Tuesday, January 8, 2013

An Admission: 3D Can Be Useful on a Limited Basis

He's coming to get you!
OK, now I'm convinced. 3D has its place.

I watched some of the 'Bama game last night (as much as I could stand, given that the hated Tide was lacking an NFL opponent) and seeing those big running backs coming right at my face was enough to ensure that I'd have more 3D offerings on my TV in the future.

You might remember that this 47-inch television set replaced a stolen 42-incher a couple of months ago and that it cost half as much as the smaller TV (which was two years old) and has a lot more features.

I'm still not convinced that a 3D movie in a theater--at $14 or more--is something I ought to be watching. The difference between 2D, which I'm accustomed to and have no problem with, and 3D is slight and sometimes even dramatic for a second or two. Mostly, though, I tend to forget how many dimensions I'm watching if the story is good. If the story isn't good, 3D is a gimmick that doesn't improve anything and its WOW! factor is slight and fleeting.

OK, so I'm an old codger. Sometimes, though, technology isn't the only answer. Sometimes a good story is far better than a virtual runningback smashing my peace and quiet. Especially a 'Bama runningback.

(Photo: connect.legacy.com)

1 comment:

  1. I'm usually against 3D as well. I haven't experienced football in 3D yet though. In movies I generally hate it, but recently I saw The Hobbit in 48fps 3d and was pleasantly surprised. It's been called 'disastrous' and been compared to home video footage by some notable critics, but I thought it was beautiful.

    It's no-glasses 3d that I'm looking forward to. Only then will I be willing to accept it. It's on the way too. http://phys.org/news/2011-01-fujitsu-unveils-world-glasses-free-3d.html

    I've also read about a company making slip on covers for tablets and laptops that would project 3D with no need for glasses but I couldn't find that article to repost.