Slashdot Mirror
Has the 3-D Hype Bubble Finally Popped?
An anonymous reader writes "An article at Time speculates that the recent hype surrounding 3-D display technology has finally peaked and begun to subside. As evidence, they point to comments from Nintendo president Satoru Iwata, who does not seem particularly enthusiastic about it, and concedes it won't be a major selling point if the company continues to have 3-D enabled products in the future. He said, 'So, now we've created the 3DS and 3DS XL and also have some games out there that are really using that 3D effect that we can see, from my point of view, that it's an important element. But as human beings are this kind of surprise effect wears off quickly, and just [having] this 3D stereoscopic effect isn't going to keep people excited.' Revenue from 3-D films is also dropping, and while 3-D television sales are rising, only 14 percent of potential buyers think 3-D is a 'must have' feature."
'Potential' buyers, unlike actual ones have no idea what they are talking about.
being pumped in. There was a huge hole in it to begin with. There was just enough hot air being pushed in to somewhat inflate it, like a tire with a leak, so not really a pop so much as that leaking sound.
Now that we've had it for this generation (i.e. 2010) thankfully we won't have to worry about it until 2030 or so.
Or until we have REAL 3D breakthrough where your can walk around a solid appearing image to see it from different perspectives, without glasses.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of small theaters only offering you the 3D version of a given movie. I rather see it in normal 2D, without having to put up with dirty and inconvenient passive glasses, and dizziness in scenes with fast motion ...
At home, for gaming, with a good TV and glasses things might be different, but I'm not much of a gamer myself to justify the extra expense.
"OH! THAT SHRAPNEL FLEW RIGHT TOWARD YOU! WOW!" seems to be the main use of 3D these days so it's nothing but a gimmick. A gimmick that needs to go away. Higher resolution displays are beautiful and future-proof. I wish the industry would adopt 4K instead. *sigh*
3D has never, ever, improved a movie's story or characters, and never will.
Theatres are moving to "4D". Maybe games will too.
The main feature I like from the 3-D push was the increased graphics processors in TVs. The sharpness and upgraded video quality is a major plus.
they are dumping 3d tv's in europe, just saw a 32" LG 3D model for 299 euro...
I like to play with wooden alphabet blocks. It's fun.
Though to be perfectly honest, I have yet to see one. $40 for one movie for two is in the What Are They Thinking category. About the only thing they could do to make me less likely to buy a ticket would be if I had to take off my shoes and choose between the backscatter X-ray nudie pix or or having my genitals groped.
A few days ago, I helped my boss set up a demonstration PC to show high school kids protein visualization in 3d stereo. The setup was pretty old (vintage late 1990's). We had to scrounge a dusty CRT for need of compatibility with the active shutter goggles that provided the stereo effects. We had LCD monitors in plenty supply, but didn't have enough time to determine if they worked with the system. Simple web searches were inconclusive, with the most relevant result appearing to be an outfit called planar 3D that provides dedicated 3D systems. For the slashdotter with more experience: Can 3d Stereo be achieved with regular commodity LCD monitors?
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Remember those pop-up books we used to read as children? (I'm assuming you're old enough to have lived without a Web browser for at least part of your life.) All the 3D movies I've seen thus far are like that. They don't look like solid objects. They look more like cardboard cut-outs placed at varying distances or like layers of 2D images.
3D technology, although hated by some, has provided us with upgraded graphics in TVs. Combined with a 3D Bluray player, regular DVDs and even Bluray movies look better when the foreground and aft are separated and recombined.
The key general marketing trends so far, as I see it:
turbo
quantum
eco
3D
Missed some? What's next?
