Slashdot Mirror
Why People Should Stop Being Duped By the 3D Scam
Phoghat writes "The entertainment and electronics industries keep trying to push 3D on consumers, even though a lot of smart people have caught on to the fact that it is a scam and not innovation as the industry would like you to believe. From the article: 'This is a bad experiment that the industry is forcing consumers to subsidize. And since they can’t create a better product, they’ve simply latched on to 3D as a marketing ploy that the entertainment and electronics industries can use to trick people into thinking that they are getting a superior experience. It’s only working because just enough people are falling for the scam to keep it alive.'"
1. The colors in Avatar most certainly were NOT muddled by any stretch of the imagination. I saw it in IMAX the first time I saw it, and my color vision is actually better than most mens, it's actually better than most womens. I have on the other hand been to theaters that poorly maintain their equipment (Deer Brook Mall)
2. The Toy Story movies, depending on your interpretaion were indded originally 3D models rendered for 2D viewing. The movies were "enhanced" in a few places, like Buzz's suit glowing in the dark, then RE-RENDERD for 3D use. This is VERY different than the not shot in 3D but shown that way anyways garbage like the less than stellar all all the way around Alice in Wonderland.
3. When I took my daughter to see the Toy Story movies it was a double feature, I didn't have to pay 3x2 like the author said I should, I paid 3x1.
4. The LED TV's the author is referencing are most likely LED back-lit LCD monitors unless they truly were OLED models (or similar) that you can only see at technology demo's and tech conferences because thay aren't for sale in anything bigger than a mobile phone right now.
All of that being said, I agree 3D is a bit gimmicky at times. I think it is an evolution of things that will probably stick around and continue to evolve (LG is now making 3D TV's with polarization instead of shutter glasses), but it's a technology in its infancy. I don't think the companies are pushing it too hard anymore, they were. I think it's going to be like color and LCD's were. At one time a lot of people thought of those as gimmicks, especially before the color standard was finalized (hint there were competing standards), not to mention remote controls, especially the wired ones (like we had for the BetaMax) or the actual audible clickers. Try to buy a brand new black and white TV without a remote control today. Certain gimmicks have a way to becoming permanent. This is one of them even if the current incarnation dies off.
(on a distantly related note I like to shatter the little worlds the WOW 3D VIDEO GAMES people live in by pointing out that nVidia has support the same basic shutter glasses tech on ALL 3D video games since abuot the mid 90's, with CRTs, the only difference was they had a wire)
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I think that by now people know whether they like 3D or not.
Personally, I do, and telling me that I'm being scammed for something that I actively enjoy isn't going to suddenly persuade me that I don't.
"Oh my, I hadn't realised, but the time when I was completely blown away by How To Train Your Dragon that I was being scammed. In retrospect I shouldn't have enjoyed it at all!"
If you don't enjoy movies in 3D then the simple answer is to not watch them. Telling other people that they're wrong to enjoy something isn't going to gain you anything.
My Journal
Not enough boobage - that's the scam!
3d takes cinema by storm every time there is a sales lul. Wouldn't it be great if it stayed around as an optional form of TV on everyone's machine? I think the new high refresh Japanese televsions do this fine.
The purpose of existence is to make money.
I know you probably know this, but James Cameron is investing a lot of money to have Titanic converted to 3D. I wish he'd spend the money fixing the huge list of mistakes instead.
Call me a sucker, but Avatar looked pretty damn good to me.
The movie industry are selling entertainment, people pay for what they find entertaining, if they pay more money to watch the 3d version then the 2d version, then that means that they think that the 3d version is more entertaining.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that everyone else is getting scammed. (However it's worth noting that some movies are scamming in that they're doing really shitty 3D just to get the higher ticket price, but just like anything else shoveled out the door for a quick buck word catches on quick and their sales become abyssmal)
Bring back black and white silent movies where actors had to entertain us with their nonverbal expressions, while the old guy entertained us with live piano music.
3D gets a push every couple of decades and can be likely traced back to popular stereoviews of the later half of the 19th century. It's a fad that hangs around for a year or two, then it's gone. The reason it goes away is because it's simply inconvenient compared to 2D movies and television. Glasses, special viewing angles, etc. are not something people are willing to commit to on a large scale just to watch a film or sitcom.
It's entirely subjective. If people believe that they are getting a "superior experience" then they are. If you like it watch it. If you don't like it don't watch it. If many people like it there will be more of it. If not, then not.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
someone marketed HD sunglasses around 2003:
http://consumerist.com/2009/09/hd-sunglasses-use-the-power-of-stupidity-to-increase-real-world-resolution.html
because, you know, we only saw the world in NTSC before HD, our European friends saw the world in PAL
so i'm just waiting for 3D sunglasses. because, you know, until "Avatar", the real world was 2D
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Typical geek blither-blather. "I don't like it therefore everyone who does is an idiot who's being duped." Here on /. I've seen this argument used against: Apple, craft beer, very spicy chiles, tablets in general, 3d film and TV, hybrid cars, wind power, solar power, drug laws, Democrats, Republicans and organized sports.
Just accept that people like different things and move on. I realize this is a strain to the borderline Asbergers types who are rife around here, but come on. Sometimes there isn't a "right answer" for everyone.
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
... the one-eyed man claims scam!
It is by the very definition of the word scam not a scam! The industry offers u stereoscopic video and that is exactly what u get! And by the way, I for one really thinks that watching a movie in 3d can be a superior expirence. If u don't, go watch the 2d version!
I have a condition in which 3D puts me at risk for seizures. Even without my condition, 3D isn't exactly good for your eyes, especially long exposure. There were plenty of people who came out of Avatar nauseous or dizzy. If 3D doesn't bother you, then fine. But why won't I get to see Thor that won't be coming out in 2D in theaters?! Boo 3D!
OP's point: if you don't like 3D don't watch it. Oh, OK. Thanks for that. Add a bunch of histrionics and you have his article.
