Why are people so skeptical of 3D?

[mikecoulter]

Because I already live my life in 3D, why do I need the one thing I do on screen to be 3D too?

 

[spartan231490]

I'm all for 3D. I think it's a case of people hating what's popular, usually I'm the same but i see this as a great step forward.

The 3DS is a great example of the technology moving forward. So far that tech only works well for small screens, but imagine if in a few years someone develops similar tech that works well on large screens too.

I don't get what's not to like with no-glasses 3D, I can only hope it becomes the standard in future.

It might be a necessary step towards making holograms too, incase anyone wants those.

How many of the posts did you read? many of them point out that the 3ds only works for one person, so it needs to not only be scaled for bigger screens, but would need to be adjusted to work for multiple people at multiple viewing angles, which is gonna take quite a long time. And have u seen how much 3d tv's and blue ray players cost? way too expensive.

I didn't say the tech just needs to be scaled up, my point was that if the tech did move forward in such a way there'd be no negatives and it would have been a worthwhile advancement.

3D is the same as HD. It might not make a massive difference a lot of the time, but if the option comes naturally why not take it?

Yeah, and if electric cars move forward to the point where they run on everlasting duracell batteries, there would be no downcides there and it would be a worthwile advancement. That doesn't mean that it's easy, or even possible. as for why wouldn't i take it, i have better things to spend my money on, as does everyone, even if they don't know it.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I'm guessing the tech that the 3DS applies works only on the 3DS, it's probably not possible to apply it to a TV or computer. But that's just my guess and not the reason as to why I am skeptical.

Thing is, it wasn't so long ago we moved into HD, hell, I still play games on an SD TV. I bet the companies that sell the 3D tech are shitting their pants in joy, me and a lot of other consumers, not as much.

That and I think 3D gaming is sort of a waste. I was never much of a graphics freak, which is basically what this is, a way to make games prettier, not necessarily better. I'm not against it, I would just have spent my time and money on developing other aspects of gaming instead.

this.

i think there is a time and place for it, eventually

and i mean EVENTUALLY

3d tv's and 3d games..we aren't ready for it quite yet, at least economically and technologically ease of making it...

 

[Valkyrie101]

Because it's a gimmick, and doesn't have a great impact on the game experience, compared to what else could be done with the time and money invested in it. However, I think we should continue developing 3D technology. It may not be very exciting at the moment, but give it time and we might end up with something genuinely revolutionary.

 

[AlmostLikeLife]

I'm skeptical of 3D because of my past experiences with the technology. Every time I've watched something in 3D, it's always that cheesy type. Where people poke a stick or something at the camera while going, "Whoah! Look out! It's coming right at you!"

I couldn't care less about 3D gaming or movies, it's a gimmick.

 

[Therumancer]

Look, 3D is the next big thing, and that's just a fact. By that I don't mean that 3D screens are going to revolutionize life, just that they will replace regular 2D screens, just like HD replaced non-HD. Years from now, the only electronics that won't have 3D screens are the ones that are too utilitarian or cheap to have them.

Any 3D that required glasses was inevitably too awkward to really succeed, especially since red-green glasses screwed up the color badly and shutter glasses are expensive. But now that the 3DS has been confirmed, that's all there is to it. People laugh because it's impossible to show the 3D effect of the 3DS on a computer, well, give it a few years: your computer will be 3D. So will your TV and your phone, depending on when it becomes cheap and when you adapt.

If you say it won't catch on because it makes some people sick, well, people will get over that. When FPSs first came out they gave people motion sickness badly, yet I'll bet most of you could play one for hours and feel fine (I certainly can). Any other technical concerns, such as poor viewing angles, will simply be improved, especially as development efforts shift from improving 2D screens to improving 3D ones. (This would happen eventually, but I'm betting the 3DS will push things along very quickly.)

Again, 3D isn't what I'd call revolutionary (we'll wait for actual holograms for that), and personally I don't find it all that fascinating. It's just that it will become the norm; it simply will.