Yep, the film industry is going to keep milking the 3-d cow for a while. What is a 4-D movie? "It refers to physical effects that are coordinated with the images on the screen that involve your other senses," says media analyst and entertainment lawyer James Hirsen. "It is things like moving seats during a chase scene, the smell of gun powder when there is an explosion on the screen and during a spooky foggy scene you are surrounded by real fog." http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/4-d-movies-coming-soon-theater-near-172042434.html
All the delusional crap from the "private space" lunatics.
and while 3-D television sales are rising
Of course their sales are on the rise when there aren't many alternatives if you want a decent new TV. That's like saying TVs with digital tuners are on the rise, duh! 3D has some uses, but it's mostly another ploy by the manufacturers to keep their price points up by making it seem they are adding value to the device. Also, why they still put tuners in monitors (let's face it TVs are just big LCD monitors) by default these days is a little silly if you ask me.
For something to be a bubble, people have to want it and be buying it in the first place. You know, like new houses or netbooks. Every survey from the start of this technology on showed that basically nobody wanted it. I think the highest "has to have 3D because I'm actually going to use it" result on a survey was 14%.
no, we need displays that can produce HDR imagery deep black and high whites.
resolution is yet another gimmick which doesn't contribute to colour or contrast range.
modern tv's can't reproduce true colours, they are seriously crappy at any resolution.
I really have no desire to go out and drop a pile of money on a TV that's got a rep for short lifespans and every time I walk pas one it looks like MPEG vomit. Sure they look good when you have all the right sources, but since I sont spend my life building a movie collection most normal content is stretched and full of digital garbage.
My stupid CRT looks much better for non HD content, and if you want HD content it cost out the ass, fuck it, its a gimick for dumb consumers, and a slight advantage to the unwashed masses playing console games.
It's not 3D! I've seen it, it's shit. Lot's of money for a shitty gimic.
Revenue from 3-D films is also dropping, and while 3-D television sales are rising, only 14 percent of potential buyers think 3-D is a 'must have' feature."
Has 3D technology really benefited anyone but the display makers and the content industry?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
I like the rise of "3D" HDTV's is because it's a good way to identify a 120hz or higher panel. The idea of gimmicking into the 3D junk itself and wearing glasses, giving myself a headache, all that makes me chortle a bit. But I do love me a smooth motion picture.
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
recent hype surrounding 3-D display technology has finally peaked and begun to subside.
Well, screw it then, I'm going to LOOT THE VENDING MACHINE!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Sure they look good when you have all the right sources, but since I don't spend my life building a movie collection most normal content is stretched and full of digital garbage.
Well, that's what happens with pirated content. Copied, recompressed, ads and logos added, recompressed again, and reassembled from blocks on multiple overloaded servers. Of course it looks like crap.
(That's what most of YouTube looks like, too.)
lol I think it was just a ploy to raise the cost of movies...
god you people are morons. lets get super 10k on our 50" tv's but hey, 2x the perceived resolution offered by 3d is no longer good enough. theres an idiot born every day.
MOD up the original poster 3D is just a Fad. Not much changes, Just like BIOS Basic input and output system; sounds like a good pr0n film for geeks :P
All cows eat grass!
Who knows, maybe like the PC, 3D is flat-lining.
Whatever they're introduced on will jump straight up when the feelies are invented.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
I think something akin to google glass could solve the problem of asking our eyes to converge on one point and focus on another. I don't know whether google glass has this functionality in whatever kind of light emitter it uses, but I would imagine that if it had a some sort of lens system built in to adjust the focus to where it should be, then the convergence and focus could easily be made to match.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Let's hope so - bring on the 4k2k@50fps hype instead.
I, for one, can't wait for all the content creators and hardware companies to start pushing everyone toward it.
3D has never, ever, improved a movie's story or characters, and never will.
"To me 3D should be about making it feel like you are IN the movie, not that the movie is coming OUT at you."
Pirates of the Caribbean 4. No, I didn't like the movie.
However, the only thing that made me glad I spent money seeing it in 3D was I think was the "first" time I actually saw GOOD 3D cinematography. A few scenes at least. One of the scenes was when they were in the hull of the ship plotting a mutiny. The scene looked like all lit in with natural candle light. In the scene there was round table with just 1 candle in the middle.
