Reg Hardware readers last year voted 3DTV the Rusty Dodo in the Reg Hardware Awards, and it seems Brits aren't too keen on the technology when its used in the cinema, either. Pollster YouGov this week revealed that 41 per cent of punters - it interviewed just under 3000 of us - think that 3D is just a gimmick. Some 47 per cent …
And in other news...
Bear shits in woods, Dolly Parton sleeps on back, Bobby Charlton tips hairdresser. Did it need a survey to reveal the country's apathy to 3D? HD is only just becoming mainstream because the content is there, who wants to sit in front of a telly looking like Ray Charles?
Now when Babestation 3D starts, I might change my mind ;-)
should be sued under the trade description act......
Bring forth the attack lawyers at once!
Damn straight they should be sued, imagine my disappointment when, happening upon said channel title in the digibox channel guide thingumybob, I settled down for what I assumed would be an enjoyable televisual traipse around some of the most beautiful public transportation buildings of the world...
Is this not the channel for new parents?
I've not noticed the choice?
I know the trailers usually say 'Also available in 2D'. But my local plex hasn't had it on in two screens at the same time with the choice of 2 or 3D.
So...I have to be apathetic about choosing 3D.
I will always go for the 2D version. Mainly because I already wear glasses and being forced to wear a second pair is.... cumbersome.
Lies, damn lies and statistics
So by twisting those numbers in the other direction, we can also conclude that almost two thirds of cinema goers do not think that 3D is just a gimmick.
Why did that get downvoted?
Honestly, some people need to grow up and stop acting like children.
The comment by Wyrdness contained a single factual statement. There was no problem with the logic or truth of that statement.
Just because an individual carries an alternative personal opinion does not detract from the validity of such a factual statement. Even if one has a well-formed opinion of a subject, there is often value to be gained by considering different viewpoints. Pretending that others' views do not exist just makes you ignorant.
3D in Cinema
Personally, I watch 3D in cinema because I dont have it at home, so for good films which I'll watch on DVD or Blu-Ray later, at least I'll see them once in 3D. Only decent films to use 3D recently have been kids ones (Despicable Me in particular) but there's not many that dont make sense without 3D (How To Train Your Dragon maybe). Last Harry Potter was a waste of time in 3D; it added nothing.
re: Last Harry Potter was a waste of time in 3D; it added nothing.
Actually it made the film worse. HP and Voldemort jumping of a castle? Only there to showcase their wonderful 3D tech.
No suprise there
then, it didn't work the last time either... even if you don't have to wear Quality Street wrappers on your glasses any more!
Now holographic telly?? Different story altogether, that's what I'm going to wait for (yes I know it might be a rather long time...).
Oh and BTW Hollywood - just because it's '3D' doesn't mean you can make a silk purse from a pig's ear!
They have released some terrible movies...
...stuck '3D' in the title and pushed them as wonderful. The film then centers around what they can do to use 3D, like waving pointy sticks at the camera or lying on their backs throwing a ball up to the ceiling camera, rather than following a decent story line.
Eg The Hole 3D. I want my 2* hours of my life back.
*probably longer than 2 due to all the adverts and trailers.
"3D doesn't do anything for the film, and it costs more but we'll let the cinema chains shove us into 3D viewings anyway."
This is no surprise surely? Not being keen on something but putting up with it anyway is typical Britishness!
£10 a pop!
I was horrified at the price for a ticket to see a film that was only available in 3D. A few pence short of a tenner a ticket! Not only do they want me to sit through a film with 3D that looks like moving cardboard cutouts, is somewhat dimmer than it's 2D counterpart, requires me to purchase some uncomfortable plastic glasses and occasionally results in headaches. But they want to charge me a little less than it would to buy the film on DVD shortly after release?
I will be giving the cinema a miss thanks. I have my own at home that comes with a pause button, I can eat my own food, the seats are more comfy and don't have someone constantly kicking the back of it.
What do normal tickets cost in Britain. There is a Theater by my house that charges $18 for a normal 2D ticket. Granted there is also a theater that charges $3 for a ticket, popcorn and soda but they don't get new releases.
Prices vary by region but are also affected by the time of day and the day of the week you visit the cinema.
Prices for my local cinema start at about £3, until recently the general price of admission was a little over £5. It seems it is now just under £8 at peak times. The difference may be trifling but it is just one of many above inflation increases to take into consideration...
Hmm, a weirdly accurate survey
I'd say this survey reflects the public's ambivalence pretty well; more than once this year I've said to myself I won't watch any more 3D versions, then find myself picking the 3D screen next time I'm in the cinema, probably in the (always in vain) hope that this time it won't be a shit waste of time that gives me a headache. So I guess at the moment, the subconcious desire for novelty is trumping the actual experience.
I've not properly seen 3D cinema due to being a bit far back in the Avatar queue thus getting a seat outside the "sweet spot", that being due to me and a mate smoking some aesthetically sensitising cigarettes in the car park immediately prior. Looked very promising though, at least at IMAX scale.
From what I've seen though, I wouldnt piss on a 3D telly if it was on 3D fire. I'll give the tech another decade or so to reach puberty.
