Forgot your password?

When it comes to 3D TV:

Displaying poll results.
I have a 3d TV, am satisfied with the content
  369 votes / 1%
I have a 3d TV, am not satisfied with the content
  1328 votes / 3%
Don't have one, because the content is weak
  3514 votes / 10%
Don't care about 3d (and / or TV)
  25570 votes / 74%
Can't afford 3d (and / or TV)
  2135 votes / 6%
I lost an eye from watching too much TV!
  1285 votes / 3%
34201 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When it comes to 3D TV:

Comments Filter:
  • 3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _Sharp'r_ (649297) <sharper AT booksunderreview DOT com> on Thursday February 09, 2012 @10:03AM (#38980709) Homepage Journal

    3d TV as currently constituted, with glasses, etc... is just annoying.

    If they had real 3d holograms, that'd be awesome, but primitive stereoscopic seems to detract more in detail than it adds in realism.

    • Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Theophany (2519296) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @10:09AM (#38980781)
      Agree. 3D as it is just feels like an overpriced shill to compensate for already mediocre content by adding novelty value. I'll pass.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 (626475)
        Last year, I picked up one of the 59" Samsung Plasmas....it really wasn't any more for 3D than to get one that wasn't...and it came with a bundle included with 2x sets of glasses and like Shrek 1-3 in 3D, with a coupon to mail in, to get Shrek 4 and Megamind in 3D.

        I never did get around to sending in that coupon..guessing by now it is too late and expired.

        But as for the 3D part...well, that was just something to me that was pretty much incidental...I was going more for the specs on the tv, and ruling on t

        • Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tompaulco (629533) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @11:28PM (#38991607) Homepage Journal
          At least they gave you animation 3D movies. The awesome thing about animation is that you already have information about the depth of everything in the picture and you can make the whole view 3D. As opposed to live action, where basically all they can do is put special 3D effects on a couple of objects. It looks very gimicky and distracting. However, the 3D in animation is so complete that it does not distract and instead adds to the experience.
          I speak only with experience in the theater since I have no 3D TV.
          For the record, I was torn between two options that both applied. I have no interest in a 3D TV and I cannot afford a 3D TV.
          • Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Informative)

            by tirerim (1108567) on Friday February 10, 2012 @05:39PM (#38999975)
            That's only true if it was originally flimed in 2D. With a stereoscopic camera it's perfectly easy to film live action in 3D. That still doesn't make it useful or better than 2D, of course.
            • Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Informative)

              by DigiShaman (671371) on Friday February 10, 2012 @08:18PM (#39001825) Homepage

              Aside from refresh rate, a big issue in 3D cinema photography is where and when to establish a pre-defined illusion of focus. That's because with stereoscopic 3D, the entire view can have both depth and absolute clarity. That's why the 3D effect feels so cheap. To make it feel right requires as much artistic ability as the technology to make it happen.

    • Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Interesting)

      by beowulfcluster (603942) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @10:27AM (#38980989)
      I've been to one 3D movie since they started appearing. That one time was enough, it felt really uncomfortable for my eyes watching that and after the first novelty had worn off it really didn't add anything to the experience at all. No thanks.
      • Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @02:53PM (#38985451) Homepage
        After the first 10 minutes of a movie, I don't even notice if it's in black and white, let alone 3D. I really is about the story and how well the acting and directing are done.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Hungry Admin (703839)

          I totally agree. Too many movies are spending the entire budget on gratuitous special effects and the story line is merely an afterthought. This is made painfully obvious if you watch an old Alfred Hitchcock movie and then any of the recent blockbusters. Old black and white movie >> new 3D color movie.

          Other ways to wreck a film:
          comic-book colorizing (Casablanca)
          "updating" (Star Wars)

        • Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Interesting)

          by jimshatt (1002452) on Friday February 10, 2012 @06:42AM (#38993545)
          When I was a kid, I saw Star Wars for the first time on a (tiny) B-W TV (not our own, we were visiting some ppl, I dunno). I was truly (but not literally) blown away by the movie, and when I talked about it afterwards with my dad, I could have sworn I had seen the movie in full color. My dad told me it was a B-W TV and I didn't even believe him until we went there the next time.

