Completely agreed. Until the glasses and extra costs disappear, the technology simply will not be adopted. If you really think about it, it's only the last two years that have really made 1080p take off with sub-$800 40" 1080p televisions.
It's called early adopters and they will pay the premium. Why do we need a bagelphile to tell us he's not an early adopter of 3D? Does this really bring anything to Engadget?VCRs, DVDs, 50" Plasma TVs, Home Theater Projectors, etc. were expensive at first and started selling slowly and when prices fell were widely adopted. This is how it works. Doesn't everybody already know this?
Inception resorted my faith in futuristic 2D movies.... that movie topped Avatar in every single possible way.
As mentioned, the technology needs to catch up... screen technology, camera technologies....etc. Lenticular lens is the way to go, with multiview cameras and a whole lot of computer rendering involved.
I'm all for 3D movies, but in their current state, it's pretty sad.
Untill movie screens become true windows to other worlds, 3D just distracts. I'm so glad Inception (the movie of the decade, for me) was a 2D movie.
HD projectors and TVs didn't have excessive clutter like glasses into the mix; it was a direct replacement to current tech.
As well, HD didn't have another recently adopted technology in the way. People JUST recently mass adopted high definition televisions, and now they're being told they need to upgrade to this new 3D thing. Yes, there will be early adopters, but I think this will take longer than any previous technology to catch on as far as mass adoption.
@Clyzm Since my dad is as big of a tech whore as myself, he bought a 3Dtv and BD player, etc. and we've had surprising results playing star wars, lord of the rings, etc DVDs, as it rendered rather nicely and kind of added a new breath of air to them, not necessarily better, but something a little different. Plus, it keeps my little brothers entertained playing things like "Up" in 3d
I'll wait until the screen and the extra cost disappears, leaving only the glasses. Think about it: true 3D with real depth, 180 degree field of view, augmented reality and artificial reality, all in one package, replacing your need for any other type of display, communicating wirelessly - that's what I want.
On the contrary. HD content was slow coming (contrary to what the author writes, a lot of TV is still SD or 4:3) and you had to buy BluRay to replace your DVD which replaced your VCR and we went from RCS to S-VHS to HDMI cabling, there was plenty of "clutter". Makes glasses look like nitpicking.
You Earthlings and your primitive TVs. Holograms are far superior. Apart from the fact that after 100s of years of Republic and Empire R&D we still haven't found a way to make color holograms
@DrScope - just saw sony 3-d the other day. its cool, but im sure it would give you headaches after a while, not to mention the retarted cost, and almost nothing compatable. plus my glasses stopped working after a minute, for $150 they should work after i jump on them. it would be something cool to have for a ufc night with all your friends maybe, but not everyday tv. or porn.
Yea but what he is saying is that, 3D doesn't have that amazing "wow" factor that the tech you mention had when they first came to market. So that's going to keep you from buyin' it because it doesn't have the "wow" factor, to expensive, and to expensive for the add-on's that come w/3D.
@Clyzm Until they start selling retrofit kits (USB-IR shutter-eyeglass controllers) for people like me who have a 50" 1080p Plasma and a PS3—a setup perfectly capable of supporting 3D movies and games—they'll be missing out on a lot of sales.
@etwashoo2 but who the hell wants to watch tv and get dizzy after like an hour? i think its great but why start selling a product far from completion? id rather have to wait longer and have it perfect then get shitty generations till they actually get it right.
Well, it's 2010 right? I'm counting from 1-10 :) I think the closest movie that approaches what Nolan did in Inception was the 1999 picture "The Matrix" (which the former makes look like it was filmed by a 8 year old; and I love the Matrix)
That said, if we had glasses-free 3D, large hi-res lenticular lens cinema screens, and a multiview cameras, I would have loved to see that last zero gravity fight scene in 3D.
So what I'm saying is, till 3D becomes PERFECT IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION that you don't need to adjust yourself to it (i.e. it doesn't get in the way), I will always think that 3D just distracts.
