The 3D revolution and you... eventually

[Fixer]

My experiences with 3DTV so far. Perhaps of use to any forum dolts thinking about it in the near future.

So, moving into a new house very shortly. As such have decided to splash out on a nice new TV. In the end I got myself a Samsung 46" with 3D since it was on special offer and only slightly more expensive than a standard TV of the same size.

So yes. Without having really intended to get 3D first of all the feature was really just a bonus. I didn't buy any extra 3D blu rays or starter kits with the screen and after hooking up the X-box, PC and TV I only really started playing around with the 3D feature when the house move got delayed again.

Thus started the quest for content.

Number one: Blu ray movies.
Here comes the first problem. At the moment you can play pretty much any 3D content you like on any of the 3 major manufacturers screens. The 3D glasses for each screen only work with that specific manufacturer. The way that each company keeps exclusive blu ray titles for it's screen is to bundle it with glasses you do not need.

Even with the movie you want being an exclusive on the screen you own this is a major pain in the ass. Samsung have two exclusives, 'Monsters Vs. Aliens' and 'How to train your Dragon'. They come bundled with two extra pairs of glasses, so if you wanted to have both movies right now you'd have to get 4 sets of glasses.

Since the screen comes bundled with 1 pair, you get another by registering the TV online and I got 2 extra pairs (delivery guy put his foot through the screen on the first delivery, so I registered that serial and got those glasses too while I waited for the replacement to turn up) Due to this happen-stance I already have all the glasses I could ever need. So would single folks or couples.

Second problem is that pretty much other than those movies, and Avatar coming out as a Sony exclusive in the near future there's nothing decent out. The current catalogue of non exclusive 3D blu rays is a list of semi-documentary IMAX content built more to show off 3D rather than to be watchable in their own right. The other three available are 'monster house' 'Step up' and 'rainy with a chance of meatballs'. While the two Samsung movies mentioned before were both family films, they were at least watch-able as an adult. These 3? I have no intention of ever seeing.

So, if you're looking for movies for 3D blu ray at the moment. It's going to be several months before there's anything out to actually watch.

Number 2: The PC
Having checked out the nVidia website, it turned out my PC was in fact 3D capable. So I hooked it up to the screen and looked for the settings to get everything running... only to find they weren't there.

Looking up on the web I found a few blogs showing that the current nVidia 3D vision system worked by using it's own set of USB IR glasses combined with a special monitor, but they were releasing updated drivers with 3D Play. A system to connect to any 3D TV without them. Downloading these drivers as they were released I then discovered that they're still preventing them from being used by requiring you to have the 3D Vision IR emitter installed even if you are not using it.

Yes, in order to use nVidia 3D on my TV. I need to buy another set of glasses I do not need.

Supposedly nVidia is releasing standalone software for 3D play sometime in November. So, another month of waiting if you want to get decent PC content.

There was another way to get my PC running some 3D games though. There are additional drivers online from IZ3d. They will allow you to run pretty much any game in stereographic 3D. Trouble here is that they're pretty buggy, the mouse pointer doesn't work correctly as splitting the screen into left eye/right eye messes up it's positioning in relation to the objects you are trying to click on. This makes navigating menus a nightmare and RTS/RPG games a complete nightmare. Dawn of War 2 didn't even work.

Getting it running on L4D2 where I didn't need to click on stuff was pretty nice. Especially when zombie tongues lash you in the face and you can see them sticking out of the screen at you. Enough for me to actually recommend getting 3D in the future when it's more properly available.

Number 3: TV
At the moment the only 3D service I know of it Sky: 3D. Now I could hook my screen up to it at the current place if we upgrade the Sky HD package we use there but there's very little point in convincing my folks splash out on something they wont be using in a week or two after I pull the big TV out of the house.

Is it good, is it bad? Who knows. Will I be buying it for the new place I move to? Probably not. Sky on It's own is too damned expensive.

Number 4: Consoles
I've got my X-Box and Wii. Mostly just the X-box, the Wii likes to collect dust.
Now technically it's 3D ready, and should be. Frankly if you have a console that can run split screen it can run a 3D stereoscopic game. Avatar the game has a native 3D side by side mode that a screen can be configured to use for 3D. So too does Call of Duty black ops.
( Little more info available here: http://3dvision-blog.com/tag/xbox-360-3d/ )

Unlike the PC there's currently no backwards compatibility. So though there is actual content to use, it's unlikely you'll see a great deal of it until more games are released with native support or some official 3D system is released.

