Nitrousbird Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I just discovered that Panasonic did some deal where they have exclusive rights to the 3D version of the movie on Blu-ray, and ship it with their 3D TV kits. You can find it on Ebay for $150ish...no thanks. I just need to borrow a copy for about 45 minutes, since of course Netflix doesn't have it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokin5s Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 My sister just got it and said that it was awesome... I can ask if her if she's willing to mail it to me, but her living in Tx who knows if she will or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted December 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 Nevermind - I was lucky enough to find someone on Demoniod who uploaded the full uncompressed .iso, so I'm d/l it now...only 46GB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 Just read about this the other day. 3d blu ray will die if the dot get their act together. $300, MSRP for a movie... Some movies you have to but a TV to get! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted December 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 Panasonic has a 1 year exclusive deal on this movie. What kind of sucks is the content for 3D isn't really there yet...a few decent movies, and some games. GT5 is neat in 3D. It can be hard finding the glasses as well; I need to get another set, as it sucks only have one pair right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGGU Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I just bought a 3d tv this weekend and find it retarded I have to shell out $200 plus just to use the 3d. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble Maker Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 Panasonic has a 1 year exclusive deal on this movie. What kind of sucks is the content for 3D isn't really there yet...a few decent movies, and some games. The problem is the movies that people want are all exclusive with someone and packaged with something that cost $$$$. The content could be much better right now i.e. reasonable priced versions of the movies that are only in these packages. Without the content people won't buy the hardware. If people don't buy the hardware at the beginning, then the technology dies. I thought it had a pretty good chance of becoming the norm, but with this business strategy I'm giving it a 50% chance of survival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 People are actually buying 3D TVs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I just bought a 3d tv this weekend and find it retarded I have to shell out $200 plus just to use the 3d. That will likely change. As you know I manage the lab and our company is the only one out there producing Rx-able Passive 3D Glasses. Oakley/Lux says they are close, but we have them and they have yet to produce anything real. Active 3D may end up going by the wayside in the near future as it will end up going up against Passive 3D. Panny and others will simply shift their production to match so either way, they win. Consumers might lose though. I worked there and I know how they operate. Passive 3D computers are already out and will launch hard in 2011. With Panny's #2 business segment being their Toughbooks, you tell me where they will take it. They sell way more Toughbooks than they do TV's. It's all simliar to the HD-DVD vs BluRay debate. Time will tell. My money is on Passive. Theaters use it and it's going to be hard for consumers to continue justifying buying expensive glasses for anyone who is going to watch their TV in 3D. Especially since they may not accommodate those needing glasses. Time will tell.....my money and work is literally on Passive 3D. Division of our Company: http://marchon.com/m3D/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 People are actually buying 3D TVs? They are, but IMO, it's a risk depending on how the public votes. Millions of people wear glasses than will go out and buy a 3D TV where you have to wear an active pair that's ugly and can't be used elsewhere. Movie companies are banking on Real D 3D. In fact our company made our first pairs for Martin Scorsese to evaluate. Let's just say he was blown away. In passive glasses, my lab and Marchon can simply incorporate the Real D 3-D polarization into your everyday sunglasses. Not the over the counter crap that you over pay for at retail, but that will come I'm sure. I mean those of us that actually pic out a frame and lenses and have a real pair of glasses made through their OD, MD or Optician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted December 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 My TV wasn't purchased with 3D in mind. Since it is 3D ready, it wasn't a big deal to go 3D. I don't know if I would shell out extra bucks for a 3D TV if there was an equivalent that was a couple hundred less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleguy Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I will be in for 3D TV once I can watch it without having a pair of glasses on, until then, I'm out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinner Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I will be in for 3D TV once I can watch it without having a pair of glasses on, until then, I'm out. agreed I like the idea of it just needs to be a better way to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted December 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I think the technology for 3D without glasses is a long way away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not Brian Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 too bad avatar is a stupid movie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I think the technology for 3D without glasses is a long way away. Samsung already has a production unit working. Panny is partnering with them as that's who they OEM their LCD panels from. http://www.samsunghub.com/2009/10/13/no-glasses-required-for-this-52-inch-samsung-3d-display/ I've never seen it, but again, passive 3D....easy as flipping a switch on the new laptops. Brings a whole new level of experience to online porn <----- as he wears his 3D Glasses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 Supposdly the active 3D glasses are going to be down to the $50 range soon. I've heard those 3D