Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

3D or not 3D? That is the question here

View previous topic View next topic Go down

3D or not 3D? That is the question here

Post by NIN on Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:00 am

Hello everybody

2 months ago i purchased a 3dtv (active type), 2 pairs of 3d glasses and a 3d blu-ray player with 5 free blu-rays including Avatar(well a voucher anyway,,the films arrived 2 weeks ago), all i can say is WOW, i went to see avatar at the movies in 3d but this was different this was better, a crystal clear pin sharp vibrant picture that appeared to stretch way off into the distance,,things appeared solid and weighty like you could reach out and pull them from the screen,,somethings even popped out of the screen (though not much,,which is why i think this film is the most impressive piece of cinematic technology i have ever seen),,,you have to see it to believe it, also the good news doesnt end there. Whilst awaiting delivery of free films popped to local hmv aand purchased alice in wonderland 3d,,which is another stunning 3d movie which isnt a 3d movie,,wasnt filmed in 3d and was never intended to be shown in 3d but ranks amongst one of the best 3d experiences to be had,,technology today allows us to turn almost any movie into 3d (yes the effects are not always of the quality of movies filmed in 3d, but AIWL shows they sometimes are) ,,i am very impressed with this technology and it is a massive leap from the old red/blue glasses of yesteryear,,however 3d is nothing new and has always failed before but this time things appear different digital technology along with pioneers like james cameron have made 3d film making,,cheaper and easier,,the film studios are chucking out 3d films like there is no tomorrow (disney-pixar will re-release all of their movies in 3d),,the tv's are cheap as chips £500,,Ridley scott,,yes his new sci-fi movie alien prequel not"prometheus" due for release next year,,,filmed with camerons system has sworn he will never work without 3d again,,next years olympics and wimbledon will be broadcast in 3d by the bbc i believe,,,people say 3d is just a gimmick, i say so what.

What about you lot, are any of you into this stuff?.
avatar
NIN
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3D or not 3D? That is the question here

Post by GreatNPowerfulOz on Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:41 pm

I like the 3D tv's, although I'm not on the bandwagon to rush out and fill my house with them just yet. I understand that tv's which don't require the glasses will be available soon...so I'm holding off on any purchases. I'd like one for my entertainment room...a large one...but, with 4 kids and all their friends the costs of buying (and replacing) the glasses for 10-12 people is just more than I want to spend.
avatar
GreatNPowerfulOz
Deactivated

Posts : 176
Join date : 2011-10-10
Age : 48
Location : Michigan, U.S.A.

Back to top Go down

Re: 3D or not 3D? That is the question here

Post by NIN on Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:03 pm

If you buy a passive 3D tv which uses polarizing glasses like those found in todays cinemas,,they usually come with 4 to 8 pairs of glasses included,,the glasses themselves can be purchased for 50p per pair,,or use a bit of cheek and ask the cinema to give you a load,,they usually throw them away after a half dozens views....however be warned...passive 3d cannot produce a true 1080p hi def picture as for the tv,s that dont require glasses you will be waiting another 5 to 10 yrs for them to appear as at the moment it is too expensive to produce them at a scale larger than a few inches and the 3d results so far are less than hoped for.
avatar
NIN
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: 3D or not 3D? That is the question here

Post by oftenwrong on Fri Nov 04, 2011 4:59 pm

I am content for "Early Adopters" to pay for the development costs of new technology. Within a year or so the price of the newest gizmos will have halved. That may be a good time to search for a bargain.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 11840
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: 3D or not 3D? That is the question here

Post by Shirina on Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:51 pm

The only time I ever really sit down and watch a movie is when I see it for the first time. After that, I'll usually throw in a movie to have on in the background as I'm doing something else - especially when I'm on the computer. Oh, I'll watch the good scenes, but otherwise I'm busy and just listening to the television. For me, a 3D television won't be a worthwhile investment until I'm forced to get rid of my current television. Perhaps then, as Oz said, the prices will have dropped considerably and it might be worth it. In addition, Hollywood is useless to me as far as movies go. The producers have, by and large, focused their energies on three types of movies: kids movies by the boatload, a smattering of superhero movies, and remakes by the dozens. Some superhero movies are entertaining, but the other two ... meh. If Hollywood was cranking out movies I actually liked, the money spent on a 3D television would be worth it. Perhaps when there are enough 3D movies on the market that interest me ... but for right now, no. I also doubt that re-rendering old movies in 3D will ever be as good as a movie originally produced in 3D, so the technology is only good for movies going forward. "Clash of the Titans" was no where near as good of a 3D movie as "Avatar" because "Clash of the Titans" was "reverse engineered" into 3D. You can tell the difference if you watch them both.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: 3D or not 3D? That is the question here

Post by NIN on Fri Nov 04, 2011 7:11 pm

True,,but so is alice and that does look as good, and alice was made a while before COTT with no intention of a 3d market whereas COTT was,,when implemented in the right way the effects are just as good, same as blu-ray some people say i cant tell the difference,,well i say go buy a copy of grand prix and then tell me why such an old film looks so stunning.
avatar
NIN
Guest


Back to top Go down

New tec today

Post by whitbyforklift on Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:22 pm

It is ok if you can and have the money to keep up with it.
Many years ago when I was young and single,I was one of the first to have a colour TV.
Rented from Radio rentals.
The day it came I was at work.
I got home at about 6pm on my push bike.My mother was at the gate.
I cannot belive it she said, the colours are real.
She thought that one minute it would be one colour then change to another.
We have come a long way.
avatar
whitbyforklift
Deceased

Posts : 104
Join date : 2011-10-08
Location : North Yorks

Back to top Go down

Re: 3D or not 3D? That is the question here

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum