Bitterwallet's Friday poll - what do you think of 3D products?

Bitterwallet - LG Optimus 3DYesterday I had a quick play with the LG Optimus 3D, the £500 3D smartphone due for release in the UK next month. While it fun to explore beaches and underwater coral in wacky bonkers 3D without wacky bonkers glasses, I struggled with the point of it. But then I've struggled with the point of 3D from the beginning; I got my first pair of 3D glasses on the cover of Look-In when I was a kid and my reaction was probably much the same as it is now - it's a gimmick that gets tired pretty quick.

The main problem for me is that the 3D market is entirely self-fulfilling - there was no consumer demand for 3D, it adds very little value to the content and it doesn't represent any significant, long-lasting step forward in technology. 3D purely exists in the here and now because it wrings more money out of the consumers - the 3D experience costs more at the cinema, it costs more to watch at home.

That's before you consider how poorly the 3D treatment in films is implemented - I had to watch the last 3D film without the glasses, because otherwise my eyes would have been strained out their sockets. And the health issues around Nintendo's 3DS may have been exaggerated by the media, but any product with the potential to cause nausea can hardly be considered a winner.

3D doesn't feel like the future for technology, more a sideways step to indulge the entertainment industry and shortchange the customer. Then again, perhaps I'm just annoyed that we're pissing about with 19th century novelty turns instead of cracking on with the holodecks.

So the question for the increasingly adhoc Bitterwallet poll concerns what you think of 3D. Would you buy a 3D product? Do you own one already? Vote away and let us know what you think in the comments.


  • Tweedskin
    I agree with the article, 3D isn't a massive technological advance and seems to be an "add-on" to current media. But 3D did help bring down Hitler so we should be thankful for that
  • Rich
    Where's the "canny afford it captain" option?
  • Dick
    I like 2D products, since you can roll them up and put them in your pocket.
  • Eric
    Being a bit immature I purchased a 3DS just to keep me busy on long flights. It cannot do that though because the battery lasts about 3 hours and there are no decent games for it!
  • Sawyer
    I'll admit I'm a little behind in the home cinema department - it's not something that interests me much. But let's say I jumped on the 3D bandwagon and bought a 3DTV - where does the content come from? I know 3D movies exist, but you wouldn't upgrade your TV for a handful of films... would you? Honest question here. I mean, I've had a 1080p HDTV for 5 years, and haven't ever watched anything high-definition on it. Even people I know who are forking out for Sky HD and all that stuff still seem to watch the majority in plain old SD? What's the benefit of this technology if 95% of your viewing doesn't improve?
  • Phil
    Sawyer - I disagree there - HD is lovely for sport - F1 on BBC HD is great. Best thing of all - Previous house owner left a working sat dish so for an £80 freesat box it was nice and cheap! Completely agree on 3d though - It so annoying when you want to watch something like thor and all the cinema showings that are at sensible times are in 3d. I'll wait for the Blu-ray and rent it thanks.
  • John
    Absolutely no interest in 3D, it gives me a sore head and I don't like how soft the picture is nor the inconsistency of the 3D effect.
  • Marky M.
    @ Sawyer For HD content you can either get Freesat for approx five or six channels, although most of those will be BBC HD, and that's barely any different from BBC SD. ITV HD is better quality, and if you want to sign all your money and children over to Murdoch Sky HD is probably better than all of them. But just because the channel says HD doesn't mean ALL their output is high-def. It's not. There isn't enough Freeview HD content yet to make buying one of their boxes worth it. When it comes to fillums, if you get a good resampling Blu-ray player all of your disks will look better. For 3D content, at the moment it's Sky or nothing. But is it a high-quality addition to our broadcasting future? Nah.
  • oliverreed
    Yeah, but porn in 3D..........
  • rhodeuk
    As has been mentioned already it just all feels like a load of half baked technology on the home front. I understand they need people to keep buying TV's but when they shove the technology into a TV, charge £200 more, then inform you that the £100 glasses you need to buy won't probably work with any of your mates TV's I can't help but feel it's actually putting people off buying a new set until the tech settles down. That and every freaking week they launch a different type with it's own strength's and weeknesses. And then there's the content. Which add's very little to the experience. To be fair I've only seen Avatar and I've got a 3DS but a lot of 3D films I've just skipped at the cinema and seen on Blu ray. Do I miss something in the telling of the story? No. Do I feel there is something lacking in the experience? No. Was Avatar the best thing since the creation of the universe? The only thing stopping me having a snooze was that the cinema sound pumped up so loud they'd clearly broken the sub.
  • wingZero21
    3d blows holla back.. wingZero
  • Richard
    Personally I like it when 3D films etc. aren't done in a stand out gimmicky way but are done in a subtle way because I think it adds depth to the picture and improves the quality in a similar way to that of HD. My only issue is that the quality improvements given by 3D are almost entirely cancelled out by the fact that you have to wear glasses which make it harder to see the screen.

What do you think?

Your comment