Who is sick of 3D?

B

Bloodgod42

Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2005
Messages
592
This post (and the comments posted)...
http://kotaku.com/5542203/ubisoft-half-of-all-games-to-be-3d-in-two-years
started me thinking...

Are people REALLY against 3D options with games and movies?

Everytime i read something about a 3D movie/game, i hear more negative reviews than better...whats up with that? 3D has come along ways since the blue/red 3D of old days, and Im all for it. I dont necessarily want to be forced to view all content in 3D just yet, but it is getting there and I think we should support the movement, not cut it down.

Were all [H]ard here, so what do YOU think?
 
Yeah I really hope it doesn't take over movies. Who the hell wants to watch a movie like "Sideways" In 3d. There's no way any serious drama will benefit at all from 3d. Not to mention a slew of other movie genres. I think it's a great tool, and can add to each medium, but it could also detract if used wrongly.
 
If 3D doesn't require glasses, I don't mind in the least. Though I wouldn't throw down extra money for it. However, 99% of the 3d tvs require said glasses, so screw it.
 
i dont mind it if they keep it in the movie theaters which makes sense for them because its impossible to record it with a camera.. and honestly i think its cool seeing some movies in 3d in the theaters.. but i dont want that crap on movies i end up buying..

as far as gaming goes.. its stupid.. always will be stupid and some one create a god damn holodeck from star trek already!
 
I tried nVidia 3D for awhile, horrible experience..

not the just glass, it doesn't really turn anything into 3D beside making image having a distance feeling.

and it make like a dizziness that really makes me sick of it after hours of using.

The movie is alright, only certain movie benefit from it, overall ain't that good...

its a gimmick...
 
If anyone hear reads Home Theater, they had a small article how a lot of people are complaining of headaches and another clip stated that sharing glasses spreads herpies.
I personally have never liked the idea of 3D. Too gimicky. if i want 3D, i go outside and play a sport
 
Nvidia tried this stuff with Geforce1. It's just a gimmick..
 
3D is a trend that came back and will die soon once again (hopefully)
 
have yet to see a 3d Movie, but MIster Avatar says the problem is, most movies arent "filmed" in 3d, but done after with post processing, thus making movies like Clash of the titans 3D absolute crap
 
I'm not a fan of 3d gaming at all. I wear glasses. So glasses on top of my glasses would straight up not be tolerated by me. Combine that with say...a voice chat headset or a set of surround sound headphones with built in mic...yeah. That's too much shit on my head just to play a game.
 
Decko87 said:
Yeah I really hope it doesn't take over movies. Who the hell wants to watch a movie like "Sideways" In 3d. There's no way any serious drama will benefit at all from 3d. Not to mention a slew of other movie genres. I think it's a great tool, and can add to each medium, but it could also detract if used wrongly.
Click to expand...

Just want to say, nice taste! Sideways is a great film.

I know lots of people who loved Avatar in 3D, I personally couldn't stand the 3D aspect. All it does (IMO) is lessen the clarity of the image, and make certain objects on screen distracting.

I don't mind if they continue making things in 3D if the demand is out there, so long as they continue with 2D for the rest of us, no harm in having both options available. As for 3D gaming, I think it's too much of a gimmick for it to be considered on such a large scale, there are far too many competitive gamers for it to really take hold.
 
Decko87 said:
Yeah I really hope it doesn't take over movies. Who the hell wants to watch a movie like "Sideways" In 3d. There's no way any serious drama will benefit at all from 3d. Not to mention a slew of other movie genres. I think it's a great tool, and can add to each medium, but it could also detract if used wrongly.
Click to expand...

This is why Lucas said one of his new movies WONT be in 3D, cause it would not suit it.

i think this is where real directors could shine, not every movie is meant to be 3D, but many will try for profits..
 
Anybody who suffers from any type of eye issues probably doesn't care for 3d. I don't see in stereo, so while I can see the "new" 3d with the glasses they use now, it gives me a huge migraine focusing through one eye all the time. Then I end up taking the glasses off my head every 15 minutes, which ruins the immersion, etc. Also, anybody with a stigmatism or any eye issues not correctable by contacts likely isn't a huge fan.

