We hook this stuff up every day but don't always get the opportunity to watch it on a regular basis. I have a 3D TV but never use it because we are still using component vide distribution. I recently updated my old projector to an Epson 3020 and had to return two of them before I got a unit without issues. I understand that I should have a 6020 at a minimum but we are planning on moving in the next year and the equipment will stay with the house so I wasn't going to break the bank.

Now I've seen a million clips of Yogi Bear grabbing the potato chips floating in the air or Avatar as they are walking through the woods and the ferns are hitting your nose. Mostly watch these clips on our JVC projector or on a customers system. However this was the first time I sat through an entire movie on a consumer setup. We watched the Hobbit on Friday night and I was shocked how well the 3D was done. Most movies I've seen are the typical - no depth, no depth, no depth, dog and pony show, no depth, no depth, etc. The Hobbit however has completely believable 3D and was never over-the-top which pulled me in even further and I seriously lost track of time during this 3hr movie. I understand that most of the movie was CGI but from start to finish, the movie was amazing (doesn't hurt that I enjoy the series).

Are you guys watching 3D at home and what are your thoughts? The obvious problem is the available content and the access to it. The current generation of movie watchers aren't buying movies anymore and nobody is going to want to download a 1080P 3D movie if it were available. Even though it's really cool I just can't seeing it sustainable.

I personally don't like 3D movies or setting them up. I feel it is more hype than anything else- that being said Friday the 13th 3D was hilarious!

I think when done properly and modestly like the Hobbit 3D can be great, but I always smile when an older client says they don't need the new fangled 3D screens.
My brother had to have surgery on his eye as a kid, they flipped his retina or something like that. As a consequence he can not see movies in 3D- lately he wants to buy a "smart TV" and I advised him against a higher end Sharp based on his viewing abilities. He chuckled.
When there is more content and almost everything is CGI and filmed in digital, maybe 3D will have its marketshare.

I'm involved in a 3D installation, a BEEEEG one. The screen is like 16x40.

3D is Great! on this screen, and immersive, and mind-blowing. It proves to me what the Mitsubishi guys said when they were trying to impress us with the fact that if it's not HUGE, then it's not worth doing. They came up with "if it hangs on the wall, it's too small." To them that means that TVs are out and only projection is worth considering. And then only large images. And if you have to space yourself back from a TV, as in "normal viewing distance," it looks like you're in a dark room looking at a window where everything in the window is 3D but it is just not where you are.

But here's the thing, and this is my opinion -- no matter how great it is, you have to hang glasses on your head, and you cannot simply watch the damn thing. The 3D is not real. Things out close to you don't look natural and the image falls apart sometimes. I think 3D is going to spread and spread until people just get sick of it.

I could be wrong -- they might make it better and better, but if it requires replacing hardware it will be a really hard sell.

Nonetheless, one night after the client had been watching Apple TV for a couple of hours, he texted to the entire group:

Passive (polarized) 3D projection is fine for me. Active 3D gives me a headache.

Still, I find Ebert's article on why today's 3D methods are stressful on the brain quite enlightening, and it doesn't make me want to have it in my own home.

[Link: rogerebert.com]

3D makes me sick

Literally

I can count on 3 fingers the number of times we've setup 3D capability in a home; and one of those is a buddy of mine who got his equipment at cost. For me, I don't like it and don't even own a pair of the glasses. In commercial theaters I will purposely avoid movies that are in 3D and seek out ones that are being shown in 2D.

Me too, I have about a minute or so before it is time to leave the room.

I'm not a big fan.
It's kind of cool on a huge theater screen but I'm less than impressed on a "normal" 60 inch display.
A gimmick that failed in my opinion.

Judging by the sales figures,I'm not the only one who feels this way.....

Everyone we had over to watch the movie absolutely loved the 3D. We played it on a 106" screen so I guess that helps. Smaller displays simply do not draw you in and it's really best watched on 100" and up. I'm curious what the percentage of people would choose 3D over 2D when going to the movies? When we actaully get a chance to go out to the movies we go to 2D movies but I really liked it at home. My opinion might have to do with particular movie and the fact I was really looking forward to seeing it. I don't know how much I will utilize it but I thought was pretty cool.

I understand the aversion to active 3D. It is nice that the glasses are now bluetooth and my Samsung glasses worked with our Epson setup. IR setups suffer from a really bad flicker especially around any windows with daylight coming through. But in a dark basement with no daylight I think it helps with people not getting sick.

I think it's pretty funny the response so far though. I'm sure your opinions follow along with most people but I didn't think that everyone would have a negative opinion.

 I dig it...Mostly for my kids, but I do enjoy it.  BTW, the 3020 is a good projector, your experience definitely isn't the norm.  

As far as I can tell, the main difference between the 3020 and the 5020 is Lens Shift and THX Certification .  I personally can't "see" a difference.  My technicians swear that the blacks are blacker, but I can't see it.  Don't quote me on this, (because I'm not going to look it up)...But I believe the specs on the 3020 and 5020 are exactly the same.  

I've never seen a 6020 in action.  

Now that Comcast has 3d PPV movies, I'll use it quite a bit I'm sure.

It always seems to look like a shadow box or diarama, like we used to make in grade school. It had a hole to look in and each object was glued to the bottom at different distances. To make some things look like they were farther away, the bottom would be sloped upward, toward the rear, and the "farther" objects were smaller.

Eh. Not ready for prime time on TVs and I'm not sure it will be.

x2.  I get a headache.

I did like the Harold and Kumar 3d christmas movie since it basically used 3D just for the sake of using 3D, and made it pretty obvious that they were goofing on 3D.

I've had a 3D TV and BRD player for over a year now. I use the BRD all the time, but have yet to watch a single movie in 3D. It just doesn't have all that much appeal to me.

My dad has never seen 3D, period, so I might do it for the first time when he comes for a visit this summer. After that, I doubt I'll do it again unless someone else wants to see it.

I have yet to see a 3D movie that I thought the 3D was worth the hype or glasses

That makes me smile. I now have a good metaphor for most 3D: it's like the scene in Airplane where the elevator music is background music but it's playing at 95 dB. It is what it's supposed to be, but it's just too too much.

I haven't seen a 3D movie yet that was without scenes or details, usually irritating, that were put in there JUST to show off 3D. As with people, it's hard to watch a showoff for very long and it's easy to hate them.