The best argument against 3-D.

kuntasensei

Saw this and thought it was the clearest explanation I've ever seen of why 3-D shouldn't be the focus. Kudos for saying it, Walter Murch! Mad respect!
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

On3s&Z3r0s

Word! It didn't take me long to get fed up... I'm there. Avatar's 3D was an interesting novelty. Tron's 3D was irritating and, since they insisted on switching back and forth between 2D and 3D, distracting. In the showing of Tron I saw there was a 3D trailer for Green Hornet, which apparently both Ebert and Murch didn't like. The 3D just looked terrible in that. And it wasn't just cause it was a trailer. The 3D trailer for the new Pirates of the Caribbean flick looked decent, but I'll still see that in 2D if I see it in a theater at all.

treitz3

Damn. That's my main gripe with 3-D. If they can't fix it, I'll never own it.

cnh

Interesting read! I've had problems with my brief demos of new 3D TVs. So has my daughter (teenager). And new research suggests that if you're younger than 6 years of age this could have a NEGATIVE impact on the development of parts of your brain associated with vision? Not a good thing!

SO, I'm waiting for the Holodeck version!

cnh

joeyf

I'm not a fan of 3D. In theory, it is really cool, and occasionally it is fun, but my complaint is that the picture quality is lacking. I've messed with demos at stores and seen a few 3D movies in the theater. I have to say, the images are jittery, not as clear as the 2D versions and just not very realistic looking.

Kudos for someone in the industry finally speaking out!

Knucklehead

Good article.....Im a fan of 3D......................when Im at Disney World, simply for the "whoa...thats cool factor". Ive demo'd it at various stores, to me its very gimmicky at best for home use. I have trouble keeping a pair of sunglasses on my head while Im driving much less a heavy pair of glasses on my head while Im tying to enjoy a movie.

Anybody remember the movie "The Jerk" with Steve Martin when everyone that wore his glasses went cross-eyed? Thats what is going to happen to 3D users...:biggrin:

ben62670

Back in the 80's Friday the 13th was killer in 3D. I went to Imax to see Open Season3D and it was decent... Recently we saw Chronicles of Narnia in 3D. It sucked. I am going to pass on 3D unless it gets stellar reviews. As for Home I am going to wait till projectors can throw a good 3D pic. IMHO real good 3D isn't that detrimental, but crappy 3D makes your eyes screwy.

steveinaz

Who needs a good argument, "3-D" is a fad, nothing more.

ben62670

HeHe so is the GUI and the mouse just ask IBM They will get 3D right eventually.

Bababouey

it is stupid

mdaudioguy

3D is being sold to us as "the next step" in video entertainment. We're being told we should desire it, but personally, I have no interest whatsoever in it. Like said above, fun at an amusement park. I'd much rather enjoy TV, sports, and movies in a stunning, 2D HD picture, with surround sound, as I already do.

The problem is, I don't need a new TV, but the manufacturers would really like to sell me one!

steveinaz

3-D is the kind of thing that is novel once in a awhile, but not something I want to watch all the time. It'll be the SACD of the video world--at best.

treitz3

Bababouey wrote: »

it is stupid

Well, I wouldn't exactly say that. It's pretty cool with some applications. The jitter is what gets me. Kinda like moving forward 20 years with technology, only to digress to something that hasn't been an issue since the introduction of digital TV. It's a bummer to me that they can't correct it.

One application it would be awesome for, IMO, would be for still frame photos. Think....Grand Canyon, mountain landscapes, concerts and the like.

obieone

I finally got to a BB where the display was working, and....eh? It certainly didn't wow me enough to re-invest another $2k in my system.
I think it's just sad, that Holyweird has to rely on gimmicks, instead of just making good movies.

exalted512

I saw Avatar in 3D and regular, I enjoyed it much more in 3D. We were due for a new TV, we went with the 3D version. 3D might be a fad, but in 5 years I firmly believe it will be hard to buy a TV that is NOT capable of 3D. Whether you use it or not is up to you.

My question is more along the lines of, what happens when TV's reach a point to where the human eye can no longer see a difference.

Like, what happens when in 10 years, we have super amoled TV's capable of 7680 x 4320 selling for $2000 (which considering inflation...) for a 72" tv.

Then what?
-Cody