Read more.3D content is becoming increasingly common, but are you for or against the medium?
Read more.3D content is becoming increasingly common, but are you for or against the medium?
3D content is quite low down my list when it comes to watching films at home.
I'm much more interested in thinner, cheaper screens which consume a lot less power. And on the content side, I'm more interested in receiving my content via broadband than I am interested in 3D films.
That said, I am a bit partial to the odd 3D film at the cinema but I haven't been wowed by the films available in 3D to date. (Clash of the Titans anyone?)
As a recent father, I'm particularly concerned by warnings from TV manufacturers and others that viewing too much 3D content impacts the development of a child's brain.
I look forward to more research being done in this area as the information available is all a bit vague.
To be fair 3D is a nice feature. However, if everything was in 3D I would be wearing custom made lenses or heavy glasses. I have tried it and my eyes didn't like the prospect of heavy usage of it. Also, good and sharp 2D image for me personally is as immersive. Just like eyes adjust to 2D image and start to understand it as 3D, 3D image looses it's dimension when viewing (for me personally) and doesn't stand out that much.
I see no future for current 3D. Not in movies or games anyway. Industrial and commercial use - yes.
Think I'm auditioning for the next season of "Grumpy Old Men".
I'm not convinced by 3D at the moment - sure, there's been a couple of films (mainly animated stuff - like the Jim Carrey Christmas Carol) where it's been good, but most of the time (Avatar included) I wasn't even aware of it. What does get me going though is the premium charged for 3D films - the last visit we made to the local Odeon, we ended up paying another £10 for the 3D (and yes, some of that was because we forgot the 3D glasses).
Likewise 3D TV - for sports it's probably going to be really, really good. But EastEnders/Corrie/etc in 3D? Nope.
3D PC/console gaming, I think I'd quite like to get into - but at the moment I don't have a 3D capable monitor and the price for the NVidia add-ons for the PC isn't affordable. Not so sure about the Nintendo 3DS - the warnings about headaches etc put me off. If the new XBox is 3D capable then I might try and use that to "justify" () getting a better monitor.
3D phones, like the LG Optimus 3D, fit firmly in the category of "we could do it ... so we did ... and we'll try and justify it later". Zero interest from me.
i get headaches from 3d so have interest whatsoever. but from what i have seen it just seems a slap on gimmick it never really enhances my experience.
when i upgraded from a 40 to 46 inch tv in january my main needs were to get a bigger more crisp picture and ideally have smart tv functionality. 3D was not even considered
Snake Eater 3DS is pretty cool.
Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.
Really like it when it's done right (Avatar!).....but when it's done poorly it can be more of a hindrance than an extra dimension.
Main PC: Asus P8Z77 WS / 3570k @ 4.4GHz / 8GB Vengeance Black / GTX 780 Ti / Areca 1680 / HX 850 / 600T / K60 / M60 / 2x Dell 3007 / 2 x 256GB Samsung 830 (RAID0) / 2 x 240GB Corsair Force 3 (RAID0) / Windows 8.1
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / E3-1230v2 / 8GB XMS3 / GTX 780 / Tevii S480 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / PS50C6900 / 128GB Kingston V200 SSD + 3 x 1.5TB + 1 x 3TB / Windows 8.1 x64 Pro with WMC
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB DDR3 / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Windows 8.1 x64 Pro with WMC
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB RAM / GTS 450 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
Server Setup: HP DL160 G6 / 2 x E5620 / 64GB RAM / 2 x 300GB SAS (RAID1) / 6 NICs / ESX 5.5
2 x ESX 5.5 Nodes: Asus M5A78L-M/USB3 / AMD FX 6100 / 16GB XMS3 / 160GB SATA HDD / 5 NICs
NAS 1: HP N40L / 10GB RAM / 2x 2 x 3TB + 80GB Intel SSD (Hybrid) || NAS 2: HP N40L / 10GB RAM / 2x 2 x 3TB + 80GB Intel SSD (Hybrid) || Network: TL-WR1043ND w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Thinkpad T510 / 4GB RAM / 240GB Corsair Force 3
Sky 3D is quite poor, most the movies are PPV and the majority of the rest of it is sports. Only sports me and my wife watch is the Horse of the Year Show when its on.
There still isnt that many 3D Blurays available either, Avatar is still yet to show up. Some of the 3D Blurays are still using the old format instead of the active shutter also.
A few of the 3D games on PS3 are decent enough like Killzone 3 but they tend to make your eyes really tired.
We are pleased with our purchase (51" Samsung 1080p Plasma with active shutter), I just hope that we start seeing some decent properly filmed 3D movies instead of just the standard converted to 3D like Pirates of the Carribean and Transformers 3
We just bought a new Sony Bravia 40" and didn't even realise it had 3D, am I bothered for it? Not in the slightest, it makes my eyes hurt. End of.
