Why does everybody hate 3D?

[Lilani]

It seems to me that most people who hate 3D are either viewing it wrong, they have an inaccurate perception of what it is, or are just cheap.

As far as I see it, 3D is an innovation in the same sense as higher resolution, higher frame rate, and better sound quality. It's an aesthetic enhancement, used to make a game look better, and, more like real life. (For those who don't know: 3D is done by making each of your eyes see slightly different images, just as your eyes normally do by being side by side, thus allowing you to perceive depth) It gives things more of a physical presence, even if it's only through sight.
I don't believe that cost is too huge of a problem, as when HDTVs became commercially available, they where also extremely expensive.

The only problems it should face are likely: Everybody's perception that it's all just a silly gimmick, as it was used before, and is still sometimes now; Developers and film-makers using it as a gimmick; and potentially the economy...

It just seems that if film-makers properly film their movies in 3D (Though, to be honest, films work worse than most games, because the constant changing in focal point between shots is what gives people headaches), and developers make their games knowing that it can, and likely will be played in 3D, it should hopefully work it's way into mainstream the same way HD has.

EDIT: I'd like to emphesize to all those who point out how unnecessary it is, that an HDTV, or home theater system is also generally unnecessary in the long run, (That is, until developers considered it normal, and made all text tiny, and as for surround, $10 headphones work fine). Who is it that you complain about 3D, but are using all of this other tech... so far, from what I've read of replies, I conclude that it's one of those general, undeserved hatreds, like english dubbed anime.

The only thing I really agree with, is glasses, but as tech gets better, those should too, and become more comfortable for everyone... either that, or family entertainment will wither because everybody just gets personal 3D devices, like the 3DS.

NOW TO POST EDIT WITHOUT READING IT FIRST!

Yes, 3D technology has improved significantly in recent years, but that doesn't mean it's not a gimmick. Movies that were originally made for 2D are being (poorly) converted to 3D simply for the sake of not getting left behind. There are some films that are enhanced by it (see Avatar), but because of current filmmakers' fear of being the only kid on the playground without that big "Digital 3D" button is turning it into am unnecessary compulsory expense for moviegoers.

Personally I find the glasses a bit distracting. I watched Toy Story 3 in 3D twice, and both times I was constantly worried about the slight blurriness I was seeing. I kept thinking, is it just me? Did I get popcorn butter on the lenses? Or are the glasses just damaged? Sure, some parts were cool, but I was much more easily taken in when I finally saw it in 2D a few weeks ago.

Plus, there is a lot of talk about how the 3D glasses can be very damaging to the eyes when used in the long-term--like say, watching TV every night. I think until they get the technology to where that isn't an issue, I won't be buying a 3D TV anytime soon.

Oh, and on your unnecessary note, everything turning HD is inevitable. Just like the way CDs phased out cassette tapes and DVDs phased out VHS tapes, HD currently is and will continue to phase out standard definition. What separates that from 3D is that, at this point, 3D is not an inevitability. Eventually in the future, everything will be in HD. It will be present in virtually 100% of the new media you can find on the market. I don't see 3D becoming that present, or at least within the next fifty years.

I'd venture to say that most people don't even have HD TVs yet. I know I don't, and everybody in my family but three don't. And even if they have one HD TV, that doesn't mean everything else they enjoy such media on is HD. Most cars with screens only play DVDs, and even if you have ONE blu-ray player it's useless on anything else but an HD monitor. The transition to HD is barely halfway there. And people who have made the transition are probably still making payments on it. This whole 3D fad (yes, fad) is making the media market very muddled and confusing. And most people will still only buy HD TVs because 3D is making out to be just one, strong breeze that is already on its way out.

And that is why, if I were in a position to buy one, I'd buy an HD TV before I buy a 3D TV. Maybe in a few decades once things settle down, but by then I have a feeling holographic television will be well on its way to phasing out the old HD TVs.

EDIT: And in other news, my caps lock key is feeling very molested after typing this post

 

[Sneaky llama]

I personally believe it's just an over used gimmick.

 

[Geekosaurus]

I don't care if it's better quality or that it costs more. It takes away from my viewing experience and doesn't allow me to get engrossed into the film because it insists on reminding me that I'm watching a film.

 

[EmzOLV]

For me, as a consumer, I don't hate 3D.
I just got bored of it. Some films were really good and interesting to watch in this format, but then they just keep coming out. More and more of them. And you know what? I'm bored of collecting plastic 3D glasses and having to see something which is only being sold on the primary selling point of 'SEE THIS IN 3D NOW!'.

I watched a trailer the other day and it was 5 seconds (I kid you not) before it went on about how amazing it was in 3D and see it in 3D and 3D this and that. I didn't even know what the film was about. I didn't even bother to look it up. Why would I?

But that's just me

 

[Rararaz]

I dislike it because I am yet to see anything (except maybe that short pixar film beofre Toy Story 3) that it has made better. It didn't change the fact that Avatar was a shite film and it isn't worth the extra costs, it didn't change how good Toy Story 3 was or how average a film Shrek 4 was.

3D is simply a way to keep people going to the cinema. The technology has been around for a long time (not sure how long but at least 20 years in its current form) and the fact that cinema audiences worldwide have plummeted over the last few years and dvd sales have not, meant that cinemas needed to take some action.

The other problem with cost is that people are not buying 3d sets because there is very little reason to considering how much more expensive they are. HDTV had more of an instant impact and there was more technology to make the most of it which meant that it did sell. The more it sold the cheaper it got. Won't happen with 3D.

