Have you seen a 3D TV that didn't leave you partially blind?

[Doppel]

I've seen several 3D TV displays at Best Buy and they now have Vizio ones at my local Walmart. I have yet to see one that doesn't blow heaping buckets of sh*t. The 3D does work--it's 3D--but the blurring everywhere else and strain on the eyes is really something crazy, I think worse than a movie theater. Certainly nothing that makes me think I gotta have that.

FWIW I was pretty impressed with the 3D on the Nintendo 3DS, which requires no glasses and really does work, at least in the demo unit.

 

[DaTT]

I have a Panasonic GT25 and I just got 3D glasses for it yesterday and just watched my first 3D movie (honestly, I got the TV like 9 months ago). Anyways, I know what you mean about the blurring but it really doesn't bother me. It is gimicky, but cool too.

 

[Rifter]

3D is a gimmick and the sooner its gone the better IMO. I agree 100% with OP.

 

[xalos]

I'm pretty sure that 3D is here to stay and the actual content will get better over time.
I've never experienced the discomfort that the OP describes, but a lot of the people I know have 3D televisions and they really enjoy them. Perhaps those that feel discomfort from viewing 3D from televisions and movies have slight epilepsy?

But, store demos (for the most part) are inferior to the experience that you get at home. The IMAX 3D movies are extraordinary and while I don't and wouldn't watch 3D all of the time, I definitely like having the option.

 

[DrPizza]

I'm pretty sure that 3D is here to stay and the actual content will get better over time.

Perhaps those that feel discomfort from viewing 3D from televisions and movies have slight epilepsy?

3-D movies have been around for at least a generation. In the old days, you wore those green and red glasses; the new televisions, glasses still (there are televisions coming out that don't require glasses though.) Nonetheless, the content, as you say, *has* gotten better over time. Look at how much better Thor was for the 3D, compared to, say, Jaws 3D that came out about *THREE DECADES AGO.* Oh, not a whole lot better.

And, it's not "slight epilepsy" that causes the discomfort, rather, it's millions of years of evolution that causes the discomfort. This article explains it fairly well: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/post_4.html

 

[Chaotic42]

I'm not convinced. I wish they would focus on UHDTV instead.

 

[RockinZ28]

In stores the LED lcds made my eyes bleed, looked like a 60Hz CRT.

At home in total darkness, watching 3d on the plasma causes no eye strain for me.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I have enough issues with migraines. I avoid 3d like the plague.

 

[Jaskalas]

Have you seen a 3D TV that didn't leave you partially blind?

Sure... when you're NOT using the 3D.

 

[Rage187]

I'm not convinced. I wish they would focus on UHDTV instead.

This. Things will look 3D when the resolution is maxed out.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/19/sharp-shows-off-the-worlds-first-super-hi-vision-lcd-with-16x-m/

 

[Doppel]

If I do have "slight epilepsy", along with millions of other people, 3D television has become an amazing diagnostic tool, as I express no other symptoms. I suspect that people's tolerance to 3D would diminish with age. But I am not a senior yet.

I read Ebert's article a while back and I don't know enough to refute it. It sounds compelling. Is there a reason why it's wrong? It makes sense to me.

--

That UHDTV looks nice. Certainly at some point resolution need not get higher to replicate perfectly what our eyes are capable of. I wonder where that would be.

UHDTV would require non-streaming physical media, a generation past blu-ray (bandwidth in near future has no hope) and I'm not sure there will be one.

 

[Squisher]

I'm in the market for a TV. The one I'm looking at comes in 4 flavors with the highest end unit in 3D. So, I opened it up for discussion in the AT Home Theater forum and it was pretty unanimous that I should save myself $400 and forgo the 3D.

 

[0roo0roo]

filming eye distance is average, so it probably fits some better than others.
also of course theres the eye convergence thing ebert probably mentioned.

3d just doesn't work with some people, your eyes aren't really fooled, eye focus distance is all wrong for what you are seeing.

3ds type 3d really would suck for a tv.

 

[TakeNoPrisoners]

3D is horrible and just a gimmick.

I hope it dies in a fire.

 

[SKORPI0]

Projection 3D TV works better than those screens that have 2 converging images. Those displays in stores don't work properly. View them in the dark, like it was meant to be.

I've been watching different 3D movies (theater/TV) over the years. I remember watching Flesh for Frankenstein (1974) in the movie house out of curiosity. That was a horrible movie.

Avatar projected and viewed with those real3D glasses really was leaps and bounds different than those that preceded it. Maybe I'm one of the few that enjoy it without having any migraines or head aches. :hmm: