Is 3D for theater and home officially dead?

[ControlD]

It seems like every time I try to watch a 3D movie in the theaters I end up seeing double images of everything. My eyes just can't quite focus the 3D images in. It sort of gives me a headache. At home with a smaller screen it actually works fairly well. I don't go out of my my to make sure I get the 3D version of everything we buy, but it is fun to watch some things (animated movies especially) in 3D.

 

[Pacfanweb]

If you already own 3d gear you are are only denying yourself by not Avitar on it.

Why not? Does not make any sense.

It's like getting a Supercharger on a car and taking the belt off of it....wtf?

You buy a 3D TV because you want a TV with the best picture....and the TV's with the best picture only come in 3D. Doesn't mean you have to use the 3D.

 

[purbeast0]

It seems like every time I try to watch a 3D movie in the theaters I end up seeing double images of everything. My eyes just can't quite focus the 3D images in. It sort of gives me a headache. At home with a smaller screen it actually works fairly well. I don't go out of my my to make sure I get the 3D version of everything we buy, but it is fun to watch some things (animated movies especially) in 3D.

3d at home definitely looks better than 3d in the theater, at least in my experience, on both a 60" tv and 120" screen. both active.

 

[zerocool84]

they showed off some new 3d tech that i read about on avs a few months ago, for home tvs that is glasses-less 3d, and it looked pretty promising. it also didn't cause the screen to get any dimmer, which is a huge plus. that is pretty much all i know about it, but the feedback was promising.

i personally like 3d. it adds another dimension to the movie that is just neat. sure it's gimmicky and isn't necessary, but it does add something to it that i like. it's kind of like how surround sound isn't necessary to watch movies, but when you do have it, it makes the movie much better and more enjoyable.

that is kind of how i feel about 3d as well. it's not necessary, but to me it makes the experience more fun than the 2d version, for the most part. there are some movies i've seen though where it detracts from the movie, with the only one i can think of that i really disliked was the newest spiderman movie.

i have a 3d tv and a 3d projector at home. i just wish you could rent more 3d stuff but i will purchase 3d blurays if it's a movie i am interested in and i can find it for around $20. most recent ones were the new star trek and wwz because there was a deal for both 3d blurays for $32 shipped.

Surround sound only gives you more immersion, not huge negatives to it other than cost and finding room for the extra speakers. 3D makes some people dizzy, strains their eyes, uncomfortable with the glasses, not as bright, can sometimes take away the immersion, it just isn't the same.

I bought a new tv two months ago and didn't bother to buy one with 3D because I just don't care about it. Everything is moving away from it.

 

[Squisher]

I rent movies in 3D once in a while, but then again I sit on a subwoofer.:biggrin:

 

[purbeast0]

Surround sound only gives you more immersion, not huge negatives to it other than cost and finding room for the extra speakers. 3D makes some people dizzy, strains their eyes, uncomfortable with the glasses, not as bright, can sometimes take away the immersion, it just isn't the same.

I bought a new tv two months ago and didn't bother to buy one with 3D because I just don't care about it. Everything is moving away from it.

well yeah obviously if you aren't comfortable with 3d it won't be more immersive and will be more of a nuisance. a good 3d setup is easily more immersive (if it doesn't bother you in any way), and as i mentioned you really notice how "flat" it is in 2d when you flick back/forth in the middle of the movie. it really is hard to explain until you do it for yourself, because you think the 2d looks just fine, then flip it back on and you see depth that wasn't there a second ago.

surround sound can also be a nuisance to people. my sister thought my system was too loud when we were watching a movie and when i turned it down to levels she liked, it took away from the immersion to me. but i got a pretty hardcore system so i can understand why it was uncomfortable to her 😀

 

[ControlD]

3d at home definitely looks better than 3d in the theater, at least in my experience, on both a 60" tv and 120" screen. both active.

I haven't had a chance to try active 3D, we just have a passive TV but it still looks great to me. Does the active 3D make a big difference compared to passive?

 

[purbeast0]

I haven't had a chance to try active 3D, we just have a passive TV but it still looks great to me. Does the active 3D make a big difference compared to passive?

i don't think one really looks better than the other, it's more about the actual device that is showing it. passive glasses are MUCH cheaper though.

 

[StrangerGuy]

You buy a 3D TV because you want a TV with the best picture....and the TV's with the best picture only come in 3D. Doesn't mean you have to use the 3D.

Like smart TVs and 4K they are simply more bulletpoints to the list of features that hardly any consumer would care about. They just want cheap and not completely crap basic HDTVs. Of course manufacturers won't be the first to admit they are running out of ideas to sell a commoditized flat panel.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I've watched a few space programs that are in 3D and it's actually pretty cool. I enjoy 3D when it's done right, but don't go out of my way to see it.

Avatar's 3D was good.
Final Destination 5 was surprisingly well done (as a movie and the 3D).

Other than that..nature/space national geographic stuff is not bad at all but more of a something different than a necessity.

 

[Pacfanweb]

I haven't had a chance to try active 3D, we just have a passive TV but it still looks great to me. Does the active 3D make a big difference compared to passive?

If you like headaches and dizziness, yes.

 

[Pacfanweb]

well yeah obviously if you aren't comfortable with 3d it won't be more immersive and will be more of a nuisance. a good 3d setup is easily more immersive (if it doesn't bother you in any way), and as i mentioned you really notice how "flat" it is in 2d when you flick back/forth in the middle of the movie. it really is hard to explain until you do it for yourself, because you think the 2d looks just fine, then flip it back on and you see depth that wasn't there a second ago.

surround sound can also be a nuisance to people. my sister thought my system was too loud when we were watching a movie and when i turned it down to levels she liked, it took away from the immersion to me. but i got a pretty hardcore system so i can understand why it was uncomfortable to her 😀

I've had people say that about my system, too....yet you go into a theater and it's loud as hell, and I don't see people complaining about that.

I've had a friend tell me there was too much bass in my system. I had to lol, because I had the subs in the main speakers and the regular sub turned down....it could have been a LOT more bass.
Personally, if shit isn't falling off the shelves, there's not enough bass.

 

[SKORPI0]

I've enjoyed watching 3D movies and documentaries for quite a while. And if done right (no post-converting) is actually good. It's not for everyone since people's eyes are different. I've heard of some actually getting dizzy while viewing them. :\

I prefer the active 3D than the passive 3D. Compared them side by side at a Costco and you can see the difference.