My main issue is that they want to make every action movie in 3d now, even when it's just post-production garbage like Clash of the Titans was reported to be. Not to mention it gives the box office a nice boost because the tickets are 25-35% higher than a regular ticket.

It will eventually make it's way into TV's and not add a grand to the cost, and if I happen to be in the market and it's reasonable, cool. My wife and kid can enjoy it.

I just really don't care though.
 
This 3D crap rears it's ugly head every 10-15 years or so.
Or whenever there's a new generation of suckers that will be taken in by it.
As has been stated, it's a gimmick. Not a very good one at that.
Not gonna wear glasses to watch a movie or play a game.
Not gonna pay extra at a movie theater to wear the glasses I just stated I'm not going to wear so I can watch a blurry movie.
IMO it's the next craze tryin to butt into the HD craze.
To me it's on par with those HD sunglasses :D

2979920830102954535S600x600Q85.jpg


OMG! My old eyes sucked with standard vision!
But I didn't heed the warning! I watched an HD movie on my HD TV with my HD glasses and the awesomesauce was so great I created a frakkin black hole!
The preceding statement was meant as sarcasm and should be taken as such. No black holes were really created, bur CERN is working on that...
 
Bloodgod42 said:
Everytime i read something about a 3D movie/game, i hear more negative reviews than better...whats up with that? 3D has come along ways since the blue/red 3D of old days, and Im all for it. I dont necessarily want to be forced to view all content in 3D just yet, but it is getting there and I think we should support the movement, not cut it down.
Click to expand...

It's got everything to do with having to wear the 3D glasses. People grow immune to shitty gimmicks pretty fast, and 3D glasses have a long long history of being just that - shitty gimmicks. It really doesn't matter how legitimate these 3D glasses are right now, since the water has already been tainted.
 
Decko87 said:
Yeah I really hope it doesn't take over movies. Who the hell wants to watch a movie like "Sideways" In 3d. There's no way any serious drama will benefit at all from 3d. Not to mention a slew of other movie genres. I think it's a great tool, and can add to each medium, but it could also detract if used wrongly.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There's a lot of movies that just don't need to be in 3D and never should be. Perhaps most hardcore action movies, CGI cartoons for kids, maybe horror, but comedies and suspense/thrillers, dramas? Eh. Some films would be sacrilege to turn into 3D--not Terminator 2--but definitely The Godfather, Good Will Hunting, Full Metal Jacket, Scarface, The Big Lebowski, and many others (Fight Club is another one of my favorites, but that would rock in [subtle] 3D, no doubt). You just don't make classy, upscale movies in 3D. Eff that. I bet Tarantino thinks it's ridiculous (except maybe for Kill Bill--that would be neat).
 
I have been 3D gaming since the early 2000's and would hate to see it go. It's not for everyone but I enjoy it and I don't really care who likes it or not.
 
PornoSatan said:
It's got everything to do with having to wear the 3D glasses. People grow immune to shitty gimmicks pretty fast, and 3D glasses have a long long history of being just that - shitty gimmicks. It really doesn't matter how legitimate these 3D glasses are right now, since the water has already been tainted.
Click to expand...

While I think most of us can agree that it sucks having to wear the glasses, its nice that the technology has gotten better. We will eventually get to the point where we can do it without glasses, but its going to take a lot of time and money. I'm slightly interested in 3D Blu-Ray as its really the first viable consumer level 3D medium that has a chance in hell of being good.
 
Its actually not as sanitary as you might think, sharing glasses.

Your eyes are the weakest point for viral/germ entry. If someone has a flu and then coughs on the glasses - there is probably no less than a 100% chance of you getting it if they are not cleaned.

Sitting on a theatre seat - is not entirely sanitary either, but a pair of jeans will block an astounding level of any nasties. Still - I wouldn't want to sit down on a "all weekend Debbie does Dallas tribute"
 
My concern with 3D is that we do not have any testing on the use of the shutter system which is all the rage. In effect it shuts down one eye 60 times a second and alternates that. I know quite a few eye doctors that have said there is concern in the eye care community as to if prolong use could lead to eye damage.

I mean have you seen the warnings issued by Samsung for the use of their 3D TV. There are more warnings for the TV than with a pack of smokes.
 