3D is just a scam, I didn't really watch Avatar in 3D and enjoy it far more than when I watched it in 2D, nope, that was all just part of my imagination.
Really, this is one of the more fucking retarded Slashdot stories I've seen in a while, the article can be summed up entirely as:
"3D is a scam, because I, Mr Random Nobody, says so. End of."
Sure 3D isn't brilliant everywhere, some attempts at it are pretty naff, sure sometimes it's misused, but so is audio particularly the likes of surround sound, so are special effects, so is colour. It's a tool, and like any tool, when used right, it can be pretty effective. But a scam? That's like saying a hammer is a scam because you can't screw screws into the wall with it when you try. It'd help if there was anything in the article other than his mere reiteration of his personal opinion that it's a scam and absolutely nothing more than that backing up his point.
The guy is a douche of the highest order, but the Slashdot editors moreso for letting such utter shite through. If someone is going to suggest something is a scam, they at least need to explain why. People spouting unfounded shite without an ounce of evidence to back up their point is what I expect from the comments, not the story... I know, I must be new here.
It’s only working because just enough people are falling for the scam to keep it alive
People are stupid.
Total hype. Nothing will ever replace raw meat right off the bone! You mark my words. Cave paintings and mammoth blood should be good enough for anyone!
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!
"...just enough people are falling for the scam to keep it alive.'"
Free market capitalism FTW!
Go to a play. All the actors are right there on stage in living 3-D!
I have been into 3D photography since my Grandfather gave me his Realist Stereo camera sometime in the 1970's. I have added many other stereo/3D cameras to the mix since then. I also have a 3D slide projector that uses polarized light to separate the images, as well as an 1890s stereo card viewer.
3D has been really big since the 1890's.
3D was big in the 50's - both movies and photography
You could get 3D comics in the 60's
Disney has had 3D movies at least since the late 70's
Viewmaster has been around since -forever-
NASA has been taking 3D images also since -forever-
And lets not forget the hologram.
Bottom line however is that 3D is a novelty and will forever remain a novelty, because viewing a stereo image is a perceptual trick that gives our brains all the clues that we are viewing an image in 3D EXCEPT that you cannot shift your point of view as you can with a real image.
This combined with the inappropriate manipulation of the apparent interocular distance by the photographer and parallax problems and other off-axis viewing problems make viewing 3D images problematic for a lot of people. And they always will. You can't fix these problems although they can be somewhat mitigated if you know what you are doing.
I enjoy 3D movies because I have been into for a long time, know where to sit in the theater, (dead center vertically and horizontally) and know how to hold my head. (level, on axis and still)
So is it a marketing scam? Sure, yes it is. Arguably 2D is much better for most content and situations. Is it fun or informative. Yes, it can be.
Will I buy a 3D TV? No.
Kurt
The effects are self-evident, there isn't some unfulfilled promise of what it is or some sort of placebo effect making people think things look different, it just is different. It's a feature that one can evaluate and decide for themselves what they think. I personally am waiting because I recognize the flaws in the current system and will see if they get better.
Now he does hit upon some points of interest:
-Adding 3D after the fact. For rendered movies, it's not too hard to do right (add 'camera' with offset, re-render), but live-action stuff is indeed awkward and I hear the biggest source of complaints about headaches.
-Less defined picture. With polarized lenses, this is true. You are effectively halving the resolution of the screen. On the other hand, shutter glasses will preserve the resolution at the expense of refresh rate, but that's compensated by 240 Hz displays. However I do find shutter glasses a tad awkward with the battery and cost. Instead of 1920x1080 displays with 240 Hz and shutter glasses, I'd prefer 1920x2160 with 120 Hz and polarized lenses (or double the column count).
However, his gripe about TVs supporting 3D is off the mark. A TV isn't magically 3D only if it has the *capability* of doing 3D. You can still do it fine and sometimes the requirements for 3D drive enhancements that up the quality standard for 2D viewing. An exception to this could be auto-stereoscopic displays, which would cause me concern depending on how much resolution they provide.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Steven Soderbergh's new musical version of Cleopatra proves an incredible box-office same-old same-old. Starring Catherine Zeta-Jones as the fishnet-clad vaudeville jazz empress and Hugh Jackman as the mutant self-healing Roman general — in 3-D! —the film carries the Ocean's Eleven franchise somewhere beyond its ultimate extent.
"I've always wanted to do a musical," Soderbergh said. "All the ones that were coming along just weren't for me. This one, however, involved dumptrucks full of money backed up to my house."
And All That Cleopatra — In 3-D! opens with Pompey (Richard Gere) coming to Egypt to recruit Cleopatra to the cause ("Mister Cellophane"). Antony leaves Cleopatra to go back to Rome and not shag Octavia (Anna Paquin) ("Funny Honey"). Cleopatra, furious at the news, kills Richard Gere — in 3-D! — because, frankly, he deserves it ("All I Care About"). Meanwhile, Antony, having first conspired with Octavius (Magneto), falls out with him and uses Cerebro to take control of the western third of the Roman Empire with Cleopatra — in 3-D! ("Cell Block Tango")
In a 3-D musical tour-de-force, Caesar (Patrick Stewart) dies at the Senate at the hands of Brutus (Popeye) (“We Both Reached For The Gun"), Cleopatra fakes her death to get Antony to like her (";Razzle Dazzle"), Antony fakes faking his death to get over Cleopatra and dies in her arms ("I Can't Do It Alone" — with zither solo on Jackman's adamantium claws) and Cleopatra dies of an aspidistra ("I Move On"). All die. Oh! the embarrassment.
This ending having been rejected by test audiences, a finale is tacked on with one thousand Agent Smiths engaging in CGI sword-fu — in 3-D! — while Brad Pitt gets out of the casino with his haul intact. Since this makes no sense even to the drooling lackwits they manage to find for test audiences, Cleopatra starts a new 3-D vaudeville jazz act with Octavia which is vastly successful ("And All That Jazz"). A happy ending!
