Lafiel on 09 June 2012
| superchunk said: 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. |
Because passive glasses half the effective resolution per eye making the picture quality suffer.
There are quite a lot of passive 3DTV sets out there now though and I personally will get one, but only after we got 4k displays, as a horizontal resolution of 540pixels is just too low.
Ofcourse there are problems with active glasses aswell (more eye strain through flickering, blocks more light, more ghosting), but that tech was pretty mature at the time of the start of the new 3D wave, so it was pretty natural to go with that in my opinion, but the industry really went wrong by not standardizing glasses from the very beginning, that was just consumer unfriendly and probably was a big factor in keeping consumers away.