In my experience, 3D noticeably detracts from the experience, so I actively avoid them. And if a movie is only available in 3D, then I don't watch it in the cinema.
Couldn't agree more
It murders your suspension of disbelief - when something flies off screen in a 2D movie you can easily ignore it. when the same thing happens in a 3D showing, the object seems to wink out of existence, and you're puzzled for an instant just long enough to throw you off.
I remember watching Avatar in 3D when some burning ashes were drifting down the screen - it looked like a flake of ash was about to fall into my lap just as it ceased to exist. Which reminded me I was sitting in a dingy cinema watching what had been a fairly good film up until then.
Brits don't care about surveys, maybe?
Maybe Brits don't care about surveys either - or at least cinema going Brits...
From my sample set of 1, I can tell you that for almost all films 3D is pointless. I'd be tempted to watch expensive action films in 3D once but nothing more than that.
I watched Tron in 3D and it was a complete waste of time, but with an orange wednesday ticket the cost wasn't a factor.
If some other decent action film came out in 3D, I may be tempted to check it out before I totally write the tech off but so far I've seen nothing to get me excited. Only parts of the film actually contain 3D, the rest of the time you sit there wearing really nerdy glasses!
I certainly won't be buying a 3D tv until it becomes as standard as colour has after b&w but I don't think it will gain that much support before it is retired as a gimmick - much like electric cars will soon.
what's worse is the number of movies retro-fitted with fake 3D. such a cheat. they don't tell you openly which they are either. i have to visit the real or fake 3D website to find out. then i opt for the 2d version where i can.
But the producers love it....copy protection
Because you can't video/copy it when it's shown at the cinema.
Copy protection doesn't have to please the user - that's not what it's for.
One 50p sheet of polariser, and yes you can copy a 2D version of the 3D film.
I'm just surprised at how many people...
...didn't manage to avoid the survey drone asking the questions.
Why 3D detracts from the experience
Films are still being made because of 3D rather than being enhanced by 3D. It works best when we don't notice it, like CGI. A good 3D movie should never wave 3D at the audience and should really never project much beyond the screen.
Bleh. Most of it is trash - Sky Sports savagely accentuate the 3D effect to make something filmed from 50 metres away look 3D, and I'm just tired of films that spend half their effects sodding well throwing things at the viewer.
When used properly, it can add an extra something to media... but when abused for the sheer hell of it, it frequently detracts. But then the same thing goes for the over reliance on special effects compared to acting ability, dialogue and plots.
Sod the glasses
How about some 3D that doesn't give you a pounding headache after 30 seconds.
I've said it before ...
... and I'll say it again: 3D exists to sell unnecessary hardware to idiots.
Maybe the novelty has worn off? It's very nice when you first see it, sitting there with your Ray Charles doo-dads on and watching the fish on your TV swimming around in front of you but after a while it's a little boring and sometimes in the wrong daylight, gives you a headache.
You get companies taking the pee by selling you a 3D TV for £1500 and then asking you to pay another £75 for the glasses! My old man spent the best part of 3 weeks raking over various forums and articles before selecting his 3D TV, he's retired so he's all the time in the world so to speak, the rest of us have jobs, kids and DIY to get sorted out, we don't have time to wade through the guff to get the right one.
I think we're probably waiting for the proper holographic Star Trek type doohickey experience, where you don't need anything extra attachments to get our immersive televisual experience!
Having watched quite a few movies in 3D in the last 12 months the novelty has well and truly worn off. Given that the 3D doesn't noticeably enhance the movie experience, we made the decision to not bother with 3D and as a result have watched the last couple of movies in 2D without complaint from any members of the family.
For me personally, I don't tend to get headaches, so the main reason I'm not interested in paying more for 3D is that the current approach of barely perceptible 3D is a complete waste of time. There simply isn't enough depth to make it a truly immersive experience. I don't advocate returning to the aweful days of every scene resulting in something rushing towards the viewer, but surely there must be some middle ground. Secondary reason is the stupid glasses; it's annoying and cumbersome to wear them over my normal prescription glasses.
3D TVs are pretty cool for some things...
I recently was looking at spending ~£500 on a new TV. I had never seen a film in 3D and wasn't interested in it at all.
Then I saw a manager's special clearance offer - a quality Samsung TV, just what I was after, but bigger and under my budget! It was just an added bonus that it can do 3D as well.
Haven't watched a full film yet - but some PS3 games really do make the most of the effect. Gran Turismo 5 is amazing in 3D - you feel as if you can actually see how far away the corners are. It really adds to the gaming experience.
So I think the technology really does have a future, in some niches. I can't see it completely replacing the cinema / film experience for most people, though.
I certainly hope...
... that this doesn't bring-along those nasty comments about Britons being able to achieve binocular vision, in the first place!
Let's be NICE, now...
- +Comment 'Anti-Facebook' Ello: There's a reason we're in beta. SPAMGASM!
- NASA rover Curiosity drills HOLE in MARS 'GOLF COURSE'
- WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
- Business is back, baby! Hasta la VISTA, Win 8... Oh, yeah, Windows 9
- Third patch brings more admin Shellshock for the battered and Bashed