Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'High Definition' started by Workshed, Jan 7, 2014.
Will this be a format-wide death knell?
I just paid extra for a TV (and it's friggin beautiful, I must say) 'cause I could only get it with 3-D, which is pretty much a waste of money when ya only gots one eye.
I'm sorry but how do company decisions from Vizio dictate the success or failure of anything? I agree that the 3D format is (and has been) in trouble. I love 3D, and the glasses aren't an issue. They're so light that I barely know they are on my face. I am excited about Twilight Times Man In The Dark blu-ray. Creature From The Black Lagoon, House of Wax, Dial M For Murder are awesome blu-ray's in 3D.
Vizio is an econoline. They are not really a harbinger of anything. They do whatever they can to keep costs down and the tightwads that buy their sets aren't really the type to be interested it. 3D was destined to be a niche market, but I suspect that it will always be an option available in upper tier sets. 3D requires a better quality panel that companies like Vizio don't want to spend money on if they don't have to. Even if you never use the 3D you rest assured that you are getting a better picture than you would have if you bought a standard 2D set.
It doesn't surprise me. I work in retail and my store stopped carrying 3-D TV's well over a year ago. 3-D may have had some potential if it was shoved on the market so quickly. In early 2010 most of America had finally caught up by making the upgrade from analog to digital. It's funny that electronic companies expected people to run out and buy a whole new set up.
The real 3D should come WITHOUT GLASSES as Sharp seems to be doing for his brand new 8K TV. Check here:
that would be awesome.
i'm not terribly broken up about the possibility of never owning a 3D setup, but I will be disappointed if I never get a chance to see movies like Dial M for Murder, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and House of Wax in 3D.
I own a Samsung 46" 3D TV, and I love it, and I own several movies on 3D, including House of Wax.
I don't think 3DTV will take off until they master glasses free 3D. They're working very hard on it and I'm sure it's bound to happen sooner rather than later. As Paff said though, it's harder to get a goof HDTV that CAN'T do 3D than one that does. 3DTV is biding its time, hiding out in the open.
In the meantime we have more and more 3D content coming out everyday. Eventually we'll get a 3DTV show. Much like it took TV a little while longer to go color than the average Hollywood films, it'll be awhile before we see that.
It's hard to get an idea when that'll all be though. After all HD has been around since the 90's. But Hollywood still got some 3D film in development like Avatar 2/3/4 that will keep things going.
I just don't think 2D-3D is analogous to black and white-color. Most 3-D is still "gimmicky". Avatar is the closest thing we've had to 3-D really adding something to the experience that's more than just merely making stuff come out of the screen. There needs to be a film or TV show that simply cannot be enjoyed in 2-D; 3-D viewing is REQUIRED to appreciate it (again, Avatar is the closest so far)
3D TVs arent going away anytime soon if at all- the 3D without the glasses will be the next thing coming and should sell fairly well. Its still a progressing technology - It is possible manufacturers may start making less sets with 3D capability- but there will still be models that offer it for a long time to come
When was the last time color really mattered in a film? When was the first time color use was integral to a film? Color was a gimmick as much as 3D is because both are real world sense we have which frankly movies could exist without. Movies existed for decades without sound, or color, or being widescreen for that matter. People still paid to go see them. In fact people still pay to go see the occasional B&W silent film, like The Artist.
Right now you can argue the 5-senses theaters they have now with smell and seat movement are just gimmicks but I can imagine a day when that is seen as integral. Why? Because these are the sense we have and they can be used. "Mom I don't wanna watch that old Avatar movie, it doesn't even move my seat! I really like the smell of the new Disney movies! Can they get a program to simulate what the filmmakers would have done had they been able to move our seats or make smells?"
Although I don't use 3-D as often as I would like, I can't imagine buying a television without the option at this point. My current set is an LG 42" passive. The picture quality is very good and being able to just bring home glasses from the theater is nice. I've got more than enough to have family and or company over and everyone can have a pair, worry free if they break since replacing is so cheap.
Sure it's mostly a gimmick, but I love having the option when I want it.
I've never been as surprised or entertained by the use of 3D as I am by the use of color in films like The Wizard of Oz, Spellbound, or High and Low. The great thing about color is that it provides such a dramatic contrast to black and white that you can't help but notice it. In virtually every 3D experience I've had, even Avatar, it becomes very easy to forget that you're watching something in 3D.
I saw Man of Steel in 3D. But I only remember that because I remember paying a higher price. I don't actually remember the movie-watching experience any differently.
Agreed. It was disappointing, as is the blu-ray.
But that's been my experience for the most part with 3D films. Its kind of funny - when a movie uses 3D as a gimmick, like in My Bloody Valentine, with pick axes and jawbones flying at the camera, it creates a memorable effect. But when it's used as an "enhancement" to an otherwise regularly filmed movie, it ends up being forgotten about. I've been avoiding 3D films for over a year now. Not because I have any aversion to them, but because, even in the case of blockbuster action spectaculars like Man of Steel, or Thor, or whatever, I honestly just don't feel like it adds anything to my enjoyment of it. I saw the second Hobbit film in 3D because I missed the 2D screening. And, despite only seeing it a few weeks ago, I have no memory of anything jumping off the screen or of any particularly impressive and deep vistas. I remember the movie quite clearly, but my memories are in 2D, if that makes any sense...
It does make sense. When used correctly, 3D can deliver a satisfying appearance of depth which adds to the viewing experience. Prometheus is a great example of this. It's funny though that my favorite 3D blu-ray's were gimmicks (Dial M for Murder, Creature From the Black Lagoon and House of Wax).
I love 3-D. My Creature review explains why. I also love my Vizio 3D TV. If they dropped 3D, that only means my next TV will be something other than Vizio.
If 3-D bluray dies tomorrow, I'll be happy with what we got. If you told me 10 years ago that we would be getting movies on home video with a true 3D format, I would have said you were crazy. It happened. There's gotta be 100+ mainstream movies released onto 3D bluray, yes? That's pretty cool.
3D bluray still seems to be going at a steady enough pace. I think studios would drop it like a bad habit if they weren't selling at least a bit. I haven't really seen any fire sales either. I think it's a niche, but enough of a niche they are making some money.
I love 3D, too, don't care if it's used to enhance or as a gimmick in films. It's fun, different from the norm, and separates my viewing experience from the theater and home. That latter point is why I haven't plunged into 3D for my home theater. I see it more as a reason to go to the theater, and I'm not going to sit on my couch with glasses on. It's an old argument, I know.
It's sounds like there are several users on here who love it at home, though, and that's great.