3D: gimmick or not?

Tute · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:15

I don't like it. Gives me a headache. So I won't be buying into it.

Acidhell2 said:
A gimmick is some tat thrown on as a marketing exercise to sale more.

By that definition, it is a gimmick? :confused:

I'm sure it is indeed here to stay, but it only exists because the cinemas want to keep people crossing the threshold in the face of declining sales.

Glaucus · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:17

Tute said:
I don't like it. Gives me a headache. So I won't be buying into it.

Like. The rest of us you won't have any choice. You'll buy into it. You just won't use it. If you have a sky+Hd then you have already bought into it and when you upgrade. Your tv, that will almost certainly be a 3d tv.

Glaucus · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:18

Tute said:
By that definition, it is a gimmick?

.

how is it useless tat? With no other reason than marketing.
It has a defined purpose and actually works for many people.

Tute · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:21

Because you get a darker film, stupid glasses and some poorly rendered "extra" effects that add nothing to the experience?

Are you telling me you'd not watch a film unless it was specifically in 3D?

THMRK · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:21

AcidHell2 said:
So they are going to dismantle 3d projectors, scrap including 3d in tvs. Sky/virgin are going to scrap their 3d offerings and producers are going to throw their 3d cameras in the. Bin. Many people actually like 3d.
Again it is. Not a. Gimmick.
A gimmick is some tat thrown on as a marketing exercise to sale more. 3d actually has a real benefit.

It really is little difference. To hd tv. That took almost a decade to be accepted properly. 3d is making headway much faster than that.

I'm perfectly aware of what a gimmick is, my friend. I just completely disagree. I think it is a gimmick and it has yet to improve the experience of any film for me.

Read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/09/06/3d-film-a-turn-off-for-te_n_949909.html

People are choosing 2D in droves now. So yeah, they're going to dismantle 3D projectors etc? Well, if current trends keep up then yes, yes they are.

Glaucus · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:23

Tute said:
Because you get a darker film, stupid glasses and some poorly rendered "extra" effects that add nothing to the experience?

Are you telling me you'd not watch a film unless it was specifically in 3D?

Many many people disagree with you. They say it adds to the film and they like the 3d. It certainly CDs to it.
It's like saying hd couldn't possibly add anything as you have a 20" tv and sit 10foot away. But yet other people rave about it.

And that's ignoring non glasses 3d tech, which will be on laptops in the next few months. Really why would they dismantle everything. It's still selling, yes many people dont like it. It's hardly the end of the world for film companies. Especially as the tech will continually get better and the 3d film format doesn't need to be changed.

Tute · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:27

AcidHell2 said:
Many many people disagree with you. They say it adds to the film and they like the 3d. It certainly CDs to it.

I could find someone who doesn't like it for everybody you can find who does.

It's like saying hd couldn't possibly add anything as you have a 20" tv and sit 10foot away. But yet other people rave about it.

I think HD mainly comes into it's own with sport, where it's easier to see the pitch and players.

But then there's no quantifiable measure of how good 3D cinema is, bar the viewing figures, which don't seem convincing at this point.

I still stand by what I said, it's a gimmick because I think that the majority of people wouldn't specifically choose to see a film in 3D.

Glaucus · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:32

Tute said:
I could find someone who doesn't like it for everybody you can find who does.

.

And?
Did hd not take off because huge portions didn't see the benefit, especially when there was like 1hd channel.

You can probably still find threads debating if hd is a gimmick or that it's pointless.

Judgeneo · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:41

When done properly, 3D really adds to a film. Transformers and Avatar prove that.
Even when done badly such as final destination 3D, the 3D creates stand out moments.

Personally I like it, and have never got headaches from it. Happy to pay the extra in a cinema.

Home use is a different story however, as the technology is way too expensive for me as a humble student, and I would find it very difficult to justify anyway.

Sheff · 6 Sep 2011 at 23:51

AcidHell2 said:
And?
Did hd not take off because huge portions didn't see the benefit, especially when there was like 1hd channel.

You can probably still find threads debating if hd is a gimmick or that it's pointless.

HD was slow to take off due to cost and as previously mentioned the format wars. 3D TVs are not much more than regular LCD TVs, and you're correct in saying that they're being forced into the market.

