4 ms·
I wish everyone would have tried 3D on a home TV, because in my experience it's far more immersive and special than in a cinema. It's really disappointing to me
by anjc 9y ago
I wish everyone would have tried 3D on a home TV, because in my experience it's far more immersive and special than in a cinema. It's really disappointing to me that 3D TVs aren't being made anymore.
- ghaff 9y agoI have a 3D TV and a handful of films that are both decent films and use 3D effectively. It's a good experience but I'm not sure I'd describe it as better than seeing it in Imax 3D. Most of the films that really nail 3D are "big screen" experiences like Avatar that, for me, tend to have more impact on the big screen.
- anjc 9y agoMaybe it's the settings on my TV, or maybe it's due to my expectations, but I'm more consistently blown away at home than in a cinema. In a cinema I adjust to the 3D more quickly. To name drop another movie, I'd highly recommend Dredd to anybody that has a 3D TV available.
- meesterdude 9y agocurious, what's your TV? and do you know of any specific settings you tweaked?
- anjc 9y agoIt's whatever the last generation of 3D LG Smart TVs was, don't know what model, sorry. But there are settings for depth of 3D and smart 3d object detection and so on (I don't use that). Either way, it feels way more 3D than anything I've seen in a cinema. At the very very least, it has never distracted me from the the viewing experience. So I don't understand the widespread revulsion for it.
- drb91 9y agoDoes it require wearing glasses? Does it help with the narrative?
- vhold 9y agoThere was a lot of poor implementations of 3D TVs that are probably primarily responsible for the failure, but to me this was the final nail in the coffin: https://gizmodo.com/5715733/why-does-it-cost-300-to-buy-avatar-on-3d-blu-ray https://gizmodo.com/5715733/why-does-it-cost-300-to-buy-avat... The article is absolutely right, they got incredibly greedy with what little good content they had.