The PS3 however has a firmware update ( 3.50 ) which make all 3D games compatible with 3DTV.

Number 5: 2D to 3D conversion
Last of all there's actually a feature in the Samsung TV to convert 2D images into 3D planes. How it does this I have no idea, and it can be a little freaky. It even turned my desktop background into a 3D image fairly well. With fast moving images or shaky-cam it gets mixed up. Even when not it has an uncanny valley style problem: TV where the world looks is a series of flat paper cutouts where perspective doesn't match up with depth. (screwing your eyes after a while) It's not bad, but not something really to watch regular TV with.

My conclusion:
Unless you currently own a PS3 or a Sky HD setup pretty much any 3D content is still at least a month or two away. Even then it's still reasonably sparse and content not originally created for 3D (such as aforementioned 3D games) will be variable in how much use they make use of the feature. Left 4 Dead 2 was pretty good, other games set with the perspective set back and not much change in the field of depth will barely be noticeable.

If you're looking for 3D movies on Blu ray. You want to wait at least another 4-5 months until there's a decent catalogue of films and exclusives are released from the tyranny of glasses you don't need.

[oneredpanther]

My fundamental issue with 3D television is that quite honestly, it looks like shit. And that's my professional opinion.

I find it laughable that we've come so far with crystal clear 200Hz high-definition images - only to find that 'progress' means systematically ruining the experience by wearing a pair of glasses that reduce the picture on your lovely £2000 state-of-the-art television to a flickering shambles where two interleaved images barely line-up and resemble a headache-inducing mess of motion more than a high fidelity visual feast.

It just looks like shit. I've seen three 3D movies and each time cursed my choice. I've been to the Sony shop and to John Lewis and all the fancy department stores to ogle their multi-thousand-pound beauties. And each time I wanted to scream at the top of my lungs that YE SHALL NOT PASS. If this lunatic monstrosity is the future of television, then I want out.

[overmind2000]

+2 to what Panther said. Thus far I've seen two films on 3D and found it to be a pain both times - the glasses strip the quality and finish to the show and as a person who doesn't wear glasses normally I find them irritating, and the downside is that you can't take them off and just enjoy the film without as any 3D scene will be terribly blurry to see.

Thus far it seems to only really make a difference on one or two key scenes within a film (this was watching Toy Story 3D) and the credits. Even then it makes little to no real enhancement to the viewing experience.

I think that its technology that is just not ready - its not ready at the capture stage and its not ready at the presentation stage

[Fixer]

My experience has been different. Avatar and How to train your dragon are the only 3D films i've seen in the cinema but both of them were very good.
Likewise FPS shooters with zombies jumping out at you have been good fun.

Havn't seen any flicker either, except in the far corners of my eye and not on the screen.

3D is only as good as the content you get for it though. Some is shockingly bad (Clash of the titans was given as an example) and I've had mixed results watching the Samsung demo 3D stuff. Monsters Vs. Aliens was good, Dragon War was terrible.

[oneredpanther]

Unprecedented beamed-into-your-brain technology notwithstanding, 3D television will never be ready... because all 3D images have a fundamental flaw.

In the real world our eyes do two things quite freely. The first is that our stereoscopic vision generates depth cues that construct the perception of three-dimensionality. 3D television simulates this very well, but it's not enough to satisfy the brain that the image is real. The second absolutely critical feature of our eyes is their ability to change their focus to a point closer or further away in the scene at will. This is how we look around the world and build that three-dimensional model in our minds. 3D television eliminates our ability to perform this simple and automatic task.

We are forced to look wherever the director places his cinematic focus. Imagine how maddening it would be to stare into the distance, but to have your eyes remain forcibly focused on your outstretched finger even through you were no longer looking at it. Or vice versa, to be focused at infinity, unable to look at the writing on your newspaper. This is what 3D television does.

Until a way is invented for each viewer of the movie to conciously and electively switch his focal distance by thought alone, all 3D technologies are doomed to be uncomfortable, unrealistic and unwatchable.

2D television is superior to 3D in that the brain receives no depth cues and so doesn't need to switch its focal distance. Like viewing a photograph, this is a pleasant and relaxing passive experience. 3D television however, fucks with the most basic hard-wired functions of the ocular system, and by forcing 50% of the brain's executive visual functions to be useless, produces a deeply frustrating and tiring 'active' experience where the eyes are never satisfied.

