• Facts about 3D TV
    77 replies, posted
I already have a 65in DLP tv with the 3d shit, not a big fucking deal.
We've had 3D TVs at work for years. We still have one sitting in the box in the storage area for some reason. [editline]11:20PM[/editline] We do 3D simulations for schools, so that's why we have them.
3D gives me head aches:(
I can't see 3D :saddowns:
More excited about the Quatron than this. Maybe it's because Sulu is advertising it, but I don't think he'd lie to me.
6d tv :d
I think it would hurt my eyes.
The only real source for 1080P is Blu Ray. The only source for 3d tv is Blu Ray. I'm sensing a trend...a "not really worth spending the extra money on it" trend. That's not even factoring in the "dude, come over and watch the Super Bowl with us in 3d! Uh, you DO have your own glasses right, they're only $150." problem.
I noticed that when I saw avatar in 3D, I needed to focus more to be able to watch the movie. Generally speaking, when you focus your eyes more; you blink less. Is it going to damage our eyes more watching in 3D, as opposed to regular television?
[QUOTE=Vonderdurp;20969397]I noticed that when I saw avatar in 3D, I needed to focus more to be able to watch the movie. Generally speaking, when you focus your eyes more; you blink less. Is it going to damage our eyes more watching in 3D, as opposed to regular television?[/QUOTE] It's how the gubmint's going to control our minds :tinfoil:
If they make the glasses comfortable, I'm getting one of these things. :v:
[url]http://www.iz3d.com/products[/url] I'm pretty sure this is like what you get at the theaters. IE the glasses aren't super expensive. The one's on their site are $15. Just like the ones from theaters. This is the direction we need to be going for 3d, not this other on shown in this thread. The IZ3D method is MUCH more cost effective. [editline]02:01AM[/editline] [url]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824859001[/url] if you are sold.
[QUOTE=Spacewolf;20959300]In the future, everything will be 3D. Even real life. That's some crazy shit.[/QUOTE] Judging by how life has been the last, oh, 10 years, i'm sure it will be pretty one-dimensional in the future.
Can we have a new gimmick 3d's boring already.
[QUOTE=RusMar;20959173]Everything is in 3D now a days, I'm not really much of a fan. I mean it was cool every once in a while but I don't want to see it in every movie I go out and see now.[/QUOTE] Oh, I disagree. It's not in every movie you're just exaggerating. Ok, the 3D in Alice In Wonderland was pointless. The 3D in Avatar, however? Worth it on every level to the point where if you watch it without the lighting and effects it's just shit. There are lots of films without the 3D
As a film student, and a director, I don't like this in so many ways. 3D is so prevelent now, it's going to become so popular, and do to the expense of doing it, it'll be hard for us "amateurs" to do anything in terms of 3D movies and be taken seriously by studios. Not to mention, for anyone who just went through film school, and is going through it now, you're going to have to go back to relearn some bullshit tricks and tips about angles, lighting, and depth because all that shit has changed. I've done two small movies that have tried, and totally failed(I was just camera-manning/lighting director) because of how fucking complicated, and ass backwards all things are when you start doing 3D. Yeah, it's good for a change, but it's going to take forever to get used to this bullshit, and start thinking in a new frame of mind in order to do movies well. Hell, almost no director i've seen besides Cameron has done this 3D shit right. Avatar was a piss poor film, but it was technologically gorgeous, and from the perspective of cameras angles and lighting, was amazing and I think we'll be taking hints from that for a while now sadly. Either way, I think 3D sucks for the time being, and it's going to take some time for some good, truly well done movies to utilize it. I have plenty of ideas that could be filmed in full 3D, but the sad thing is, no matter how well planned out they are, you really need the money to do 3D, and you need special editors who aren't retarded to work on it.
Imagine watching porn "WATCH OUT THERES A GIANT PENIS [I]COMING[/I] TOWARDS US"
It's not real 3D if you view it on a 2D plane (which is exactly what an LCD is). It's merely "Simulated 3D".