@jjasper123 3D won't really catch on until the next Resolution shift happens. Especially since most of the 3D content right now is Crap. As far as the authors statement that "you just plugged in a new TV and were wowed by immediately available content.", that may be true today and for the past 3 years or so, but for a long time that was just NOT the case. One of my favorite channels only switched to an HD Feed on Comcast a couple of years ago. That was when BSG was still running which was their highest rated show EVER. HD took a long time to get to be where it is today, and it's still not in EVERY household. 3D will be just like alot of features on TV's. For many it will not be used until a big event or time changes things. When they HAVE to wear glasses because AVATAR is running on HBO tonight and they really like that movie in 3D, That is when things will begin to change. Until then it will remain a niche, ESPECIALLY with the state of 3D movies today. Tron Legacy and some of the big tentpoles coming out next summer in 3D will determine whether or not this is here to stay or if it will go the route of movies like "Comin At Ya" or "Parasite 3D" or "Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone", eh actually i kinda like Spacehunter.
Seriously guys, look at the Nintendo 3ds - go in that direction. People want to experience a greater television experience that doesnt require any extra effort. TV is supposed to be something that you can just do. Can you imagine a family casually eating dinner with 3d glasses on watching the five 3d stations that are broadcasted? I sure cant. Now, make that Nintendo 3ds technology mainstream, improve it so it can go on televisions, broadcast tons of stations in 3d, and there you go.
@TareG The great thing about Inception is that it wasn't actually all that futuristic. A lot of the effects are ANALOG effects, at most simply aided by computers rather than simply replaced. Nolan is a rarity in Hollywood in that he understands how to make something not only shiny, but visceral and real. When he hopped onto IMAX, he took advantage of the format to make a better movie. When or if he consciously decides to make a film for 3D(rather than having a studio force it on him), it will be because he thinks he can make a better experience for it. I don't think he gives into gimmicks as well, I think he understands what has always made a good film but also knows how it can be aided by today's technologies.
Sony did the same thing with blu-ray and the ps3. Put out an incomplete product and then perfected it a year or two later. Looks like they're doing the same thing here.
Look, if your R&D department needs more money, take out a loan. There's no reason to resort to petty theft. Maybe then your color hologram can be a reality!
@ttringle Ahhh! A masterpiece was "Come'n at ya!" Wow did that suck... I love 3D for the gimmick but not for long-form. I had to close one eye every-so-often during Avatar to ward off the headaches. It was a beautiful movie, but 3D is just a gimmick... and it always will be until the glasses go AND you can reposition your head at ANY angle.
As for Inception - I've heard that his next movie will be shot entirely in IMAX (the 65mm film negative, not LieMAX the 2k digicinema). Go Nolan!!!
@Clyzm There's a better chance of 4K sets coming in and down and price before I'll ever fork out that much cash for just 3D. They'll have to bundle 3D it in the future with new higher resolution HD sets (3k, 4k) for it to be enough for people to switch over.
This kind of reminds me of Laser discs. My dad had the system and I remember the poor selection of LP sized movies gathering dust at the rental store.
@Clyzm im surprised that many thinks 3d is a gimmick from the start. i always thought that i was gonna force myself to buy 3d tv to start watching 3d movies. i seriously dont wanna shell out that much cash. 3d will never be standard.
@Lord Vader Nor stable holograms nonetheless that don't flicker. But yes, holograms are where its at. All these "3D 3D 3D BUY BUY BUY" things are both annoying me and killing me. NO NO NO. I'll wait this one out, these companies are just paying for all this positive press.
@Clyzm For me, it's not just the cost, it's the fact that 3D completely messes with the way my eyes focus by converging onto a single point. It gives me eyestrain about 30 seconds in, followed by headaches if I do it for more than 10 minutes. Watching Avatar, I had to take the glasses off during the boring bits just to relieve and relax my eyes. It's not a nice viewing experience at all.
And they want to sell me a TV that's double the cost of my equivalent TV just for 3D support?! Cya!
@TareG Yeah, because we all know if it had been a 3d movie you wouldn't have been able to see it in 2d right?
Hate 3d? no problem, watch the 2d version, hate color? no problem, watch it in black and white. Hate HDTV? no problem, watch it in SD.
You see, as it turns out it's very easy to go backwards in tech, so what the fuck is everyones problem with 3d? don't like it? That's fine, we don't give a shit, watch in in 2d and let the people that like to watch stuff in 3d worry about it.
