|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.67.96.184
I'm curious how many people enjoy 3D movies. Seems the only people I know who like them are younger. So if interested in my poll, please state in the subject line if possible;
-Age
-Sex (maybe irrelevant), don't answer this if it bothers you
-What do you think of 3D. Love, like, indifferent, don't like or similar
If I get enough replies I'll summarize the results
Follow Ups:
- just need native stereoscopic content aimed at adults - be nice to have restorations of the better 1950's 3D movies. Black and white movies look good to me played on 2D monitors with red-cyan filtering
I just bought a Samsung PN51D6900. This set has amazing 2D, particularly, of course, with HD and Bluray. If the reviews that I read had stated that the 3D was great, but the 2D only good, I would not have bought this TV. I had a choice of paying one price for just the TV, or $100 more for the TV with two pairs of 3D glasses and some 3D Shrek discs. I bought only the TV.
We are likely to buy a 3d TV for our home.
.
marc g. - audiophile by day, music lover by night
Watching demos in the stores, occasionally it looks natural but more often it looks like that old audio soundstage cliche, "Cardboard ships on a cardboard sea."
Edits: 06/30/11 06/30/11 06/30/11 06/30/11
Wearing glasses on my glasses is horribly uncomfortable
Emphatic NO. I do not want to wear special glasses to watch TV in my own house. I do not want to be forced to pay for a feature I do not want. In a theater, 3D effects detract from the movie. Your attention is diverted from the story to what is being "thrown" at you.
However, the point about 3D TV's employing the latest electronic and screen technology has merit to me. As long as the upgrades needed for 3D also improve 2D reproduction, I suppose that would be ok.
About a year ago, many retailers and retail analysts predicted that Xmass 2010 would be the year of 3D....lots of choices and price points had come down to the $2k area. Reality was different and 3D sales lagged expectations. Fact is that consumers see 3D as an incremental technology improvement, not a paradigm shift. Consumers will pay for paradigm shifts such as CD vs LP, DVD vs VHS, Flat Panel vs CRT. Consumers are not as willing to pay for incremental improvements such as SACD/DVD-A, Blu Ray, 3D. Market penetration for incremental improvements does not go much beyond tech savy and early adoption buyers. If manufacturers want 3D to be a success they have to largely erase the price premium and essentially include the feature in just about every new TV, so there becomes no choice other than a 3D TV. DVD sales took off when DVD player prices dropped below $250. Flat panel TV sales took off when the average price moved below $1k and you could not find a CRT at any mass merchant.
Best,
Ross
A good blu ray on my 60" has more than enough dimensionality to satisfy me, without the bulky glasses.
/
/
And we love it!
"I'd like to own a squadron of tanks"
I chose not to do all the 3D connections, firmware, etc and the picture is great with blu ray, Dish HD, and dvd. When looking at different models I didn't even consider the 3D image.
Baba-Booey to you all!
Panasonic still makes regular plasmas in their Consumer and Business divisions. Even if you get a 3D model, you don't have to watch in 3D. One advantage of the 3D models is that the electronics have to be upgraded vs regular models in order to handle the 3D material. So while you may not watch 3D material, what's inside may enable a better viewing experience with regular material: think subtle, not a night/day difference.
I certainly don't want to see each & every film in 3D, but it does add to the experience in some instances.
We're old.
"Lock up when you're done and don't touch the piano."
-Greg House
/
.
Are we mostly older though, seems so.
I maybe interested in sports for 3d, but not for other purpose.
If I were buying new gear today, sure, I'd want to ensure it had full HDMI 1.4 3D support, and so long as I didn't have to pay a hefty premium or sacrifice 2D performance, I'd get a compatible monitor as well. Sure it's mostly a gimmick, but it can be a pretty good gimmick, and if a movie was designed around 3D effects, I might as well see it as it was supposed to be seen.
I avoid most movies in 3D at the theater, but I did enjoy Avatar. I have no interest in 3D at home.
What bugs me a lot is that the display manufacturers essentially stopped trying to improve their best displays using available tech for the sake of 3D instead. Many lament that the best-looking (2D) displays were in the recent past, we expected better by now. The U.S. market is apparently the most price-sensitive in the world (surprising to me, not living there) and is a necessary market to develop for worldwide product success. 3D displays cost far less to make than the cost of the tech to make a BETTER display.
Have all the gear except glasses for home 3-D but not interested. Maybe when more movied become available I'll buy some glasses and test it out.
"I'd like to own a squadron of tanks"
Some things are nice in 3D but for what is out there I'm content to go to the theater as I only go to the theater a few times a year anyway. When and if they have passive 1080p projectors at decent prices, I might consider it if I am due for an upgrade. For example I went low end on the secondary basement system 3.5 years back. I don't use the system tons but when I have funds and am ready to consider an upgrade perhaps within 12-24 months from now, I'll look at what is out there.
I purposely went non-3D and non-internet with the bedroom TV upgrade a bit over a year ago. I don't hate the technology and if they have something that meets my needs in a secondary basement or computer monitor/TV when I'm ready for an upgrade I'll weigh the choices. I have no plans for 3D in the main system.
Roger Ebert and I agree on this (and not much else).
"Lock up when you're done and don't touch the piano."
-Greg House
I have little or no interest. I see 3d mainly as a gimmick. I do want to qualify this as I haven't seen any sporting events in 3d. I'm probably not going to have any interest in it regardless until they get rid of the glasses.Edit: age 52, sex Male
Edits: 06/11/11
I even have a 3-D ready TV and blu-ray player, but no desire to perform the required calibration and firmware updates to utilize it. I did see Jack-Ass 3D in the theater and I laughed for 2 hours straight. Avatar was visually striking...but it totally sucked as a film.
Baba-Booey to you all!
Good poll idea grantv. :)
Seriously, seen a few, they do nothing for me at all. I'll take 2D any day. Please release the same movies in 2D...
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: