I agree,3d at the actual state is a gimmick,nothing more.

A 3k PC that is out of date just as fast as a $500 PC in a box, but if you can afford to waste the cash then great, have fun I say, just don't expect to impress.

Wonder what my old ZX80 is worth?

3D gives me headaches, especially having to wear those stupid Buddy Holly glasses. I'd be more interested if they did a VR console that you wear on your head.

They tried that with the Virtual Boy for the Game Boy... colossal flop.

If 3D hasn't taken off and become "main stream" in sixty years, and even with [/i][b/]modern technology[/b][/i] they can't solve the problems or get people interested in it, then it's not going to catch on this time either. Period.

3D is a fad, but just like Communism, it only works on paper. Major movie developers aren't even pushing it very hard at all anymore because the public isn't that into it.

And why is that?

Because in the last 20 years it has been slumbering, the technology that runs it has advanced (it's now digital rather than film based), but nothing about the end product has advanced beyond the early eighties. And the model from the eighties showed a pathetically small amount of progress from the version before it in the sixties. There is nothing about modern 3D that is really any different from all of the failed versions that came before it. And the public is voting with their strongest tool, their money. A very small percentage of people are buying 3D tv's and such, but not enough people to make it viable for a long run in any industry.

Like I said, even the driving forces behind this new "wave" of 3D promoters, the movie industry, is starting to quietly move away from it as well.

It was kind of cool when it came back out of its latest 20 year slumber, and it's getting ready to take another nap. 3D is a failed idea. And tech companies are starting to realize that. In 60+ years, if you still can't solve the problem of the human sensory process rejecting the images on a majority basis (eye strain and stress headaches), or even really advance the technology, then it isn't worth it to be worked on.

And that's fact.

The reason I feel 3-D would work for the gaming industry is that everything is computer generated anyways. In film a lot of people feel the CGI detracts from the realism, can't see this being an issue in the gamming world.

Having said all that your probably right. Can't see it really takin off, think the costs associated with it may deter developers. And others are probably right, it is a gimmick, but having said that I quite enjoy using it ,just a shame it isn't used that much.

What companies are you talking about? Because game dev companies support 3D tech more and more now. Look at incoming and released games: Diablo 3, Guild Wars 2, Secret World, Bioshock Infinite, TERA, Alan Wake, Uncharted 3, most other big hits. They all get 3D support from devs and Nvidia. And next gen consoles already said will support 3D.
Maybe you speaking about movie companies? Then why few years ago 3D content was pretty much non existant and now there are more then a hundred Blue Ray 3D movies? Many old pictures like Titanic and Lion King also get converted to 3D (which is fake 3D but at least says something about demand).
Or maybe you speaking about hardware companies? Well, we get all kind of 3D TVs, 3D projectors, 3D notebooks, 3D cameras, even 3D smartphones now.

So which companies start to realize its a gimmick and not worth it?

This.

How many movies were released in 3D last year? Compare that to this year. It's plateauing out. They're starting to realize that the current 3D technology isn't advanced enough for home viewing- you seem to want to argue every point but the valid one- that of headache and eyestrain. Again and again people have posted in this thread about it, yet you continually ignore those comments and go for the only ones you can refute.

So answer the question Claire- since 3/4 of the responses here have been along those lines, why don't you comment on that?

Only reason the movies jumped on 3D was because they were desperate to get people back in the seats, after wide availability of Blu-Ray and giant freakin' TVs made people less likely to go to theatres. Plus they had a justification for gouging another 50%+ for the tickets. Of course, now that 3D TVs are coming out, they're in trouble again. Plus people realizing that "converted" 3D movies tend to svck and aren't worth the extra $$$.


(Also, "popular" =/= "good". Nor does "everyone's jumping on the bandwagon to get the $$$ while the getting's good." )


In the end, it all comes down to - not everyone thinks 3D is all that. And a good number of people have valid reasons (physiological issues, etc). Just because you think it's awesome doesn't mean that everyone's going to agree with you.


....and actually, thinking about it, your initial post premise doesn't work. You want Todd to admit he was "wrong"..... about his own personal opinion? The quote you gave ("Honestly, I couldn't care less - having to wear those glasses! I'm not a 3D fan. It ruins the image for me") is his opinion. "It ruins the image for me." Who are you to say that he's wrong?

I mean, if he'd said "It ruins the image for everyone", that you could argue.

Your sig just made my day

After playing many hours in 3D I dont have any headache or eyestrain, so I cant comment on this. The main points why 3D is not mainstream IMHO are:
-The price. To get good 3D you need to bring good investment.
-Most people have no clue what its like to play games and watch movies in 3D. And you cant show them effect in ads like you can show them juicy cake. It requires right tech to be seen

That's it? "It doesn't happen to me so I won't acknowledge the number one thing impeding 3D from most households"?

It's the number one complaint among people polled over both 3D movie screens and home hardware, but hey, it doesn't happen to you so it must not actually be viable?

Don't you realize that if 3/4 of your customers have physical problems with the technology that the tech won't take off?

But your answer to that is "if they played the games in 3D on the right hardware they'd like it." Yeah, I love playing a game so much that I'll just ignore the headache, dizziness and nausea, because it means that much to me.

Im reading alot of 3D forums where people actually use 3D tech all the time. And I dont see many complains in this regard. You may feel headache or eye strain first time you see 3D since your organism didnt yet adapt, but in few days it becomes better. Also those problems could come from bad hardware (like anaglyph glasses), software or too high convergence settings.

