Features - QOTW: Do you enjoy the 3D experience?

[Brewster0101]

Some people rave over 3D, but for me the effect seems to go away after 10 minutes

It takes about 10 minutes for my eyes to adjust to 3D when watching. I've found that watching films in 3D at home takes a few minutes to look right and then after 10 minutes it seems to focus and gel together well. Watching long durations like films is no issue for me on my passive LG set, but my eyes do require a few minutes to get used to the 3D. If I throw in Tron Legacy and watch the beginning disney 3d Logo and come back to it after ten minutes, the logo is alot sharper.

[cheesemp]

I can't afford a new TV set, it gives the GF a headache. So in a word no. Also with regards to cinema I've tried it twice but its just not worth the £2+ premium - A 2d ticket costs enough as it is...

[tumbledragon]

I might give 3D a shot when they figure out how to avoid anything remotely dark washing into black. Also film makers need to cut the unnecessary "Wow look it's 3D!!!" shots.

[Parm]

I've had mixed experiences with 3D myself, but like most folk in this thread, I'm not convinced.

I thought Avatar was pretty cool, and 3D on IMAX does have some wow factor, but a lot of the time it just gives me headache.

I'm also less-inclined to give 3D a shot because of the price. I remember going to the cinema a couple of months ago to see something on an Orange Wednesday. Man at the box office told me that the Orange offer only covers the basic ticket price, so we'd still have to pay the extra for the 3D showing. At that point I was still ok with it, but when he then told us we'd have to buy a pair of glasses as well I just gave up and went home. There wasn't a 2D showing of the same film.

[directhex]

I'm with you on this - 3D = meh, but SD (or HD) holography would be

Kids have banned me from looking at 3D TV's after some I got into an argument with some jobsworth in Currys. Bozo was pushing some LG box with those passive glasses (which seem like a heck of a lot better idea than something that has to be powered sitting on your face - especially as I already wear glasses), and on the verge of a trouser accident about how it was the latest thing. I then (politely but firmly) pointed out that I'd programmed for and used a similar system decades ago - at which point I was told that I was "mistaken" and it must have been those "old-fashioned" coloured glasses.

So when I got home I googled for it and found an article at http://www.gfai.de/3d_display_if/eng...kation_s2.html. Note the date quoted for the Tektronix 4126 with passive 3D - 1987!

So all this "latest thing" isn't that new after all. That said I seem to remember that the old Tek was (a) hideously expensive and (b) only 19" or maybe 20". So the effect of 20 years of progress has been to more than double the screen size and cut the cost by 90%.

Passive glasses tech these days is based on Circular polarization. Which is fancier than old-style horizontal/vertical 1D polarization.

Active glasses use switching shutters, basically IMAX has been flogging that tech since the 80s

[[GSV]Trig]

I'm not a great fan tbh, I find with 3d in cinema's you have to be sat in the right place otherwise the effects are lost and your better off not bothering with the 3d glasses at all..

[McPhee]

If I was offered a refund on my 3D monitor set-up I'd take it. That should tell enough of the story tbh

[pauleden]

I have to say... I'm surprised at how unpopular 3D is. I thought I was in the minority in not liking it, but it seems otherwise.

My next door neighbour has a big 3D set and it was his that was my first experience of the technology. We watched some football on it and yes, the image did appear to have depth. The hideous ugly mug that is Wayne Rooney did seem to be clearly well in front of the equally nasty Ferdinand, but they both seemed flat themselves. It was like they were made of 2D cardboard but were being moved behind or in front of one another.

Also, the pitch didn't look 3D, although the camera angle obviously has the pitch at the bottom of the screen much nearer the camera, but it simply didn't portray this.

CB radio, cabbage patch dolls, Virtual Reality. You can now add to this list of marketing inspired must have stuff.

[mercyground]

3d? pointless. Zero points as a feature for me. Comeback when you have proper holographs.

[Saracen]

....

But you do represent the mean consumer who don't take watching movies as an overly serious technical exercise, and are fine with their DVD player and low cost DVDs picked up in Tesco.

"Mean" as in 'average', or as in 'tight'?

In my case, and in this context, both, TBH.

But you're right, it's about the experience, and with a good film, I tend to get 'immersed' in it, and the screen technology doesn't really interest me.

At least with HD you have an appreciable quality increase. But, I'm more or less of the same mind as you, I watch movies for the story, acting, clever plots, beautiful music, and all that entails, more/sharper pixels or pixels which stab you in the eyeballs are completely incidental, certainly not worthy of grandiose markups.