@DrScope The 3D technology is crap, that's the main problem
Selilng crap is rather difficult. Seriously, while "3D" as 2 letters sounds cool, the 3D TVs are so far from delivery what you'd expect from that name. Watching a normal TV is more conformable and you have a better picture anyways
@techbot224 What do you mean 'does not require extra effort'. You have to sit in the middle of the room so you get the perfect viewing angle. Slight movement and the 3d effect is gone. At least with 3dtv with glasses more than one person can view it as there is a larger viewing angle
@Clyzm A much more balanced article on 3D than we're usually privy to! I'm surprised. Responding to the standard, unavoidable and completely predictable opinions on 3D in the comments:
Home 3D as a modern standard is a very new thing. A lot of people seem to be ready to label the tech as a failure if it doesn't sell a hundred bajillion units this year. Look at how things like HD took off--it wasn't an overnight success. It really needs a few years before you can start making informed calls about it, despite how eager people were to start nailing shut the coffin before it even launched.
People are, quite frankly, creating problems to justify not purchasing 3D stuff. "I'd probably want a new digital camera to take 3D shots" is a great example of this. Complaining of what happens on that one party a year when you have a dozen guests over is another. Bemoaning that the news won't be any better in 3D is perhaps the best example I've heard someone spout off. 3D isn't for everyone, it's not for every medium, or every situation, or every piece of content. Like any technology, you use it when the situation is appropriate. If you don't have a 3D camera, that doesn't detract from your ability to enjoy 3D games and movies. If the news won't look any better in 3D, then cool, don't watch it in 3D (although I imagine you won't be able to for a number of years to come). If you have a family of 5, glasses enough for 6, and 10 friends come over, then unless you plan it as a 3D movie night and they already have glasses, you simply watch it in 2D mode. While it might be cooler to watch it in 3D every single time, if you really like 3D so much that you want to use it at every possible opportunity, you're not the sort of person to do completely without it because 1 night out of the month you can't get your 3D fix. When your 2D news comes on, watch it in 2D. When your friends come over, put away the glasses and watch it in 2D. When you want to look at your photos, look at them in 2D. And when the situation presents itself to enjoy the full benefits of your 3D setup, use 3D. It's like saying that getting surround sound is pointless because even though your movies and games and TV shows will be awesome with 5.1, the news won't benefit from the extra channels and your music is all stereo.
You might be able to get glasses-free 3D for larger audiences at some point in the future, but you won't get 3D projected holograms and the like any time this decade. It's not a matter of the display technology, because there are novel things you can do when you combine things like eye tracking, rapidly spinning displays, lasers and fog. It's a matter of capture and storage. To have a "star-wars"-style hologram means you need footage from every angle the viewer could be looking from. Because that's infinite, we'll simplify that to say you need footage from a huge number of angles so a viewer can fluidly change viewing angles without noticing an abrupt change between views. An array of hundreds or thousands of high-def cameras is absurdly impractical and the storage tech to stream all those feeds is quite beyond what we can do now, I'm sure (perhaps they'd go the route of Blu-ray 3D and reference one video feed to cut down on the subsequent storage requirements of other feeds... I'm still sure this would correspond to a many-fold increase in storage requirements for films, though). If a movie was generated in 3D on the fly, like a game cutscene, the only issue would be the display technology--but imagine the outcry of switching away from traditional video footage to game-quality visuals all in the name of something that would be most definitely labeled a gimmick of epic proportions. And if you think 3D glasses and displays are too expensive, imagine having an entire high-end computer just to play back holo-movies. For the film buffs, perhaps the biggest implication of any view-independent 3D film technology would be that you can no longer direct the viewer's attention or even pick what they're looking at. Imagine how many dramatic shots in film history would be ruined by viewing from just a few degrees to the side. Holographic movies aren't happening for decades or more, and saying you'll hold out for them is just silly.
And as always, I challenge people to explain how 3D is a gimmick but color, HD and surround sound are not. They're all just giving you a more accurate representation of the director's vision, and (ignoring special effects and artificially-created surround sound effects) the actual filming location. The techs were not cheap when they first launched in the home space, and content was limited, and yet today they're all considered legitimate tools for filmmaking that use our natural senses to further immerse us. The only difference between 3D and the other techs is that 3D is the newcomer. But please, try to imagine, how would things be today if in the 1950s and forever past that point, everyone agreed that color wasn't needed to make a good movie?
@Twile 3D will initially fail because of the technology cycle. It came along too soon. Had it come out next year, it may have stood a chance. Think about it, HD TVs have been around since early to mid 2000s and yet people are JUST now beginning to adopt it in mass and even then its still a slow process. Now that people just dropped about $800 - $2500 on a new setup, along comes 3D and guess what? You're learning that that new TV you bought not even a year ago doesn't support it. The vast majority of people will just say "oh well" and skip it until their next upgrade, which could be in 2 years or 10 years at which point it will either be mainstream or dead.