Soderbergh pooh-poohed suggestions that the film would be some sort of low-rent exploitation quickie that would insult the intelligence of any creature smarter than a flatworm. "I can assure you this will be the most artistically satisfying creation in my entire career as a director," he said, lighting a cigar off a hundred-dollar bill before laying back on a great big bed made of money.
"DUMPTRUCKS!" Soderbergh emphasised. "FULL OF MONEY! BACKED UP TO MY HOUSE!"
http://rocknerd.co.uk
It’s only working because just enough people are falling for the scam to keep it alive.
Oh, nothing to see here, move along.
We'll easily "kill" it the same way we eliminated SPAM decades ago.
If this author wants good 3D, it's called the Broadway theater show.
I think it's hilarious how much hate I see for 3D stuff here on Slashdot...
I wasn't around for the silent vs. talky motion picture transition... Or the mono vs. stereo music recording transition... But I have to assume there were similar arguments being made.
It's a new technology. There are some bugs to be worked out. There aren't a whole lot of standards and interoperability yet. It is being used in some places purely as a gimmick. But that doesn't mean it's all a scam.
When I go to the movies with folks they don't generally talk about whether a movie was 3D or not - they talk about whether it was good or not. There are good movies in 3D, and there are bad movies in 3D.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
The real question is, are they pushing something consumers like and want, or are they just pushing another wet noodle, like Blue Ray? Let people make their own choice, which will help decide if 3d movies are around to stay this time, or if they die out as they did in the 1950s, when the technology just wasn't quite there.
I liked 3D in the 1950s, and I like it even better now, with some of the bugs worked out. I hope it stays, but if it does or doesn't, the world won't end. At least, not from the presence or absence of 3D.
Same thing with black and white. Color was not needed in these flicks. All good movies present a selected slice of the world, and this slice was simply without color. Color in many moves provides a crutch for filmmakers who are incompetent. Put in some vibrant color and no one notices that the movie sucks.
To me there are two things that people have to realize. The first is that in good art, the medium and the product are fused. In other words, the way the art is going to be presented in an integral part of the process. Sometimes the product can be adjusted, but very often that adjustment will degrade the product. At the very least the new product will be a disappointment to those who have seen it before and are expecting a similar experience.
The second is that consumers get accustomed to a certain presentation style. Someone who has only seen Toy Story in 3D may be disappointed with the original version even though it may be inferior. A person who is used the minimimal instrumentation of Rap may not tolerate the over production of classical. A person who like the production value of Hip Hop may not like the old school Rap. People who are used to the immersive experience of video games may not tolerate the relative flatness and lack of interactivity of movies.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
why so stingy? keep the riffraff down? we're certainly doing a great job taking care of this one? good thing there's more than we know about almost everything. like how many monkeys it takes to screw in a light bulb. what's a 'good' # for the planet's total population, in any given century? are all of the other billions of dimensions all so tiny, stingy & so almost ruined, like ours? no wonder we may need more than before. couldn't god's chosen ones pick their favorite dimension, then all of us unchosens, queers, non-god religions etc.., could each get to choose (finally) from the remaining possibly less perfect dimensions, which would be much better than being exterminated by our own, our rulers' & earth bound deities excesses & regresses, in this dimension?
1.Finding a 2D session can be hard. I live in a major Australian state capital city with at least 14 different multiplexes (each having at least 4 screens) and there was ONE session of Thor in 2D anywhere in the city that was at a time suitable to me (and this was on opening day, the rest of the week wasnt any better). It was in the crappiest theater in the place too. No problems finding a 3D session at all times of the day.
2.Far too many "3D" films (including Thor) are really 2D films converted into "3D" in post processing with digital effects so the studio can make more money. The ONLY 3D films that work are live-action films shot in 3D (e.g. Avatar) or CGI films rendered with proper left and right eye frames. Yet the industry continues to spend this big bucks on these crappy "3D" conversions just so they can make more money on ticket sales.
and 3.I have eye problems that prevent me from viewing 3D films properly. I am sure I am not the only one who has problems with 3D (eye problems, headaches, issues with the 3D glasses not working alongside their regular glasses etc).yet the industry continues to (per point #1) make it hard for those who can't view 3D films to enjoy the films they like and want to see. Eventually, it will be to the point where there is no 2D version at all or where a suitable 2D session is not available anywhere convenient. This will lead to me not seeing the film in the theater at all but instead either pirating it or waiting for the DVD.
As for 3DTVs, the biggest problem is that the industry cant agree on a spec for the active-shutter 3D glasses. 3DTVs that work like movie theaters (including home theater projectors) do exist but they cost a fortune and no-one is really seriously exploring that avenue or trying to bring them mainstream/bring the cost down.
There is also a complete lack of 3D content for these 3DTVs unless you count a handful of 3D blu-ray disks, a few 3D PS3 games and some sporting matches.
3D Blu-Ray is also destined to fail thanks to the stupid decisions by studios to make certain films exclusive to certain TV manufacturers (Avatar being the most notable example). If the studios released every single piece of 3D content they have as a full release for everyone to buy then there would be more reasons to buy 3D kit (leading to more sales of 3D content)
Anybody with a modicum of photography history knowledge should know this already, but you're the first to write it so clearly. 3D is a fun novelty, and has a couple of useful applications (in map drawing). Pushing it in the general consumer market, on the other hand, is a scam.
Now that they can convert existing 2D movies into "3D", I'm eagerly waiting for someone to convert my favorite movie into "3D": "My Dinner with Andre".
gotta love these topics. full of posts that basically boil down to:
"I'm too cool for 3d, i won't come out and say it, but i'm a snob and look down my nose at the masses seeing jackass 2 in 3d, REAL connoisseurs see it in 2d"
"5/10/15% of people can't see it, so it's a scam, the rest of you are out of luck, stop the cameras now"
"I'm cheap, yet I ignore the 2d version playing in the same theater so I can complain about 3d (that I won't see) costing me more."
