3D, just a fad?

[RagnorakTres]

...I wonder if anyone realizes how reminiscent this argument is of the first days of talking movies...

3D is the next big techno-leap. Have you ever watched some of the early "talkies?" The sound quality is bad, they obviously misplaced microphones and the actors forgot to speak into them, there were all kinds of hurdles. But technology caught up and actors and gaffers learned. Eventually, this will happen with 3D as well, but we have to give it time. My aunt and uncle are a pair of stage actors and they absolutely adored the addition of 3D in Avatar, saying that they sometimes felt like there was something rushing up behind them before it showed up on the screen. That's a pair of professional, career actors, at least one of which has appeared in an actual movie in a major role (though the chances of you having seen this movie are very slim).

It can be implemented correctly and it's going to face many of the same hurdles talking did. This time, it's the producers and the cameramen rather than the actors and the gaffers who have to learn new techniques (though I'm sure there's going to be new acting techniques introduced as well).

[sub]"Welcome to the Internet, where the men are men, the women are men and the children are FBI agents." --Unattributed[/sub]

 

[faceless chick]

i really hope it's just a fad.
3d was around twice already and it died, hope it dies again.
movies are now specifically made to have stuff unneededly jump at you to give a reason for the extra ticket price, and that's pure bullshit.

sfx are starting to become more important than the movie itself.
someone needs to go to hollywood and knock some sense into them.

 

[Treblaine]

It's going to end up like Laserdisc, it will have some support but will ultimately fail in the mainstream.

I mean Blu-ray alone is struggling against DVD's entrenched position, what chance doe 3D have?!?

The biggest problem for 3D is the sever lack of content, the price and difficulty of the hardware could be justified if there was enough to watch on it only there isn't. Very few channels can afford to be in 3D nor even worth putting in 3D. only some select sports events so your 3D setup will be unused most of the time.

Almost every film ever made has not been in 3D, and even today most films are not shot in 3D also it has been demonstrated quite how crappy 3D conversions are and also how incredibly expensive and difficult it is to film in "true 3D".

See, even old films benefit from Blu-ray as the 35-70mm film holds more detail than DVD can hold.

Also, like Laserdisc; home-3D fails in practicality.

It's not just a plug-and-play technology, each person needs glasses (which are expensive, delicate and need to be fully charged) which are proprietary for each screen by manufacturer.

 

[I Max95]

CGI isnt going to get much better after Avatar
so the best thing they can do is make it look as if the movie is leaving the screen with 3D
it should be here to stay only to leave when we can make something better because that is how the world works

 

[willsham45]

I have been looking into 3d monitors and seam a few 3d films. they are all different, the best way to experience home 3d would be to go to a store selling the 3d monitor or tv and ask for a tech demo, then you will get a better idea of what it is like.
Now the actual 3d aspect is only as good as the software will allow. As mentioned I have seen a few 3D movies the ones with the best effects were UP, how to train your dragon and avitar in that order, of best to worse these films you watched and some scenes seamed to go on for ever things seamed in your face and far back and looked really good.
Bad examples of 3d i have seen is like Alice in wonderland here things just look like they are closer or further back.
With red and green glasses i have seen a load of great examples of stills and with nvidea's 3d software in some games works great with a few colour problems with left for dead looking nice with its 3d effect but with me not really able to see anything, and team fortress with the small problem on not being able to tell who was on which team.
I also tried a tech demo at novatech of there 3d monitor. I will say it looked great but it it showed films and stills and not games to a big exent.
So i think 3d has potential but it i not going to be huge any time soon...but again indont think you can say anything until you have experienced it.
Also did you know you could use 3d that seams new now on the old CRT monitors...only when they brought out LCD screens they could not get the frame rate required for the 3d to work...so if you want to experience full colour 3d for cheap try traching down an old working crt monitor and glasses, make sure it can do 100 hz and your away.

 

[Treblaine]

...I wonder if anyone realizes how reminiscent this argument is of the first days of talking movies...

3D is the next big techno-leap. Have you ever watched some of the early "talkies?" The sound quality is bad, they obviously misplaced microphones and the actors forgot to speak into them, there were all kinds of hurdles. But technology caught up and actors and gaffers learned. Eventually, this will happen with 3D as well, but we have to give it time. My aunt and uncle are a pair of stage actors and they absolutely adored the addition of 3D in Avatar, saying that they sometimes felt like there was something rushing up behind them before it showed up on the screen. That's a pair of professional, career actors, at least one of which has appeared in an actual movie in a major role (though the chances of you having seen this movie are very slim).

It can be implemented correctly and it's going to face many of the same hurdles talking did. This time, it's the producers and the cameramen rather than the actors and the gaffers who have to learn new techniques (though I'm sure there's going to be new acting techniques introduced as well).

[sub]"Welcome to the Internet, where the men are men, the women are men and the children are FBI agents." --Unattributed[/sub]

People didn't need special headgear to enjoy a "talkie" and it gave an undeniable and obvious improvement by adding synchronised sound recordings to motion picture.

The advantage of 3D is very subtle when it is convincing, as when it is obvious it is unconvincing. The point is this technology is so bad you are better off WITHOUT the 3D, I and loads of people I know have resorted to closing one eye to remove the terrible 3D effect.

No body ever plugged their ears with the first talkies appeared.

