Inherent fail. If you still need the glasses then it defeats the whole purpose of going "3-D"!
MikeJ Ponders the 3D TV
Written by MikeJ Wednesday, 06 April 2011 19:10
|
Doug's Official Facebook Page | Order the 4th Year Anniversary autographed image! Less Than 100 Left! Once they're gone they're gone! |
Comments (48)
-
04.06.2011 - 20:26 | David2
-
04.07.2011 - 06:37 | scottjcYour argument is a fail, you haven't presented any good reason why wearing the glasses defeats the purpose of going 3D you just blatantly stated it.
I refute thee.
I always thought the glasses argument was hilarious because I have to wear glasses permanently, been to the cinema, wore the 3d glasses on top of my own, I didn't care, i'm used to it by now.
See thats the thing you people seem to overlook, you get used to glasses when they have been on your face long enough, you don't even know that they are there. And thats not a joke.
-
04.07.2011 - 08:21 | Sylveria
Scottjc shall now be officially known as 6-eyes.
Also, your opinion based refutation is asinine.
-
My favorite 3D is life. Honestly, I will never buy into the 3D craze. It comes and goes and this time it may be here to stay (I hope not). If you want to feel like something is flying at you have your friends whip ping pong balls at your head or something. If people like it, that is good for them, but I just think that unless they make technology that makes me literally be in the game or movie or what have you, then I just do not care yet. Also, I watched your Baby Geniuses review, so ha!
-
04.06.2011 - 21:30 | Eyeshot
Consider me officially blown away. I mean, 3D glasses ... that require BATTERIES!!!??? Um ... not for me, thanks.
-
04.06.2011 - 21:35 | Jegsimmons
3d i find, actually LOWERS the quality of most films and games, its a gimick, its always a gimick, and its POINTLESS!!!!
we go to movies to watch from 2d, we want 3d? we go to plays and get good stories. Honestly i have found that films that market heavily on 3d turn out to not get passed 1d stories, this is not true for all, but i find it true for MOST.
-
04.06.2011 - 22:39 | chris16447I find such thinking to be somewhat silly. You see, everything you take for granted in modern movies started out as an attempt to bring them closer to how we perceive the world, and yes, these additions started out as basically gimmicks. Things such a stereo (and then surround) sound, and even such things as color film. These technologies were made to bring the film media closer to how our senses work and no one criticizes them today. They started out not too great, just like 3D today. But look at it now and you hear no one complaining about a movie exploiting color or having "bad color effects".
While I agree that 3D is pretty gimmicky now, that is because this is the beginning of 3D in movies, and it can only get more realistic and less headache inducing from here. In 50 years time no one can imagine anyone complaining about anything as simple and expected as 3D visuals, just as you see no one complaining about 3D audio in movies today.
-
04.07.2011 - 05:45 | Jegsimmonsto each his own, i guess.
-
04.06.2011 - 22:07 | Midori
I watched Baby Geniuses!
It was nice of you to show us our snazzy tv. I'm more of a book person, but it looks cool.
-
I love 3D, (getting a 3DS too) and its not a gimmick, and how are the glasses "dorky"? I have my ps3 connected to my 65" mit. hdtv, and 3D is the next big thing, damn haters gonna hate!
-
04.07.2011 - 08:25 | SylveriaHaters gonna hate? It's a matter of personal preference. Is 3D TV Justin Beiber and it needs fangirls to defend it?
-
04.06.2011 - 22:35 | Sploich
I have never seen a movie that was made better with 3D. It just takes my focus off of the film and screws with my perception. It doesn't make me feel like I'm part of the story. The movie can do that by itself if the writing and/or the visuals are good enough. I just don't see the point.
-
04.06.2011 - 22:40 | brick mooncode
We're still a long way from that scene in Back to the Future 2 where the Jaws hologram attacks people from the marquee. As some great men once said, behind the beauty cracks appear.
-
04.06.2011 - 23:00 | Grimm
Due to popularity of your baby geniuses review , Hollywood has announced the production of baby geniuses 3: when babies attack. in 3D
-
04.07.2011 - 01:13 | The_Awesometeer
I hope you don't make a shameful sequel to this
-
04.07.2011 - 01:25 | LikaLaruku
Looks like a pair of women's sunglasses.
If Hollywood had their way, ALL movies would be 3D & DVD & movie ticket prices would skyrocket, which is exactly what they want, headaches & eyestrain be damned. & if they make more money, they'll make more stupid movies & have an excuse not to bring ticket prices down.
Not buying into Blueray or HDTV either. Everything on TV is shit (except for reruns on Adult Swim & comedy-based talk shows), so even if they did work better, why bother?
-
04.07.2011 - 02:32 | FunkyM
Hollywood can burn for all that I care. The future is online. Original content like wot Ed Glaser and Brad Jones puts out. Good stories with passable effects, made for not a whole bunch and with love.
Viva la revolucion!