Nah, a 3D cinema movie is more than enough for me. I couldn't play longer than 2 hours if I played it in 3D.

This is not correct. There's a scientific reason (this sort of thing is called a "fact") why people get eyestrain from 3D.

All 3D television has a flat screen as its image source. That means that, despite what the 3D image seems to show, everything on the screen is the same distance from your eye. Your brain, on the other hand, perceives the things being seen as coming from different distances away, and tries to refocus your eyes to that distance. The result is a constant correction/over-correction of the eye's lens, which results in headache, blurred vision, and eyestrain.

There is simply no practical way to present a flat image in 3D without producing that sort of physical problem in sensitive people.

I'm 33 years old and have been watching 3D films/television literally my whole life. I would counter that my opinion is based on experience, not the lack of it.

Once again, already been tried. This brings us to the real reason these types of devices always fail in the market: People don't want to wear gadgets on their heads or special glasses in their own living room. They'll do it in the movie theater because it seems novel. But the consumer quickly rejects the requirement of special head gear/glasses.

I'm not kidding you. It's been tried. There was a big to-do over 3D headsets in the 90's. The real reason consumers rejected the devices were because people don't want to wear devices on their heads. And that brings up another point: The next gen headset style 3D devices are hundreds of dollars per set. How many people in your household? There's 6 of us here. That's 6 separate devices. Ain't gonna happen

Oh, I think I misunderstood your argument. I thought you were advocating the current generation of 3D Tv's. If you want to talk about a hypothetical future then yeah, I'm all for it.

I hate the way that 3D is pushed on us so much. I want to go see Prometheus but my local cinema only shows it in 3D (the nearest cinema after that is a couple of hours drive away) and I have to pay the equivalant of $35 to go see it. So now I don't get to see Prometheus because I don't like 3D. I've seen plenty of 3D movies and know that I don't like it. I simply don't like the way it looks, I don't feel immersed in the movie and find it annoying and distracting. I simply don't like 3D and quite frankly I find it highly annoying to be told that I don't like 3D because I've not seen 'good' 3D. No. I've seen plenty of 3D, I simply don't like it, get over it.

-.- I just don't like 3D. Is that so hard to understand. A friend of mine has a really good 3D rig. I just don't enjoy using it as much as just an ordinary monitor. Why this is so hard to comprehend for you, I have no idea. It all boils down to opinions. And you can simply not decide which opinion is the correct one.

Resolution in old HMDs was way too low, narrow FoV, no software support at all and their price was above 10,000$. No wonder they failed miserably.
Now look at HMZ-T1. OLED displays with great 3D and decent FoV, full software support - for 800$ price. No wonder demand on this thing was MUCH higher then supply. Sony said they werent ready for such success.

Im pretty sure new types of HMDs are coming soon. We already have ST1080 and Im personally waiting for HMZ-T2. The market is wide open.

Of course its nice to dream about Matrix. But you can dream for many years or enjoy 3D now with current tech. For each their own

SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T ENJOY 3D! Is that so hard to comprehend?

And I think that you've (in a way) proven to me why I disagree so highly with the OP's posts.

He's taking his love of 3D (his opinion) and presenting it in an argument as scientific fact. He likes 3D so much that he thinks that the only way someone could not like 3D is if they just haven't seen "modern" 3D. Add in the fact that the OP continuously disregards the arguments of physical ailments cause by any 3D (both old school and modern 3D) as well as testaments from most of the posts in this thread that tell how people have repeatedly experienced "modern" 3D, and it only make the Op sound arrogant.

Then disregarding the fact that the only change to 3D in 50+ years is the switch from using film to an entirely digital format, and that regardless of the switch the old problems and public opinion on 3D haven't changed in 60+ years, and it really seems like the OP doesn't want a discussion at all. It seems as if we're just supposed to take his opinion as fact and just be good with that.

It never works that way when opinion is presented as fact.

Eye strain and headaches caused by the brain rejecting the illusion of 3 dimensions on a 2 dimensional surface aren't going to go away with exposure as the "if you try it, you'll get used to it" argument would suggest. More exposure to the source of the discomfort will only compound the problem. That's a medically and scientifically proven fact.

The vast majority of the populace has rejected 3D, OP, and more people are joining the rejection every day. The novelty is (yet again, just like all the times before...) wearing off very quickly, and even the 3D manufacturers are backing off of production and introduction of new 3D items because the demand is plateauing. Very soon, it expected (by leading market anolysts) to start dropping off at a steadily increasing rate.

"Modern" 3D is a fad, and a fad that's fading quite quickly. It doesn't matter how much people view "modern" 3D, most of the advlt populace of the US has experienced "modern" 3D, and the result is the same as 20 years ago. They're telling manufacturers and producers of 3D products that they don't like it by not buying it. Really, if you bother to research any market anolysis numbers, you'll see that the market for 3D (and other gimmick items) is a very small, shrinking niche. And companies don't make sustainable profit off of niche items.

That also, is a fact.

I'm starting to think that he works for a company that makes 3D TV's

Funny that you tell this and then add to your posts "That also, is a fact".
Our discussion with you wont go anywhere. Obviously you're sure its gimmick and fad, while I think it is the future of gaming and amazing experience. I just want to give advice for other people who became interested - try it for yourself. Its better one time to see then 100 times to hear.

But people have seen plenty of good 3D, and a lot of people don't like it. I don't see why you keep arguing on that.

Can I ask you Ape what good 3D on what exact system did you personally experience?