Why are people so skeptical of 3D?

[r0manz]

3D is only around because theaters are losing shit tons of money because no one wants to go to one anymore with the emergence of home entertainment.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

I like it and I hope it gets better than it is or at least make the illation complete. I know the problem for me is that it gets ruined because of the sides of the screen cutting it off in the range of my vision.

Also headaches; I don?t get them but since 3D is mostly being used with movies it shouldn?t cause people problems for the duration of the movie. I know I would be annoyed if I had to stop watching something half way through or miss the end because I was getting a headache.

 

[cerebus23]

there is no doubt there are real benefits to some games if they were in 3d, but there are too many problems with the systems as it is now. they cause many people to get dizzy and have headaches after an hour or two at most of gameplay, i dunno about you but when i play games i often play twice as long as that and i never get dizzy or have headaches.

the glasses are noticebly heavy, nevermind if you already wear glasses. and can get uncomfortable themselves over time.

your fps is going to suffer particularly on consoles since the rendering has to be split, i mean how many games need downscaled on ps3 and xbox 360 just to get 30 fps out of them? now we are going to add 3d? what are games going to need to be rendered at to crank out twice the fps for the 3d effect, and to get playable fps?

there are prototype 3d tvs out there that do not require glasses and maybe they will be better since you wont need the shutters on your eyes that probably contribute to the eyestrain a great deal, but i dunno anyone that has seen then in action or how good they are now, but maybe they are the future of 3d, in 5 to 10 years.

movies are a whole nother story, the fact that many movies just tack on 3d after the fact trying to gouge some money out of people, but the effects can range form awful to ok via that process, avatar was built form the ground up with 3d in mind and and it worked well because of that.

3d is the future of gaming but it a nother generation or two from being ready for prime time. me i am going to be plenty angry is the resolution of my games suffer i am playing in 2d because now they will have to accomidate 3d and the 5% of people that actually are going to invest in new tvs plus the glasses to even use it.

 

[OmegaXzors]

There are only two real answers to this question as to anyone who opposes 3D being in their home.

1. They're afraid of new things and don't wish to adapt.
2. They're poor.

 

[guiltless]

Look, 3D is the next big thing, and that's just a fact.

Hahaha! Really? Can I see your source? 3D is like Blu-Ray: it is unnessacary and there are things better then it. I'd be hard pressed to say that 3D is a stepping stone to the "next big thing." It's more like a distraction. Also, do you wear glasses?

 

[zehydra]

I really enjoy 3d because it adds an extra layer to the experience of a movie. I can remember when I watched "Up" in theatres that it felt like I was a part of what was going on. It also felt like I could "feel" the textures of the world, like I would know what it would feel like if I could touch it. You can't get that from 2d movies.

 

[slipknot4]

I welcome 3d with open arms.
It just gives the picture more depth. It's not like the Space Nazis from Nirvana are going to jump out of the monitor and kill you... IRL. I'm just sayin'

 

[cpnichol]

3D was the next big thing 20 years ago, 30 years ago and 60 years ago.

It's like flares making a comeback, it doesn't make me think they are great, just reminds how shit they were first time around.

Maybe if they can do it without the need for stupid glasses and at an affordable price I'll reconsider, until then I'll just make do with my brain's ability to perceive a 3rd dimension in a 2D image.

 

[wfpdk]

I started noticing this years ago, at first I thought, "well it's just like when everything went from black and white to color, most thought that it would ruin TV and movies, but it turned out to be the future and enhance movies and television by giving mood to scenes through color, like dark and blue scenes = somber or unhappy scenes, while bright yellow and green = happy and active scenes." but 3D doesn't do this, it's just adds an "oooo... awwww..." factor that will fade the second that this becomes big enough. once seeing things in 3D becomes a standard, no one will give 3 shits about things in 3D. It doesn't add to the mood or story it's just a silly fad... or at least I hope it is. on a further observation, this fad has lasted far longer than it should have, and I think it's because people have stopped paying attention to things like character and story development and just want to be distracted for two hours or so.

 

[Bullett]

I don't get it.

It's not more realistic, looks like a pop up book to me.
The glasses are a pain, and the no glasses TV have very limited veiwing angles (apparently)
It's expensive
There is little or no home content.

