3D - yeah or meh?

[Kev]

So we've had 3D for a while now in the cinema. I thought Avatar was great in 3D but it was on terrestrial TV a couple of weeks back and I thought it was still ok in 2D to be honest.

I might go and see the Avengers film this weekend before it ends but I'm baulking at 12 quid instead of 7 to see it in 3D.

Has the excitement of 3D worn off?

[Cool Hand Luke]

Hi here is my answer, I bought a Samsung 52" 3D TV in January, bit of a catch 22 as the films are very expensive, approximately £20 odd + quid.

My resolve with this was that I had HD full blown Sky so I get the 3D channel for free, so what I do is tape any good films and that way I get the 3D films for free and watch whenever I wish, plus I get the footy in 3D, magic.. Lol

By the way my 52" 3D Tv cost me £550 delivered free with two par of glasses and a free film of my choice, so I cannot complain about costs as my budget was more than what I paid for the TV and I started out looking for a 42"' so it s a win win situation for me.

Pictures are a rip off in general in my opinion, sweets, hot dogs, drinks etc... Unless you got a new burd to impress lol

Stevie.

[Ryy]

What is the footy like in 3D? Also, do you have powered glasses or not?

Avatar is the only thing that actually looked "worth" the 3D. I hate the film, think it's so over hyped, but at the iMax the 3D and general size made it very bearable to watch. I saw it on 3D in Best Buy and it did look good, but considering the budget of it and how long production took, that would correlate with the rest of the things I watched to test that were very weak.

[Cool Hand Luke]

I totally agree with you regarding Avatar as I have it saved on my Sky HD Box and use it for showing anyone the 3D working as like you say it is amazing. The footy is good but it is not a necessity, I was dying to get the 3D but to be 100% honest with you I am finding that I use it less and less. The reasons are that if watching footy with pals I only have two pair of glasses, they were £60 each (Yes they are the powered glasses), but you can get them now for £20 well a descent pair. Do not go for the unpowered 3D as it is very poor. I also bought the 3D DvD player and the cable (needs a stronger cable for 3D), films are very expensive, so basically my films I watch are what free ones I can pick off Sky, then I store them until I fancy watching them. I was not out too much expense as like my previous mail states I had a budget for a 42" TV for my games room and ended up with the 52" 3D TV and the rest for less than I had budgeted for so happy days, all in I was approx £600 odd quid. Oh another thing before I forget the David Attenborough and nature like programmes can be great also.

Cheers,

Stevie.

[Withnail]

I bought a 3D TV for the football/golf and got bored of it very easily. It's a novelty but not practical. I reckon it will be standard very soon. Gran Turismo on PS3 looks good but on principle I refused to pay to upgrade to a Rocco so lost interest there.

[Dobbin]

Speaking as someone with broadcast industry inside knowledge, 3D is very likely to be a flash-in-the-pan. Current technology discussions are that 4k (more than twice the resolution of HD) will supersede 3D. The depth of field you get with 4k is quite astonishing on a small (domestic TV) screen and produces an almost 3D effect.