4 ms·
Peoples expectations for 3D TV is a bit higher than some illusion produced by wearing some glasses staring directly at the correct angle at a flat screen. I'll
by b3b0p 16y ago
Peoples expectations for 3D TV is a bit higher than some illusion produced by wearing some glasses staring directly at the correct angle at a flat screen.
I'll look at 3D TV when it is similar to a Star Wars 3D hologram. I don't think I'm alone. No one wants to pay extra for glasses and watch a faux 3D illusion.
- kscaldef 16y agoNo one wants to pay extra for glasses and watch a faux 3D illusion. Really? Because I remember a lot of people here a few months ago saying that you were wasting your money if you didn't pay extra to see Avatar in 3D. Personally, I agree with you. I hate 3D movies. I'll go out of my way to see the non-3D version. But, there's plenty of people willing to pony up the extra $4 for it.
- erikstarck 16y agoI think it works better on the cinema. The cinema is and should be kind of an alternative reality. You enter this large, dark room and from now on you're in an artificial fantasy. Wearing goggles almost adds to the experience. Your living room is something different.
- dagw 16y agoIn the case of Avatar, the only reason to see the film was to see a slightly too long demo reel on what the current state of the art in CGI movies looks like. The 3D was an integral part to the whole tech demo experience.
- b3b0p 16y agoPaying an extra $4 to see it at the theater in 3D with glasses seems quite different than shopping for a TV that costs hundreds to possibly thousands of dollars and adding in some $100+ glasses on top of that.