Watched Kermode’s vid blog earlier about it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2011/06/3demise.html
I don’t know that it’s about to die but thought Kermode rant quite interesting (1st view like this I’ve heard).

Kinda surprised by this, as I thought there would be a big push to make it proper mainstream (like HD)…. as they can sell you new and exciting TV’s & charge you an extra £3 @ the cimena.

I’ve never been a fan of it (or a hater to be fair), have yet to see a film (TBH not seen huge about of 3d films) where I thought it added to the action in a significant way (even Avatar).

Thoughts and views? Do you love it?
Got any “m8’s” who have been sucked into buy a 3D TV, when there very little 3D content about?

Don’t really see the point of 3D cinema/TV. My brain seems perfectly capable of figuring out perspectives etc on a standard 2D screen. As you said, I’ve seen a few films in 3D and I can’t say it actually adds to my enjoyment, in fact it detracts because of the glasses you have to wear.

Don’t know anyone who has a 3D TV, but it’s still early days. I think it will be around for a while yet.

Having said that, I wouldn’t mind trying out some games on a 3D TV, I noticed GT5 is “3D compatable”, it’s not enough to make me buy a new TV though.

I can’t stand 3D. They charge extra for the glasses now and I have to wear contacts as well. The colour is dull and as said above it adds nowt. Just a gimmick and will hopefully die a death sooner rather than later.

Imax on the other hand is great to watch.

Have had a 3D TV for a while. There is a lack of content at the moment and some of the content/conversions are dire, when done properly I (e.g Avatar) think it is fantastic, some sports are also pretty good in 3D.

Not sure if it will be a fad or become mainstream but BBC are going to broadcast Wimbledon finals in 3D and ITV have also been doing trials.

As for being “sucked” into buying a 3D TV, if at the end of the day it is a passing fad then I will still have a TV that gives me a superb HD picture. Price wise 3D TVs are not really that bad, I actually paid less for this TV than my firat large plasma screen (7 years ago).

As for GT5 in 3D I actually found this rather distracting and now stick to 2D for games.

the BBC would be better focused on giving us decent HD picture quality, for a start.

I think 3D has to come second to a compelling story well told. Retrospectively adding 3D to a rubbish film doesn’t work, but I think it came into it’s own in Avatar as it made the lush, dense environment seem more real, involving and more vast.

A Christmas Carol 3D was frankly rubbish and made my eyes hurt.

I’m looknig forward to 3D gaming though. For that reason I’ll be buying a 3D TV for my new house next month.

the BBC would be better focused on giving us decent HD picture quality, for a start.

That’s a pretty good point, actually. We really should be getting away from this split we have currently where content is scattered all over the EPG. If I watch a HD BBC channel and something local comes on, the stupid thing forces me to change channels back to the SD feed, meaning that there’s this constant push back to cataract-o-vision. Surely it’s not hard to make a HD box that’s intelligent enough to switch sensibly between the two?

Seems madness to have a third format in the mix, when HD is still considered unusual enough for Sky to be able to justify a ten quid price hike on my damned subscription.

Sticking a stupid, uncomfortable pair of glasses on to watch telly? No thanks! What if I’m already wearing my prescription glasses? 2 pairs of glasses to watch telly! No indeedy.

I haven’t seen the blog, but basically I think the general public aren’t as interested as they were in HD. The hype is mostly generated by the TV manufacturers who have sold everyone a flat screen and now a full HD flatscreen and want to keep the momentum.

The other hype angle is the cinema one – they’ve seen it as a way to get people back into the cinema. I don’t think it’s worked apart from a couple of major blockbusters. Inception was the big film of last year and it wasn’t 3D.

Most people aren’t willing to buy a 3rd telly in the last 5 years just for a couple of films – especially when the glasses are expensive and make the experience more formal.

I’ve got a 7 foot HD home cinema and hundreds of films and even I couldn’t give a monkeys about 3D films (although I am quite tempted by the GoPro 3D setup just for the laugh).

I think a lot of people are upgrading straight to HD from CRT. In my case I had no TV so I bought a small-ish flat screen cos it was what I could afford and was suitable, then we moved to a house with a much bigger front room so I upgraded to a much larger better nicer looking TV for less than the price of the first one.

I think 3D has to come second to a compelling story well told.

Heresy!