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;20971976]As a film student, and a director, I don't like this in so many ways. 3D is so prevelent now, it's going to become so popular, and do to the expense of doing it, it'll be hard for us "amateurs" to do anything in terms of 3D movies and be taken seriously by studios. Not to mention, for anyone who just went through film school, and is going through it now, you're going to have to go back to relearn some bullshit tricks and tips about angles, lighting, and depth because all that shit has changed. I've done two small movies that have tried, and totally failed(I was just camera-manning/lighting director) because of how fucking complicated, and ass backwards all things are when you start doing 3D. Yeah, it's good for a change, but it's going to take forever to get used to this bullshit, and start thinking in a new frame of mind in order to do movies well. Hell, almost no director i've seen besides Cameron has done this 3D shit right. Avatar was a piss poor film, but it was technologically gorgeous, and from the perspective of cameras angles and lighting, was amazing and I think we'll be taking hints from that for a while now sadly. Either way, I think 3D sucks for the time being, and it's going to take some time for some good, truly well done movies to utilize it. I have plenty of ideas that could be filmed in full 3D, but the sad thing is, no matter how well planned out they are, you really need the money to do 3D, and you need special editors who aren't retarded to work on it.[/QUOTE] So you say new tech is bad because you have to learn new tricks? That's retarded. But this 3d tv is a bullshit anyway.
[QUOTE=pentium;20972981]It's not real 3D if you view it on a 2D plane (which is exactly what an LCD is). It's merely "Simulated 3D".[/QUOTE] It works the same way in the movie theater.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;20973052]It works the same way in the movie theater.[/QUOTE] We know, and that's why it's not real 3d there either.
[QUOTE=NO ONE;20959512]Ah, yes, 3D! You can read a shitton of (useful) info on 3D on [url=http://hd.engadget.com/]Engadget HD[/url]. That's where I find out almost everything about TV's and shit. But my question is: if companies can produce a 3D 50 inch TV that cost under $2000, why can't they make a 50 inch OLED for under $2000?![/QUOTE] Because there's a diffrence in technology between having 2 screens on one tv showing 2 slightly different pictures and replacing LCD with OLED.
That's fine and all but I'll have to pass for now. Call me when you start working on [img]http://fusionfilter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/holodeck.jpg[/img]
Wait, you need to buy a NEW bluray player for 3d movies? Is the ps3 compatible with these "special" 3d bluray movies?
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;20959559]Can you imagine real life at 1080p? :v:[/QUOTE] Instantly thought of; [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKYKyIObXyM[/media]
[QUOTE=johanz;20973031]So you say new tech is bad because you have to learn new tricks? That's retarded. But this 3d tv is a bullshit anyway.[/QUOTE] Yes, and no. You misunderstand. 3D sucks because no one will have the ability to make truly great films utilizing it to it's full potential because they have to relearn and re-adapt, that's why all the 3D movies now are going to suck. It's just going to be years of shitty films because no one will try to adapt, then years more of shitty films because when they finally figure it out, they'll suck at it. Years later, we might start getting your average, and decent film made in 3D actually doing it right. That's what I mean.
I am sure my eyes would bleed with a 3D television.
[QUOTE=meppers;20974231]Wait, you need to buy a NEW bluray player for 3d movies? Is the ps3 compatible with these "special" 3d bluray movies?[/QUOTE] It will be thanks to a firmware update sometime this year, it'll also allow 3D games that have been published to be updated and played in 3D if possible on your TV. Same with the Xbox 360.
I played a game in 3D. Actually it was the [I]Avatar[/I] game. Aside from the fact that game is shit anyway, the experience itself was also shit. People near me (it was at a show) were like "omg the graphix look so awesume"... blurry =/= awesome. Games have depth-of-field, the eye has natural depth-of-field, I don't need more headache-inducing blur in my media.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;20976164]I played a game in 3D. Actually it was the [I]Avatar[/I] game. Aside from the fact that game is shit anyway, the experience itself was also shit. People near me (it was at a show) were like "omg the graphix look so awesume"... blurry =/= awesome. Games have depth-of-field, the eye has natural depth-of-field, I don't need more headache-inducing blur in my media.[/QUOTE] I've seen, and heard of demo's and full gaming rigs playing Metro 2033 in full 3D and that that game is amazing in 3D. I think games, if they go the way of this 3D bullshit will be a polarizing experience, either extremely good and enjoyable, or totally trashy and ruining every experience it gets its hands on.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.