Is 3d a waste of time?

[nothingdeletemeplease]

Yes 3D is a waste of time it is another gimmick just like the wii, project natal, ps3 wand. 3D comes around every 5 years or so and everyone gets excited then it is realized as a stupid idea and forgotten until it is hyped up again in another 5 years.

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

Well, as goes entertainment, I think when applied to the right types of films (Avatar, UP) that being animated films, or so called 'spectacle' films, it can really improve the immersion. I enjoyed Avatar in 3d more than 2d. As for the supposed health risks, I think what should happen is that 3D should remain in the cinema until they can ascertain that it's safe, and keep it out of the homes and gaming until then. Perhaps for a while, actually, since I've always seen it as more of a cinema thing than anything else. I couldn't watch a film in 3D in my sitting room.

Might as well be cautious. Still, it doesn't sound like there's much of a danger.

Strangely, I think I might be one of the few on this website who genuinely enjoys 3D, and would like to see it in more films, as long as it's appropriate of course. It shouldn't replace 2D though, as a lot of people get headaches and motion sickness from it. I don't though, so I can happily watch it.

It's still very expensive though, and definitely should only be voluntarily restricted to films that it would suit. It looks terrible when they convert films to 3D though, it really does. The technique they used for Avatar is really the only way to go.

Ninja'd again by Furburt. I challenge you to a lightsaber duel!

OT: Erm... Pretty much what he said. Films like Avatar etc. are best for 3D, because it helps show off the amazing environments they created. If they were to put 3D in, say, The Godfather then it would be completely out of place and utterly pointless. I could almost imagine a 3D version of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

 

[Chechosaurus]

As far as I'm concerned, it falls into the same bracket as Project Natal. I just don't care for it. I am perfectly content watching my films in good old fashioned 2D.

 

[Dahni]

3D gives me headaches like nobody's business, but I do enjoy it in films. But that's it. I don't want to play games in 3D.

So yeah, it's a waste of time trying to implement it outside of the cinema.

 

[Wrds]

I think it's a major waste of time, but then I'm an old fart.

I am not an old fart and I agree with you.

 

[hey_iknowyou]

No I don't think it is a waste of time. At the moment I feel that it is not carried out effectively enough though. When I'm watching a 3D film i.e. Avatar it just annoys me more so than anything else as it just doesn't look quite right having things appearing in 3D and then disappearing once it reaches the edge of the screen.

To carry it out more effectively I'd argue that a more immersive environment is required, e.g. A semi-circular screen so that imagery can more so fade away into your peripheral vision. I don't care how unfeasible this solution is, I know it isn't going to happen anytime soon at least anyway. I'm sure there are going to be great breakthroughs in the field in the coming years which will address problems like this, as well as health problems mentioned in the original post.

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

Ninja'd again by Furburt. I challenge you to a lightsaber duel!

*Shwing*

Bring it on! I just watched Star Wars again, I know what I'm doing!

Erm... *swings blade*

I'll harm you!

 

[Horus456]

I think its cool on some games but those games all tend to be little mini games which are just small amusements. Don't think it has any real place in any of the favourite franchises but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried. It might be done in a really good way. Still I think 3D can work well in films and if motion control is done well then we might eventually end up with something like and many sci-fi classics and more recently in the film gamer which would be pretty cool ( even though gamer wasn't that good of a film).

 

[Marvin Lanier]

, but also, if say you want to watch football in 3D with all your mates, Billy late will have to watch it in double vision if there aren't enough 3d glasses to go around, meaning you'll probably have to watch it in regular High Defenition anyway.

You can't blame the concept for that. The reason there wouldn't be enough 3-D glasses to go around would only be because you failed to get them (It's not like they're expensive.).

I believe that little duck would be referring to the TV market which is having glasses specifically made for their tv's. Personally 3D was a gimmick when it was introduced and is still a gimmick today, people just now are upgrading to HD so to put things in 3D a few years later is utterly pointless. It's an expensive technology and people will ultimately not invest.

Even AVATAR the big superspecial ddd extravaganza isn't getting a 3D release next week. It'll die and rightfully should remain as that cool gimmick film every now and then.

 

[nick n stuff]

as long as it works i don't mind. i can imagine that my eyes will die 30 years before the rest of me as a result...but what the hey, BRING IT ON.

 

[Logic 0]

Yes I think it's a waste of time, but unfourntately it might become the next big thing just like how motion controlls used to be only nintendo and now everyone is hopping on the band wagon I'm afarid that in time all viewing might become 3D not just movies and video games but TV shows to causeing a lot of health problems.

 

[Jark212]

In a few years when It becomes cheaper and more practical I can see it being used to improve certain kinds of games, I doubt that all games will be made with 3D tech...

 

[SpaceCop]

The only movie I've seen where it really felt appropriate was My Bloody Valentine, where it was totally played up for effect and fit right into the schlocky b-grade horror.

But in the others I've seen so far--Coraline, Up and Avatar--it didn't really add anything worthwhile. Honestly, I hope filmmakers give up on this gimmick rather sharpish. Again.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Don't know if this happens to anybody else, but I stop noticing the 3D effects after a while. It doesn't add anything to the movie, at least from my experience. I mean, it's really cool when something pops up from the screen the first time, but it gets boring and repetitive after that. It's certainly some amazing technology, but it just seems way too gimmicky at the present. Besides, I don't have the kind of spare change to buy one of those new superHD-3D TVs, so I don't really care.

But there's another thing that ought to be considered: the cost. Adding cheap effects after the movie is done isn't nearly as expensive as shooting the entire thing in 3D (from what I've heard), but it looks ridiculous. So if there is to be quality, the cost of production will go up, which means the movie has to appeal to a much larger audience. While there is nothing wrong with that in itself, I've noticed that movies get progressively dumber as they widen their appeal.

As for games, a resounding MEH! from this old dude. Just like motion control, I will ignore 3D anything, because I don't want to wear some ridiculous goggles atop of my glasses while playing.

 

[Soods]

I don't really like 3d, looking at it (somehow) hurts my eyes. And it really isn't that awesome...

 

[SomeBoredGuy]

Erm... *swings blade*

I'll harm you!

*sheaths blade*

I'm sorry, I cannot kill a man who references Spoony. It just cannot be done.

Oh. Well, that was a bit anticlimactic. *sheaths blade*

*tries to exit*

You're in my way, sir.