Until this is fixed, I'm not interested.

[Fixer]

Holodeck or nothing then?

Still, no glasses TV is a step closer. As with all the emerging technologies it's damned expensive.
http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/...3d-tv-how.html

There is a decent point on that blog as well:
"It's also worth pointing out that other people might literally see things differently. More than any other TV technology, 3D seems to create a wide range of reactions -- some love it, some hate it, some get headaches. "

Different people adjust to and see the 3DTV differently. What may be great for some people is terrible/pointless for others. HDTV is pointless for folks with poor eyesight for example. 3DTV is likewise terrible or even painful for folks that cannot adjust their focus in the way you describe.

Of course even if you do adjust to 3D well, there still little bloody content to watch for the foreseeable future.

[Octopus Rex]

No glasses 3D requires you to sit in the right place so that the angles match up.

I found it difficult to find a place where the entire picture appeared in focus. As I moved my head to bring the center of the picture into a sharp, 3D image, I found the edges looked a bit blurred.

Note that you have to move your head to get in focus, and not your eyes like in real life. Also, wearing glasses OVER my real glasses to watch TV or a film, bleagh, I'll pass thanks.

As for 3D in general - in my opinion it, like HD (and most certainly HDMC), is just to get you to buy another TV set and re-buy all your content (they hope) as well to retain a reason to go the cinema rather than living room (i.e. keep profits and control). HD is arguably a decent improvement, but for a lot of people it's not enough of a jump to warrant buying a massive new TV for it. Super Audio CDs were peddled for a while, but never took off. You could argue various reasons for this, but one is surely that CDs were simply plenty good enough for most people. The shift from VHS to DVD (like tape to CD) was an large jump in quality/usability (no more rewinding!) and didn't even require a new TV. The shift to HD is way less awesome and often actually revolves around rampant, status-based consumerism. The size of TV required to appreciate it properly is, frankly, grotesque when placed in a reasonable living room, and already those screens are becoming 'behind the times' with the advent of home 3D. Meh, I'm not a fan.

[Ramrod]

That's a great link, Fixer. I can see myself getting a PC monitor like that in a couple of years. Not a 3D TV, though, not for a loooooong while. The glasses are fine at the cinema, but I'll be damned if I'm going to wear them at home, or downgrade from a 52" HDTV to a 20" no-glasses 3D TV.


EDIT: I agree, Octopus. My living room is pretty damn crowded (seven people in one house), so I stayed away from HD TVs until my mate offered to help me wall-mount it a couple of years ago. I went out and finally got one and the rest, as they say, is history.

[Malachi]

Fun fact: the stereoscope 3D tech is actually older than sounded cinematography. Alfred Hitchcock dabbled in this too, and even shot a 3D version of one of his movies, IIRC.

So... revolution? I'd say it's just an overhyped trend. I' ll wait for Holographic 3D, thanks.

[overmind2000]

Agreed they have had 3D revolutions in the past - but it was mostly only at a few select cinemas and it never got of the ground thereafter. I think the problem is that the economic model we have today is based on constant mass sales and when something like a DVD comes out it only has a limited shelf life before most people who will own a copy have one - it then falls into the bargin bin and makes a minor amount of income. So like the food industry with new "limited edition flavours" we are now getting HD and 3D tv (and I'm sure they will think of a few other things) to try and encourage the market to again mass purchase recycled products.

[Moe]

We are forced to look wherever the director places his cinematic focus. Imagine how maddening it would be to stare into the distance, but to have your eyes remain forcibly focused on your outstretched finger even through you were no longer looking at it. Or vice versa, to be focused at infinity, unable to look at the writing on your newspaper. This is what 3D television does.

Man are you going to love getting old then Panth. :P

No glasses 3D requires you to sit in the right place so that the angles match up.

Try tilting your head sideways to about 45 degrees next time you're watching a movie in 3-D in theaters. The glasses are linearly polarized, and the 3-D effect gets destroyed when you tilt them. Not a huge problem when you're in a movie theater, eyes glued to the screen, but most people watch TV while doing something else, like talking to people next to them, eating, or god knows what else, and there's a lot more movement involved there.

[Octopus Rex]

So there's rather fundamental problems with both methods then Moe? Even more reason to stay away I guess.

