SterlingBen

You should probably try again then, took me about 20 seconds to find plenty. Perhaps consult with the daughter.

And I just checked LG and they had about 30 that that fit your specs. I am not doing anymore tv research for you though.

Don Joyce

3D is vital to movies. Frankly, 3D is the only way to watch movies. I couldn't go back to watching a 2D TV, and I think the public will agree with me on that eventually.

This may be a bold prediction, but I bet that in 30 years, all movies and TV will be in 3D. It just takes time for the public to become accustomed to it.

Alan Smithee

That would sort of be nice, but on the other hand 3D wouldn't be as "special" if EVERYTHING was in 3D. Not everything is even shot in color, as some filmmakers feel black and white works better in some cases.

2D showings of 3D movies in theaters certainly need to stop though, and 2D editions at home (for people without 3D equipment) should carry the same stigma as the "Full Screen" releases did- they need to clearly state that they are not presenting the movie in its full form.

movieguru

I think there are a lot of people that siply can't watch 3D due to health reasons.

Don Joyce

I think if all movies were in 3D, that would make it MORE special. Think how, in color movies, filmmakers have played with color to create ever-more expanding palettes and effects to enhance the movie experience. This would happen in 3D too, if it were ubiquitous.

Only when all movies are in 3D will movies be fully realized as a true entertainment form.

jjcool

Huh? You must not watch alot of movies then. As the vast majority of movie content is still in "2d". Very little is labeled as "3d" and even less is actually in "3d".

Josh-da-man

Yes, but 3D and IMAX seem to provide a tiered pricing structure for tickets where they get to charge more for big special effects movies that cost more to make.

Alan Smithee

Which is a bad thing, because they also charge extra for smaller 3D movies like Step Up and people don't want to pay premium prices for that.

bsmith

He did say in 30 years. A lot can change in 30 years.

bunkaroo

My mind is open, but I have yet to see a 3D presentation which enhanced the story. If it's not there to do that, IMO it's just superfluous. I don't need to see shit flying at me to appreciate what's happening in a scene. I also don't care about how deep the background looks.

I am 41 and I understand I do not represent the future at this point. Maybe future generations will require that immersion just to get into a movie. But for me, 2D will always be the way I want to see a film.

jjcool

Yes. They do charge much more for tickets to a "3d" showing. Seems to be a big deterrent for many moviegoers.

jjcool

I was more referring to the first half of his statement:

If 3d is "vital to movies" and "the only way to watch movies" he must not watch alot of movies.

fumanstan

I can't imagine 3D will enjoy another rise in popularity within the next 30 years to become common. It already peaked and interest declined rapidly in the last few years. I'm not sure what kind of new leap in technology would overcome the general issues people already had with it, let alone for the masses to consider it "vital" for movie viewing.

Franchot

I'm a very big fan of 3D movies and have in my collection over 75 movies. With that said, I actually agree with you about 3D not being needed (in almost all cases) to tell "the story."

Going further, is Dolby Atmos and DTX:X going to be needed for movies as they are now being rolled out for home theater consumption? My answer would be the same--not needed to the tell "the story."

Yet, I love 3D movies and Dolby Atmos movies for the experience that they bring to my home theater. I'm also a tremendous fan of old black and white, mono movies from the 1930s and 40s and enjoy watching them no matter how poorly they have been mastered.

I'm just saying that there's a place in the entertainment world for all these types of movies and it gets tiresome to hear people who wish that 3D video or 3D sound would not be included in the releases of movies.

(I'm not a big fan of kung fu/martial arts, but I would never say we shouldn't have more of them released to the marketplace.)

Eddie W

The leap in technology would be actually shooting films in 3D. It seems there have only been a handful of modern films shot using 3D cameras. The rest are 2D conversions or CGI cartoons. Life of Pi, Avatar, and Hugo were jaw dropping experiences where the 3D was used to enhance the story. But the cash-grab conversions have completely destroyed the public's perception of 3D.

My hope is that 3D will stick around, but only used when they are willing & able to use it properly. Not just convert the latest superhero flick for the sole purpose of jacking up ticket prices.

Pizza

I certainly wish home projectors would do passive. That would be sweet. Active glasses are a fortune and you always got to keep them charged.

Don Joyce

"How to Train Your Dragon" was truly enhanced by the 3D in very meaningful ways. I believe that the story and the excitement was plussed by the 3D. I saw it both ways in the theater, and definitely concluded that 3D made a significant difference in my immersion and involvement with the story and the characters' plight.

fumanstan

Personally I don't see that as a big enough leap to win over the general audience, even if all 3D movies were like that from the get go. Especially to consider it "vital" opposed to just a nice to have.

OldBoy

i'm gonna single handedly bring 3D back. i love it! now, 2 TVs strong...

Brack

If I had a decent room that was dark enough for a projector, I'd be all about 3D. I just don't think anything under 70" feels immersive enough to justify owning a 3D tv. I don't even consider my 50" plasma is that big of a screen, but I'm probably just used to the size by now after all these years.

jjcool

Anything under 70"? I haven't seen anything on the big screen that was immersive enough to make me want to get a 3d tv. Why spend the extra money on hardware and software for what amounts to a gimmick?

Brack

You're right, there's not enough films that are filmed using 3D cameras that warrant watching 3D as a must, but I do like the presentation of a local independent theater that uses Sony 4K Digital Cinema Projectors where 3D looks pretty darn good (and since film is dead, a good alternative).

I thought the Robert Zemeckis 3D movies looked great on IMAX screens, but overall I like 3D more as a sometimes experience than a necessity. A novelty, yes, but done well a nice one, but since it's hardly done right I don't care for it, certainly not at home at least.

jjcool

The bolded statement sums it up pretty concisely for me, as well. Until it actually is done well, and adds something substantial to the presentation, it wont be anything but a gimmick, and certainly not anything worth spending extra money on.

Draven

Agreed.

I always get hung up on the fact that I am always aware I'm watching a movie in "3D" - between the glasses and how the image is not actually 3D, but appear to be 2D cutouts on a 3D plane, I've never understood the point.

It makes perfect sense to have grown in popularity when movies themselves were more of an event, but it makes zero sense for it to be popular now.

bluesyman

3D to me is just a pain in the butt. I don't really care to wear the glasses, just find it uncomfortable after a period of time. Certain effects look cool but it really is the "gee whiz" factor for me. Does it look cool? Yeah sure, sometimes. Do I want or need it in my movies? No, not really. At least not in its present stage of development.