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

By on September 28, 2012, 6:30 PM

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
1 person liked this | Timonius Timonius said:

Saw Avatar in 3D at the theatre. Amazing effects but that was large in part because it was a new gimmick. Nothing more to say as it's been said to death already. Call me when my Holodeck is ready ;P

TekGun TekGun said:

Yea I bought a 3D capable monitor... but like hell did I buy for the 3D I just wanted to get a refresh rate higher than 60Hz. Watching a 3D movie at the cinema just makes my eyes feel tired after a while. Much rather watch a decent film in good old 2D, 3D is still just a gimmick.

4 people like this | Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

I have never bought a 3D TV. I was too afraid to watch porn on one

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Nope, haven't even seen a 3D movie in the theaters.

ETF Soldier ETF Soldier said:

3D has never really been a 'new' gimmick to me, I've had the funky blue/red 3D goggles since I was little, with something like a 4 by 6 foot giant Hulk poster (2004) and it was awesome. In year 8 films like Bolt came out, and it really wasn't anything special. So no, I haven't jumped on the 3D bandwagon.

CrisisDog said:

I don't have a TV, but I purchased an Asus gaming laptop that does 3D. Disappointed as the screen isn't bright enough and only 720p resolution, those 3D glasses block a lot of light. I got a good deal on a Samsung 23" monitor that is 3D capable, it's much better due to the brightness. In fact, without the glasses it hurts by eyes at full brightness. I have my gaming PC using TriDef 3D annd Crossfire, does a pretty good job. I'm impressed the most with Borderlands and Unreal Tournament 3, but other games are not as impressive. As a bonus, the monitor will also support 3D from my PS3. All in all, it's cool, but I don't use the 3D feature that much as it's too much of an eyestrain to use it constantly.

Steve Steve said:

Never, 2D is still the best way to watch movies.

Scshadow said:

I bought the 3d monitor by Sony at $300. I actually haven't been able to adjust to the 3d affect in gaming and I've been hoping contacts might help me since I currently wear 3d glasses over my own. So far it hasn't been worth the trouble and I just don't turn it on. I still think the $160 price point that best buy currently has the 3d monitor for is an incredible deal even if 3d isn't here to stay. I prefer my 3d display for playing non-3d streaming content over my primary monitor on my desktop.

I still think 3d is worth a try. A 1080P 24in monitor is worth at least $100 any way you look at it. A name brand hdmi cable is overpriced but still probably worth $10 over some of the cheap cables you can find that almost certainly work just fine. Free game is worth $20. That leaves by a conservative estimate $30 for the 3d experience which couldn't buy the active shutter glasses alone.

BMfan BMfan said:

I had the opportunity to watch a 3d film earlier this year and I hated it,my eye's were so sore afterwards.

Watching the blu ray copy later was soo much better and sounded better since the cinemas volume was too high as well.

It just confirmed what I thought all along.

I also think that the only reason Pocahantas sorry Avatar was popular was because of the visuals.

1 person liked this | TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Nope - technology isn't there yet and there's zero media for it. You could tell from the beginning that this was nothing more than a push by hardware groups to sell electronics just for the sales figures.

avoidz avoidz said:

3D is still just a reheated fad Hollywood is trying to keep alive... for the extra dollars. Otherwise it adds nothing to the quality of a movie. 2D presentation is still the best. 3D TVs have never sold in big numbers and never will.

Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:


Nope - technology isn't there yet and there's zero media for it. You could tell from the beginning that this was nothing more than a push by hardware groups to sell electronics just for the sales figures.

No 3D for me unless it comes as just another feature (that I won't use) on a new monitor or TV. In fact I just bought a new LED TV for my bedroom and the retailer was charging a $300 premium for a 3D model, of course I didn't go for it.

Dawn1113 said:

I have never bought a 3D TV. I was too afraid to watch porn on one

^Made me fall off my chair laughing!

No 3D for me, as well. I get terrible headaches. I guess some movies are better in 3D -- but none of the truly great films of our time were made for it. That may change in the future. But for now I can't imagine watching "The Godfather" in 3D. That'd be an offer I can refuse.

Guest said:

Yes, I love 3D especially in games and pics. If u have the right setup it is worth it. I feel sorry for the people that get headaches and such since they are missing out. Now if we can just get virtual reality going again that would be the ultimate trip.

MrAnderson said:

I jumped on the Passive 3D bandwagon, when LG TVs finally brought it to the US. I think that if they (the Industry) started with Passive, 3D would have reached a more people because it was cheaper.

The 3D glasses you get from the movies works at home and if bought separately, it is about 9-14 bucks USD depending where you shop.

Having half the resolution is not such a big deal when you are watching 3D, you eyes are already being over stimulated... And the could have started out with half and improved TV resolution over time. With Active you have to buy expensive and when it started heavy glasses. Seems like they were not really serious...

spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

I pre-ordered the original Nvidia 3D Vision kit that came with a 21.5" Acer monitor at 1050p.

I used it more for the 2D 120hz (120 fps) than I did the 3D 60z. Never could play a 3D movie on it, pretty sure I was lacking the correct software to get it working (anydvdhd + nero 12 platinum)

Now I switched back to my 30" LCD at 60hz.

p51d007 said:

Nope....I wear bifocals, so, I AVOID 3D movies, plus I don't care paying the premium to attend a 3D movie. They are expensive enough. As for home 3D, nope, just a gimmick. I remember 3D back in the 60's and thought it sucked then, as it does now. It's just another way to throw a crappie movie at people with "stunning visual effects", instead of having a good story.

Guest said:

Got LG 3DTV for movie and BenQ XL2420T for gaming. I' not satisfied with the quality that today 3d technology offer but wanna experience what 3d can deliver. For me 2D is still the best way to watch movie.

Guest said:

Yes I have two 3d tvs and love it. Sad to see not as many games with 3d lately.

Arris Arris said:

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.

Guest said:

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.

avoidz avoidz said:

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.

Per Hansson Per Hansson, TS Server Guru, said:

I have only watched some 3D movies at theaters and the main reason for that is that the 2D variant does not get the prime time spots, I want to watch movies in the evening, not the middle of the day.

I still have not seen a 3D movie that it added anything too, in the last harry potter movie I actually laughed out loud in the end where there where some bats or whatever flying out, it looked so crappy it was kind of amazing, and one of the only 3D effects you would even notice in the whole film.

Pointless crap that gives you headaches, and makes the film much darker and harder to see.

Plus they still don't have a decent way to show the subtitles, so it becomes very hard to focus with "floating subtitles" in your way!

slh28 slh28, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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...

Jamibi said:

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.

avoidz avoidz said:

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

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

Route44 Route44, TechSpot Ambassador, said:


Guest said:

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 ;)

Guest said:


never saw any 3 movie either.

rvnwlfdroid said:

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).

Guest said:

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.

Guest said:

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.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

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 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 Littleczr said:

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

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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.

ET3D, TechSpot Paladin, said:

@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.

Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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.

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

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

TorturedChaos, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I went to a couple 3D movies and they gave me headaches. I decided that was enough 3D for me.

Guest said:

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 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 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 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.

Guest said:

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 .

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Nope, don't think its worth it especially considering the headche it gives.

bangs777 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..

Gamesinner said:

The glasses give me a headache within ten minutes. It'd rather enjoy a nice blueray movie without a headache.

Guest said:

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.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.