Do you like 3D - Page 2

stickybuns · 04-21-2012, 02:19 PM

Why would an e-reader need to have 3D? I'm just not seeing the application.

Oh, wait.... Geez, I can be slow sometimes!

For movies, I like 3D on the big screen so long as it isn't used to replace good storytelling. 3D should allow the viewer to "get lost in" the movie world. The first 3D film I ever saw was an IMAX film about the ocean--it was fantastic having nearly all of my senses trying to tell me that I was underwater with the fish. But on a smaller screen, it just feels gimmicky.

elemenoP · 04-21-2012, 03:34 PM

I paid $30 for two 3D tickets to Toy Story 3 for myself and my daughter (5 at the time). It was not being offered in 2D. My daughter took the glasses off after the first five minutes and watched the rest of the movie in "blurry mode."

IMO, 3D is just a way to try to bring in more money, whether through higher ticket prices, selling new TVs with glasses for everyone in the family, etc. I dread the day when it's difficult to find a TV without 3D technology.

eP

fjtorres · 04-21-2012, 03:41 PM

Roger Ebert doesn't like it:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...hould-too.html

wizwor · 04-21-2012, 04:27 PM

I've seen a few movies in 3D and have not been blown away. I haven't been very impressed with 3D on tv either.

Despite this, I just ordered a 24" 3D display for my kids' PS3. I think the simulview (each player sees something different) will make games more fun, heard the glasses and screen were really good, and would like to watch some movies with lcd glasses.

Besides being a new toy for my kids, it's an inexpensive way for me to evaluate 3D. If this is amazing, I can see me buying a 3D set for my living room. If not, I'm only out $300 (though the game also plays 2D).

I'll followup once I get a chance to try these out. For now, I'm passing on the poll.

Barty · 04-21-2012, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

You are, but then again so am I, at least in regards to 3D. I'm vaguely tempted to buy a second TV now and just put it in storage, since I think in 2 years' time there'll hardly be a non-3D set to be found. In other words I'm pretty convinced it's not a fad.

That would be... Unwise. TV picture quality improves constantly, and the new 3D sets may have improvements other than 3D

I don't care for current 3D because of the glasses. They'll probably be gone eventually.

I can think of things that could be improved by 3D when well done, like sports, nature shows. Of course there's always porn lol. Shudder. Hey they said hi def would kill porn bc nobody wants to see that stuff in hi def. I think that's been proven incorrect.

Belfaborac · 04-21-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barty

That would be... Unwise.

I know and I'd never actually do it. It's just an expression of my old fogeyness that I'm annoyed by the prospect of maybe at some point having to buy a gadget which includes features I don't want.

carpetmojo · 04-21-2012, 06:21 PM

I wonder if - going by the opinions feelings expressed here and elsewhere I've seenand heard - our brains have a kind of filter......
Brain knows it isn't real, despite the attempt to make it appear so, so doesn't fully accept it ......

And speaking of "Titanic" .............

My idea of hell - Mr. Fellowes recent ....... version, of the well documented story, shown on TV here, which I managed to stick at for around half of the first episode.
It would seem it went downhill after that.

fjtorres · 04-21-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

I wonder if - going by the opinions feelings expressed here and elsewhere I've seenand heard - our brains have a kind of filter......
Brain knows it isn't real, despite the attempt to make it appear so, so doesn't fully accept it ......

Pretty much.
One of Ebert's rants points out that the reason some people have a problem with current 3d tech is that the eyes are focusing at a fixed distance while the brain is interpretting it as varying depths.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

Quote:

But the deeper problem is that the audience must focus their eyes at the plane of the screen -- say it is 80 feet away. This is constant no matter what.

But their eyes must converge at perhaps 10 feet away, then 60 feet, then 120 feet, and so on, depending on what the illusion is. So 3D films require us to focus at one distance and converge at another. And 600 million years of evolution has never presented this problem before. All living things with eyes have always focussed and converged at the same point.

