Fred Derf Veteran Posted October 20, 2010 Veteran Share Posted October 20, 2010 80% want to see Laura Croft in 3D. Preferably in a shower scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoL Veteran Posted October 20, 2010 Veteran Share Posted October 20, 2010 I would game with 3D glasses but someone have to buy me a 3D TV. I'm not going to buy one anytime soon. Even if my TV burn right now I won't get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisp Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I'm up for 3D technology, but hate the glasses and the price. So for me it's 3D tech without glasses and maybe in a few years when the price drops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidM Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 The question was probably - "If 3D TV and the glasses were FREE would you be willing to try it?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayepecks Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I'm willing to. But I don't want to. 3D is a fad that needs to die ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerm Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Doesn't look like 80% of Neowin members would care to wear glasses for gaming. I certainly don't want them for gaming, tv nor the cinema. Money grabbing. Could a poll be added out of interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minifig Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 How many of those 80% can afford it though? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boz Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I hate 3d.. while you can see some effect and appeal to it, the picture is crap around objects that are made to be 3d (like depth field blurs out elements) plus it just doesn't look that natural at all in 3d.. it looks really weird to me.. add to that I look like an idiot with those bulky glasses plus they are not really that comfortable and you get a massive fail. The technology already exists and has been shown for 3d without glasses (Panasonic or Toshiba demoed it I think and Nintendo 3DS is using it) and that's how it should be. I'm not buying anything 3d until I can watch it without glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakey Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 I'd be willing to, but not going to due to the cost of everything involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Count me in on that 20% that's not willing. 3D glasses are awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qdave Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 If it was affordable and games would be more immersive (not gimmicky), then sure why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoken Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Willing.. Ya, I'd do it.. But the question is flawed, ask how many are willing to PAY to do this.. Buying the new screen, glasses, and maybe video card.. Also I heard about viewing angles above.. really, what viewing angles do you need for PC Gaming ? You sit in front of the screen :p This isn't watching a movie on TV we're talking about lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoneyardBrew Member Posted October 21, 2010 Member Share Posted October 21, 2010 No thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 After playing around with PS3's Move I think 3D becomes even more of a must have. Even if silly glasses are involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikkiRox Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I already wear glasses. Just putting another set over the top is ridiculous. 3D technology is overrated like this so called 'sliced bread' I've been hearing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrikedOut Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Until the 3D content is a more natural experience and doesn?t make me strain to focus on any given object then it?s a big no for me. I have also found that most films spoil the way they shoot scenes just to emphasise that they are using 3D tech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 If you don't mind me asking, what's the difference? I'm quite knowledgeable when it comes to TV's, but I've not really read into these terms before. Passive sets like Panasonic, use glasses with horizontal polarization on one eye, and vertical on the other. every second line on the tv, has a different folter over it, so the left eye blocks even lines and the right eye block odd lines. this avoids the flickering on active glasses. but introduces horrible scanline artifacts on the picture, especially on stuff that's close to the viewer and thus has a wide left/right eye separation. active glasses is a better tech as far as PQ go. but the 30hz flicker is VERY noticeable. think of the old 50hz monitors, then make it twice as bad. whatever tech you're going for today it's horrible. the only exception being theaters and high end projectors that can project polarize left and right pictures on top of each other. No interlacing and no flickering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teebor Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Might be because it's 10 year old technology I wouldnt bring them out of that box either. Technology is still the same today, shuttered glasses and two slightly off set images, 3D hasn't changed in the slightest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 80% my backside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ji@nBing Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I can't stand 3D. Can't wait for the fad to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_c_b Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Willing to wear the glasses is not the same as willing to shell out the cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriz Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 What was the age range? 4 - 10 years old? 3D films are overrated, i much prefer watching 2D.. As for games, no thankyou. 3D will be dead in a few years, keep wasting your money on those TVs, cus you wont be using them much longer! Its going to flop, and i hope it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted October 21, 2010 Member Share Posted October 21, 2010 I refuse to wear those silly things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akav0id Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 I believe the polling on that survey is B S. Why ever would you say that? Is it because 92% + 80% doesn't come to 100% by any chance? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Why ever would you say that? Is it because 92% + 80% doesn't come to 100% by any chance? ;) when you give someone a poll asking two question. you can actually get two different answers. it's wasn't an either or question it was two separate questions, with 80% supposedly willing to game with 3D glasses, and 92% willing to game glass free 3D. one would assume that all of the 80% who answered yes to the first, are also part of the other 92%. meaning there's 12% more people willing to game if they get to not wear glasses. but again. I'm witht he guy who says this is BS. I'd believe that 80% would be willing to try gaming with 3D glasses, or do it on old style arcades. but at home for long periods of time, no way, not with the crappy active and passive 3D glasses technologies we have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts