Why are people so skeptical of 3D?

[AcacianLeaves]

I think my examples are a bit more in line with 3D screens than yours are. As for the technological point, I admit I'm not an expert, so I'll ask, why would you need to invent a an entirely new form of optics and projection? The 3DS seems pretty darn close already. The only thing that needs improving is the viewing angles, and that doesn't need to be perfect, because viewing a TV screen at more than a slight angle is always annoying, no matter how clear it is. This business of "not within our lifetimes" seems rather extreme, as well. There are people alive now who can remember a time when electronic computers did not exist.

(And not to be OC or anything but if you replaced "android" with "robot", all your examples currently exist and are still being developed; it's just they're not as impressive as they are in sci-fi stories)

I'd like some source on that first claim. As far as I know, all you need to go from 2D to 3D is the ability to record and process two images simultaneously. As for the second, I don't think I said there was a low demand for 3D. I said that 3D that required glasses would never become mainstream.

Oh, really now, considering that reality is 3D, I'd absolutely say that 3D images replicate reality more than 2D images do. You make it sound as though 3D is only capable of rendering a couple of flat planes at different "distances" in some unnatural way, like certain magic-eye pictures (or, as you say, a pop-up book).

The "concept" I mentioned isn't mine, it's an observation by the neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks, though I've read many of his books and apologize that I cannot remember where it appears.

I, uh, feel as though you're supporting my point now, though. You pointed out that our brain is confused by that optical illusion because, while the picture is technically flat, our brain insists on perceiving it as having depth and so accepts the misleading visual cues. This is confusion that is not present with 3D; in 3D, that illusion wouldn't work, because our brain has actual depth data to use, and doesn't have to assume (by "actual" I mean the two eyes actually seeing two different images, which is what stereoscopy is). I've seen movies and images in 3D, and gimmicks aside, I'd absolutely say they look more real than 2D images (other than the red/green ones I mean, those never look natural).

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

Likewise.

Even the best 3D technology that exists today is not really 3D. The basis of what I'm trying to say is that what we have now, even at its best in films like Avatar, is just a fancy pop-up book. These images are not in 3 dimensions, they're just flat images arranged in different layered depths, creating the illusion of a superficial 3rd dimension. The glasses utilize something called a parallax barrier to properly arrange the two projected images so that your brain can interpret the 3D elements.

As for the 3DS its assumed that it uses the same basic technology, except due to the small size of the screen and the fact that only one person will be viewing it from one angle it is able to place the parallax barrier directly onto the screen. You're basically still using 3D glasses to view the image, they've just placed the 3D glasses onto the screen rather than onto your head.

There is no technology that exists to create a lifelike 3D image without using a parallax barrier to trick your eyes.

Basically this is the closest we've come to creating a true 3D holographic image.

I think you'll agree that the technology on display there isn't exactly ready for an in-home 3D Gears of War deathmatch. You may say that creating the kind of technology that would utilize full 3D holograms for entertainment purposes would be impractical, confusing, and ultimately a waste of time. I say the same thing for the current generation of 3D movies.

Like I said the current method of 3D will pretty much always require a parallax barrier (ie goofy glasses), thus the current generation of 3D will never become mainstream. New technologies would have to be invented and I don't really see any evidence that such technologies are even being heavily researched, especially not by the entertainment industry.

 

[Dxz5roxg]

I don't like it because it never works that great. I just see like the main character a little off the background. It's not that great. Maybe the 3DS will look good and 3D will catch on but for now I think it's just a gimmick and it'll fail when companys stop making money on it.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

If you say it won't catch on because it makes some people sick, well, people will get over that.

What about people like me who can't actually see the 3D effect in films and games with that gimmick.

 

[likalaruku]

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

It's an unbenificial gimick that comes with free headache & eyestrain.

 

[agentironman]

3D is a gimmick that comes around every so often. I remember when they would hand out 3D glasses at McDonalds so you could watch three stooges and other classics in 3D at home.

3D TV is just another reason to shell out more money on a new model of TV. How many production companies will start to produce in 3D? I don't know but it would add to the production cost which is that last thing they want so, I would say very few.

They may have sporting events in 3D but how much can it add to the overall experience, hard to say never seen one, may be awesome my be terrible.

Since Avatar made some serious cash (not that the fact that he released during a lull in movie releases) has 'inspired' other companies to have their full-blown 3D movie. If Clash of the Titans was any measure adding 3D after the fact and not shooting in 3D at the beginning shows you it doesn't have the impact it would as it did in Avatar.

3D movies are a fad that may take longer than the last time to pass on. I can only hope it is soon as I don't care for them personally and I hate wearing the silly glasses.

 

[Killerbunny001]

Some time ago I went to the movies with my girlfiend after I came out from work. I don`t remember which movie it was but it was in 3D. I had a hard time focusing on the 3D images because I was tired and I remember thinking then : "Why didn`t make this movie the old way ?!"

 

[squid5580]

Because people fear the new. They always did, they always will. People feared trains, cars, planes, TV, computers, you name it.

That said, I just want the glasses gone. I loved 3D in Avatar, the adding of depth by 3D really increased immersion for me. But glasses are all well and good for in the cinema, at home it's just massively inconvenient.

3D is new? Something that has been around for 30+ years is new? Or maybe we don't like it and call it a gimmick because it is old and there is a reason it never took off in the first place.

 

[Miumaru]

A-track was also supposed to be huge.

If they advance it so the glasses are not needed, and use it well so it adds to the experience, fine. BUt when we are stuck with glasses just to see something fly at us, it will be pointless and lame. The 3DS is a good step to making 3D good, but until that tech can successfully be made to accomodate multiple people in a living room, well...