It still doesn't stop 3D being a bit of a gimmick and a lazy way to pad a film.

Also 3D glasses free laptops are already out, such as the Qosmio F750 by Toshiba. I'll admit the eye tracking works very well and it'll be interesting to see how 3D tech develops.

Glaucus · 7 Sep 2011 at 00:06

You can't call it a gimmick, unless you call hd, big tvs,surround sound (which most people still don't have), colour tvs all gimmicks as well. 3d adds a dimension to videos, the effects as said when filmed in 3d are very good.

The format wars was on the discs. Not the tv set themselves or hd broadcasts.

Very single one of those had people moaning and saying it's not needed as well as issues with it, be it size or wearing glasses.

THMRK · 7 Sep 2011 at 00:26

AcidHell2 said:
You can't call it a gimmick, unless you call hd, big tvs,surround sound (which most people still don't have), colour tvs all gimmicks as well. 3d adds a dimension to videos, the effects as said when filmed in 3d are very good.

How did you arrive at this logic?

Glaucus · 7 Sep 2011 at 00:27

Woody__ said:
How did you arrive at this logic?

Because they are advances in the immersion on video. All add an element and all have had resistance to them and people stating issues.

SkeeterUK · 7 Sep 2011 at 00:56

Let it mature for a good few years then it probably will be better as techniques improve and gets easier and faster to develop which should improve the 3d experience.

Tute · 7 Sep 2011 at 02:23

AcidHell2 said:
And?
Did hd not take off because huge portions didn't see the benefit, especially when there was like 1hd channel.

You can probably still find threads debating if hd is a gimmick or that it's pointless.

Well that doesn't make you any more qualified to say it's not a gimmick than me to say it is?

You seem to base your opinion on "well it's an advancement" - but not all advancements are good and a lot are indeed, gimmicks, like 3D cinema.

AcidHell2 said:
Because they are advances in the immersion on video. All add an element and all have had resistance to them and people stating issues.

You still can't argue that because all those things offered only improvements on existing technology, with no considerable drawbacks. 3D is different because it does offer considerable drawbacks - like the dimmer screen, glasses, possibility of eye strain.

Guerrilla · 7 Sep 2011 at 08:16

The 3D films i've seen so far i havem't been hugely taken with the 3D effects.

Don't like the idea that some parts in films feel a bit forced and done purely fir the sake of 3D.

Once the novelty has worn off a bit it may well just end up being a part of the experience like surround sound.

Glaucus · 7 Sep 2011 at 08:25

Advancements be definition are not gimmicks.

You can say you hate it, I don't particuly like it in most films, but it can not be described as a gimmick.

Sheff · 7 Sep 2011 at 11:16

AcidHell2 said:
Advancements be definition are not gimmicks.

You can say you hate it, I don't particuly like it in most films, but it can not be described as a gimmick.

gimmick[gim-ik] gim·mick /ˈgɪmɪk/ Show Spelled[gim-ik] Show IPA
noun
1. an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention or increase appeal.
2. a concealed, usually devious aspect or feature of something, as a plan or deal: An offer that good must have a gimmick in it somewhere.
3. a hidden mechanical device by which a magician works a trick or a gambler controls a game of chance.
4. Electronics Informal . a capacitor formed by intertwining two insulated wires.
verb (used with object)
5. to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability, acceptance, etc. (often followed by up ): to gimmick up a sports car with chrome and racing stripes.

By definition you could argue that your earlier post:

You can't call it a gimmick, unless you call hd, big tvs,surround sound (which most people still don't have), colour tvs all gimmicks as well. 3d adds a dimension to videos, the effects as said when filmed in 3d are very good.

is correct in stating that the advancements you mentioned are gimmicks.

Columbo · 7 Sep 2011 at 13:13

I don't like it and its not worth the premium but I think its here to stay for one reason and thats piracy.

Its very very hard to pirate a 3D film and shove it out to the masses for consumption currently and it will stay like that while ever its in its current form.

Thats why the studios will continue to back it in my opinion as they can increase revenue and cut down on piracy. 2 birds, one stone.

DBT85 · 7 Sep 2011 at 13:32

Don't like it and would rather pay the extra and go to the Imax than pay to watch in 3D.

The next TV I buy for the living room will be swayed by LED or OLED technology. Its 3D capability will have no bearing on it at all.