Most people aren’t willing to buy a 3rd telly in the last 5 years just for a couple of films

No, and they know that – but TVs break, kids move out, people get bigger/smaller rooms etc etc.

saw tron 3d, and couldnt tell the difference between 3d and 2d.

saw tron 3d, and couldnt tell the difference between 3d and 2d.

How many eyes do you have?

flat screens are great, use up much less space in the room can be mounted on the wall etc
picture quality can suffer so HD tvs and content is the way forward
3dtv offers very little benefit

part of the problem is whats available at the moment, gaming and sport may be good in 3d but how will eastenders be any better?
and so far no film ive seen has benefited from being in 3D apart from maybe avatar which was so woefully crap that it makes little diffreence

saw tron 3d, and couldnt tell the difference between 3d and 2d.

It doesnt’ work for everyone. Something to do with how your eyes are set up.

3D does seem to be the movie industry’s ginger-haired stepson at the moment.

I’ll go out on a limb and say, I like it, with the caveat of “when it’s done well.” The movies that start life as 2D and get converted in post-production invariably look crap, but the ones that have been designed and filmed that way are usually pretty good.

It might be a ploy to get bums on seats in the cinema, but for me at least it’s working, and let’s be honest it needed a shot in the arm. I’ve felt for years now that there’s little point in going with a group to the cinema in order to ignore each other for two hours, when I can wait a couple of months and then rest the DVD for less than the cost of a single cinema ticket, and have a much more social experience. Now though, I’ll happily pay twice the price to go and watch a 3D IMAX blockbuster in the posh seats. It’s put the magic back into the cinema again, something that has been missing for years.

I think home 3D is fundamentally flawed though, as people watch TV in a different way. People sit still in cinemas (hopefully) and watch the film; at home in front of the TV it’s less of an all-consuming activity, they’ll move around move, go for snacks and suchlike. 3D glasses are fine in a cinema environment, but doomed at home. When we get glasses-free technology perfected is when it’ll finally take off.

I’ve no doubt that it’s the future. It’ll take a while yet, but at some point we’re going to look back on 2D viewing like we view black and white now.

Oh, one other thing.

I’m shocked that there hasn’t yet been a massive take-up in the gaming world. It’s got to be a near-perfect market. Most games players are adults (with disposable income), who play on their own or with friends on the Internet (Xbox Live, PSN, Steam et al). They already sit there with headsets on so 3D glasses is just another peripheral.

The games have the 3D data right there already in their own game engines. It can’t be that difficult to retro-fit 3D glasses to work with pretty much any existing 3D game even, so long as you’ve got the horsepower to double the frame rate.

Have played black ops in 3D a number of times and the intial “cool” factor was soon replaced by annoyance and a pounding headache.

Have watched several 3D films at home and there are some really good ones, avatar obviously and also cloudy with a chance of meatballs was really really cool in 3D. Not a huge fan of 3d cinema, or cinema in general for the most part, mostly because I refuse to pay 4 quid for a packet of minstrels

What you need there is a jacket with large pockets.

There’s a program on FX called ‘Eastbound and Down’ During one episode they discussed 3dTV.

The gist was sitting on your own, in the dark, wearing big glasses and popping bubbles in the air is gay. So there you have it.

You’d think a dictionary would’ve helped them out there.

I only think 3d tv will catch on when the technology is good enough that you don’t have to wear glasses.

Imagine if you’ve got a few friends round to watch the wimbledon final in 3d – you’d need glasses for everyone & you’d all sit there looking like you’re attending a geek convention.

Not watched the blog either but I was massively underwhelmed by my first ‘3D’ cinema experience.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/3d-films-are-they-all-a-bit-rubbish

I’m not a luddite by any means, I just think this is a pretty poor development. As I understand it the tech hasn’t really advanced since the last time they tried to promote it as the next big thing. I’ve only seen Avatar in 2D – everyone says it’s so much better in 3D but it will still be an awful, awful film.

Guys, you’re missing the obvious here…

3D ain’t been adopted by the porn industry yet! 😀

3D ain’t been adopted by the porn industry yet!

I’m sure it’s coming 😉

‘Eastbound and Down’

Cracking series

I’ve seen a couple of 3D films and they both made me feel sick. I also can’t tell that big a difference between HD and normal, I think you can only tell the difference if you’ve spent money on an HD TV…

I usually get suckered into early adoption stuff but I’m not bothered about 3D, the glasses + lack of content make it worthless to me. I wish they’d focus on true LED and OLED displays, that’s where I’ll be spending my money on my next TV.

