3D, just a fad?

Recommended Videos

Ranooth

BEHIND YOU!!
Mar 26, 2008
1,778
0
0
So the next big thing in games and TV is 3D and to be honest I don't see what the fuss is about, in the past week I've tried out two different forms of the technology and I fail to see how this is going to be huge.

Let me explain, after doing some research into nVidia's 3D vision thing for computers I found a mode for using Stereophonic 3D which only required basic red/cyan 3D glasses, their was no way I was shelling out £120+ for new equipment to have the real deal but the idea of spending only £3 made me buy some glasses. I've been testing it since Wednesday and it's been OK. nVidia have tried their best to incorporate this basic 3D into every game and in most cases it does work . . kinda. It does give the illusion that you are looking through a window into the action however it does seem grand enough and also due to it being Stereophonic the colours are quite screwed up (OK my fault for going with the cheap option).

But what about the expensive 3D option i hear you cry, well I've tried that too. Last week i was part of a focus group for Sky testing out their new 3D channel and to be honest, it was crap! This is Real 3D technology (the sort used for films like Up! and Avatar) and it didn't really do much, as it was the Hay Festival we only saw arts and culture type programs but it just didn't do anything new. The screen just looked like a pop-up book instead of giving the impression that a dance studio/jungle/cathedral was in the room with you.

When I think about it there are just too many disadvantages for 3D to make up for the one sole advantage: Firstly, you need glasses. This screws it up for people with sight problems and for people that occasionally loose small objects, not to mention people large parties of people will need to shell out for their own glasses or suffer weird blurry images. Secondly, it really does hurt your head. I've been playing games all my life and rarely suffer from headaches and eye problems, but after using 3D on both my computer and in the focus group my head has exploded in pain. Finally there is the cost: to have 3D on your TV you need a HD3D TV, subscription to Sky and the glasses or for your computer you need a special monitor, a receiver and again the glasses. I don't see thousands of people shelling out this kind of money which really does beckon the question: Is 3d just a fad?

Sorry for the long wall of text and the fact its a bit on the British side but what do you think of 3D? Have you tried it and loved it? Or do you think it's going to crash and burn?
 

LavaLampBamboo

King of Okay
Jun 27, 2008
764
0
0
No, I think 3D is here to stay. I'm afraid TV companies have run out of new things to sell us after we all got HD, so now they have to come up with something new. I think it's gonna become the standard very soon, within five years or so.

Good argument though =)
 

Acaroid

New member
Aug 11, 2008
863
0
0
Well they are starting to test holographic TV as a potential for the masses, I think that would be more viable...

It would be annoying having to take your glasses around to peoples places to watch TV :|

Also I think you can buy "over sized" 3d glasses that fit over your normal glasses.
 

Ranooth

BEHIND YOU!!
Mar 26, 2008
1,778
0
0
Acaroid said:
Well they are starting to test holographic TV as a potential for the masses, I think that would be more viable...
Holographic TV is something I badly want to see, would be a lot better.

Plus I wouldn't rant about it that much :D
 

zombiesinc

One day, we'll wake the zombies
Mar 29, 2010
2,508
0
0
It's uncomfortable, and hopefully a fad. Granted, I've only experienced it once, and it's still in it's beginning phases, but my initial impression has left me unimpressed and unwilling. Wearing those glasses over my own, seeing some pretty (boring) 3D foliage, and feeling slightly nauseous doesn't help. I simply did not enjoy the experience.

But who knows? Maybe over the years it will become less expensive, more convenient and more impressive. Possibly then it'll grow on me, and I'll learn to like it.
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
The way I see it is that another big "problem" is that the whole 3D effect only works in the boundaries of the screen. On a small screen it's just not that impressive because things can only jump out a bit and you're not really part of the event. It's more like 2&1/2D.

As said before, I'll buy the first holographic TV as soon as it's out, but the current 3D-TV is just stupid and not a bit interesting.
 

EightGaugeHippo

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,076
0
0
zombiesinc said:
It's uncomfortable, and hopefully a fad. Granted, I've only experienced it once, and it's still in it's beginning phases, but my initial impression has left me unimpressed and unwilling. Wearing those glasses over my own, seeing some pretty (boring) 3D foliage, and feeling slightly nauseous doesn't help. I simply did not enjoy the experience.
Exactly what I was going to post, its uncomfortable (even without normal glasses), it makes me feel dizzy, and the picture dosnt look that much better or interesting.
 

