Thanks to Avatar (god bless it), there's been much discussion about the future of 3D and lots of talk about how "some" things will work in 3D, but others would not. I think this is rubbish. Clearly, the immersive and layered experience of Avatar would work as well with the local news, as it would with specially produced content. The only exception would be works that were created in 2D, as Rubin mentions. Will all our tv's be 3D? You betcha. All this hesitation about this new paradigm makes me think of where we've come - from radio to b&w tv; to color tv; to flat panel hi def. The very next step is 3D. The speed of its adoption will be equal to the availability of suitable content. Next year? No. 10 years? Maybe. But come it will.
@BobY There are major problems with the current tech used to create a 3-D experience. It works well in a controlled environment like a movie theater, but in people's homes the facts like glasses are required and the viewing angle is bad are probably going to keep even people who own a 3-D ready TV from using that feature much.
There is also the matter of cost. Avatar cost of a lot of money to produce, and no TV show is ever going to come anywhere near that budget. The news is never going to be the same sort of experience, and 3-D adds nothing content wise if you're watching a show full of talking heads. There are TV shows, like the Super Bowl, that will embrace 3-D, but it'll be a gimmick.
I agree that sooner or later we'll make the jump to 3-D. I just don't think we'll be doing it until they manage to perfect 3-D without glasses.
@kc0 Abd we won't be doing it until the networks recoup their costs of switching to HD in the first place. It's like no one can recall just how badly the networks were dragged kicking and screaming to HDTV. Pretty much none of the stations on broadcast or cable for that matter are true HD stations 24 hrs a day. Could you imagine the fury of an executive who just spent millions upping his station to HD, who is then told he has to throw away all this expensive technology to upgrade to 3d? Even if 3d tvs are commercially ducessful, were atleast a decade away from meaningful content.
the Nook Color proved it was an undercover tablet all along, Barnes and Noble has hit back with this latest Nook as proof of its focus on one thing: reading.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Thanks to Avatar (god bless it), there's been much discussion about the future of 3D and lots of talk about how "some" things will work in 3D, but others would not. I think this is rubbish. Clearly, the immersive and layered experience of Avatar would work as well with the local news, as it would with specially produced content. The only exception would be works that were created in 2D, as Rubin mentions. Will all our tv's be 3D? You betcha. All this hesitation about this new paradigm makes me think of where we've come - from radio to b&w tv; to color tv; to flat panel hi def. The very next step is 3D. The speed of its adoption will be equal to the availability of suitable content. Next year? No. 10 years? Maybe. But come it will.
@BobY
There are major problems with the current tech used to create a 3-D experience. It works well in a controlled environment like a movie theater, but in people's homes the facts like glasses are required and the viewing angle is bad are probably going to keep even people who own a 3-D ready TV from using that feature much.
There is also the matter of cost. Avatar cost of a lot of money to produce, and no TV show is ever going to come anywhere near that budget. The news is never going to be the same sort of experience, and 3-D adds nothing content wise if you're watching a show full of talking heads. There are TV shows, like the Super Bowl, that will embrace 3-D, but it'll be a gimmick.
I agree that sooner or later we'll make the jump to 3-D. I just don't think we'll be doing it until they manage to perfect 3-D without glasses.
@kc0 Abd we won't be doing it until the networks recoup their costs of switching to HD in the first place. It's like no one can recall just how badly the networks were dragged kicking and screaming to HDTV. Pretty much none of the stations on broadcast or cable for that matter are true HD stations 24 hrs a day. Could you imagine the fury of an executive who just spent millions upping his station to HD, who is then told he has to throw away all this expensive technology to upgrade to 3d? Even if 3d tvs are commercially ducessful, were atleast a decade away from meaningful content.