I am not a luddite: I love gadgets of all kinds, I read geeky stereo and TV sites to look for the best technology, and I own all kinds of tech. But for God's sake, can we please stop the 3-D train for films, and especially, TV? While I was impressed by Avatar and Toy Story 3, IMO they would have been just as good without the need to wear glasses. And some films (Clash of the Titans anyone?) were not just bad films, they were painful to watch in 3-D. After seeing at least 5 3-D films, I have concluded that I think I actually prefer 2-D to 3-D, and would not care one bit if 3-D disappeared completely from the scene. And that doesn't even contemplate the horrors of a world with 3-D television, where I have to wear weird goggles in my own house, or the fact 3-D films have an absurd premium, making going to the movies even more expensive. Am I alone in this?
OT: 3-D films and TV- Please stop.
You do know that all those movies that came out on 3D, could also be seen in theatres in 2D too right?
them. The fact however, is that studios are going full bore toward mostly 3-D content, and project that many event films will not have a 2-D version in a few years.
if they produce movies with no 2D version, will they bring the ticket prices back down to pre-3D levels, or will they leave them at the higher levels? If the latter, then I'm pretty sure 3D is one of the most elaborate scams ever.
I do like 3D films, but I'm kind of baffled as to why Sony especially thinks that 3D is going to be so awesome in the home. The TVs are really expensive right now, which is a problem since lots of us just upgraded to HD and we can't justify spending $2,000 on another TV for a long time. Also, if you have friends over for the Super Bowl, are you going to have everyone in the room wearing glasses and then have a bin for them to return all of them at the end of the game? i think that video game developers are also wasting money that would be better spent on games themselves.
I agree I'm worried that all of my favorite game franchises are going to start sucking because they spent all this time on worthless 3D when they could have just made their product better.
3D TV will never be more than a niche product.
Haha, ok you might be absolutley right on this, but I can't help but think of people in the fifties saying the same thing about original TV. Or in the 90's that the internet was a passing trend.
Be careful with those absolute statements!
We've had 3D since the 50's. Granted that this is a higher technology, but people do not want to sit in front of the TV in glasses. For many, myself included, sitting up is too much to ask.
But now that everyone that would ever buy an HDTV has bought one, how else are they going to get everyone to buy new TVs again unless they convince us we need 3D?
Of course, I could probably go back in time a decade and say this about HDTVs, and now I can't stand non-HD.
qualifies as anything close to the same advancement HD was. Nobody could argue that HD didn't make tv better. On the other hand, it's easy to argue that 3D is more of a gimmick than a genuine advancement.
I think that HDTV penetration is still fairly limited. Speaking personally, they could convince me to buy another one if I can upgrade my size at a lower cost.
...if I can upgrade my size at a lower cost".
Wouldn't we all?
I get emails all the time from kind strangers offering me the chance to do the same thing.
But now that everyone that would ever buy an HDTV has bought one, how else are they going to get everyone to buy new TVs again unless they convince us we need 3D?
Oh, wait, that was my post right above this....
The only movie I saw in 3D was Avatar and afterwards I had an enormous headache, I can't imagine wanting to replicate that feeling at home.
Agreed. It was a horrible movie experience. 3D was bad too.
I've seen Avatar and Toy Story 3 in 3D and had a tremendous headache each time. It seems when you watch a movie in 3D the director can make you focus on exactly what they want....because that's what's in focus and "pops" out at you. They're going to have to make big improvements in the viewing technology (no glasses) if I'm going to support 3D TV and movies.
I agree - I have serious headache problems when seeing anything in 3d. I have to take the glasses off every few minutes, and when I do, my whole brain kind of exhales and says, 'phew'. It's much easier on my eyes to watch a 3d movie without the glasses on and see double than to wear the damn glasses. Maybe it's just because I've never worn glasses before in my life. I don't know how people get used to it.
I went to a theater that was showing the Florida-Oklahoma national championship game in 3d two years ago, and what a disappointing experience! Our feed had different (and crappy) announcers who were much more interested in pointing out how AWESOME 3d is than the ongoing game, and different camera feeds that tended to only get up-close-and-personal to the action. That may sound good, but in fact it's terrible because instead of seeing a play unfold you're stuck watching the wrenching face of an offensive lineman because apparently it's more impressive to see closeups in 3d than to look at things from afar. Also, the whole fan dynamic thing inside a dark movie theater where you're normally supposed to keep quiet was just weird. Two thumbs down!!
I have a serious headache looking at your avatar.
are an excellent excuse for studios to raise ticket prices to ridiculous levels. Beyond that, there's no real reason for the widespread use of 3D -- in theory it sounds great, but in reality it adds absolutely nothing to good movies and makes bad movies more intolerable.
I love my technology and my films, and I'm all for the use of 3D in principle, but I've yet to see something in 3D that doesn't seem gimmicky. The problem like many have said is the glasses. I'd be interested to see if they could put a layer across the screen which could somehow replicate 3D, thus allowing you to see the 3D without glasses. However, until this comes along, I'll stick to 2D.
Technology is always going to be evolving though. I'm not really a huge fan of digital cameras in movies, but it looks like they're here to stay too.
Until it can be properly implemented, hopefully 3-D follows minidiscs, zip drives, backstreet boys, and hd dvds.
Is it just me or does the 3-D experience feel like just a bunch of staggered, flat 2-D images? For much of Avatar (especially the indoor scenes with the actors), I felt like I was watching a bunch of well-spaced cardboard cutouts on the screen. To me the dimensional feel of 2-D is much more natural.
I won't shed a tear when this fad is over. I keep wondering whether somethign is wrong with my eyes (or brain), and everyone else sees in some different way that makes the experience entertaining.
I'm glad to see I'm not alone.
that's exactly what it is, and that's why I hate it. To make really compelling 3D, they're going to have to abandon the flat tv screen form and come up with a display with real physical depth (that you can view from different angles). Otherwise it's just going to be more of the same faux 3D that looks like a bunch of 2D images.
The problem with 3-d tvs is the same thing as the old school projection tvs. You have to sit directly in front of them or the picture is distorted.
I agree with the op about 3-d movies. If you didn't shoot it in 3-d converting it wont look all that impressive. I have been going to a theater in the greater Portland, OR area called Cinetopia. A few publications have voted it one of the best theaters in the country. With that being said, the care of the glasses has gone down hill so bad that I have to spend the entire previews trying to smear the popcorn butter residue to the edge of the lens so I can kind of use them.
Now I go to the 2-d showing instead. I still go to Cinetopia because I can get a pitcher of beer and sit in a leather recliner with my own ottoman.
I expect that 3D will catch on and eventually become a standard feature. The commercial success of Avatar is too significant to not see that people are engergized by 3D. I just think it's going to take a really long time, and it's not going to be worth it in the end.
More than movies, I'm worried about video game developers wasting untold millions on developing and optimizing for 3D, when there are so many other ways that games could be made better. It's very difficult to make games in 3D, because the picture has to be rendered at 120 frames per second. We're still not at a point where 30 FPS is a no-brainer with top notch graphics.
but I was most energized by being able to exit the theater at the end of Avatar knowing that I'd never have to watch that movie ever again in any D.
I thought that was mainly the hardware's fault. With midline current generation graphics cards you can run most current generation games at 40ish FPS. Current gen consoles are a bit behind the times in terms of processors and GPUs.
Xbox 360 has 3 dual threaded cores @ 3.2 GHz, PS3 has 7(!) cell linked cores. Xbox 360 has 512 MB of vRAM, vs. PS3's 256 MB. The processors are still great, the RAM is laughable for graphics at this point. It's not a wonder that console FPS rates suck.
The current gen hardware is a problem. This means that developers are going to gimp the graphics in their games or spend valuable resources trying to figure out how to display the same graphics at 120 FPS. And games are already friggin' expensive enough to make.
I absolutely hate 3D. I went to one 3D movie, Avatar, and it gave me the largest headache of all time - and the 3D isn't even that cool to begin with. I would much rather enjoy something without wearing glasses. It's not relaxing to watch a 3D movie, you have to be in the perfect position to even see it right. It might succeed for a while, but people will get over the gimmick of it. I don't think 3D will actually be big until they can truly invent a practice device for viewing it.
but I think Nintendo hit the nail on the head with the 3DS handheld that I saw at E3 this year. They have really done a good job with the tech, and no glasses are required. After 10 minutes of demo, it really works.