Anachronism

New member
Apr 9, 2009
1,842
0
0
I hope it's a fad. Avatar was spectacular in 3D, but it's not something I want to see in every film. Even Avatar, designed from the ground up for 3D, was still really good in 2D. It's occasionally justified, but for the most part just as excuse to charge more for tickets.

I really, really hope that 3D TV never catches on. While it works for some fims, I really can't see the point for TV. It won't add much, it'll make programme budgets soar, and we, the consumers, we'll have to pay more accordingly. Plus, I do not want to have to watch TV while wearing those damn glasses.

With any luck, 3D will go the way of Smell-O-Vision.
 

Luftwaffles

New member
Apr 24, 2010
776
0
0
I watched Up in 3D. I feels gimmicky and the colours were dulled behind the glasses. But granted it does have many supporters and im guessing there'll be more of them in the future.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
LavaLampBamboo said:
No, I think 3D is here to stay.
If so, then television will be completely ruined as far as I'm concerned. I don't watch much, anyway. But I'll probably just completely get rid of it altogether to avoid having headaches.

Incidentally, I once asked somewhere how HD compared with film grain and HD is about 1/4 the resolution of film. It's not a hard and fast number and I haven't been able to really confirm it. But they still have somewhere to go after HD. So get ready for HD+, Super HD, Ultra HD, and Holy Shit That's Fucking Amazing HD in the future.

3D is what it's always been: a gimmick. A gimmick that works just often enough to be kind of cool and fails too often to be worth it.

Other technologies might bring more to the party, such as head tracking.


And free viewpoint television]. But I'm still on the fence about these technologies because they will fundamentally change the way television and motion pictures work, if they catch on. These things will not be television anymore. They'll be... something else and it's sad to think television will die out because of it. But that's what happens, I guess.
 

Jordi

New member
Jun 6, 2009
812
0
0
We are only just beginning to see televisions and content that support 3D. It is a much bigger advancement than HD (which is really just an increase in resolution). That means that there are/will be some growing pains and early experimentation with this new medium that will be less than stellar. In the longer term problems (like headaches) will be ironed out. Maybe the technology that is currently being used to achieve 3D will be replaced by something completely different (like holographs), but I think 3D itself is here to stay.

I think it is also completely in line with other advancements we have seen: color, larger screens, higher resolution and the 3rd dimension all enable us to better see what is going on and maybe to feel "sucked in" more.

The only real problem I see is that perhaps for non-animation films and programs, production costs for making a 3D version simply doesn't outweigh the extra revenue.
 

Downfall89

New member
Aug 26, 2009
330
0
0
I tried a few 3D tv's at a few different stores. The standard glasses (NOT the cardboard red/cyan ones) fit over my glasses with ease, so there is no trouble. The problem is the BARELY 3D display and the fact that it doesn't run on normal tv's. I'd rather upgrade to a LED tv than a 3D one.
 

Kaymish

The Morally Bankrupt Weasel
Sep 10, 2008
1,256
0
0
you can tell its a fad by the way that the media is pushing it and pushing it hard to fleece the people who adopt it

and besides i dont see the advantage of 3D the headaches and awful glasses for zero benefit
 
Jun 13, 2009
2,099
0
0
Sadly, your argument against 3D is the exact reason the companies are going to make it stay. It's a fad now, so it will increase in popularity until, like all fads, it reaches critical mass. But by then the companies will be raking in so much money from the glasses, special TV sets, more expensive TV channels and so on that they won't be letting go until the bottom completely drops out of it.

They've currently peaked with HD/Blu-ray, and the only direction we can take with modern tech is 3D. So that's where they'll go.
 

Ironic Pirate

New member
May 21, 2009
5,544
0
0
Damn, I hope not. I looks like a normal movie to me, even Avatar.

Fuck, I hope games don't use it solely as a gimmick...
 

Valksy

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,279
0
0
Hoping for just a fad but it is hanging around a bit longer than it normally does,

Also hoping that motion games will just be a fad, don't want to mince about in front of my TV, just give me a regular controller so that I ca kill in peace.
 

starhaven

New member
Jan 24, 2010
406
0
0
u know most 3d t.vs have safty warnings on them not to watch anymore than 2 hours a day its bad for u