Amen to that. Deception was great. No 3D. I doean't really add that much. I feel that they are going to start using it as a crutch just to shove out crappy movies. "Annoucing blah blah blah - IN 3D!!!". Thank god the next Batman movie won't be in 3D, director said hell no. The tech needs time to catch up. None of the previous advances, DVD, Progressive Scan, High Definition required putting something on your person. and I don't think 3D will be embraced until they can do 3D a la Nintendo 3Ds.
Like
RhymeMaster said,
"at the end of the day...who wants to wear glasses?"
To me, holographic viewing is really the only TRUE 3D option. The current offerings, especially where "special" glasses are required is so NOT what I would call 3D. Give me an R2 unit with a holographics projector, and then I'll be happy to plunk down say...a solid $5000 (or more) for such a 3D experience. Until then, forget it!
During his WWDC keynote, Steve Jobs touted iCloud as a service that will sync many of your Apple devices, for free. Macs, iPhones, iPads, and even Windows computers can synchronize documents, contacts, calendar appointments, and other data.
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.
Completely agreed. Until the glasses and extra costs disappear, the technology simply will not be adopted. If you really think about it, it's only the last two years that have really made 1080p take off with sub-$800 40" 1080p televisions.
@Clyzm 3D will be the biggest bust yet.
So much hype for crap. I tried it, hated it.
HD is brilliant, 3D is pure idiocy.
@Clyzm
It's called early adopters and they will pay the premium. Why do we need a bagelphile to tell us he's not an early adopter of 3D? Does this really bring anything to Engadget?VCRs, DVDs, 50" Plasma TVs, Home Theater Projectors, etc. were expensive at first and started selling slowly and when prices fell were widely adopted. This is how it works. Doesn't everybody already know this?
@Clyzm
Inception resorted my faith in futuristic 2D movies.... that movie topped Avatar in every single possible way.
As mentioned, the technology needs to catch up... screen technology, camera technologies....etc. Lenticular lens is the way to go, with multiview cameras and a whole lot of computer rendering involved.
I'm all for 3D movies, but in their current state, it's pretty sad.
Untill movie screens become true windows to other worlds, 3D just distracts. I'm so glad Inception (the movie of the decade, for me) was a 2D movie.
@etwashoo2
HD projectors and TVs didn't have excessive clutter like glasses into the mix; it was a direct replacement to current tech.
As well, HD didn't have another recently adopted technology in the way. People JUST recently mass adopted high definition televisions, and now they're being told they need to upgrade to this new 3D thing. Yes, there will be early adopters, but I think this will take longer than any previous technology to catch on as far as mass adoption.
@Clyzm in* not into*. One day there will be an edit button... one day...
@Clyzm
Not a fan of 3D here.. StarWars like holograms is where the future is at.
@etwashoo2 You sound an awful lot like an antibagelite.
@Clyzm
methinks the next big thing will be 4K
@Clyzm
Since my dad is as big of a tech whore as myself, he bought a 3Dtv and BD player, etc. and we've had surprising results playing star wars, lord of the rings, etc DVDs, as it rendered rather nicely and kind of added a new breath of air to them, not necessarily better, but something a little different. Plus, it keeps my little brothers entertained playing things like "Up" in 3d
@Clyzm
I'll wait until the screen and the extra cost disappears, leaving only the glasses. Think about it: true 3D with real depth, 180 degree field of view, augmented reality and artificial reality, all in one package, replacing your need for any other type of display, communicating wirelessly - that's what I want.
Until then, I'm sticking to my HD-TV.
@Clyzm
On the contrary. HD content was slow coming (contrary to what the author writes, a lot of TV is still SD or 4:3) and you had to buy BluRay to replace your DVD which replaced your VCR and we went from RCS to S-VHS to HDMI cabling, there was plenty of "clutter". Makes glasses look like nitpicking.
You Earthlings and your primitive TVs. Holograms are far superior. Apart from the fact that after 100s of years of Republic and Empire R&D we still haven't found a way to make color holograms
@Clyzm
Word. Couldn't agree more.
@DrScope - just saw sony 3-d the other day. its cool, but im sure it would give you headaches after a while, not to mention the retarted cost, and almost nothing compatable. plus my glasses stopped working after a minute, for $150 they should work after i jump on them. it would be something cool to have for a ufc night with all your friends maybe, but not everyday tv. or porn.
