Viewing Thread:
"3D or not 3D : The Freeola Poll"

Following on from the discussion in the General Thread thought it would be interesting to do a quick poll of who on here has/intends to invest in 3D technology and who doesn't.

Are you? :

A: I already own (or intend to purchase) 3D technology and it is amazing, I just can't wait to see which cinematic masterpiece is going to be crudely doctored next. Citizen Kane in 3D?, count me in.

B: Not at all interested, 3D is a cheap and nasty gimmick. Doesn't matter how many dimensions I view The Green Lantern in, it still sucked. Besides, there's sod all wrong with my full HD plasma, picture is awesome and I don't have to wear glasses to watch it.

C: 3D is alright, not really bothered either way TBH. If I do decide to upgrade my AV equipment may as well go for it. If I don't use it then it doesn't really matter.

D: I hereby declare that the creator of this poll is so awesome that I will gladly donate any future GAD wins to him. Once this option has been selected it cannot be retracted and is legally binding.

I'll start, B

What might be interesting is to compare answers in 5-10 years. I actually looked at the old HD discussions on here from several years ago. I think its fair comment to say attitudes have changed. And the same will probably happen with 3D, it'll gain greater acceptance. Alot of technology now has to cope with consumer cynicism. Those evil corporations trying to make money and selling us things we dont want. So the starting position is always its rubbish/pointless etc.. A good example is tablets, look at how quickly attitudes have changed to those.

I am one of the unfortunate souls that can't see in 3D. I understand it's only been done well a couple of times, so I've not missed out on much.

I won't be buying a 3D TV. But I do own a Nintendo 3DS. And I really like the device, which is odd because portable gaming isn't for me.

I would like to be able to play Mario 3D Land in 3D. I understand there are parts of the game that are built for 3D platforming and it's a bit of a revelation in places. Oh well. I have funny eyes.

pb wrote:
12 staff in Currys today voted A

Currys are legends in the world of electrical equipment, if their staff endorse it then it must be awesome. It was a Currys salesman who once told me that Dolby Pro Logic and DTS were the same thing.

12 staff in Currys today voted A

After 1 day the poll is looking like:

A: No votes so far, perhaps when this hits cinema screens in Feb 2012 then that might win over some doubters? I'm planning on giving it a miss myself but some peeps must surely be looking forward to seeing how the once great Mr. Lucas can polish that t**d simply by giving it an extra dimension. If he could remove Hayden Christensen's terrible acting from episodes 2 & 3 then suppose I would be at least slightly interested.

B: 7 votes, not looking there's a resounding show of support for the format on here so far. But suppose that could still change?

C: 1 vote

Anyone else?

B - I don't mind it, but due to the way my eyes work, I can't see 3D images as they seem to correct for it (according to the Opticians). What I don't care for is the way it's forced in the cinemas, 2D has been truely shafted in times and availability :/

B. Couldn't care less about it. There's always a 3D Sky booth in my shopping centre, pretty much everyone ignores it.

We have a HD tv, but still no HD content.

I remember watching Ice Age 2 in Singapore. Was okay, enjoyed the movie. A few days later walking through an electronic store I see a small HD tv with an Ice Age 2 trailer. My god it was like a completely different movie. I could see so much more detail. What I saw in the cinema was all blurry.

pb wrote:
Grandprix wrote:
[i]I'd probably say E = I can see some advantages that 3D could possibly bring but it is not the next big thing that HD was. I think 3D is gimmick that should be an option and nothing more.

But no-one is saying 3D is the next big thing after HD.

It would be like saying a bell on a bike is the next big thing after the invention of the gear.

3D is meant as another tool for a movie producer to use to tell a story. Whether it's used in that way or just to sell a film is irrelevant to 3D as a medium, only to the movies you'd buy. Otherwise you might as well say that TVs in general are a bad idea because there are so many terrible movies/TV shows.

3D, in that respect, is more like something like Bullet time in films.[/i]

You tell that 3D isn't the next big thing to companies that make TVs and all those movie producers that saw how many extra money they could make adding pointless 3D and suckers paying extra for 3D tickets.

TV companies in particular were wondering how they could sell TVs as sales weren't so good. 3D got a bit of a boom and every TV company has produced a range of 3D TVs.

I'm somewhere between meh and hate. I can see some instances where it could be a good thing but I don't want it for everything. There are also times when I just want it to go away and never come back. That will probably never happen though.

I think they are calling Super Duper HD as True HD. 2160p or something like that.

GP, I put C in as the 'meh' option (might use it if I had it kind of thing), can I not put you down as that?

Hmmm, I have just applied to copyright the name ''Ultra, Super-Duper HD'', hope you don't mind.

Garin, you are not missing much mate. I took my glasses off a few times in the supposedly 3D version of Fright Night and it looked hardly any different, just ever so slightly blurry. It was a bit like being hammered but nowhere near as enjoyable.

No one gone for A yet?, I honestly thought that some peeps on here (other than perhaps pb) must be 3D fans. If not then who is?, most people I know either hate it or are not fussed either way.