Computer Ed said:
My concern with 3D is that we do not have any testing on the use of the shutter system which is all the rage. In effect it shuts down one eye 60 times a second and alternates that. I know quite a few eye doctors that have said there is concern in the eye care community as to if prolong use could lead to eye damage.

I mean have you seen the warnings issued by Samsung for the use of their 3D TV. There are more warnings for the TV than with a pack of smokes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I recently read this article:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2813511.htm

Personally it makes sense to me, it can't be good for the brain with such a limited 3D simulation.

I dont really like 3D. Its nice for an occasional movie, but I dont want to be watching it the whole time, it may make things pop, but it most certainly doesn't feel more realistic. Personally I find a good speaker set up with a 2D TV more immersive than 3D. Granted the starting price for good speaker set ups is like $5000.
 
Computer Ed said:
My concern with 3D is that we do not have any testing on the use of the shutter system which is all the rage. In effect it shuts down one eye 60 times a second and alternates that. I know quite a few eye doctors that have said there is concern in the eye care community as to if prolong use could lead to eye damage.

I mean have you seen the warnings issued by Samsung for the use of their 3D TV. There are more warnings for the TV than with a pack of smokes.
Click to expand...

Just going outside and breathing in the air can hurt you these days it seems. Doctors and/or scientists will always find new ways to say something will or can hurt and/or kill you. I get what you are saying, but until they've proven anything I'm not going to get terribly paranoid about it. Beyond that LCD Shutter Glasses probably won't be around much more than a few years and I don't see a lot of people using 3D every time they watch a movie, seems like it'll be something used for those rare movies that will really benefit from it.
 
Tudz said:
Yeah, I recently read this article:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2813511.htm

Personally it makes sense to me, it can't be good for the brain with such a limited 3D simulation.

I dont really like 3D. Its nice for an occasional movie, but I dont want to be watching it the whole time, it may make things pop, but it most certainly doesn't feel more realistic. Personally I find a good speaker set up with a 2D TV more immersive than 3D. Granted the starting price for good speaker set ups is like $5000.
Click to expand...

Only if you're setting up a higher end home theater. Most people can easily get away with a sound set up under $1000 and not be able to tell the difference between that kind of set up and one of those audiophile grade ones.
 
Derangel said:
Only if you're setting up a higher end home theater. Most people can easily get away with a sound set up under $1000 and not be able to tell the difference between that kind of set up and one of those audiophile grade ones.
Click to expand...

Probably because they haven't heard a good set up in a properly tuned room ;)
 
Tudz said:
Probably because they haven't heard a good set up in a properly tuned room ;)
Click to expand...

And how many people have a properly tuned room? I've heard some really high quality set ups before, but I personally don't think they're worth the cost. As for 3D, for a little over a $500 I can build a HTPC that can do 3D Blu-Ray in 1080p. Add another 500-something for a good 1080p 3D monitor and the Nvidia 3D kit (which currently is the only PC based solution to support 1080p 3D) and thats it. My speakers aren't great, but they'll do the job for a little bit until I get around to getting better ones. So thats a little over $1000 for a workable setup with a few hundred more later on for good 5.1 speakers versus $5000+ for a point where I would consider it being very diminishing returns unless you're an audiophile.
 
If anyone hear reads Home Theater, they had a small article how a lot of people are complaining of headaches and another clip stated that sharing glasses spreads herpies.
Click to expand...

I think they're wearing the glasses wrong.
 
word Im so sick of things being in 3D I wish we could all go back to 2D and swing dancing.
 
They always recycle everything. Anyway, I'm so sick of hearing about 3d that I think this thread deserves a sticky in every forum and sub forum. :D
 
Bloodgod42 said:
3D has come along ways since the blue/red 3D of old days
Click to expand...

I disagree.

It's still unnatural and gimmicky.

Get rid of the glasses and the "Whoa, look at this thing coming at you...it's totally 3D!" gimmickiness of it and we'll talk.
 