@Clyzm
At the end of the day, who wants to wear the glasses?
@etwashoo2
Yea but what he is saying is that, 3D doesn't have that amazing "wow" factor that the tech you mention had when they first came to market. So that's going to keep you from buyin' it because it doesn't have the "wow" factor, to expensive, and to expensive for the add-on's that come w/3D.
@Clyzm Until they start selling retrofit kits (USB-IR shutter-eyeglass controllers) for people like me who have a 50" 1080p Plasma and a PS3—a setup perfectly capable of supporting 3D movies and games—they'll be missing out on a lot of sales.
@etwashoo2 but who the hell wants to watch tv and get dizzy after like an hour? i think its great but why start selling a product far from completion? id rather have to wait longer and have it perfect then get shitty generations till they actually get it right.
@TareG Dude. We're in the first year of the decade. You might be able to say movie of the year..but..
If you're looking for movie of the decade, we won't be able to tell until 2017, at LEAST, and by then, Nolan will already top himself.
@foxh8er
Well, it's 2010 right? I'm counting from 1-10 :) I think the closest movie that approaches what Nolan did in Inception was the 1999 picture "The Matrix" (which the former makes look like it was filmed by a 8 year old; and I love the Matrix)
That said, if we had glasses-free 3D, large hi-res lenticular lens cinema screens, and a multiview cameras, I would have loved to see that last zero gravity fight scene in 3D.
So what I'm saying is, till 3D becomes PERFECT IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION that you don't need to adjust yourself to it (i.e. it doesn't get in the way), I will always think that 3D just distracts.
@jjasper123 3D won't really catch on until the next Resolution shift happens. Especially since most of the 3D content right now is Crap. As far as the authors statement that "you just plugged in a new TV and were wowed by immediately available content.", that may be true today and for the past 3 years or so, but for a long time that was just NOT the case. One of my favorite channels only switched to an HD Feed on Comcast a couple of years ago. That was when BSG was still running which was their highest rated show EVER. HD took a long time to get to be where it is today, and it's still not in EVERY household. 3D will be just like alot of features on TV's. For many it will not be used until a big event or time changes things. When they HAVE to wear glasses because AVATAR is running on HBO tonight and they really like that movie in 3D, That is when things will begin to change. Until then it will remain a niche, ESPECIALLY with the state of 3D movies today. Tron Legacy and some of the big tentpoles coming out next summer in 3D will determine whether or not this is here to stay or if it will go the route of movies like "Comin At Ya" or "Parasite 3D" or "Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone", eh actually i kinda like Spacehunter.
@Clyzm
Seriously guys, look at the Nintendo 3ds - go in that direction. People want to experience a greater television experience that doesnt require any extra effort. TV is supposed to be something that you can just do. Can you imagine a family casually eating dinner with 3d glasses on watching the five 3d stations that are broadcasted? I sure cant. Now, make that Nintendo 3ds technology mainstream, improve it so it can go on televisions, broadcast tons of stations in 3d, and there you go.
@TareG The great thing about Inception is that it wasn't actually all that futuristic. A lot of the effects are ANALOG effects, at most simply aided by computers rather than simply replaced. Nolan is a rarity in Hollywood in that he understands how to make something not only shiny, but visceral and real. When he hopped onto IMAX, he took advantage of the format to make a better movie. When or if he consciously decides to make a film for 3D(rather than having a studio force it on him), it will be because he thinks he can make a better experience for it. I don't think he gives into gimmicks as well, I think he understands what has always made a good film but also knows how it can be aided by today's technologies.
Sony did the same thing with blu-ray and the ps3. Put out an incomplete product and then perfected it a year or two later. Looks like they're doing the same thing here.
@etwashoo2
"bagelphile". LOL. Outstanding.
@Lord Vader
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/darth-vader-robs-bank/
Look, if your R&D department needs more money, take out a loan. There's no reason to resort to petty theft. Maybe then your color hologram can be a reality!
@DrScope I completely agree, 3DTV is 100% pure garbage.
@ttringle Ahhh! A masterpiece was "Come'n at ya!" Wow did that suck... I love 3D for the gimmick but not for long-form. I had to close one eye every-so-often during Avatar to ward off the headaches. It was a beautiful movie, but 3D is just a gimmick... and it always will be until the glasses go AND you can reposition your head at ANY angle.