Well, cinema stereoscopy is a meaningless gimmick, it does nothing to enhance most stories. Retrofitted 3D is worse.
Wearing silly glasses in the home is really not going to catch on, and the "3D" programmes are really only the same films that have failed in the cinema.
Look, 3D would be an image in the middle of the room that I could walk round and view from all angles. Till they can do that re-heating victorian gimmicks with two lenses is stupid.
Love 3d, i firmly believed it was a gimmick before hand(3d in cinema), however that swiftly changed when me and my dad popped into richersounds to have a look at a new tv(we still have a sony crt, wont be getting a new tv till summer!), had a demo of the 3d tv made by samsung (1.5k one this year) and it was HORRIBLE had a headache in 1 to 2 minutes it looks black and everything outside of the tv (peripheral vision) was flickering and terrible/distracting to look at.
After that i think we were at the point of, 2d is paramount and important 3d is useless headache inducing crap, then we were demoed the LG passive 3d (called cinema 3d ) and we were pretty much god smacked, the difference was incredible obviously it was a demo disc but the 3d effects were brilliant and no headaches no annoying flickering or different colouration in the peripheral vision , we couldnt fault it and viewing angles were good enough to support what our seating positions would be at home (further away is better for passive but its not that far!).
The 2d performance of the LG set was pretty much as good as the Samsung and cost £800 vs £1500... all it lacked was the horrid shiny chrome plated base that the Samsung had and a SMART tv which is useless to us as virgin has everything and if not then the smart panasonic bluray player covers the rest, oh and the LG had a lovely brushed aluminium finished on the frame which was refreshing since it doesnt reflect light much at all compared to horrid glossy plastic, good idea and then theres the anti glare/matte fcoating as we cant have a glass panel since the tv is near a huge single panel window (something like 90" overlooking the woodlands and ALOT of sun gets in ), so glass would be to reflective.
After reading up loads about passive vs active we went back into richersounds with the claims that passive lacks the definition compared to active due to not being true 1080p which i still dont understand as the way i see it, with active one eye gets 1080p then a milisecond later the other eye gets a 1080p image but since one eye is always closed off at any given time it means it showns a single 1920x1080 image and so does passive where it just makes one eye see line 1 3 5 etc and the other see 2 4 6 etc etc, ie the same resolution however my poor understanding probably causes this!
But anyways regardless of this, i went in with the frame of mind that there IS considerable amount of difference in detail on blurays between the two methods, i asked the staff at richersounds to demo some blurays and im going to be bluntly honest, i couldnt tell ANY difference between the samsung and the LG systems, the same detail was there... i didnt notice anything missing, i even managed to watch the samsung for 5 minutes (skipping scenes etc), but overall the fact is the fatigue and pain caused by active was a pee taker so id give an overall win to passive for me personally as I couldnt tell the difference, which is why we are set on grabing a passive 3d tv this year and avoiding active forever.
if you're one the lucky ones that dont notice the active tech then you're lucky, as they're both amazing but as i would like to actually enjoy watching the tv i cant do it when in agony .
As soon as LG release an ips 3d monitor i will 99% likely to snap it up as my second monitor/work monitor. I wish 120hz would be released with ips tech and passive 3d but that wont happen .
@ Ferral, what do you mean still using the old format? Do you meant the pitiful coloured glasses? . If you mean passive then no that will never change as it wont make a difference, active and passive can work in harmony so there will never be a win for either tech i.e none will die thankfully!.
I believe that 3D, used correctly, has a place in cinema. The screen size means it can be completely immersive, and a well-executed 3D movie can be extremely enjoyable. Of course, when it's poorly executed it's a disaster - Clsh of the Titans being the classic example. I read a very interesting article a while ago about the very specific directorial limitations of using 3D due to the time taken by the brain to adjust to different 3D 'depths' from one shot to the next - this went a long way to explaining why retro-fitted 3D is so bad.
I personally find 3D on the small screen uncomfortable to watch - the fact that your periphery can always see the edge of the screen completely undermines the 3D effect for me. I am in absolutely no hurry to upgrade to a 3D TV for that reason, aand the same goes for 3D PC gaming.
"I want to be young and wild, then I want to be middle aged and rich, then I want to be old and annoy people by pretending I'm deaf..."
3D has been brought onto us too quickly, and to be honest isn't any good anyway.
I was trying to purchase a TV before Chrimbo, and the sales guy was seriously trying to get us to buy a 3D enabled TV, not because it was the future, but because they had stock they couldn't shift (his words).
In my eyes, waste of technology & money, HD TV has a better chance of getting 100% coverage than 3D TV hitting 10%.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)