Yes, unfortunately however it is the next big marketing gimick to the under 25 crowd and they are going to push it until you grow to accept it, just like they did with that stupid iCrap.
As an under-25 person, I resemb... resent that remark!
But honestly, most of the 3D stuff out there, I wholly agree, gimmicky.
But there are quality uses, and stuff I'd love to see.
3D using polarized glasses (active or passive), allows full color quality (loss of brightness of 1 f-stop, but many displays are insanely bright anyway. As long as contrast and colors and overall black levels can be preserved, which for the most part they are, it's not a negative. The increase is depth makes up for it all imho.
But it has to be crafted. It can't just be pulled from 2D and converted, like most movies trying to ride the 3D train have done. If a competent cinematographer uses 3D cameras, the effect can be unreal. I like depth perception because it more accurately mimics how we see. Saying increased depth perception is a gimmick is... well quite comical as an argument. Stuff jumping out, like the previous 3D wave? Yeah, that's ridiculous and unnecessary. But I'll clamor for more Avatar-like 3D.
Getting it on new TVs? For the content created correctly, such displays have their worth. And some things converted, if they are converted for the increased depth and not for jump-out-at-you effects, would benefit imho on the home display. And sports, when filmed in actual 3D, would just follow along with the increased immersion. Granted you have a large-enough display.
I'm just sickened that most upcoming 3D displays are using active glasses. Ugh, that's expensive.
More reason why I might wait for a quality 3D projector that uses passive glasses.
You have to admit - Discovery Channel (well, nature/science content in general) in quality 3D? Oooo. And Discovery has already announced a 3D channel. If I'm at home and want to watch something, I'd definitely watch in 3D unless I want to multitask. And if I'm watching something with one or two other people? Definitely still watch in 3D. If it's passive glasses would be cheap so the number of people wouldn't matter. Active glasses, well... maybe 1 other person, more depending on affordability of active shutter glasses at that time.
QFT...
But, I have difficulty watching "3D" because I have a weak right eye.
Head tracking is more useful, IMO, than stereoscopic vision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw
So, ignoring the eye problem..
how about combined 3D and head tracking? That's gaming paradise right there.
GT5 is supposed to have head tracking with the PSEye, and that's a helluva lot cheaper than PC head tracking hardware. If you already own a PS3, that is.
Facebook
Twitter