As for Inception - I've heard that his next movie will be shot entirely in IMAX (the 65mm film negative, not LieMAX the 2k digicinema). Go Nolan!!!
@etwashoo2 ...S-VHS was a tape system, you wanted s-video cabling.
@Clyzm
3D has only one future...Gaming, specifically for PC, and handheld console.
@RhymeMaster next big (small) thing: 3D CONTACTS lulz
@TareG agree about 2D/3D but I didn't think Inception was a great movie, just a big-screen mashup cleverly targeted toward those devoted to such.
Personally though, I am just an old geek who will take Star Wars over Hitchcock every time.
@Clyzm There's a better chance of 4K sets coming in and down and price before I'll ever fork out that much cash for just 3D. They'll have to bundle 3D it in the future with new higher resolution HD sets (3k, 4k) for it to be enough for people to switch over.
This kind of reminds me of Laser discs. My dad had the system and I remember the poor selection of LP sized movies gathering dust at the rental store.
@Clyzm
Fergie looks SOOOOOO hot in those glasses! Nice tight jeans too!
@DrScope it's a bust in terms of human ingenuity, but it's already a succeed in terms of profitability (and gullibility)
@sonicwind Iron Man-like hollograms is what I'm waiting for!
@Clyzm im surprised that many thinks 3d is a gimmick from the start. i always thought that i was gonna force myself to buy 3d tv to start watching 3d movies. i seriously dont wanna shell out that much cash. 3d will never be standard.
@Lord Vader
Nor stable holograms nonetheless that don't flicker. But yes, holograms are where its at. All these "3D 3D 3D BUY BUY BUY" things are both annoying me and killing me. NO NO NO. I'll wait this one out, these companies are just paying for all this positive press.
@ttringle Spacehunter was awesome. Just don't like that creepy dude in the metal cage that likes the chicks though. Gave me nightmares.
@Clyzm For me, it's not just the cost, it's the fact that 3D completely messes with the way my eyes focus by converging onto a single point. It gives me eyestrain about 30 seconds in, followed by headaches if I do it for more than 10 minutes. Watching Avatar, I had to take the glasses off during the boring bits just to relieve and relax my eyes. It's not a nice viewing experience at all.
And they want to sell me a TV that's double the cost of my equivalent TV just for 3D support?! Cya!
@TareG Yeah, because we all know if it had been a 3d movie you wouldn't have been able to see it in 2d right?
Hate 3d? no problem, watch the 2d version, hate color? no problem, watch it in black and white. Hate HDTV? no problem, watch it in SD.
You see, as it turns out it's very easy to go backwards in tech, so what the fuck is everyones problem with 3d? don't like it?
That's fine, we don't give a shit, watch in in 2d and let the people that like to watch stuff in 3d worry about it.
@Clyzm is that photo is from matrix 4 or what?
@Clyzm 3D porn will win over the non-believers. I'm holding out for haptic-feedback though :-)
@DrScope The 3D technology is crap, that's the main problem
Selilng crap is rather difficult. Seriously, while "3D" as 2 letters sounds cool, the 3D TVs are so far from delivery what you'd expect from that name. Watching a normal TV is more conformable and you have a better picture anyways
@techbot224 What do you mean 'does not require extra effort'. You have to sit in the middle of the room so you get the perfect viewing angle. Slight movement and the 3d effect is gone. At least with 3dtv with glasses more than one person can view it as there is a larger viewing angle
@Clyzm A much more balanced article on 3D than we're usually privy to! I'm surprised. Responding to the standard, unavoidable and completely predictable opinions on 3D in the comments:
Home 3D as a modern standard is a very new thing. A lot of people seem to be ready to label the tech as a failure if it doesn't sell a hundred bajillion units this year. Look at how things like HD took off--it wasn't an overnight success. It really needs a few years before you can start making informed calls about it, despite how eager people were to start nailing shut the coffin before it even launched.
