165 replies to this topic

[Ozivillan]

Theres no way i would buy a LED 3D TV. there again theres no way i would purchase a overpriced and over rated  LCD/LED TV. if i can do a deal on the samung 58" plasma today for around the $2900 mark then i'm in. on selling my current TV leaves a small balance on the new TV with promotion. seems like a good offer for a good 2d TV with the added 3d option if and when required

[purpleninja]

That's very similar to me.

We need a new TV and currently the best prices for the 2010 range of large size HD TVs are on 3D TVs - the Samsung plasmas.

If the manufacturer throws in 3D functionality, a free 3D BD player and glasses then I'm not going to say no.

Will I use the 3D functionality - almost certainly at the beginning due to novelty value, and then who knows.

Depends on too many variables - availability/price of decent content (will the 3D version also include a 2D version will be a factor to be considered), health concerns (headaches, nausea), etc.

[Ralfi]

luuuc, on May 23 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

I disagree. In Avatar it definitely added to the experience.
Is it necessary? No. Although neither is wide screen. Neither is colour. Neither is audio. But they all add to the experience.
Silly argument.

& i'd disagree that wide screen, colour & audio aren't necessary. All these brought the traditional cinema experience into the home - & their positives outweighed the negatives.  3D is new, & is it stands currently, is both a hindrance & not nearly as seamless or user-friendly in comparison.

We can only comment on what we have now, not what might happen in future. & currently, 3D is taking more than giving imo. Dimming colours/masking detail is setting us back, not moving forward, & takes away from the experience, instead of enhancing it.

Edited by Ralfi, 23 May 2010 - 01:06 AM.

[tribal-warrior]

Ralfi, on May 23 2010, 12:51 AM, said:

3D is new, & is it stands currently, is both a hindrance & not nearly as seamless or user-friendly in comparison.

Actually, 3D is quite old. 3D movies have been around since the 1950s. And 3D still photography has been practised since the 1800s (though it was known as stereo photography back then.) I enjoy the 3D experience myself but I don't consider it a necessity.

[Ralfi]

tribal-warrior, on May 23 2010, 02:37 AM, said:

Actually, 3D is quite old. 3D movies have been around since the 1950s. And 3D still photography has been practised since the 1800s (though it was known as stereo photography back then.) I enjoy the 3D experience myself but I don't consider it a necessity.

Ahh yes of course. I was aware too. Shows how tired I was typing that. What I shouldve opened that sentence with was "this current implemention of 3D is both a hindrence ect...."

[Jayman7]

purpleninja, on May 23 2010, 12:48 AM, said:

That's very similar to me.

We need a new TV and currently the best prices for the 2010 range of large size HD TVs are on 3D TVs - the Samsung plasmas.

If the manufacturer throws in 3D functionality, a free 3D BD player and glasses then I'm not going to say no.

Will I use the 3D functionality - almost certainly at the beginning due to novelty value, and then who knows.

Depends on too many variables - availability/price of decent content (will the 3D version also include a 2D version will be a factor to be considered), health concerns (headaches, nausea), etc.

Huge +1.

[fawlty99]

In a few years time every man & his dog will have a 3d capable set. The technology will improve & arguments against will cease to be relevant. At the moment however too many film producers are jumping on the bandwagon following Avatar. 3D will not turn a dog (ref Titans) into a great movie. 3D is a perfect vehicle for films like Coraline/Avatar where you can supend belief. Less relevant for a movie that relies more on the story & plot.

[Hosko]

pheggie, on May 22 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

It's real 3d alright but Sony and Panasonic have very little to offer 3d, they are lightweights in 3d. Real 3d custom cameras are made by 3ality and they are doing Australia's 3d trials.

3ality don't make any cameras. They make mounts, control equipment and processors. They are being used by channel 9 but not by Fox Sports.

[Owen]

luuuc, on May 23 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

[i]
I disagree. In Avatar it definitely added to the experience.

Have you seen Avatar in 2D?
I found only a few scenes better in 3D, most of the movie looked better to me in 2D, a lot less fake and I could focus on that I wanted to rather than have the artifical and distracting layered blur.

[Wing Nut]

purpleninja, on May 23 2010, 12:18 AM, said:

If the manufacturer throws in 3D functionality, a free 3D BD player and glasses then I'm not going to say no.

Assuming the fad hasn't faded when I eventually buy another TV, then I'll probably do the same. There are many far more important options to be ticked off before 3D capability swings me towards those models. If the technology improves so I don't have to wear silly 'goggles' over my current specs, then it may tempt me a little more. But for those infrequent occasions when 3D might be broadcast and/or a movie is enhanced by it, I'm more inclined to wait and see. Besides, I fully expect competing technologies will mean in the near future new 3D TVs will decode the 3D signal of their era and all the older circa 2010 3D models won't.

[MRCRIST]

Owen, on May 23 2010, 12:33 PM, said:

Have you seen Avatar in 2D?
I found only a few scenes better in 3D, most of the movie looked better to me in 2D, a lot less fake and I could focus on that I wanted to rather than have the artifical and distracting layered blur.