          "No dad, Chewbacca wasn't grey!"
    • by Krneki (1192201)
      Yap, glasses and poor frame rate makes the 3D experience a pain in the ass.

      I'm all for 3D, especially gaming, but right now the technology is not there. Hell, I'm even looking in heads up display, but right now they are, obscenely expensive, got low resolution (1080p is minimum today ) and they weight too much.

    • by Pieroxy (222434)

      3d TV as currently constituted, with glasses, etc... is just annoying.

      If they had real 3d holograms, that'd be awesome, but primitive stereoscopic seems to detract more in detail than it adds in realism.

      It's definitely not perfect by any measure, but I find it an added value to traditional movies. I agree that the glasses are a distraction (and an additional cost.)

      But no, I don't find it "distracting". If the movie is worth its price, you forget about the glasses and enjoy the show. If the movie is crap... well, 3D crap is still crap.

      • I usually forget I'm watching a 3D movie - the only place I really notice it is in sprawling outdoor scenes.

        One place that I think it would work really well that I've yet to experience is in racing games. I'm tempted to get a 3D display for Gran Turismo 5 alone, and I noticed that the latest Assassin's Creed has a stereoscopic output option too. I'd prefer an autostereoscopic display for solo gaming, but they're still quite expensive.

      • Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Interesting)

        by VikingOfNorth (2570199) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @11:35AM (#38981871)

        But no, I don't find it "distracting". If the movie is worth its price, you forget about the glasses and enjoy the show. If the movie is crap... well, 3D crap is still crap.

        They spend a small fortune to add 3D features to crappy movies while they could spend a small fraction of that money to significantly improve the manuscript. Forgetting about that 3D crap could result in otherwise-not-so-crappy titles.

        • by Pieroxy (222434)

          Agreed. One other point: Movies shot in 3D are (usually) visually good, movies where 3D was added afterwards are a piece of shit.

        • Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @12:33PM (#38982825) Journal

          How do you spend money improving a script?

          Various answers, but no easy formula exists.

          How do you spend money adding 3d ?

          Duh, add in pointless things that jump out at audience and call it a day. Easy,not a difficutl thing to do

          So given the choice between spending money adding 3d features to any movie vs spending money to improve the script, you can see how bean counters would decide to choose the method that's countable.

    • Re:3d is annoying (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arth1 (260657) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @11:05AM (#38981485) Homepage Journal

      3D causes worse quality in movies. The producers and directors add "wow" effects of things coming at the audience. I do not want that - it's a frontal attack on the fourth wall, and I want to be an inviolate observer, not a target for the director's special effects. It kills my suspense of disbelief as quickly as the dance scene in a Bollywood movie.
      Add to that that the 3D effects they jam in steal time from the rest of the movie, leaving it with that much less plot.
      This is why I refuse to see 3D movies even in a 2D. Give me movies that were made for 2D.

      And, of course, the 3D quality is atrocious, with ghosting and visual issues giving headaches.

      Yes, I believe 3D has a future. But it's nowhere near that yet - at present it IS a gimmick, and is exploited as such.

      • Wow.

        Please don't disgrace Bollywood dance scenes to that of American 3D entertainment; at least one of them actually adds entertaining value to the film.

        How have you not been swept off your feet by the elegantly inserted dance of Asoka?!

      • Sound causes worse quality in movies. The producers and directors add "wow" sound effects of things coming at the audience. I do not want that - it's a frontal attack on the fourth wall, and I want to be an inviolate observer, not a target for the director's special effects. It kills my suspense of disbelief as quickly as the dance scene in a Bollywood movie.
        Add to that that the sound effects they jam in steal time from the rest of the movie, leaving it with that much less plot.
        This is why I refuse to see audio-enabled movies even in mute. Give me movies that were made for no sound.

        And, of course, the sound quality is atrocious, with low sampling rates and only five channels.

        Yes, I believe sound has a future. But it's nowhere near that yet - at present it IS a gimmick, and is exploited as such.

        yes, you sound that ridiculous.

        • Sound causes worse quality in movies.

