About the only movie I saw in 3D that was really worth it was when they did Final Destination in 3D. Right now they are going half-way with too many of these movies, shooting them in 2D and then making them 3D in post-production.

3D can be a really cool experience, but until the costs come down, we're getting it kind of halfway right now.

I was at a friends place, so I don't know the details of the machine. The monitor was from Nvidia, I think, and we played Crysis 2. I'm not saying that it wasn't cool, but I honestly prefer 2D for games. For movies, 3D is pretty good

3D is an awful, tacky fad IMO.

Believe it or not, we had digital technology way back in the 90's as well. And those devices most certainly did not cost $10k. They were probably cheaper than your current setup. The reason they failed was because people found them disorienting and didn't like wearing the device on their heads.

Great, just what I need a game that will either be blurry or give me a splitting headache to even try to focus on. Bleh.

And I post that something is a "Fact" when I happen to mention something that is, in actuality, a fact.

Like my mention over popular opinion and the medically, scientifically proven fact that the 3D effect causes severe eye strain and stress headaches in a majority of the populace who experience "modern" 3D.

Also when I mentioned that 3D is a niche product and only a minority of a given populace will buy 3D in any kind of quotable quantity. Even many, many of those polled, who had the economic means to buy 3D have turned it down due to the physical ailments associated with the effect.

When something I state is my opinion, then no where near said statement will I put that it is a fact. This, in my opinion, is the proper way to have a structured, intelligent discussion. For that reason, this is the manner with which I structure my replies and posts.

On 3D, some will love it, others will hate it and the rest will be indifferent as is the case with all things. About the only measure you can trust is your own experiences but 3D capability is becoming a feature on even low end TV's already although that doesn't mean you have to use it.

From what I have read and tried out in various stores is that both active and passive consumer level 3D tends to give a lower contrast and overall reduced brightness image (Ok in a dimly lit environment probably). There are plenty of reports and reviews suggesting that it's wise to limit 3D use to roughly 6 hours in a 24 hour period to avoid headaches and others that suggest some of the systems could with extended use cause retinal damage.

I could see the active shutter style glasses systems where you view a flickering image possibly being prone to eye strain or damage but we will have to wait to see if claims against companies start filtering through the media if that's something to be concerned about.

When I replace a TV I set a budget, then review models and makes that fit and I favour, if 3D happens to be a feature then fine but I wouldn't choose it over something else.

I hate 3-D
Too much strain on the ocular sensors

I dont see any links to medically scientifically proven facts in your posts. Just your speculations.

And neither did I see your links to any tech blogs/news sites proving superiority of new 3D tech over old. Or how "modern" 3D tech solves the eye strain and stress headache problem.

As for it being speculation, I think that just by scanning the posts in your thread you'll see that my comments are quite a bit more than idle speculation. Many people agree with me. As far as links, I'll be more than happy to provide those once I'm out from my day job.

Until then, it'll have to wait.

Ive seen a lot of 3D, from movies to TVs, to videogames. And I personally don't care for it. "Plane and simple." Who the [censored] are you to disagree?

Again, you like it, that's fine and dandy, have a blast with it, but please, stop spouting off like anyone who doesn't like it is an idiot.

I get eye strain from 3D effects. Am I speculating my own condition?

And if you want to argue sources...
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-25/tech/3d.video.eye.strain.ars_1_3d-eye-strain-fatigue?_s=PM:TECH

http://www.gizmag.com/3d-eye-strain-headaches/19342/

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/07/22/study.funded.by.samsung/t may not effect you, (or it is and you dont know it) but it does effect a lot of people, so don't go huffing it off as "speculation".

Thank you Echonite, very well put.

I played a 3DS. it looked cool, but sadly it did give me a thumping headache.

It will be good when they sort it out though, it does look fantastic. Give it time, and it may well become the norm like HD.

It is commong knowledge that some people get eye strain from shutter glasses 3D tech, especially if not used to it. No need for proves here. New tech (HMDs) lower it drastically since 3D there is natural.

http://www.gamesas.com/user/656723-mindw0rk/:

You don't listen to anyone elses opionions at all do you? You like it. Good on you, I couldn't care less. Trying to tell me (or anyone else for that matter) that I'm doing something "wrong" because I refuse to wear stupid looking fake glasses over my real glasses is just ignorant.

And you're wrong. The links posted earlier showed proof that it is older as well as newer 3D tech that gives the eye strain and headaches from the brain rejecting/trying to reject the false 3D image on a 2D surface.

There is no "getting used to it". It's your brains' attempt to protect itself and your visual cortex from what it perceives as harmful. And in order to get you to stop, the brain makes you feel pain in the form of a headache. If it hurts, you're more likely to not do it.

But even the new tech doesn't fix the problem. the headaches and eye strain are still there even with the new tech, so your "try it and you'll like it" argument is dead in the water simply because of the tech that you're trying to pimp out.

Just trying to sell TVs.

Move along, move along.

I can't due 3d, i have glasses and i don't want contacts... and 3d svcks... nothing special about it at all. you were goofy glasses...

When those articles were written HMZ-T1 wasnt even out yet, lol. Those HMDs are completely new, "natural" way to see 3D. Main reason you got eye strain from Nvidia 3D Vision because of cross-talk and need to constantly focus. Its not an issue now.


My posts are mainly for those who are interested in trying this tech. If you're too afraid of headache or think you will look ugly in "stupid glasses", move on. Noone here tells you to buy anything.

To be fair, though, that wasn't really the way the thread started out, and not how it was continued for at least the first few pages. Making statements like "People on'y don't like it because of..." are basically what's winding up those who find 3D a bit of something and nothing.

EVERYONE DOESN'T LIKE THE SAME THING YOU DO! So get over yourself and stop saying that all our opinions are wrong. Because who the [censored] are you to decide?

Ocular sensors? Are you an android?

But who do you work for?

The current 3D fad exists because TV makers can no longer over charge for HD tvs. That's the only reason they are trying to shove it down our throats. HD tvs are common and cheap now. So companies are trying to find something new to charge massive margins for. Stop and think, which company has been pushing this 3D crap the most? Sony

Nearly every Sony movie made now has 3D (maybe all of them, I haven't paid that close of attention to be honest), Sony helps cover the costs for theaters to get set up with 3D projectors and glasses, Sony has spent millions marketing it as some great experience, Sony pushes 3D on the PS3 yet laughs at glasses free 3D on the 3Ds. Why do you think all of that is? Because Sony Could careless about the experience, they just want to convince people they need to buy a new tv even though they just finished buying a HD tv. It's funny that some people have actually fell for it. The only reason Movie theaters are doing 3D is to convince people they need that at home. We don't. I personally can't stand to watch a 3d movie for longer than 30 or so minutes. Gives me a headache and detracts from the movie.

Yes, but that was one bad attempt using limited technology. If the graphics and gameplay's good enough I could really see VR working very well.