As if the headaches weren't enough- 3D warps your vision

WARNING: 3D Video Hazardous to Your Health — Reviews and News from Audioholics

TLDR: Repeated exposure to 3d is theoretically re-teaching your brain how to focus on objects and can give you lazy eye. The danger is not primarily to adults, however, but to kids under age 7, whose vision is still developing and can be drastically warped by watching 3d.

So, uh...hm. Don't exactly see 3d becoming big in households without some shit hitting the fan.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Also because 3d is fucking stupid.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

If I want 3D, I go out of the fucking house.

No, not a fan of 3D at all. I prefer 2D still on all video media.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

This is not the worst part of it for me. I still am trying to differentiate the 3D graphics (Mario 64 to the 3DS) from the ACTUAL showing 3D (AVATAR movie) in random articles that talks about it. :\ Meh.

But yeah, we'll see about that 3DS.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I don't understand the 3D gimmick at all, I really don't. The only movie I've ever watched in the theatre in 3D was My Bloody Valentine 3D. It didn't enhance my movie going experience, Hey look a pickaxe is going at my head.

Unfortunately I am guilty of falling for 3D gimmick when I was a young teenager:

YouTube Video

How ya doing, buddy?

You'd think Nintendo would be worried about lawsuits from the 3DS. Sure, they can plaster it with warnings, but surely they've learned their lesson from the Virtual Boy.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

They had all kinds of warnings on the Virtual Boy though. After 30 minutes or after reaching a save point it would warn you take a break for 15 minutes to rest your eyes. I'm sure that when the 3DS boots up they'll have a warning for something similar to help cover their asses. From what I remember they basically said that if you're under the age of 10 you should be really cautious with your eyes because they're still developing and overexposure could be detrimental. Kids going to see 3D movies for an hour or two once a week isn't going to ruin their eyes. If they watch them every day for hours on end that could be a problem.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Angel Of Light

I don't understand the 3D gimmick at all, I really don't. The only movie I've ever watched in the theatre in 3D was My Bloody Valentine 3D. It didn't enhance my movie going experience, Hey look a pickaxe is going at my head.

Unfortunately I am guilty of falling for 3D gimmick when I was a young teenager:

3D imaging is more than just a gimmick, and anybody who saw Avatar in 3D should be able to understand the potential of the technology.

What IS going to be a gimmick are 3D televisions that nobody can afford.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by AcerBandit

They had all kinds of warnings on the Virtual Boy though. After 30 minutes or after reaching a save point it would warn you take a break for 15 minutes to rest your eyes. I'm sure that when the 3DS boots up they'll have a warning for something similar to help cover their asses.

That's what I'm talking about, though. People still make fun of the Virtual Boy for all the warnings about how the lasers will burn our your eyes if you use it for longer than 10 minutes. Those sorts of warnings may have led parents not to purchase the thing in the first place.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Really, Brady? Avatar?

O yeah, so groundbreaking.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by a homewrecker

Really, Brady? Avatar?

O yeah, so groundbreaking.

This is a valuable post from a valuable member of Gamingforce.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

To be fair, Avatar WAS visually impressive as far as 3-D movies go but, really, how often is a movie like that going to get made? Sure, the story in Avatar sucked ass but at least it looked good doing it. Meanwhile, EVERY FUCKING MOVIE coming out nowadays is also being converted to 3D (if not being directly produced in 3D) and, fuck me, a lot of times that production is awful and often ruins the movies because people get motion sickness.

Plus, I don't want to see whiggers dancing in 3D, nor do I want anyone to.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Yeah many of them aren't even made in 3D properly. Clash of the Titans 3D was terribly done, the image was doubled or something. A fast moving horse had 5 legs, pretty sure some of the sword swings almost looked like a second sword.

I was speaking idiomatically.

The 3D in Avatar was gorgeous. But it was hardly groundbreaking. Unless making things look good in Hollywood is suddenly a new phenomena and no one got to it yet. James Cameron did new things with 3D, invented some new technology, sure.

