Topic: 3D everything...is it good?

I think the glasses thing is a problem simply because it's just a pain in the arse. I can't be doing with having to put a pair of glasses on every time I want to watch the TV and keeping a ton of spare glasses incase I have guests for a movie night or the post pub multiplayer gaming session.

I think they're fine for the cinema because you're just paying to see a single 3D film - it's a novelty. There's no way in my home, though. Besides the only good 3D film I've seen is Avatar - the rest have been terrible. Especially Alice in Wonderland - I'd have thought my glasses weren't working if it wasn't for some more effective 3D logos in the trailers earlier on.

The last 3D movie I saw was Up, and it was disappointing (the 3D, not the film).

Thank you! Essentially, this is what i have been trying to say and i havent been able to say it all at once in an ideal way. This is what i'm talking about, hats off to ya

@vonseux i don't get it lol, i obviously don't but what do you mean by your point there?

Apart from CGI flicks and some of the action-blockbuster films, 3D is not going to be used in serious films any time in the foreseeable future. Recent technological upgrades like Blu-Ray have been able to rely on film buffs to purchase the new equipment and drive sales, but not this time. In fact, Blu-Ray / HD upgrading offers you a new way to see classic films in even greater glory, once they are remastered for the new medium. 3D offers nothing there. It's a huge amount of expense for something that only will impact a very small percentage of what you watch.

Until we have actual hologram people walking around us, I don't think I'd ever be interested, though in fairness I've only ever seen anything in 3D when I was kid at Disney World and saw that Muppets 3D thing.

It's funny because I've had no interest in Blu-Ray whatsoever, but I'm very interested in 3D. I actually don't think Blu-Ray can really improve the image quality of classic films over DVD, and I think it's mainly only a benefit for present-day films (which I have little interest in because I'm so bored with the industry). If you watch a lot of classic films they're usually filled with loads of defects, and they can only fix them so much, so remastering them for Blu-Ray probably won't do a whole lot except possibly make all the defects more apparent. DVD to Blu-Ray seems like just a minor advance compared with going from 2D to 3D, so I have much more interest in putting money down for 3D than I do for Blu-Ray.

The biggest problem with the glasses (aside from just having to wear them which is a bit annoying - especially if you have a prescription already) is that they're so damn expensive. Outside of one TV from LG which uses the less impressive passive 3D tech that uses the same throwaway specs you get in the theatre the glasses are syncing wirelessly with the TVs and cost £60-100 and not all TVs will even include one pair, let alone several for you and your friends to watch a bit of telly.

Seriously even if that price comes down by half are you willing to pay the equivalent of the price of a Wii Remote just so you can watch TV?

That depends on the film; I've seen cases like what you're describing, where the Blu-Ray version simply shows flaws with the film itself and doesn't create a much better experience overall. If handled correctly as part of a careful restoration and remastering, though, the transition to Blu-Ray can often produce much richer colors, better contrast, and more detail, even out of films several decades old. It varies, to be sure, but I have several that look far better than I've ever seen the films.

My point was that 3D can only be useful for a very small percentage of films, even out of those newly produced. I also find, on an aesthetic level, that 3D is not a direct improvement over 2D, and in fact completely negates or distorts a good bit of the framing, shot composition, and photography work that is so important in film.

@Vonseux oh ok haha agreed xD but who doesnt want to walk around their house when the sun is shining through the windows wearing their dim 3D glasses indoors to negate the sunlight, i mean seriously, WHO DOESNT ?
But other than the aesthetics of what it looks like to wear, there is more to it than that because seriously now that sean has even stated how expensive they can be when just buying 1 pair, and assuming you have more than 1 person other than yourself that you know in this world...why should you put so much money down for technology like this thats not really changing a whole lot and just tacking on a higher price tag. I know people can say just don't buy 3D when it comes out, but then again we also know how once its here to stay even though you don't have to buy it, the world will change their media in a way that does not benefit having 2D at all.

The only way everything will change is if everyone buys into it. The only media supporting it appears to be limited to some broadcast and very few films exclusive to BluRay and PS3 which puts it firmly into a pretty small niche category.

I cannot see BluRay becoming mainstream enough to drive this technology; without it I don't see Hollywood eager to push it since 3D actually seems to be getting people back to the cinema again (maybe). I give it a few years by which time the auto-stereoscopic technology (used in the 3DS) will likely replace this overpriced stopgap. In any event any displays sold in future will have the ability to turn the 3D off even if it does become standard, so you still won't have to adapt to it.

I still see no point to it at all: it's purely trickery - a special effect that doesn't actually add anything to gameplay or film (yes, I'm pissing on the 3DS here) beyond the spectacle. Call me when you have holographic projectors actually creating 3D images you can reach into and interact with (and even then I'd probably still rather play Pac-Man, though the prospect of virtual board games without the board is an interesting one); until then I'll pass.

Please visit the following link as I hope it is a sign that we will see Epic Mickey on the Nintendo 3DS.

http://go.gaj-it.com/?id=318X548&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%...

^ Lol semi- off topic tokyo, make a thread of that if you choose i guess, what are your actual views on the 3D though? epic mickey aside lol

I wear spectacles. I would NEVER wear contact lenses for my life. The glasses even compliment my looks, even though they're just simple thin rounded-rectangular frames.

3D everything... so long as we still have the option left to us, I'd say it's okay. But I'll just leave it on 3D to scare my li'l cousin when the pixels fly out at him!