• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

anyone own a 3D tv?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Locut0s said:
In games I feel it does add another level of immersion though. I understand there is 3D porn too though :hmm:
Click to expand...

I think the problem with games is that they're not taking full advantage of it as much as they could be. I think it's partly because games can be a group experience, and having glasses for a full group can be... kind of expensive unless you have passive 3D.

For example, when I was playing Super Stardust HD, I thought it'd be nifty if it pushed the globe out of the screen. The globe just turns, so there isn't much movement past rotation. All the game does is put a few twinkles in 3D and the background is in 3D. I assume this is similar to Mortal Kombat (3D on the PS3). I read an article where they said that they purposely made the characters 2D so with or without glasses, you could still see the action. It makes sense, but if others take this approach, could they lose immersive possibilities?

Shadow of the Colossus & Ico as well as the God of War Origins collection are coming out next month, and both of them will feature 3D. I'm curious how good it will be.
 
Aikouka said:
I think the problem with games is that they're not taking full advantage of it as much as they could be. I think it's partly because games can be a group experience, and having glasses for a full group can be... kind of expensive unless you have passive 3D.

For example, when I was playing Super Stardust HD, I thought it'd be nifty if it pushed the globe out of the screen. The globe just turns, so there isn't much movement past rotation. All the game does is put a few twinkles in 3D and the background is in 3D. I assume this is similar to Mortal Kombat (3D on the PS3). I read an article where they said that they purposely made the characters 2D so with or without glasses, you could still see the action. It makes sense, but if others take this approach, could they lose immersive possibilities?

Shadow of the Colossus & Ico as well as the God of War Origins collection are coming out next month, and both of them will feature 3D. I'm curious how good it will be.
Click to expand...

Many games out now were not designed with 3D in mind. You can render them in 3D but they may look sub par or there may even be aspects that are broken. On screen HUDs are particularly prone to "break" in 3D.

I've been thinking more of the 3DS titles I've played. None of them blow me away and I wouldn't say 3D is a game changer. However after a while I definitely find myself wanting to keep the 3D slider on instead of off. Just finished Zelda OoT in 3D. It just adds another small level of immersion, and that's almost always a good thing.
 
I bought a 3D tv back in december.
Needed an upgrade from my 32" and decided to buy a new TV. 3D was an added bonus.

Games in 3D are amazing. Black OPS, Kill Zone 3, Motorstorm and almost any PC game using 3D technology such as Tridef.
Some movies are amazing, like tangled, how to train your dragon, but the best quality, IMO, comes from the Imax films; under the water, space station....

A 3D tv is still a normal TV, but with the 3D option, and with the right content, it could be amazing!

I love mine!
 
^ What really sucks is all these exclusive deals that are making it hard to get 3d content.

Stupid move by the TV makers.

If everyone could buy Avatar or How to Train your Dragon you would see more sales because there would be more top notch content available.

Right now the best 3d on the market can't be bought unless you buy their TV and many other big name titles are the same way.

Just making the Pixar, Shrek and other 3d animated movies available would be a huge kick to the market. Perhaps by Christmas. Maybe this year will be the year for 3d TV, we can only hope.
 
zinfamous said:
oh, and if your mind was "literally" blown away, your brain matter and skull fragments would literally be on Best Buy's floor right now.

come on people, can we stop with this "literally" crap right now?
Click to expand...

To be honest, when I hear "XXX literally XXX" in that way; I simply look at it like hyperbole as in "XXX literally (not to be taken literally) XXX." So it doesn't really bother me that much, however, I never use the phrase myself.
 
Locut0s said:
Many games out now were not designed with 3D in mind. You can render them in 3D but they may look sub par or there may even be aspects that are broken. On screen HUDs are particularly prone to "break" in 3D.

I've been thinking more of the 3DS titles I've played. None of them blow me away and I wouldn't say 3D is a game changer. However after a while I definitely find myself wanting to keep the 3D slider on instead of off. Just finished Zelda OoT in 3D. It just adds another small level of immersion, and that's almost always a good thing.
Click to expand...

We've been talking about this very thing in the 3D thread in PC Gaming, and it seems the one thing you have to keep in mind is that not all games are actually programmed with being "3D-ized" in mind. Like you mentioned, certain things such as HUDs and other 2D portions sometimes will not show up correctly unless the game has been designed to work with 3D.
 
TheVrolok said:
To be honest, when I hear "XXX literally XXX" in that way; I simply look at it like hyperbole as in "XXX literally (not to be taken literally) XXX." So it doesn't really bother me that much, however, I never use the phrase myself.
Click to expand...

well, that's why people use it, I think. They mean it as hyperbole, when it is completely unnecessary/improper as hyperbole.

literally, simply, means literally.

hyperbole needs nothing for emphasis.