To be honest I wouldn't be shocked if 3D goes the same way as the minidisc.

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

I don't hate, they haven't really made anything good with it yet though, but they might considering they made TVs with 3D.

 

[Sandernista]

I don't hate it, it just makes my head hurt.

 

[dillinger88]

I have two opinions, because I'm awkward.

Passive 3D, the one where the glasses have differently polarised lens and 2 images shown at the same time, sucks. Looks horribly blurry and is more pop out of the screen type stuff (Headaches inbound!). This is usually used in the cinema and probably where most people experience 3D and therefore why it probably gets a bad rep. Hell, I never see films in 3D purely because it sucks

Active 3D, where images are shown in succession and each lens in the glass gets turned off and on, looks freaking awesome. You get true depth perception (not poppy-outy stuff) and don't lose as much quality, apart from slight darkening when wearing the glasses, I guess. This is what the nVidia sets do and, seriously, playing Metro 2033 in 3D is so crazy scary I could only do it 10 minutes at a time.

Having said that, I won't be investing until the price drops. My friend has an active 3D setup and I am truly jealous of him. I need a new TV so I reckon I'll just by a 120Hz jobby and get a 3D decoder when they're made available for cheap.

Howerver, we do need early investors for this tech else the companies won't have any money to make it better. The main problem is film makers shoe-horning it into films to make a buck or two and the consumers whining about how it's a fad because of that.

Granted, it's a bit annoying to have to where the glasses to view stuff in 3D, but to say that it adds nothing to the experience means you ain't seen active 3D! Let's not discard it too early it's going to get better and hopefully cheaper.

That's my two pennies anyway.

 

[mew4ever23]

It's the three U's, lad.

Unnecessary - We've survived with out it, and so far whatever we have is pretty damn awesome. So it isn't needed like an upgraded graphics chip, it's just extra for some people. Some.
Unwanted - Most people don't actually want to change the norm today. Because of this, more people give in to peer pressure, or see it solely from the 'Against' side and don't give it a chance.
Unwieldly - The glasses that come with it are really annoying. If they get rid of them (If they haven't already) then they stand a much better chance. Coming from a guy with glasses, I deliberately DON'T see something in 3D.

This post pretty much sums up my opinion.
Did you know that they're making 3D Blu-ray players now? Yeah, I'm not going out to buy a whole new device and TV for in home 3D. And those glasses.. I'm in the same boat as Count Igor for those damn glasses as well. I wear prescription glasses, and most of my family does as well. Want to convince me that 3D is the next big thing? Making 3D glasses that fit over normal glasses, or removing the glasses all together would be an excellent start. Not to mention that 3D gives some people massive headaches.

 

[snakeakaossi]

One word: HEADACHE.

Seriously, I have good eyes and don't need glasses. Yet, when viewing 3D I can never focus, because my eye's lense focusses on the screen, while the movie wants me to point my eyes to something that isn't supposed to be on that distance. Those two types of muscle seem to be hardwired in me, resulting in a headache not even 5 minutes in the movie.

I dread the day when this 3D becomes standard, I wouldn't be able to go to the cinema anymore.

 

[zega frega omega]

I don't need to have things popping out at me to like a movie, and I certainly don't want to pay $12 to see some movie that needs to compensate shitty acting and direction with some dumbass gimmick that will just die off when the audiences pull their heads out of their asses.

 

[Siyano_v1legacy]

I have seen a couple of movie in 3d and I felt like it adds nothing but very few cool scene to watch, beside that the rest of the movie is not different at all beside seeing some extract depth when 2 person talk to each other wich is useless. I find that every god damn compagny now have to jump on the bandwagon of this gimmick just to make extra bucks out of their movies.
3D is maybe great if you look a movie in full CGI or something similar (toy story 3?) but all the 3D we have now is added to the movie not filmed in 3D wich is like a thousand mile different.
For me I dont mind much paying that extra 3$ if I dont want to wait or go like 15 miles away just to get that theatre with the standard 2d version of a movie I would like to see since I dont go to theatre often but I would otherwise be not ovewhelmed by an almost useless upgrade of movie that were already great.

"If its not broke, don't fix it" resume it.

 

[deonte9109]

Its not that its a gimmick or anything its just that there is an oversaturation of 3D movies and by the looks of it games. I like 3D movies....when done right. It can be easily seen that any movie that involves CGI effects is getting a 3D release. Thats fine for Avatar and Toy Story 3 but when you have a lack of actual 3D (Last Airbender) or just have 3D cuz its the "hot" thing right now (recently Yogi Bear, I mean seriously) then it starts crossing over into the annoying/aggravating area. Yes its innovative and it pushes the medium but the problem is that they just put 3D in movies to try and weasel some extra cash out of people.

 

[dakorok]

I loved it in Avatar, where the 3D added depth to the scenes, such as making a long corridor stretch out in front of the viewer, or a certain piece of scenery/actors appearing closer than the rest. In that situation, it immerses the audience. However, just like the last time 3D was a big deal, the majority of movies are "OMG SOMETHING'S COMING RIGHT AT YOU LOLOLOL".

Which is stupid.

 

[stormtrooper9091]

i don't hate it, it's just that the gimmick wears off after 20 odd minutes and then all you've got left is a bland shitty feature presentation. It's a pointless innovation that only the superficial and generally stupid people can like because that kind can be amused more easily and since the world is going that way, heck, why not exploit it

 

[ArchAngelKira]

People are greedy and they want to make money on the "next big thing". So I don't buy stuff that makes them think they can have a "get rich quick" scheem though scamming me and many other good people out of they're hard earned money.