If we look at the salt shaker on the table, close to us, we focus at six feet and our eyeballs converge (tilt in) at six feet. Imagine the base of a triangle between your eyes and the apex of the triangle resting on the thing you are looking at. But then look out the window and you focus at sixty feet and converge also at sixty feet. That imaginary triangle has now "opened up" so that your lines of sight are almost -- almost -- parallel to each other.

We can do this. 3D films would not work if we couldn't. But it is like tapping your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time, difficult. So the "CPU" of our perceptual brain has to work extra hard, which is why after 20 minutes or so many people get headaches. They are doing something that 600 million years of evolution never prepared them for.

QuantumIguana · 04-21-2012, 06:44 PM

I'm not a big fan of it. If it is a good movie, the 3-D doesn't matter. I remember watching The Seven Samurai, and forgetting that I was reading subtitles. I watched Apollo 13 on IMAX, and after a while, the giant screen size didn't matter. With 3-D, the "oooh, look at the 3-D" distracts from the movie.

Fozzybear · 04-22-2012, 04:23 PM

I've never seen anything in 3d... have no interest to do so either.

Namekuseijin · 04-23-2012, 05:05 PM

yes, I do enjoy 3D very much, thank you. Pictures seem to genuinely have volume, besides the obvious depth. I'm really hoping to buy a 3D TV so I can play Uncharted 3 the way it deserves...

then again, why are you bringing this up at mobileREAD? Will colorful 3D fonts make for better reading? :lol:

Namekuseijin · 04-23-2012, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

If it is a good movie, the 3-D doesn't matter.

sure, you may also listen to good music in mono. It's the same good music. The stereo doesn't add anything to it.

susan_cassidy · 04-23-2012, 05:07 PM

I don't like the prevalence of 3D movies, because I can't see 3D - I'm blind in one eye, due to an aneurysm.

Namekuseijin · 04-23-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Pretty much.
One of Ebert's rants points out that the reason some people have a problem with current 3d tech is that the eyes are focusing at a fixed distance while the brain is interpretting it as varying depths.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

Ebert is plain wrong, as usual when he obsesses over some particular pet peeve.

Look at a mirror. Are your eyes focusing on the mirror plane or on the image double the distance from you to the mirror plane?

Just because the image is projected on a plane doesn't mean your eyes are focusing on the plane.

Stereographic 3D is a precise recording of a 3D scene as your eyes would get it from the same viewpoint. Of course, it is static in relation to that viewpoint, as you can quickly check by moving your head to the side and not getting any more 3D info as you would expect. It's good enough while full dynamic 3D isn't available as a hologram...

JSWolf · 04-23-2012, 06:34 PM

The current state of 3D movies and 3D TV is just like watching it with sunglasses on. The lenses of the glasses are polarized and it is similar in effect to sunglasses. I am surprised that the movies are not made to take this into account and made brighter enough to compensate. But they don't and it doesn't really look all that good.

View Poll Results: Do you like 3D
Yes. It improves my experience.	21	24.42%
No. It is annoying after the first few minutes.	49	56.98%
Not Applicable. I'm a 2D creature and can't see 3D	16	18.60%
Voters: 86. You may not vote on this poll

04-21-2012, 06:21 PM	#22
carpetmojo Wizard Posts: 3,117 Karma: 9269999 Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: UK Device: Sony- T3, PRS650, 350, T1/2/3, Paperwhite, Fire 8.9,Samsung Tab S 10.5	3D not a thrill? I wonder if - going by the opinions feelings expressed here and elsewhere I've seenand heard - our brains have a kind of filter...... Brain knows it isn't real, despite the attempt to make it appear so, so doesn't fully accept it ...... And speaking of "Titanic" ............. My idea of hell - Mr. Fellowes recent ....... version, of the well documented story, shown on TV here, which I managed to stick at for around half of the first episode. It would seem it went downhill after that.

