Is it true about Sky 3D closing?

About time too. Ridiculous gimmick that adds nothing, except nausea.

Sitting at home wearing silly glasses was never going to catch on, whatever were they thinking.

Give it 5 years and it will be gone from the cinema as well.
 
About time too. Ridiculous gimmick that adds nothing, except nausea.

Sitting at home wearing silly glasses was never going to catch on, whatever were they thinking.

Give it 5 years and it will be gone from the cinema as well.

The same was said about television when radio was the dominant none written media.

Cinemas can only improve the tech if the demand is up - thus far, every movie comes out with a 3D version (be it filmed True or CGI effects). The glasses aspect can only improve.

However, I totally understand home media being on demand rather than live channel. Works better than watching it at times unsuitable etc.

I've tried watching Wimbledon in 3D. Actually quite awesome, if it weren't for the weird ghosting frame rate when camera moves.
 
About time too. Ridiculous gimmick that adds nothing, except nausea.

Sitting at home wearing silly glasses was never going to catch on, whatever were they thinking.

Give it 5 years and it will be gone from the cinema as well.

But it does add something it's called 3D, does it matter if the glasses look silly they serve a purpose, if your that bothered about don't use it no one forces you to do so:rolleyes:
 
I'm not a huge fan of 3d (although I was impressed with Spiderman 2) but I never have understood the glasses look silly criticism. Doesn't this imply that people with glasses on look silly?
 
I'm actually happy about this if it results in more 3d content being available on demand. The 3D channel seemed to show this at odd times and most of it was not available to watch on catch up so if you missed it you missed it.

3d seems to have moved on a little in the last few years - I didn't get poor image quality and nausea watching avengers at the I max at the weekend which I did used to get. It also works fine on my home TV.

It does at something to the football on the rare occasion they show it in 3d.
 
Yup everyone looks daft sat in the living room with big specs on. It makes it much less of a social experience as you're all blinkered.

But isn't everyone mostly looking at the screen rather than each other?
Is this why people prefer the 2d showings of films at the cinema?
 
Yup everyone looks daft sat in the living room with big specs on. It makes it much less of a social experience as you're all blinkered.

How is watching a movie a social experience? Unless you're one of those folks that rabbits on constantly during a movie, in which case you should be branded with a cattle iron and made stand outside!:p

The social experience comes after the movie is over and people start chatting about what they've just watched, at this point the silly goggles should be off
 
3D just feels a bit like 4K in that it is the TV companies trying to force an innovation on the public to boost sales rather than it being demanded/needed. You only have to look at the comparative success of stuff people actually wanted ie DVD and flat screens both of which were embraced very quickly by the public as they were things we wanted.
 
About time too. Ridiculous gimmick that adds nothing, except nausea.

Sitting at home wearing silly glasses was never going to catch on, whatever were they thinking.

Give it 5 years and it will be gone from the cinema as well.

3D has been getting "gone from the cinema" for the past 5+ years already - it certainly doesn't appear to be going anywhere.
 
There was a point in time though (around 2010-2014) where you just couldn't go see a film in 2D as practically all the main showings were 3D.

I'm glad now that isn't the case any more, it was seriously turning me off from going. I think the last 3D film I went to see was Force Awakens or Rogue One, it was one of those two on an IMAX screen. I just cba with it any more.
 
Back
Top Bottom