3D - newest great thing or expensive gimmick?

[Andrew]

Was just wondering - have seen 3D being slated on other forums for various reasons, so was wondering what the people felt here. Is anyone here seriously thinking of going the 3d route, or you you feel it's just a passing fad, just an expensive gimmick that will never really take off?

[KenMasters]

Not interested myself. If it sticks around and my next TV ends up having 3D by default then that's a nice little bonus, but I won't go out to buy a 3D TV specifically.

Only 3D movie I've seen in the theatre is Avatar and I was not impressed, by either the 3D or the movie. In fact I felt as though the 3D actively detracted from the spectacle. A lot of shimmer, especially on glass reflections and their computer displays, out of focus elements drifting past the forground, the need to reacquire the focal point after a scene change - not for me.

[Stefan]

Perfectly happy with 2D. If there was better material to watch it might have worked, but in my opinion, the current crap out there doesn't justify it. I'm really not into animated kiddies' movies like ice age, toy story or alice in wonderland. Saw Avatar, thought the movie was the worst crap I've ever experienced and the 3D to be overrated.

Also read somewhere that the studios are pushing for 3D because CGI's are cheaper to make special effects etc and piracy would be more difficult - so more money for them.

Only industry I'd imagine 3D to take off is first person shooter and car racing games. Maybe porn as well.

[naughty]

right now theres so few movies in 3D it has to remain a total gimmick - for the guys who have the 3D equipment they have a choice from less than 20 movies to buy and from that each person would be lucky if they liked more than 2 of those - so wheres the fun in that

i love the effects but those will improve as time goes on - so its not worth investing in the technology at the fledgling stage just to be an early adopter because all you are doing is subsidizing the upgrades to the next generation of hardware and ive had my fill of that with computer equipment

as it stands i still havent outgrown blu-ray because ive just basically bought the player around 6 months back and then i still have less than 10 discs that i own ..... mainly because i only want to buy movies that i feel are classics and not just every movie that gets released - and IMHO theres very few of those around

ask yourself honestly how many of the movies you own will you want to watch again in 10 years time - and then ask the same question when it comes to the 3D stuff - so if you had a choice from around 10 to 20 movies and have only two movies - its still too niche a market for me to accept that i need it 

[dotVIBE]

the content just isn't there.

unfortunately, the best TVs are the 3D ones. so you pay for a feature you don't need to get the best specs on the features you do want.

[ByronH]

Manufacturers should rather focus on standardisation and user customisable products instead of pushing what they hope will be the next "must-have" feature or interface. This would allow users to assemble systems to fit their own requirements and choose to trial a feature and remove it entirely if uninterested (simply unplug the module). The market wouldn't be flooded with junk that would become obsolete within a few months, resulting in an entire product being junked.

Edit: a pipe dream, I know...

[VALVAGLO]

Right now all the 3d TV's need a special pair of sunglasses to go with it, and so if you have more than yourself to watch the movie it means more expense in the form of so many extra pairs of sunglasses, for your family and for the friends who may be invited or who just dropped by for a visit. Imagine the embarassment when you have to have two viewings because you don't have enough glasses.Also remember to have enough spare batteries for the "shades" as well.
For me HD is still good enough ,and a nice big screen makes up for any 3D enhancement gimick
All that said, I may well have to eat my words later.

My two Cents worth

[NoSnipeLimit]

Actually there are now 3D tv's that don't require you to wear any glasses.  But at $2000 for a 20inch it's bit sad.
I'm sure that will be more popular than the tvs with glasses...

[Big G]

This is one of the reasons I'm still using a CRT! Every time I look to upgrade, another step in the TV world is coming into being!

I do look forward to getting a Samsung 3D LED TV one day, but when they cost R4k for a 42", thats when I'll buy. Of course thats assuming my CRT lasts til then?

Regards
G!

[Mervin]

International sales in 3D TV has been shockingly low (and unexpected by the vendors) feedback from AV Shows.

[kHz]

... If it sticks around and my next TV ends up having 3D by default then that's a nice little bonus, but I won't go out to buy a 3D TV specifically.

+1

[Shonver]

Not interested myself. If it sticks around and my next TV ends up having 3D by default then that's a nice little bonus, but I won't go out to buy a 3D TV specifically.

+1

+1 from me, too.

[Scrat]

Gimmick

[Larry]

For me, the issue will always be the glasses.  Until there is a viable and cost effective solution to the consumer that requires no glasses, and doesn’t result in any eye strain, I’m not really interested.

I think the concept is quite cool, but the execution is still too primitive, and the use (other than a few movies or games) is frankly very limited.

[Steerpike]

I keep wondering why the industry uses the corny "3-D" nomenclature, when there is a very good English (Greek?!) word for it - stereoscopic.