And in the scene there was nothing flying out of the screen! No explosions with shrapnel shooting at you in 3D. It was just a beautiful scene. It was filmed in a small space with beautiful lighting, but in 3D you FELT like you were there. Something that watching it in 2D doesn't give you.
There were other things in that movie as well like in the light house, where again it wasn't 3D SHOOTING out crap at you, but you could see all the beauty of the gears and working of the insides of the lighthouse and you just get immersed. Which was nice since the story sucked.
What I would love to see if a beautifully filmed "3D Black and White" movie, something Schindler's List-esque in it's cinematography. To me 3D should be about making it feel like you are IN the movie, not that the movie is coming OUT at you. Unfortunately, movie makers seem to only use to make it look like Spider-Man is shooting is Spider Wad at you or something lame and gimmicky like that.
I have never, ever, seen pirated content with ads and logos added (overcompressed stuff I did see, of course). I see ads and added logos only when I watch media I paid for.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
gotta keep up with the gimmicks. what do you want them to do, make better movies?
HA!! Today's movies have shorter plot then Dr. Seuss kids books and it is shallower than any of the Arny or Stallone movies - at least those movies had *characters* in them, today, not even that. You just get retarded not-so-special effects and remakes of remakes.
If you want originality, you have to actually read books. At least then every reader gets slightly different, more personalized experience. Something that is quite impossible with movies.
I really have a hard time understanding all the hate around 3D. Sure there are some films that do it poorly, but that's true for any new approach that enjoys some popularity (SFX, musical scores, camera motion, film/digital medium, plots, etc). I can only assume it's some physical differences between viewers, making it mostly just unfortunate that it doesn't degrade gracefully for users that can't/don't enjoy it.
Personally the only reason I even go to the movie theater any more is to see a film in 3D. Otherwise, it'll wait until I can watch it from home. The friends I go to 3D films with generally feel the same way. The theater just doesn't have enough value add for its price without it. When you include dinner, drinks, and a quality theater with reserved seating, the 3D surcharge is too minor to worry about... the biggest issue really is that it sort of dulls the films if you ever want to watch them at home.
3D content creators seem to ignore the reason we evolved 3D vision -- to navigate rapidly in real 3D space and to range-find. Without those needs, we probably would not have developed binocular vision and a capability to process the resulting data. Cinematic storytelling remains linear. There is no interactive component that requires either spacial navigation or range-finding; so in the context of filmmaking, 3D serves as a sort of vestigial organ to the larger non-cinematic reality in which we are normally immersed.
3D Filmmakers rely heavily on a small set of gimmicks (e.g., an object protruding from the screen plane into the audience space) to exploit the 3D technology. These gimmicks do not add to the experience beyond superficial self-actualization -- "Hey Look! Three-dimensions!" These visual bits are unnecessary parlor tricks that neither advance the story nor develop the characters.
> resolution is yet another gimmick
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious...
Actually, No, the main use of 3D nowadays is to produce content that uses depth. With the exception of kids movies and horror flicks, hardly any of the new 3D movies has any of those atrocious 'coming out of the screen at you' gimmickry. Personally, I like seeing the depth in a film, Glad I was an early adopter.
I think I'll wait to see what kind of sales are driven by the release of Titanic, the Pixar back catalog and a non exclusive release of avatar before I'd start going on about the death of 3D.
So basically we have a groupthink "3D is uncool because I'm too cool to like it!" here.
In reality, 3D movies are getting better and better. Some of the effects are much more pronounced in 3D and directors are starting to use them correctly. And in fact most people actually prefer 3D over 2D movies.
where have you been torenting that they put in ads? all of mine they have taken them out some went to the effort to blur the the network watermarks (for tv shows) the only ads in any of my pirated vids are the horrible ones syfy puts in mid content that reach half way across the screen.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Guess I missed that. Next time I'll try not to blink.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I differ entirely. I love to see films on the big screen. Even with surround sound and a big HDTV setup at my house it does not compare to the theater. I watched Avatar in 3D and it was cool I suppose but I can't see where it added anything much to the movie. I certainly don't care about seeing it on a 3D TV set. I can't see any reason to pay more for 3D as I get nothing of value in return for my money. When they come out with holovision I might be interested.
