# 3D



## kennypc (Sep 4, 2009)

It seems like I,ll never keep up with the lastest tech, as It changes frequently. I thought I was on top of things, now this 3D thing is the latest rave. Am I truly missing out on something spectacular?, or is this a passing fancy?:sarcastic:lddude:


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Looking at the survey we have going here it seems most think its a passing fad. I personally dont like 3D although it is impressive in the IMAX I dont think at home it has the great wow factor to make the cost worth it.


----------



## kennypc (Sep 4, 2009)

Thanks tony. WOW nice systems


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

Thank you


----------



## nholmes1 (Oct 7, 2010)

It is a personal preference, I have customers who love 3D and others who could care less about it. I can see it being very beneficial in certain applications such as video gaming.


----------



## Ares (Nov 23, 2009)

Count me among the many that is not all that excited about 3D, it's okay to watch the occasional movie with. As for video games I'm a purist I began in 2D 25yrs ago and if and when the day come's when games are no longer offered in 2D that's when I'll bronze my controller and hang it up.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2011)

I think 3D has its place at the theater. I enjoyed Avatar and Tron in 3D, BUT they wear out my eyes at the same time.

As far as home 3D goes (while I don't own yet) I don't like the ideal of $99 glasses for each person, the possibility of batteries dying during a movie, the extra cost, possible incompatibility issues with "3D ready" displays, I am not too gun-ho about it. Good movies with great effects and a good story are still very enjoyable in 2D. My next step is projection and I care about quality and size a lot more then 3D. I just can't get over how it makes my eyes feel tired after watching a 3D movie. Not sure if it is a problem for everyone else or not. I almost get a headache from it.

Bottom line, 3D isn't needed for great home theater. I do like dolby 3d one movie at a time, but I just don't desire it enough to want to push for the same thing at home. Just not worth it IMO. I've demo'd it in stores n stuff, but nothing I feel I need to have and the extra cost just seems to be not worth it. The lack of standards is another issue.

Now that we have HD video, audio, I personally feel that the industry is just trying to come up with new ideals to get us to "upgrade" perfectly good working equipment for the next fad. That's how I feel about it anyway. Considering I've only seen two 3D movies in the last year, no reason to have it at home.


----------



## Trick McKaha (Oct 7, 2009)

I am a 3D enthusiast. I have a 720p projector that gives a very good 3D picture on a 106" screen. I'm not so sure that 3D would be worth it on any "regular" sized TV screen, though. Size improves the 3D experience tremendously.

But as great as 3D is with front projection, the current state of the art requires the consumer to be at least a little bit handy with computers and gizmos. It is not just a matter of connecting everything together as it would be with a regular TV. You might have to deal with a computer, driver updates, even possibly software compatibility. 3D in the home is new and exciting and a little bit bleeding edge right now.


----------



## RBTO (Jan 27, 2010)

I'd say it's far from a fad, considering the number of theaters that are installing 3D projectors to get in on the profit from running 3D features, however, in the same breath, I'd say it's far from ready for the average home theater enthusiast due to the lack of equipment for such (particularly projection equipment).

At the same time, the movie industry appears to be trying to kill its home theater base by introducing very few and expensive 3D Blu-Ray disks, a practice that has to change before the 3D market can take off.

Expensive shutter glasses are soon to give way to cheap passive eyewear (which will also partially address the standards issue), and more equipment for home theater 3D will appear, but I think the latter is to be a delayed happening. If I were you, I would bide my time and see what comes about in the next two to three years. It should be significant, and a new game maker for 3D home theater.

As many posters have said, 3D is a personal choice. You need to see it yourself to make the ultimate determination as to whether you want it or not. I'm an enthusiast myself, though I can't say I like all the 3D that's out there (some has been done really poorly). It does add "a new dimension" to video but how *you* perceive that added value can be quite different from other individuals.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

RBTO said:


> I'd say it's far from a fad, considering the number of theaters that are installing 3D projectors to get in on the profit from running 3D features, however, in the same breath, I'd say it's far from ready for the average home theater enthusiast due to the lack of equipment for such (particularly projection equipment).


There are 205 3D(or 3D ready 720p and 1080p) projectors listed on Projectorcentral.com, so saying there is a lack of equipment would not be entirely accurate. I own two front projectors, one is shutter based, the other polarization. I also have three 3D televisions(I just happen to be upgrading when they came out), so there is plenty of equipment out there to enjoy 3D. 



> At the same time, the movie industry appears to be trying to kill its home theater base by introducing very few and expensive 3D Blu-Ray disks, a practice that has to change before the 3D market can take off.


I have to disagree with you here. Since the studios are usually including a 2D Bluray, a DVD, and a digital copy with their new 3D releases, it would say that is an outstanding value for $30-35 bucks. Also there are about 50-60 3D titles(including IMAX and Discovery Channel releases). 3D is expensive now(just like Bluray was four years ago) because the infrastructure costs must be redeemed. The prices for 3D software will drop just like they did for every other home theater based mediums we have had in the past. 



> Expensive shutter glasses are soon to give way to cheap passive eyewear (which will also partially address the standards issue), and more equipment for home theater 3D will appear, but I think the latter is to be a delayed happening. If I were you, I would bide my time and see what comes about in the next two to three years. It should be significant, and a new game maker for 3D home theater.


Don't bet on passive eyewear as being what folks migrate to in a few years. In talking to sales reps from JVC, Sony, and several others, shutter based system are here to stay. Not saying there won't be passive polarization based projectors out there, but that will not dominate the market from what they tell me. There is a ton of 3D equipment for hometheaters already in the market



> As many posters have said, 3D is a personal choice. You need to see it yourself to make the ultimate determination as to whether you want it or not. I'm an enthusiast myself, though I can't say I like all the 3D that's out there (some has been done really poorly). It does add "a new dimension" to video but how *you* perceive that added value can be quite different from other individuals.


I agree with this. This is why I tell folks that don't own any 3D equipment in their home theaters to reserve judgement on it until they do. It is very difficult to make a judgement when you have no first hand experience with the technology.


----------

