3D Forum

I don't get some of you.  Technology has advanced, you all are talking like the 3D we see now is the exactly the same as 3D 20 years ago.    This ain't you parents red/blue 3D of 20 years ago.  It's polarized film going to each eye smooth as silk.   For the majority of us the tech works great, and applying it right is the next thing we have to learn.   Yeah some of you will get motion sick, maybe you have a eye problems, or maybe you just don't like the feeling.  If you are in that group it's not going to be a fun experience for you, so guess what DON'T GO (Looks at VanDammage, why the hell you pay and go see it when you clearly know you don't like it).    Educate your self and vote with my wallet, I saw Avatar in 3D, not clash of the titans, come this winter I am thinking the 3D in Tron will add a lot to the film.    I've been gaming on my PC for over a year now in 3D on a big 67"DLP (even better then theater cause it's 120hz, aka 60FPS in each eye, Batman AA, Battlefield 2, Just Cause 2, and a bunch more work flawlessly) and it is fucking awesome.  Call it a gimmick all you want but I like it, just like I like HD, and surround sound, and IMAX.  To demanding it die in a fire, when the option for 2D is still totally there is only selfish move.  We need to embrace these new techniques in film, animated CGI moves are a perfect fit for 3D,  epic adventure film is a perfect fit for IMAX, and the surround sound effects in movies like the Matrix or Master and Commander had a major effect.
 
 I hate Techno music, but you won't see me raging that it die in a fire cause I know my preference of Rock will always be there.  If 3D takes off the same goes for the 2D option, eye problems are common, so some people will always prefer it there for it will ALWAYS BE AN OPTION.   Don't like howard stern, fine, don't listen.  But don't be the douche that calls the FCC on him.

@danimal_furry said:

" 3D movies are a fad that shows up every 20 years or so. A bunch of movies get released in 3D and everyone flocks out to see them. But the newness wears out and people quit shelling out extra bucks to see them. Then 3D becomes nostalgic, and 20 years later, people take their kids to experience the same thing they saw as a child. The worst is the 3D TV, because people are going to be stuck with a five thousand dollar piece of junk in their livingroom in a couple of years. "

you're wrong bro. its not a fad. its here to stay. now, once everyone excepts this fact, we can begin to demand the quality of the 3D and make it much better (like not having to wear the glasses, better 3D effect etc etc)
and the 3DTV's are more like around $2,000 right now, not $5,000. It's really not that bad of an asking price considering the fact that the picture quality will be top of the line as well since they are the newest tv's. 

@danimal_furry: I'd argue that 3D video games are the greater evil right now. I'm sure the Giant Bomb fellas would have something to say about this, but game plot lines have been in a state of steady decline (titles like Mass Effect excluded) for quite some time now and 3D is just another gimmicky crutch to prop up ailing studios. Oh, and my eyes hurt like hell after watching that screen for about 20 seconds.

30% colour loss. 20% price hike.
 
No thank you.

@TwoOneFive: 
@wiII:

We'll see. But the polarized glasses stuff is not new. It's been around since the 80's. I remember seeing movies with those glasses at least 20 years ago (and more recently at Busch Gardens). The technology delivering the pictures to the screen has changed. But, like I said, we will see. I'd love to see new formats of movies and television start taking hold. Let's just say my hopes are not very high.

 
As for the cost of the televisions, yeah they are about 2000 to 4000 dollars. But, the glasses are pricey, and who wants to have one of these TVs to just sit around alone and watch. Also, they typically work best from a head-on view. The connection and service price adds even more cost. Assuming you have at least 4 friends plus any family that would want to watch sports and movies (which is about the only thing worth watching on these new TVs right now) at your house, the price starts getting pretty extreme for the typical American consumer to justify. 
 
I'm not questioning the greatness of the technology. I'm simply stating that this 3D stuff is a passing fancy. Once the newness wears off, there might be a few movies here and there that are made in 3D quality. For the most part, it's just going to be an activity people might take advantage of when they have a few extra bucks... like it was in past versions of 3D.

Nothing bores me more than 3D. The enjoyment I take from a movie comes from the movie itself, which might explain why I had to give myself a heart massage every 10 minutes when I went to see Avatar. Also, I don't see how I could benefit from watching a romcom or drama in 3D, and that's the idea Cameron was talking about. Meryl Streep rolling dough with Steve Martin right in my face? Al Pacino dancing with Gabrielle Anwar, right in my face? Boy, that sounds so exciting.

I'm also not too fond of getting my ass blow-dried or smelling a dead skunk when watching a movie, though at least in that situation I know how the experience can be enhanced.

@Matt:
Good point. Imagine all the cross-eyed kids that would be walking around the mall, after they played a five hour tournament of Halo: 3D Chronicles.

@Matt said:

" @danimal_furry: I'd argue that 3D video games are the greater evil right now. I'm sure the Giant Bomb fellas would have something to say about this, but game plot lines have been in a state of steady decline (titles like Mass Effect excluded) for quite some time now and 3D is just another gimmicky crutch to prop up ailing studios. Oh, and my eyes hurt like hell after watching that screen for about 20 seconds. "

shit, if Killzone 3 looks and plays awesome in 3D, i couldn't care less about the story- games should always be about the gameplay first, graphics second, then the story third. 

@Matt 
 
You clearly don't understand how 3D games work.  It  takes practically no effort to make a game 3D.   After all the game is already a fully rendered 3D world, it is just being displayed on a 2D screen and rendering only one perspective.   All that is needed is to render the two perspective (aka left & right eye) and a TV to display them so it is entirely a hardware limitation.   For example, little indie games like Zeno Clash, or the even smaller Zombie Driver totally work in 3D on PC.  Do you think the developer of Zombie Driver ($10 steam download) spent any time making it work in 3D,  NO, they didn't but guess what, IT WORKS!  with no effort, just a nvidia driver, and the right hardware and that's it!   The same thing goes for animated movies, they just need to render a second perspective to give you the left and right eyes perspectives.  So keep on trying to shoot it down, but try to educate yourself on how this works before you make completely false statements.
 