"Get off my lawn"
We get it already. Hey if it's not for you, then don't see it. No one is twisting your arm and making you see a 3d movie or buy 3d hardware for home use. Yeah it can be gimmicky, but it can be amazing too.
LOL at that rant.
The technology is nothing new, of course (I still have a Pentium3 PC from 1999, set up with a GeForce2 GTS (purchased in 2000), 120Hz 17" CRT and tethered, active 3D glasses). Exactly the same technology as used today was available over a decade ago, it's just that it was quite expensive and back then it didn't take off. I still remember playing Quake 2 and Black and White using that 3D setup and yes - it was very impressive.
11 years on and I have a 3DS. I've taken pictures of wolves at a wildlife centre with it and the 3D effects really work. They also work on that same old PC, which I fired up for testing. I've taken the 3DS into work and yes, most people can see the 3D effect (and seem quite impressed by it too).
It's not a scam at all, it really works and - over a decade since it appeared for PCs - it seems to have caught the attention of the mainstream rather than nerds like me with a fancy graphics card. I'm sure the author of that article will have a great time sulking while the rest of the world enjoys the 3D bonanza we're currently experiencing.
but in a video game, generally, YOU decide where to focus
That's the problem with this 3D system. You generally cannot focus because your brain is telling you that an object is close to you but the actual image is at a fixed difference so, if you do focus up close everything gets blurry. The result is that you are constantly having to override the instinct that years of living in a real 3D world have given you. This is why people get headaches watching 3D films and I can only imagine it would be a lot worse for games.
What more needs to be said....
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/Apple-releases-iPod
I do believe the key word in that slashdot article is "Lame"
Havoc Video
Maybe they should just stop calling it "3D" - it is 2D with simulated 3D.
If it were truly 3D, there would be real depth of field that our eyes would have to focus to.
True 3D is years away (if it's coming at all -- holographic viewers?), but when it comes it should take care of everyone's 3D complaints. Well, except for the complaint that filmmakers make 3D a central element of the film rather than the storyline.
It may have some negative effects, but these will be minimized just like with any other evolving technology.
This technology fools the eye into thinking that objects are close while the actual image is still distant. This means you have to override your brain's real 3D focusing instinct. The only way to solve this would be to keep all the objects at the same distance as the image...which would effectively result in something close to a 2D film again.
The other advances you mention we all real advances. There was no disadvantage to the new system other than the cost. This is not the case for 3D. As for people paying more for useless, flashy features I'm happy to let people do that. However I am not happy when you are forced to pay for flashy, useless features and have no option to avoid them...which is what happens when cinemas only show a film in 3D.
Don't like 3D, wait for the blu-ray. Added advantages, thousands of dollars saved on concessions.
--WooooHoooo--
What about all of us cyclops?
Have gnu, will travel.
It seems to be an unpopular point of view, but I really enjoy 3D movies. I've never gotten this headache people talk about. I just really like the immersive experience. It's true that 3D is not always used properly by directors, and that it definitely requires a higher frame rate than is normally used, but these are technicalities that will improve over time. In general I find 3D really makes a movie more immersive, it can be quite captivating. Avatar was an incredible experience.
The new and improved double platinum turbo titanium HD 3D?
Isn't that better?
{contents may settle during shipping}
Rick B.
bug people don't play baseball
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I have seen a few so called 3D tittles now and to be honest my brain keeps telling me it isnt 3D and all I am seeing are two images with one closer than the other. Bit like getting part of a picture and another part and placing them at two set distances. For me thats not 3D, in real life objects are at random distances not two set points. I have talked to a few people now and they admit that they have a similar issue with this fake 3D thing the movie industry are kicking out,
Two-eye, two-image stereoscopic photography was invented by George Wheatstone (the same man who invented the Wheatstone bridge) in 1838. For almost two centuries it has constantly occupied a niche market, never going away and never going mainstream.
The Victorian parlor stereoscope became the ViewMaster of my childhood days. I still see them in toy stores. From time to time in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s I saw casual amateurs with Stereo Realists taking vacation pictures, but it was rare. A few years ago the Ritz stores had single-use cameras with four lenses, and a photofinishing service for them that delivered lenticular prints. Motion pictures using polarized stereo glasses have been with us for half a century, continually being rediscovered.
Most impressive to me so far has been IMAX 3D, which is _considerably_ better than whatever process the local Showcase used for Avatar, because a) it is much brighter, and b) the picture is large enough that you really are unaware of the ugly pseudoscopic problems at the edge of the field. There's no way that home 3D is going to be as good as IMAX 3D.
And none of it is ever going to be any more popular than quadrophonic sound. Because there are, plain and simple, insoluble problems with two-image stereoscopic 3D.
The biggest is that the added realism of 3D is only seen if a) you are seated on a location that's reasonably square-on to the center of the screen, which is never true for more than one person in a living room, and never true for more than a tiny percentage of the people in an auditorium; b) the 2D perspective is consistent with the 3D perspective, which is only true if the cinematographer restricts herself to a single focal length and throws away a century of screen grammar. If these two conditions are not met, you get a stimulating, novel, Cabinet-of-Dr.-Caligari experience that has limited appeal--reminiscent of the early days of color TV when it was thrilling to watch people turning from magenta-skinned to green-skinned as they crossed from left to right, because it was SO not black-and-white.
If 3D were automatically realistic, from every seat in the living room, and did not require directors to completely reinvent their storytelling technique, then, like stereophonic sound, it would be (mostly) just value added, and would gradually displace 2D as costs drop, the way stereo sound has gradually replaced monophonic.
But it is not. There are tradeoffs, and not just in cost. And the content for which 3D adds more than it costs is just not that big a percentage of the showtime universe. There is more to cinema than Kiss Me, Kate, House of Wax, This Is Cinerama!, The Polar Express, Titanic: Ghosts of the Abyss, Sharks 3D! and Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience.
