Discussion on:

Stop being duped by the 3D scam

I'm not sure how 3D can take away fromyour movie watching experience since the movies come out in 3D and non-3D formats.

I own a new Samsung 8000 3D TV. I could have gotten a cheaper model just so I didn't get 3D, but I would have gotten a TV with less features and a picture that wasn't as good.

The video games I have played in 3D are spectacular and surely add to the experience of the game. The picture looks the same in 3D as it does without 3D.

I do admit the gimmick of 3D in theatres is a little annoying at times, who wants to see Transformers in 3D? I would rather see it in standard then in 3D so I can get the experience of both. Avatar was a great example of a movie that was better in 3D IMHO.

It is not 3D, it is stereoscopic or stereoscopy. Here's a way to distinguish between actual 3D and what the scam artists are calling 3D movies: In real 3D, if you move your head, you see something different. There is an actual projection of something in front and something in the back, depending on your angle you will see a different view, just like in the real world. With stereoscopy, each eye is sent an image which doesn't change depending on a viewer's location. A hologram is actually 3D, stereoscopy TV and movies are not.
Really? On a Techrepublic blog Jason and everyone else gets this wrong???

I'm waiting to get me one of these, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw, which is glasses free to the extent that it doesn't degrade the picture, deals with the problem of stereoscopy, and looks freakin' awesome. Unfortunately it only works for one person at a time. Fine for gaming, not very social for movies.

Get the facts: The movie industry and Monitor manufacturers are calling this stereoscopic crap "3D". The "3D Scam" is that this artificial way of adding the perception of depth is actually more crappy-looking than without it.

Stereo-optic perception is, by the way, the basis of human depth perception... what you call 3D would still be bereft of perceived depth if there is no difference in input for each eye. Your argument and frustration does seem a bit superfluous, considering that there is no technology available for providing what you insist is the "real 3D".

You argument is an exercise in question-begging. You start by defining "real 3D" as 3D with a moveable viewpoint. Clearly, the human head can change its viewpoint, but viewers of 3D movies have a fixed viewpoint based on where the cameras were. So?
It would be a bizarre and incredibly expensive movie experience that allowed the viewer to adjust the viewpoint. Perhaps we will have it, some day. Meanwhile, EVERYONE understands that "3D" means stereoscopic with a fixed viewpoint. This isn't a scam. It is human language at work.

It doesn't work. I rarely watch TV in the sitting position with eyes horizontal. 3D requires a stereoscopic effect to be really eye popping and most 3D movie cameras use 2 horizontal camera lenses to produce that effect - lost on the couch potato whose eyes are in the verticle position during viewing.

Jason was right that this is just a scam from the entertainment industry to sell you something "new." What many people don't seem to know however is that 3D is not new -- it premiered in movies 60 years ago! After a brief popularity, it died off as the gimmick that it is. People likening it to going from silent to talkies or b&w to color are misguided. And it is not inevitable; as Jason states, we don't have to buy the movies or equipment that they are pushing if we don't like them.

I will not fall for those 3D TV ploys. Just as I will not fall for the 4G phones that are actually overpriced 3G mobile phones. They want my business, give me what I pay for. It makes me feel I'm falling for a scam.

I thought for years that I was somehow just "missing out" on some excellent aspect of 3D because my glasses were somehow interfering with my perception. I went back to contacts early this year (after a 10 year hiatus) only to find that I was wrong; the 3D experience was less than stellar regardless of the eyewear. Preach it brother! Down with 3D!

So true.

Bwana Devil. Quadrophenia. Jumping the Shark. 3D TV.

All examples of technology drivers who have run out of ideas. 'Bwana Devil' was a 3D movie in theaters (in the 50's). I saw it when I was very little, and it was genuine, like Avatar. Filmed in stereoscopy. A marvelous toy. But so what? Quadrosonic Sound: another last gasp by hifi manufacturers (in the 70's) who could not think of any other way to sell more speakers! (Try making them better!). 'Jumping the Shark' stands by itself. Avatar in IMAX 3D was great. At home? Naaaaaah.

"We just want real innovation, and don???t want to pay for badly-overpriced gimmicks and half-baked experiments". Couldn't agree more with that. I still want 3D, and wish I could get it as real innovation at affordable pricing. Holographic display would be even better. Until then, try to play the PS3 game Tumble in 2D versus 3D. You'll see that 3D makes the game. The technology is NOT perfect (or even close), but it allows me to do and enjoy more than just 2D displays. I can easily do without the 2D faked to 3D and other lousy 3D gimmicks, but when it is done right, 3D offers me experiences I want and can't get with 2D. IMAX Under the Sea is close to SCUBA diving when viewed in 3D and pretty pictures in 2D.

Yes marketing again. Now that everyone has polluted the planted by ditching their old tvs and buying the 'HDTV's', they get to do it again by buying another tv- the HDTV 3D'. If you have cable and kept your old 'tube' tv (like I did), now you really have to buy one (sorry, I'll skip it. I have enough problems seeing 2D with my perscription glasses!) to see tv. Just more trash shoved down the American Public.

i have never liked 3D when they started to play it in the movie thetars with thoes red and blue cheaply made glass and really done what that in my home. i have tryed out the new 3DS not very in preste with it. i say that 3d i more then 15 years away when more better for the consumer then it is now. even if if they get better at it i really will not get one enless they found a way for 3D not to give me a headache every time i watch one.

I have vision problems in one of my eyes which means that 3D just looks blurry (even more than it looks to people with normal vision). I've tried to see several movies lately that theaters in my area were only showing in 3D. I hope that trend doesn't continue.

As usual Jason, I /agree with you! I won't regurgitate the excellent points already provided. I Just wanted to state my agreement with you.

... because I don't see in 3D generally. I can only focus both eyes together with considerable strain, so most of the time I only see clearly out of one or the other. In the real world, my judgement of depth is achieved through a sense of geometry, rather than by the confluence of two input streams at slightly different angles. 3D video wouldn't enhance my experience at all.

Stereo vision depends on the separation between our two eyes. This distance, aka interocular or interpupular distance (ID or IPD), varies from person to person. Leaving the kids out of this for the moment, the range for adults is somewhere between 50 mm and 75 mm. That's 2.5 cm or nearly a full inch!

The film- and gamemakers can only work with one IPD / ID, not a range. They usually go with the "average" of between 63 mm and 65 mm.

The farther a person's IPD is from this average, the more strain is put on the eye muscles and the eye itself to keep things in focus. That's why so many people get headaches and eyestrain from 3-D movies and games.

Until true 3-D is developed, that is, a "tank" or viewing area that can create actual, three-dimensional, walk-around-able images, much like a theatre stage, a large percentage of people simply will not be able to enjoy the effect.

I'll wait.

It's misleading to call it "3D". The proper term is "stereoscopy". 3D is misleading because it is overselling the technology.

Our perception of a three dimensional world depends on a great number of things, such as objects in the distance looking smaller; objects in the distance looking less colourful; nearby objects moving further and faster across the field of vision than distant ones; and nearby objects obstructing our view of distant ones.

All of these are already delivered by normal film and TV; and it's trivial for our brains to interpret the depth of the world presented on a 2D screen. Zillions of viewers do it every day.

The only bit that's missing is the additional depth information provided by having two eyes - stereoscopy. Stereoscopy is just one aspect of 3D perception, and to market it as if it is the whole of 3D perception is very wrong.

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that stereoscopy only works in nature for close- to mid-range vision. It doesn't help with objects in the distance, and excessive stereoscopic depth may be one of the reasons some people find it uncomfortable.

If normal film takes us 80% of the way to a "real" 3D representation (see my list above), then stereoscopy only takes us to 90%. It's still missing the change of view you get when moving your head. Only holographic images offer that, and only holographic images can claim to be truly 3D.

As for the latest crop of so-called 3D films...... well, it's OK. Interesting for a few minutes, but I'm largely indifferent towards it. I certainly don't like wearing the glasses. What I strongly dislike is any compromise to the quality of the original material, or to the display screen's performance with non-stereoscopic material.

And while we're at it, I say we go back to mono AM radio that FM stereo won't ever last, and get rid of all this surround sound stuff too... I'm sticking with my LPs too, that CD music stuff will never get off the ground...it's all just an unnecessary fad designed to dupe the ignorant into parting with their hard earned dollars. Who needs Blu-Ray, what's wrong with my good 'ol BetaMax VCR? I'm perfectly happy with my 1964 black and white tv with aerial on the roof. Who needs all this new fangled stuff. I like my good ol' rotary dial phone as well.

