Who's never seen anything 3d??

My problem isn't with whether the technology works, I'm sure it does. Nor whether it's comfortable to wear, again I'm sure it's fine.
My original question stanRAB:
Namely, would it make a good film better? I don't think it would. It's just a gimmic to sell a new technology.
 
Prescription glasses are pretty much made to measure, you try them on before you order them and after they're made the optician adjusts them until they fit properly. The 3D glasses I tried out the other day at the Sky demo felt heavy and hurt my nose.

As to whether they'd make a good film better, there are plenty of "good" films that would be stunning in 3D. For example North-by-Northwest would look amazing in 3D, as long as it was the 1959 original and not a remake. What we need is new, gripping drama that is "good" in 2D but great in 3D.
 
Thats fair enough - at the end of the day its for you as the consumer to decide. Personally - i'm not convinced for movies either (although having played games in 3D it does enhance the experience greatly).

But one thing to bear in mind - many people said exactly the same about HD.
 
Do you think that a salesperson trying to flog 3D equipment is going to answer truthfully if I said "hmm, I don't see any difference between 3D and ordinary tv?". They'd more than likely just answer by saying "oh, you'll get used to it, sometimes it takes longer for some people's eyes to adjust to viewing 3D".

I'd hazard a guess that if I wasn't aware that I couldn't see 3D without my optician telling me different then there's also a number of other people out there that aren't aware that certain eye conditions will mean they can't view 3D either.

I'm not usually one to demand warnings on products but I do think it should be better advertised that not everybody is going to be able to view 3D.

If manufacturer's have to put on the obvious warnings like not to stick their electrical product in water then it isn't much of a stretch to include - "not everybody can see 3D effects".
 
Does it matter what a salesperson tells you. You as a consumer have to make the decision as to whether there is any benefit in upgrading. This is exactly the same with any new technology.

Why would your optician have to tell you whether or not you can see in 3D - wouldnt it be obvious - afterall you either do or dont see the world around you in 3D every day. Ok there may be rare sight condition that only affects 3D TVs - but would your optician be able to tell you anyway - a active shutter or polarised 3D check isnt to my knowledge a normal part of a sight test.

If you cant see the difference in a 3D picture over a normal HD one - then what exactly are you upgrading for? Its immediately obvious that a picture is 3D - if you cant see that effect - then what is a 3D tv giving you over the TV you have now. A lot of people dont see the benefit of HD and so havent upgraded. Some people have never made the transition from VHS to DVD for the same reason.

For a warning to be effective - you would have to have somebody who cant see in 3D, not know that they cant - and be gullible enough to take a salespersons word over their own judgement. Do you think that scenario is going to be common enough to warrant a warning on every TV?
 
Back
Top