Is 3D worth it. Does 3D work
- Thread starter mayhem
- Start date
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
Semms like a gimmic to me at the moment. Especially with movies.. i'd much rather watch a CRISP HD 2D film than a 3D-ish film
Agreed
Ya93sin
New member
"gim·mick
–noun 1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal. 2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal: An offer that good must have a gimmick in it somewhere. 3. a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance."
Just because its a gimmick isn't necessarily a bad thing
–noun 1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal. 2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal: An offer that good must have a gimmick in it somewhere. 3. a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance."
Just because its a gimmick isn't necessarily a bad thing
Well it depends what definition you use. When i say 3D imagery is a "gimmick", i refer this definition:
"In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use."
The 3D features are not good enough in its current state. You're just losing quality in place of some 3D-ish looking images. Which in my view is not worth the trade off unless 3D filming techniques improve.
At this moment in time, If i went to the cinema...even if the 3D film cost the same as a 2D film... i'd still watch the 2D version. Quality > lame 3D effect imo
"In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use."
The 3D features are not good enough in its current state. You're just losing quality in place of some 3D-ish looking images. Which in my view is not worth the trade off unless 3D filming techniques improve.
At this moment in time, If i went to the cinema...even if the 3D film cost the same as a 2D film... i'd still watch the 2D version. Quality > lame 3D effect imo
Current 3D is a gimmick lol, When 3D gets perfected there will be a new 3D TV with some thing else, 3D dose not currently work in the home, I have only ever watch 1 3D movie and have been impressed and that was a documentary about whales, Currently 3D is a gimmick no major films are in a 3D standard worth barging about. I would love to see high grade 3D but currently it is not good enough to view with comfort.
Now its a gimmick tomorrow it maybe a standard
Now its a gimmick tomorrow it maybe a standard
Ya93sin
New member
Well it depends what definition you use. When i say 3D imagery is a "gimmick", i refer this definition:
"In marketing language, a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use."
The 3D features are not good enough in its current state. You're just losing quality in place of some 3D-ish looking images. Which in my view is not worth the trade off unless 3D filming techniques improve.
At this moment in time, If i went to the cinema...even if the 3D film cost the same as a 2D film... i'd still watch the 2D version. Quality > lame 3D effect imo
Its more the point that a gimmick is not neccessarily a bad product or a bad quality. That last sentence there in your definition is about subjective thoughts rather than objective definitions.
Anyway, the point is that gimmicks aren't neccessarily bad
Its more the point that a gimmick is not neccessarily a bad product or a bad quality. That last sentence there in your definition is about subjective thoughts rather than objective definitions.
Anyway, the point is that gimmicks aren't neccessarily bad
yeah I understand your point about the semantics... but IN THIS context. The 3D effect being called a gimmick is not a good thing. Would you not agree?
michaelah500
New member
I went to see the new Pirates of the Carribean at my local odeon upon release. Obviously they use the polarisation method. I was actually really shocked by the improvements that have been made to 3D since I last went to see a 3D movie a few years ago. The image quality, as well as coming out of the screen and all the other 3D stuff, was really good. It actually looked like a HD 3D movie throughout the entire showing. I admit though, towards the end, I got bored of all the 3D effects and the "oohs" and "aahs". I found myself just taking off the glasses and watching the headache inducing double image on the screen...I don't know why but it just felt better without the cheap plastic glasses sticking into my head (which I paid £1 for upon arrival at the Odeon).
The fact is, 3D is unneeded and just WHY? All it does is make you jump occassionally when an item appears to come flying at you from nowhere. There were a few other people (adults) that jumped every time something came spinning out at us, but it's just WHY. WHY am I paying extra for this? It isn't that exciting, I'd rather watch the ultra HD version in the screening room next door.
If people really want to spend loads on 3D equipment then that's up to them. But in my personal opinion...it's just a total waste of money.
The fact is, 3D is unneeded and just WHY? All it does is make you jump occassionally when an item appears to come flying at you from nowhere. There were a few other people (adults) that jumped every time something came spinning out at us, but it's just WHY. WHY am I paying extra for this? It isn't that exciting, I'd rather watch the ultra HD version in the screening room next door.
If people really want to spend loads on 3D equipment then that's up to them. But in my personal opinion...it's just a total waste of money.
realneil
New member
I look at 3D for the home as a marketing gimmick more than something we really need. Around five years back, they had us all sold on HDTV and large panels in the home. We got great pictures for our money, and the home cinema effect was pleasing to most of us. But marketers rely on a constant stream of product flying off of the shelves to make the money that they need to survive.