          In what way? Sound provides extra content there is no other way of getting, like action offscreen or nuances in voice.

          (yes I know you were ATTEMPTING to be facetious).

          What does 3D add? It's not like I can shift over and see something around a door I couldn't at some other angle. It's not like there is in fact one iota more visual information than there was in 2D.

          It gives you nothing but visual candy on top of what is already there, at the expense of lowering image qua

    • I have never seen a new tech fail to sell itself to me so strongly.

      I played around with one of the 3d TV demos at the store - showing Avatar, supposedly one of the better reasons to buy a 3d TV.

      And it all looked like a cheap cardboard cutout diorama. It was distracting an unattractive.

      Maybe when they integrate head tracking I'll be interested... but I just don't see the point for movies. For games... maybe.

      • Re:3d is annoying (Score:4, Insightful)

        by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @11:52PM (#38991793) Journal

        Maybe when they integrate head tracking I'll be interested... but I just don't see the point for movies.

        Years ago, I went and saw the 3D IMAX movie, Wings of Courage [imdb.com]. Didn't have problems with the 3D--in fact, it arguably worked too well.

        I remember there was a scene in the film. We start low with some fruit lying on the floor. We then pan out and up to see a letter and a woman's legs. We slowly pan out to see our hero's wife sitting in shock, fear, and sorrow over having learned that her beloved husband is feared lost after crashing his airplane in the Andes.

        In 2D, this might have been a moving shot. In 3D, the tight shot transition just made me want to look up. I didn't want to move at the director's pace, I wanted to move at my own.

  • 3D movies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @10:10AM (#38980805) Homepage

    The biggest problem with the 3D movies (apart from the price) is that the glasses make the screen darker. I really can't be bothered to pay more to see it in 3D so I'm just going to go back to regular 2D.

    That said, I recommend experiencing a movie in 3D. But only once.

    • by apcullen (2504324)

      That said, I recommend experiencing a movie in 3D. But only once.

      Seconded!

    • by Xest (935314)

      I wouldn't necessarily say once, but yeah, there's a time and a place for it. Avatar was worth seeing in 3D, and although my first attempt at 3D gaming - Crysis 2 didn't seem worth it, I started playing Assassins Creed Revelations in 3D the other week and it's pretty cool, you could definitely feel the height looking down from a tall building somewhat. It's the first game I actually intend to play through in 3D.

      It's really about the quality of the content, the problem is 99% of 3D content thus far hasn't be

  • by MDillenbeck (1739920) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @10:18AM (#38980905)
    I don't care about 3D because I find most of the content to be gimmicky. Since the screen has edges that can affect the 3D presentation, where the image "pops" has to be restricted. Additionally, many producers of 3D content seem to want to emphasize it is 3D and thus come up with unnaturally choreographed scenes. However, a good story or good game is not the perception of something flying out at me - that is just special effects, which should be used to enhance an already good scene. Remember, this is just my personal opinion. To those who like 3D content that is available, I am glad they have manufacturers who support them (I understand when they don't, almost all computer companies that made tablet PCs are dropping out of the market and leaving me with only the Cintiq as an option - a very non-portable and expensive option - so I understand how one can feel when the tech you want doesn't exist).
  • by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Thursday February 09, 2012 @10:19AM (#38980911)

    Aside from the fact that some people physically suffer pain from watching 3D-TV, it just does not have anything I'd consider essential. 3-D is a gimmick today just as it was 50 years ago when they did it with the red and blue glasses.

    Companies are always trying to push the latest technology and the latest gimmick. Blu-Ray, HD-TV, 3D-TV... for the majority of people, standard def and DVDs were "good enough" for a very long time. I'm really not all that keen on re-buying all of my existing movies in 3-D, either.

    I think we've hit a technological peak of sorts with electronics. The only people who need computers more powerful than your budget level machine are the usual group of graphic designers, video editors, hardcore gamers, etc. Most people can buy the cheapest PC in a store and it'll work just fine for them. Most people will buy a 32" or so HD-TV and be satisfied with that. Lots of people are perfectly content with waiting for a movie to be $5 on Amazon or to pick up a game in the Used bin at Gamestop.

