prawnabie
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 06:08 PM |
|
|
Anybody in 3D yet?
Hi Guys
I've never been into big tellys, always had my money on projectors. I just prefer movies on a 150"+ screen that disappears into thin air
when switched of to having a massive flatscreen tv!
Anyway, the time has come to replace the projector I bought earlier on in the year. Been looking around and settled on an optoma (my brand of choice)
HD600x 3D jobbie. Then I noticed they are brining out a 3D box to make it compatable with SKY 3D, bluray 3D and XBOX/PS3 games that are 3D.
So for the 3D box, projector and a couple of pairs of goggles I am £700 lighter! Hopefully the sale of my current projector will help towards the cost
a bit!!
Does anybody else use 3D yet and what movies am I looking at getting to show it off (already have black ops and GT5 which are 3D).
Thanks
Shaun
|
|
|
|
|
MakeEverything
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 06:13 PM |
|
|
My eyes wont let me see 3D films. 
I can use them independently to look at separate things simultaneously (not like a lizard though) so i have to work really hard to see both red and
blue together for a 3D effect. Sometimes it works, but i have to strain to watch it.
Kindest Regards,
Richard.
...You can make it foolProof, but youll never make it Idiot Proof!...
|
|
|
thunderace
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 06:28 PM |
|
|
i cant watch 3d as it flickers like mad in my eyes but i can see lights flicker that most people can see ?
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MakeEverything
My eyes wont let me see 3D films.
I can use them independently to look at separate things simultaneously (not like a lizard though) so i have to work really hard to see both red and
blue together for a 3D effect. Sometimes it works, but i have to strain to watch it.
How's this? Do they not work through polarisation like in cinemas?
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 06:30 PM |
|
|
Apparently the public are avoiding 3D TV in droves, according to quite a few websites. Few people are taking it up, and only a very few more are
planning to buy the necessary kit.
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
these new 3d tvs are not the red and green type any more makeeverything, thats so oldskool  , so go to currys and look at the LG display, you might
be in luck and it works for you
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
prawnabie
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 06:51 PM |
|
|
All the films I have seen in 3D havent used the older green+red glasses just clear ones. My dad couldnt see the old 3d stuff that was on last year on
the bbc (the queen etc) but can see the new stuff with the clear glasses perfectly.
|
|
|
speedyxjs
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MakeEverything
My eyes wont let me see 3D films.
I can use them independently to look at separate things simultaneously (not like a lizard though) so i have to work really hard to see both red and
blue together for a 3D effect. Sometimes it works, but i have to strain to watch it.
Same problem here. I cant even see it if i strain I can either see it in red or green depending on which eye i decide to favour
[Edited on 28-12-10 by speedyxjs]
How long can i resist the temptation to drop a V8 in?
|
|
|
Daddylonglegs
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 07:32 PM |
|
|
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
I'm all for progress, but I think having to sit there in a pair of gogles watching TV in 3D is a bit too far. I tried the ones in the shops, and
they are OK but I don't think I could watch it for more than a few minutes. My youngest said he watched a movie in 3D and after about 20mins he
felt sick 
So don't think I'll be bothering, I guess I'll join the droves 
It looks like the Midget is winning at the moment......
|
|
|
prawnabie
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 08:07 PM |
|
|
I dont have sky 3D so I will keep the ye olde tv for that!
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 08:14 PM |
|
|
we've done a few 3d TV programs at work. Sky are throwing loads of money into it however I don't think it'll take off.
Also films that can be watched in the cinema in 2d are getting larger ticket sales compared to the same film in 3d.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 08:51 PM |
|
|
Saw a demo about a month ago, the only reason I'm not forking out for it is:
Over a grand for the TV
We don't watch the channels that they put out in 3D anyway
Otherwise I think it's brilliant, if I could get a 3dtv for about £2-300 I could justify one for GT5
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 09:09 PM |
|
|
I haven't got 3D TV and am not planning to any time soon, but all this talk of "goggles" and "glasses" makes me think
they don't take into account the large number of people who already wear glasses - what are they (we) supposed to do? 
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 09:14 PM |
|
|
I agree with Ninehigh, I was so impressed when I saw Avatar that a) I saw it again (twice in 3d at cinema and thrice on the box) and there's no
comparison, so when we went to the Gadget Show, b) I made a point of looking out for 3d tv's and saw a demo LG (approx 40" and a
100" Panasonic and was impressed with both.
Unfortunately I won't be doing the 3d tv thing cos Sky want even more money ie another tenner a month, which will mean on top of everything else
I pay them would mean £700ish/year plus licence fee and given how much 2d tvs have dropped leads me to believe prices are still too inflated. How
different can a 3d tv be to a 2d one. I'll guess for the most part it's purely programming. If so, do me a 50" 3d tv for £450, with
3d Sky for the normal price and I'll collect the TV tomorrow.
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
watsonpj
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 10:19 PM |
|
|
Was in blockbuster earlier and the guy in front of me asked what 3d films they had. The answer 1 piranha 3d. Who's going to pay out loads of
money when there is so little to watch, my local blockbuster still has less bluray content than DVD so how will they cope with 3d also?
|
|
|
RazMan
|
| posted on 28/12/10 at 11:40 PM |
|
|
I find the 3D cinema experience quite absorbing but I think my home TV will stay in 2D for that very same reason. Don't get me wrong - I like
watching TV but I don't like it to dominate my home life. I watch mostly films that I download and to have a media that 'forces' me
to don some Roy Orbison specs takes the casual side of the entertainment out of the equation as you tend to ignore all of your surroundings - I like
to enjoy a film with my family and not in an isolated, tunnel vision environment.
The next step in films will probably be Virtual Reality and that will really be something!
