Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Why did 3D TV die?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    11,011
    Woof, thanks Doc.

    Fortunately this morning's hangover didn't include any gastritis, just a headache and the spins.
    Time wasted having fun is not time wasted - Lennon
    (John, not the other one.)

    Emperor Ming; "Klytus I'm bored. What plaything can you offer me today?"
    General Klytus; "An obscure body in the S-K system, your Majesty. Its inhabitants call it..."Earth".

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDon View Post
    Doc, about six months after automotive design engineers started using augmented reality in engine design somebody went, "hmmm, I wonder if they could use this in medicine?"

    My youngest daughter is a prototyping engineer on this project. Wow doc, I hope you can hang on another decade or two longer. Surgery is about to really Star Treky in the next two years or so.
    3D visualization in medicine is nothing new. I remember getting to play with a surgery simulator at Uppsala university in 1999. Even though the graphics are very dated by now and the unit looked much like an old school arcade machine, the 3D effect was excellent and the force feedback scalpel mounted on an arm was extremely disturbing to use if you don't want to know what a blade slipping through skin feels like.
    Last edited by glappkaeft; 2017-Apr-05 at 08:56 PM. Reason: corrected year

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,568
    We have a 3D TV. We've watched maybe 4 movies in 3D in the six years we've had it. It takes about 5 minutes of wearing those glasses for the headache and eye strain to kick in. The recommendation for the glasses is not to wear them for more than 15 minutes without a break which means to use it properly, you have to keep interrupting the experience. I prefer not to keep pausing movies when watching.

    Do I have glorified memories of 3D movies from when I was a kid? Did they have more of an in your face feature back then? I feel like I remember 3D movies being better then what they are now. My husband and I disagree over the worth of paying extra to see a movie in 3D at the theater. I don't think it's worth it but he says I am just romanticizing my youth. Has it changed?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,092
    Of the movies I've seen in 3D, Dr. Strange is the only recent one that made it worth the extra bucks. Mostly it's one-scene wonders with the rest of 2 hours wasted, as far as the glasses are concerned.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
    "It is the duty of the writers to seduce me into suspending my disbelief!" Paul Beardsley

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,696
    Quote Originally Posted by closetgeek View Post
    Do I have glorified memories of 3D movies from when I was a kid? Did they have more of an in your face feature back then? I feel like I remember 3D movies being better then what they are now.
    The bar is much lower when you're a kid, for obvious reasons.

    I recently rewatched Jurassic Park, and now it's not much better than ho-hum. I thought it was amazing and suspenseful when it was new and I was eight.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    34,092
    Quote Originally Posted by SkepticJ View Post
    I recently rewatched Jurassic Park, and now it's not much better than ho-hum. I thought it was amazing and suspenseful when it was new and I was eight.
    Also, you already know what's going to happen and when. Hard to build suspense on a second viewing.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright
    "It is the duty of the writers to seduce me into suspending my disbelief!" Paul Beardsley

  7. #37
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    Of the movies I've seen in 3D, Dr. Strange is the only recent one that made it worth the extra bucks. Mostly it's one-scene wonders with the rest of 2 hours wasted, as far as the glasses are concerned.
    I couldn't watch more than a minute of that film. It wasn't because of 3D. I was actually trying to watch it on a plane. It was because of Benedict Cumberbatch's AWFUL accent.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkepticJ View Post
    The bar is much lower when you're a kid, for obvious reasons.

    I recently rewatched Jurassic Park, and now it's not much better than ho-hum. I thought it was amazing and suspenseful when it was new and I was eight.
    Nah. I watched Jurassic Park a while ago for the first time in years and was struck by how well it held up, apart from the paleontology.

    Quote Originally Posted by closetgeek View Post
    We have a 3D TV. We've watched maybe 4 movies in 3D in the six years we've had it. It takes about 5 minutes of wearing those glasses for the headache and eye strain to kick in. The recommendation for the glasses is not to wear them for more than 15 minutes without a break which means to use it properly, you have to keep interrupting the experience. I prefer not to keep pausing movies when watching.

    Do I have glorified memories of 3D movies from when I was a kid? Did they have more of an in your face feature back then? I feel like I remember 3D movies being better then what they are now. My husband and I disagree over the worth of paying extra to see a movie in 3D at the theater. I don't think it's worth it but he says I am just romanticizing my youth. Has it changed?
    The 3D experience of the Disney Pixar Short Film Festival at Epcot was rather good. 3D was relatively clear and 4D effects were well used. A wonderful new attraction.

    The 3D experience of Mickey Philharmagic at Magic Kingdom was really, really poor. I couldn't keep those glasses on after a minute. It was just blurry. Only the effect of Donald at the end was good 3D and that was because it was an animatronic.

    The 3D experience of It's Tough to be a Bug at Animal Kingdom was pretty weak too. I didn't keep the glasses on much either. However, that might also be due to it being the scariest attraction at any theme park other than Doctor Mengela's Wild Ride.

    The 3D experience at the old classic Muppet Vision 3D at Hollywood Studios held up very well. Wasn't too straining at all.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Glom View Post
    I couldn't watch more than a minute of that film. It wasn't because of 3D. I was actually trying to watch it on a plane. It was because of Benedict Cumberbatch's AWFUL accent.



    Nah. I watched Jurassic Park a while ago for the first time in years and was struck by how well it held up, apart from the paleontology.



    The 3D experience of the Disney Pixar Short Film Festival at Epcot was rather good. 3D was relatively clear and 4D effects were well used. A wonderful new attraction.

    The 3D experience of Mickey Philharmagic at Magic Kingdom was really, really poor. I couldn't keep those glasses on after a minute. It was just blurry. Only the effect of Donald at the end was good 3D and that was because it was an animatronic.

    The 3D experience of It's Tough to be a Bug at Animal Kingdom was pretty weak too. I didn't keep the glasses on much either. However, that might also be due to it being the scariest attraction at any theme park other than Doctor Mengela's Wild Ride.

    The 3D experience at the old classic Muppet Vision 3D at Hollywood Studios held up very well. Wasn't too straining at all.
    We did the 3D experience at Hollywood Studios back in 2004. That one was well done. My daughter was 4 at the time and she kept getting up to catch the butterflies. That actually was well done, now that I think about it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •