3D TV is it serious???

JethroUK · 13-03-2011, 22:55

3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then

What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)?

Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV

Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public?

Alexsutton · 13-03-2011, 23:01

It's mainly because now, compared to the red/green 3D, it's a much clearer effect and it causes less strain on the eyes and brain. It may well lose momentum like it did in past decades but it's definitely a fad that's here to stay for a little while.

linkinpark875 · 13-03-2011, 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by JethroUK

3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then

What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)?

Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV

Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public?

My opinion is clear and honest on it:

*I've been to the cinema and dislike the current 3D format.

*There was a recession on, dropping LCD prices meant manufacturers felt rushed to bring out something new. OLED offered little over LCD so they went for 3D to sell TV's at £1,000.

*Sky is taking a cautious approach only having one 3D channel and BBC are also holding off.

*It's very much "event" tv compared to HD.

*It costs Sky twice to film it, two commentary teams for sporting events.

*The picture frame you see is actually a smaller resolution than full HD due to it being split picture.

*Too many people dislike the format.

*Super HD for a main tv set is not long off and Holographic TV's may offer some kind of advancement.

3D is not better it's just a silly effect. Last time I was at the cinema there was less 3D movies so seems the buzz has gone off a bit. Again they could sell them double the price but nobody will fall for it. The market is being force fed 3D tv sets.

It's early days so it could leave alot of redundant tv sets if 3D does not take off bit like early adopters of plasmas with no HDMI.

Basically the only way to get real 3D is a projected hologram would be pretty cool for college tutors or natural history shows to project it from the screen. However for movies and sport Super HD will be the way forward. Standard HD taking over all the SD channels.

Forget 3D it's a flop and only a few have invested in it hoping it will take off. While silly people pay 1k for a TV most are enjoying buying 42" for cheap as chips prices. 3D may have a future in gaming though.

Come back in a few years to this thread and I guarantee 3D will have faded out.

linkinpark875 · 13-03-2011, 23:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexsutton

It's mainly because now, compared to the red/green 3D, it's a much clearer effect and it causes less strain on the eyes and brain. It may well lose momentum like it did in past decades but it's definitely a fad that's here to stay for a little while.

Indeed that's correct.

But 3D is 3D you still get the sick feeling, slightly sore eyes and the effects are minimal.

I think it's already losing momentum if you ask me. Many people dislike it at the cinema so why would they pay Sky for it? It's expensive and most people don't buy the cheap 3D effect.

Holographic and Super HD please and let's enjoy HD for now.

loz · 13-03-2011, 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by JethroUK

Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV

It isn't like the old green/red glasses. You cannot show the new 3D stuff on "any' TV.
The new 3D TVs need to have either a polarized screen to work with the glasses you typically get in cinemas where the glasses are also polarized to show just the L or R image in each eye, or an "active display" where the L&R images are each shown sequentially and the glasses blank out each eye in synchronisation.

This is much better quality than the old green/red system as obviously it allows a full range of colours instead of everything being tinted green/red.

fastest finger · 14-03-2011, 00:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by linkinpark875

Holographic and Super HD please and let's enjoy HD for now.

Both of which are about 10 years away, so let's enjoy 3D for now as well.

cnbcwatcher · 14-03-2011, 00:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by linkinpark875

I think it's already losing momentum if you ask me. Many people dislike it at the cinema so why would they pay Sky for it? It's expensive and most people don't buy the cheap 3D effect.

Maybe they pay Sky for it just for a "novelty" factor? One of my classmates at uni said that his parents got a 3D TV and they have Sky 3D even though they didn't really watch a lot of telly (apart from I think movies)

bobcar · 14-03-2011, 00:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by linkinpark875

*There was a recession on, dropping LCD prices meant manufacturers felt rushed to bring out something new. OLED offered little over LCD so they went for 3D to sell TV's at £1,000.

OLED offers a lot over LCD but it doesn't offer it yet. LG have demonstrated a 31" model that apparently is pretty spectacular in PQ but will cost around £6000 when it goes on sale in March. (They suggest it will be cheaper than LCD by 2016, whether that happens or not remains to be seen).

Simon Rodgers · 14-03-2011, 01:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JethroUK

3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then

What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)?

Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV

Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public?

"3D TV is it serious???" I seriously hope not!

fastest finger · 14-03-2011, 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Rodgers

"3D TV is it serious???" I seriously hope not!

Why?

If you don't like it, then don't buy into it, don't watch it.

What does it matter to you if it becomes popular and other people like it?

M. Tourette · 14-03-2011, 01:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastest finger

Why?

If you don't like it, then don't buy into it, don't watch it.

What does it matter to you if it becomes popular and other people like it?

because it's wasting money and resources which could be better spent on the raw ingredients rather than the window dressing that is 3d TV

Films are being reshot to include the 3d elements and ruining what may have been a decent film

It happened in the 50's,
Hitchcocks Dial M for Murder is a prime example. There are weird shots designed for 3d that throw the film out of sync all because the studios said it was the next big thing and forced it in.

The same is happening at the moment the focus is on the 3d and the raw content is suffering

fastest finger · 14-03-2011, 02:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Tourette

because it's wasting money and resources which could be better spent on the raw ingredients rather than the window dressing that is 3d TV

Films are being reshot to include the 3d elements and ruining what may have been a decent film

It happened in the 50's,
Hitchcocks Dial M for Murder is a prime example. There are weird shots designed for 3d that throw the film out of sync all because the studios said it was the next big thing and forced it in.

The same is happening at the moment the focus is on the 3d and the raw content is suffering

For the occasional novelty movie, perhaps.

But....

Sport?
National events?
Concerts?
Wildlife / natural history documentaries?

All of these can be improved by 3D with no detriment to the footage or to 2D viewers.

JethroUK · 14-03-2011, 08:54

I Should have posted a survey but i think it's pretty clear that most people think 3D TV is just a gimmick that TV manufacturer are praying public will fall for

janet owen · 14-03-2011, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by JethroUK

I Should have posted a survey but i think it's pretty clear that most people think 3D TV is just a gimmick that TV manufacturer are praying public will fall for

What a name Jethro. We are awaiting talking pictures in Minera
I wonder if they will catch on

.

As for 3D on television my vote is no , too soon after free HD,mind you S4C HD now as 50 viewers, I wonder if this will convert to 3D when it reaches 100

JO

late8 · 14-03-2011, 14:12

I am susceptible to seeing flicker on those shutter glasses which puts me off straight away

Also brightness, black levels and colour are affected by the glasses.

Until we have true 3D televisions or Holographic 3D I'm holding off.

fastest finger · 14-03-2011, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by late8

I am susceptible to seeing flicker on those shutter glasses which puts me off straight away

Also brightness, black levels and colour are affected by the glasses.

Until we have true 3D televisions or Holographic 3D I'm holding off.

Can I ask if you see the flicker all the time? This normally only happens when looking directly at certain light sources (mainly fluorescent lamps running at a certain frequency) - Although personally I've only ever noticed flicker when looking out into bright sunlight.

With regard to colour / brightness levels etc, when I switch to 3D on my TV the picture setting levels are automatically adjusted to compensate for the darkened glasses, so I've not found that to be an issue.

loz · 14-03-2011, 18:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by late8

I am susceptible to seeing flicker on those shutter glasses which puts me off straight away

Also brightness, black levels and colour are affected by the glasses.

Until we have true 3D televisions or Holographic 3D I'm holding off.

Passive 3D sets don't suffer from flicker. (but have other trade offs)

Kablamo · 14-03-2011, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by JethroUK

3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then

What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)?

Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV

Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public?

I am not always attracted by a lot of this new fangled technology but 3D TV is absolutely brilliant!

fastest finger · 14-03-2011, 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by JethroUK

...... i think it's pretty clear that most people think 3D TV is just a gimmick......

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from a single short forum.

I've always been interested new tech, so much so that my friends and family all tend to roll their eyes in a "here we go again" fashion when I start enthusing about my latest toy.

Since I bought my 3D TV I've shown it to -

My Wife, her elderly mother, her sister, her best friend, my mother, my father my sister, my brother-in-law, my best friend......

None of them knew what to expect, but every single one of them were astonished by what they saw. . (and it wasn't silly movies with stuff waving in your face, it was properly produced 3D documentaries)

My wife's best friend (a complete technophobe) said "I never understood your fascination with this HD stuff - I can't tell the difference - but this 3D is amazing! I can tell now why you wanted it"

Every single one of them, bar my wife's mother, said that if they were buying a new TV, they would definitely be getting a 3D one.

So, by your own logic, (and with my tongue firmly in cheek) I hereby declare that 100% of people like 3D and 88% will be buying 3D next time they upgrade their TV.

mikebuk · 14-03-2011, 19:49

Most people would have thought TV itself was a gimmick when Mr Baird had the idea.
It doesn't matter what technology appears, cynics will be a plenty.

I have a 3D set and I love it.

TheBigM · 14-03-2011, 20:01

It's not actually 3D so we should stop calling it such. It's stereoscopic, layers of 2D images rather than "proper" 3D.

call100 · 14-03-2011, 20:23

I am of the opinion it's a waste. As already stated films are being ruined by having special effects put in just to show off the 3D. In fact, I don't think any serious film has been done in 3D yet. I think it may well have a future in gaming.
I don't shout down those that enjoy it, it's their decision and good luck to them. I do think though, the argument will become a bit Apple/Android. Those with it will defend it those without will condemn it....It's the way of tech discussions....

cnbcwatcher · 14-03-2011, 22:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by late8

I am susceptible to seeing flicker on those shutter glasses which puts me off straight away

Also brightness, black levels and colour are affected by the glasses.

Until we have true 3D televisions or Holographic 3D I'm holding off.

That'll be interesting to see

swills · 14-03-2011, 22:56

I am in the "No" camp, seen 3D in the cinema, and that was enough, quite impressive (AVATAR) on an IMAX screen, but had to keep taking glasses off.

3D tv would be a right pain

3D tv it'll carry on for a few years, then fade, obviously those who have paid an arm and a leg for a 3D tv will say it's brill

Chris Frost · 15-03-2011, 10:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by JethroUK

3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then

What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)?

Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV

Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public?

Oh for goodness sake.... consumers will buy lots of stuff because it's faddish. 3D TV is no different.

13-03-2011, 22:55	#1
JethroUK Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Loughboro', Leicester (ex NTL) Posts: 5,953	3D TV is it serious??? 3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)? Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public?

14-03-2011, 10:15	#14
janet owen Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Gwynfryn,Wrexham 1350ASL Posts: 1,960	Quote: Originally Posted by JethroUK I Should have posted a survey but i think it's pretty clear that most people think 3D TV is just a gimmick that TV manufacturer are praying public will fall for What a name Jethro. We are awaiting talking pictures in Minera I wonder if they will catch on. As for 3D on television my vote is no , too soon after free HD,mind you S4C HD now as 50 viewers, I wonder if this will convert to 3D when it reaches 100 JO

13-03-2011, 23:01	#2
Alexsutton Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 169	It's mainly because now, compared to the red/green 3D, it's a much clearer effect and it causes less strain on the eyes and brain. It may well lose momentum like it did in past decades but it's definitely a fad that's here to stay for a little while.

13-03-2011, 23:07	#3
linkinpark875 Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 24,424	Quote: Originally Posted by JethroUK 3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)? Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public? My opinion is clear and honest on it: I've been to the cinema and dislike the current 3D format. There was a recession on, dropping LCD prices meant manufacturers felt rushed to bring out something new. OLED offered little over LCD so they went for 3D to sell TV's at £1,000. Sky is taking a cautious approach only having one 3D channel and BBC are also holding off. It's very much "event" tv compared to HD. It costs Sky twice to film it, two commentary teams for sporting events. The picture frame you see is actually a smaller resolution than full HD due to it being split picture. Too many people dislike the format. Super HD for a main tv set is not long off and Holographic TV's may offer some kind of advancement. 3D is not better it's just a silly effect. Last time I was at the cinema there was less 3D movies so seems the buzz has gone off a bit. Again they could sell them double the price but nobody will fall for it. The market is being force fed 3D tv sets. It's early days so it could leave alot of redundant tv sets if 3D does not take off bit like early adopters of plasmas with no HDMI. Basically the only way to get real 3D is a projected hologram would be pretty cool for college tutors or natural history shows to project it from the screen. However for movies and sport Super HD will be the way forward. Standard HD taking over all the SD channels. Forget 3D it's a flop and only a few have invested in it hoping it will take off. While silly people pay 1k for a TV most are enjoying buying 42" for cheap as chips prices. 3D may have a future in gaming though. Come back in a few years to this thread and I guarantee 3D will have faded out.

13-03-2011, 23:10	#4
linkinpark875 Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 24,424	Quote: Originally Posted by Alexsutton It's mainly because now, compared to the red/green 3D, it's a much clearer effect and it causes less strain on the eyes and brain. It may well lose momentum like it did in past decades but it's definitely a fad that's here to stay for a little while. Indeed that's correct. But 3D is 3D you still get the sick feeling, slightly sore eyes and the effects are minimal. I think it's already losing momentum if you ask me. Many people dislike it at the cinema so why would they pay Sky for it? It's expensive and most people don't buy the cheap 3D effect. Holographic and Super HD please and let's enjoy HD for now.