 

[peterwolfe]

I don't think 3D screens will really catch on because I don't think anyone really cares. When motion pictures and television and the like appeared, it was the wave of the future because nobody had really seen anything like it before. It wowed people, and revolutionized entertainment. Color enhanced the experience (in some cases) by making the images more exciting, and, well, prettier. HD may not be as revolutionary, but it still enhanced the experience by taking the perfected colored image and intensifying it and giving it greater detail.

3D does none of this. It doesn't show people what they haven't seen before, because everyone has seen it before. It doesn't add excitement, because nobody is stupid enough to think they'll be hit by the bullets whizzing from 3D screens who isn't stupid enough to think that with 2D screens. And it doesn't enhance the experience by making it more realistic and life-like, it just makes it more jarring to look at. In other words, it's an annoying feature that adds nothing to the purpose of the medium and in fact detracts from it.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

People hate 3D because it's forced turnover. HD sets finally came down in price, so the electronics and computer giants had to find the next big thing to obsolete our current hardware and generate more revenue as we happily replace everything for the umpteenth time.

Except this time it's just a fucking stupid gimmick. Flat TVs were awesome. HD was awesome. Shoddy 3D that requires everyone to wear fucking glasses? Where the picture quality suffers? And people generally get headaches? It's a trade off, at best, whereas previous advances were absolute slam dunks.

People are happy to pay for progress. 3D, in every iteration I've seen thus far, isn't progress. It's a sideshow, and no one wants to ditch the gigantic sets they just bought for something that isn't guaranteed to improve the viewing experience.

I think a better question would be: why is anyone playing the apologist for this idiotic industry push? It's dumb, ineffective technology at this point. Accusing me and millions of other reasonable consumers of being "stuck in the past" is just ridiculous. We have every right to call this stuff shit.

 

[IxionIndustries]

Because 3-D is a crap technology right now? It's nothing more than a gimmick to slap on an extra $100 to the price tag.

I don't know what the Samsung TV or the 3DS are doing to make it less of a gimmick, but until I see it, it's still a retarded technology.

 

[lapan]

3D is still very expensive at the moment. The technology that the 3DS uses requires you to look at the screen in a specific angle, so it's not perfect either. I personally will do the same as i did with HD and wait till its affordable and comfortable to watch.

 

[CapnRaccoon]

3DS looks amazing, and has totally removed any sceptical thoughts I'd previously had.
If they can emulate that onto a bigger screen then I'm all for it.

 

[JLrep]

Even the best 3D technology that exists today is not really 3D. The basis of what I'm trying to say is that what we have now, even at its best in films like Avatar, is just a fancy pop-up book. These images are not in 3 dimensions, they're just flat images arranged in different layered depths, creating the illusion of a superficial 3rd dimension...

Forgive me, but I don't think this is accurate. I've used many different types of 3D image viewers, and with even the most uncomfortable ones (red/green glasses and "magic eye" pictures) I see actual 3D images, not just flat images arranged at different depths.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

It doesn't work for many people (me), the goggles are horrible, it hurts our eyes*, and it's ridiculously expensive.


*I'm not talking about the people that get headaches from it, many people suffer a little short term vision loss.

 

[kingcom]

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.

Thats yet to be seen. HD was both becoming a mandatory service and provided a quality boost. 3D does not actually do so.

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.

Cant argue with that, problem is why do i care about 3D?

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.)

Motion sickness still exists, its why FPS dont sell too well in Japan, they have a higher than average motion sickness to gamer ratio.

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.

Again, that is yet to be seen.

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.

Cant argue with that, though seems like camera angles have the potential for being worse.


Problem is, 3D adds nothing positive to the gaming experience. It does not draw you in, it does not make a story or gameplay any better. Like motion controls, many people will buy it, then something new and shiny will come out and those same people will get that.

 

[TheScarecrow]

The problem with 3D is that it makes next to no difference, just like 3D cinema.

2D is still far superior and you don't have to shell out another 200 quid to pay to use it.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Even the best 3D technology that exists today is not really 3D. The basis of what I'm trying to say is that what we have now, even at its best in films like Avatar, is just a fancy pop-up book. These images are not in 3 dimensions, they're just flat images arranged in different layered depths, creating the illusion of a superficial 3rd dimension...

Forgive me, but I don't think this is accurate. I've used many different types of 3D image viewers, and with even the most uncomfortable ones (red/green glasses and "magic eye" pictures) I see actual 3D images, not just flat images arranged at different depths.

You can't see the sides of the image. You can't see the image from behind, above, below, etc. The image is a composite of two different flat images to give the perception of 3D, rather than an actual 3D image. The principle is the same as a pop-up book. Yes, they do have a more sophisticated look and they are closer to duplicated our perception of 3D - but they change nothing about the experience aside from some bits that protrude out of the 2D plane - a la a pop up book.

 

[Ascarus]

any time i see a new movie nowadays that is being released "IN 3D!!!" i want to go back in time and kick james cameron in the nuts. and not just because avatar was one of the worst movies (with spectacular effects) of all time.

let's face it .. 3D is a gimmick, pure and simple. and the ONLY reasons theaters are pushing it is because 1. they can (inexplicably) charge more for the tickets and people will (even more inexplicably) pay for it and 2. as yahtzee so astutely noted, they realize most people have hi-def TVs in their homes where they can watch the same movie, for less, more comfortably so long as they are willing to wait for it's release (barring illegal downloads).

and sadly, i don't think 3D is going anywhere any time soon.