you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Yeah but it's ten times as immersive as 3D, How would you replace it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    I had a TV that was 3D capable along with a PS3. I think I played 30 minutes of 3D games on that TV before I got a headache from the flickering shutter glasses and then they staid in the drawer below them tv for a year ar or two. Next time I wanted to try the batteries were empty.

    I also saw a number of 3D movies in the cinema but it's more for block busters and after a while it just is "meh".

    It's a wow cool effect in the beginning, but in the end it's just a gimmick. IMO it's not more immersive but rather distracting from the movie itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    I don't have a lot of VR experience, but for me being "in" a scene does it for VR, while 3D Glasses are still meh.

    Try non-stereoscooic VR by just closing one eye while using your headset - it's still great. The difference is the one between stereoscopic tvs and normal ones.

    Oh, and the 3d tvs are non-interactive. Move your head a bit, you still don't see around things. But that's what makes a lot of 3d effect for me.

  • source
  • parent