Entelligence: 3D may fall flat
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted Sep 8th 2009 8:00PM
posted Sep 8th 2009 8:00PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
I understand the need to drive new sales of TV sets and find some sort of purchase driver. Let's face it. Screens have gotten large enough, perhaps even too large -- if I offered you a 150-inch TV, where would you put it? Resolutions have maxed out and it's hard to make sets much thinner. OLED displays could be a great purchase driver but are a few years off. So something new needs to drive the market. I'm just not convinced that 3D will really help move things forward.
The problem is there's a huge difficulty involved in launching new formats, especially one like 3D. We've seen this time and again. First, you need broad hardware support, and 3D doesn't have it. Sony and Panasonic are taking two different approaches to the 3D market, meaning they'll both be selling incompatible equipment at high price points -- yep, another format war is brewing, and consumers just love when that happens. It's one reason why vendors like Philips are staying out of 3D for the time being.
Second, you need deep content support. At the moment, there's far more content available on good old HD than there will be in either 3D format and that's not going to change very fast. Unless you're a really big fan of a particular title that's available in 3D, you're likely to sit this out for a while.
The best content in 3D just doesn't offer that much more relative to standard HD, especially on smaller screens |
With cheap HDTVs and plenty of HD content, the savvy consumer who holds off on a 3D purchase is clearly going to be the winner in 2010 -- and consumers who've already invested in HD screens over the last few years are not likely to upgrade. In the long run, there may be no winner. The last time two formats fought a battle like this over incremental quality was in the audio arena, when it was SACD against DVD-Audio, and both sides lost to the convenience of less-than-CD-quality MP3s and the iPod. In this case, while we wait for large OLED screens to come to market, these efforts in 3D may just fall flat.
Michael Gartenberg is vice president of strategy and analysis at Interpret, LLC. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net, and he can be emailed at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
I can honestly say I have zero desire for anything 3D. To be fair... it's mostly because one of my eyes is bad and I can't see anything in 3D anyway (not with the special glasses that is).
I watched G-Force in 3D in a theater and besides the fact that movie sucked, the 3D didn't really change my feelings towards it. I doubt anyone really wants to have to wear a pair of silly glasses, not to mention having to keep up with them and your TV remote.
I think this is best handled as a clickable option in DVD's (just like 5.1 sound) where people who actually want 3D can buy it and everyone else can ignore it.
I'd buy a 3D set for gaming. They could really do great things with that.
I still think Space Harrier 3D for Sega Master System back in the day was pretty cool.
Leave it to the cycloptic assholes to declare 3D lame. -_O
The biggest boom will be gaming IMO. Add this functionality to the 360 and PS3 and old things become new again. And porn, I want 3D porn.
"The biggest boom will be gaming IMO. Add this functionality to the 360 and PS3 and old things become new again. And porn, I want 3D porn."
I'm with you on the gaming. I can see how there would be a decent market there. But I just wish they wouldn't try to shove it down our throats for regular TV... which brings me to the porn... (catch that segue there?). I think you should really put a bit more thought into weather or not you want 3D porn. Do you really want a big 3D shlong coming at you on the TV/computer screen? Pun not necessarily intended but unavoidable.
No... but 3D boobies? YES...
surely movies are already in '3D' ? 3D is experienced in many different ways, if not that people with 1 eye would keep poking themselves in eye with a fork, keep falling down the stairs or would not be able to navigate traffic when walking. Which I assume you have on real difficulty with (more then me I suppose but not the tune that you stave of nurse broken bones all the time)
3D is the home is a bad idea, stereoscopic depth cues (how we experience depth) will fight with other depth cues such as focus, eye rotation (information provide by your eye muscles) and possibly motion parallax (or lack thereof). Most of us have seen 3D TV for a very small period of time (in a trade show) but prolonged exposure will lead to headaches, eye trains, etc ... all very bad things.
The TV industry is doing themselves no favours at all by pushing 3D.
-niels
The only way i am buying into 3d is with out the glasses!
"Most of us have seen 3D TV for a very small period of time (in a trade show) but prolonged exposure will lead to headaches, eye trains, etc ... all very bad things."
Oh shit! Watch out for those eye trains.
