virtual boy anyone?
You mean the optometrist’s delight?
Funny how much I fall into this category. I JUST bought my first plasma screen+blu-ray player+7.1 sound system to set me up a media room, and I completely agree with your point. I wouldn’t buy any new stuff that came out in the next 5 or 10 years.
I mean, I know technology is advancing way faster than it used to these days, and the trend is for things to be replaced faster and faster, but unlike technology, my paycheck is most likely to remain the same for the next years :3.
About the 3D things: in 7 or 8 years, if it didn’t require glasses and shit tons of other stuff to use, who knows? 
I don’t think 3D will become suitable for everything until we develop a system that changes the focus plane based on your eye’s lens focus. Imagine a camera on the display that can somehow interpret the depth of focus of your eyes, then adjust the plane of focus on the 3D content dynamically. Now THAT would be sweet. And totally practical.
depth of focus is one of my major gripes as well
3D makes my eyes hurt. 
I only like 3D when it’s in non serious stuff (slasher horrors and kid CGI films mainly) and if they actually use the 3D effects extensively like stuff jumping out of the screen, unlike in Avatar where the occasional leaf was the only indication of 3D existing.
In games, never.
earth needz moar Blade Runner.
wat
The whole movie was in 3D… not in the retarded kid’s movie way that some blob comes jumping out of screen every five minutes, but the way that actually gives the movie some depth.
I was wondering the same thing when I read that…he has no idea what hes talking about lol. Granted, the only 3D material Ive seen is Avatar, but I could easily tell the entire thing was in 3D.
I would imagine the opposite of what eateroftheflame is saying is true, that the cheaper CGI and horror flicks would use the occasional, gimmicky use of 3D (i.e. axe flying at your face) while half-assing the rest of the film. Good job being an ignorant, mindless consumer whore! JK
Overall, right now, 3D sucks. Id take true HD over 3D anyday. Besides, 3D only makes sense with projectors or large computer monitors. What are they going to make, 40-inch 3D TVs? Even 60" is too small. IMO, the display has to be at least 100" or in your face to really take advantage of 3D. Most TVs are neither. Now is not the time for 3D, standard consumer display size is too small and 3D tech should improve first, if possible.
I love Blade Runner, but why say this? I don’t remember cheap 3D being featured in the movie. I believe virtual reality was portrayed to exist during the time of Blade Runner; most likely 3D was ancient tech lol.
And color and sound.
Fuck, movies are just a stupid gimmik. Actors and a stage are the way to go.
just keep fucking holding us all back.
3D is just perception as is color and sound, its essentialness to enjoyable viewing film is a matter of opinion.
You have to understand that 3D technology is immature and imperfect, right now. Personally, I can’t believe they are already pushing 3D TVs. TV companies should be investing in increasing screen size and decreasing cost. They should be investing more in OLED before pushing this 3D agenda. Of course, I’m sure production studios are partly to blame.
According to the 3DS info, it’s gonna have a Parallax (that it? I forget.) barrier, instead of in glasses, on the screen. Therefore PROJECTING 3D. I dunno if that will work, but if they did that for TVs and monitors I would definitely buy that shit.
@ Zeus
Unfortunately right now parallax technology is only really applicable to small screen size. The reason is that the field of view is very narrow, comparable to early LCD technology. Until that problem is fixed, large displays must use some external polarizing filter to achieve the 3D effect.
Personally, I’m pretty skeptical about the 3DS’s display. I guess I’ll have to see it to believe it.
No. Production hates 3d because it is more difficult and more expensive to produce than traditional media.
Whats to be skeptical about? There are already cell phones on the market which use the same technology.
It’s the way entertainment is heading. The world is 3D, so more and more media will try to emulate this. However, entertainment needs to learn not to use it as a gimmick (“hahaa, my gun is pointing through the screen.” “hahaa, a marble just randomly bounced and is heading at your face!” “hahaa, etc.”
I don’t mind if video games went in the right direction in terms of 3D.
The ps3 just got an update that implements 3D functions so that game developers can use them. As of now, no games are using them BUT Wipeout HD was demoed in 3D a few months back running on a beta copy of said firmware. I never got to experience it first hand but those that did said that “Wipeout is a game that was meet to be played in 3D.”
I don’t think that all games should go 3d, and I think that MOST movies should stay 2d.
Sadly I know that is not going to happen. Studios are making money hand over fist on 3D movies and it is fairly simple to implement crappy 3d into a game. A game should be made for 3d, not the other way around.
I would have assumed that production companies would be willing to front the cash and push 3D in hopes of big returns. 3D is so gimmicky and the ignorant public eats it up. Who is pushing the 3D agenda?
So what? Its all progessive. Virtual reality is entertainment endgame with 3D simply being a link in the chain. I personally don’t mind 3D movies being produced for theaters, but I think it is dumb to push the technology at the home and consumer market. The consumer display market is still too immature to push 3D due to display size limitations. 3D on anything smaller than 100" is pointless in IMO, better to invest in OLED and higher resolutions, especially for displays smaller than 100".
The same people who are pushing for in home consumer 3d probably also think solar and wind farms are a good idea. Its all too immature…for now.
redacted