Avatar was a good movie. But does anyone believe it would not have been a good movie in 2D?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I'm not interested. 3D films are as crappy looking today as they were in the 50s.
I wonder if people complained about talkies.
Of course they did. Charlie Chaplin and the director D.W. Griffith most famously, perhaps.
Doug Fairbanks and Harold Lloyd built on the illusion of effortless physical action, which sound destroys.
But look at Buster Keaton.
His props are steamboats and locomotives. He was quite capable of staging a hurricane to set up a single classic sight gag:
The collapse of a wall which he survives only because he is perfectly positioned to be protected by an empty window frame.
It is easy to see him working in sound and color and 3D.
Maybe you don't like the the 3D effect, but I sure do from time to time. I have no problems with the current 3D shutterglasses, and I enjoy watching movies.. I also don't feel like I have been duped by a 3D scam, as I don't see a scam.. According to you every new thing is a scam, why buy a HD tv, ohno that's a HD scam, why buy a color tv, ohno that's a colorscam... If you don't like it, don't buy it, but don't go bitching... When I see the screen of the 3ds which is 'glassesfree' I don't think it has the same quality as the current shutterglasses technique, and therefore I won't buy a 3DS, that's my CHOICE... There are some people who get headaches watching those movies (with some it's actually physical, with others it's mental), and there are people who just enjoy it..
I think that by now people know whether they like 3D or not.
I think everybody would like 3D if they thought about it. For those that do not enjoy the visuals they should like the fact that 3D TVs have cut the price of 2D TVs in half.
I just finished playing Portal 2 in 3D. The immersion with 3D glasses is insane. I would have loved the game without the, but adding that extra dimension (haha punny!) to the game really made it better.
I intend to try playing it without the 3D soon as well, just to see the difference, but I remember playing the first Portal without it and it was definitely better with.
Yes, for many people, the effect is pointless or makes them nauseous. But then, the fact that many people don't like something is no reason to get rid of it. You don't see me screaming about how stupid skydiving is simply because I don't enjoy it.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I am surprised at all the "Avatar in 3D" comments, but none (on the first comment page anyway) about Jackass 3D.
It was obvious I would never want to see a movie in 3D, but Jackass 3D seemed like something that would justify it (and I was paid to take someone to see it so had nothing to lose). So I went, I saw and I strongly disliked the 3D "effect". It was tiresome to look at, took me completely out of the movie, parts of one's field of view are fuzzy/distorted/etc., colors messed up, glasses don't work well on top of my glasses (and no I don't have or ever want contacts -- I like having something that protects my eyes while also giving me sight).
So, my testing is over and I'll never watch a 3D video on any subject again. Off to read the next thread...
I come here for the love
I regard these converted movies as the modern age equivalent of colorization, bastardizing the movie for the sake of a buck and utterly redundant.
As far as home cinema systems are concerned, I've yet to see one I would regard as worth buying for its 3D. I've noticed ghosting in LCD and plasma demos and the glasses cost a fortune. I expect however that 3D will appear in most midrange sets before long because it's an incremental feature that most modern SoCs support so why not toss it in.
A big problem with "3D movies" is Disney "Real3D(tm)", which is Disney Fake3D. The image was delaminated in postprocessing, and reassembled with shifts to simulate depth. That stuff sucks, and it sucks worse if the 3D producer overdoes it. (Ref "Pirahna 3D").
"Avatar" is good 3D. It was really shot and animated in 3D, and Cameron put a lot of effort into getting it right and not overdoing it. At no time in Avatar is something positioned in front of the screen plane. Few other directors are that good.
Even so, film 3D is inherently fake, because of the scaling issue. In the real world, there's no noticeable stereoscopy beyond a few meters of range. Our eyes are too close together. 3D distant shots with wide separation are a cinematic convention, not visual reality.
TV 3D is far worse, It can't be watched casually. If you're off-axis, or lying on your side, the effect is totally wrong. Having to wear glasses or sit in the correct position is too restrictive. I'm curious to see how 3D sports bars work out.
My guess is that after a while, 3D will be scaled back, and it will only be used for content worth showing in Imax.
It's a tool, and like any tool, when used right, it can be pretty effective.
With ya there. Just came home from watching Thor 3D. I enjoyed it. Not because it was 3D, but because the movie was enjoyable. I don't expect it to win any Oscars, but it was fun. And the 3D was used to enhance some of the visuals. Just as with Avatar, it wasn't about the 3D, it was about the story and other visuals (some of which were enhanced by 3D).
If someone is going to suggest something is a scam, they at least need to explain why.
Agreed. Here's my rectu... opinion:
The problem I have with 3D is that it's so very much more expensive. If you look at all that goes into making a film, and it's alot, then 3D isn't much of an addition, but boy we pay for it. That's my only gripe with 3D; the massive price tag for what is essentially a detail.
If 3D didn't cost much extra, then perhaps there wouldn't be such a massive backlash. I think that much anger against 3D is misdirected anger about the pricetag.
All cinema is a scam. It's really a series of still images of things that never happened.
You could literally make this argument about ANY new technology that you've decided to hate. Telling people who don't hate it that they should hate it is just pure bigotry. Get a life, and meditate or something sheesh.
People don't need to hear voices when they listen to movies. Talkies are a scam!
Same thing with color. Nobody needs color movies! It's a crazy experiment moviegoers are being forced to subsidize, and color adds nothing to the movie experience.
There are a couple of issues with this theory about focus being an issue. The largest one is that for human eyes, there's really not that much difference between focusing on something 10 meters away and 30 meters away, the hyperfocal distance for the human eye isn't very far. Most stereo movies, also, are being designed so that the convergence point stays pretty close to the screen; because reconverging the eyes all the time causes strain even if there isn't a focus/convergence conflict.