As a side note, the one really positive effect I see 3D having on gaming is 3D platformers where you don't have to rely on your shadow to aim your jumps.

The reason is quite simple. 3d is not a new medium, it's a VERY old medium and it was a fad then and died out, and will probably do so again. A lot of it comes from skepticism, as well as the simple fact that the technology has not really progressed all that much to truely make a "return" in a new form. Connected to this is also the fact that like 30% (or something like that) of people get headaches from watching 3D movies, your looking at a pretty substantial number of people who are just going to decide they do not want a splitting skullache to watch a movie once the novelty wears off. I'm one of those people who is prone to the headaches and I pre-dose with painkillers to watch 3d movies.


Part of it is also that I think the guys running this right now think we're stupid, and that's going to catch up with them. To put things into perspective years ago they sold 3d movies in VHS format and it was going to be "the big thing". There were movies that came with the (paper) glasses right in the box near the tape. Also going far enough back you can even see experimental films like "The Mask" (not the Jim Carrey movie) which used the gimmick of having the watchers be instructed to "put on the mask" at certain points in a horror movie, where it would show the surrealistic visions that were supposed to be driving people over the edge in 3d.

Right now you have companies like Sony doing backflips to sell people "special" 3d TVs and ultra-expensive battery operated glasses which are allegedly nessicary to enjoy 3d in the home when truthfully I've already watched 3d movies in my home. Oh sure there might be a slight increase in quality but I don't think it's all that signifigant. Heck, what you see in the theaters now is more due to general improvents/refinements in film making more than anything fundementally differant about the technology.

A lot of people who don't really think 3d will be that big, are not luddites resisting the new, but quite literally taking a "been there, done that" attitude, because if you look you'll see that we've seen ALL of this before, including producers and directors screaming that this is the way of the future. I loved 3d when I was younger, despite the headaches, I was enthusiastic about it, but in the end it's just not practical for a lot of reasons, and it's success largely depends on the novelty of the experience which can outweigh the inconveinences (like the glasses) in the short term.

I think we won't see a major influx of 3d entertainment until we somehow see neural interface technology, or workable and affordable hologram projectors.

 

[Dexiro]

Yeah, and if electric cars move forward to the point where they run on everlasting duracell batteries, there would be no downcides there and it would be a worthwile advancement. That doesn't mean that it's easy, or even possible. as for why wouldn't i take it, i have better things to spend my money on, as does everyone, even if they don't know it.

Precisely, electric cars might not be much now but if they keep being developed they could end up having no downsides against regular cars.

I'm not saying you should buy into 3D now, as it stands i think it's rubbish too, but in the future it could be developed into something worthwhile.

I don't think you understood what i said about it coming naturally either. I know 3D TV's are expensive now, but in the future when they're better than regular HD TV's in every way and possibly even at the same cost why wouldn't you buy one?

I'm not exactly making an effort to buy HD TV's either but they're naturally replacing SD TV's, HD is practically the only thing being sold these days.

 

[Daverson]

1. Normal people are sceptical because of the cost and general lack of application right now, plain as that. Maybe if it becomes as widespread as colour TV, then they'll consider it. Right now the majority of actual 3D broadcasts or films are the equivalent of early colour TV, where images were filmed in black and white, then colour applied in post-production.

2. Me, I'm sceptical because I know it isn't "the next big thing", sorry about that, but I have insider technological know-wots!
-The hardware on current market 3D TVs is nothing new. The only thing "new" about 3DTV is that some bureaucrat has finally decided to let people chuck it around the airwaves.
-I've said it before but I'll say it again, the next big thing is OLEDs displays. These are screens that can be bent like paper and consume almost no power whatsoever (a HDTV resolution screen can be powered through a USB port). Simply put, two screens no bigger than a few square centimetres each can easily be mounted in the place of the lens on your 3DTV glasses, rendering the entire "TV" component obsolete.

Actually that isn't really "insider" info, it's available to anyone who fancies taking a gander on wikipedia...