Just kidding of course... Yes, as an early adopter of most tech items,I was one of the idiots that bought a 3D LG Plasma TV last fall. Certainly while it's a pain in the neck to use the 3D glasses, the effect with some movies is excellent - animated movies make the best use of this technology. Some 3D content just doesn't look very good (ie Tron). But, like it or not 3D is probably here to stay and will probably get better over time, and it will probably morph several times along the way as it matures. The LG 3D tv I purchased in December was pure unobtainium in January... and their new version don't require 'active shutter' glasses that should translate into a huge improvement in an of itself, both in terms of less expensive glasses and brighter 3D images. Personally, I can't way until the holographic tv's come out... Bring on the future!

Thanks, Jason Hiner, for speaking out at risk, being in opposition to a complacent embrace of all new tech.

I went to "3D Images Make Millions Sick, Yet Tech Companies Push On (Fox News)," which was enlightening. The article noted: "The problem is that as the eyes turn inward, they also expect to focus closer. But a screen isn't moving closer, so the eyes have to curb their hard-wired inclination and focus back out. This mismatch between where the eyes think the focus should be and where the screen actually is forces them to work extra hard."

I searched further and found that "...the American Optometric Association estimates that 25 percent of Americans have experienced headaches, blurred vision, nausea or similar problems when viewing 3-D."

My own limited experience with 3D screen at a local showroom was disappointing - it appeared that the foreground/background separation was exaggerated and synthetic, making it almost cartoon-like. I did experience some slight unbalance as my eyes adjusted, so wasn't looking for the drop in resolution that Jason reported. But I know that human eyesight can be tricked into perceiving higher resolution in video compared to stills.

So I can't help but wonder about the potential for visually-induced seizures or less traumatic effects. The current 3D technology does not appear to have been designed to work optimally (or safely) with our vision, and likely sets up viewers for problems now and down the road. I think of my grandchildren when I write this, and hope manufacturers can wait for better solutions.

To the poster who noted '"Too bad, so sad." They can forgo it.' - I wouldn't count on it. Some technologies become ubiquitous - publicly available - before being thoroughly tested.

...but this "post production 2D to 3D conversion" craze employed for films like "Clash of the Titans" sucks major wind. It's like Colorization all over again. I remember the days when AFT was colorizing movies as quickly as Ted Turner would sign checks, but where are they today? Last I remember they had moved to Mexico and started Midtech de Mexico, because having a company in Mexico called American Film Technologies would be kind of crass...and now they have NO employees.

My point is that, as with making black and white pictures into color ones, making 2D into 3D generally sucks. You end up with animated 2D cardboard cutouts sliding around at different layers of depth. It's like making a movie with Standups...and hopefully is a trend which will cease as better, smaller and more sophisticated equipment for shooting 3D to begin with comes down the pike.

I don't completely agree. Most, if not all technical innovations have been financed by us - the consuming public in one way or another. Even if it is the military or NASA that's doing the developing, we are footing the bill. Personal computers have been quirky for decades but they continue to improve with time and demand. If consumers had put their foot down and quit spending, would we be paying IBM for mainframe time to do our computing? I think part of the problem is the demand - there is no pressing need for 3d outside entertainment industry. The lack of real progress is disappointing, but I don't think we should just throw our hands in the air and settle for 2d. Acceptable 3d should remain a goal and that goal is attainable but the pace will be slow without valid business or military applications.

If you expected the color and picture quality to equally good in 3d your foolish. Modern movie 3d is 20 times better than older 3d and it is really neat to see it. Is it a gimmick to earn more money? Duh. But if you ever saw 3d in the past modern 3d is an awesome treat to see how much better it works than ever before. There is nothing wrong with a gimmick that delivers what it says it does. If you expected it to deliver something else you just don't know what you are talking about.

3D is just a gimick and always will be. At least now it is getting us one step closer to holographic imaging.

A lot of the comments are about the same as the ones for the late 60's when we got color TV.

"By the 1970s color sets had become standard, with all-color broadcasts becoming common. Color broadcasting in Europe was not standardized on the PAL format until the 1960s, and broadcasts did not start until 1967. By this point many of the technical problems in the early sets had been worked out, and the spread of color sets in Europe was fairly rapid. Most major markets in North America and Europe were all color by the mid-1970s, and by the 1980s B&W sets had been pushed into niche markets, notably low-power uses, small portable sets, or use as monitor screens in lower-cost consumer equipment and in the television industry."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_television

I agree with ThomGillam. I purchased a high end Samsung 3D TV a few months ago and the 3D is just amazing. None of the issues that you were complaining about exist. I have quite a few 3D titles and I can't wait until the new movies that are currently being released in theaters are availible on Blu-ray.

I do agree that the 3D experience is less than stellar on some (if not many) films. However, the Avatar I saw was presented in a theater which uses the 5K (forget the exact name) system. It looked breath taking to me. The 3D depth perception was really well done (at least where it was most needed), and the color depth was amazing (at least in certain scenes.) Maybe there's a trick of color pallet swapping or 3D/2D swapping? I have the Blu-Ray of Avatar and it looks horrible in comparison; although I have to blame that on my cheesy equipment (yes digital.) Perhaps if I had a better home theater system, I'd see what you mean. I also saw Alice in 3D and remember how I had a very good sense of depth perception while watching that entire film. Oh and also, I looked at the Nintendo 3DS. The 3D on it looks pretty nice, but I still refuse to pay that much money for a portable system.

Can't comment much on the TV situation. I have seen 2D ones some that look absolutely stunning with a Blu-Ray film. Never took the time to compare 3D to 2D, since I haven't been shopping for a new TV.

I have a feeling that the way 3D is done, for now at least, will not jive with some people's physical senses and mental perceptions. Not everyone experiences things in the same way, even under the same conditions.

At this year's cinema owners' convention, James Cameron held a presentation about increasing the frame rate at which films are both shot and projected from 24 frames per second to 48 or even 60 frames per second. At 48 fps, the strobing, blurring, and other camera affects that diminish the experience, or even cause discomfort, all but disappear. At 60 fps, it literally felt like I was in the room with the actors. The difference is so pronounced that Cameron recognized that, stylistically, changes would have to be made in the way action was shot to maintain the illusion that these weren't just actors on a sound stage. Much like an earlier poster posited, it's similar to the way cinematographers had to change the way shots were constructed when moving from black and white to color. Were it to become industry standard, it really would be a game-changer.

It's also important to note that the people in the industry that truly care about 3D are just as irritated by the sub-par presentation as most of you are. Cameron and Katzenberg preach about how porting 2D films to 3D water down the product, and how the campy "in your face" effects trivialize the medium. They also recognize that light levels are an issue, that putting on polarized glasses dims the picture and washes out some color, and are working with projection manufacturers to increase the power in the lamphouses to help minimize the problem. George Lucas, in porting Star Wars to 3D, has spent more time and money in doing so than it cost to shoot and produce the original film, and says if you can't bother to sink those kind of resources into porting your film, then you shouldn't bother.

The thing to realize is that the modern 3D model is still in its infancy. The directors are still learning. The cinematographers are still learning. The hardware makers are still learning. Cameron is leading the pack, but nobody REALLY knows what they're doing yet. The fact that people are trying to monetize it right now is unfortunate, but I guess it's much like anything. There will be early adopters who are willing to pay more and put up with more to join the party early (that theatre companies de facto force unwilling patrons into this role at times is just sad). For me, I still watch the majority of my movies on 35mm film, in 2D, but look forward to the day when 3D is not new, or novel, but rather is taken for granted as simply the way movies are made.

What they really are is enhanced 2D.

It's not 3D unless and until you can walk around the picture and see what the back of the actor or object looks like.

While much of Avatar was filmed in a computer generated 3D environment where the director COULD actually walk around in it to pick the best shots, the movie itself was projected in enhanced 2D only.

3D does exist in electronic entertainment; but only in video games such as WoW or Everquest, where the participants can actually explore all the dimensions of the virtual environment.

Until the movie and TV industry give people that level of access, they'll just be telling you more lies and stealing money from you with claims of 3D.

In my experience with 3D films, I'll agree that some, like Toy Story 3 and even Tron Legacy seemed to suffer from what appears to be a 3D treatment that was added as an afterthought. On the other hand, you have Avatar, where even James Cameron felt that today's 3D wasn't up to snuff, which is why he developed his own 3D camera system specifically for Avatar. I'm a little spoiled because Avatar was the first 3D movie I've seen since 1983's "Metalstorm: The Destruction of Jared-Syn". Needless to say, I was so mesmerized by the clarity and awesome 3D visuals of Avatar that my large popcorn and soda went completely untouched for the entire film. (I went on to see the original release 3 more times in IMAX 3D and then saw the re-release once, also in IMAX 3D.) If it were showing this weekend, I'd see it again.

My personal agenda from here on is to selectively "boycott" 3D films. If it's a movie that has had greater care taken in it's 3D filming (such as Avatar was) then I would probably be likely to see the 3D version. However, if I do some research on an upcoming film and find that no particularly special efforts were put into the 3D technology, then I'm most likely catch a 2D showing.

