3D Sucks!

[TheKrell]

OK I said it, even though I don't actually believe it.

We can't say "3D sucks" in the 3D forum, and we can't say "3D sucks" in the Dish forum, and probably not in any other forum but this one. Negative discussions, even valid news reports about the decline of 3D, are UNwelcome outside of the Chit Chat Club.

I don't have a 3D TV, nor 3D BR player, nor have I seen the latest/greatest blockbuster movie. I did catch an IMAX presentation of Flight of the Butterflies at the Udvar-Hazy Air and Space Museum outside Washington D.C. It was stunning. Magical. Monarch butterflies fluttering about in front of your nose! Wish I could do that at home. But my education from others who DO have a 3D TV is that the home experience is less than magical. I think, but I don't know, that a really good home 3D experience will await passive 3D and 4K TV sets of significant (>65") size.

Edited to add: I meant to write "affordable" 3D 4K TVs of significant size.

 

[Tampa8]

While I don't think 3D sucks this appears to be the place to say why it's not what it's being hyped about.
People are posting as if it's no different than HD when introduced. It's very very different. HD is a positive advancement for just about anyone who watches TV, save for a few who may not have good eyesight. 3D is the opposite, it's not an advancement for just about anyone, save for a tiny percentage who like it. There is a middle ground where I am. In very limited times, limited to a few movies and even then for a few scenes, it can add to the overall watching of a movie.

The fact that ESPN is shutting down may have other reasons, but prime among them is the lack of anyone caring about it. Add to that no network programming in 3D even yet exists and you have the beginning of understanding the underwhelming acceptance of 3D despite manufacturer hype. I have a 3D TV but like the vast majority who buy one, it's mostly for the features not available in a non 3D TV and done to boost the numbers of 3D sales. It's fun to play with the 3D and I do like passive much more than using the heavy glasses that need to have power. But after awhile even a 3D movie with passive technology gets fatiguing and I realize the picture is a better picture in 2D. Good HD material, and maybe using a device like a Darbee, is much better viewing than 3D, again with very few exceptions. I am glad Dish appears to have not spent any resources on it.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

What mistakes do you think we're made with this 3d push?

Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys

 

[teachsac]

They didn't show enough live sporting events. With all of the rights they have, they should have done a simulcast 2D and 3D for as many events as they could. The only real streaks of live programming were the X-Games and the Little League World Series.

S~

 

[Tampa8]

At my Cousins house it seemed to be very limited new 3D events. If this was something they believed in, then Baseball (not just Little league though nice they did it) would have been broadcast in 3D for instance. I see it as only a test run to see if the market was there. My Cousin was not impressed with 3D for viewing over just little while at a time, I will say his two kids thought it was great.

 

[TheKrell]

What mistakes do you think we're made with this 3d push?

I don't know to whom this was addressed, since nobody above your post used the word "mistakes" or "push". But that's never stopped me from taking a swing at it anyhow.

Going off my magical IMAX experience, I'd say any compelling 3D needs a screen with a large angular subtense, adequate brightness to make it through glasses, and cheap passive glasses. Trying to look at 3D on a dinky screen has got to disappoint, because nothing big can get close to you without being chopped off at the edges. Passive glasses will reduce the brightness and the screen resolution by half. I think that shuttered glasses do likewise for brightness, but for different reasons. So, the screen has to have tremendous brightness, and probably twice as bright as a 2D set. And it has to be big to keep things from being clipped. And due to the size and passive glasses, it really needs to be a 4K set, even if the source material is only 1920X1080. I have used shuttered glasses for about 15 seconds in stores, and I would have to agree with the naysayers about active glasses. Plus there is the weight, and the cost.

The early push to 3D (so far as I have observed) violated much of what I think is needed. Active/expensive/heavy glasses, screens too small for the material, inadequate brightness... Did I leave anything out?

 

[madmadworld]

They didn't show enough live sporting events. With all of the rights they have, they should have done a simulcast 2D and 3D for as many events as they could. The only real streaks of live programming were the X-Games and the Little League World Series.

S~

should have done 6-8 events a month after buying all the equipment just stupid not to.

 

[tomcrown1]

Scott the other problem with 3d is that 10% cannot see the 3d picture. I'am one who cannot see the 3d picture. Also looking through those glasses gives me a big fat headache!!!

 

[Tampa8]

Imagine if HD only worked if you wear glasses caused eye strain and then only a tiny fraction of what you watch was in HD. It would be doomed to failure. Only a few enthusiasts would use it. That's where we are with 3D.

 

[navychop]

Outside of the 3D IMAX butterflies (nice but NQR) I've only seen one entire 3D movie since childhood. We weren't in the best seats in the house so one day we'll try it again. Maybe "we" - my wife has a slight astigmatism, wears glasses and hasn't much depth perception and is opposed to 3D.

I agree the jury is out at least until UHDTV hits the street mainstream. There's a pause now- we'll see if "better" TVs revives it. Niche or more popular, TBD.

Anyway, I have a question. Long ago, at Costco, after flinging hoards of kidlings out of the way I got to see and compare two TVs set up showing 3D. One was remarkably better than the other. Plasma? Does plasma have a reputation for being the better choice for 3D? Or have I got that backwards due to brightness or other issues?



Posted Using The New SatelliteGuys Reader App!

 

[dfergie]

Scott the other problem with 3d is that 10% cannot see the 3d picture. I'am one who cannot see the 3d picture. Also looking through those glasses gives me a big fat headache!!!

Man: 3-D movie changed my sight for the better

Trees once looked like green panels for Bruce Bridgeman. He'd have to move his head to gauge the relative closeness of objects.For most of his life, he had poor depth perception. His eyes pointed outward and did not allow him to see, in stereo, a single image with both eyes.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/15/health/stereo-vision-recovery

 

[TheKrell]

Outside of the 3D IMAX butterflies (nice but NQR)...

What was not quite right about it?

 

[navychop]

It was enjoyable, but not realistic. Of course, how much can you expect?

 

[Cire]

I don't know if it is just me, but 3d really bothers my eyes. This sort of makes me a little bit worried about the future of movies since it seems like they are coming out with everything in 3D. Modern day 3D doesn't bother me as much as the old stuff did, but I really hope they work it out more before forcing everyone to change.

 

[Ramy]

Heck they could have had Sportscenter in 3D. Just to fill in programming if they had to.

 

[Tampa8]

BBC ending all 3D.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/05/bbc-ends-3d-production/

 

[navychop]

There's a shocker. For three years, at least. I'll bet they sell off the equipment while it's still worth something.

 

[Tampa8]

I hadn't thought of that, very likely. In three years or so there will be a new incarnation of 3D to try and get it into homes that may well require new equipment!

 

[dare2be]

I had always thought that the push from studios and manufacturers was mostly just a money grab. Newer "must-have" hardware to sell to the masses, more carrots to dangle in front of consumers by the studios to lure them into the theaters to boost declining attendance, and more opportunity to cheaply convert existing titles to sell all over again. This time the masses did not take the bait. I never thought it would ever take a foothold as a viewing standard, even if it seemed the manufacturers pushed for it (almost every newer TV set is/was 3D capable).