3D-TV Poll

[Sarcastic]

I personally don't like it. Not even for games. I vote #2.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20120928&id=15612270

[Hockeynut!]

Hate it.

[pittsoccer33]

There just isn't enough meaningful things to watch. 3D bluray availability is finally catching up - for the first two years you basically couldn't buy any of them. Avatar was only offered in a $400 box with Panasonic glasses. The Dreamworks Animation films were packed in a $350 Samsung glasses pack.

I'm very surprised Sony/Panasonic/etc haven't teamed up with the networks to do the Superbowl in 3D. If ABC aired another one I'd be inclined to think they would broadcast that way. I know the NBA Finals were.

But the problem inherent with 3D broadcasts is one of bandwidth - 3D is essentially twice the amount of visual data, and there isn't enough room in the pipes to fit it.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-200 ... broadcast/

With broadcast 3D you're getting less resolution than with 2D. In theory, the Top and Bottom method will look better with sports, as you have more horizontal resolution. But it's actually more complicated than that. As you can see with the numbers above, if you halve 720p in either direction, it's not much higher resolution than DVD. ABC and Fox, and all their related sports programming (including ESPN), made the decision in the early days of HD to go with 720p, as they felt it looked better with fast motion and therefore sports. That means that now they're looking at either having to shoot in 1080i, or supply their viewers with 3D content that's little more than 15 percent better than DVD.
Remember, your cable/satellite box likely defaults to output everything at 1080i, but that doesn't mean that the original source is 1080i.
It's unlikely any cable/satellite provider will increase their bandwidth in the near future to allow for Full HD 3D. So we're left with low resolution images with broadcast 3D.

[eddysnake]

If done correctly and isn't in the movie as a gimick, I don't have a problem with it. Watched Prometheus in 3D on Sony XBR929 last week and it looked incredible. Avatar is the same way. I'm certainly not going out of my way to upgrade all my electronics for 3D, but anymore it seems like it's all part of the package anyway. Can't say I've experienced a broadcast in 3D though

[MRandall25]

I tried watching one at Best Buy and I thought the image was incredibly fake-looking.

[pittsoccer33]

If done correctly and isn't in the movie as a gimick, I don't have a problem with it. Watched Prometheus in 3D on Sony XBR929 last week and it looked incredible. Avatar is the same way. I'm certainly not going out of my way to upgrade all my electronics for 3D, but anymore it seems like it's all part of the package anyway. Can't say I've experienced a broadcast in 3D though

Both of those movies were conceptualized for 3D filming. You have to approach the entire process differently when you film in 3D. It's the same way make up artists, lighting crews, and set designers had to completely change when movies went to color.

A common problem for the viewer in a 3D scene that wasn't well thought out is that you aren't sure where to focus your vision. In a 2D film the director and cinematographer make that decision for you - the subject will be in focus and other things blurry. In 3D your eyes can have trouble keeping up since they are actually being tricked.

[Rylan]

I have a dominant eye that causes 3D to not really work for me and just ends up making my head and stomach hurt.

[viva la ben]

I watched the Penn State Northwestern cfb game on espn 3d and it was cool. Espn does one cfb game a week broadcast in 3d. At least on xfinity there is a bunch of 3d content on demand. 3d wasnt the primary reason i purchased a new TV, but im glad it came with the feature.

[BigMcK]

Ever try to have a meaningful chat with someone wearing 3D glasses?

Not a fan.

[Sarcastic]

I have a dominant eye that causes 3D to not really work for me and just ends up making my head and stomach hurt.

lol, well, aren't you funny. eyes -> stomach pain.

Actually, main reason I don't like it is that it's kinda freaky on the eyes. I feel weird later. I read another article somewhere that watching TV in 3D at extended periods of time is NOT GOOD FOR THE EYES. And hell if I'm going to put weirdo glasses on to watch something. A movie now and then is fine, I guess, but not regular TV.

[pittsoccer33]

i would love to try this http://www.amazon.com/Sony-HMZ-T1-Weara ... B005SCYZGA

if i traveled more for work id seriously consider it

[JS©]

I bought mine because the price of the TV wasn't much more different than a non-3D TV, maybe like $100 more thanks to a Super Bowl sale.

Do I use it? For what I paid for the TV, not nearly as much as I should. When I first bought it, I mainly watched trailers on FiOS. When I called to complain that my landline was never installed back in January (this was me calling in August), FiOS offered me a $8/month discount on my bill. ESPN3D is a $9.99/month channel - something I wouldn't normally buy - but with the refund I was getting it was $1.99 a month. Here is what disappoints me: they do not carry live events. What makes it worse is that the amount of programming is very limited. I can only watch the X games moto recap so many times before I'm bored with it. They even tried to get me to watch little league baseball in 3D during september. Sorry, wasn't happening.

Even when I do watch it, it's not for any extended amount of time. After about a half hour to an hour, it's usually enough for me.

[viva la ben]

Espn3d is free on xfinity.