My opinion is that 3D (in theaters at least - I don't have any 3D TV experience) works when it's done correctly. Otherwise, yes, it would make sense to let the industry know that we're not going to pay extra for lackluster 3D that doesn't really enhance the movie-going experience. But to say that ALL 3D is bogus or a gimmick is a ridiculously narrow-minded suggestion.

Hiner, not sure about the tv's you tried out, but I love my Panasonic Viera...no scam here, of course it's plasma/24p. The images literally pop out of the screen!! Even my 3 year old daughter tried to walk up to touch the images...not realizing they weren't really there. If that's not enough to impress you...you are insane. I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but companies have literally spent millions (realD, Mitsubishi..more) on research the involves some serious optics physics. Overall, you are just a complete moron!

And people fall for it too.

This really pissed me off... This is simply your opinion.. Of course if you watch a 3d movie you will sacrifice a small amount of quality for the "wow" effect of 3d.. But again to each is their own. Millions of people think 3d is an amazing experience. If you buy a 3d capable tv that doesn't mean everything you watch is in 3d and that the tv is useless otherwise. The quality and capabilities are still improving along with the being 3d ready AND becoming cheaper each year. This is a terrible article and really frustrates me because you are just throwing your negative opinion on lots of people who actually enjoy the 3d experience.. If being at CES and seeing all of the promotional 3d technology bothers you so much I'd be glad to take your spot!

First of all, I think 3D done well is a nice option for people who like that sort of thing. I saw an IMAX movie about dinosaurs that was fantastic.

For a surprisingly convincing 3D experience at no cost, regular 2D programs look 3D with a pair of homemade glasses - just take a cheap pair of sunglasses and remove the lens from the side with your dominant eye. This causes your brain to overemphasize all of the visual depth cues like overlapping, perspective, and parallax.

We got our blueray player and an HD TV in the after-Christmas sales, and our first blueray disc was Avatar - I watched through these "3D" glasses, and because they produced it to have a lot of those visual cues, it looked awesome.

If you want to try this without ruining your sunglasses, just hold them up to one eye. This is also a good way to test which eye works better. (I think I got my sunglasses at the Dollar Store, so, no biggie.)

YOU SUCK

I totally agree with Jason on this one. 3D is a waste of money, both in the theater and at home. All I can say is, AMEN!

Didn't they discover in the 50s and 60s that once you had the first monster look like it jumped out of the screen that the thrill with "Flat" 3D was over. Now, if you could project it in the air and people could walk around in it like on Star Trek Holodecks, you might have something.

THANK YOU! Someone with some visibility finally speaks out against 3D. I have tried it repeatedly - I love new tech and I love movies, and I really wanted 3D to be all that I kept hearing it should be. Well, I have yet to see a 3D movie that betters its 2D Blu-Ray counterpart on a good TV. Avatar included.
I'm not sure if there is really any new tech here or if it's just a washed and pressed re-serving of the same old 3D tech from back when I was young (a few years ago indeed), but as far as what I'm SEEING - it has a LONG way to go.
Personally I suspect the people who do love 3D are the type that like a movie for a few glitzy special effects scenes, and if that's all you want from a movie then have at it! But don't push 3D on an unsuspecting populace as superior is any way.

How about we go back to black & white silent films? 3D technology is in its infancy - sound and color both had their detractors in the early days. One day in the future a fully immersive 3D entertainment experience will be standard and my kids (grandkids?) will say "remember when everything was just 2D?"

As a child of the 50's I have known for a long time that I am part of the 25%. Frankly I'm quite content to watch BluRay on a 1080 screen. I'm sure that by the time 3 D has really been perfected, I'll be old, toothless and blind and won't care.

Geeze, Seat belts: were such a pain; Retractors didnt work,the belt ran to high across your neck etc. They evetually got it right and now its no problem.
Air bags: going off to fast or actyivate on little bumps now people have to "Put the children in back" -What a pain but eventually got used to it and it is better for all -but they did complain.
Big Screen Televisions were SO expensive and power hungry! now I cannot find a 36" CRT on sale anywhere.
Geeze, I would think that you want to go down to the river to do the laundry because the new washing machine uses that "new fangled electricity'.
In 20 years you will be on to something else like why my Cd's wont play in the new fangled machine.
Give them time to get it right and yes you will pay for it all along.

great job of backbiting, premised on you wanting what you want at ever cheaper prices.
lemme know when you invent a new motion picture camera.