This is very true. 3D is a tool that has been abused initially (the "shrapnel flying towards you" another poster referred to). But 3D is also the normal way for us to see the world, so when done right, it enhances the suspension of disbelief. However, it matters that you do it right. Just like color could be distracting when you had over saturated hues or bizarre skin tones, 3D can break the immersion spell if not done right. On the other hand, if you do it right, it is transparent on the conscious level but ads realism and makes the story more believable.
It's not just for movies either. At Taodyne, we brought 3D to interactive presentations. We have a kind of 3D interactive multimedia LaTeX called Tao Presentations. In our experience, 3D presentations are something that people still remember one year after having seen them. Most people don't necessarily remember movies better when they are in 3D, but ask any kid in France about the 3D Haribo ad, and chances are they remember it. The same is true for presentations. Showing models or charts in 3D gives them more impact.
Another interesting effect of 3D for storytelling is that you can put more data on a screen without causing confusion. You can put things in front to draw attention, or in the background for things that are less important. You can create true 3D charts, where the depth ads another useful axis. And the Star Wars effect in real 3D is an interesting way to show data (it's a built-in demo of Tao Presentations).
In short, 3D can be a gimmick. Or it can be used well and make a difference. It's all a matter of how you use it.
-- Did you try Tao3D? http://tao3d.sourceforge.net
No matter where you sit, you have the same view. Unless you view a stereoscopic pair bang on centre with an unmovable eye position, the illusion fails when you move your head. To be exact, the illusion is only perfect if your eye position exactly corresponds to the position of the lenses in the camera which made the pair. Victorian stereoscopes were like this: the images were 1:1 positives of the negatives, and the viewers were basically a copy of the camera, but with the positives in the negative position and, of course, light allowed in to illuminate them. (I did some research on this years ago for a thesis.) In a cinema, most of the audience are viewing from the wrong angle and the wrong distance. Even at home, if more than one person is watching, the viewing angle must be less than optimal.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
no pirated content, DVD's and digital cable tyvm
Even if it worked "perfectly" I still wouldn't want it.
Well, name a good movie you saw in 3D, then ask yourself what made it good. If you have any taste, your answer will never be "because of the 3D".
Prometheus was fookin' gorgeous in 3D. I generally keep my weather eye open for tacky usage of 3D in movies, but Prometheus just felt like a normal movie that happened to be in 3D. It added a lot to the experience, for me.
How to kill adoption of home 3D display technology:
* Make any movies that people want an "Exclusive" to a particular brand of Blue-Ray player. Want Avatar? You need to buy this brand. Want Shrek? You need to buy this brand.
Yes, pulling shenanigans like this early on will kill a product. Just like an invite-only system that arbitrarily refuses people killed Google Plus.
There simply are intrinsic problems with stereoscopic 3D. The first is that the point of the technology is to increase realism. When you are experiencing that increase realism, 3D enhances the experience.
The problem is that because of the geometry of stereoscopy, 3D in a theatre only increases realism if you are sitting in a rather small sweet spot in the middle of the house; in a home, only if you're sitting on one properly placed piece of furniture. Sit farther back, and depth is exaggerated. Sit farther forward, and it's flattened. Sit to the size, and everything is skewed--cubes become rhomboids. Instead of being more realistic than flat cinema, it becomes less realistic.
This Cabinet-of-Dr.-Caligari effect is novel and stimulating, but it is not realistic or story-enhancing. It's rather like the early days of color TV. Colored snow, and actors changing from purplish to greenish as they walk across the screen, have a gee-whiz appeal, but in the long haul it has to be accurate or it doesn't satisfy, and it can't be accurate if they want to fill a theatre.