13-03-2011, 23:49	#5
loz Inactive Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Berkshire Posts: 4,686	Quote: Originally Posted by JethroUK Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV It isn't like the old green/red glasses. You cannot show the new 3D stuff on "any' TV. The new 3D TVs need to have either a polarized screen to work with the glasses you typically get in cinemas where the glasses are also polarized to show just the L or R image in each eye, or an "active display" where the L&R images are each shown sequentially and the glasses blank out each eye in synchronisation. This is much better quality than the old green/red system as obviously it allows a full range of colours instead of everything being tinted green/red.

14-03-2011, 00:32	#6
fastest finger Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Heart of England. Posts: 8,633	Quote: Originally Posted by linkinpark875 Holographic and Super HD please and let's enjoy HD for now. Both of which are about 10 years away, so let's enjoy 3D for now as well.

14-03-2011, 00:33	#7
cnbcwatcher Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: At college, in L.A.'s office Posts: 54,221	Quote: Originally Posted by linkinpark875 I think it's already losing momentum if you ask me. Many people dislike it at the cinema so why would they pay Sky for it? It's expensive and most people don't buy the cheap 3D effect. Maybe they pay Sky for it just for a "novelty" factor? One of my classmates at uni said that his parents got a 3D TV and they have Sky 3D even though they didn't really watch a lot of telly (apart from I think movies)

14-03-2011, 00:41	#8
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by linkinpark875 There was a recession on, dropping LCD prices meant manufacturers felt rushed to bring out something new. OLED offered little over LCD* so they went for 3D to sell TV's at £1,000. OLED offers a lot over LCD but it doesn't offer it yet. LG have demonstrated a 31" model that apparently is pretty spectacular in PQ but will cost around £6000 when it goes on sale in March. (They suggest it will be cheaper than LCD by 2016, whether that happens or not remains to be seen).

14-03-2011, 01:04	#9
Simon Rodgers Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 3,771	Quote: Originally Posted by JethroUK 3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)? Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public? "3D TV is it serious???" I seriously hope not!

14-03-2011, 01:11	#10
fastest finger Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Heart of England. Posts: 8,633	Quote: Originally Posted by Simon Rodgers "3D TV is it serious???" I seriously hope not! Why? If you don't like it, then don't buy into it, don't watch it. What does it matter to you if it becomes popular and other people like it?

14-03-2011, 01:28	#11
M. Tourette Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Filmer Hole. Posts: 6,451	Quote: Originally Posted by fastest finger Why? If you don't like it, then don't buy into it, don't watch it. What does it matter to you if it becomes popular and other people like it? because it's wasting money and resources which could be better spent on the raw ingredients rather than the window dressing that is 3d TV Films are being reshot to include the 3d elements and ruining what may have been a decent film It happened in the 50's, Hitchcocks Dial M for Murder is a prime example. There are weird shots designed for 3d that throw the film out of sync all because the studios said it was the next big thing and forced it in. The same is happening at the moment the focus is on the 3d and the raw content is suffering

14-03-2011, 02:23	#12
fastest finger Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Heart of England. Posts: 8,633	Quote: Originally Posted by M. Tourette because it's wasting money and resources which could be better spent on the raw ingredients rather than the window dressing that is 3d TV Films are being reshot to include the 3d elements and ruining what may have been a decent film It happened in the 50's, Hitchcocks Dial M for Murder is a prime example. There are weird shots designed for 3d that throw the film out of sync all because the studios said it was the next big thing and forced it in. The same is happening at the moment the focus is on the 3d and the raw content is suffering For the occasional novelty movie, perhaps. But.... Sport? National events? Concerts? Wildlife / natural history documentaries? All of these can be improved by 3D with no detriment to the footage or to 2D viewers.

14-03-2011, 08:54	#13
JethroUK Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Loughboro', Leicester (ex NTL) Posts: 5,953	I Should have posted a survey but i think it's pretty clear that most people think 3D TV is just a gimmick that TV manufacturer are praying public will fall for

14-03-2011, 14:12	#15
late8 Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 7,052	I am susceptible to seeing flicker on those shutter glasses which puts me off straight away Also brightness, black levels and colour are affected by the glasses. Until we have true 3D televisions or Holographic 3D I'm holding off.