Exactly. 3D WILL fall flat, it's not a maybe, or an if. It already did 30 years ago. This new attempt to shove it down everyone's throats just points out how out of ideas everyone is. Can't make decent movies that people want to see? Rather than make good movies, let's try a new gimmick. Well, since the movie is a already remake of a movie that already came out in the 70s, let's continue the unoriginal idea trend and make it 3d!
There's no way 3D is going to go anywhere. First of all you need to wear stupid glasses. Second of all, people's eyes are different distances apart, so it's not going to look the same to everyone. To some, it's just going to look crappy no matter what. Third, it's just a cheesy optical illusion and it doesn't add anything to the experience. Think of any true classic movies out there and add 3D.. it's silly. The only reason to add 3D is if the movie sucks and needs it to appeal to anyone.
i just love the photoshop prowess demonstrated here... the "g" on digital is awesomely reflected
bravo!
Descenders? Who bothers to reflect those anymore?
The "g" should have been displaced towards the "camera", just to make the point... :)
Im not crazy about 3-D either. I really don't like the idea of having to wear another pair of glasses just to play a game or watch tv.
I think that a combination of 3d screens and xbox natal = a primitive virtual reality in your own home, and that is downright compelling. But for now it is too expensive for too little an experience.
"May" fall flat? Bad editor, for missing such an easy one!
The correct sentence:
"Will run flat for the 5th time!"
First round sixties theatres. Red green glasses
Seconds round seventies jaws etc.. Second run of red green glasses.
Third round 80s Specieal theatres with double projectors and polariced glasses.
Fourth run in 90s with computers and lcd glasses.
Now its the fifth round.and the same problems arise. Apart from the first time novelty the stereoscopic images dont offer much more and theres the content problem. It usually gives a feeling of forced 3D for just the 3Ds sake. People like to immerse themselfs into a movie and poorly made 3D spoils it.
With the caveat that for the first time, it doesn't suck. Anyone else see Up! in 3D? It wasn't forced and gimmicky, it was just more visually immersive.
"Anyone else see Up! in 3D? It wasn't forced and gimmicky, it was just more visually immersive." -- Yeah, I did. It was really nice. In fact, I've seen a handful of 3D movies the past few years, and none of them was gimmicky. I particularly liked Meet The Robinsons. (Yes, I have kids.)
That said, I *really* need them to come up with 3D glasses that fit well over my regular glasses. When I was watching Up!, the misfit was giving me a headache.
(Admittedly, my glasses are unusually large, because I like having peripheral vision.)
If they ever found a way to be able to turn a normal website into a 3D-enhanced version, think of the possibilities....
All the spelling and grammatical mistakes rendered in 3D...
The horror...
If you haven't seen the nightmare before christmas in the new 3D, check that out before you give up hope on the technology. That demonstrated the way 3D movies should be done. No gimmicks at all, just added the depth effect to an already great movie, gave it a very nice touch.
I, personally, love watching 3d movies. It won't make the story better or the picture clearer but it is something I don't mind paying $2-3 extra for the experience.
And if 3d isn't the next step, what is? (I hope it's holograms.)
Zzzzzzzzxxzxz
After seeing the 3D TVs based on realD tech, at The NAB trade show last spring, I was sold. Sports look particularly impressive. Its like your there, in better than the best seat in the house. I cant wait for 3d at home! All it will take for 3d to take off is putting 3dtvs in stores as demo units. Once people see for them selves they are amazed at how good it looks. Forget any past experience with 3d, RealD has greatly improved the experience. Its no longer a gimmick.
ehh...until they can get rid of the glasses for 3d im not buying
glasses free hdtvs will be available soon, but I have seen both, and the screens that require glasses look much better and are more practice. The tvs without glasses require you to be positioned in one of only a few angles in front of the tv. Ok for 3d signage and watching alone(granted your furniture layout permits) but not great for having a bunch of friends over to watch the game.
Ya, I don't see this taking off for movies anytime soon. It just doesn't add anything and won't until movies are actually made taking 3D into account. If you're going to add 3D to something, it needs to add something to the experience, meaning the content needs to be shaped accordingly. Otherwise you end up with great films ruined by the gimmicky feel given to them from being in 3D.