You should never have to buy a TV again, I’m quite happy living of the hand me downs, my house has 2 massive TVs that we’ve inherited from people who’ve spent 000s on plasma/HD. At the end of the day Coach Trip is the best thing on TV and you don’t need HD for that.

Glad I bought my TV just before the “fad” started to catch on.

Couple of guys at work just replaced TVs, but they were faffing about for a while. Neither wanted 3D. Neither wanted all the nonsense “Internet” features. Just a TV that shows TV in SD+HD. Of course the longer they left it the more likely they would have Internet and 3D enforced on them. One did buy 3D compatible, but left the glassed in the box, never to be used. The other bought its non-3D predecessor. Both realised the internet bit was a waste of space, but comes free on all TVs anyway. Just don’t plug in the LAN or press the “online” button on the remote.

To me, I still see 3D as a gimmick, and liken it to the occasional 1-off special productions like that 3D Michael Jackson movie that used to show at Disneyland in florida.

I’m not sure I see the problem with a free feature that you don’t want. My phone has a stocks and shares app that I have no interest in, but I’m not sat here thinking “man, I wish I’d bought my phone before they started forcing me to be able to track share prices.”

I’m tempted to say that free is never free and that lots of R&D dollars are spent on 3D, but to be honest the price of TVs is still falling – 3d or not, so I think you have a point.

Someone mentioned 3D without glasses, but so far I haven’t seen any evidence that this is going to happen.
You can do it on the Nintendo 3DS because you can predict the viewing distance pretty well, but that’s not true with TVs.

Has anyone here seen a glassesless 3D demo which works for multiple viewers at differing viewing distances?

Neither wanted all the nonsense “Internet” features.

I don’t think being able to access all the internet serveices on you TV is nonsence, in fact that’s one thing that is worth paying extra for imo. There will be more and more services available on the net direct to you TV over the next couple years I reckon.

to be honest the price of TVs is still falling

That was kinda where I was going with that. The first TVs “now with the INTERNET!!” would be expensive, but by the time it becomes commonplace it’ll cost in the order of pence to add it as a feature. It’s like arguing that you don’t want Teletext.

Someone mentioned 3D without glasses, but so far I haven’t seen any evidence that this is going to happen

Holographic projectors? *shrug* Just because we can’t predict it doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Would you have believed the 3DS was possible before Nintendo announced it?

the internet serveices … that’s one thing that is worth paying extra for imo.

I think that having the Web on the TV is pretty pointless for me personally as I’ve got a houseful of computers, but I can see it being useful as, say, a way of getting my mum to try it. On a HD telly it should be pretty usable.

What *is* a winner, though, is streaming media. iPlayer et al directly on the box, that’s a pretty killer app. No messing about setting up recordings, faffing about with DVD-Rs, expensive PVR boxes. Missed last night’s Eastenders? No problem, madam. LoveFilm subscription? Here’s out over-the-air service. Can I interest you in a premium Spotify subscription? Never buy a CD again.

Cool, not a lot of love for it then, though fair point about the 3DTV being a good HD TV too.

They just seemed to come out of no-where really quickly which surprised me, maybe I wasn’t looking at the right ‘techno’ info sites.

Will I be going that way? Nah not unless my m8 hurries up and buy one soon then hand it’s down asap. As I currently have his rather lovely old CRT TV & am eyeing up his latest HD one… he’s already made noise about it not being big enough 😀

the nonsense “Internet” features

I also think that iplayer etc on a TV is brilliant.

What’s the bandwidth cost of a 3D HD feed compared to a normal HD feed ?

I would rather have a better quality 2D HD picture than 3D HD picture which has iffy 3D effects anyway.

I have seen two demos at stores, both were feed with much higher quality feeds that you are going to get broadcast. The Panasonic one wasn’t actually too bad, but the Sony one was a waste of space.

both were feed with much higher quality feeds that you are going to get broadcast.

Broadcast signals aren’t the only source to consider, mind. I’m far more likely to watch a HD movie on Blu-ray than on Sky. The same would be true if I went 3D I’m sure.

What’s the bandwidth cost of a 3D HD feed compared to a normal HD feed ?

I’d have to look it up, but I vaguely remember that it’s comparable to an old analogue signal.