Probably the most confusing, astonishing, and enraging commercial I've ever seen was one by Samsung, promoting their fantastic new television that could supposedly reproduce 3D imagery. A typical white television family gazed, mouths agape, at the aquarium they were walking through, staring like the goats they were at the myriad kois, clownfish, flying fish, starfish, fishsticks, catfish, birdfish, redfish, bluefish, Suess-fish, etc. The family then revealed themselves as demons sent to purge this earth of what made it unique, as demonstrated by the father-in-disguise reaching his hands into the aquarium. Not over the top of it, through the water. Through the glass. He pulled out a cube of the aquarium, caging the hapless fish that happened to swim through his malicious grasp, and they happily drove to their domicile of darkness, cleverly disguised as a suburban human home, and shoved this cube through their dimension to hell, cleverly disguised as a typical flatscreen high definition television. Then a disconnected, ethereal voice that I can only assume was their higher-up spoke:
"Ever wondered how amazing it would be to experience life in another dimension? We did. Introducing a new dimension in television. Samsung 3D TV."
I pray to god that this was some kind of underworldly code indecipherable to the human ear, and not actually the English language as it appeared to be, because if it was the latter, it could easily be the stupidest collection of words I've ever heard. If there's a secretary or receptionist working for Samsung that has stumbled across this, I hope you're sitting down, because the next sentence may make you dizzy.
We live in four dimensions. That's one more than your dinky TV poorly reproduces.
I know. I know. Get some water.
This entire stereoscopic display fad is already getting old. I take that back: it's actually just plain old. It's been on-and-off since the 50's, continually fading from relevance from being really annoying and relying on incapable technology. Of course, the most recent iteration of the fad was started by James Cameron's Avatar, and let me state now, relatively early in this spiel, that I have not seen that movie. I have heard reviews and synopses of it, so I do get it. I apologize for choosing whether to view a movie by looking at the entirety of a movie's merits, or lack thereof.
The idea that we're still trying in vain to reproduce three dimensions on a two-dimensional medium is what baffles me. No matter how sleek the glasses, how quick the refresh rate, how many cameras were filming the scene, television is a two-dimensional method of delivering information. On top of being truly flat, the television is a finite device, so any image that reaches it's edges would suddenly be truncated, shattering the illusion, if it was successfully set up. The third dimension will always be fabricated through these pixels, always be limited. Creating an entire new dimension is something that will require creating an entire new display that would somehow combat the limited area. Perhaps something related to projection that used some applicable surface that was much closer to the eyes (in the form of glasses, or maybe projecting straight onto the eye) would be capable of realistic and thorough stereoscopic depth, much more so than the television, at least.
What is unique about this time around is the serious incorporation of this technology into the video game industry. Please note I said "serious", which would negate that horrendous thing Nintendo dumped on us in the 90s. Instead, they are dumping a less horrendous console on us, the 3DS, which, being a plebeian, I have had no contact with, but apparently it works well without causing physical pain. Even Sony is jumping on the bandwagon, releasing a firmware update allowing the PS3 to play any PS3 game in stereoscope.
Whatever.
Who cares. As a game snob, I just can't care about stereoscopic vision for my games. They don't do anything to improve the essential elements . These games aren't any more elegant in gameplay, deep in story, or -- yes that's right -- complex in aesthetics then they were before they were shoved into an optical illusion. Is it a bad thing? Well, if it causes people physical pain, then yes, it's bad. If the console gives the player the option to turn the entire schtick off, then it's irrelevant, and that is bad. But if it can provide a new way of looking at a game without any real downsides, then no, it isn't bad. It still isn't any use.
Even so, this entire charade covers a new piece of tech, a hot new thing, a completely pointless inclusion. I don't want to get too worked up, here. I know that stereoscope is a basically harmless trinket, and that the amount of effort being made integrating this tech into future products isn't that large. Please try to understand that I have a strange immunity to the Avatar effect, so when I see a handheld being marketed with the same game library as a home console from 15 years ago except these games are in "threeeee-deeeee", I simply shrug. It means nothing. I can't have any interest in that platform, regardless of how many "dees" it contains. This is what new technology means nowadays. I'd prefer better games, or at least new games.
What are your feelings on the whole stereoscopic deal? Please leave a comment!
Thanks for reading.
"Ever wondered how amazing it would be to experience life in another dimension? We did. Introducing a new dimension in television. Samsung 3D TV."
I pray to god that this was some kind of underworldly code indecipherable to the human ear, and not actually the English language as it appeared to be, because if it was the latter, it could easily be the stupidest collection of words I've ever heard. If there's a secretary or receptionist working for Samsung that has stumbled across this, I hope you're sitting down, because the next sentence may make you dizzy.
We live in four dimensions. That's one more than your dinky TV poorly reproduces.
I know. I know. Get some water.
This entire stereoscopic display fad is already getting old. I take that back: it's actually just plain old. It's been on-and-off since the 50's, continually fading from relevance from being really annoying and relying on incapable technology. Of course, the most recent iteration of the fad was started by James Cameron's Avatar, and let me state now, relatively early in this spiel, that I have not seen that movie. I have heard reviews and synopses of it, so I do get it. I apologize for choosing whether to view a movie by looking at the entirety of a movie's merits, or lack thereof.
The idea that we're still trying in vain to reproduce three dimensions on a two-dimensional medium is what baffles me. No matter how sleek the glasses, how quick the refresh rate, how many cameras were filming the scene, television is a two-dimensional method of delivering information. On top of being truly flat, the television is a finite device, so any image that reaches it's edges would suddenly be truncated, shattering the illusion, if it was successfully set up. The third dimension will always be fabricated through these pixels, always be limited. Creating an entire new dimension is something that will require creating an entire new display that would somehow combat the limited area. Perhaps something related to projection that used some applicable surface that was much closer to the eyes (in the form of glasses, or maybe projecting straight onto the eye) would be capable of realistic and thorough stereoscopic depth, much more so than the television, at least.
What is unique about this time around is the serious incorporation of this technology into the video game industry. Please note I said "serious", which would negate that horrendous thing Nintendo dumped on us in the 90s. Instead, they are dumping a less horrendous console on us, the 3DS, which, being a plebeian, I have had no contact with, but apparently it works well without causing physical pain. Even Sony is jumping on the bandwagon, releasing a firmware update allowing the PS3 to play any PS3 game in stereoscope.
Whatever.
Who cares. As a game snob, I just can't care about stereoscopic vision for my games. They don't do anything to improve the essential elements . These games aren't any more elegant in gameplay, deep in story, or -- yes that's right -- complex in aesthetics then they were before they were shoved into an optical illusion. Is it a bad thing? Well, if it causes people physical pain, then yes, it's bad. If the console gives the player the option to turn the entire schtick off, then it's irrelevant, and that is bad. But if it can provide a new way of looking at a game without any real downsides, then no, it isn't bad. It still isn't any use.
Even so, this entire charade covers a new piece of tech, a hot new thing, a completely pointless inclusion. I don't want to get too worked up, here. I know that stereoscope is a basically harmless trinket, and that the amount of effort being made integrating this tech into future products isn't that large. Please try to understand that I have a strange immunity to the Avatar effect, so when I see a handheld being marketed with the same game library as a home console from 15 years ago except these games are in "threeeee-deeeee", I simply shrug. It means nothing. I can't have any interest in that platform, regardless of how many "dees" it contains. This is what new technology means nowadays. I'd prefer better games, or at least new games.
What are your feelings on the whole stereoscopic deal? Please leave a comment!
Thanks for reading.