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
If you look back at movies and TV, you see this same complaint against any new advance, that the improvements are useless. Silent film to "talkies" was a clear advance, and I am sure that there were SOME complaints from those who didn't care for it. When color came out, some saw it as useless and then there were more complaints. Color TV was the same way, an added expense that did not add to the quality of the movie or show in the eyes of some. When stereo first came out, again, some complained and they didn't hear how it improved things, or surround sound. All of these things added to the overall experience of going to the movies or watching TV/movies at home, even if not everyone notices or cares about the improvements that have been added.
I remember the first time I watched Star Trek: The Next Generation in stereo, there was a background ship hum that on older "mono" TVs just did not have that added to the experience of watching it. It may not have been amazing by modern standards, but it was cool that it was an obvious improvement. For surround, watch most action movies with a decent surround sound system, and you can hear bullets flying AROUND you, some behind, some moving from behind and then to the front. This is the sort of thing that, as I said, enhances the experience, yet would not be "required" for the movie or show to be entertaining.
So, 3D. For the most part, most 3D is very poorly implemented, with a few objects that pop out of the screen at the viewer, and does NOT enhance the viewing experience as a whole. The 3D is really just an extra "layer" that is added, and in these cases, those shooting down 3D are correct, it is NOT worth extra money in these cases. Now, Avatar is an example of 3D done fairly well, because there is a true "depth" throughout the movie, at least that was my impression when I saw it in IMAX. It wasn't about objects popping off the screen, it was about the entire movie feeling like there was more depth to EVERYTHING. This is where people want to see 3D go, where 3D isn't just for "cute" effects, but enhances how things look overall. If the home 3D experience is anything like what they did with Avatar on IMAX, then 3D is a very good addition.
All special effects have always had their origins start in a way that it really WAS just a gimmick, and often replaced good acting or story, but as time has gone on, special effects have improved to the point where even some modern commercials would awe someone from the 1970s. In time, there will be no extra expense for filming in 3D, and the costs will drop. As I said, the real key is if 3D focuses on adding that depth of field to all scenes, rather than being focused on a few objects that just pop off the screen but otherwise leaves the movie as a 2D film. Only time will tell if 3D matures into a true way to enhance the movie-going experience.
Way back in the '70s when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, there were a few novelty 3D movie presentations on broadcast TV complete with free 3D glasses at a 7-11 near you. It worked just fine on the old analog NTSC color TV (the movie itself was terrible, of course, but the 3d was working). This was the anaglyph 3D with the cardboard glasses with colored filters.
Given a modern 3D video stream, re-rendering as an anaglyph 3D is a simple matter of computation. There is one and only one reason 3D bluray players don't offer to render 3D content that way for people who don't have a special 3D tv (or who don't have enough expensive goggles for all their guests) and that is that they won't make money by the ton if they allow that. The "premium" value on regular 2D LCD TVs is nearing it's endpoint where prices start to fall so they need a new gimmick to drive prices. For the same reason, you'll not see any of those movies rendered in anaglyph on DVD even though they could generate the content for practically no cost.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When I sit too close or too far or too off-center when watching my 2D films, everything is affected by trapezoidal distortion. People look too skinny or too fat, parallel lines stop being parallel... And 3D problems still apply too. Arguably the upper limit of "parallax problems" is "parallax tells my brain that all the close objects on-screen and all the distant objects on-screen are all the same distance from me."
On the other hand, I don't intend to get a 3D TV any time soon either. But I will be happy that all this stereo optical footage exists for when they finally perfect on-retina projectors. ;-)
Just because you don't like 3D doesn't mean many more of us do to. Just because you are in a position to write a negative comment that is viewed by many doesn't mean it's correct. Sure, I've seen some crappy 3D movies. Tron was one of them. I think Avatar shows it's potential and there are some that benefit from it's
"wow! This is great ! " impression. 3D isn't for everybody and it may be done poorly but when it all comes together, I love it! Sorry old timer, this is the future.
I work with dozens of clients that are all upper class usually they are the early adopters of this kind of stuff but so far I dont know a single person that owns one or has expressed and desire to get one. In talking to my friends none has mentioned even wanting one. Is the area I live in just smarter, more thrifty? I've checked out the sony tv's as well as the samsungs when I was in the market for a new tv for my living room a few months back, it was ok but IMHO not worth an extra $100 much less the $500 difference in an equivalent non-3d tv. The essentially forced upgrade to HD (yes I know there are converters, hd is technically better, etc...but for those who aren't glued to a television most of the time it was just seen as a government mandated money grab) was hard enough to swallow...trying to dupe consumers into the 3d bs was just too much IMHO.
There are a few types of 3D projection: polarized (linear or circular), shutter glasses and Dolby 3D (which works using different wavelengths for the RGB of each eye). I personally find Dolby 3D best and linear polarization the worst. If you didn't like the 3D experience in a particular cinema, maybe try a different cinema with a different technology for the next film.