    That said, there is the concern of the willingness of corporations to leverage a combination of technology and laws (bought and paid for, of course) to try to force us to fit into their system that is paradoxically both archaic and yet changes (in the hardware sense) every 5 years. I'm sure they're not too happy that people didn't rush out to buy 3D-TVs like they did with HD -TVs or buy Blu-Rays like they bought DVDs. They're certainly not happy about people buying used/cheap movies and games.

    We're already going to see things like serial keys for console video games in the next generation. I can practically guarantee that at least one of the next-gen consoles is going to have it as a "feature" in an effort to kill the secondhand market. I wouldn't be surprised if data discs (such as movies and mundane software like MS Office) followed suit not long after. I'd be more worried if it weren't for the fact that (despite some asinine laws) we are fortunate to have a very creative and innovative community of people who derive a great deal of pleasure from breaking the latest DRM to make things way more like they should be. (Thanks, jailbreakers and friends!)

    • by g0bshiTe (596213)
      I can agree with this, and were you not modded already I'd mod you up.

      My wife and I bought a tv 16 years ago when we got married. It's worked fine for 16 years so I've never replaced it. I recently got a 42" plasma that someone gave me, the PSU blew out a resistor, so it's about a $200 fix to have a plasma. I'm going to take the leap and try it. I think it's worth $200 plus I like to tinker with stuff. I have another tv that my brother gave me that is larger than the 27" we first bought. It had grey horizo
      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by Ihmhi (1206036)

        So do I. For instance, I've been using the same computer keyboard for 12 years now. I clean it by popping up all the keys and individually washing them while they soak in a solution of dish detergent.

        Key sticks all the time? File it down so it fits in the slot better.

        Lost an important, non-conductive piece that kept two circuit boards from contacting and shorting out? I replaced that bitch with a piece of a bendy straw.

        Keys occasionally stick (even though mechanically they're fine)? Skin oils, soda, grease

        • by 93,000 (150453)

          Exactly. Worst case scenario -- it's still effed up after you tried to fix it. Nothing is lost, and you more than likely learned something.

    • by Nemyst (1383049) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @01:11PM (#38983515) Homepage

      I'll be honest, I'm a sucker for graphical fidelity. Call me shallow if you will, but I like seeing dazzling effects in games, movies, etc. I think they enhance the experience and that you can enjoy them on their own. A trash film with good special effects can be enjoyable and I'm not the least bit ashamed to admit that. The visual spectacle can be worth the admission price (think the first Transformers, Avatar, etc.).

      Hence, I've welcomed the arrival of truly high definition video with open arms. Give me 1080p footage, give me greater depth and better compression algorithms so that the original footage is as pristine as possible. Give me cutting edge CGI, superb post-processing. I think people who can't see the difference between DVDs and Blu-Rays are either batshit insane or need new glasses, fast.

      However, as a graphics junkie, I am left cold by 3D. The technology has barely evolved since the days of anaglyph images, with active shutter glasses being the mainstream method for home cinema while polarized glasses work in proper cinemas. Both have significant disadvantages. I feel sick watching them for extended periods of time, and that's when I see the effect at all. Honestly, the only time I've been convinced by the 3D effect was with images I'd generated myself from the STEREO satellites during my internship last summer, otherwise the effect always feels slightly weak or cheated (though as a disclaimer I haven't watched Avatar, which would appear to be both the pinnacle of 3D movies and the sole proper 3D movie). On top of that, 3D comes at the cost of weaker color reproduction and, in the case of games, severely downsized graphical fidelity.

      I don't think the rather subpar effect is worth all of those compromises.

      • I think people who can't see the difference between DVDs and Blu-Rays are either batshit insane or need new glasses, fast.

        I can see the difference side-by-side. I cannot see the difference without a conscious effort. I'm not sure if I can see the difference from memory.

        I have quite good vision (with glasses)... better than 20/20. I just don't particularly care about graphical fidelity.

        Maybe a side-effect of growing up with 320x240 games and blocky images over the internet.