Many people have not upgraded to HD yet. They may have HD TV's but hardly anyone I know has HD TV and few have blu-ray.

3D only really works on a limited range of subjects, thrillers, Sci-fi and horror for example. A 3D romcom? a 3D drama? What would Slumdog Millionaire gain from 3D or Brokeback Mountain. I saw the Jim Carrey Christmas Carol in 3D, it would have been better without it.

5-10 years is how long it will take for people to adopt 3D into mainstream TV, if it survives that long. The problem then becomes the kit will be expensive until lots of people buy into it. With early adoptes being skeptical it's not going to survive.

 

[Rhaisington]

Is there really anything not to be skeptical of. How do you know the 3D even exists, much less that its not a gimmick.

 

[Sliverwings]

Don't care about 3D, just get me a new StarFox game

http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/halolz-dot-com-starfox-couragestarwolf.jpg

 

[Nwabudike Morgan]

Because the technology is not quite there yet and the cost of entry is steep. I'm sure it'll take off eventually once they get large format displays that don't require glasses all sorted out, and I think games are going to be the thing that does wind up making it popular. I've played a few games with Nvidia 3D Vision, and the ones that were programmed especially to use it, like Arkham Asylum and especially Just Cause 2, were incredible.

 

[Wyes]

The only issues I can see with it is that it relies on you being able to see well with both eyes and (as far as cinemas are concerned) getting the sweet spot in the middle for the best results... Whether or not people who wear glasses are able to use it to its full potential I don't know.

I can only see well with one eye, and thus 3D doesn't work for me, not properly anyway. While I can watch 3D movies and the like with no ill effects, to me it looks just like normal, or maybe with the tiniest bit of depth which simply makes it look weird. That said, we've got a 3D TV, but right now there's so few people broadcasting in 3D that you very rarely get true 3D, only gimmicky fake 3D that can be enabled on everything else.

 

[migo]

I don't think I agree with your premise. The image quality on 3D TVs isn't as good as 2D, so it really only is an advantage for games, and some people also develop headaches.

 

[EHKOS]

for me its justified. I cant see in TRUE 3d.

 

[UberNoodle]

SImple - because people have already spent a lot of money on the just recend HD REVOLUTION and in the process bought new TVs and replaced movies and bought new equipment. NOW those same companies want us to jump onto 3D! It is more than a bit rude. Many consumers have already been bitten once by the misinformation about analogue (closing the 'hole') and resolutions. It is not wonder that 3D is being treated with skepticism. Nothing wrong with the technology but for the home, it is too soon.

 

[TOGSolid]

The 3DS is a great example of the technology moving forward. So far that tech only works well for small screens, but imagine if in a few years someone develops similar tech that works well on large screens too.

This. If 3d tvs worked like the 3DS, then yeah I'd be more interesting but fuck those glasses.

 

[JLrep]

You can't see the sides of the image. You can't see the image from behind, above, below, etc. The image is a composite of two different flat images to give the perception of 3D, rather than an actual 3D image. The principle is the same as a pop-up book. Yes, they do have a more sophisticated look and they are closer to duplicated our perception of 3D - but they change nothing about the experience aside from some bits that protrude out of the 2D plane - a la a pop up book.

Not being able to see the sides of the image is the definition of it being an image and not a hologram. I'm not pretending stereoscopic displays are holographic. Look at it this way: right now I can look at my hat, which is on the chair next to me. The image that my brain is perceiving is 3D. However, I cannot see the sides of my hat, or see what's behind it, unless I get up and move to a new position. But my perception of the hat is still 3D.

You keep comparing stereoscopic displays to pop-up books. Well, that's fine; pop-up books are, like stereoscopic displays, essentially 3D images but not holograms. The only reason the images in pop-up books tend to look ridiculous is because you're awfully limited when you have to construct your image from stiff paper.

Hahaha! Really? Can I see your source? 3D is like Blu-Ray: it is unnessacary and there are things better then it. I'd be hard pressed to say that 3D is a stepping stone to the "next big thing." It's more like a distraction. Also, do you wear glasses?

I do not, although I am informed by my optometrist that I will have to eventually.