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

...and all along I've been thinking it was just another way for manufacturers to flog lots of new kit! ;¬)


The new Ultra, Super-Duper HD format seems to be the way forward.
My eyes may need an upgrade as well though!

[s]Hmmm...[/s]

I see theres no option for a person that nature has cruelly decreed cant see 3D on a TV. Shocking discrimination!

Grandprix wrote:
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'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.

I'll go for Option X : Boycott every single games and film company that is pushing 3D equipment and games.

But yeh, B for me too.

Put me down for a 'B'.


The thing is though - if you buy a decent to top-of-the-range TV these days it'll more than likely have 3D built in whether you want it or not.


[s]Hmmm...[/s]

I'll throw in a D .... (can't break tradition pete) :¬)

B, definitely. If it were truly 3D it would be okay. But right now it's like 2D images, some in the foreground, some in the middleground, and some in the background.

Like a pop up book. The way it costs more as well.

pb wrote:
I'll go D.

Awww, thanks mate! :)

I would say B, but I've never actually seen any 3D film yet. Even without seeing it, I know that it isn't essential viewing.