A second problem is that 3D doesn't really work unless the picture is so big that you are never looking close to the screen edges, where you get insoluble problems with binocular disparity if any object in the screen image is closer than the physical screen.
The second is that you only get an increase in realism if the director and cinematographer throw out a century of screen grammar, and limit themselves to using lens of one focal length. And, the more realistic the basic process, the more jarring something as ordinary as a cut is. We've learned to take cuts from a long shot to a closeup in stride, but it's harder if the image is so realistic that every cut induces a sense of physical movement. The re-thinking of how to tell a story on the screen might be possible. After all, the introduction of sound posed similar problems in the early days. But adding sound meant adding a whole new sensory modality. 3D is really, at heart, just a better picture... just like Cinerama or 48 fps Showscan, neither of which had staying power despite being a breakthrough in realism.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
There are TWO problems with today's 3D technology on TV sets.
1) The biggest problem - lack of 3D films, especially within a reasonable price range. And lack of 3D compatible games.
2) The 3D technology isn't really 3D, it's just a 2D illusion, technically you perceive it as 3d, but if you MOVE your HEAD from SIDE to SIDE - the weakness becomes apparant, you simply can't look around, nor past anything...so it's not really 3D. In other words, just yesteryear's "oh that was fun" fad...
The most interesting 3D set I've ever seen, was produced by some German company I can't remember, it was a Plasma screen that didn't need glasses, was OpenGL compatible, and you could move from SIDE to SIDE and look around! Awesome TV...wanted it, but it cost over 100.000 DKK (danish currency, at the 3D festival where it was shown) back then...pity...it would have rocked our world.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Thing I require before 3D sounds even remotely interesting.
1. I should not have to wear 3D glasses. I already wear glasses and a second pair is a no go. Contacts do not work for me.
2. A 3D monitor is cool. A 3D projection (outside any sort of screen or monitor) is even cooler. Want me to spend 6 months of pay on 3D? Offer me a coffee table sized horizontal screen that projects 3D images above it's surface.
Other than that I'll take higher resolutions (higher than 1900x1200), better refresh rates, and larger screen sizes over 3D options any day of the week.
Killed any interest in it for me.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The problem with the 3DS is the main marketing gimmick was IT'S 3-D!!! GAMES IN 3-D ITS GONNA BE AWESOME!!! Well, its awesome for about... 5 minutes or so, then you just get a headache. But really, the 3DS isn't a bad console but will most likely sell fairly poorly because 3D is the main gimmick.
Aside from battery life (which is better with recent firmware updates) there's nothing really bad about the 3DS. There's been a few good games that have come out, Super Mario 3D Land, Mario Kart 7, Tales of the Abyss, Ocarina of Time, and more. Nintendo still doesn't get online services and rather than doing the sane thing and releasing tons of Virtual Console games at once, they keep releasing one or two a week.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
The Nintendo President's attitude might be the way to save 3D: it's a good effect to improve immersion, it's no big deal, you can turn it off if you want.
That's the way it will become mainstream, not "YOU MUST BUY A NEW TV THIS YEAR!"
There's certainly less of a push now. At E3 last year it seemed that you couldn't see a game without having to put on special glasses.
This year, I was only reminded of 3D when I saw the Virtual Boy at the Videogame History Museum
I think we've reached (or passed) "peak first post".
I really don't understand the backlash against 3D. I can see the "wow-ness" wearing off and people getting jaded on "meh" content that uses 3D as its primary selling point, but isn't glasses-free 3D still something most people would like to see work? I have a 3DS and love it. I play it in 3D almost exclusively, only turning it off for certain tracks in Ridge Racer, or for playing Resident Evil: Revelations for extended amounts of time. I don't want to go back. If rumors that the 3DSXL has easier to view, more effective, 3D are true, I'll be getting one of those also. I may even get a 3D android phone eventually. It seems silly to me that the WiiU pad's display isn't 3D. That would be a selling point for me. I can't get excited by Vita's superior graphics because it doesn't have the 3DS' immersion. Am I really the only one who sees the 3DS as a move forward?