Funny you should bring that up. Sony, at the NAB trade show was showing off the RealD tech with their hardware, and having a panel discussion with the director of U23D. he was talking about directors are finally getting the idea of 3D being used to further the psychological effect of a shot, rather than having things just jump out at you all the time. He also was sharing some of his thoughts on shooting and editing techniques for making 3d easier to watch.
Directors are starting to get it, and that's the most important part of making 3d movies work, and not be a gimmick.
Case in point: My Bloody Valentine
But you know , > the majority will make it gimicky
Most 2D movies are gimmicky. Saying 3D movies will be more so is just cop-out.
Yes, making it work in video games is more important then movies, but there are enough big screens(hello 150"ers) in homes to make 3D TV sensible. The only roadblock I see is a pointless format war. A war that will only confound, demoralize, and traumatize an already jaded, paranoid, and penny-pinching public.
A recession is not the time to introduce a new format that requires you replace your expensive TV with another even more expensive one(or two or twelve).
Lower prices!!! :D
As gimmicky as it may seem, I'd love to see some sort of 3D displays. I got to see some things demo'd at e3 and it was super sweet for games.
The real next step the consumers are waiting for--and what manufacturers should be focusing on--is improving the technology to make more affordable TV sets. Now that we've got one HDTV in half the households, it's time for manufacturers to make putting that second, third, or fourth widescreen TV in the house more appealing, and get those who haven't adopted HDTV yet to jump aboard. $500 for a decent (32"+) screen is still too much.
I've seen some nice 32" LCDs for $330 just yesterday. I agree though. Increasing profit margin on sets without raising prices should be the next move the industry takes.
While my next television purchase will be a 3D-ready HDTV, I'm getting it for the possibilty of watching select family-oriented movies. 3D, while I want it in select gaming genres (racing, fighting, action), will still be a very niche market. LEDs, while awesomely thin, are also a very fragmented market.
I think the make or break for 3D will be the 2012 olympics which will hopefully be broadcasted in 3D (if everything goes to plan).
3D??? 4D has been out for YEARS. n00bs...
and mp7 music players. When will people learn to keep up with the times?
While I don't object to 3D, I've seen several movies where the effects were distracting--at times downright silly--and only one film (Disney/Pixar's "Up") where it might have marginally assisted the story's narrative.
I'll admit, I find that if multi-track sound is mismanaged, it's pretty distracting, too.
I agree with you, I saw Coraline in 3D and found the effect more distracting than anything... It ended up making me wish that I had seen it in 2D so my eyes wouldn't feel so violated. >_>
Contrarily, Coraline was the only 3-D movie I really enjoyed. The 3-D did seem to enhance the visual experience in some parts, but only slightly. I didn't care much for UP.
If they come out with a display that does 3D without the glasses, then it would work. Otherwise, you can't just walk in when someone is watching TV and join in, you need to get a pair of glasses. Glasses-free 3D would be a huge sales-driver.
I have to agree, 3D seems more of a gimmick to me than an actual feature I'd use.
I agree. I don't see the purpose, or how this will enhance gameplay. It's just a neat effect that serves no purpose.
He ought to file this under "no shit sherlock".
While I wish this tech got spreaded as much as possible (since I work in the 3D anim. industry ;) ), I too hate the 3D displays, the quality of and the whole process of getting to the final media.
Some 3D films have been decent in the past, but I can't say I recall any off the top of my head. Considering that HD channels look amazingly realistic on my 47-inch HDTV, I agree with the article. I see no reason for the average person to even consider upgrading any hardware to support 3D capabilities. In fact, seeing floating objects emanating from an electronic display is extremely distracting to me. While I'm all for increasing resolutions and picture quality, I don't think 3D pictures are going to truly advance that idea. Blu-Ray, good as it is, has taken off rather slowly, even though its format war is long over. Mass adoption times are ever-lengthening, and by the time this tech could ever go mainstream, I doubt most would want to pay for it.
3D will be a nice feature. I am surprised how wrong these last few Entelligence have been.
I have to agree. HD was a small incremental improvement over SD compared to how technology leaped from vinyls to CD, and VHS to DVD. It's not because 3D content is currently not up to par that it won't be the next big thing.
When it improves to the point where it's not just a distraction, I'm going to agree with you 100%.