They have to keep introducing the new latest-greatest thing all of the time. They must make us feel like we're being left behind and really missing out.
The 3D effect isn't worth the considerable investment, especially since it's a brand new technology that is still developing today. Comments already made about having to 'replace what you buy now in a few years' are gonna be a harsh reality for many.
Undiscovered health issues may steer the development of 3D in a brand new direction as well, making what you have, old news.
I wouldn't buy into this tech now,.....even if I was wealthy.
JesseLactin
New member
Like SieB, I'd LOVE to see Black Hawk Down in 3D. One of my favourite movies, next to Fight Club. Personally, it's my favourite war movie. But I too want to allow the technology mature, same goes for BD players. I won't get one until the tech matures, and I don't need stupid glasses. As for BD, I'd like it to be faster(PS3 takes forever to load, an X8 player would solve this).
alienware
Banned
Oops I might have voted on the wrong one
I can't get one, want it or not. I was going to go 3D a while back but then I remembered that it makes me yack. I simply can't watch it without feeling terribly nauseous and dizzy, and then I get a splitting migraine.
I can't even play a handheld game, such as the normal DS. I got one on release, but after an hour's play I would look away from it and everything would be fuzzy. That was with my glasses on.
I get motion and car sickness, mostly caused by flashing light. If I sit, say, in the front of a car I am fine. Sit in the back and the sun starts doing that crap where it flashes through the trees? Makes me feel incredibly sick.
I am also still on the fence about the long term effects of this. VR was ruled out due to it causing sight and brain damage.
Edit. I have seen a 3D that does actually work though. Basically it's three LED monitors sandwiched on top of one another. The top two are clear with no backing and the bottom one has the backing. The way it works is incredibly clever. the top screen displays one thing, the one under it another, and the one under than another. So basically it gives it the appearance of depth. The images are slightly offset to give the true depth of field look. Sadly that was only on casino 5 lined slot machines and I have yet to see it implemented anywhere else. the problem of course is that you would need to shoot or program everything three times and then overlay it.
I can't get one, want it or not. I was going to go 3D a while back but then I remembered that it makes me yack. I simply can't watch it without feeling terribly nauseous and dizzy, and then I get a splitting migraine.
I can't even play a handheld game, such as the normal DS. I got one on release, but after an hour's play I would look away from it and everything would be fuzzy. That was with my glasses on.
I get motion and car sickness, mostly caused by flashing light. If I sit, say, in the front of a car I am fine. Sit in the back and the sun starts doing that crap where it flashes through the trees? Makes me feel incredibly sick.
I am also still on the fence about the long term effects of this. VR was ruled out due to it causing sight and brain damage.
Edit. I have seen a 3D that does actually work though. Basically it's three LED monitors sandwiched on top of one another. The top two are clear with no backing and the bottom one has the backing. The way it works is incredibly clever. the top screen displays one thing, the one under it another, and the one under than another. So basically it gives it the appearance of depth. The images are slightly offset to give the true depth of field look. Sadly that was only on casino 5 lined slot machines and I have yet to see it implemented anywhere else. the problem of course is that you would need to shoot or program everything three times and then overlay it.
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
Oops I might have voted on the wrong one
I can't get one, want it or not. I was going to go 3D a while back but then I remembered that it makes me yack. I simply can't watch it without feeling terribly nauseous and dizzy, and then I get a splitting migraine.
I can't even play a handheld game, such as the normal DS. I got one on release, but after an hour's play I would look away from it and everything would be fuzzy. That was with my glasses on.
I get motion and car sickness, mostly caused by flashing light. If I sit, say, in the front of a car I am fine. Sit in the back and the sun starts doing that crap where it flashes through the trees? Makes me feel incredibly sick.
I am also still on the fence about the long term effects of this. VR was ruled out due to it causing sight and brain damage.
Edit. I have seen a 3D that does actually work though. Basically it's three LED monitors sandwiched on top of one another. The top two are clear with no backing and the bottom one has the backing. The way it works is incredibly clever. the top screen displays one thing, the one under it another, and the one under than another. So basically it gives it the appearance of depth. The images are slightly offset to give the true depth of field look. Sadly that was only on casino 5 lined slot machines and I have yet to see it implemented anywhere else. the problem of course is that you would need to shoot or program everything three times and then overlay it.
So games would be 3x the size in the case of those 3x LED monitor panels?
And I agree, I am usually okay with a lot of things but bobbing cameras and 3D are two things I can only handle a few minutes of at a time
alienware
Banned
No dude. They're sandwiched on top of one another. They take an LCD monitor with the black backing on it. Then they take another one without it, just the liquid between two clear sheets of acrylic. Then put another clear one on the top.