3D is great and all for not needing glasses to view the 3D, but TVs do need them, and I don't know that many people who wish to wear those ugly glasses... especially if they already wear corrective glasses.
>>> Copied, recompressed, ads and logos added, recompressed again
That's not pirated content. That's cable and dish content which costs 70-90 a month. Considering pirate stuff is free, I don't care about quality (I d/l the smallest files), but when I am PAYING for something I expect it to look fantastic..... and cable/dish rarely does. Hell I get better quality HD off my antenna!
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Our local multiplex theater in Silicon Valley is running fewer screens in 3D. All their projectors are digital and 3D-capable. When the 3D boom started out, about 80% of showings were in 3D, with only 20% in 2D. Now it's about 50-50.
There's a strong tendency in 3D movies to have a big "3D scene". These tend towards either roller coaster simulations or stuff coming at you. Both are boring after you've seen a few of them.
That worked fine for Avatar; all other cinematographic qualities of that flick or lack thereof, the 3D really managed to draw me into the movie, and judging from everyone else who has seen it, I am not the only one who experienced that. Same for Sanctum, even though that was much less of a spectacle film. 3D can add a lot to a movie if done well. It's interesting that you mention B&W because to me, with ubiquitous high quality color systems, that is something that is similar to the current state of 3D: a gimmick. When used well, it can add to the atmosphere of a movie but if misused, it can detract from the experience.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
We'll take the fact that you enjoyed the movie Prometheus into account.
But as you say there is a change of apparent scale. And if your mountain then appears to be only a few metres high and a few metres away, you will get the disorienting effect of moving off axis.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
In true Slashdot fashion, might I humbly suggest the following:
If you don't want a 3DTV, please do not purchase one!
If you don't want to see a 3D movie, see the 2D version -- or get creative, obtain two 3D cinema glasses and fashion some "2D" ones for yourself that only show the left (or right) eye image to both eyes.
Why is there this collective attitude of "OMG I HATE THIS TECHNOLOGY IT MUST DIE NOW"? Some of us have been waiting patiently for some of this tech to reach mass market maturity so that we can do cool stuff with it (3D gaming, head tracking, affordable multiple screen virtual reality, etc.).
3D is not really the whole issue -- I fear that we now have a generation techies who completely lack imagination about anything beyond higher frame rates, the latest handheld gizmo, and the right to download music for free. (You also see this type of hate spewed on advances in space exploration by so-called 'nerds' ).
...but only because it was $50 cheaper than the exact same model but non-3D version.
The guy tried to sell me 2 pairs of active 3D glasses for $110.. no thanks
It's interesting that you mention B&W because to me, with ubiquitous high quality color systems, that is something that is similar to the current state of 3D: a gimmick. When used well, it can add to the atmosphere of a movie but if misused, it can detract from the experience.
For sure. I was just thinking about old B&W movies as well, like Casablanca and Maltese Falcon and how the lighting is so beautiful in b&w. Would be cool to see something just more simple, real and pure, (not CGI) combined with 3D. Or even something like, The Ninth Gate, again the movie might suck, but it had great cinematography and lighting. Not the type of movie you think about being released in 3D right now.
But, I always think 3D movies should give a feel more similar to a Holodeck, feeling more like you're there then just if you are watching plain 2D, as opposed to 3D being about swords and monsters jumping at me every few minutes. But I seem to be in the minority with the people I know. They're usually, like, "There was nothing 3D in that move expect "X" shooting toward you 1 time." and I'm, like ?? the whole thing was in 3D! It feels more like you're part of it than 2D. It just adds little bit. Of course, with so many mediocre movies coming out lately...