The problem is cross-eyed effects from 3D as it is currently implemented is unavoidable as the audience are sitting at such varying distances from the screen and and at varying angles. For a TRUE 3D effect, the screen would have to show a different image for EACH PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE.

You don't have this problem with talkies, sound (in that used in cinemas) is one dimensional. just make sure everyone can hear it, that is all.

And 3D through stereoscopic depth perception makes false assumptions about human vision, particularly depth of focus and width of view.

I personally am fed up with 3D, it does not work and have made some "de-3d-ising" glasses for cinema releases that are in 3D only. the way they work is both lenses of the glasses have identical polarising lenses, so both eyes are decoded the same, and both eyes see the same left-hand field.

This technology has been around for years, but still no one has suggested how depth stereoscopic depth perception could be used for unique story telling. Everyone just says "we have to figure it out" only all they have suggested has already been done by controlling depth of focus of the camera lens.

 

[Enigmers]

It's a fad, and I don't think it's worth the money.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

Well, lets be honest, you guys. A mass amount of other concepts and products probably received a negative reception when they first came out, and are probably widely distributed today. This will also likely end up true for 3D. I don't fully embrace 3D currently, but by the time I'm well off enough to buy my own TV, there'll be a mass of 3D TV's EVERYWHERE.

 

[Dexiro]

It's annoying and expensive. I don't see much point in it really but at least it gives companies something to advance towards. Just adding more pixels must get boring.

 

[Marter]

I wish it was a fad, but I see it being around for quite a while. I don't like it though.

 

[Diligent]

I think everybody is forgetting the biggest problem with 3d technology; it requires an entire room of people to look like the lead singer from Weezer.

It's only here to stay because the big companies like Sony are feeling the need to push it down the consumers throat so they have something new and shiny to sell.

I'm thinking of so many reasons why it's not a good idea.
Many of us have perfectly functional HDTV's. Are you willing to chuck it?
What if you have a bunch of people over for a movie night? "Oh, sorry, we only have 5 pairs of glasses, maybe next time."
I don't wear glasses myself, but I have 2 friends with poor vision who tried to watch Avatar in the theater, and both nearly puked...one had to walk out.
The glasses seem to get in the way of the colour fidelity, and anything that does that seems silly. (then again early LCD monitors VS. CRT screens...)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the advancement of technology, but this feels like moving sideways rather than forward.
Call me when we can see 3d without wearing those glasses.

Short answer, fad (at least I really really hope...)

 

[Alphavillain]

I believe it is sort of a fad but much like the iPhone, it is a fad that is going to last and remain very popular. It's actually kind of retro because after all back in the fifties a lot of movies had 3D because it was an easy way to make a cheap thrill. Nowadays, what with television and illegal downloading, it seems like 3D is being used to real people back into theatres with a great cinematic experiance.
So naturally, TV is getting hooked up to this as well and so are video games. So what might have begun as just a gimmick could end up being the social norm, who knows.

I think you made a couple of great points. The whole retro thing is true, but in my opinion the real reason for 3D is that it gives an edge for big business over illegal downloading. The success of Avatar has a lot to do with it, as well.

Plus, companies are always looking for new innovations. And the last few years visual tech (ever-growing screen sizes, LED and HD) has taken over precedence from MP3 and music in general as the most rapidly evolving home technology.

 

[nightwolf667]

It's expensive and it hurts my eyes because sometimes the action moves too fast in 3D where it would seem less fast in 2D and I can't follow it. Also, I have sight problems, so if I want to go to a 3D movie without the hassle I need to wear contacts, which is fine but I prefer to wear my glasses. The Terminator 3D ride made me sick, I had to stop watching and close my eyes for several seconds because I got a headache.

For me seeing 3D movies in theaters when I could just go to a 2D showing for less money, less hassle, and with less nausea just works out better. Besides I still only want to pay 8-10 dollars for a movie ticket not 15-20. It's a novelty that I don't want invading my life until they've worked out the bugs.

Though, if it continues into television and video games it would mean that I'd swear off electronics and read more books, that can't be a bad thing.

 

[shaboinkin]

TrackMania for PC has the option of playing in 3d. You need those red cyan glasses however but the game looks completely different when you see the track and cars actually have depth to them. For a racing game, 3D really does make the game a bit better. It gives a better sense of speed.
However with that being said, wearing glasses over glasses and having my eyes hurt after 20 minutes of using them isn't that great of an option as of yet.

If they can improve on it and incorporate that head-tracking stuff instead of using glasses, I will grasp it.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I hope its a fad. It really isn't worth the extra 3 bucks. (at least that what it costs over here) It just doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the extra cost for me.

 

[Kritical Mass]

3d doesn't really contribute anything to a movie. whenever they make something in 3d they always have to shoehorn things popping out of the screens in. Sadly, I don't think it will go away any time soon because it actually sells. With modern special effects, people don't care about the writing as long as they can watch something ad go YAY SHINY!!!!!

 

[JSkunk22]

Yep, it's a fad. Fads run in cycles, and now 3-D gets its turn to be the "cool thing" again. I'm waiting for Pogs to get their turn though personally.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Yes, I believe it is nothing more than a fad.
It has been a fad in the past and I honestly don't think it will stay this time round.

 

[Arawn.Chernobog]

Same applies to 3D​

Probably will become standard, but the "HOLY SHIT IT'S 3D" factor is obviously a novelty.