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
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)
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
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!
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.
"Consumer"-types had as much vitriol in the 1950s, when they too insisted 3D was the Next Big Thing. Flopped then, too. Fake 3D doesn't work for everyone, and causes massive headaches. It is a scam, in that the companies pushing it know very well it will never be adopted on any meaningful scale. But they'll happily sell you expensive, jittery, eyestrain-inducing "3D" equipment, and you'll masquerade as an "early adopter" and be surprised when the "3D" titles remain rare and finally vanish for a few decades (again).
In case you haven't figured it ut yet, 3D is not at all in the same category as color or sound -- because actually we have very good tech for producing sound and color that work for everyone who can see and hear. Duh...
Caveat Utilitor
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
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.
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.
Slashdot says you are allowed to enjoy the effects, providing you then complain about the story.
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!
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.
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.
It's an entertainment movie not a documentary. You know, mostly fiction?
As to this 3D "story", it can be summarized as "I didn't like the marketing and implementation of the current level of 3D, so it's a scam. If you think you like it, you're a dupe!"
Yeah, OK...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
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.
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