This is true to a point, Yes 3D tv’s aren’t what they are cracked up to be, but than again they are. Now I am sure you are scratching your head here, let me explain. A 3D TV has faster processors and better picture resolution so you do get a great TV with 3D but, the best thing to do when deciding to buy a 3D vs. Full HD is simple answer this. For a 3D TV, 1. Where you want the TV is it or can you make it 100% dark. (Dark is needed in order for a 3D effect to work properly, note the 3D setups in you local electronics store they are not to good) 2. Are you willing/able to keep up with the special 3D glasses. (Kids will break them, loose them, dogs will chew them, and more they are expensive for a pair or 2 Samsung rechargeable glasses retail around $100 - $150 and go up from there) 3. A 3D TV will require you to pay more for the special 3D movies and TV packages. (Paying more now is that really a smart idea?) For a basic FULL HDTV, 1. Works great with any TV package from basic to advanced 2. Has a great picture quality. (it is still recommended you have a dark area for watching, but is not needed for optimal picture quality) 3. Longer life than a 3D. (3D TV‘s last estimated 1,500 - 2,500 hours, Full HDTV can last estimated 3,000 - 7,000 hours and of course no matter the TV the better the environment such as a dust free house if that even exists will also help, more moist or salty environments such as Seattle or Florida that will also cut the life a bit, there are a few studies that show warmer homes cut the life of appliances by about 10% and cooler homes tend to have more older appliances this is not really hard facts but defiantly something to think about.) Just remember to keep your eyes open, there are new deals out there daily and never be sold BEFORE you do some research, also Consumer Reports did a study a while back and found a company whose sales people work on commission tend to have larger per person sales such as talking you into that new Blu-Ray player or making you think you need a $200 table or wall mount. BUYER BEWARE is all I can say. I own a large electronics retail company http://www.tronicsconnection.com/ so I know all the tricks companies try, we here at Tronics Connection are trying to but slowly weeding them out. Thanks for reading, Hope my advices proves helpful, Please let me know what you think or if you have questions just ask J Matthew Lalley CEO / Founder Tronics Connection
Matthew Lalley Founder/CEO http://www.TronicsConnection.com
It's an older problem than that. Even in 2D movies, there are perspective and parallax cues telling you that parts of the image are closer or further from you, yet the focus of your eye tells you that everything is the same distance. Even worse, objects may appear to be out of focus, yet no matter how you strain your eyes, you can't bring them back into focus as you could with a real image. Perhaps this is why so many people claim that watching 2D movies or TV gives them headaches or eyestrain.
It never really works for me. I guess it is just bad eyesight, but still I will not pay for anything in 3D because I will not be getting anything out of it. I also will not want to spend the extra money they are changing for this "Privilege" :(
For everybody who notices a difference with 3D tech, then good for you, but it is taking away my non 3D options because the people who make this stuff see how the consumers will pay a lot more for it
Doesn't calling it a scam imply that it's not really 3D? I mean, yeah, it's not really projected holographs, but I assure you that the movies do reproduce some level of depth.
If you want to call it a "gimmick", then fine, but it's not a scam. You know pretty much what you're getting; whether the quality of the effect or the content of movies/shows/games are worth the additional cost is up to you to decide.
I finally can say definitively, for myself, that 3D is just a big snore fest. I saw Thor in 3D a couple days ago and the 3D added absolutely nothing at all to the movie. I would have been fine seeing it in 2D. I've been paying extra for the 3D version of movies for awhile now and I kept coming away with a less than enthusiastic appreciation for 3D in movies. With Thor, I've finally decided that I'm not going to pay extra for 3D anymore. There is just nothing there to compell a rational person to pay extra for it. If it's just part of the movie, great, I'll watch it, but I'm not paying for it anymore.
Thor having a meh ending didn't help either, but a movie review is another story in itself.
I have a 3D TV. Could 3D be better? Yes. Am I enjoying my 3D content? Yes. The idea that this is a "scam" is just plain silly. I'm *clearly* being tricked into paying money for something that I appreciate.
Evolution: love it or leave it
> my color vision is actually better than most mens, it's actually better than most womens.
How, exactly, did you measure this?
3D, like anything else, isn't suited for every task but I don't need someone to tell me that 3D is not a new or exciting experience because quite frankly it is for some things. That doesn't mean I want to see citizen kane or star wars in 3D but it definitely has its place in entertainment and, for example, I definitely love my Nintendo 3DS and yes it adds value to some games.
But really, you can easily infer just about everything that's wrong with this sort of thinking and analysis by understanding one word: Viewmaster
it has a negligible effect on image quality, i dont need glasses, it wont strain my eyes, i dont get a noticeable performance hit in game performance, and it focuses more on proper depth than crap popping out at you.
but when i commit, ill *commit*.
I remember going to the video arcade long ago and seeing Virtua Fighter for the first time. My thoughts then were:
- "The control response is terrible and the characters look *awful*! This looks *terrible* compared to 2D games!" (Samurai Showdown was right next to it).
- "What a cheesy gimmick."
After a while, the hardware got better and the issues became how to deal with the camera (they tried their best with Mario 64). Now it seems 2D has been relegated mostly to casual and web-based games (and even those are starting to go 3D).
I find myself thinking the same things about stereoscopic movies and TV now. I have no idea at this point if history will repeat itself or if stereoscopic will continue to be treated like a gimmick. Some video game mechanics work much better in 3D; I can't think of any aspect of movies that is improved by making them stereoscopic.
My girlfriend and I snuck into the Beiber 3D film, only because I refuse to pay for 3D anything. I have to say, the 3D technology was exactly what I expected: Totally, utterly, completely, absolutely unworthy of my money or attention in any way, whatsoever.
I will never, ever, ever, ever buy any 3D product, pay for any 3D movie, do any 3D technology, ever. It's so fucking lame, I can't believe any idiot would even try to push it.
Show me someone who actually likes 3D, and I'll show you someone who has very poor taste.
Good market strategy -- It worked for apple...
While I agree that a hologram projection would be kinda cool (though a street chase won't seem right in my living room), stereoscopic vision is what makes our brains think in 3D, if you will. Stereoscopic images are simply trying to provide exactly what your brain interprets as 3D.
Not quote. Stereoscopic vision is part of what makes our brains think in 3D. We also sense 3D by adjusting focus. This doesn't work with the simple stereoscopic 3D. Parallax tells our brain that the image is 3D. Focus says that it is flat. That conflict creates eye strain, headaches, etc and it isn't going away with any technology currently offered to consumers.
... and it no longer holds any water. Holywood is not forcing me to watch 3D. Holywood is not actually forcing me to watch anything, but even out of its offerings, it is still providing a 2D alternative for almost every single movie it produces.