So for example. On the bottom one you have the reels for the machine. Above that you have the graphics, sitting above them, and above that you have all kinds of trickery like fire and flames.
Here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5XyhxIIpbE&feature=related
Ed. Look at the grail at the start. Basically you get proper depth because the screen has, like, proper depth. So let's say you took ten LCD screens and sandwiched them one on top of the other. Each one was 5mm thick. You then have a 50mm thick DEEP screen. You then display ten images that are ever so slightly offset or, take an image in width (like the grail in the video).
I might knock up a pic that explains how it works.
So for example. On the bottom one you have the reels for the machine. Above that you have the graphics, sitting above them, and above that you have all kinds of trickery like fire and flames.
Here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5XyhxIIpbE&feature=related
Ed. Look at the grail at the start. Basically you get proper depth because the screen has, like, proper depth. So let's say you took ten LCD screens and sandwiched them one on top of the other. Each one was 5mm thick. You then have a 50mm thick DEEP screen. You then display ten images that are ever so slightly offset or, take an image in width (like the grail in the video).
I might knock up a pic that explains how it works.
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
I think you may have misunderstood, I meant would a say 15GB game be 45GB is it had to be coded to be offset three times over?
alienware
Banned
Not necessarily no. Simply as the images and textures could be the same, only offset. You wouldn't need to display three full images. Just bits and bobs at difference levels.
Example. You're looking at a picture of a room. First thing you see is say, a desk. So the desk is on the top screen. Then say, a sofa. So you put that on the second screen (transparently of course) and so on and so on. the walls and floor would be the bottom image. It's hard to make out in that crap video, but the grail is on the top screen. Then, certain items are between the two underneath.
SmoulderingCircuits
New member
I could see that working for veiwing straight infront but in Eyefinity you'd be able to see blackspace between the items on the peripheral screens (unless that's the desired look)
alienware
Banned
Black space? where did you get that from?
Ever seen green screening? where something is filmed and then lifted perfectly? like for example a TV advert where the same person is sitting next to him or herself?
True depth without fooling the eyes (and the side effects of) would come from, well, true depth.
It's perfectly possible to do, even with true film and not rendered objects. It would just take time. A lot of movies now are green screened any way, that's how they pull off the effects.
The problem of course is price. Ten screens would cost ten times the amount of one. If it took off? sure, it would become far cheaper. Mind you, let's face it, a 32" one could easily be done for less than a grand and a 3DTV would cost that.
It's similar to electric cars. They work, and, now they are perfectly viable. However, they're expensive (at the moment) and there's bugger all in them for the govt. No emissions so no taxes there, no petrol so no taxes there. Infact, they're close to impossible to tax. Couple them with a fast charging unit and nuclear power and there is your solution to the petrol problem. Yet why aren't the govt endorsing and pushing it?
I run an electric bike. Hideously expensive, no tax. Simply as it's been restricted to 15mph and thus isn't considered a motor vehicle. I can ride ten miles without even breaking a sweat, and get there bloody fast
I'm sure as they become more and more popular they will reduce in price. It's all about production numbers. If the depth of field TV idea took off then it wouldn't be that long before they were perfectly affordable. Going back to your storage question.. Blu ray have more than enough capacity to store three games on one disc.
Ever seen green screening? where something is filmed and then lifted perfectly? like for example a TV advert where the same person is sitting next to him or herself?
True depth without fooling the eyes (and the side effects of) would come from, well, true depth.
It's perfectly possible to do, even with true film and not rendered objects. It would just take time. A lot of movies now are green screened any way, that's how they pull off the effects.
The problem of course is price. Ten screens would cost ten times the amount of one. If it took off? sure, it would become far cheaper. Mind you, let's face it, a 32" one could easily be done for less than a grand and a 3DTV would cost that.
It's similar to electric cars. They work, and, now they are perfectly viable. However, they're expensive (at the moment) and there's bugger all in them for the govt. No emissions so no taxes there, no petrol so no taxes there. Infact, they're close to impossible to tax. Couple them with a fast charging unit and nuclear power and there is your solution to the petrol problem. Yet why aren't the govt endorsing and pushing it?
I run an electric bike. Hideously expensive, no tax. Simply as it's been restricted to 15mph and thus isn't considered a motor vehicle. I can ride ten miles without even breaking a sweat, and get there bloody fast
I'm sure as they become more and more popular they will reduce in price. It's all about production numbers. If the depth of field TV idea took off then it wouldn't be that long before they were perfectly affordable. Going back to your storage question.. Blu ray have more than enough capacity to store three games on one disc.
