Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by LadyStanley, May 20, 2011.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=563213&cmpid=rss-News in English
... there was hockey in 3D? Lol.
CBC had the Heritage Classic in 3D. They also had a Toronto-Montreal game in 3D, marking the first time since 1999 that the Leafs had any depth.
3D is nothing but a gimmick anyways. It'll never become the broadcast standard.
Never understood the fascination with 3D sport. Adds nothing IMO
Do you still need the stupid glasses?
3D= just another gimmick, just like Blu Ray. It's created to make people rush out and buy a new tv, just like blu ray making people rush out and replace their entire dvd collection. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I have a Blu-Ray disc player, and it didn't make me rush out and replace anything. It still plays all my old standard DVDs just fine. When I buy new things though, it does give me an additional format option.
I wouldn't put those in the same category at all. Blu Ray is a straightforward upgrade to the commonly-used DVD format, and DVDs work fine on a Blu Ray player (actually better than on a DVD player) so it's not like you're actually forced to go out and replace your collection unless you're ultra-picky about clarity.
3D television is more like NetTV, a gimmick that sounded good in theory but is awkward in practice. Early-adopters jump on this stuff and give it false hope of going mainstream.
A. There were not that many 3d tv's in existence at the time these games aired
B. There were not many of those 3d tv's in existence that had access to the broadcast
C. Those that did have access probably didnt know it was on
That was my question too. Things give me migraines.
I would not expect glasses-less 3D TV for quite a while.
There are optical techniques (parallax barriers or lenticular lenses) that can generate the stereoscopic image separation needed for 3D viewing without using glasses as a filter - but they are expensive and are pretty much limited to a single fixed viewing point.
They work adequately for a small screen at a fixed distance and viewing angle - a la the new Nintendo 3DS - but do not translate well to larger screens or living room viewing.
That's like equating CDs with Laserdisc 25 years ago.
Are there really people with 3D tv's? I can't imagine a bigger waste of money.
Every time I hear and see 3D tvs I have to think about Edward Nygma from Batman.
I've been to a 3D movie and really didn't enjoy the 3D aspect. Maybe it's just me being used to the same old same old, but having to wear those glasses and adjust my own viewing expectations to incorporate that things will be randomly sticking out somewhere on the screen was kind of a hassle.
I don't think the whole 3D concept, in its current form, will be successful amongst consumers.
I see you workin' there. Props.
Geez, a lot of opinions on my blu-ray comment. I still think its a gimmicky and prefer my standard widescreen discs, but just my personal opinion.
I'm still befuddled as to why people want a tv that looks blurred without wearing glasses. I wear glasses so I already have that feature.
I never have seen a movie in 3D it sounds...weird. Not to mention, people I have talked to who has seen one have said they got a headache half way through it.
If you have a crappy TV then Blu-ray won't do squat for you. You do understand that Blu-Ray will take that standard DVD disc and upconvert it to a much better picture, right?
The quality between blu-ray and standard is almost like night and day.
I still have a LD player (and some discs of movies that haven't been made available on DVD).
I have a DVD player (that upscales to HDMI) and a Blu Ray player.
I really don't notice a heck of a lot of difference between a regular DVD upscaled to HDMI and Blu Ray. Of recent releases.
(Older, say, mid-1990s and earlier there are some definite graininess and lighting that gets "weird" when upscaled.)
Still, I only buy BluRays of movies that have a lot of F/X or visual aspects. I'll get regular DVDs for dramas and stuff.
I don't have a crappy tv, I have a 40" Samsung that's only a couple years old. Sorry, but I don't see any difference at all between blu ray and regular HD discs. Maybe my dvd player upconverts? I don't even know. I've seen both on my tv and they look the same to me.
I think it's because blu-ray is pushing close to 50% of sales for new releases, and the majority of users seem to agree (or at least vote with their wallets) that it's a superior format to DVD. So, calling it a gimmick like 3D television and calling users stupid was not only a poor comparison, but an insult to probably around half the people on the forum.
Not to mention, the comment about needing to "rush out and replace" your entire DVD library was completely unfounded.
Blu-Ray players play standard DVDs just fine. No need to "rush out and replace" anything.
Depends what glasses you're talking about. They don't use red/blue glasses if that's what you're thinking. And they don't use the glasses you'd get in a theatre either (the polorazed ones). 3d tv's use active shutter glasses that require batteries. Each lens opens and closes alternetely so each eye gets a different picture. It's so fast that its imperceptable to your eyes. The glasses cost over $100 each which I think is part of the problem with current technology.
There are new tv's they are developing that would use the polarized lens like from the movie theatre that are obviously much cheaper.
Separate names with a comma.