3D

[Bugbitten]

Anyone with 3D gear (TV, Player, AVR)?

Last minute deals at Sony look pretty good. Should I jump in?

[sbisheff]

I don't think 3D is going to be around very long. I think its kinda cool but realistically, who wants to wear glasses every time they want to watch TV and who's gonna pay the money for those expensive glasses every time one of their kids loses a pair? I personally think its a marketing fad and will be gone in a year or two.

Also, I don't like the picture. They aren't as clear/crisp as a good 2D picture. Ever implementation I've seen (either movie theater or home) has been less than stellar and made me want to stop watching it, hoping I could just watch the 2D version instead.

Just my 2cents :)

[Kevin_Wadsworth]

I've been fairly anti-3D, but I had never seen anything modern (onyl DisneyWorld stuff form the 80's) done with it. So we took my daughter to see Tangled in 3D. It wasn't awful, and there were parts where I enjoyed the effect. but overall, I'd rather just watch 2D.

In some parts, the act of enjoying the effect took me out of hte movie a bit, and I really didn't like my peripheral vision being different than my center-of-field vision. (My wife, who wears glasses regularly, wasn't bothered by this.)

s, anyway, as a result I'm not going to be hopping o nthe home-3D bandwagon anytime soon.

[Mike4AU]

3D is a gimmick. I have never seen anything in 3D that was worth a crap, other that a few minutes of an attraction at Disney World. I am a gadget kind of guy and a fairly early adopter of such, but 3D is not even on my radar.

[Jon Liu]

Personally I really like the 3D, especially when it enhances the movie and doesnt distract away from the movie. Unfortunately, a lot of it comes off as gimmicky and little is actually used for substance. That being said, I don't believe that the technology and implementation that they have right one will take off. Yes they are pushing it, but the novelty will wear off when people realize how absurd it is to have to buy all new equipment and buy those stupid looking glasses that cost a fortune to get.

When they start implementing the ways to do it without the glasses, then I will be more interested. Plus, my Pioneer Elite 151 is still giving me the most satisfying picture out of all the televisions available.

[dguarnaccia]

I love the concept of 3D, and thought it added a lot to a movie like Avatar when done well. But most movies aren't really doing that still, and I refuse to pay for expensive glasses for each person watching the show. When they can bring the passive glass technology to home theater like Real3D then I'll be interested, or even better, no glasses at all.

[fanuminski]

I have only two(?) words:
.
.
.
.
.
SAW 3D :yes:
.

.lol

Outside of Avatar in 3D - which I absolutely loved! -
I could do without it (unless the advent of home 3D
helps brings down the price on some nice 55-60" LED/LCD TV's!)

[HuskerOmaha]

3D

I don't think the 3D experience has really caught on at all. I'm also on the gimmick belief. Probably won't be purchasing it at all.

Just look at Best Buys last few quarters...they got killed because they invested so much money in it.

[gonk]

I've got a 3D player (BDP-93), but no other 3D hardware. Frankly, I don't have any interest in getting a 3D TV. I've looked at a demo or two. The active shutter glasses (with the cost and inconvenience they entail), hardware upgrade costs, and limited content just aren't enough to convince me to mess with 3D.

[Bugbitten]

Wow! I guess I should send everything back.

Sony 55-HX800, S770, PS3 3D bundle and HK3600 under the tree, waiting for Christmas.

I just wanted the LED 240Hz and the AVR. The other stuff was a bonus.

[Jon Liu]

Bugbitten, if you are upgrading NOW then you might as well get 3D, but for those of us who already have the setup and stuff, then it doesn't make sense to upgrade JUST to get 3D. My TV is not 3D capable, my pre/pro is not 3D passable (not yet at least), my Oppo BDP-83 blu-ray player is not capable of 3D... That's a lot of stuff that is not going to be easily qualitatively replaced just to simply have 3D in my home. And above all else, I simply don't want to buy the freaking expensive glasses, especially if I am going to wear them over my everyday glasses...

[Jed M]

For certain movies at the theater I think 3D really works and even enhances the movie, but for home use the screen is too small to have an impact and you just end up feeling silly wearing heavy glasses in your living room. I don't have a 3D tv, but in all the store demo's I watched it just seems very subtle and not worth the effort compared to a huge movie screen. I won't be getting on this bandwagon, but I do hope 3D stays for theaters.

But as mentioned earlier, if you are upgrading right now, might as well if the tv is what you would have bought regardless.

[Mep]

3D has been a fad that was about to die for several decades now.

My problem with 3D is they need to make the glasses bigger or my head needs to be smaller. I remember about a decade ago going to an IMAX 3D show. They had fairly big and expensive head gear one had to wear to see the 3D effect and they were in different sizes. It worked extremely well for me and the 3D was very impressive. Those cheap plastic sunglasses they give out now just dont cut it for me. The tech, when done right, is great but I think for the most part the execution is a fail.

The real test for 3D is right now actually with Tron. If Tron in 3D is a flop and the next Harry Potter movie's 3D version is also canceled I can see 3D fading once again, only to come back latter. If Tron does well, the movie studios will be encouraged and do more titles in 3D and Avatar 2 may give 3D the bump it needs to keep going over the next 5 years.

As with most things, the market will decide and may decide soon.

[Bugbitten]

Thanks for the comments.

I went by BB again today and auditioned TVs. I still like the picture of the HX800 even with 2D.

95% or more of viewing will be 2D but the 3D will be nice to play with.

I'm not a gamer so we will have to see what happens with the PS3.