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


Posts: 3,073   +97
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...

[newwindow="https://www.techspot.com/news/50345-weekend-open-forum-did-you-jump-on-the-3d-bandwagon.html"]Read more[/newwindow]


Posts: 648   +58
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


Posts: 163   +29
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.


Posts: 787   +587
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.


Posts: 234   +130
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.


Posts: 641   +299
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.


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.


Posts: 3,320   +2,068
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.


Posts: 460   +59
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

Posts: 8,764   +1,650
Staff member

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.


Posts: 319   +70
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.


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.


Posts: 488   +10
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...


Posts: 868   +148
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.


Posts: 2,685   +2,023
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.


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.


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


Posts: 4,719   +447
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.


Posts: 460   +59
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

Posts: 1,974   +232
Staff member
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!


Posts: 1,703   +172
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...