3D movies in cinemas aren't bad, if they're specifically filmed to be 3D. There's a huge difference in actual 3D movies, and movies that had a 3D effect added in post production.
At home the technology simply isn't there to make it convenient to the user. 3D as it is right now doesn't make sense because it's more of a hassle than anything else.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;39153510]seeing as TVs keep increasing their refresh rate (i saw a 200hz TV the other day...) probably not[/QUOTE]
I saw one claiming 600hz in Best Buy a couple years ago. I'm not sure what was behind it, but it did look almost smooth as life, it was a really strange but neat feeling.
[QUOTE=Silikone;39154383]Why the hate? It's not like you HAVE to watch the movies in 3D.[/QUOTE]
You do when you cinema only screens the movie in 2D once a day at 11am for 3 days then stops showing it. Puts me off the cinema completely.
How convenient that I am writing an essay on the evolution of 3D and i'm up to the 3dtv section
[QUOTE=Silikone;39154383]Why the hate? It's not like you HAVE to watch the movies in 3D.[/QUOTE]
hobbit 48 fps was only in 3D
I don't know about TVs (only tried it like, once? With those battery powered glasses at a sony store) but 3D in cinemas is really cool, maybe 3D will move on to be another benefit of going to the cinema besides the big screen and junk food.
[editline]9th January 2013[/editline]
Also they could show all movies in 3D but let people choose between watching them in 2D or 3D (with a separate box of glasses with the same polarization in each eye) if they want to be grumpy and fear the future or whatever's wrong with them
[QUOTE=Swebonny;39153383]I've never seen a 3d movie or used a 3d tv. How does it even look like? Like those blue/red 3d pictures?[/QUOTE]
watch Hugo in 3D. it's pretty much the only movie that directly benefits from the 3D technology.
Still good in 2D because the shots aren't in your face and "obviously filmed for 3D" like most films are these days...
Television broadcasters are preferring working on 2k/4k and 8k resolutions for TV rather than 3D. Out of the 26 million odd viewers in the UK for Olympics 3D viewing, only about 110k watched it and reports of Canal dropping their 3D channel due to very low audiences. Reckon we'll see 3D continue to evolve in Cinema but we'll see more evolution in higher resolutions in television instead.
[QUOTE=Krahn;39153031]... But I actually liked the 3D.
My PC Monitor has 3D support and it really works well in games. Looking down a mountain in Skyrim is breathtaking.
Then again, I don't use it THAT much.[/QUOTE]
3D on computer monitors is a good thing if you ask me, but on TV its just silly
Good. I hate 3D. Not because it isn't cool, but because the glasses give me a headache, and because stupid shit is just thrown all into a 3D movie, even if it doesn't fit, just to take advantage of 3D. Then when you watch it like a normal person, you see all these made for 3D scenes and that's what you think. Oh look, this shot is here for the sole purpose of taking advantage of 3D. Too bad it looks stupid and out of place
Last week I got myself a big screen LG TV, It happened to be polarized 3D which I don't plan on using, but it was a fantastic deal even with no 3D.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;39153510]seeing as TVs keep increasing their refresh rate (i saw a 200hz TV the other day...) probably not[/QUOTE]
As far as I know, LCD's still haven't really broken 120hz officially. Most of those 240hz, 480hz, etc are 'Sub field drive" where it's internal processing at that speed to help with the response time in the pixels, when the screen is still refreshing 120 times per second.
my dad got a 3d tv recently and the 3d in the new Asscreed looks wicked, i'd rather see a movie in 2d in theatres. but it's a nice feature to have around.
3D is in no way gone, it's just standard. Why promote something that's standard?
I managed to get a hold of a 55" Samsung 3D TV with the 2D-3D conversion for a relatively cheap price of $1500. I used it for all my PC gaming and movies. Since I'm someone who can watch 3D for hours with no problem, I loved it. Granted, it wasn't perfect all the time, but it was still nice to have. As for the people that hate 3D TVs, you don't have to watch it in 3D.
If we make it so that, in games, I won't need glasses and it won't completely obliterate the FPS rate, it might be useful.
Depth perception is extremely useful in, for instance, racing games.