-
04.07.2011 - 02:29 | FunkyMWell, that's your own opinion, Mike. I don't watch TV, and I rarely watch Movies.
But thanks for the vid.
-
04.07.2011 - 05:33 | asassonI hope it doesn't become an "every household object". :p
I gave 3D 3 honest shots with different movies, but it repaid me with nausea and headache. xO
-
04.07.2011 - 05:58 | Carteeg_Struve
When they can make 3D televisions that don't have glasses cheap enough to be reasonable (meaning less than $700), then I'll start considering it. Until then, I'm perfectly happy with my 2D HDTV sets.
But for those who love their w/glasses sets, kudos.
-
04.07.2011 - 06:35 | Hemily
I tried out 3D at my friends house, he bought a 60" 3D TV, Avatar looks good in 3D, it's not much of the in your face 3D, but the depth of sorts, the images don't look flat, it's a nice addition, although gimmicky still, but it does actually add to the movie.
-
04.07.2011 - 06:39 | SolidGoldCEO
I really don't understand why we need to have things in the screen jump out at us, we WATCH films. I understand there might be some merit in getting it to work with interactive media like video games but how does having a story you're watching visually intrude beyond its own world at certain points make it any better?
I wear glasses already so I would have to wear glasses on glasses to make 3D, that doesn't add much to what im watching anyway, work.
There is the fact that 3D reduces the quality of the visuals so films look better in other ways without it making it a bit pointless.
Film Editor Walter Murch described 3D best "dark, small, stroby, headache inducing, alienating and expensive"
-
04.07.2011 - 06:43 | 3DMaster
The only way 3D is ever going to work, is if you no longer need glasses to do it.
-
3D makes me nauseous and hurts my eyes, regardless of the technology.
3D is really becoming annoying. I can't join my mates for a 3D movie without feeling like a killjoy. And I can't buy spectacles or goggles that cancel out the 3D effect because they haven't been developed yet...
I hate this 3D shyte!
-
3D is undoubtely fun, but its still it never contributes anything really useful. Also i dont get why you should have 3D TV bradcasts, I mean what good does it do for the news example? Or ads popping shit in your face -.-
-
04.07.2011 - 09:29 | warriorwhacko
I wish 3D was less expensive and less painful. I'm prone to getting migraines and the last 3D movie I went to started one with me. Since I have a kid, just sitting and watching TV can sometimes turn into a olympic event. (He usually wants a snack, gets fidgety, plays with his toys, dances, etc. All while the TV is on.) If I had a 3D TV in my house, the batteries would wear out in no time, unless I had rechargeables. Also, all the glasses would wind up either getting smashed or lost. So, no 3D in my house for the moment. For me, it's not very practical.
-
04.07.2011 - 10:50 | nicodimus22
A few things here:
-Something 3D fans tend to keep quiet: 3D lowers the resolution of games and movies, so there is a tradeoff with the 3D effect and the amount of detail you can see. Personally, I'll take the detail every time.
-Discrete 5.1 or better surround sound offers much more immersion than 3D ever will, and there are no major drawbacks to it.
-You "see" 3D content by tricking your eyes, which in some people produces headaches after a short period.
-On the practical side...I really don't want to have something fragile and that uses up batteries quickly hanging around.
For this to become a mainstream thing, they need to make it require no glasses, not produce headaches, be affordable, and not lose HD quality as a tradeoff. Until then, it will just be a novelty that early adopters will get gouged on.
-
04.07.2011 - 12:21 | vylesideOn the plus side, with 3D blu ray, many supposedly provides full hd image thanks to hdmi 1.4.
Also, i find active 3d far less headache inducing than passive, providing the TV and glasses are well synced.
The samsung glasses have been pretty fragile, but I find sony and panasonic quite durable. Also, the more recent ones have pretty good battery life and can be charged with USB.
It's a bit of a piss take though that the new samsung glasses arent compatible with the old tvs/vice versa because they use bluetooth.
-
04.07.2011 - 23:15 | tootiredThe only way 3D lowers is they don't do a proper job on it. Rushed 3d jobs ruin the effect.
Most people who experiance any sideffects get over it by an hour or two. It's all about having your eye muscles tone up. When movies came out in color people complained about the color hurting their eyes when today people will complain about the black and white hurting their eyes.
Play a 3DS game you don't lose any detail what so ever.
3D for games can be quite immersive far more usefull and practicall then HD graphics are. Even 2D sidecroller games like paper mario or mario bros when made 3D people have said look amazing. Even game developers admit that numerous games look incredible when made to work on the 3DS. There are sites where people turned wii and gamecube games screenshots into 3D pics to display on the 3DS. The images look gorgeous and the effect is better then a lot of 3D movies.
-
04.07.2011 - 12:24 | polygonalchemist
I'm indifferent on 3D, really. I agree it won't help good movies all that much, but when I go to see a big, dumb, loud spectacle film, sure I'll pay the extra $3 to see it in 3D. It's pretty much like a 90 minute theme park ride at that point. I'm not going to even consider buying a 3D TV though unless the price drops to the point that the difference is negligible, though.