tv's where you don't need glasses are decent, but only if you stand in a certain place. I want to watch the Avatar 3D on my TV too. It's annoying that everything's got an exclusive deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 Supposdly the active 3D glasses are going to be down to the $50 range soon. I've heard those 3D tv's where you don't need glasses are decent, but only if you stand in a certain place. The manufacturers are going to have to offset the costs of active glasses. Still sucks as even at $50 you have something you can't wear anywhere else and for no other purpose. They will never be able to get them down as cheap as an Rx made pair though....and the Rx ones can be made in plano's for folks that don't need glasses but then can also be used as sunglasses with unlimited and personable styles as you can pick any frame for them. Glasses free 3D reports say the viewing angles are pretty good. Sammy is moving forward with them in the commercial space first. My guess is they and others will milk the public on active sets first before they glasses free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurkvinny Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I watch a 32" tube TV nightly. It cost $100 10 years ago. Dirty Jobs and Pinks looks just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 No but I do have "This isn't Avatar XXX" in 3D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted December 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 I watch a 32" tube TV nightly. It cost $100 10 years ago. Dirty Jobs and Pinks looks just fine. How do you stand to watch such a tiny TV? You do know it isn't that expensive to upgrade, right (especially used). The only TV in my home that is hooked up smaller than that is the 24" LCD I bought for my wife this X-mas for the kitchen - and it is only that small because anything bigger wouldn't fit where she likes having the TV. You don't know what you are missing until you go full HD. I hate watching non-HD content. Hell, I get pissed about the overcompression of some of Time Warner's HD content. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nurkvinny Posted December 28, 2010 Report Share Posted December 28, 2010 How do you stand to watch such a tiny TV? You do know it isn't that expensive to upgrade, right (especially used). The only TV in my home that is hooked up smaller than that is the 24" LCD I bought for my wife this X-mas for the kitchen - and it is only that small because anything bigger wouldn't fit where she likes having the TV. You don't know what you are missing until you go full HD. I hate watching non-HD content. Hell, I get pissed about the overcompression of some of Time Warner's HD content. The 32" tube is in my (relatively) small bedroom. The 50" 1080 plasma with DishNetwork HD looks just fine in my living room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted December 29, 2010 Report Share Posted December 29, 2010 The manufacturers are going to have to offset the costs of active glasses. Still sucks as even at $50 you have something you can't wear anywhere else and for no other purpose. They will never be able to get them down as cheap as an Rx made pair though....and the Rx ones can be made in plano's for folks that don't need glasses but then can also be used as sunglasses with unlimited and personable styles as you can pick any frame for them. Glasses free 3D reports say the viewing angles are pretty good. Sammy is moving forward with them in the commercial space first. My guess is they and others will milk the public on active sets first before they glasses free I wear glasses so it would be nice to have a nice prescription pair of 3D glasses. Active or passive doesn't matter to me. I probably wouldn't wear them anywhere else anyway because I would be afraid of damaging or breaking them for the 90% of time I wouldn't use 3D. I also think the future of 3D is gaming, not DVD movies. To me this means there will be unique concepts for the glasses that would only be worn when in front of the TV. I actually have a concept drawn up, but no way to make it and no time outside of work to put it all together myself. Gaming is also the reason I think the no-glasses 3D will not take off immediately. To fully immerse yourself in the game you need to be able to see the 3D from any angle and move within the space. The reports I heard on the Samsung was that the 3D was good, and it could be seen at different viewing angles, but only certain places. Ex: You could see it straight on, or offet x-feet to the side, but if you were to walk from on-center to the x-offest point the 3D effect would not be continuous. It would come in and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putty Posted December 29, 2010 Report Share Posted December 29, 2010 They are, but IMO, it's a risk depending on how the public votes. Millions of people wear glasses than will go out and buy a 3D TV where you have to wear an active pair that's ugly and can't be used elsewhere. Movie companies are banking on Real D 3D. In fact our company made our first pairs for Martin Scorsese to evaluate. Let's just say he was blown away. In passive glasses, my lab and Marchon can simply incorporate the Real D 3-D polarization into your everyday sunglasses. Not the over the counter crap that you over pay for at retail, but that will come I'm sure. I mean those of us that actually pic out a frame and lenses and have a real pair of glasses made through their OD, MD or Optician. Good info...Yeah, i'd wait or get a nice ass LED tv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted December 29, 2010 Report Share Posted December 29, 2010 I also think the future of 3D is gaming, not DVD movies. To me this means there will be unique concepts for the glasses that would only be worn when in front of the TV. Have you seen the new 3D laptops? Seriously cool shit. Just flip a switch too. Spectacle wise, I don't see "special" pairs of glasses only for use in front of a TV really taking off. Again, I'll be making pairs of Real 3D Photo chromatic plano's that can be used outside, in the car, etc....and seriously, the cheap quality Oakley, Ray Bans or other crap from the store cost a lot more and won't compare optically. Let me know when you need to specs.....I'll hook you up. Just PM me and let me know where you're located. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.