3D, just a fad?

[Miumaru]

This is just the fad cycle in effect. Not saying it does not have potential. However, as long as the glasses are needed, 3D will be gimmicky. Usually can't even use it without harming the movie. How does turning the view point to be at me make the experience better? 3D will have to become way more advanced to be worthwhile.

 

[Danallighieri]

I'm thinking it's just here to stay, it's one of those things, they just keep going on and on and trying to improve on things so they can sell them on for more

 

[benoitowns]

No, I think 3D is here to stay. I'm afraid TV companies have run out of new things to sell us after we all got HD, so now they have to come up with something new. I think it's gonna become the standard very soon, within five years or so.

Good argument though =)

Well they could always make it more HD, so there would be like SD quality, HD quality, and HDer quality. And eventually there could even be Uber HD quality.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I don't know whether it will stay or not. But if it does, I want them to do 3D right. Avatar did 3D right. Most movies do not. Avatar used 3D to give things depth. You looked up the waterfall or out the window. Most other 3D movies use 3D as an excuse to throw things at the audience. I just saw a preview for the new Resident Evil movie and it looks like their going to use 3D to point things at the audience. So if we can avoid movies like that, that would be good.

 

[spuddaemon]

When I think about it there are just too many disadvantages for 3D...

People said HD was a fad when that first emerged. Uptake was slow, but now with consoles and Sky HD it's really picking up. The same will happen with 3D. The tech will improve, the price will come down. A few people will buy 3D stuff, then it will pick up. It will take longer than HD though.

Dude, this is not the first time 3D has come out... It failed 20 yrs ago as a fad... it will fail again. HD is different, you only needed a new TV, not glasses too... If your TV died, you'd get a new one and hey why not get the HD, since most are now any ways. But you still need the service for cable/satellite service, right? Well, 3D requires an additional 3D package, and this means even more $$$. Personally I don't want to have to sit in front of my TV wearing glasses. I don't wear prescriptions, and don't want to wear any thing to watch TV. Plus the annoyance of "where did I put those... ah, forget it." I think the day they can offer 3D TV without the glasses, is the day the fad ends and reality begins.

 

[spuddaemon]

No, I think 3D is here to stay. I'm afraid TV companies have run out of new things to sell us after we all got HD, so now they have to come up with something new. I think it's gonna become the standard very soon, within five years or so.

Good argument though =)

Well they could always make it more HD, so there would be like SD quality, HD quality, and HDer quality. And eventually there could even be Uber HD quality.

LOL... "Yes I'm looking for that 62" Uber HD everyone is gassing about!"
I love it. Copyright that!

 

[crimson5pheonix]

No, I think 3D is here to stay. I'm afraid TV companies have run out of new things to sell us after we all got HD, so now they have to come up with something new. I think it's gonna become the standard very soon, within five years or so.

Good argument though =)

Well they could always make it more HD, so there would be like SD quality, HD quality, and HDer quality. And eventually there could even be Uber HD quality.

The only problem with that is that it's already hard to justify 1080P on anything smaller than about 45". Most people can't tell the difference between 720P and 1080P on smaller sets. To jump higher than 1080P would be excessive.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Seeing as a great deal of people don't like it at all, I'm sure it's just a fad. I'm not against creating a technology for screens with depth, but it should not use any peripherals. If they would be able to create some kind of holographic screen then it might work.

Aslong as it doesn't give me a fucking headache like with Avatar. Good Christ, that was awfull. I couldn't even sleep that night because of the icepick in my head.

 

[RagnorakTres]

snipped for space

I'm not saying that 3D the way it is now will work. I don't believe that. Stereoscopic glasses are stupid and ill-designed. But there are other, better ways to create a 3rd dimension in pictures.

Have you ever seen Bones? You know that hologram tank they use to recreate skeletal structures? Yeah, I know, doesn't exist. But it could. We already know how to project an image through a fine mist to create a hologram, that idea is simply taking the technology to the "15 minutes into the future" extreme.

My point is that 3D is not and cannot be called a "fad," just like talking could not be called a fad, though it was, because the big picture companies will find a way to make it work, if only because it makes them money. Profits are and always have been the driving force behind new technology. It's unfortunate (I'd like technological advances to be made for their intrinsic rather than monetary value) but so be it. As long as it moves us further down the road to a better tomorrow, I'll be happy with whatever force drives it.

Though I still refuse to support Apple or Microsoft as much as I possibly can.

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

 

[moose_man]

I wish. But as was said before, I think it's here to stay.

 

[Waif]

I find myself only partly interested in 3D televisions. The reason for this is because, while I like the overall idea of 3D, I've never been able to fully experience 3D as others have described quite the in-depth experience (that I have never been able to achieve). I've always wondered why I don't see the 3D realm as others can. Maybe its the red and the blue messing with my focus, or maybe it's because I've only ever used cheap plastic glasses. In any event I might find myself interested if I feel the experience justifies the cost.

 

[josemlopes]

Serioulsy the Nvidia ones are very good, they actually just improve, no problems with colors or anything, the thing is that it is very expensive, so keep it out of your mind if you arent rich.

 

[unoleian]

I think the big problem is the fact that people went to go pay to see a movie with a novel new feature that they heard was rather neat. It's not so much that 3D has been "embraced," I think far from it. Really, 3D movies are still a rather new novelty for many modern theater goers. You simply do not see them much anymore.