People are, quite frankly, creating problems to justify not purchasing 3D stuff. "I'd probably want a new digital camera to take 3D shots" is a great example of this. Complaining of what happens on that one party a year when you have a dozen guests over is another. Bemoaning that the news won't be any better in 3D is perhaps the best example I've heard someone spout off. 3D isn't for everyone, it's not for every medium, or every situation, or every piece of content. Like any technology, you use it when the situation is appropriate. If you don't have a 3D camera, that doesn't detract from your ability to enjoy 3D games and movies. If the news won't look any better in 3D, then cool, don't watch it in 3D (although I imagine you won't be able to for a number of years to come). If you have a family of 5, glasses enough for 6, and 10 friends come over, then unless you plan it as a 3D movie night and they already have glasses, you simply watch it in 2D mode. While it might be cooler to watch it in 3D every single time, if you really like 3D so much that you want to use it at every possible opportunity, you're not the sort of person to do completely without it because 1 night out of the month you can't get your 3D fix. When your 2D news comes on, watch it in 2D. When your friends come over, put away the glasses and watch it in 2D. When you want to look at your photos, look at them in 2D. And when the situation presents itself to enjoy the full benefits of your 3D setup, use 3D. It's like saying that getting surround sound is pointless because even though your movies and games and TV shows will be awesome with 5.1, the news won't benefit from the extra channels and your music is all stereo.
You might be able to get glasses-free 3D for larger audiences at some point in the future, but you won't get 3D projected holograms and the like any time this decade. It's not a matter of the display technology, because there are novel things you can do when you combine things like eye tracking, rapidly spinning displays, lasers and fog. It's a matter of capture and storage. To have a "star-wars"-style hologram means you need footage from every angle the viewer could be looking from. Because that's infinite, we'll simplify that to say you need footage from a huge number of angles so a viewer can fluidly change viewing angles without noticing an abrupt change between views. An array of hundreds or thousands of high-def cameras is absurdly impractical and the storage tech to stream all those feeds is quite beyond what we can do now, I'm sure (perhaps they'd go the route of Blu-ray 3D and reference one video feed to cut down on the subsequent storage requirements of other feeds... I'm still sure this would correspond to a many-fold increase in storage requirements for films, though). If a movie was generated in 3D on the fly, like a game cutscene, the only issue would be the display technology--but imagine the outcry of switching away from traditional video footage to game-quality visuals all in the name of something that would be most definitely labeled a gimmick of epic proportions. And if you think 3D glasses and displays are too expensive, imagine having an entire high-end computer just to play back holo-movies. For the film buffs, perhaps the biggest implication of any view-independent 3D film technology would be that you can no longer direct the viewer's attention or even pick what they're looking at. Imagine how many dramatic shots in film history would be ruined by viewing from just a few degrees to the side. Holographic movies aren't happening for decades or more, and saying you'll hold out for them is just silly.
And as always, I challenge people to explain how 3D is a gimmick but color, HD and surround sound are not. They're all just giving you a more accurate representation of the director's vision, and (ignoring special effects and artificially-created surround sound effects) the actual filming location. The techs were not cheap when they first launched in the home space, and content was limited, and yet today they're all considered legitimate tools for filmmaking that use our natural senses to further immerse us. The only difference between 3D and the other techs is that 3D is the newcomer. But please, try to imagine, how would things be today if in the 1950s and forever past that point, everyone agreed that color wasn't needed to make a good movie?
@Twile
3D will initially fail because of the technology cycle. It came along too soon. Had it come out next year, it may have stood a chance. Think about it, HD TVs have been around since early to mid 2000s and yet people are JUST now beginning to adopt it in mass and even then its still a slow process. Now that people just dropped about $800 - $2500 on a new setup, along comes 3D and guess what? You're learning that that new TV you bought not even a year ago doesn't support it. The vast majority of people will just say "oh well" and skip it until their next upgrade, which could be in 2 years or 10 years at which point it will either be mainstream or dead.
@TareG
Amen to that. Deception was great. No 3D. I doean't really add that much. I feel that they are going to start using it as a crutch just to shove out crappy movies. "Annoucing blah blah blah - IN 3D!!!". Thank god the next Batman movie won't be in 3D, director said hell no. The tech needs time to catch up. None of the previous advances, DVD, Progressive Scan, High Definition required putting something on your person. and I don't think 3D will be embraced until they can do 3D a la Nintendo 3Ds.
Like
RhymeMaster said,
"at the end of the day...who wants to wear glasses?"
@ruby
To me, holographic viewing is really the only TRUE 3D option. The current offerings, especially where "special" glasses are required is so NOT what I would call 3D. Give me an R2 unit with a holographics projector, and then I'll be happy to plunk down say...a solid $5000 (or more) for such a 3D experience. Until then, forget it!