Slashdot Mirror
3D TV For The Masses?
scubacuda writes: "Technology Review has an article on new software that could make 3D television a reality. Previously encumbered by an expensive process that takes up to nine cameras per scene, a company called DDD now takes existing 2D film and creates a "depth map" for each frame. A TV that can handle this sort of software rendering currently costs $25K, but DDD estimates that in a few years, a 3D TV could only cost only 20% more than its 2D counterpart."
It's all great fun, unless you, like me, happen to be one of the estimated 20 - 40 percent of people who suffer from "simulator sickness". "Simulator sickness" is the virtual world's cousin to motion sickness, and it takes the form of strained eyesight, nausea, vertigo, headaches and vomiting. Of those who suffer simulator sickness, more than half feel only a twinge when watching T2 3D at Universal Studios, or playing Quake 3. For the remainder - still a sizeable percentage - the symptoms are so bad they simply cannot watch these movies, or play these games.
It seems corporate america, and the bearded linux hippie game developers don't really care about the 17-20 percent of us who suffer badly. Somehow, this lack of concern feels familiar. I guess that's because I'm also a member of that other minority, left-handers, who are constantly ignored by most joystick and mouse manufacturers.
The real worry is that the 3D mania will spread not just throughout TV programming and movies, but to other software, and we'll start seeing 3D databases (in fact, they already exist), disk defragmenters and even operating systems. I hope it doesn't go so far.
I know many Slashdot readers love the 3D trend. As a (semi-dormant) programmer, I can't help but admire the realism of modern 3D graphics in movies, on TV, and in game engines. But I hope that developers wake up to the fact that they're making a sizeable slice of their potential customers sick to their stomachs.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Call me a pessimist, but I don't think 3D TV will ever become popular. Something like a holodeck might, where you're inside the simulation, but a 3-dimensional set that you look at from outside probably won't.
I say this because 2D and 3D images are really very similar unless you move your head around, and most people don't want to move their heads around. When people sit down to watch TV, they generally want to just sit there and do nothing.
All it takes is nukes and nerves.
I just plain don't believe it. If the information isn't there to begin with, nothing's going to put it there. The "graphic artist" isn't going to be any better than the artists that tint pictures. Splodging an even flesh tint onto a black-and-white face doesn't reproduce the color variations of a real face,and nobody working at commercial pace is going to do more than a slapdash job of "painting" depth into a 2D picture.
Colorized movies look impressive for about five minutes, then you gradually become aware of a sense of dissatisfaction. Your brain knows you're not getting much color information. These "solidized" movies will just as unsatisfying.
In my humble opinion, of course... and not having seen any of the actual product.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!