|
anidiot
Male,
18-29
Southern US
Joined: 17 yrs ago
2,370 Posts
|
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 1:57:38 AM EST (GMT-5)
It's doubtful; there are a lot of other things I'd buy before paying the premium for a feature I wouldn't use.
|
|
lsu90
Male,
18-29
Southern US
Joined: 13 yrs, 9 mos ago
11,651 Posts
|
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 2:00:23 AM EST (GMT-5)
$1500 is a lot to waste on a novelty.
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 5:20:33 AM EST (GMT-5)
When 3D movies/TV shows are more common, sure.
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 8:44:33 AM EST (GMT-5)
Not any time soon.
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 9:05:58 AM EST (GMT-5)
Wouldn't it make more sense to just use the same 3D glasses they give you in the theater and a normal TV (playing a 3D version of the film, of course)?
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 9:09:09 AM EST (GMT-5)
On Wednesday 4/14/10 - 9:05:58 AM catchall wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to just use the same 3D glasses they give you in the theater and a normal TV (playing a 3D version of the film, of course)? |
Doesn't work like that. Theatres have to have special projectors and fitted to play 3D movies.
I imagine that even with a 3D TV, you would still need the glasses, but the TV itself would have to be able to display the 3D image.
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 11:46:13 AM EST (GMT-5)
F-ck that.
I hate all this crap.
|
|
Guardian_E
Male,
30-39
Canada
Joined: 20 yrs, 4 mos ago
6,658 Posts
|
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 12:13:41 PM EST (GMT-5)
Waste of f'in money
|
|
Xifihas
Male,
18-29
Europe
Joined: 14 yrs, 3 mos ago
1,120 Posts
|
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 12:46:32 PM EST (GMT-5)
I won't get them even if/when they become mainstream. 3D is just an excuse to put less effort into writing and acting.
|
|
NewYoRkeR
Female,
13-17
Southern US
Joined: 12 yrs, 5 mos ago
203 Posts
|
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 8:54:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
HA Already got one!LG INFINITI!!Its real nice!
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 4/14/10 - 9:16:28 PM EST (GMT-5)
Don't you know that 3D gives you cancer?
|
|
marc780
Male,
40-49
Western US
Joined: 19 yrs, 5 mos ago
2,881 Posts
|
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 4/15/10 - 12:19:46 PM EST (GMT-5)
no because it wont work anyway. The effect will be trivial and anyone dumb enough to buy one will be promptly disapointed. And no i dont even need to see one of these TV's to know this will be the case, because it is ALWAYS the case.
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 4/15/10 - 1:43:42 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Wednesday 4/14/10 - 9:05:58 AM catchall wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to just use the same 3D glasses they give you in the theater and a normal TV (playing a 3D version of the film, of course)? |
On Wednesday 4/14/10 - 9:09:09 AM Isthiezak wrote:
Doesn't work like that. Theatres have to have special projectors and fitted to play 3D movies. I imagine that even with a 3D TV, you would still need the glasses, but the TV itself would have to be able to display the 3D image. |
Really? We had 3D glasses for our Organic chemistry class. I don't think the computers we were using them with were particularly special. Why couldn't you display 3D on a regular monitor? It's not like the display itself has to be 3D. |
|
Koto
Female,
18-29
Southern US
Joined: 16 yrs, 7 mos ago
3,971 Posts
|
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 4/15/10 - 2:20:41 PM EST (GMT-5)
Watching anything 3D for more than 15 minutes gives me a headache. That, and I've got better things to spend $1500 on than a TV that I need to wear 3D glasses to watch.
|
|
mixit1
Female,
13-17
Midwest US
Joined: 12 yrs, 2 mos ago
102 Posts
|
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 4/15/10 - 3:53:44 PM EST (GMT-5)
more than 6000 dollars . When I did the sample At best buy the guy said they only do movies ! waste o money !
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Thursday 4/15/10 - 3:57:53 PM EST (GMT-5)
We don't even have HD TV.
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 4/16/10 - 3:42:54 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 4/15/10 - 1:43:42 PM catchall wrote:
Really? We had 3D glasses for our Organic chemistry class. I don't think the computers we were using them with were particularly special. Why couldn't you display 3D on a regular monitor? It's not like the display itself has to be 3D. |
Older 3D images were made simply by overlaying different colours. Newer technology (such as that used in Avatar) is much more complex. Obviously I can't say I fully understand it, but the actual image source, whether projector (for large screens), or LCD has to be specially designed to display the images.
|
|
|
12 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Friday 4/16/10 - 3:44:57 PM EST (GMT-5)
Nope, if I do get it I will wait for it to become cheaper and for more programmes to be made 3D.
|
|
ladiesfirst9
Female,
18-29
Canada
Joined: 11 yrs, 10 mos ago
4,248 Posts
|
|
|
|
11 yrs ago, 10 mos ago - Thursday 7/15/10 - 4:31:21 PM EST (GMT-5)
No. Because it is soo unneccessary.
|
|
|
10 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 3/28/12 - 11:45:38 AM EST (GMT-5)
No. I think its a terrible waste of money. Even the ones where you don't have to use the glasses still suck.
|
|
|
10 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 3/28/12 - 1:51:09 PM EST (GMT-5)
No. I like the regular televisions.
|
|
|
10 yrs ago, 1 mos ago - Wednesday 3/28/12 - 3:27:29 PM EST (GMT-5)
On Thursday 4/15/10 - 12:19:46 PM marc780 wrote:
no because it wont work anyway. The effect will be trivial and anyone dumb enough to buy one will be promptly disapointed. And no i dont even need to see one of these TV's to know this will be the case, because it is ALWAYS the case. |
Just like I know I won't like sushi even though I like every fish I've ever tried. I thought 3D TVs have been available for a lot longer than a year. |
Share 
