Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, totally worth it! 3D is awesome!

1 (1.6%)

No, it's nothing more than a money making gimmick

35 (57.4%)

Can't say... I haven't seen any of it yet...

8 (13.1%)

It depends on the content (movie, etc.)...

17 (27.9%)

Total Members Voted: 61

[ein]

Also, those pictures where you have o go cross-eyed to see 3D images. Awesome.

Yeah, stereograms.
I fucking love those things.

[G-Flex]

I really don't see the point of 3D movies or 3D anything.  It's an extra pair of glasses and a bigger headache just for an optical illusion.

How is it that you consider that an "illusion" yet the entirety of rendered video game graphics (or film) isn't? It's not as if Spider-Man is real or something.

[Tilla]

I really don't see the point of 3D movies or 3D anything.  It's an extra pair of glasses and a bigger headache just for an optical illusion.

How is it that you consider that an "illusion" yet the entirety of rendered video game graphics (or film) isn't? It's not as if Spider-Man is real or something.

The video games don't require an extra pair of glasses and a headache to enjoy.

[G-Flex]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said or the point I was responding to.

[Virex]

3D seems to follow a similar pattern as most other display technologies to me. Completely new display technologies apparently need about 50 years of development time to reach maturity. Some 15 years before maturity you see a short early hype with products that are frankly just early prototypes that someone thought could make a buck and some 5 to 10 years before they reach full maturity you see a hype surrounding it with an explosion of gimmicks based upon it, marking the final sprint to full maturity. At least that's what happened with LCDs and plasma TVs (remember the hype over those crappy, overpriced, motion-blurred LCD panels in the late 90's?) and it will probably happen with LED matrix displays somewhere near the end of the next decade (depending on how fast the OLED printing technology develops).


The 3D technology is probably at the start of said final sprint. Even though it's not there yet, a lot of people are jumping the shark hoping to outwit the competition. A lot of companies will probably go bankrupt or get rid of their display department because they either don't have the means to hold out till the end or just bet on the wrong horse, meaning that when all's done there will be a few brands that sell mature 3D products that do work properly without people getting a throbbing headache (because that, like LCD's motion blur problems is probably the thing that still needs to be worked out before the technology is mature).


Now, glasses-based technologies are clearly entering their final development stage, but what about glasses-free screens? Apparently there are some TV's being sold based upon lenticular lenses (for 20.000 dollars no less), so it can't be really far off. Yet, you should not expect it to be available for cheap the coming 5 years.

[counting]

3D seems to follow a similar pattern as most other display technologies to me. Completely new display technologies apparently need about 50 years of development time to reach maturity.
...
Now, glasses-based technologies are clearly entering their final development stage, but what about glasses-free screens? Apparently there are some TV's being sold based upon lenticular lenses (for 20.000 dollars no less), so it can't be really far off. Yet, you should not expect it to be available for cheap the coming 5 years.

Some new technologies already existed for a very long time, the problem is building a paradigm out of a set of engineering techniques and designs. And it's often a back and forth process, sometimes it just needs cost down before it's ready for the market.

Glassless 3D has many types. But such technology now, like Autostereoscopic, has its draw back. It reduced the horizontal resolution, only certain fixed angle can generate 3D visual effect, and multi viewing problems. But combined with head/eyeball tracking, they should be able to overcome some of the problems. But all these current "3D" displays are more like a 2.5D visual effect in practice. The true 3D display technologies are yet to come. Like dynamic 360 degree holographic display (the prototype do exist), where viewers can actually viewing the 3D objects what ever they want.

[Thief^]

Stereoscopic 3D is great for games, I played UT2004 with a previous-generation version of nVidia 3D (glasses were cabled, adaptered on to monitor's VGA cable, only worked with a CRT because TFTs were still blurry as hell) and being able to see exactly how far away someone is made a massive difference to my playing, specifically with delayed-fire weapons like rockets and grenades. Being able to see exactly where a rocket is going (in 3D) helps massively with not getting hit by it.

Done well, 3D is only subtle. But it makes an incredible difference.

[Jacob/Lee]

3D movies give me a headache and make my eyes hurt. I don't think they are that good, anyway.

[MorleyDev]

I think it could work in very specific circumstances when used very cleverly, but 99% of the time you lose nothing from cutting it out and those specific circumstances are not worth the other 99% of the time. Basically it has to be done subtly and correctly. It's one of those features that is at it's best when you barely notice it until they you use something without it.

[Vault]

I've never even noticed the supposed 3D scenes. Although maybe it's because I saw The Green Hornet. Whatever was supposed to be 3D about it was completely lost on me. Even when I tried to watch Journey to the Center of the Earth... that Brendan Fraser one... the 3D shots were only really noticeable because it was blatantly obvious where they were supposed to be. But I didn't see the effect as intended. Just someone shoving some random object stupidly close to the camera. -.-; No comment on the 3DS yet as I've not played with one.

[ToonyMan]

I buy all my movie tickets without 3D.  Seeing Kung Fu Panda 2 not in 3D was glorious and bright.

Plus I wear glasses so it's more uncomfortable to have a double layering of glasses on your head.

[SalmonGod]

The 3DS is great, because the depth of the 3d effect (and thus the difficulty in adjusting your eyes to it) is entirely adjustable.  It can even be turned off completely.  My only complaint is you need to be looking at the screen from a perfectly straight angle or it doesn't work.  This wouldn't be much of a problem, except many games seem to take advantage of the built-in cameras as motion sensing devices.  So you're sometimes expected to effect gameplay by moving the device around, making it near impossible to maintain a proper focus into the 3d environment.