I dislike 3D viewing in both films and video games.

Well, I don't have any experience with 3D gaming other than the 3DS. So yes, I'm afraid I will be missing out on something (including the few big blockbuster movies that are in 3D). I do not like darker colors though. I'm a high brightness, low contrast guy.

It's amusing hearing most of you expressing your dislike of 3D.

Do you like having sound? Duh
Do you like having color? Duh
Do you like having 3D? Duh, just maybe not yet.

Talking in film couldn't catch on until the technology was there. If the audio was scratchy and out right painful a few enthusiasts would love it but most would rebel.

Color film first started with painting every frame by hand. Again no one except enthusiasts saw this as more than a gimmick until color cameras came around.

Now with 3D the jump is the largest one yet. Every few years for a variety of reasons it keeps coming back with new technology in a better form. Right now it is finally maturing from a tech demo to a valuable addition. In less than ten years glasses free light field displays will reach the market and 3D will become the norm. Pretty soon after that we'll see smell tv try to make a return. That will fail instantly (again) as the whole cycle starts over again.

OT: This is smart of Sony. It's better to keep the burner on low until next generation when hardware on both sides can better handle it.

I really like 3D. A lot. However, there are inherent problems that never allow it to become the primary way to view media.

1) Crappy 3D products.

For every Avatar movie there are 100 other 3D slapped on gimmick movies. It normal movies used 3D cameras like Avatar and simply put out quality 3D films, it would be appreciated. Instead we get stupid horror flicks that try to impress with 70's era gimmicks or re-releases of decade old films. That's just stupid.

2) Overpriced money hatting.

I don't mean paying an extra $1 or $2 for the movie. I'm talking about the home experience. Why the fuck did the TV industry choose the overpriced glasses instead of the theater's passive system? Mainstream users would have a far better time choosing a mainstream TV for $500 more than spending $100 on each pair of glasses that would be in hands of 4yr olds. Had it been $2 glasses and a $1800 TV, may more sets would have been sold. However, they hoped to make massive profits on the accessories. That's just stupid.


Instead of actually trying to make the medium take off, they focus on max profits and kill it. That's just stupid.

So does Nintendo with its 3DS but tbh Residenr Evil revelations looked better in 3D and I think Capcom made the game with that in mind.

BTW I recently went to Sony Style and tried out the personal 3D viewer and damn if I had the money to buy it i wont need a tv ever again

But why do my eyes hurt from glasses free 3D (my 3DS)?

I think it's not just a technical problem (that each eye doesn't get a perfect picture in synch from current devices, including the 3DS), I think it's something inherent with having a 3D picture inside a framed box with lots of action going on so your eyes constantly have to adjust to the difference in depth. Even perfect glasses-free 3D exhausts your eyes and your brain after a while (not for everybody, but for many people).

There are many different ways to do glasses free 3D, most are stereoscopic based. The problem with this approach is focus. The 3D effect is based solely on convergence meaning your eyes look at a 3D object deep within the screen yet they have to focus at the screen distance. Light field displays fix this as well as a number of other issues.

Also with your other post, check out LG and Vizio. They make 3D tvs using passive theater glasses.

I'd take hi-res beautiful looking movies over 3D any time.

When appropriate - i.e. when they need to sell Bravias

3D porn is pretty cool I have to say, just saying.