Poll: Do you own a 3D TV?
- Thread starter akibawall95
- Start date
Recommended Videos
im not getting one just yet, i have a feeling as soon as i buy a 3d tv, they will bring one out where you dont need glasses, and then i will regret having jumped the gun and buying when the technology is still quite new and unexplored
What about their much better than people think? You need to finish that sentence. I want to know what you had to say about their much better than people think.SinisterSpud said:
Sardonic spelling asshole commentary aside (but seriously, knowing how words work is fucking important)...
I have to believe that you're saying that to justify all the money you don't have anymore, like you're trying to convince yourself of the spectacle. It's just like when everyone wanted/got a Wii. It was a big deal, and it was amazing and fresh and it was TOTALLY NOT JUST A GIMMICK OMG. But it was, and it hindsight it was a gimmick poorly executed.
Don't get me wrong; I'm excited about 3D, but it isn't there yet. Right now it's an overpriced gimmick, which I used to enjoy for free back when IZ3D hadn't gone belly up and stopped updating that nifty free driver of theirs, that let me enjoy anaglyph/colorcode/a few other 3D modes.
But they did go belly-up, and it wasn't because the 3D was poorly executed, either. It looked pretty good, but let's consider. Most of us are probably more interested in 3D gaming than 3D movies. To use the IZ3D monitor, you had to use both of your video outputs -- the conclusion (and you'd be exactly right to jump to it) is that your computer has to render the game twice at a time. Any decent PC can do that, but you had to have a pretty beefy machine to pull it off consistently in a lot of graphic-intensive games. The technology was cost prohibitive.
Right now, the same thing is hold back the consoles. From what I understand, a lot of the 3DTV's out there are doing something similar -- kind of a one-display-behind-another system. The result is the same: your video game consoles have to render the game twice. Now, if a standard PC can't pull that off well ('consistently,' again, is the important word), what the hell chance does a console have? Our very own Yahtzee gives us this fine example of me being right: Killzone 3 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2915-Killzone-3]
No 3D is just a stupid fad. It's barely relevant(if at all) in movie theaters, and it isn't relevant at all in the home.
Nope, and I never will. 3D cannot add anything useful to the experience of watching movies and TV or playing games. It just makes things look worse (oh look, everything is a paper cut-out now and it looks like it has the production value of a kindergarten play) and causes eye strain and headaches. None for me, thanks.
I even fixed my 3DS so I can just enjoy games without any battery draining gimmicky 3D accidentally being activated:
Yes, a piece of cardboard wedged into the slider's track. You didn't think I was going to void my warranty, did you?
I even fixed my 3DS so I can just enjoy games without any battery draining gimmicky 3D accidentally being activated:
Yes, a piece of cardboard wedged into the slider's track. You didn't think I was going to void my warranty, did you?
No. Not because I think its pointless, but rather that the added gimmick of 3D is not worth the additional cost. I have a Samsung Series 8 LED and have no intention to change, until I can get an OLED Widescreen in the new 21:9 aspect ratio (assuming it becomes the mainstream as its too early to say for sure). 3D vision kits for your PC on the other hand, I think they are worth the cost.
Nope and I only will under 3 conditions
1. The prices drops substantially
2. A lot more shows start broadcasting in 3D
3. I don't have to wear those 3D glasses.
1. The prices drops substantially
2. A lot more shows start broadcasting in 3D
3. I don't have to wear those 3D glasses.
Ninja'd to the third degree.Legion said:
And this will all die down soon enough. So it would be wasted money and space.
There is a glasses-free method where you just cross your eyes so you don't have to look as stupid.Custard_Angel said:
I, personally, hate 3D, or stereoscopy as it should properly be called. It's a gimmick that has been around for a number of decades and it has never really caught on because it does not work as advertised. It doesn't really add another dimension but provides the illusion of depth. An illusion that is easy to break. Just move your head from side to side. The perspective won't move with you. For that, you would need a completely different technology, like head/eye tracking, as in the DSiWare game
For me, stereoscope always looks fake, which is contrary to what some supporters claim and what you would expect considering that humans has binocular vision, so providing a different image to each eye should be more natural. but this is not the case and I have found two reasons.
One, in stereoscopy, the focal point and the point of convergence are in two different places. In real life, they are always in the same place but with stereoscopy, the focal point is on the surface of the screen but the depth illusion puts the point of convergence some distance beyond it. This discrepancy could be why many suffer headache or just plain discomfort when viewing stereoscopy. I suspect there is a similar problem with those Magic Eye things, but that may require some of the cross-eye technique as well. My eyes don't like to do that.
The other problem with stereoscopy has more to do with the way it's used. In most, if not all, stereoscopy presentations the illusion of depth is exaggerated. Human eyes are about six inches apart, give or take, and many stereoscopy cameras set the lenses 15 inches apart to increase the perception of depth. Some are even edited after the fact to increase the illusion. This throws the whole image off-kilter, making the elements look more like flat cardboard cutouts at varying distances than an actual three dimensional images. This may be because this exaggerated depth overshadows the more subtle depth in the contours of the elements, so it's difficult to notice and leave them looking flat by comparison.
The first one is an inherent limit to the technology that I do not think will be overcome and will probably lead to the technology inevitably being abandoned yet again at some point in the future.
The second is a bit more insidious. The illusion is exaggerated to make sure the viewer gets the appropriate "wow" reaction to the illusion. The reason why they want you to go wow and buy their products is because the paradigm is shifting.
If this episode of the Big Picture from Moviebob [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2911-PC-Gaming-Is-Dead-Long-Live-PC-Gaming] or this installment of Extra Credits [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3050-Consoles-Are-the-New-Coin-Op] hold any water, then technology is changing. we are moving away from communal or otherwise fixed location devices like televisions, movie theaters and personal computers in favor of portable personal devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers.
That is, in the old days, most families could only afford one television. To justify the expense, many purchase a console television which was a piece of furniture in itself, not unlike the radio from a few years before. But this meant that people had to share and to agree on what they all watched, usually with people fighting over it being "their turn." These days are going away. In many families, they are already gone. My nephew had a TV in his room since he was five years old. Think about that. When I was a kid, you had to be rich to have a television in your own room. In most families back then, there was the big TV in the living room, a more modest sized one in the parents' room, and maybe the kids got the old black and white job that used to be the main family TV when the parents first got married. Now little kids who can't even spell have their own television in their room and can watch whatever they want without fighting with their sister over the remote.
The personal portable device is just the next logical step in this since it can do more than watch television shows and you can take it with you wherever you go.
Because of this shift, movie theaters, television, and video games have been cramming stereoscopy down our throats in an attempt to hold onto some last shred of relevance and to slow the inevitable change. They will lose, of course. And stereoscopy won't save them even if I am wrong and does become a lasting technology. Because portable personal devices already have models that sport this same stereoscopy technology.
So the see if stereoscopy is going to have any staying power, you should watch to see is portable person devices with stereoscopy abilities sell well as these are the devices whose sales will matter in the long run.
No, and given the amount of actual content available for 3D TVs I don't see the point in owning one anytime soon.