So exactly 14% of the worlds population are complete end utter morons. thats interesting. Going by the acclaimed "90 % percent of the worlds population are mindless lemmings" figure, we only need to classify the remaining 76%.
Watching 3D movies in a movie theatre gives me headaches, so why in the world would I want that at home?
Seriously.
Also, I don't want my TV reporting back to the home office either, so keep your damn networking out of the TVs too.
I want a TV that ... until it rains.
* accepts video and audio inputs from a bunch of external devices.
* when it says "cable ready" that is can tune in every damn channel on the cable system without another damn box.
* when it says ATSC can actually pull in the broadcast channels without some huge 50 foot tower and DB8 antenna pointed in an exact direction
Spend more time on getting the simple things to work right TV makers. Screw trying anything new until every OTA channel that the FCC says I should get from my home is actually received.
Solve those problems first.
You know why I'm not excited? Because the "3d steroscopic effect" is not... 3d.
It's one POV, the very same one I had in the first place.
A 3D display would allow me to get up, which would change my POV. It would allow me to walk behind the display, and look at the BACK of the actors. I could look down at the scene, or up at it; I could sit in my chair and rotate the scene with my remote.
Stereoscopic display tech is no more than 1930's postcard (later ViewMaster) tech. Added to which, it seems that a great deal of the use of it is in displaying distortion -- things TOO close or TOO far, like an addled child with a new toy, the filmmakers just can't seem to get the idea that verisimilitude is of greatest interest, even though everything else about imagery that is popular with consumers is telling them that: resolution, color fidelity, the rejection of NTSC (never twice the same color, lol) for digital, high-resolution detail on reds and blues and colors with those components, instead of the blurry sludge NTSC gave us.
So to stereovision, good bye, don't let the door hit you in the front porch on the way out. Call me when we're going to have real 3D. That's worthy of my wallet. And the good news is, there are already systems out there. Some people, at least, know which way to go.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Although I am not a massive fan of films shown in 3d, I have to mention that the current generation of 3d displays can be used for other purposes. I have an active 3d setup on my pc, with LCD shutter glasses and it is not fantastic for watching films, mainly due to the quality of the films and the 3d effects used in most of them. Where the system really excels is in gaming. It adds a huge quality to games which look pretty decent even without it. LA Noire is one example where I was astounded by how much the improvement added to the atmosphere. I think also because rendered scenes avoid having out of focus areas that it is somewhat easier on the eyes than filmed 3d effects. Definitely worth getting a glimpse of if you can, although it can still stress the eyes a bit.
If we ever get a new TV, I might just go 3D. Some friends of ours recently got one (Vizio) and the price wasn't too bad. As it happens, we had just come from a 3D movie (Brave--meh) and we had our *ahem* souvenir 3D glasses with us. My friends put on a movie and I was very happy to see that the glasses from the theater (Real 3D) worked with their set. Especially happy since the set of glasses that came with the TV didn't include any kid-sized ones, but the movie theater does supply them.
I don't overly care for 3D in general but some things, like CGI kids movies, are kind of fun with the effect. And, if this September's Finding Nemo is any indication, someone finally realized that you can make any old CGI movie 3D just by re-rendering it with a new camera angle, so I expect we'll see 3D versions of every movie back to Toy Story in the coming years.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I personally think that the 3D bubble has popped because it has noumerous times in the past. Additionally the glasses that you still need to wear are impratical and look stupid lol.
I'd like to know your take on the subject and therefore created a poll at http://pollator.com/polls/3d-consumer-technology-top-or-flop I would be glad if you'd vote.
and reassembled from blocks on multiple overloaded servers.
Yes, reassembling those digital files from busy servers sure messes them the fuck up.
but in 3D you FELT like you were there.
Just go to the theatre dude.
