Is 3d a waste of time?
- Thread starter Little Duck
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ive not yet found that 3D does anything to improve the game/film. I grew up going to theme parks and watching the 3D movies there though so anything I watch with those glasses on just feels like its ment to be a ride at a park. I cant take it seriously.
Besides, you have to wear glasses. Thats just annoying. Extra equipment + no major improvements in quality = a waste of time and money
Besides, you have to wear glasses. Thats just annoying. Extra equipment + no major improvements in quality = a waste of time and money
yeah 3d is 1. a waste of time unless they find away to get it working without extra glasses 2. even if it works its still to early hd has yet to make its way onto more than 4 channels in the uk and now we have to switch to 3d? uh i just rememberd i bought a top of the range oled tv not to long ago.. DUDE I JUST WASTED £560 ON A SOON TO BE OUTDATED TV!
It will flop. People have only just managed to SD to HD switch... this HD to 3D switch is WAY too premature by about 10 or 20 years. Things you need to buy:
-new and BIG TV
-new blu-ray player
-new TV package if one is even available
And then there is the issue of content. See with the switch to HD, all the old movies could be converted over as most films since the 60's have been shot in 35mm film which holds way more detail than SD (480p resolution) and closer to 1080p of resolution. It is notoriously expensive and difficult to film in 3D, completely impractical for ANY television series or channel.
I also hate it, half the time the effect is distracting and annoying, and when it isn't I don't notice it. Avatar was far better in 2D than 3D because you could actually tell what in the hell was going on, in 3D you are perceptually cross eyed and it gives you a headache to try and focus on anything but what the director expects you too.
You don't even NEED parallax vision to perceive 3D in films and I can prove it:
Close one eye and look off into the distance with only your open eye, now bring your hand up and stay focused on your hand. Notice how you can tell your hand is closer than what is far away as your hand is in focus and the background is out of focus. No parallax vision there with only one eye. Then there are a dozen other effects to create depth with only a single vision source
There are huge problems with parallax based 3D:
-HIGHLY sensitive to viewing distance
-HIGHLY sensitive to viewing angle
-huge difficulty with integration of 3D CGI with filmed 3D
-incredibly complexity of calculating appropriate lenses diameter
-huge weight of cameras
-so many different fractured viewing/filming formats
-tech's state punishes early adopters
-cuts give headaches
-useless for people with inconsistent vision between each eye (large percentage of population)
-hard to control focus for both the cameras and the viewing audience
And all this makes the effect VERY subtle when it actually works and hardly lets the story told be any more interesting or deep.
This is NOT like the move from silent to talkies, this is NOT like the move from black and white to colour, this isn't even like the move to Surround Sound.
It is an annoying, expensive and pointless gimmick and may very well destroy Hollywood.
-new and BIG TV
-new blu-ray player
-new TV package if one is even available
And then there is the issue of content. See with the switch to HD, all the old movies could be converted over as most films since the 60's have been shot in 35mm film which holds way more detail than SD (480p resolution) and closer to 1080p of resolution. It is notoriously expensive and difficult to film in 3D, completely impractical for ANY television series or channel.
I also hate it, half the time the effect is distracting and annoying, and when it isn't I don't notice it. Avatar was far better in 2D than 3D because you could actually tell what in the hell was going on, in 3D you are perceptually cross eyed and it gives you a headache to try and focus on anything but what the director expects you too.
You don't even NEED parallax vision to perceive 3D in films and I can prove it:
Close one eye and look off into the distance with only your open eye, now bring your hand up and stay focused on your hand. Notice how you can tell your hand is closer than what is far away as your hand is in focus and the background is out of focus. No parallax vision there with only one eye. Then there are a dozen other effects to create depth with only a single vision source
There are huge problems with parallax based 3D:
-HIGHLY sensitive to viewing distance
-HIGHLY sensitive to viewing angle
-huge difficulty with integration of 3D CGI with filmed 3D
-incredibly complexity of calculating appropriate lenses diameter
-huge weight of cameras
-so many different fractured viewing/filming formats
-tech's state punishes early adopters
-cuts give headaches
-useless for people with inconsistent vision between each eye (large percentage of population)
-hard to control focus for both the cameras and the viewing audience
And all this makes the effect VERY subtle when it actually works and hardly lets the story told be any more interesting or deep.
This is NOT like the move from silent to talkies, this is NOT like the move from black and white to colour, this isn't even like the move to Surround Sound.
It is an annoying, expensive and pointless gimmick and may very well destroy Hollywood.
You have no idea how much levels of win 3D gaming + headtracking-based perspective can be. Honestly, this has to be experienced to be believed. The problem with games up till now has been bad support, especially in the HUDs. With this current popularity, it might just finally create the neccesary momentum for developers.Little Duck said:
Also, for good 3D, things must usually not 'pop out' but your screen should be a window looking into the other world. I guess that's why for now 3D mostly just works for flight sims and comparable games.
