I assume this kind of thing will be limited to big features. I can't Imagen reading forums/ article / talking on msn then having to grab a pair of 3d glasses quickly if a news report catches my attention.
I saw some 3D telly's on display in Kings Cross Station that didn't need glasses, was a little freaky. There was a spinning car floating in front of the TV. No idea how those ones work though and tbh I'm not fussed, prefer 2D tv.
being that i wear prescription glasses it would be annoying to wear double to see the picture clearly unless i go get my specs polarised. specsavers arent going to get more money outta me
Personally i hope this 3d TV thing will peter out or stay as an optional extra, because i can't use it myself I have one short sighted eye and one slightly long sighted one, meaning i use one eye only for close or far objects and have never had 'stereo' vision. Opticians have tried glasses on me before, but i always ended up with epic headaches from my vision flicking from one eye to the other when corrected
In what way did 3D greatly enhance Avatar, other than the mere fact that it was in 3D? If it had been released in 2D only, would it still have been a great movie, effectively standing on its own merits as a good story, with good acting, good direction, etc.? I believe that a lot of the hype surrounding Avatar is simply the fact that it is in 3D. For all the hype it's getting, Avatar hasn't done anything particularly new nor revolutionary. Robert Zemeckis combined motion capture animation and 3D back in 2004 with The Polar Express - he even released it in IMAX. I still haven't been able to get a solid answer from anyone I know to explain exactly why the 3D aspect made Avatar such a revolutionary film. I read an article on NPR that I think sums it up well: the movie that gets a Special Oscar for 3D isn't going to be the one that relies on gee-whiz special effects; it will be the film that pulls off 3D without it. As I said before, 3D may finally be catching on in the cinema, where the experience is limited. I'm still not convinced that it's ready for prime time television. I understand that the PS3 will get a firmware upgrade soon, but it still requires a 3D-capable display to view the picture correctly. As I pointed out, a lot of people have just spent a couple thousand dollars on brand new HDTVs. I just can't see a large population running out to buy yet another new TV, plus a couple extra pairs of glasses for the rest of the family (as well a couple spare sets for when friends come over), just because Hollywood decided that 3D is the next big thing. Remember when Laserdisc was the next big thing? In addition, as with any "new" technology there are competing formats. This means that my glasses won't necessarily work with my friend's TV. This reaffirms the fact that I need several pair of glasses for everyone to enjoy the big game in 3D. Will this signal the next format war: active vs passive polarization? Regardless, it still means having to watch TV with some type of glasses, and that's one of the most popular complaints I've seen so far. One of my colleagues attended CES this year, and he mentioned a 3D display that doesn't require glasses. He also said that the picture quality was so poor that it makes HDTV worthless. Home electronics companies will push it, some early adopters will buy it, and Hollywood may produce a bunch of movies in 3D for the cinema (and most likely they'll all be crap). But, when it comes to the living room I just don't think it's finally here to stay.
The 3D adds a greater sense of immersion to the film in the same way that surround sound does. I'm an AV nut, i like big screens and surround sound so i have these in my house and i like watching my films this way. My friends don't have these and happily watch their films in stereo but if we watch a film at my house they always comment on how cool the surround sound is. 3D, surround sound or special effects do not make a bad movie better but they do all add to the experience. I would compare this to the games industry. Graphics do not make a good game but they can help immerse you into it. 3D for the film industry will be like 3D was for the games industry, it will take a while for the industry to use it properly but i think it will become the established norm eventually. I agree with you that a lot of people will not want to buy a new TV during a recession and thats the challenge the hardware and content providers are going to have to meet. In some ways i think 3D will be an easier sell as it is immediately apparent that its different compared to HD where some people claim they see no difference in picture quality.
If they have 3D TVs without the requirement for glasses or creating massive headaches afterwards, then hey, I'm all for it.
Surround sound, cool, 3D, cool. But the problem is that most games are utter garbage, couple that along with the fact that 3D costs far too much anyways. It's not a good combination.
Nope, just the benefits of having a 'woman', that does all the good bits, and doesn't say or do any of the crap bits