[Inquisitor Lok]

Ive only experienced watching a 3d tv once (at futureshop) and i must say, until they get rid of the glasses, or change them to being polarized (like in the theatres) instead of them using 'shutters' (i believe it is?) to make things look 3d i will not get one. Just from my short demo, i nearly got a headache and my eyes hurt from seeing the constant flickering the glasses made while trying hard to focus on the screen instead...

[ÜberJumper]

I'm one of those people lucky enough to not be physically bothered by current 3d tech, although I must agree that I definately saw the same problem Panf is getting on about the eye not being able to focus where it wants to focus. Noticed this especially when I saw Avatar in 3d on Imax.

I won't be bothering getting a 3d TV until the expensive glasses go away. If movies can do it without expensive glasses, TVs should be able to as well. That or the no-glasses version.

[Wargrim]

I am in the "I do not want to wear glasses over my glasses." - boat. If they every get past that problem, i expect more benefits from/for 3D gaming than from/for 3d movies. Because so many games are fully 3d and the only 2d bottleneck is the monitor, while movies are limited to stereoscopic information, but do not transport the full 3dimensional makeup of a scene.

[overmind2000]

Not a huge problem when you're in a movie theater, eyes glued to the screen, but most people watch TV while doing something else, like talking to people next to them, eating, or god knows what else, and there's a lot more movement involved there.

A very good point - its fine for focused viewing but when using TV as the background distraction or as part of multitasking I can see it being a great pain when shifting to talking to someone; cooking or playing games/reading the net.

[Dark_Axel]

about the eye not being able to focus where it wants to focus. Noticed this especially when I saw Avatar in 3d on Imax.

As far as I heared this has more to do with the fact that it is originally a live-action movie with camera's that have real lenses and thus a fixed focus. CGI renders stuff in full focus, allowing you to focus on the area you want when you watch it in 3D.

Also, no glasses for me either.
So I'll wait untill something more mature comes allong, instead of this gimmick.

[Nurizeko]

Meh 3D TV is a gimmick, so I'll pass. If I want 3D entertainment honestly I'll go see a play or a game or something.

3D doesn't even bother my eyes and I can stand it at the cinema if I must but yeah, just seems like a passing fad.

[Moe]

I wouldn't call it a fad, but I think they're misapplying it. There's nothing fundamentally better about 3-D in a scene when there's a dialogue between two people. But dude, imagine the new Star Trek movie in 3-D with laser beams flying everywhere... that would look pretty fucking sweet. Anything volumetric like fog, snow, rain or fire looks great, and underwater scenes ought to look absolutely amazing.

[ÜberJumper]

I do agree with Moe. Saw Jackass 3d on the weekend and didn't even notice the glasses (over my glasses). Probably because I was too busy being grossed out (it was awesome!).

Any of the conversation bits were lame, but any of the slow mo stuff was awesome in 3d. Especially the opening credits.

Avatar... the opening scene when they're coming out of Cryo? *That* scene for me made the movie worth it right there.

But, in Avatar, that's when you really see the problem of wanting to look at something else in the scene and being frustrated by it not being in focus. The good news is in Avatar, the vast majority of the movie, the stuff you wanted to look at, was where you wanted to look.

[Dimension]

there are actually multiple techniques on how to make 3D work out there.

1) Shutters:
Heavy, expensive glasses, where the left and right lens closes and opens at opposite times, coupled with a screen that flickers between two different angles. since the flickering is synchronized with the shutting and opening of the lenses, each eye gets fed its own angle, and 3D is achieved. This is how the Nvidia gfx cards do it.

2) linear polarisation:
one lens is horizontally polarized, one lens vertically. the screen emits both signals simultaneously, but the lenses feed each eye with the appropriate signal. the glasses are inexpensive and very light. This is favored in movie theatres and some TV's apparently.

3) circular polarization. pretty much like the first version, except the polarizations aren't vertical and horizontal but clockwise and counterclockwise. glasses weigh the same, and are probably similarly inexpensive. This gets used in some TV's.

4) color split
There are apparently more sophisticated versions out now, but the only one I am really aware of are the classic red/green lenses. the absorption of the colored lenses delete one of the two signals sent out by the tv, leaving you with only the appropriate signal in the appropriate eye. this is the old method favored by old 3D Films such as Jaws 3.