[QUOTE=Scot;39156031]3D is in no way gone, it's just standard. Why promote something that's standard?[/QUOTE]
3D TVs aren't standard at all.
Just wait for the oculus rift
yeah fuck 3d and high-framerates and innovation
You won't be missed
[QUOTE=Rusty100;39153433]Good, I hope this high-framerate thing goes the same way. Only sooner.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I love it when my movies are blurry and my monitor starts tearing to fuck any time I hit 61FPS.
Movies I'm not too miffed about, I'd like to see 48FPS become the new standard but I don't care. 120hz monitors, on the other hand, need to hurry up and become commonplace.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39156525]Yeah I love it when my movies are blurry and my monitor starts tearing to fuck any time I hit 61FPS[/QUOTE]
He'll probably like it when its used by something other than The Hobbit.
[QUOTE=Wormy;39153143]I am okay with this because I will never be able to experience 3D with my eyes anyway.[/QUOTE]
it's not that great anyway
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;39156544]He'll probably like it when its used by something other than The Hobbit.[/QUOTE]
The Hobbit was all glowy or something, it was a disastrous display of filmmaking
[QUOTE=Kljunas;39156288]3D TVs aren't standard at all.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much every new TV is 3D capable.
[editline]9th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;39156525]Movies I'm not too miffed about, I'd like to see 48FPS become the new standard but I don't care. 120hz monitors, on the other hand, need to hurry up and become commonplace.[/QUOTE]
Are 120Hz monitors actually worth it?
[QUOTE=Brt5470;39155527]As far as I know, LCD's still haven't really broken 120hz officially. Most of those 240hz, 480hz, etc are 'Sub field drive" where it's internal processing at that speed to help with the response time in the pixels, when the screen is still refreshing 120 times per second.[/QUOTE]
There are a number of screens capable of both 120 and 144 hz. 144 is better for 3D viewing of 24 fps things because of the whole divisible by 48 thing allowing 3 refreshes per eye per frame.
But, yes, you are right. Nothing really exists past 144 for consumer stuff at present. To be fair though, until 48 fps becomes normal for movies, there won't be much push for anything higher, and it's probably just going to be 192, which allows for 2 refreshes per eye per frame.
I have only seen one movie in 3D and it was fucking exhausting enough for my eyes that I'll never support current 3D technologies
My dad bought a 3D TV for his "basement room" where he basically lives and eats (and the TV was all just for himself, he's the only one that ever is in there), I had watched movies on it here and there and the 3D wasn't all that damn great. He flushed so much money down the toilet with it and he'll never fully realize it.
[QUOTE=Scot;39156646]Are 120Hz monitors actually worth it?[/QUOTE]
I can see a distinct difference. Not everyone can.
Your best bet is to find someone who has one, play a game or something at 120/60Hz refresh rates, and see if you can tell the difference. Just have your friend swap them around randomly before hand without you knowing which one is being shown.
Even if you cannot see a difference, there is a few millisecond reduction in input delay, which is never a bad thing if you want to play games extremely seriously. Definitely not worthwhile for everyone though.
[editline]9th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kalibos;39157241]I have only seen one movie in 3D and it was fucking exhausting enough for my eyes that I'll never support current 3D technologies[/QUOTE]
What movie? If it wasn't shot with stereoscopic techniques, it's going to be a migrane inducing piece of ass.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;39152975]You didn't need glasses to see what fate was in store for 3D.[/QUOTE]
Well I did because I needed them to read about what was going on.
I don't know why people are cheering because of this. Just because you don't necessarily enjoy 3D yourself, doesn't mean that all 3D TVs should go. Let's just have the option, right?
I work in Denmark's largest cinema, and while we have the option to see the hobbit in both 2D, 3D and 3D HFR, the 3D HFR version is the most popular. Then comes the 3D version, then the 2D one. I don't personally enjoy 3D that much (though The Hobbit in 3D HFR was definitely very enjoyable), it's obvious that many people like it, and if we continued to build on the technology, we would probably end up with a product many people would enjoy.
It should probably be said that 2D is the cheapest option, with the 3D HFR being the most expensive.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