  • Missing Option (Score:5, Insightful)

    by g0bshiTe (596213) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @10:54AM (#38981317)
    3d of any type gives me a headache you insensitive clod.

    Seriously does too.
    • by arth1 (260657)

      3d of any type gives me a headache you insensitive clod.

      Seriously does too.

      I have heard of one other case like this - a lady who had to walk around with an eyepatch all the time. While she could see fine with either eye, using both at the same time initiated migraine pain.

      Does it affect driving?

  • by TWX (665546) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @10:59AM (#38981409)

    ...and it was very amazing. A buddy of mine has a big Panasonic TV and actually made the effort to get nine sets of glasses, so he can actually host a movie night for his friends.

    But, as cool as it was (and no, I didn't see it when it came out in theatres) I did have a touch of headache developing by the end, and I also really didn't like it when 3d objects reached the edges of the screen and suddenly lost the effect. Cameron's production did a good job of not going zany with shoving 3d down our faces like that snake scene in one of the Harry Potter movies, but still, when the edge loses effect it's not as good.

    I can't justify the cost. I have a nice 1080p video projector and almost 1600 titles that aren't 3d, I don't need to buy a 3d projector until that's the only thing available.

    • by mikael_j (106439)

      I'm in a similar situation, I have a pretty decent 1080p projector and upgrading to a 3D-capable one is a pretty big investment that just isn't worth it right now.

    • Well, the good news is that it's going to take much, much longer for 3D to get into the home projector market any time soon. The problem is that you really have two styles of 3D active and passive.

      The active technology uses expensive, powered glasses that will alternatively flip between letting light through the right or left lens ... meaning you only see 1/2 as much light, and you have to pay a lot for each person who's going to be sitting there ... but the projector is basically a normal projector, althou

  • They come out with a HDMI splitter that will give me TWO hdmi outs.

    1 is LEFT
    2 is RIGHT.

    I can then install TWO projectors with the Polarizer filters and use the $1.00 glasses in my theater.

    That way, 3D video is crisp and awesome, and non 3D looks fantastic as it will only be 1 projector.

    Until then, I dont care at ALL about 3D. active glasses suck now and will always suck.

    • You can buy a TV that uses the passive glasses from your theater, but it looks much worse.

      I think you are confused. Passive glasses like the theater look terrible and only work from certain angle. Active glasses on a 240hz screen look crisp and awesome and work from any angle.

  • I have to say that you just have to be very picky and careful about the things you watch in 3d. I only get movies that were filmed with cameras to have the 3d without doing any conversion of 2d to 3d. There are certainly a lot of gimmicky 3d movies out there and so I completely understand people who just don't like it.

    One thing I have found that is quite annoying is how some good 3d blu-ray movies are hooked into a device as the only way to get them. Avatar and Shrek, for instance, can only be easily obt
  • My answer would be that i don't care, but who knows, if the content (and somewhat the device, 3d is too broad to just narrow the question to just one way to implement it, if someone develops a holodeck, would it be 3d?) make it worthy. But should be miles away from what its around yet. A particular device, a particular kind of content, could give it life.
  • by uigrad_2000 (398500) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @12:05PM (#38982405) Homepage Journal

    I'm excited about 3D TV, and when it comes time for me to buy a new TV, I plan to thoroughly check all the different models available, and buy whichever 3D TV is best at the time.

    All the options in the poll assume that either I have a 3D TV or that I hate 3D TV. Neither is the case! Where is Cowboy Neal?

  • by antdude (79039)

    I am still using my reliable 20" Sharp CRT TV from 1996. I can't see 3D so frak 3D.

  • by Corf (145778) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @12:13PM (#38982521) Journal
    My wife was born without a pupil in her right eye; she had at least one surgery a year at the Wilmer Institute until she was in her teens to try to fix it, and then they gave up. She now wears a nonfunctional prosthetic cap that looks perfectly normal unless you get to within an inch or two and notice it doesn't refract light in quite the same way that her left eye does.

    Monocular vision does not lend itself to experiencing 3D on a 2D screen. We will never own a 3D TV. If the writing is ever on the wall and they're all that's left, we'll stop watching.
  • After all this fuss about these newfangled flat TV sets, now they are trying to sell us ones that are box boxes again. I'm glad I didn't throw out my set with the round picture tube. It's bound to come back in style soon.

