Holy crap that movie sucked ass. I had a roaring headache and felt nauseous. The Queen's huge ass head didn't help matters. Taking a close 2nd in 3D crappiness was Clash of the Titans, at least I got to see giant scorpions and the Kraken.

 

Not really. My focus is on Distributed Audio. I will sell TV's, but there is almost zero money in them so no point in trying to push them.

 

Can't speak for every cable system, but around here you do not need a different box. I haven't heard of problems updating firmware on PS3 or Bluray players.

 

I thought I read on Engadet that newer boxes will be needed. IIRC, they were talking about new A/V receivers for it as well.

 

Not that I know of for the boxes. Some of the manufacturers are selling Bluray players with two HDMI outputs, so you can feed one to your TV with an HDMI 1.4 (High Speed) cable, and a second to your existing receiver for sound. If you have a receiver that is older and doesn't have HDMI it might be best to upgrade to a new receiver. You could still use Fiber Optic or Digital Coax but you won't get all the best audio formats.

 

I personally hate 3d movies. Even avatar wasn't all that much better in 3d compare to the regular screen.

 

There's been complaints on almost every single FW update for the PS3.

 

I have yet to see any modern movie in 3D. I hate going to the movies.

 

Taking a couple painkillers before Avatar 3D in IMAX was the best idea... The other 3D movie I want to see is the NASA one where the go to the Hubble

 

I've heard of bricking issues on like 3 FW updates out of the God knows how many they do. But I hear of wayyyyyyyyyyyy more when simply watching a movie or playing a game.

 

I have a PS3 Slim I mainly use for Bluray....never had an issue Thing has been great for me, especially compared to my old POS bluray

 

SMH! to all 3d movies that came out in the past 2 months~

 

As I mentioned a couple of pages back... we're already getting 3D content through our cable provider... no need to get a new box.

And I've never had a problem downloading nay firmware updates on my PS3.

Of course none of our TV's are 3D... so it doesn't matter... but all of our other hardware is ready to go and it didn't cost me a dime

 

It's the early adopters who bought un-up-datable players that have had to buy new. The PS3 could do it, but I don't care since I have zero plans to buy a 3D TV. Waste of money.

As for PS3 FW problems, I haven't had any either. But it's too widespread to say we're the rule.

 

The firmware problems have been all over the board, Engadet has reported on it, G4TV and even Sony own site ( http://www.sonyinsider.com/2010/04/0...sing-problems/). The latest was the April update. Just be lucky you haven't had problems.

 

 

Same here. When we do buy a new TV, we'll be looking for the best one for us. If it happens to have 3D capability, then fine... but we will not be looking to buy a 3D TV.

 

you are in the business, you have a different understanding and interest than lay people.

 

With the wide audience here on AZ, I do not think anyone here has a crystal ball to accurately foresee what average joe consumer will be buying in the near future. as anything else, the market needs to mature and the price for 'the latest' technical gadget has to be low enough for the average consumer to enter the market.

3D TV sounds like something that will probably be a game changer. Of course, this is the first generation of 3D TV. I think most of us will buy a TV that can produce a holographic moving image like we saw in Star Wars (episode 4) with Princess Leia sending her distress message to 'Old Ben'. But I seriously think we are quite a ways away before that technology is available for the general consumer.

For the time being, I'm keeping my electronics budget set on a set of good speakers (Paradigm is a personal favorite) and a decent amp (Yamaha?) to set up in my future man cave. Still wondering if I do projection of 'settle' for a LED TV (not 3D enabled, most likely). I am a little pissed if they decide to change connection standards again whilst I make my big purchase (ie component ... DVI ... now HDMI ... perhaps coax in the future???)

/rant

 

"Is 3D Already Dying?"


God i hope so! 3D is sooo annoying and not worth the extra money.

 

Yes.

 

Hmm.

I wonder if it's similar to CG, where some of the best CG is CG that you don't even notice. And you are like, 'where's the CG?' if you are looking for it. (which is a natural side effect of paying more for it) The main question is , 'was that movie actually more enjoyable for me since it was in 3D?' Avatar was a pretty clear yes for me. UP - I really didn't think so.
ALthough I wonder now if it's fair to judge that without watching both the 2D and the 3D versions.

Side note to another post:
I was at a Sony store watching a 3D tv. It was showing Iron man 1 which I didn't know was in 3D (and it might be that fake interpolated 3d Sarlacc was talking about). It was pretty unimpressive. What also made it miserable was they had a flourescent light above the tv which had this flickering effect which gave everyone a headache, and caused everyone to really crap on it.
I don't understand why they didn't have a better demo loop - just say, 30 minutes of clips of movies/games that look fantastic on 3d.

- Frank

 

^Because employees at electronics stores don't know what the fuck they are doing.


In general.

 

Anyone here a baseball fan and hate 3D? Hold your opinion until you've seen baseball in 3D. I've never seen more jaws drop than when we went live with the 3D feed at Mariners Media Compound in Seattle. The DirecTV guys were there along with some very high ups at FOX and everyone literally went 'holy shit'. When a foul tip occured which put the baseball strait back into the camera I watched about 5 people in the broadcast trailer literally flinch their heads. Now that's amazing.