But did it add anything to that horrible film outside of suckering a lot of people into financing Cameron's next boat/house/shitty cartoon that was better when it had Tone-Loc in it? Not really. I don't think 3D has ever done anything to improve the medium, and I doubt it ever will. A cute gimmick, sure, but in its current state its complete rubbish.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Huh and here I was, thinking movies were for enjoyment. I guess next time I go to the cinemas I'll instead try to judge the film on its ability to improve the state of Hollywood.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by JohnKimble

Huh and here I was, thinking movies were for enjoyment.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

What IS going to be a gimmick are 3D televisions that nobody can afford.

That's a slightly silly comment to make on a message board where half the people reading are probably doing so on a monitor that cost several thousand dollars or sitting in front of a large HDTV that cost about the same. 3D TV's are coming out about the same price as LED tv's and are no more expensive than any other new technology at launch. I'm not sure it's even possible to buy CRT televisions any more so who knows whether in ten years time you'll still be able to buy 2D ones.

And no amount of 3d saved Avatar from being one of the worst films ever made. Science has still not yet found an effective way to polish a turd.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by JohnKimble

Huh and here I was, thinking movies were for enjoyment. I guess next time I go to the cinemas I'll instead try to judge the film on its ability to improve the state of Hollywood.

If you enjoyed Avatar, there's no amount of intellectual rationalization I can make to change your mind. You like the taste of shit, who am I to tell you to try maybe a nice risotto instead? Films are for enjoyment. I agree. And if you enjoy bland, idiotic entertainment that condescends to you like a three year old while you clap at the pretty colours, good for you. Enjoy your pablum. I've had the "film doesn't have to be art" discussion with people I'm betting are much smarter and more involved than you, so I'll not be bothering with that today. You want to have that fight, go poke LeHah. He still seems to care about it.

Of course, if we're discussing the merits of 3D, acting like "it made the smurfs movie look cool so it's good don't argue k?" is a valid stance is sort of asinine. I mean, sure, it inflates budgets and is yet another excuse for hollywood to make more blockbusters with high effects and bad scripts. And sure it's just yet another gimmick to sell tickets instead of actually bothering to do something new and innovative like write interesting movies, hire inspired directors and take a chance on more artistic DPs. Sure, it is basically the film version of trying to convince your mates you go to the thai massage parlour for the massage. End of the day, some rubbing oils or not, you're still looking to get your knob polished by a hooker.

But yeah. 3D is all good and grand. Hurray and all that.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

If you enjoyed Avatar, there's no amount of intellectual rationalization I can make to change your mind.

Why would you want to try and change anyone's opinion on anything to begin with? Why can't people just enjoy stuff without needing to provide rationalization for some asshat on the internet?

Originally Posted by Shin

That's a slightly silly comment to make on a message board where half the people reading are probably doing so on a monitor that cost several thousand dollars or sitting in front of a large HDTV that cost about the same. 3D TV's are coming out about the same price as LED tv's and are no more expensive than any other new technology at launch. I'm not sure it's even possible to buy CRT televisions any more so who knows whether in ten years time you'll still be able to buy 2D ones.

Well, the leap from SDTVs to HDTVs is a much larger, more justifiable leap than HDTV to 3D HDTV. Not to mention the fact that initial support out the gate is very low, and you need more than just a TV to enjoy it, you need to buy a pair of ugly $150 3D glasses. This alone makes it FAR from the same thing as jumping from CRT to LCD. It's a gimmick, and a shitty one at that. The only way 3D will ever catch on is if they find a way to do it without requiring those horrifically overpriced and stupid-looking glasses.

And even then I highly doubt it will ever be the standard. It will be a choice. The Nintendo 3DS has the right idea with giving you the ability to switch between 2D and 3D, and allow you to toggle the amount of depth you have on screen. Not to mention the ability to do all this without wearing stupid glasses.

I mean seriously, the glasses alone are a dealbreaker for 3D ever getting widespread adoption from anybody other than the richest dumbasses on the planet. Imagine inviting some of your friends over for a football game?

"Hey guys, come watch the game at my place, IN 3D!"
"Oh cool, we'll be there!"
"Don't forget to give me $150 so I can buy everyone a pair of lame-as-fuck glasses!"
"Fuck that shit!"

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

I mean seriously, the glasses alone are a dealbreaker for 3D ever getting widespread adoption from anybody other than the richest dumbasses on the planet. Imagine inviting some of your friends over for a football game?

