User Avatar Image

Thoughts on 3D movies, tv, and gaming

posted by banishingseraph on - last edited - Viewed by 233 users

I figured I'd try and figure this out. The whole thing kind of confuses me. I don't see the point to 3D movies or television. The average experience I've had with it so far has been negative. The movies are hailed as amazing and groundbreaking but they are usually drab and unoriginal. I've also heard about how they are ruling the box office but my experience has been that the better a movie does in theaters the longer the wait for it to come to video. Yet the 3D movies are going to video faster. It's just distracting and takes away from the scene half the time. Also it causes blurring whenever there is motion.

As for the televisions I haven't found anyone who would actually buy them yet. I keep hearing about how they don't see why they'd pay for another new television again, especially when they don't want to watch television in 3D. This leads to my next point.

3D gaming just seems like a gimmick to me. It's a money sink and I can't see it really improving my gaming experience. The games that are coming out are easier, shorter, uninspired on average and I can't see making the game pop out at me changing any of those things.

I want to hear your takes on it now.

44 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • My feeling on it is fairly similar to my feeling on things like motion control in video games. On that issue, I feel that it can be amazing when really well done but not always really necessary. The difference is that in this case, "necessary" pretty much drops to zero. I've seen one 3D movie, and while it was kind of cool, I also wasn't exactly blown away. Thankfully, I saw Monsters vs. Aliens, which while demonstrating a considerable amount of work visually, was also very well conceived and written, so I don't feel that the experience was a waste. Unlike a movie like Avatar which is hyped because of its "revolutionary" visuals but rests on a very weak story. But I digress.

    As far as incorporating the technology for home use... Well, I'd like to get a new TV, but I'm not really in the market right now. If I was, I certainly wouldn't mind getting a 3D TV...if it wasn't so ridiculously expensive. At this point, I consider it a gimmick that might be sort of cool but certainly isn't worth the expense. And on that front, I can't see the point in 3D gaming either.

    However, I do find myself excited about the 3DS...but for three main reasons almost entirely unconnected to the 3D aspect. Certainly, the thing has to be fairly powerful to support 3D, and I think it shows in the clarity of the display. It definitely appears to be a step up from the DS. Second, there's the analog stick. I admit, it took a game like Kingdom Hearts to make me wish that the DS had more buttons, mainly because this is the first game where the amount of control I wanted exceeded the number of buttons, but the touch screen was unavailable to fill this need due to the type of gameplay. I'm hoping that the analog stick will help fill this need, and hopefully it'll be better than the PSP "nub". And third, I'm excited for it because while there's one DSiWare game that I want, I just don't see the DSi as a big enough step up from the DS Lite to be worth the purchase. With a new DS model with actual new features on the way, this solves the problem for me.

    And I know this isn't a thread to talk about the 3DS's other features, I wanted to really illustrate the point that while I'm excited about it...I could basically care less about the 3D.

    So overall...yeah, I agree. 3D is sort of a cool technology, but it's mainly used as a gimmick that seems to have a tendency to overshadow actual creativity while draining the wallets of people who choose to indulge it far more than it's worth.

  • I feel indifferent about it, though I feel bad for a friend who's blind in one eye.

  • 3D movies don't work for me. I still see two pictures with the glasses on (regardless on whether I keep on my own glasses or not) and it gives me headaches. People tell me you need to adapt to it but my experience is that it lasts the whole movie.
    I much prefer 2D movies that I can actually watch.

    As far as the 3DS goes, I wouldn't really care but they're releasing a new Paper Mario on it so I'll probably get it at some point. Just not at release.

  • Watching 3D movies gives me a migraine, so I'd rather that they remain a passing fad.

    Having said that, I did see Up in 3D and thought it was an appropriate use of 3D, not too much, not too little, and I didn't walk out of the theater with my head splitting open, so I suppose it could be well done.

  • If done well (and by that I mean using a non-headache inducing 3D), 3D is great and the experience is tons better than regular 2D movies or games.
    If you say 3D excludes people who are blind on one eye and shouldn't exist, then color TV shouldn't exist either, because people are color blind, or TV at all, because there are people who are blind on both eyes.

