Is 3D here to stay?

jmacavali

Fully Optimized
Messages
4,867
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20001013-260.html

Looks like Nintendo is putting 3D screens on a new DS -- and you won't need glasses to watch it. :eek: So does this mean that 3D is here to stay this time around? Are TV's next? What about movie theaters - will we always need glasses there? Will 3D die out like it did in the late 80's? :confused: :confused:

I have never seen a 3D movie and quite frankly, don't care if I ever do. I know that there will be a lot of people who say it's worth it and that it makes the movie better but it's just a bunch of extra junk I don't need when I watch a movie. Seems like in the coming years though, I may not have a choice.
 
I think the 3D tech this time round is going to last, but they will really have to change how they work. Glasses free displays will have to appear, as I don't see glasses tech in the home, other than maybe in games, shifting to TV, unless for an event like Channel 4 did (but that was very gimmicky)

3D in films is pretty good though. Up was amazing in 3D, and so was Avatar.

As for the tech used in the new 3DS, it looks like it won't be as 3D as you'd expect with the glasses tech, but that sort of application does suit hand held gaming a lot more than with TV's at the moment, because you have to be in a fixed position for the effect to work well.

I think it will definitely catch on though in use on gaming consoles, and at least with TV's that support 3D. There will be an option to switch off 3D, and have it as a standard 2D TV as well, don't forget.
 
I think they need to keep the 3D experience to the theaters. Watching a 3D movie on your 32"-52" is not quite as immersive imo.

Also I was reading somewhere that the first 3D tv's that are coming out require a $300 dollar pair of glasses just to watch it in 3D!!

TV: $2000+
4 Pairs of glasses for the family: $1200

I don't see 3D becoming the norm any time soon.....
 
I think they need to keep the 3D experience to the theaters. Watching a 3D movie on your 32"-52" is not quite as immersive imo.

Watching it on a 50 inch is not too bad.

Watching it on my 120 inch is pure epicness. If you can get the screen so large that you cannot see the edges, the 3D is 100000 times better.
 
I don't know, I have a hard time finding my remote let alone a pair of 3D glasses. I don't know how they would do it but they must create 3D with out the glasses. Not sure how or if that is even possible.

As far as movies go in the theater, I believe 3D is hear to stay for them.
 
The 3D TVs around at the moment are crap. You need really expensive glasses, they've got an abysmal battery life and they're ridiculously expensive. They also cost a lot.

Did I mention they were expensive?

But then again - all such technology has to start off somewhere. We're really in the very early days here, so while I wouldn't ever buy one I'm not going to shout it down as worthless. Such stepping stones are needed so the next generation of 3D stuff can be better.

Active glasses (such as the ones used for the TVs) in my mind will go. There's just too many issues with them. Passive glasses are the way forward for now, and hopefully they can get rid of the glasses altogether in the not too distant future. The challenge this poses however is more of a physics issue rather than a technological one - and they're always tricky to solve.

So yes, I think 3D is here to stay - this generation of the technology is really the first to be usable. But before it hits us left right and centre it's going to have to be improved - and as an emerging technology I've no doubt it will be.
 
Back
Top Bottom