    Now get off my lawn!

  • by rasper99 (247555) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @12:24PM (#38982687)

    How about have one "just in case" because I got it for the same price as 2D? Haven't used it for 3D yet and have little urge to use it 3D. It didn't cost anything what the heck.

  • Gaming (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xian97 (714198) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @12:41PM (#38982955)
    We purchased a 3D TV since it was just slightly more costly than the non-3D model and it came with 2 pairs of active shutter glasses for free. In the year that we have had it, we have only watched two movies in 3D, mostly because Netflix and Redbox only have the 2D versions.

    Gaming has been the primary use of the 3D technology for us - Uncharted 3, Wipeout HD, Killzone 3, Resistance 3, The Sly Collection, Hustle Kings, and just last night I tried the remastered Jak & Daxter HD Collection. I think gaming is where 3D shows the most promise; you could almost say it adds another dimension to the experience ;)
    • Re:Gaming (Score:5, Informative)

      by watermark (913726) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @03:56PM (#38986647)

      If you don't mind abusing the glasses, you can use a 3d tv to do full screen split screen.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVJcVPvjUJo [youtube.com]

    • by rdnetto (955205)

      It was the same with 1080p too. When we first got a full HD TV, there was virtually no OTA content in 1080 (720 at best) and the BD vs HD-DVD format war was still going on. Halo 2/3, on the other hand, looked absolutely beautiful.

      Consoles are usually the first to take advantage of the new display tech because it only takes a small patch to the software to increase the number of triangles/resolution or to copy some of the 3D info used in rendering to the new output. Video, on the other hand, needs to be re-e

  • Wake me up when they invent the holosuite.
  • I just converted my projector to a 3D setup last week and am happy with it. I got a Fuji W3 3D camera for Christmas and my wife and I just came back from a vacation to Ecuador. Ecuador is a small country with many diverse regions and I think our photos turned out great in 3D, I like the 3D setup very much. As for hollywood movies, I think 3D can add to the experience if done well. But 3D and special effects in general won't make up for a shoddy story. In your face 3D for no apparent reason distracts from th
  • by bongey (974911) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @01:21PM (#38983671)
    Only reason I have thought about one is the dual player for PS3. It is really nice to get an entire screen for yourself playing against a good friend, also gets rid of the screen watchers . He cannot see where you are in a fps.
  • [snicker] (Score:5, Funny)

    by multimediavt (965608) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @03:55PM (#38986627)
    I love how the poll results graph looks like the middle finger. Yes, we're flipping off 3D TV, cuz it sucks and just isn't worth it.
  • No 3D for me (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scotts13 (1371443) on Thursday February 09, 2012 @11:24PM (#38991569)

    I bought a new LCD TV in the last few weeks. I went out of my way to specifically purchase one WITHOUT 3D capability, because I don't want to send the message this ridiculous marketing scam sells TV's.

  • by FoolishOwl (1698506) on Friday February 10, 2012 @10:34AM (#38994707) Journal

    When I was watching Avatar in 3D, it occurred to me that part of the effect of it was to push me to focus on one and only one point on the screen, giving the director much more control of what the viewer sees.

    I hated it. I hated the feeling that someone was trying to control my every movement and my whole attention. I suspect that's why many people complained about the manipulativeness of the plot of Avatar -- because they were being manipulated physically.

  • by Etrigan_696 (192479) on Friday February 10, 2012 @11:21AM (#38995229)

    Until R2-D2 can project a 10" hologram of my sister saying "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're our only hope!" IDNGAF about 3D TV.

  • by j741 (788258) on Friday February 10, 2012 @11:41AM (#38995421) Journal

    For me, I will not accept the (currently false) claim that a TV or Movie is '3D' until I can view the content from different perspectives. If I can walk around the 3D displayed content and check out all the details from different angles, then it will be satisfying. Until then, this current marketing gimmick claiming 'stereo vision' to be '3D' is just that; a gimmick.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

 



Forgot your password?
Working...