So, they hear it's cool, they go pay to see it, tell other friends its pretty neat, they go to see it, and before you know it, box office receipts are through the roof. Many movies start to incorporate even basic 3D effects, some theaters show them almost exclusively, so people who are paying to see a movie they wanted to see, not just because it's in 3D< but because it looks like a good movie, are inflating the concept of 3D's popularity. Now, suddenly claims are being made that consumers have embraced 3D, and are ready and willing to shell out big bucks to put it in their homes. I mean, holy crap! Look how much that Avatar film made. People are ready for this! People want this!

Maybe not so much?

This small surge in profitability and theater attendance does not, to me, indicate that consumers are ready and willing to pay $2000 and upwards simply to experience this in their homes, especially if they are a large family, facing the specter of shelling out another $600-$1000 in additional glasses alone, and facing the headaches of how to give everyone a fair view to actually enjoy it.

Sure, there will be some early adoption by the higher incomes, and your usual technophile will orgasm over the very idea of being first on the block to have it, but this isn't really the leap that HD was, IMO. HD was a simple, accessible technology that made a massive "holy crap I can count the grass!" improvement in viewing technology, with no unreasonable required accessory demands on consumers. Really, who wasn't blown away the VERY first time they saw programming in 1080p? 3D is not that.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

3D is fad and bad for you if you watch more than 30 minutes straight.

I dunno if it will stick around or not it may last 5 years it may last 10 depends on when people start suing because its causing migraines and such. In any case it should start becoming more a over priced hobby for some like inhome theaters.

I am not interested in 3D I want full blown holographs.

 

[eljawa]

I dont think 3d will ever become a universal thing, but i think it is more than a fad.

 

[fd18e3d0-816e-11e4-b4a9-0800200c9a66]

I have to agree with you. The disadvantages far out way the advantages. The step up from SD to HD was (in my opinion) a step in the right direction. Far better quality and just made things more immersive and enjoyable. 3D on the other hand just seems gimmicky to me

 

[Treblaine]

snipped for space

I'm not saying that 3D the way it is now will work. I don't believe that. Stereoscopic glasses are stupid and ill-designed. But there are other, better ways to create a 3rd dimension in pictures.

Have you ever seen Bones? You know that hologram tank they use to recreate skeletal structures? Yeah, I know, doesn't exist. But it could. We already know how to project an image through a fine mist to create a hologram, that idea is simply taking the technology to the "15 minutes into the future" extreme.

My point is that 3D is not and cannot be called a "fad," just like talking could not be called a fad, though it was, because the big picture companies will find a way to make it work, if only because it makes them money. Profits are and always have been the driving force behind new technology. It's unfortunate (I'd like technological advances to be made for their intrinsic rather than monetary value) but so be it. As long as it moves us further down the road to a better tomorrow, I'll be happy with whatever force drives it.

Though I still refuse to support Apple or Microsoft as much as I possibly can.

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

Look there DO need to be improvements in film, but 3D is NOT the place it should be happening.

Where is should be is in framerate.

Bear with me here. For almost the entire history of cinema the standard has been 24 frames per second, but this was only chosen because it was the LOWEST POSSIBLE frame rate to give the illusion of smooth motion, but it only worked if the camera stayed very still.

Video chose 30fps due to it far more likely to be moving but any serious PC gamer knows the benefit of 60frames/sec for smooth motion over 24-30fps. 24fps only give smooth motion if the camera is very still and the action quite stationary.

This is a real problem video-philes have been grappling with for decades to counter "teh stutter" which is very apparent when you have a high quality and high resolution screen it is extremely apparent in fast moving or panning shots. They have blamed the "3:2" pulldown on 60hz screens but that is not the guilty party but in fact the problem comes down to how it is filmed.

The thing is if films, sports events and anything which has high movement, if recorded and played back at 60hz there is a huge benefit.

The best part is 60Hz cameras are not much more expensive, they are not at all harder to film with, blu-ray/HD-transmission easily has the capacity for that framerate, and screens can play it back with no modifications... whatsoever.

 

[LightspeedJack]

A fad? I hope so.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

It's funny that some folks mention the Avatar 3D movie here. I went to see that in the theatres and it kept causing me problems in certain scenes. Why? Forced field of focus. If I'm trying to look at the character in the background, and the film forces an object in the foreground to be in focus, that bothers me. It's no issue in 2D because my brain knows it's a flat image, but in 3D it keeps wanting to shift focus to what I'm trying to look at, and of course I can't. I don't know how many other people this sort of thing affects, but it'd be a major hurdle towards me wanting to buy a 3D set.

Where is should be is in framerate.

Bear with me here. For almost the entire history of cinema the standard has been 24 frames per second, but this was only chosen because it was the LOWEST POSSIBLE frame rate to give the illusion of smooth motion, but it only worked if the camera stayed very still.

Video chose 30fps due to it far more likely to be moving but any serious PC gamer knows the benefit of 60frames/sec for smooth motion over 24-30fps. 24fps only give smooth motion if the camera is very still and the action quite stationary.

This is a real problem video-philes have been grappling with for decades to counter "teh stutter" which is very apparent when you have a high quality and high resolution screen it is extremely apparent in fast moving or panning shots. They have blamed the "3:2" pulldown on 60hz screens but that is not the guilty party but in fact the problem comes down to how it is filmed.

The thing is if films, sports events and anything which has high movement, if recorded and played back at 60hz there is a huge benefit.

The best part is 60Hz cameras are not much more expensive, they are not at all harder to film with, blu-ray/HD-transmission easily has the capacity for that framerate, and screens can play it back with no modifications... whatsoever.

I can't remember where, but I remember reading somewhere about a side-effect to what you're suggesting- lots of people view live-action recordings taken at high framerates as "fake", because they've gotten used to the 24FPS standard and only see higher framerates from CGI and the like.