    I think the only ones doing it right are cinemas, where they give you the 3D glasses and you feel immersed with the huge screen and sound system and all, and I think that the 3DS is doing it right, not requiring any glasses, and giving you the hardware and the software together instead of requiring you to buy a TV + receiver + expensive movies + glasses + everything. Haven't seen the 3DS's 3D yet, but I heard it's awesome.

    I'm not interested in a 3D TV or 3D home console at this point.

  • User Avatar Image
    Tor

    Option 3: "I like 3D, but it's just a gimmick."
    3D has the potential of bringing some additional entertainment value. Unfortunately there are downsides; all of the current technologies have problems. Movies are sometimes just cheap cash-ins and the 3D effect isn't even done well in all cases. (For example; some 3D movies are recorded in 2D and the 3D effect is added in post production. This gives an unconvincing, "layered" look). Even if done right technically, some movies spend way too much time throwing stuff at the screen just to show you that "hey, it's in 3D!"

    I can see why the cinemas are doing so much 3D these days, it's a way of getting people out of their homes, and it might reduce piracy somewhat. This strategy will of course only work for as long as 3D TVs aren't common in private homes.

    I don't really see the big appeal of 3D in the home right now though. There are still too many drawbacks with the current technologies, and there's not yet enough 3D content available to justify purchasing a 3D TV screen.

    It seems more useful for games than for movies, because you can make existing 3D-rendered games utilize the 3D effect on a modern 3D display. Existing movies on the other hand cannot easily be converted to 3D with good results.

    I like 3D when it's done really well and it looks nice and natural, but interestingly that often means that after a while I forget that I'm watching 3D. I assume this is why some movies love to throw stuff at the screen, but that distracts from the experience in my opinion.

    3D display technologies:
    [LIST]
    [*]Anaglyph: the glasses with the colored lenses. Very simple, and works with any TV or display screen. You frequently see DVDs in this format. Colors get distorted however, because each eye only gets a subset of the full color spectrum. Also, you can get substantial "bleed" where each eye sees some of the image that's meant for the other eye.
    [*]Shutter glasses: this is the technology used in current 3D TV sets and in 'Nvidia 3D Vision'. You have a set of glasses that alternately darkens the lenses for each eye. This gives a nice sharp image, but it introduces flicker. The effective refresh rate of the image you get is half of that of your display device. Older versions used 60 Hz, producing strong flicker at a headache-inducingly frequency of 30 Hz. Newer screens operate at 120 Hz for an effective flicker rate of 60 Hz which is much more tolerable. The glasses contain electronics (which adds weight and bulkiness) and need a power supply, either a cumbersome wire or a battery (for additional weight).
    [*]Polarized light: Used in 3D cinema. Two projectors shine two images at the same screen but with different polarization. Glasses with polarized lenses filter the image for each eye. This is the best 3D technology I've personally tested--you get good color and sharpness but there can be some bleed (much less than anaglyph though). As far as I know this technology has not been adapted for TV screens.
    [*]Lenticular display: No glasses. The screen has twice as many pixels as it usually would have. Lenses in front of each pixel sends the light in a specific direction, ensuring that each eye only sees half of the total number of pixels. This only works with one viewer at a time, and the viewer must keep their head in one specific spot relative to the screen. A head-tracking camera may be used to give the viewer greater freedom in positioning themselves, but it still only works for one person. I think this is what Nintendo 3DS uses.
    [/LIST]

  • That reminds me of one more thing I like about the 3DS. At first, I thought that slider on the right of the top screen was just a new and strange positioning for the volume slider, but that's actually to adjust the depth of the 3D feature, and it goes all the way down to "off" if you so desire.

    Also, something I didn't know: only the top screen supports 3D. I'm not surprised, and it makes sense, I just didn't already know this.

  • Keep your 3D. Not only does it make my eyes hurt, it's also blurry and distracting. I just want good movies.

  • Avatar 3D was beautiful with slow moving objects , the ash or lil wood spritey things , but when its fast action it just gave me a headace , I think 3D is a gimmic and many companys will go bust due to their faith in it

  • I've never seen the obsession with 3D but as i've not actually seen anything in 3D yet i'll withold my judgement.

    It doesn't seem as tangibly film-enhancing as HD did, because by the reviews it's just a way of making parlour tricks which would probably distract me from the actual program.

Add Comment