04-21-2012, 02:19 PM	#16
stickybuns Evangelist Posts: 405 Karma: 479729 Join Date: Feb 2011 Device: Kindle 3, Kindle Paperwhite 2	Why would an e-reader need to have 3D? I'm just not seeing the application. Oh, wait.... Geez, I can be slow sometimes! For movies, I like 3D on the big screen so long as it isn't used to replace good storytelling. 3D should allow the viewer to "get lost in" the movie world. The first 3D film I ever saw was an IMAX film about the ocean--it was fantastic having nearly all of my senses trying to tell me that I was underwater with the fish. But on a smaller screen, it just feels gimmicky.

04-21-2012, 03:34 PM	#17
elemenoP Wizard Posts: 1,717 Karma: 3790058 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: NYC Device: Kindle Paperwhite, Sony 650	I paid $30 for two 3D tickets to Toy Story 3 for myself and my daughter (5 at the time). It was not being offered in 2D. My daughter took the glasses off after the first five minutes and watched the rest of the movie in "blurry mode." IMO, 3D is just a way to try to bring in more money, whether through higher ticket prices, selling new TVs with glasses for everyone in the family, etc. I dread the day when it's difficult to find a TV without 3D technology. eP

04-21-2012, 03:41 PM	#18
fjtorres Grand Sorcerer Posts: 11,732 Karma: 128354696 Join Date: May 2009 Location: 26 kly from Sgr A* Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000	Roger Ebert doesn't like it: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...hould-too.html

04-21-2012, 04:27 PM	#19
wizwor Wizard Posts: 1,068 Karma: 23867385 Join Date: Nov 2011 Device: kindle, fire	I've seen a few movies in 3D and have not been blown away. I haven't been very impressed with 3D on tv either. Despite this, I just ordered a 24" 3D display for my kids' PS3. I think the simulview (each player sees something different) will make games more fun, heard the glasses and screen were really good, and would like to watch some movies with lcd glasses. Besides being a new toy for my kids, it's an inexpensive way for me to evaluate 3D. If this is amazing, I can see me buying a 3D set for my living room. If not, I'm only out $300 (though the game also plays 2D). I'll followup once I get a chance to try these out. For now, I'm passing on the poll.

04-21-2012, 06:44 PM	#24
QuantumIguana Philosopher Posts: 2,034 Karma: 18736532 Join Date: Jan 2012 Device: Kindle Paperwhite 2 gen, Kindle Fire 1st Gen, Kindle Touch	I'm not a big fan of it. If it is a good movie, the 3-D doesn't matter. I remember watching The Seven Samurai, and forgetting that I was reading subtitles. I watched Apollo 13 on IMAX, and after a while, the giant screen size didn't matter. With 3-D, the "oooh, look at the 3-D" distracts from the movie.

04-22-2012, 04:23 PM	#25
Fozzybear Enthusiast Posts: 48 Karma: 45968 Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: UK Device: Kindle Keyboard 3G	I've never seen anything in 3d... have no interest to do so either.

04-23-2012, 05:05 PM	#26
Namekuseijin affordable chipmunk Posts: 1,290 Karma: 9863855 Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Brazil Device: Sony XPeria ZL, Kindle Paperwhite	yes, I do enjoy 3D very much, thank you. Pictures seem to genuinely have volume, besides the obvious depth. I'm really hoping to buy a 3D TV so I can play Uncharted 3 the way it deserves... then again, why are you bringing this up at mobileREAD? Will colorful 3D fonts make for better reading? :lol:

04-23-2012, 05:07 PM	#28
susan_cassidy Wizard Posts: 2,251 Karma: 3720310 Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: USA Device: Kindle, iPad (not used much for reading)	I don't like the prevalence of 3D movies, because I can't see 3D - I'm blind in one eye, due to an aneurysm.

04-23-2012, 06:34 PM	#30
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 79,756 Karma: 145864619 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	The current state of 3D movies and 3D TV is just like watching it with sunglasses on. The lenses of the glasses are polarized and it is similar in effect to sunglasses. I am surprised that the movies are not made to take this into account and made brighter enough to compensate. But they don't and it doesn't really look all that good.

Advert

Advert