14-03-2011, 18:55	#16
fastest finger Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Heart of England. Posts: 8,633	Quote: Originally Posted by late8 I am susceptible to seeing flicker on those shutter glasses which puts me off straight away Also brightness, black levels and colour are affected by the glasses. Until we have true 3D televisions or Holographic 3D I'm holding off. Can I ask if you see the flicker all the time? This normally only happens when looking directly at certain light sources (mainly fluorescent lamps running at a certain frequency) - Although personally I've only ever noticed flicker when looking out into bright sunlight. With regard to colour / brightness levels etc, when I switch to 3D on my TV the picture setting levels are automatically adjusted to compensate for the darkened glasses, so I've not found that to be an issue.

14-03-2011, 18:58	#17
loz Inactive Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Berkshire Posts: 4,686	Quote: Originally Posted by late8 I am susceptible to seeing flicker on those shutter glasses which puts me off straight away Also brightness, black levels and colour are affected by the glasses. Until we have true 3D televisions or Holographic 3D I'm holding off. Passive 3D sets don't suffer from flicker. (but have other trade offs)

14-03-2011, 19:01	#18
Kablamo Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: I Know Art. I've Lived Art! Posts: 14,151	Quote: Originally Posted by JethroUK 3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)? Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public? I am not always attracted by a lot of this new fangled technology but 3D TV is absolutely brilliant!

14-03-2011, 19:41	#19
fastest finger Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Heart of England. Posts: 8,633	Quote: Originally Posted by JethroUK ...... i think it's pretty clear that most people think 3D TV is just a gimmick...... I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from a single short forum. I've always been interested new tech, so much so that my friends and family all tend to roll their eyes in a "here we go again" fashion when I start enthusing about my latest toy. Since I bought my 3D TV I've shown it to - My Wife, her elderly mother, her sister, her best friend, my mother, my father my sister, my brother-in-law, my best friend...... None of them knew what to expect, but every single one of them were astonished by what they saw. . (and it wasn't silly movies with stuff waving in your face, it was properly produced 3D documentaries) My wife's best friend (a complete technophobe) said "I never understood your fascination with this HD stuff - I can't tell the difference - but this 3D is amazing! I can tell now why you wanted it" Every single one of them, bar my wife's mother, said that if they were buying a new TV, they would definitely be getting a 3D one. So, by your own logic, (and with my tongue firmly in cheek) I hereby declare that 100% of people like 3D and 88% will be buying 3D next time they upgrade their TV.

14-03-2011, 19:49	#20
mikebuk Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Blackpool, England Posts: 8,618	Most people would have thought TV itself was a gimmick when Mr Baird had the idea. It doesn't matter what technology appears, cynics will be a plenty. I have a 3D set and I love it.

14-03-2011, 20:01	#21
TheBigM Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: moon Posts: 12,983	It's not actually 3D so we should stop calling it such. It's stereoscopic, layers of 2D images rather than "proper" 3D.

14-03-2011, 20:23	#22
call100 Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 6,572	I am of the opinion it's a waste. As already stated films are being ruined by having special effects put in just to show off the 3D. In fact, I don't think any serious film has been done in 3D yet. I think it may well have a future in gaming. I don't shout down those that enjoy it, it's their decision and good luck to them. I do think though, the argument will become a bit Apple/Android. Those with it will defend it those without will condemn it....It's the way of tech discussions....

DS Forums

3D TV is it serious???

14-03-2011, 22:47	#23
cnbcwatcher Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: At college, in L.A.'s office Posts: 54,221	Quote: Originally Posted by late8 I am susceptible to seeing flicker on those shutter glasses which puts me off straight away Also brightness, black levels and colour are affected by the glasses. Until we have true 3D televisions or Holographic 3D I'm holding off. That'll be interesting to see

14-03-2011, 22:56	#24
swills Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Essex Posts: 3,906	I am in the "No" camp, seen 3D in the cinema, and that was enough, quite impressive (AVATAR) on an IMAX screen, but had to keep taking glasses off. 3D tv would be a right pain 3D tv it'll carry on for a few years, then fade, obviously those who have paid an arm and a leg for a 3D tv will say it's brill

15-03-2011, 10:54	#25
Chris Frost Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cheshire Posts: 6,462	Quote: Originally Posted by JethroUK 3D movies came out in the early 1960's with red/green specs and they didn't catch on even then What is special about 3D TV to suggest it should be any better (last any longer)? Actually, you could show 3D movies on <any> regualr TV so why does it even need a different TV Can i smell yet another ploy to rip off the unsuspecting public? Oh for goodness sake.... consumers will buy lots of stuff because it's faddish. 3D TV is no different.