Derangel said:
And how many people have a properly tuned room? I've heard some really high quality set ups before, but I personally don't think they're worth the cost. As for 3D, for a little over a $500 I can build a HTPC that can do 3D Blu-Ray in 1080p. Add another 500-something for a good 1080p 3D monitor and the Nvidia 3D kit (which currently is the only PC based solution to support 1080p 3D) and thats it. My speakers aren't great, but they'll do the job for a little bit until I get around to getting better ones. So thats a little over $1000 for a workable setup with a few hundred more later on for good 5.1 speakers versus $5000+ for a point where I would consider it being very diminishing returns unless you're an audiophile.
Click to expand...

I never meant for this to be a price debate, simply was stating that IMO a good speaker set up would add far more immersion than some gimmicky stereoscopic effect. But then I also just added that what I consider a good speaker set up would also cost a lot ;)

It wasn't meant to be "you should buy a $5000 speaker set up instead of 3D", it was "I'd rather burn money on a good speaker set up than waste a cent on 3D".

Its not even 3D, its stereoscopic :p If someone actually bought out 3D I'd probably be one of the first to jump on the 3D boat.

When it comes to speakers, it isn't about being an audiophile or not, its personal preference and determining when you reach the point of diminishing returns with price. I'd hardly consider myself an audiophile, I dont even listen to much music, but I reckon a good set of speakers, even stereo ones, can add a hell of a lot of immersion to movies and games.
 
Tudz said:
I never meant for this to be a price debate, simply was stating that IMO a good speaker set up would add far more immersion than some gimmicky stereoscopic effect. But then I also just added that what I consider a good speaker set up would also cost a lot ;)

It wasn't meant to be "you should buy a $5000 speaker set up instead of 3D", it was "I'd rather burn money on a good speaker set up than waste a cent on 3D".

Its not even 3D, its stereoscopic :p If someone actually bought out 3D I'd probably be one of the first to jump on the 3D boat.

When it comes to speakers, it isn't about being an audiophile or not, its personal preference and determining when you reach the point of diminishing returns with price. I'd hardly consider myself an audiophile, I dont even listen to much music, but I reckon a good set of speakers, even stereo ones, can add a hell of a lot of immersion to movies and games.
Click to expand...

If you have a really nice room set up well for a home theater I'd agree. Though for the average person, probably not. For the average person its probably about equal.

True 3D would be nice, but I don't expect to see that in my life time. At least not on the consumer level.
 
The 3D in games is a whole lot better than anything that is being used in movies. I have always used the shutter glasses solution, even when I was using Edimensional glasses back in the early days. You can't judge the effectiveness of the technology by what you may have seen with blue/red glasses because that method is vastly inferior to the shutter system that 3D Vision currently uses.

I prefer to play games with maximum depth and as much convergence as is possible with that. The immersion of playing a first person game like Oblivion, F.E.A.R., or Metro 2033 with my preferred settings is unreal. I have no problems with someone not liking the technology because everyone has their own tastes and opinions but the technology is here to stay and is well past the gimmicky phase now.
 
I'm all for 3d just give me Oled 3d not needing glasses screen.
I'm not going to spend big bucks on another LCD TV when my "old" one is still under manufacturers warranty.

What i'm really interested right now is Nintendo 3DS technology how it will look.
 
When done well, 3D is a nice touch to a movie. I don't mind watching a movie in 3D... it's only two hours.


Just keep this technology away from competitive multiplayer gaming and I'll be happy, as I imagine it'd be a distraction. You'd also have an uneven playing field considering the number of people who won't be playing in 3D.

For a single player/co-op experience... I can't really comment. I'd have to try it first, but it seems like a cool idea.
 
I think one of the reasons that 3D feels like such a gimmick is because it messes with people. I know my wife can't go to a 3D movie without getting motion sick, as do several of my friends.

I can't stand how 3D is used in some movies (such as that Jim Carey movie about scrooge, forget the title at the moment and too lazy to look up IMDB). In that movie, it just felt like they used 3D effects rarely for the sole purpose of saying 'hey, this movie is 3D'.
 
g. g. g. .. lol

I personally don't like the 3D glasses, but if they made that not required, and it wasn't blurry/dark as it seems to be compared to standard viewing, then it'd be OK, I guess... oh, and only if it didn't make me dizzy and I could easily turn it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top