Perhaps the real problem is that the 3D TV hit the market only a year or two after most people ran out and bought a big shiny 1080p TV as part of the shift to HDTV and trashing that set to buy a big new 3D 1080p set just did not make economic sense...
at least for me (wearing strong glasses, so i have less depth perception by default), having good head tracking is way more immersing than "static" 3d displays. Both combined is the best obviously ;)
The problem with 3D is that it has only "just" made it into movie making.
James Cameron had years to think about filming and editing techniques before he made Avatar, the rest of the cinematic world still has to come to grips with this. Panning, zooming, focus, scene editing - the whole acting and filming techniques that have developed over many years of 2D movie making, so to update that for 3D will take quite a while.
3D in movies strikes me a bit like the early days of stereo where the idea of a position on the soundstage had not yet developed. Instead, every new record HAD to prove it was in stereo by having instruments either right or left. If you can get hold of "Play that funky music" by Wild Cherry, its introduction will demonstrate what I mean. Nowadays, position is just one more aspect of the sound stream as it gets mixed.
I think 3D will eventually become mainstream, but it could take as much as a decade before it loses its "gimmick " status.
Insert
I tried Crysis 2 with 3D glasses in a store -- it was amazing. The perception of depth was flawless and added a lot to the experience as long as you don't move your head too much. As I only played for a few minutes I'm a bit sceptical regarding fatigue during longer sessions, but 3D is something I'll definitely consider for my next monitor upgrade, even if I don't particularly enjoy 3D movies.
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors!
Not everyone considers it a pointless fad. Although for some people stereoscopy doesn't work well or at all, and for others it is uncomfortable or "looking fake" (as my gf puts it), some of us actually enjoy the effect.
And though for movies 3D is nice, for games 3D is great! I can estimate attack ranges better and mottled bitmaps have proper shape instead of blending together, etc.
I would very much like to have a lenticular full HD monitor, though I wouldn't shell out the very high prices they charge for a glasses-TV. And to me, if there is a scam, then it's the exorbitant prices they charge. Oh, and of course it's annoying when cinemas show 3D but not 2D.
Anyway, my point is that some people actually like stereoscopic screens. So, why so much negativity?
Death to 3D, DIE DIE DIE!
3D's bubble will have "popped" when they stop making cheesy effects with it. When color TV's first came out, shows and movies were designed to "show off" that they were 3D (2001 Space Odyssey is a good example). When they stop launching things into the audience and having peoples heads pop out of the screen and 3D just becomes another non-integral part of the video, THEN we can consider calling the bubble "popped".
Am I the only one that actually enjoys having things fly at me? I'm fed up of movies trying to give me depth... I'm pretty good at realising when one object moves in front of another in movies without the use of 3D tech... so please, I don't need depth... what I do enjoy is feeling as if I'm in the movie by objects moving past me.
Sounds like to me Nintendo won't bother trying to support 3D with the new Wii U.
While I am not huge on 3D for home movies, for gaming this is a nice niche market for the technology. Being able to immerse yourself into a game using 3D is fun and since most gaming involves using some kind of accessory or controller, having to don a pair of 3D glasses makes sense. I think 3D for gaming is in its infancy and will only get better, provided gaming companies invest a little more effort into it. That doesn't mean that ALL games must be 3D, just having the option available on an increasing number of cheap TV's that have the capabilities is a nice option.
So, just like the fact that the Wii never supported Full HD, sounds like Nintendo's new "next gen" game console will use "last gen" technology. This sounds like a cop out from Nintendo. Their 3DS is bombing so they assume consumers don't like 3D and thus are making no effort to support 3D gaming on the Wii U. This is not Nintendo following consumer trends, it's rationalizing a complete lack of understanding of consumer trends.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Until I can pop in a 3D copy of Avatar and have sex with everything in the movie, I don't give a shit about 3D. All it does it give me a headache.
It's never going to be perfectly clear. It's never going to look exactly like reality. Why go through all the eye-crossing, headache inducing bullshit when a flat screen is better?