Look at Avatar. It was made specifically for 3D. Do you think James Cameron, 3D's premier fanboy moviemaker, wanted Avatar screening in 2D? Well, I can't find an article to back me up, but I would imagine that he would prefer to force people not to watch it in 2D, and that it was the studios who wanted the 2D alternative. It's consistent with their approach to offer and heavily market 3D, but not actually force it upon people.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I think many people, including the lady who wrote this article are having an experience sort of like mine where they feel they were duped into paying the extra money and didn't get the experience they expected - and worse, found that the 2D version of the movie was better.
In my case, I didn't buy 3D because I "knew" I'd be getting a "better" experience, all the commercials I'd seen at home touting 3D and the extra ticket price led me to believe I'd be getting something extra special. Not to mention my family insisted that 3D would be "incredible" so I gave in and paid the extra $4 on top of the $10 ticket price to get the 3D experience.
And I came to the same conclusion that this lady did - it was a scam. I saw "The Last Airbender" in 3D and I only caught two little gimmicky bits of 3D that were not worth the extra $4 for a movie I only saw because my family was going.
Since then, I refuse to pay for 3D at all
A friend had the 3D shutter glasses for his Atari ST some time back. I'd say it was around 1988.
I have a Nvidia 3D Vision. I use it mostly for gaming. Everyone that I let try it on games, wants one. The reason for that?
Simple, it's not a gimmick. Sure, 3D movies are just so-so. That's because the 3D in movies don't really add depth to the movie. But in games? Hell ya. Blades of grass become real. Stiching and straps on a back pack in Bad Company 2 stick out like it's real. It adds to the immersiveness part of the game.
Only drawback is it being darker then normal, and having to adjust for that. But it's a small price to pay for the games that do well with the 3D Vision. Of course, not all games do.
Is it for everyone? No. Is it a gimmick? No. (and for those with attention spans shorter then mine, i'm referring to 3D gaming, not movies)
Be seeing you...
All I have yet to see in a "3D" movie or TV despite having viewed something enthusiastically marketted as such, it is a steroscopic trick, by shutter glasses or parallax barrier or some other slightly tricked up version of the red/blue glasses of the 1950s. It's not real 3D, it tricks your brain into seeing depth information, thats it. It's not lightfield recreation nor a genuine volumetric display.
We're a long way off real 3D, which is in my opinion, holographic or nothing, until then it's a expensive gimmick that is more like 2.1D
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Until the projection system is 3D like a holographic system you can walk 360 degrees around. It's not 3D, its a trick.
Currently that's all we have. I know some may post about some holographic systems being developed, see the first sentence.
I will reiterate, for right now that's all we have.
If you like it, go spend your money. If you don't like it, don't spend your money.
This argument is like watching extremist christians telling people they're going to hell because you don't believe the way they do. It's a stupid argument over something that doesn't really matter. If more people paid attention to their own decisions instead of getting worked up about 'others' decisions their would be a lot more productive debate and productive competition.
The market (people who pay) will decide whether the technology lives or dies. Worry about your own money not what someone else does with theirs. (unless it directly affects you)
TheGratefulNet you are absolutely right. I purchased a 3D plasma last October and to date you cannot even buy Avatar in 3D on Blu Ray. Nor Toy Story 3. The two best examples of the genre are completely unavailable to the public (and I would have purchased them).
It's as if the TV companies (Samsung, Pana, Sony) are pushing 3D Home Cinema, but the content producers (movie studios, incl. Sony) are actively preventing any titles from being sold.
It's home theatre civil war, and we're the casualties.
well said. i don't know maybe its simply because i work with 3d modeling and rendering daily, anything advertised as 3d fails to amaze me as it does with others
And this, is precisely what all the haters on the story here don't get. "If you don't want 3D, don't buy it! No one's forcing you, why do you say it's a gimmick and it sucks? You're just a luddite/ignorant/old fogie." Maybe because it is a gimmick that's been trotted out every few decades for over 150 years, yet it's still not standard, like color visuals or stereo sound. Why might that be? Might it be because it doesn't work reliably? Or because people tend to tackily tack it on offerings that would otherwise be ignored? And the market soundly refutes it every time.
Only this time, you don't have a choice. You can't buy a high end TV without 3D, whether you want it or not. Suck it, losers! The free* market triumphs again!
* - for certain definitions of "free", ie where the megacorps are free to foist upon you whatever they please, and you have the "freedom" of choice between buying it or not.
Nathan's blog
That is an absurd complaint for 3D movies in the theater. Why? Because we only use the convergence of our eyes and focal length of our pupils for distances less than 30 feet.
Just think for a second and you will see how absurd your point is. The entire way that this technology work is by presenting each eye different pictures i.e. it only works in a region where we are using the convergence of our eyes! If it presented everything as so distant that our eyes are parallel and focussed at infinity it would be present each eye the same image and then it would be up to our brains to use references and prior knowledge to infer 3D...which is what we do with a 2D film! This is why 3D images are always closer than the screen, by the time you are focussing on the screen you are focussing at infinity.
It's that the technology is finally fast enough to sensibly render everything twice, one for each eye's viewpoint.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No one is being "duped" by 3D. If you enjoy it, you enjoy it. Stop whining and get a life.
Unwitting investors also need to get their realisation caps on. People should know more about the history of current 3D techs, how the public have responded to them in the past, the cost of it in the past, when it was first available and who has owned the technologies before they ended up where they are now. Etc.
Reading up on all of this quickly shows up the scam that is going on.
Man I wish I had bough those ELSA 3D revelator glasses for £55 back in the day.
Avatar is the only movie worth watching in 3D. I watched it on TV and it sucked, the plot is basically the same as in pocahontas, but the effects on 3D were cool. On the other hand Tron Legacy had nothing on 3D, that was the biggest scam of all, if you took off the glasses during the movie there was no difference. I live in Ecuador so there were subtitles, that was the only 3D in the movie. It was just an excuse to charge more fore the film. Thats why I am reluctant to pay for any 3D, I dont want pay extra for that Tron Legacy fiasco.