I could eat an elephant!

seriously, wtf needs to hear "literally" in front of that to understand that the moron is not being serious?

idiots.
 
zinfamous said:
well, that's why people use it, I think. They mean it as hyperbole, when it is completely unnecessary/improper as hyperbole.

literally, simply, means literally.

hyperbole needs nothing for emphasis.

I could eat an elephant!

seriously, wtf needs to hear "literally" in front of that to understand that the moron is not being serious?

idiots.
Click to expand...

Maybe they want to commit suicide by overeating and they are thinking of choosing "elephant" as the food to do it by. Then they would quite literally eat a whole elephant. :colbert:
 
Locut0s said:
Maybe they want to commit suicide by overeating and they are thinking of choosing "elephant" as the food to do it by. Then they would quite literally eat a whole elephant. :colbert:
Click to expand...

the expression is only used when someone is hungry, damn it! not trying to commit suicide.

How about this, when some idiot says: "I'm literally starving to death!"

what this message conveys to people who aren't idiots: "You are watching me die. I am 3 minutes from death, by starvation. Seriously, watch me die right here, because we are passed the threshold; Modern medicine and/or Jesus/Allah can not save me now as I am now in the death rattle."

idiots
 
zinfamous said:
the expression is only used when someone is hungry, damn it! not trying to commit suicide.

How about this, when some idiot says: "I'm literally starving to death!"

what this message conveys to people who aren't idiots: "You are watching me die. I am 3 minutes from death, by starvation. Seriously, watch me die right here, because we are passed the threshold; Modern medicine and/or Jesus/Allah can not save me now as I am now in the death rattle."

idiots
Click to expand...

You are literally boring me to death. 😉
 
I really do think the biggest appeal to me is playing PS3 games in 3D like Killzone and Black Ops.

That alone makes me tempted to get a 3D TV.

There's just no way I can justify doing so though since my living room TV isn't that old and works great.
 
tboo said:
I refuse to give in to the 3-D craze.
Click to expand...

RadiclDreamer said:
3DTV sucks ass, I have a Sony Bravia at just under 50in and it sucks as bad as it does in theaters, just a gimmick, and a shitty one at that
Click to expand...

Yep, current 3D technology is all hype, it might have some substance to it once they can do 3D without needing any glasses. Notice 3D comes and goes every 10-15 years starting back in the 80s. This current fad will die soon too I hope. If one is thinking about buying into the current 3D technology, "A fool and his money are easily parted".
 
I have a model year 2010 58" Samsung plasma with 3D, but I have literally (really, literally) never used it. It's an incredible TV without it. I knew that I wasn't going to use the feature when I bought it.
 
If I were buying a TV today I'd buy a 3D one - 3D sets are pretty much always the best plasma/LCD sets. I do have an Oppo BDP-93 blu ray player that is 3D-capable, so I'm sure I'd at least try it if I had one, but I can't imagine I'd use the 3D feature often. I am still happy with my nearly 6-year-old Samsung 720p DLP TV (still on its original bulb!), so I feel no burning desire to buy a new set anytime soon.
 
Don Vito Corleone said:
If I were buying a TV today I'd buy a 3D one - 3D sets are pretty much always the best plasma/LCD sets. I do have an Oppo BDP-93 blu ray player that is 3D-capable, so I'm sure I'd at least try it if I had one, but I can't imagine I'd use the 3D feature often. I am still happy with my nearly 6-year-old Samsung 720p DLP TV (still on its original bulb!), so I feel no burning desire to buy a new set anytime soon.
Click to expand...

While I'm sure many if not most of the 3D sets are very good I'd be surprised if all the best panels out there are 3D as well. They have to spend money to produce a 120Hz capable unit. Usually the highest end, best quality, electronics are rather conservative in their feature set. Do a small number of things perfectly, don't try to be jack of all trades.
 
actually, i will just wait for the Black Friday deals. Black Friday in Detroit sucks balls. Almost got into a fight a few years ago
 
SandEagle said:
actually, i will just wait for the Black Friday deals. Black Friday in Detroit sucks balls. Almost got into a fight a few years ago
Click to expand...

I think they're trying to advise you to stop spending money so frivolously. 😛 Consider taking my "How much do I need this?" approach. Whenever you see a dollar price, multiply it by a need factor (1x = fairly necessary, 5x = would be nice to have). If your TV isn't broken and you already have HD, but not 3D... I think you could consider that a 4x or 5x expenditure.

Of course, buying that new AVR was probably against my own need factor approach, but I didn't buy it on credit. 😛
 
I just scored 2 more pairs of 3d glasses and all the Shrek movies in 3d for $97 shipped. Looks like soon I'll have seen more than one movie in 3d on my TV. 😀
 
Nebor said:
I just scored 2 more pairs of 3d glasses and all the Shrek movies in 3d for $97 shipped. Looks like soon I'll have seen more than one movie in 3d on my TV. 😀
Click to expand...

I don't want my movies in 3D! But if I have to I'll wait till they have autostereoscopic 3D working well on large screens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top