Avatar did look stunning in 2d. But was very impressive in 3d.

I suppose it Horses for Courses.

[Ozivillan]

CC Rider, on May 23 2010, 02:35 PM, said:

Avatar did look stunning in 2d. But was very impressive in 3d.

I suppose it Horses for Courses.

+1. i did feel as though something was missing when viewing the standard blu ray version after watching the 3d cinema release

[:)]

as per jacqui bunting of the age here

3D or not to 3D


I'd prefer to stay in the two-dimensional present, where I watch telly horizontally with an intact spleen and a goggle-free face, leaving the 3D experience at IMAX, where it belongs.

[Ralfi]

Ozivillan, on May 23 2010, 03:35 PM, said:

i did feel as though something was missing when viewing the standard blu ray version after watching the 3d cinema release

I did too. Later discovered it was being overcharged for the "cinema experience".

[Hosko]

Muppets were saying the same thing about colour back in the day. How many people are watching TV in Black and White these days.

[digitalj]

I heard last night apparently you're not allowed to drive for 3-4 hours after seeing 3D and if you cause an accident during that 3-4 hours, you have to pay yourself, your insurance is instantly void if you were found to be watching 3D up to 4 hours ago?

Seems rather odd to me.

If all TV and cinemas goes 3D, does this mean we'll all have to use public transport to do everything?

[SonofGherkin]

digitalj, on May 23 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

I heard last night apparently you're not allowed to drive for 3-4 hours after seeing 3D and if you cause an accident during that 3-4 hours, you have to pay yourself, your insurance is instantly void if you were found to be watching 3D up to 4 hours ago?

Seems rather odd to me.

If all TV and cinemas goes 3D, does this mean we'll all have to use public transport to do everything?

Had to be said

it's still gonna be life Jim, but not as we know it.

[Ozivillan]

lets apply this rule to say a pub. so anyone who comes out of a pub regardless of weather they are affected by what they have consummed or not should refrain from driving for 4 hours. FFS we live in a 3D world

Edited by Ozivillan, 23 May 2010 - 07:18 PM.

[MRCRIST]

Ozivillan, on May 23 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

lets apply this rule to say a pub. so anyone who comes out of a pub regardless of weather they are affected by what they have consummed or not should refrain from driving for 4 hours. FFS we live in a 3D world

Agree this is getting out of control.

Medical evidence needs to back up all the claims however there are warnings on the Sammy site about the evils of 3d.

[purpleninja]

digitalj, on May 23 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

I heard last night apparently you're not allowed to drive for 3-4 hours after seeing 3D and if you cause an accident during that 3-4 hours, you have to pay yourself, your insurance is instantly void if you were found to be watching 3D up to 4 hours ago?

Seems rather odd to me.

If all TV and cinemas goes 3D, does this mean we'll all have to use public transport to do everything?

That seems unlikely to me.

Given the potential liability I can't see the technology being launched if it was that dangerous.

Can you imagine the size of the possible class actions, especially in the US.

Not to mention the way it could be used to mitigate crimes.

3D affected me and caused me do it, I wasn't in full control

[MACCA350]

purpleninja, on May 23 2010, 07:43 PM, said:

That seems unlikely to me.

Given the potential liability I can't see the technology being launched if it was that dangerous.

Can you imagine the size of the possible class actions, especially in the US.

Not to mention the way it could be used to mitigate crimes.

3D affected me and caused me do it, I wasn't in full control

You can be sure their liability will be covered by fineprint somewhere in the manual

cheers

Edited by MACCA350, 23 May 2010 - 08:02 PM.

[Owen]

Hosko, on May 23 2010, 05:59 PM, said:

Muppets were saying the same thing about colour back in the day. How many people are watching TV in Black and White these days.

That’s a bad analogy, colour was a huge improvement over B/W, however 3D is arguably an improvement over 2D for a small proportion of content and obviously inferior for a large proportion, sort of 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards, and that’s before the “problems” are taken into consideration.

[:)]

Owen, on May 23 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

That’s a bad analogy, colour was a huge improvement over B/W, however 3D is arguably an improvement over 2D for a small proportion of content and obviously inferior for a large proportion, sort of 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards, and that’s before the “problems” are taken into consideration.

I personally cant see how 3D is an improvement at all, especially when it messes up the PQ, and with all the inconvenience of the silly glasses and side effects, plus its not really 3D anyways, just a bit of messing around with stereo vision as they used to do in the 1800's, some 210 years later its still just a gimmick !  

[diesel]

For me, there's a place for 3D along with everything else, but I don't want 3D to be the way we watch every movie at the cinemas.
Keep it for the science fiction or kids Pixar movies, but don't rely on it to turn a crap movie lacking in character development and a story line. It's still a crap movie!

[purpleninja]

MACCA350, on May 23 2010, 07:59 PM, said:

You can be sure their liability will be covered by fineprint somewhere in the manual

cheers

If it's really so dangerous that you shouldn't drive for 4 hours after viewing, all the fine print in the World won't protect them from a law suit.

Plus think of the negative publicity of a law suit even if the manufacturer ends up winning.