I've seen enough 3D movies at this point. Additional experience: small to none. Some CG movies are ok; live action stuff: why bother? The only reason we are seeing a spate of 3D stuff is that (a) Barco projectors in commercial theatres throw 3D with little additional cost, and technically the presentation is excellent; and (b)consumer display manufacturers have smelled blood, and want the market. But 3D has been periodically revived about every 10 to 20 years since oh, let's see, 1860? It has a niche, but that seems to be about it. Time will tell. So, how many people have shelled out for these things so far?
Within the movie production industry, many think that 3D will happily continue as a separate strand alongside 2D movies. After all, animated features come in stop-frame, CG and traditional hand-drawn cartoon variants. Some perfectly good 2D movie ideas will no doubt be ruined in production by a studio deciding to make them in 3D.
In the same way, 2D TV viewing will be degraded because the mandatory 3D set will produce a worse picture than an equivalent priced 2D set.
But will anyone care?
Many cheap hi-fis will give you noisy stereo FM on poor signals when on mono quieting would be much cleaner.
I have been criticised here for being too pessimistic about 3DTV so just to give you the other side of the story a research firm called Future Source says 15 million 3DTV's will sold in the US by the end of 2012 but again I don't believe it unless there is a massive uptick in 3D contnet and a glasses free technology that looks really good. The article is on CNET by Don Reisinger if you want to go to the source:
this thread just keeps on going!! USA today had a reader poll on 3D TV today and here are the results: 94% of 7,274 are unlikely to buy
How likely are you to purchase a 3D TV in 2011?
Vote TOTAL VOTES: 7274
seems to support my view but I've been wrong before!
As someone pointed out in another post, it doesn't matter which brand of 3D TV you buy based whatever display technology, the content layer is common to all of them. That said, I would choose a high def LED based projector over a 3D system any day. Crisp crystal clear HD beats 3D hands down. Just sit in on a OmniMax film and you'll see what I mean.
I'm with you on that, I avoid 3D at the theatres because I get headaches. Also the picture doesn't seem as sharp. Strangely enough the kids of today don't care about discomfort or lack of quality of content and/or image, just about geewiz and wow factors. I think if it was up to the over 25's 3D would never take off, (like it didn't in the 50's & 60's) but if it's up to the under 25's it's anybody's guess.
3D hardware adds nothing to movie viewing and is more of a distraction and irritation than anything. We perceive depth by so many means that the current 3D technology is unnecessary. I don't go to the theatre until they show the non-3D version. I hope this trend dies before it gets going because I really am not going to wear 3D glasses and pay extra money to watch a dim movie that gives me a head ache even if that's all they show. I'll find other recreation if 3D becomes all that is available.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.