As for me, I'm staving off this trend for as long as I can. 3D actually didn't enhance the film beyond the first couple of minutes if at all. Either the 3D is made in a bad fashion and disorients me/visually frustrates me, or if the 3D is high quality, I don't notice it anymore after 10-20 minutes have past, rendering it moot.

At home, this practically negates large gatherings in front of the TV unless you're willing to invest in a dozen glasses, or your friends are willing to keep a glasses collection at home and bring the appropriate one. Not gonna work.

Also, I (and presumably many others) just went and bought a hugeass HD TV for fat bank. I'm not planning on buying a brandnew 3D TV for twice to four times the price I've just put down to buy a product that is not widely standardized, and with content whose quality is somewhat sketchy in many instances.

[Elukka]

I dunno. I thought Avatar looked pretty neat but I wasn't sure how much the 3D added to it. It didn't give me a headache or anything, but it wasn't as comfortable to look at as a 2D image. (which I now realize is probably just what Panf was talking about) There were only a couple short scenes where it looked fairly convincing. Overall it did seem like a gimmick and I was left thinking how it would probably have looked better in 2D. It was more "Hey look, I can see a little bit of depth there!" rather than "Holy shit this looks awesome!".

I guess it might have a place in cinemas for certain films if they can manage to make the effect better.

[PetarB]

Until a way is invented for each viewer of the movie to conciously and electively switch his focal distance by thought alone, all 3D technologies are doomed to be uncomfortable, unrealistic and unwatchable.

Absolutely. All my '3D' experiences - and I've had many - have been underwhelming. HUBBLE 3D at IMAX was probably the exception, but even that was a bit trying. The focal point is a real issue, I keep looking at the background, etc, but they never come into focus and it annoys the hell out of me.

[CommodoreKitty]

I have to agree with panther in that, to me, it just looks terrible. Perhaps I am not used to it, but whenever I have been exposed to either a 3d movie or a 3d TV at some retail store I have never liked it. It seems like a gimmick to me more than anything, a way to get people to buy products they otherwise would not buy. Technical issues aside, I prefer a crisp 2d image to a distorted 3d one, and I don't think that is going to change any time soon.

I would not mind having a 3d TV of course, but I wouldn't spend to extra money on it.

[PULSTAR]

As someone who (has to) wear glasses, I've always found 3D uncomfortable. Something about the way my face/head structure is arranged makes my glasses sit fairly far down my nose, so anything else over them just doesn't work (it's the same with safety goggles). Also 3D always tends to give me headaches/nausea, possibly due to an improper eyewear fit

So, not paying a premium for it until I either have to, or can adequately test one someone owns to demonstrate that it's not going to cause issues for me.

[Dark_Axel]

Also, why hasn't anybody mentioned YouTube 3D yet?
Multiple techniques available, but I seem to fail at all methods which don't need any glasses.

Wrath of the Lich King 3D trailer anyone??
Imax 3D Wild Ocean, perhaps??

[Fixer]

At the moment 3DTVs in the UK at least are several hundred pounds more expensive than their standard counterparts. I was lucky enough to grab a deal which meant I was only paying £125 over the £650 cost of a standard 46" Samsung to get a screen with 3D added. Pretty decent deal I have to say!

Standard price? I probably wouldn't have gone for it at the moment. I figure like with all TV technologies, prices will come down rapidly in the future and you might see your regular HDTVs with a 3D option built in whether you use it or not. At the moment though (as I mentioned above) there's no real benefit to early adoption and most of the content is restricted/unavailable or locked in with fricken glasses you don't need. So even if you do want 3D you're likely best off waiting for January sales when prices are both lower and there will be plenty to watch/do with your shiny new screen.

Also, the nVidia drivers should be out by then so I can try Homeworld 2 in 3D

[Nurizeko]

Moe: YOu make a good point and it does look cool buuut...the 3D still looks pretty 'forced' and 'artificial'. I've over the years on this Earth managed to train myself to appriciate 2D television and percieve it somewhat three-dimesionally anyway.

Like I said when I'm sitting down at home to the TV I'm happy enough with the standard issue 2D experience because being 'flat' doesn't really effect my immersion.


Plus, and this may be a petty concern but as someoe with short-sight, I usually wear glasses. I feel that wearing one pair of eye glasses is enough to appriciate the visual asthetic of art and entertainment without requiring a second pair.

I'll wait util they come out with holodecks.