Also this is entirely a opinionated statement, but I think you are totally wrong and game stories are getting better and better every year.....  Uncharted 2 anyone, you said it your self, mass effect 2, so far I am liking red dead.  Story in games is just fine.

@danimal_furry said:

" @Matt: Good point. Imagine all the cross-eyed kids that would be walking around the mall, after they played a five hour tournament of Halo: 3D Chronicles. "

I played 5 hours of Just Cause 2 in 3D last night and I am just fine.   Keep on hating guys, mean while I'll be in a full 3D stunt position flying through the jungle.    The immersion you get from games in 3D is amazing.  Take a game like Batman AA,  the detective vision in 3D is SICK looking, seeing through walls but having that depth there is very impressive and also adds to the game because of the better sense of distance.   Really improves racing games.

@wiII:
Hahahaha! Is it on a gamepad now? :)

@danimal_furry said:

" @wiII: Hahahaha! Is it on a gamepad now? :) "

Yeah, most games work with a gamepad, since I play on a big screen and sofa I usually go for gamepad.   But a game like Bad Company 2 I'll play with a mouse and keyboard. 

@wiII:
I meant power pad. The little gimmick for video games in the 80's where you acted like you were a ninja... in the jungle. I was busy with work. :)  
 
I'm not arguing with you, dude. Just stating that I don't think has a set place yet. Sure it's cool. It makes pictures look real! Games are that much more immersive. You clearly have a vested interest in the technology, so your view isn't exactly objective. I have no feeling either way about it, so I'm not a hater. There's no feud here. If the 3D stuff has a long and fruitful future then I'll get into it down the road. If not, I haven't wasted my time on a fad.

@TwoOneFive:   Thank you, and to take it even further, I bought a 3D TV like 3 or 4 years ago for $1800.     Granted it anit a "3D Ready" branded TV that seems to be the new standard that will work with cable boxes and what not, but it tottaly does 3D 120hz sequencial frame sync and it works like a  bad ass with a gaming PC and nvidia's glasses.    I could care less about 3D movies in my home, but games are slick as hell to play in 3D.

@danimal_furry said:

" @wiII: I meant power pad. The little gimmick for video games in the 80's where you acted like you were a ninja... in the jungle. I was busy with work. :) "

keep on hating, but your leaps in logic are very far off the mark.   Leaping around on a pad can't hold a candle to what a 3D display can offer in a game. 

@Ghostiet said:

"I'm also not too fond of getting my ass blow-dried or smelling a dead skunk when watching a movie, though at least in that situation I know how the experience can be enhanced."

Those, sir, sound like the words of a man whose never had a good ass blow drying.

@Matt said:

" @Ghostiet said:

"I'm also not too fond of getting my ass blow-dried or smelling a dead skunk when watching a movie, though at least in that situation I know how the experience can be enhanced."

Those, sir, sound like the words of a man whose never had a good ass blow drying. "

And they are. I would only not resist the opportunity if it came with smelling an ogre's butt.

@danimal_furry said:

" @wiII: I meant power pad. The little gimmick for video games in the 80's where you acted like you were a ninja... in the jungle. I was busy with work. :)   I'm not arguing with you, dude. Just stating that I don't think has a set place yet. Sure it's cool. It makes pictures look real! Games are that much more immersive. You clearly have a vested interest in the technology, so your view isn't exactly objective. I have no feeling either way about it, so I'm not a hater. There's no feud here. If the 3D stuff has a long and fruitful future then I'll get into it down the road. If not, I haven't wasted my time on a fad. "

In that case I totally agree but referencing the Powerpad came across as kinda a troll move.  so yeah this aint a main stream thing yet.   As far as I can see we are on the fringe of it and one little push and it's main stream.   And yeah I am bias, but I honestly do understand the preference of 2D vs 3D, some people for one reason or another will never like it and that's OK.  But my big thing I want to get across is we don't have to be afraid of going 3D cause with a simple flip of a switch you are right back in 2D, and it is really that simple.    The 120hz needed is already in HDTV's and its here stay because of smoothing techniques, add a sync port and you've got a 3D TV.  Going 3D is a bonus and the 2D option will always be there, just like if you want to pay for a surround sound set up you can, but if not the TV speakers will do fine.  

@wiII:
Hey, I have a few things to say 
1) I'm sorry if I sounded like a troll. That is the last thing I want to do. It was a lame attempt to sound funny.
2) I am very happy we can agree on the same thing... but not all the same things. 
3) You write well about what you know. While I may not agree with the actual statements, you bring many great arguments and counters into play. You are good, and I respect that. 
4) I would halfway expect you to be my real personal friend, who is also named Will. He's the first to get the new technology stuff... and he defends it to the end. You that guy. He plays music anywhere in his house through his I-Phone.

5) I like the 3D stuff for real. to stay with the original argument, I really see it the way you probably do in movie form. The studios always do the normal film, and then convert. It is too expensive for them to make James Cameron 3D style movies. And conversions are lame. Which is what started the whole argument. Once people see that basic movies in 3D are cheaply done, the whole thing is tits up. Either that or we end up paying 30 dollars to see a lame movie about some girl and guy who hate each other but get married in the end. But it will be in 3D. The TV thing may stick around... until hologram type stuff... but 3D in general? I don't know.
6) I'm gonna follow you on this page, because you impress me with your arguments... and lack of ability to let it be. :)