 

[spartan231490]

Yeah, and if electric cars move forward to the point where they run on everlasting duracell batteries, there would be no downcides there and it would be a worthwile advancement. That doesn't mean that it's easy, or even possible. as for why wouldn't i take it, i have better things to spend my money on, as does everyone, even if they don't know it.

Precisely, electric cars might not be much now but if they keep being developed they could end up having no downsides against regular cars.

I'm not saying you should buy into 3D now, as it stands i think it's rubbish too, but in the future it could be developed into something worthwhile.

I don't think you understood what i said about it coming naturally either. I know 3D TV's are expensive now, but in the future when they're better than regular HD TV's in every way and possibly even at the same cost why wouldn't you buy one?

I'm not exactly making an effort to buy HD TV's either but they're naturally replacing SD TV's, HD is practically the only thing being sold these days.

they wont be better in every way, hd will continue to advance just as 3d will, and as i said, it adds nothing to the experience, i prefer watching a movie with a good plot than one that is pretty. The only reason i have an hd tv now is because a flatscreen is easier to carry and i am in college so i move 4 times a year. If that wasn't the case i would still have an sd tv. 3d is a gimmick now, and always will be. it's happened before.

 

[JLrep]

You are wholly, certifiably, and 100% incorrect.

1. It's too expensive and will always be too expensive.
1a. The technological leap between the 3DS and 3D home entertainment without glasses is a LOT bigger than you seem to realize, with a MUCH bigger price tag.
2. It requires you to wear glasses that many people find uncomfortable or just plain silly.
2a. If it doesn't require glasses, it can only be viewed by one person from a very specific angle/distance

I can't see the reasoning behind #1. Every technology we're using now, from flash drives to wireless internet to portable computers, was once too expensive, was once almost impossible to imagine as ever being affordable to more than a technophile.

3. It doesn't add anything of substantive value to the entertainment experience.
3a. Often times it detracts from the value by shifting focus from narrative and personal enjoyment to technical wizardry and effects.
4. It complicates the passive enjoyment of just relaxing and watching a movie by basically grabbing you by the eyeballs and screaming PAY ATTENTION TO ME I'M VERY PRETTY
4a. It breaks the immersion because that's not how our eyes and brains work. Our brains turn a 2D image (the TV screen) into a 3D image automatically. When you have something pop out at you it breaks the immersion by interrupting a process that our brain does automatically.

3-4 could also be said of HD, widescreen, CGI, surround sound, color video...
4a seems very shaky to me. Do you know that some people in developing countries, when shown a photograph, can't make heads or tails what they're looking at? Comprehending a flat image is already an unnatural thing, already something that the human brain has to learn. I don't see why it should have an even harder time learning to cope with an image that's already 3D.

Did it?

Maybe I'm just imagining most channels being in SD, then.

It's considered completely standard for video games. So far as I know, every game that comes out on the 360 and PS3 is HD. Wii isn't, which is one the most common complaints about it. The point isn't that people only own HD TVs now-which is not true-but that production and development of SD TVs (and SD media) is in a nosedive, and will eventually simply vanish, apart from a few oddities. Likewise, the jump from black and white to color didn't happen in a day, but how many people own black and white TVs now?

A lot of people are saying that 3D won't go big because of the glasses. Well, I agreed, in my initial post: Any 3D that required glasses was inevitably too awkward to really succeed. The point is that the technology to do 3D without glasses has already been demonstrated on a large scale.

If the 3DS can produce effective 3D images on a small screen at a narrow angle, I have no doubt that a little advancement will yield screens that produce effective 3D images at better angles, and 3D screens which are large. Doesn't seem like much of a jump to me. The first computer mouse was a spark plug whose position was triangulated from two microphones. If you'd told its makers that we'd end up in a world where you can get a super accurate optical mouse for two hours' worth of minimum wage, they'd probably think you were mental. Likewise, the big jumps in 3D have already been done: red/green glasses were obviously unsuitable for common use. Shutter glasses were better but still not something the average person would embrace. The point at which it becomes extra-stuff-free, that is to say glasses-free, is the point when the average person is willing to pick it up.