You do have a quality increase, but then, I've got more than a few albums where I prefer the LP to the CD, despite the undeniable 'clarity' of the latter. I don't currently have any way of viewing HD content. I'm certainly not paying for Sky HD (or HD on cable), and I don't have a bluray player. Well, not a domestic one, anyway. Or Bluray discs, and I'm not planning on changing that any time soon, either. What I do have is a few hundred films on DVD, and quite a few TV series too. It may be psychological, but my brain tells me that if I get used to better "quality" from an HD TV, I'm going to end up disappointed with the non-HD quality of all that media. And I am not, repeat not, under any circumstances, buying it all again.

So, I'd rather not have an HD TV.

Naturally, I will end up with one, sooner or later, not least because it's pretty hard (maybe impossible, I haven't looked for a while) to buy a set now that isn't, and that's only going to get harder.

Let me put it this way. I won't buy a set because it's HD, but any new set I buy I assume will be HD. But the only way I'd buy a 3D-capable set is if I can't buy one that isn't, or if the tech improves to the point where it really appeals to me. Short of that, and I sincerely doubt I will ever actually want 3D, it's something that incites zero interest or enthusiasm in me so I'd avoid it if it's possible to do it. To be honest, I'm more likely to buy a smartphone.

[pauleden]

Naturally, I will end up with one, sooner or later, not least because it's pretty hard (maybe impossible, I haven't looked for a while) to buy a set now that isn't, and that's only going to get harder.

But if we're right and HDTV is pants, the early adopters/marketing suckers (delete as appropriate) probably won't be buying a second HDTV when their current one wears out/breaks down/isn't new enough to be cool (delete as appropriate). If there's no buyers, the manufacturers will stop making them.

[Smudger]

What I do have is a few hundred films on DVD, and quite a few TV series too. It may be psychological, but my brain tells me that if I get used to better "quality" from an HD TV, I'm going to end up disappointed with the non-HD quality of all that media. And I am not, repeat not, under any circumstances, buying it all again.

Most modern tellies, amps and BD players will upscale DVDs. It's not quite as good as Blu-Ray, but it's better than standard DVD.
Not trying to say 'Go on, buy one, you luddite', but just letting you know that's not a worry...

[shaithis]

But if we're right and HDTV is pants, the early adopters/marketing suckers (delete as appropriate) probably won't be buying a second HDTV when their current one wears out/breaks down/isn't new enough to be cool (delete as appropriate). If there's no buyers, the manufacturers will stop making them.

Hello there, 2005 said hi!

[crossy]

Most modern tellies, amps and BD players will upscale DVDs. It's not quite as good as Blu-Ray, but it's better than standard DVD.
Not trying to say 'Go on, buy one, you luddite', but just letting you know that's not a worry...

Actually you beat me to it - I was just about to say the same thing. When we ditched our old CRT-based TV for a shiny new Sony LCD, we also got a BD-based home theatre kit. I was pretty dismissive of the upscaling claims made, but sure enough when I compared a disk played via my previous Panasonic DVD to the same disk on the BD player there was a noticeable increase in quality. Granted the BD player's connected via HDMI (of course) whereas the DVD player was on a SCART connection (because it was pre-HDMI), but even so the scale of the difference was a surprise.

Makes me wonder whether in 10 or so years time we might not see some new format players that are able to "dimensionally extend" current 2D BD disks to acceptable 3D renditions. That said, given I'm not exactly enthusiastic about 3D at the moment, this is just idle curiosity on my part.

[karandar]

In 10 years time optical drives will not exist, it will all be net/cloud based/home server based digital.

Same as automobiles today. 2013 Ford will not include CD players as options. stream music via bluetooth from your phone, your iPod or equivalent, or plug in a usb stick with your music on it.

I actually like the usb option. I have ripped a good many of my cd's and put lossless .wav versions on a usb stick. My 8 gb mini usb holds over 12hrs of my music in lossless format. no more scratched cd's in the vehicle...

Tech is changing so fast now. I can't wait for OLED screens to be mass produced, Samsung is the 1st to offer a large screen this year, a 52" ...very expensive, ultra thin, near zero border bezel, low power, brilliant quality by all reviews. A couple of years to drive prices down, and this will be the new standard screen tech for a long time to come... This extra quality may even aid the 3d "fad" as so many cal it...

I think the only thing that will aid 3d adoption is the dramatic lowering of cost of entry. For home systems, passive isn't really that good, and active is crazy expensive. Time will tell eh?!

[shaithis]

Thought this was worth a linky...

http://www.reghardware.com/2012/02/2...arent_display/