I vote with you. I'm actually surprised at the people who say they support the 3D craze. I will go with things that push back against the Entertainment Industry plans. I don't live for canned entertainment.

You can not just pick on 3D TV/Movies, that's plain ignorance on your part. If you believe it's a scam then you must include all the other things like cell phones, smart phones, iPads, and all the other pads. The first that comes to mind is Blackberry with their new Pad, they even force you to get their phone because the Pad don't work without it.
If you start calling things Scams, you are obligated to call everything a Scam, it doesn't take Brain Surgeon to see that just the few mentioned above are in reality just that, all of them are designed to fork over your hard earned money and nothing else for the masses.
Just look back, not all that long ago we got along just fine without those gadgets, ask yourself this "Do you really need them or is it just a must have them? Even our Computers are infected now and becoming more of an Entertainment device rather then a computing workhorse.
I recently purchased a $1,000.00 plus top of the line laptop, I have never been so disappointed in my life, there was just so much junk that comes bundled with MS Windows that should not be part of Windows but rather made available as add-ons or Applications for those that actually need them, I became so frustrated that I ended up giving it away. Sadly, by some standards I went back to XP, it was bad enough but a far better workhorse.
Just look at all the traffic tragedies caused by distracted drivers, kids with cell or iphones glued to their ears or down the middle of the street texting and being hit by cars. We recently had a young man killed when a helicopter crashed and fell on him because of the music blasting away in his ears.

Get the message? Don't take it out on one thing, the reality is we do not actually NEED any of them. Agreed, some do have a need for them, as it makes their jobs easier or more convenient increasing their productivity, the majority definitely not.

Admitting I've only seen one game on it for about ten minutes, I'm actually pretty impressed with the 3DS, but besides that, I mostly agree with the earlier comment stating that 3D COULD be great, but is being done badly. The only time 3D is worth it is when you see an IMAX nature documentary-you see into the screen AND stuff comes out at you; it just works. Converting 2D movies to 3D in post never works. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is DIGITAL 3D-it's not as effective as IMAX's analog 3D (with two separate film reels, one for each eye, as opposed to rapidly showing left and right images from one projector).

We only have one large local theater, and they ALWAYS show the 3D version of movies without even the 2D option. So, we ALWAYS have to pay the higher price if we want to see something. Yes, we could wait until it's released to video, but when you have young children, it's not really possible to wait.

I've never even tried a 3D TV, and don't really want to. I saw a Nintendo 3DS at the store, and it was so blurry, I couldn't even focus on the screen. So, yes, I'm glad we bought the DSi instead.

Someone on the radio today or yesterday suggested that 3d was a way to get people into the theaters again, so don't look for a great Sony 3D home system for a while. I am old enough to remember Viewmasters and red-green glasses 3D of the 50's or so, but I don't need to be THAT old. Only recently there was a Disney 3D movie with free glasses - Hannah Montana, I think. I have a picture on my digital camera of my grand daughter fallen asleep with the glasses on. Not everyone can see in 3D, my wife for one, so she just sees blurry images. So the gimmickery remains. The technology, not so much.

Jason, I very much agree with you. My wife is extremely susceptible to motion sickness and so we avoid any movie that is only available in 3-D, and unfortunately, even if they are also available in the superior 2D format, showtimes are often limited, so we wait for the title to show up from Netflix.

While he and I don't typically agree, Roger Ebert said it well and I recommend you add this link to your list: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/why-i-hate-3-d-and-you-should-too.html

I saw Avatar in 3D, and while it is in a minority of movies that I feel it worked out well for, I wouldn't dream of trying to watch it in 3D at home. The last thing I want to do is don glasses to watch a movie at home. Personally, my biggest problem is the fact that I can see the "frame" of the screen, so my brain has to work to "tune it out" so I can somewhat enjoy the 3D experience (on a 62" 1080P Samsung TV at home, but I also have this issue in the theater). It's much easier and more relaxing to enjoy the movie in 2D, especially if the movie has a good story.

3D is a novelty that should be reserved for special situations (again, I'll cite Avatar), but should in no way be confused as the mainstream way that movies should be made.

It seems Hollywood has run out of good story ideas so they are pushing technological gimmicks at us. In fact, in many situations, if the story is wonderful, 3D would actually take away from it.

I haven't been to the theaters in some time, very much due to the "3D Revolution". I hope this runs its course and they get back to good story telling . . .