3d or no 3d

So 3d gaming is here,,with siily glasses and screens,,just what is it all about,never ever played in 3d or seen a 3d film,so anyone please tell me is it worth the money for the gear

Well I have a 3D TV. (got it cheap because of where I work) And in my opinion and to be honest it's the biggest load of rubbish.

Yes it does look good, don't get me wrong (the family doesn't all huddled around 50 inches of plastic with sunglasses on at 9pm at night.)
My son gets a headache after only a 1/2 hour of viewing.
The 3D Discs (which you have to buy a new 3D compatible player) cost double the price of a 2D dvd.
If my son has his mates around to watch some films they have to take it in turns to share the glasses (we only have 3 pairs, I'm not going to buy extra glasses at £60 a pop for everyone that may want to come around, you can't watch a 3D title without the glasses as its all blurry)
Your lucky if the batteries in the glasses last for 4 or 5 films
The up scaled 3D content that is out there via Satellite is also pretty poor quality.
We've also tried playing some games via the X-Box on it (Avatar) well this didn't last 10 min before they were turning it off.

Just another expensive FAD in my opinion.

Its not worth going 3D there is alack off support atm for free to air TV, Yes some things are supported in 3D but do you really want to be watching sport and things like that in 3D, just sounds silly and overpriced.

My small issue is... this is funny, but a legitimate argument (i think) ...... What about us poor folks who already wear glasses? Are we supposed to wear 3-d glasses OVER our Rx ones? Or are we supposed to wear just the 3-d ones, and watch the "breath taking" 3-d in all of its glory in blurry, unfocused squints?.... Really?

-over bloated fad. leave the 3-D in the iMAX's

Speaking off cinemas I remember when Avatar came out and I watched it in 3D and it just looked normal.

PooMan UK said:

Just another expensive FAD in my opinion.

Pretty much. Even if this fad is here to stay, it's still current first gen tech.

There is plenty of room to improve.

Crispy said:

Its not worth going 3D there is alack off support atm for free to air TV, Yes some things are supported in 3D but do you really want to be watching sport and things like that in 3D, just sounds silly and overpriced.

Apart from the odd football match - there is no 3D FTA. Even the test channel has been switched off.

Buying a 3D TV for FTA is definitely not a selling point.

holo88 said:

My small issue is... this is funny, but a legitimate argument (i think) ...... What about us poor folks who already wear glasses? Are we supposed to wear 3-d glasses OVER our Rx ones? Or are we supposed to wear just the 3-d ones, and watch the "breath taking" 3-d in all of its glory in blurry, unfocused squints?.... Really?

It depends on the set and it's glasses. Some 3D glasses fit quite comfortably over a normal pair of specs.

Crispy said:

Speaking off cinemas I remember when Avatar came out and I watched it in 3D and it just looked normal.

Some people have stereoscopic blindness which eliminates any depth perception. It's something to check if Avatar 3D looked 'normal' to you.

It looked 3D to start off with but after a wile it looked normal.

Maybe you grew accustomed to it during the movie?

I never saw Avatar in 3D, so I personally can't say if some scenes were obviously more 'standout' than others.

If you could spot the difference initially, then at least it shows you're not 3D blind. If you were, it would have been normal from the get go.

thanks for views!i seem folow the same idea on 3d,,,not really a thing you need or will miss!until its mainstream and does,nt give you headaches,,i jump in!oh and the price drops alot