"Hey guys, come watch the game at my place, IN 3D!"
"Oh cool, we'll be there!"
"Don't forget to give me $150 so I can buy everyone a pair of lame-as-fuck glasses!"
"Fuck that shit!"

Paying money to watch any sports on a screen is retarded. Why pay any money to go sit in someone's living room when you can get decent seats at a real game for a little more effort.

Most amazing jew boots

You're missing the point of sprouts post. Obviously it would be dumb to pay to watch sports at someone else's house but he's saying you can't really share the fun of 3D with everyone without having to spend an absurd amount of money on top of what you spent for the TV.

Kind of like this, only a little less absurd.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Tails, when have I not stated something that isn't already not obvious. >_>
=P

Also, this:

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Also because 3d is fucking stupid.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Why would you want to try and change anyone's opinion on anything to begin with? Why can't people just enjoy stuff without needing to provide rationalization for some asshat on the internet?

Says the guy who immediately goes on to try and convince the world how terrible 3D is. Why can't you just let people enjoy their stupid technology, Sprout?

Really. Why would you want to try and change anyone's opinion on anything to begin with. Why can't people just enjoy stuff without needing to provide rationalization for some asshat on the internet?

I mean it makes movies so cool. Why do you have to be a killjoy who ruins their fun by pointing out what's wrong with something they like.

God, informed opinions. It's like... why even bother? Every point is equally valid.

We've had this discussion a hundred times, Sprout. Nothing is going to change your opinion that my beliefs make me look like an elitist, pretentious jerk off, and nothing will change my opinion that your beliefs look like infantile garbage born of some tune out and enjoy concept that never worked. So maybe a better question than why do I argue with people on the internet I don't know, is why do you continue to argue with someone on the internet who you know you won't convince?

And I'm sure you'll come up with some hugely contrived wall of text to point out how wrong I am about all this, but end of the day we both have opinions, we both express them. We just happen to be on opposite ends of most of those opinions. Because if you're not rationalizing your opinion on the internet anymore, I guess we won't be hearing how the next movie you go see was via a three page review.

Not everything in my world is 10/10, Sprout. And if expressing that makes people who try and use "everyone has a right to an opinion" as a defense for not having the mind or the desire to better their base of knowledge angry, I'm kind of okay with being the asshole on that one.

And no, I don't count you in that category. Even if I disagree and tease you about some of the stuff you like, you've also seen, and appreciated, a lot of quality cinema. My issue is with people who put up a list of ten movies they've seen that year and they're all interchangeable crap.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Says the guy who immediately goes on to try and convince the world how terrible 3D is.

What?

I wasn't berating anyone's opinion or enjoyment of anything, I was challenging one person's prediction that 3D is going to gain widespread adoption in the home the way HDTVs have. I wasn't calling Shin an idiot with shit taste the way you succinctly did when JohnKimble dared to mention liking the dreaded A-word, I was simply counterpointing his argument with points of my own. In some circles, this method of communicating ideas is called a discussion.

If we're talking about opinions of 3D, I agree with Brady. 3D has the potential to be a really awesome technology for films. It works extremely well for 3D IMAX films, and having worked for 8 months at an IMAX theater that showed nothing but 3D educational films I can certainly vouch for its effectiveness when used properly and used on the right movies.

As it stands now, it's just a poorly-implimented gimmick tacked onto shitty movies to sell overpriced tickets at the cinema and overpriced hardware at the electronics store. The problem isn't that 3D is inherently bad, it's that 3D is handled extremely poorly. Hollywood execs aren't learning from the mistakes of the first few waves of 3D and are doing things the way they always did, but with a bit more shininess.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Except I never said that about him. I said the film was shit and idiotic. I specifically pointed out I was going to sit there and argue it with him, because there was no point. The only time I referred to John specifically was to say I've had the argument with smarter people. Because I have. For all I know he might be a bright guy, but I've had this argument with film historians, so I really don't feel the need to have it again. I berated the film, and if he straps his self-worth to a movie he likes and I hurt his feelings, well that's too bad.

Do you think anyone who buys a 3D tv is a rich asshole, or lame-as-fuck, or shitty? Because you used all those words in your post, even if you were referring to the technology, and not the people using them.

Jam it back in, in the dark.