Cheers,
Raz
When thinking outside the box doesn't work any more, it's time to build a new box
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 29/12/10 at 12:18 AM |
|
|
personally i love 3d at the cinema. its brought back some of the magic of going to see a film on the big screen. we have been spoilt over the last 10
years with silly big home tv's which i feel have hurt the cinema industry. silly glasses over my normal ones now and then in a dark cinema is
ok. every night in my front room not so ok.
saw avatar twice at the cinema in 3d and it blew me away, watched it at home on blueray and was somewhat disappointed, it felt like the emotion of
the story had gone.
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
craig1410
|
| posted on 29/12/10 at 12:53 AM |
|
|
Just wait until 3D porn hits the shelves....that'll change yer tune!!
Seriously though, I've just bought a 50" non-3D TV and am plenty happy with it. I've seen Avatar in 3D and it was certainly
impressive but no less enjoyable in 2D to be honest, and without the fuzzy head and dents in the side of my nose.
Have a look at this set of stats if you are in any doubt as to how badly 3D is doing at the moment:
http://www.reghardware.com/2010/12/22/world_3d_tv_demand/
A friend of mine has just bought a 3D TV and the glasses alone were £100 a pop! These are active switching glasses and since I have a family of five,
I would need five pairs. My 50" LG 50PK350 Plasma TV only cost me £549 for heavens sake, I have no intention of paying £500 for 3D glasses over
and above the £1200+ I would need to spend on a 3D TV!
I think the prices will plummet and only then is there a chance of this taking off. By that time I'll be able to buy a 3D TV for £549 and the
glasses will be £15 a pair. If not then I simply won't buy them.
In my opinion, you are currently better off spending the money you save from staying 2D on a good surround sound system. It brings much more to the
movie watching experience than 3D because it involves an extra sense (hearing) and even touch (subwoofer). I got an Onkyo TX-SR308 AV receiver and
Pioneer SHS-100 speaker package recently and it is really good. My wife's not happy with the extra speakers cluttering up her living room but
she'll get used to them... (I hope!)
Cheers,
Craig.
|
|
|
stevebubs
|
| posted on 29/12/10 at 03:24 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
I agree with Ninehigh, I was so impressed when I saw Avatar that a) I saw it again (twice in 3d at cinema and thrice on the box) and there's no
comparison, so when we went to the Gadget Show, b) I made a point of looking out for 3d tv's and saw a demo LG (approx 40" and a
100" Panasonic and was impressed with both.
Unfortunately I won't be doing the 3d tv thing cos Sky want even more money ie another tenner a month, which will mean on top of everything else
I pay them would mean £700ish/year plus licence fee and given how much 2d tvs have dropped leads me to believe prices are still too inflated. How
different can a 3d tv be to a 2d one. I'll guess for the most part it's purely programming. If so, do me a 50" 3d tv for £450, with
3d Sky for the normal price and I'll collect the TV tomorrow.
ATB
Simon
Simon,
Sky3D is included with the HD pack (for now) but there's not a lot on there...and I've noticed a significant number of PayPerView
events.
I'm another not forking out for a telly...
S
|
|
|
stevebubs
|
| posted on 29/12/10 at 07:24 AM |
|
|
Thinking about it, how much extra electronicery is required in a 3D TV? Not much me thinks...
Higher Refresh Panels are already becoming commonplace
IR sender to activate the glasses is pence
That's pretty much it...apart from, perhaps, a screen buffer...a few quid
(yes, I know I'm oversimplifying but it's not that much extra overall)
[Edited on 29/12/10 by stevebubs]
|
|
|
ashg
|
| posted on 29/12/10 at 08:32 AM |
|
|
agreed what your paying for at the moment is the 50 people that sat in a lab for 5 years researching and developing it. components have always been
cheep its people that are expensive.
i work for a blue chip company over 70% of our profit goes back into r&d. but without it we are going nowhere
Anything With Tits or Wheels Will cost you MONEY!!
Haynes Roadster (Finished)
Exocet (Finished & Sold)
New Project (Started)
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 29/12/10 at 09:42 AM |
|
|
Am I not right in thinking that the true art of 3D is in the programme production!? I read that the 3D effects in Avatar took most of the (insanely
massive) budget and film-making time!
If so, then I hardly think that we're going to see Avatar-like productions en-masse for quite some time yet. So until 3D programming is fully
up and running, then let me tell you where I am... I'M OUT!.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
prawnabie
|
| posted on 29/12/10 at 10:23 AM |
|
|
Its not as expensive as I first thought, I was expecting It to be a grand or more really but as I have already budgeted for a new projector before the
VAT increase,so the 3D box and the glasses are 249.99, not really a massive outlay - certainly less questionable than some of my automotive purchases!
I already have a telly for tv, I only really use the projector for playing the odd game if the mrs is already watching tv or a few movies a week.
I am quite prepared for it to all go south, but as long as my PS3 and XBOX games work in 3D I will be happy!!
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 29/12/10 at 11:14 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Am I not right in thinking that the true art of 3D is in the programme production!? I read that the 3D effects in Avatar took most of the (insanely
massive) budget and film-making time!
If so, then I hardly think that we're going to see Avatar-like productions en-masse for quite some time yet. So until 3D programming is fully
up and running, then let me tell you where I am... I'M OUT!.
thats exactly correct. When we've done 3D football we have to use strange camera angles and positions to help with the effect, however you may
get the effect but its not as good as watching proper coverage in 2D.
Not only that but 3D games are only covered with about 6 camera positions(at about £900k a pop) instead of 13ish at £200k a pop.
2d films that they've changed to 3D look rubbish for the very same reason.
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 29/12/10 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
kelly brook in pirhana 3d, i'm sold
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