At the end, MikeJ mentioned that a bunch of older movies were coming out on 3D blu-ray. I just wanted to say: Don't bother. If the movie wasn't shot in 3D to begin with, then any 3D version is going to be a conversion, and those are not that exciting to watch. The method they use to do it basically separates the image into layers which look like cardboard cut outs and applies an underwhelming dept effect to them. It's not very exciting and is equivalent to colorizing old black and white movies. That's why if I'm wondering if it's worth it to see a movie in 3D or not, I do a little research to see if the film was shot in 3D or just converted.
But, assuming the studios have all the original materials, still. There's room to convert older Anaglyph 3D films, to the new format. I imagine watching one of the early 3D movies which were filmed in black and white in the new, more natural looking 3D system could be an interesting experience.
-
04.07.2011 - 12:35 | vylesideOh forgot to mention one thing that bugs me a lot.
I'm a TV salesman so spend a lot of time with all the TVs. Only panasonic last year made TVs which had a 3d version and a non-3d version (see VT20 and V20 as examples).
Pretty much all the other manufacturers made their top end set 3d only.
So, when selling a TV and pointing out all that the TV could do, it was fine until the customer saw the 3d logo on the tv and suddenly decided they dont want a 3d tv. Now, in the case of samsung towards the middle of the year, you weren't paying much if any extra FOR 3d. You were paying extra for the local dimming backlighting, the enhanced picture processing and the 200hz refresh rate. The price difference between the top end and upper mid range sets were the same as the similar versions the year before.
If you're put off a TV because it can do 3d, stop and consider what else the TV can do before deciding it's not for you BECAUSE it can do 3d. That's like deciding not to buy a ps3 because it can play 3d blu ray disks. Look beyond that capability and see if it's still a great product if you werent to use it.
-
I wouldn't recommend getting a 3DS. Since it's been available, headaches have been a big complaint, as without glasses, the stereoscopic 3D really screws up your visual perception.
Even with glasses, some people have problems with it, as many people on here have said.
To be honest, regardless of the headache, I find 3D decidedly underwhelming. I had a look at the LG 3D TV, at the Ideal Home Show the other week, and I couldn't see much difference between it and normal TV. But that could be down to the fact that it's difficult for me to let go of the idea that it's on a flat screen.
-
04.07.2011 - 23:19 | tootiredSorry the vast majority of people report no headaches what so ever on the 3DS. Those that do find that adjusting the slider elimantes the headaches and after awhile they can crack up the slider to full and not expeirance any of the problems they had before.
Why do you think they had slider and detailed instructions to adjust the slider to a person's comfort level then try a different level after a while?
Also certain games have stronger 3D then others. Pilotwings on full slider gives a lot of people at first double images but once again after using the slider at lower intentisty they can jump it back up to full without the problems they had before at full intentsity.
-
3d is going to being gimmicky and stay gimimicky for a good few years. Why?
They will always find a scene to "utilize" 3d, ie missiles (as a generic term meaning any object, person, animal, or otherwise) flying at the the cammera.
In my opinion, a good 3d movie you shouldn't notice the 3d. 3d's purpose is just to make things seem more real; placing you within the confines of the movie instead of observing it through a picture frame.
The idea with the imax movie theatres is that the screen is SO HUGE that it covers your entire field of vision, removing you from the standard frame in order to make you feel like you're the camera. the problem is you are restricted to what the camera is focusing on, hence the motion sickness.
A "truly immersive experience" is VR, the flaw of that is, it can, in it's current state, only be experienced by the individual and it would cost too much to make a movie like that. And the closest thing to it being available to the masses would be the Matrix
On topic: 3d TVs aren't that great, get a cheap one. I wasn't convinced with the experience I had. Just stick to hd tv you aren't missing much.
-
04.07.2011 - 14:00 | ColleenRWSounds interesting. I'm not going to go out and buy one (I don't even own a 2D tv, to be honest), but if I was visiting someone who had a 3D tv, I'd want to test it out.
-
04.07.2011 - 14:07 | Lando Funk
I'd like to have the option for 3D eventually, but those movie titles were pretty piss poor IMO (I'm sure Avatar would be decent in 3D though). And with the dollar conversion (Thanks Google!)you spent about $1300 US which is still a little much for me to spend on a TV right now.
-
04.07.2011 - 14:25 | DoomPL
Depth 3D? So it's like the 3DS, no poking :P
Well anyways, great job as usual. I'm gonna go watch your reviews... again...
-
The real future is not in Hollywood, but in people on this site, for example. People who though money limited, they entertainm to please people like us who know WE AND ONLY WE, the People, deserve the best!
-
04.07.2011 - 16:57 | mcgovernttVery nice. I wished we used the term "gormless" here in the States, because there is quite a need to describe vacant-headed people with new and exciting insults.
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by Compojoom comment 4.2.1
