Who's never seen anything 3d??

C

cherrypepsi17

New member
I must say I haven't. :(. The one thing I have seen though, is on YouTube 3d, where you cross your eyes, and I must say it looks amazing. :eek:. I don't really plan on seeing anything 3d either, although with the new Sky 3d, I have a Sky+ HD box which is compatible, so I'm presuming they will offer you glasses to.
 
Saw a demo of Sky 3D yesterday and it was quite impressive but the glasses were uncomfortable. If that's what the ones at the cinema are like I couldn't sit through a two hour film with them on. So no 3D for me yet.
 
I haven't! To be honest I dont fancy it either.

I recently converted to contact lens so I dont want to pay to have to wear glasses again :D
 
You'll have to have a ridiculously expensive 3DTV though as well! It's not simply a case of having SkyHD and a pair of 3D glasses.

And SuperAPJ: I wear contact lenses and i can see the 3D effect, so could my Dad and he was wearing regular glasses underneath his 3D glasses. The only way you wouldn't be able to see the 3D effect is if you only had the use of one eye.
 
:eek:

Why can't they just display it in that fancy green blue lines thingy or whatever?? Will the tv "act" like a pair of those 3d glasses for you??? So you wouldn't need to wear them???
 
me too...
i actually see two seperate images all the time, slighty oRABet from each other, but my right eye is so weak that my brain almost ignores it unless i specifically concentrate...
 
I was told that by my optician too but wasn't sure how true it was so it's nice to know that it does appear to be true. I wonder if the tv/dvd companies are mentioning this to customers that if they have particular eye defects that they won't be able to see the 3D effects though?

I was going to post a thread querying it too but thought I'd be laughed at :o
 
Like if you only have one eye for example?

Surely if you are going to make a multi thousand pound investment - it would make sense to look at a demonstration model first to see if its worth it.

Manufacturers cant cover every eventuality. Its up to the customer to decide what works for them. Do TV manufacturers have to put warnings on their colour TVs stating that "people with colour blindness may not see accurate colour reproduction"?
 
Are 3D films the same as looking at the dinosaurs books when we were younger? Or has there been some improvement :confused: Because they looked crap tbh
 
I just can't bring myself to give a monkeys about 3D. I'm happy with films as they are. I did try watching a 3D on Bluray, Final Destination 4. Didn't have any special glasses though, so had to use the usual 3D ones. Even wearing 5 pairs at once you only got a taster of 3D, and it was red and green, lol. I've seen the glasses they hand out at cinemas, and aside from making everyone look like Michael Caine, when you put them on nothing looks different. As for putting the world cup in 3D, who cares??????? I can watch it perfectly well as it is.
 
Me.

And to be honest I don't give a rats ars* about it.
It has all the hallmarks of being a 'Let's find a way to generate a whole new load of income' strategy by the equipment manufacturers.

Is anyone honestly saying the The Godfather would have been any better in 3D? Or True Grit? Or Casablanca? Or any other truly 'Classic' film?

Good films that have lasting merit are about stories, characters, writing, direction!

There are a few films that would be 'flashier' in 3D. Star Wars comes to mind..

By and large it just seems like a cynical gimmic..
 
The only two films I've ever seen in 3D were Jaws 3D and some Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. Awful films, awful 3D effect, and I'm sure it's better these days, but I can't say I'm interested in the slightest.
 
Cant understand why a lot of people are equating modern polarising or active LCD 3D with the red/blue anaglyph of old - things have moved on people.

"I'm not interested in modern 3D because I watched Jaws 3D back in the 80s, with the red/blue glasses on and it was crap"

is a bit like saying

"I'm not interested in watching HD movies on a 50" plasma screen with 7.1 surround sound - because I watched a Charlie Chaplain film on a 12" B&W portable telly and it was crap"
 
Because you still have to wear glasses to see the "3D" effect, and it's the glasses that are the obstacle to enjoyment. It's always going to be a novelty until there's a better way of displaying 3D content, because many people who go to see films for the quality of the screenplay or the acting (or just because it's a good film) won't put up with wearing novelty glasses for 120-odd minutes.
 
If its the glasses that really hamper the experience - do people who already wear glasses not enjoy watching movies?

The modern 3d glasses are just like wearing a pair of sunglasses or reading glasses - are they really that much of an issue. They arent the cardboard "novelty" glasses of old.

Also - any 3D technology has its downsides. Autostereoscopic TVs have been available for many years - but they have a very narrow viewing angle and low resolution. Virtual reality neeRAB a bulky heaRABet etc.

3D with glasses is probably the best solution there is going to be for a long time to come.

If the glasses bother you - then fine, that is a legitimate reason. I was talking about the comparrisons that are being drawn between anagylph and modern 3d.
 
Back
Top