 inch TV and it had 3d so I jumped to the opportunity and bought Sony 3D glasses. Iv seen 3D in the theaters so I knew what to expect, but it was pretty cool. I didn't get as much of a headache as I thought. Sometimes it really does look like its popping out but most scenes appear like the actor is in a room with the wall at a distance to give it depth. It's pretty cool to do once in awhile for fun, and bonus since I got a free ps3(I already owned 2 tho haha) so the old one became a 3d and blue ray player...works out perfectly. In the end its just for fun, the movie doesn't change too much in 3D.
-
Marnomancer said:
To be very blunt, I couldn't care less. As long as graphics are good enough, stereo sound would be my focus. Agreed with Julio on the "just another feature" thing.
Not worth the money as of now.
-
3D Is Amazing , since I saw Batman Dark Knight and Beowulf in IMAX 3D ,I choose all movies in 3D , the only problem I had when at the end of Avatar is I could not feel my body because of the immersive experience ( I never saw any Pocahontas movie before ) , this can also happen with the games mentioned below .
I have a few months with a Viewsonic 3D Vision Ready Monitor and its like a window into the games , everything has depth a is if it is really there and being able to get inside the screen ( Batman AC , Portal 2 , Mafia 2 , Just Cause 2, Trine 2 ,Tomb Raider Underworld , Alice Madness Returns ,Far Cry 2 , Prince of Persia , Dark Void ,Hard Reset ,Metro 2033 , Half Life 2 ,Mirrrors Edge , Resident Evil 5 , Crysis 2 , Halo Anniversary ,are some of the best 3D games I have played ) .
I dont have any problems with eyes , headaches or screen brigtness (it automatically changes to 3D Mode with more brightness ).
For me HD 3D is the best since black and white TVs were invented .
-
Nope, don't think its worth it especially considering the headche it gives.
-
bangs777 said:
Was crazy about 3D initially in the beginning..saw a couple of 3D movies in the theater..I still prefer a good movie in 2D...yet to try out 3D gaming..I am sure it will be a good experience but I don't think I'll stick with it..
-
The glasses give me a headache within ten minutes. It'd rather enjoy a nice blueray movie without a headache.
-
Tekkaraiden said:
Nope.
-
Over ten years ago I had an set of active 3D glasses that worked with my video card and my CRT had no issues with the required frame rates. I remember playing Ghost Recon for a few hours and thinking, wow, that's interesting, but I'll stick to 2D gaming. And to this day, every time I see 3D I still have the same opinion.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Featured on Smartphones
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.