[Octopus Rex]

@Dark_Axel - even if computers can render the whole image in sharp focus, I'm not sure that would solve the problem (though I'm not 100% sure it wouldn't either) - the thing is that the image you're looking at isn't actually X distance away, though your eye tries to focus on it as if it were. Being sharp may solve it looking blurry, but it would still be weird for eyes because they'd try to focus on different distances only to realise everything is actually the same distance away, just different sizes. Also it may seem odd that things in the background which should be fuzzy and distant are not and runs the risk of looking tiny men, rather than distant men. Lastly, (and this is something I've noticed looking at huge, mega crisp HDTVs) if everything is sharp it can feel like information overload - you do need focus and blur to draw your attention, it's just that in 2D it's not so weird.

[bman3k]

I think 3D definitely has potential, but at this point it is not worth the 50% markup on movie tickets for me.

[Nanaki]

3D? Whats that? I have never gone to any of the 3D showings, and most of the 3D movies (Avatar, How to Train your Dragon) I ended up watching in 2D instead.

[KON Air]

Also, wearing glasses OVER my real glasses to watch TV or a film, bleagh, I'll pass thanks.

That's the magic trick how I enjoy 3d movies; I remove my glasses, so the world is slightly blurry and out of focus anyhow.

[Moe]

How to Train your Dragon)

Looked fantastic in 3D by the way. Underwater scene (awesome), fire / smoke / fog / rain / clouds in 3-D (really awesome), and some pretty cool flight scenes. Also, the movie is funny, entertaining and ridiculously cute. And it has a character with the manliest name in the world. STOIC MCVAST. Fuck yes.

[Nanaki]

Looked fantastic in 3D by the way. Underwater scene (awesome), fire / smoke / fog / rain / clouds in 3-D (really awesome), and some pretty cool flight scenes. Also, the movie is funny, entertaining and ridiculously cute. And it has a character with the manliest name in the world. STOIC MCVAST. Fuck yes.

Stoic the Vast, actually. How to Train your Dragon was one of those movies I initially passed up, then when I finally got around to seeing it, strongly regretted ever passing it up. It is one of those movies I can watch multiple times and be entertained each time, and there are not very many movies on that list.

[Fixer]

Movie: Awesome.
Actually getting the movie? Not so awesome. As a Sumsung exclusive it's as rare as gold dust, even if you do own a Samsung screen!
Check out the price someone was willing to pay on e-bay.
http://cgi.ebay.ca/TRAIN-YOUR-DRAGON...item1c1664e083

[Nanaki]

Yeah, considering they can only be found packaged with 300 dollar 'Samsung 3D startup kits', and the promotion ends sometime in November.

Part of the big reason why there is so much vitrol towards 3D, it is being used as an excuse to make the stuff far more expensive than it normally should be. I have a friend who is so torn because of this (he loves 3D, but absolutly hates the price gouging) that he actually wants to make an internet video about it.

As for me? I am perfectly happy with 2D. Price gouging only works if people buy the stuff.

[Croaxleigh]

I don't mind 3d in theaters (It's a $2 markup here, which isn't too bad)... it can make the cinematic experience a bit more interesting, and it's an effect that screws with piracy attempts (though the pirates only have to hit up the 2D showings, but still.) I have absolutely no interest in a 3d TV, though. Hell, the girlfriend and I only recently got our first HDTV and don't even have anything that utilizes HD to hook up to it (we bought it because we needed a new TV and it was on sale.)

[Moe]

Croax: small cheap PC + HDMI output + internet + netflix = win.

[Celution]

Or it's Moe's recipe for disaster, simply because he also did this and it failed?

[Croaxleigh]

Moe: The girlfriend would kill me if I hooked a computer up to the TV. That, and we already have Netflix on the Wii... it's not HD, but it's good enough for instant viewing.

[Moe]

Or it's Moe's recipe for disaster, simply because he also did this and it failed?

Nope, I did this and it rocks actually. Croax I'm not sure why your girlfriend would kill you if you hooked a computer up to the TV - does she feel strongly about the sanctity of the HDMI port or something? Regardless, tell her to get with the times. It's not really suited for gaming (pixels are actually pretty large on big-screen TVs, even if they're 1080p), but it will give you video-on-demand without ads or having to pay more than a netflix subscription, which you apparently already have.

[Croaxleigh]

Nah, she justs thinks i spend too much time messing with computers as is. And the Wii doesn't have ads or any added cost for Netflix (don't even have to insert a disc) so it meets our Netflix needs.