Mark Kermode recently wrote an interesting article about 3D in movies (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/11/3d-avatar-hollywood) in which he points out the difference between a movie filmed in 3D (i.e. Avatar) and one modified afterwards (i.e. Alice In Underpants, Clash of the Shitans).
Personally, regardless of whether it's a "con", it makes my eyes literally water. If this is to stop happening then it will require a physiological change, which I'm not over the moon about. Plus, unlike an innovation like HD, filming in 3D requires special equipment which is not easily available to small film-makers, so it does not encourage independent productions. Finally, it's a freaking joke that I should go to my local Cineworld, present them with my £13 p/month Unlimited card and my own 3D glasses, and be told I have to pay extra, even though the 3D image is being produced on standard cinema equipment.
Personally, regardless of whether it's a "con", it makes my eyes literally water. If this is to stop happening then it will require a physiological change, which I'm not over the moon about. Plus, unlike an innovation like HD, filming in 3D requires special equipment which is not easily available to small film-makers, so it does not encourage independent productions. Finally, it's a freaking joke that I should go to my local Cineworld, present them with my £13 p/month Unlimited card and my own 3D glasses, and be told I have to pay extra, even though the 3D image is being produced on standard cinema equipment.
I think it should stick the big screens. Expensive sets? health problems?
I mean as great as it is, and it does look amazing, it gets lost on the normal television set anyway, plus for anyone that normally wears glasses like me, its not as comfortable, and taking them off anytime you need to get somehting or answer the door is just a bit too much.
I mean as great as it is, and it does look amazing, it gets lost on the normal television set anyway, plus for anyone that normally wears glasses like me, its not as comfortable, and taking them off anytime you need to get somehting or answer the door is just a bit too much.
I don't care about it, which is why i watch films in 2D or whatever it's called when their is no 3D, i mean come on arn't they already 3D. I properly not use the 3D if it comes with a game.
3d is a stupid idea for general use outside of theatre's. Just an electronics company bid for some more money.
The symptoms aren't really limited to 3d though thats pretty much any tv, but i'm sure headaches and nasuea would be more common on 3d, i could also see worse eyestrain but we all put our bodies and eyes specifically through worse. The health aspects really seem less important then the fact that it is a huge waste of money. Bluray and HD make more sense not just because of better viewing quality but also better data transfer speed and storage limit.
The symptoms aren't really limited to 3d though thats pretty much any tv, but i'm sure headaches and nasuea would be more common on 3d, i could also see worse eyestrain but we all put our bodies and eyes specifically through worse. The health aspects really seem less important then the fact that it is a huge waste of money. Bluray and HD make more sense not just because of better viewing quality but also better data transfer speed and storage limit.
3d and motion control, screw that stuff, until we get the tecnology for holograms we can interact with in every way, keep it the same.
I think it's stupid and merely a fad. When you get films like Clash of the Titans in 3D it becomes ridiculous and stupid.
The glasses are just annoying too. Some films like Avatar in 3D however can improve immersion, but I think this whole craze will die eventually.
Outside of films however I think it's just pointless.
The glasses are just annoying too. Some films like Avatar in 3D however can improve immersion, but I think this whole craze will die eventually.
Outside of films however I think it's just pointless.
That depends on how you define a waste of time. If "waste of time" means that nothing is gained from it, then no. If you have any pop culture knowledge (specifically in cinema) you'd know 3D movies have been around since at least the 1950s, though it's popularity has been on and off. The reason for this is that despite it's age, 3D movies (and now TVs) have been marketed as being "new technology" and allow the audience to be "more immersed" in the movie.
If you are one of the, apparently, few who can survive sitting through film without needing a gimmick to attract and distract you, then you'd know that 3D is actually completely useless and, in many cases, more irritating than entertaining. Hopefully, the majority of movie goers will realize this in about another year or two and 3D will once again "die" only to be brought back when it's forgotten.
tl;dr It's only useful if you're someone who makes money of it.
If you are one of the, apparently, few who can survive sitting through film without needing a gimmick to attract and distract you, then you'd know that 3D is actually completely useless and, in many cases, more irritating than entertaining. Hopefully, the majority of movie goers will realize this in about another year or two and 3D will once again "die" only to be brought back when it's forgotten.
tl;dr It's only useful if you're someone who makes money of it.
My experience with shutter glasses is that true 3D can be pretty hardcore, but only if the developers have put in proper z-buffer support.
I don't think it is a waste of time. It is fun. Think it like advancing IMAX technology.
I also like the pop-up screens or screen in screen methods of BD movies. It is also another fun and functional technic.
You need to watch the movies with great visualisation to feel like you are there.
High Definition quality is one aspect, and 3D is another.
I also like the pop-up screens or screen in screen methods of BD movies. It is also another fun and functional technic.
You need to watch the movies with great visualisation to feel like you are there.
High Definition quality is one aspect, and 3D is another.