There's also the fact that the gap between the creation and manipulation of 2D media and 3D media is much smaller than the similar gaps between SD and HD, or black and white and color. I don't know how to quantify the jump to color, but a jump from SD to HD constitutes five or six times as much data per image. A jump from 2D to 3D constitutes, unless I am very much mistaken, twice as much data. Likewise, an HD video camera (for instance) must incorporate a significantly more powerful processor than an SD video camera. To record 3D video, all you have to do is put two 2D cameras next to each other. In the world of computing, a doubling of memory or processing power is not very much.

EDIT: I'd also like to say that I agree with those of you who don't think that 3D is that special. I've seen some movies in 3D and I didn't enjoy them any more than if they were in 2D. I was never very impressed by HD, either; when it became big, my only thought was that, I never looked at my TV screen and thought to myself "Gee, it's so fuzzy and low-resolution!" I prefer an HD screen now, but only because game makers are beginning to put out games that are not really compatible with SD screens (by which I mean things like having text so small that it's unreadable in SD). What I'm writing here is simply my interpretation of how the future of the industry will play out.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Spoiler

You are wholly, certifiably, and 100% incorrect.

1. It's too expensive and will always be too expensive.
1a. The technological leap between the 3DS and 3D home entertainment without glasses is a LOT bigger than you seem to realize, with a MUCH bigger price tag.
2. It requires you to wear glasses that many people find uncomfortable or just plain silly.
2a. If it doesn't require glasses, it can only be viewed by one person from a very specific angle/distance

I can't see the reasoning behind #1. Every technology we're using now, from flash drives to wireless internet to portable computers, was once too expensive, was once almost impossible to imagine as ever being affordable to more than a technophile.

Yes and personal jetpaks, personal android servants, laser weaponry, and other technological advancements that were deemed too expensive and ultimately unnecessary have been abandoned. Most people are perfectly happy with 2D television sets, so I don't see what the market is for 3D. Not only that, but the kind of 3D TV that can be viewed by everyone in a room easily and without added bullshit such as glasses isn't just about making the circuitry smaller or more sophisticated. You would need to invent an entirely new form of optics and projection. I'm not saying it won't EVER happen, I'm just saying that such technology isn't just 10-20 years in the future, its not going to happen within our lifetimes.

A combination of low demand for 3D equipment and the cripplingly high costs of development and production of such equipment is going to eventually send 3D on the backburner for another half century. AGAIN.

You admit that there is a low demand for 3D, yet you insist that eventually all personal entertainment will be in 3D? How does that make sense?

Spoiler

3. It doesn't add anything of substantive value to the entertainment experience.
3a. Often times it detracts from the value by shifting focus from narrative and personal enjoyment to technical wizardry and effects.
4. It complicates the passive enjoyment of just relaxing and watching a movie by basically grabbing you by the eyeballs and screaming PAY ATTENTION TO ME I'M VERY PRETTY
4a. It breaks the immersion because that's not how our eyes and brains work. Our brains turn a 2D image (the TV screen) into a 3D image automatically. When you have something pop out at you it breaks the immersion by interrupting a process that our brain does automatically.

3-4 could also be said of HD, widescreen, CGI, surround sound, color video...

No, those are all improving previously accepted norms of visual entertainment in an attempt to replicate reality and increase immersion. 3D does not replicate reality any more than a pop-up book, it just serves to emphasize certain visual elements over others. It's basically a way to control our perception of the on-screen depiction by controlling what we see as foreground and what we see as background. This is why 3D doesn't just use a 'pop up' effect, it also uses a blur/focus effect.

For 3D to replicate reality and thus increase immersion it will have to allow us to perceive the world of the movie (or game) as we perceive our own 3D world. Nothing short of full on total 3D panoramic visuals and force feedback will achieve this.