Compared to the world cup, baseball in 3D is simply amazing. Wait till you see boxing in 3D that's another sport, due to the confined area works with 3D very well. Hockey is very hard due to the plexiglass but they are already working on ways around that. NASCAR in 3d looks amazing the pitstops in 3D make you feel like you are standing next to the car while they are working on it. The in-car views are phenomenal as well. Golf in 3D allows you to truly appreciate the sport of golf espcecially when you can now see every contour and depth of field for every shot.

Cinema 3D is easy, live 3D is the hard stuff but god damn when done right it will sell more TVs than anything done in hollywood.

 

Since were talking 3D figured I'd share some pictures over the past year.





3D Broadcast Truck - Seattle, WA.


3Ality 3D Rig up close still being unpacked for trackside - Sonoma, CA.


Preview monitors for analysis of depth, convergance & quality.


Crew Call to start off the 3D Event - Seattle, WA


Pace 3D Cameras covered to block the sunlight, waiting to be deployed - Anaheim, CA


Camera check & location check - Seattle, WA


Walking through the Pits during a race - Daytona, FL


We tend to have alot of wires.... lol


The best view at the Daytona 500 is not available to a ticket holder, the roof is simply amazing. - Daytona, FL


Apparently the roof where the A listers come to see the race. - Daytona, FL

 

I don't care what anybody says about her....IWHI.

 

Id nailin her.

 

Interesting. I've never seen the 3ality side by side rig. But I guess it makes sensebecausee with sports you probably don't need that superfine fine/tight interocular. The inverted beam splitter rigs are what have become popluar for features.

 

Took 2 days to get working, the fiber lines from the track were going through 6 barrels huge problems. Besides the rigs look like anti aircraft guns from the 40's. Although they pull convergence from the truck so I think it's better.

 

I can't watch anything 3D anyway, so it does not appeal to me. I get motion sick very easily, so even a few seconds of 3D is intolerable. Even if I could tolerate it, I wouldn't pay more at the movie theater (or for a 3D tv). Just not worth the cost to me.

I can understand it being really cool for certain movies, but it seems the theaters are capitalizing on 3D when it really should be used for just certain films.

 

A Captain Eo reference!!

 

I remember Captain Eo! I was around 6 or 7 when I saw it too. It was the last 3d movie i saw as well not counting the 20 minute show at stone mountain.

yeah im not really into 3d movies. sure it looks cool, but im not paying more just to experience it. movies cost too much as it is. Today when I go to the movies, its when its at the $2 theatre.

 

Personally it's not yet for me. I'm nearsighted so I wear glasses every waking moment. Placing 3D glasses over my regular glasses has never worked well for me. If we ever get to a point where glasses aren't needed, then maybe we'll see.

When watching the Brickyard 400 yesterday I saw a commercial for ESPN 3D. Are there any service providers that carry it, yet?

 

Well, I saw some 3D channels when searching through my listing guide on DirecTV, but since I'm not subscribed to those channels I don't know if they are actually working or not.

They wouldn't work on my TV anyway. I have a Sammy HLT-6187s that was supposedly "3d ready", but it was the old format and apparently the new format is not compatible with my TV. I didn't buy the TV for the 3D anyway so it doesn't matter to me either way since I didn't care about that feature, but I bet people who did buy this TV for the "3D readiness" are pissed right now.

 

What makes a TV "3D capable"? I'm not up on 3D standards and whatnot...I've always wondered this.

 

There is no way Christopher Nolan is going to utilize 3D for the next batman. He's an old-school director. Just like Inception wasn't done in 3D, the next Batman won't be either.

 

I didn't read the whole thread so someone may have already mentioned it, but my biggest gripe is how dim and toned-down the colors look. I saw Avatar and Toy Story 3 in 3D (two different theater chains), and I'm sure both movies probably looked a lot better in 2D from a color and brightness standpoint. But when you're basically wearing sunglasses in the dark, it just sucks some of the life out of the visuals.

 

They usually say it on the TV but obviously research the set before buying. Don't forget the source has to allow 3D like a HD DVR from DirecTV with updated firmware or a PS3 with soon to be updated firmware. Then of course the glasses.

 

Here is an article that answers some questions:

http://news.cnet.com/3d-tv-faq/

I believe the biggest differences between 2D sets and new 3D sets is that:

a) the 3D sets send a signal to the 3D glasses which in turn will "shutter" to block out each eye independently of one another. This allows that eye to only see half of the picture at a time. The human brain will then "build" a 3D image based on the data viewed from each independant eye.

b) The article refers to 3D technology requiring a true 120Hz or higher set. The current models that claim equal or higher then 120Hz actually accept a 60Hz signal from the equipment and then convert internally inside the tv to the higher refresh rate.

 

Not every movie should be in 3D, Christopher Nolan not using it shows simply that he's made the creative decision not to use 3D to tell his story.