So basically until we get a Star Trek holodeck, 3D will always be a gimmicky distraction.

4a seems very shaky to me. Do you know that some people in developing countries, when shown a photograph, can't make heads or tails what they're looking at? Comprehending a flat image is already an unnatural thing, already something that the human brain has to learn. I don't see why it should have an even harder time learning to cope with an image that's already 3D.

I'd sure like to see what you're basing your 'developing countries find it difficult to understand a flat image' concept on. The entire concept of many optical illusions is that our mind immediately attempts to see depth and dimension based on lighting, foreshortening, and shadow. Our brain is confused by this image:

Because our brain automatically interprets a 3D image. The brain is the same no matter what kind of images or types of perception you've been exposed to. We expect our world to have depth, so our brain perceives depth where there is none.

I know its a long post but I feel this is an interesting discussion and absolutely worth having.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

I honestly am looking forward to the 3DS, just to see how well it works, and as for larger-scale 3D, well, why not? If it works, it works, if not, it won't happen for long.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

I hate 3D because it always, ALWAYS gives me a migraine.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I want it to catch on as long as 3D is done right, like Avatar. But there too many "Piranhas 3D" out as well..

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

And let's face it, 3-d doesn't add much to the experience. The only thing 3-d adds to is making the stuff that's closer to the screen look more like it's there. Anything that's far away, won't have anything added to it with the glasses.

This couldn't possibly be more wrong. Go watch Toy Story 3 in 3D. In that movie, almost nothing pops out from the screen; everything goes off into the distance, as if the screen were a window into the action of the film. It results in a much better, less gimmicky and more realistic experience than the proverbial paddle ball films do.

For example, Avatar was full of stuff popping out of the screen. I can't speak for everyone, but in my case this resulted in two things: 1.) a headache by the end of the film, and 2.) a flickery, almost double image when the image popped too far out of the screen. I'm almost certain that 1 and 2 are connected, because Toy Story 3 was almost completely free of stuff popping out of the screen, and it gave me no headache and a completely solid image. For the record, I saw both of these at the same theater in Disney's 3D system, so it's not a question of one of the competing formats being better than the others; Pixar just did a better job of working within the constraints of the technology.

OT: The OP is exactly right. HD wasn't exactly wanted or needed, but almost everyone now has an HD screen, and it's almost impossible to buy an SD screen. This is true because the manufacturers started phasing out the SD screens as soon as they could, gradually dropping the price on the HD screens as the economy of scale kicked in. I don't see any reason why this won't eventually happen with 3D sets; after all, there isn't much difference under the hood. Eventually, there will be enough people with a 3D set that the price will drop, and they will be as prevalent as HD sets are today. I don't think that everyone who owns a 3D set will bother with the glasses and watch in 3D, but these things are essentially high quality HD sets that spend half the time showing one eye and the rest of the time showing the other eye. They work just as well in 2d as they do in 3d -- probably better, since the entire refresh rate is taken up by one image, instead of cut in half for two.

 

[WaywardHaymaker]

The reason we're jaded about 3D is 100% those fucking paper glasses. I hate those, and when I hear 3D anything, they come to mind.

If 3D goes mainstream and those glasses aren't involved, then great. I approve.

 

[Mechanix]

I don't like 3D cos i see it as a gimmick and has no real benefit besides have picture closer to you.

I don't like color TVs because I see it as a gimmick. It has no real benefit besides having the picture look different.

 

[sheic99]

3D is a very stupid thing to bring to home entertainment. Simply because your brain has to work much harder to pull the dual images into one in order for you to see the effect. This sole thing prohibits the amount of time you can watch TV or use the computer. Secondly, 3D as it is now, requires a lot work in post than a 2D image takes. As such, 3D will not apply to live broadcasts, such as News networks and sporting events, unlike HD which only takes the purchase of a new camera to film and broadcast live in. Lastly, the fact that there has yet to be a 3d porn further illustrates the fact that 3d won't become common place.

 

[Nomanslander]

Simple answer: it gives me a headache!