I agree, but unfortunately 3D will be here to stay for one big reason: Kids.
Studios are going to put every new kids' movie in 3D, and doing the good old Big Tobacco move of hooking them while they're young.
In 30 years you will have en entire adult generation who was brought up on 3D film and view it as the norm.
I personally hate it soooo much. It adds nothing to the experience for me.
I totally agree with you. I have two boys, 7 and 10 years old, and since Avatar they only want to watch 3D versions of movies. Getting to wear glasses is actually the selling point for my younger one. He thinks it's fun and cool. I personally hate them.
And like HD, you'll probably wonder how you ever lived without it. I mean, you mention your small sample size, and the fact that you only saw 2 movies with "good" 3D. That's probably because the other 3 movies were shot in 2D then converted to 3D for a money grab. Of course it's going to be terrible.
3D in your home will arise from two different ways. By all accounts, watching sports in 3D is that next leap forward from watching sports in HD. Playing video games in 3D is going to be awesome. MLB The Show was awesome in 3D, while batting you almost can't help but to flinch when a pitch comes down the middle at 95 mph. FIFA in 3D wasn't that great, the only thing that really stood out were replays and more realistic player models. However, this is just scratching the surface, wait until the a studio develops a good shooter along the lines of MW2 or BFBC2 to take advantage of 3D.
Don't write off the technology just yet. It would be like writing off the video game industry because you think Pong was a terrible game. If you're already in the market for a new expensive OLED TV, you might as well spring for the extra $300 for 3D. Otherwise, wait a few years, the content should increase and the price will decrease.
I don't preclude that as a possibility. But my point is that even the "good" 3-D I've seen is not exciting to watch IMO. That's why I wouldn't miss it if it left--the best examples if it so far IMO are not worth either the cost or having to wear the glasses. To your point, converted 3-D ala Clash of the Titans does suck and should come with a disclaimer, but I saw Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, How to train a Dragon (I have a daughter, can you tell?) and Toy Story, all of which were designed and shot for 3-D, and I'm not impressed other than a stray visual here or there.
The technology isn't there yet. It's too new. Once again, it would be like envisioning the Xbox 360 would happen based off of what you saw with a Super Nintendo.
Part of the problem is lack of stimulation. I'm sure its hard to try and work in lots of 3D moments without it seemingly becoming gratuitous, there's just not that many stimulation and the story usually travels down a linear path.
This is where video games can step in and provide a good transition. It would offer plenty of opportunities to set up recurring 3D moments (That RPG is heading right for my face!) AND be able to pull it off unlike 3D movies (How many times can I make this house in UP appear to be flying out of the screen before you get annoyed?). What's also exciting is that if they can get the PS Move or Microsoft Kinect refined, we can transition to true first person video games. Think about it as you standing in the batter's box, watching the ball travel towards you, and swinging the bat through the zone. It's awhile off, but this will be infinitely better than Virtual Reality Helmets.
Also, keep in mind that 3D does not necessarily have to be done with glasses, that's just the cheapest way at this point.
I don't see how you could possibly do 3D on a big screen without glasses. Your eyes need to see two separate images and without glasses, you have to be in an exact spot. The 3DS works because there isn't a lot of variation in where your head is positioned relative to the handheld and because you are much closer to the screen. Or at least that's my understanding of how the 3DS works.
For movie theaters, no. I don't see it that farfetched that somebody couldn't duplicate it in home. You can even adjust it for optimal viewing with a mount.
Plus, you have to make some sort of allowance for technology to get better. Sony's milimeter screen is progressing well, we aren't that far off from having ultrathin flatscreens. Then who knows?
I am not all that impressed with it, I mean it can look good in certain scenes etc.. but overall I don't think it is worth it. It also has been know to give out headaches to lots of people (see many posters on this thread). I don't want to wear goofy glasses at home on my couch. The leap to 720p or 1080p is a huge improvement over 480i but gettting headaches from having my eyes independently focus is not a tech advantage I care about. I will not purchase a 3-D TV.
For my Matrix style head implant. Then I'll just "jack in" to my TV.
I'm waiting for 4-D.
Don't space out on this one, not sure you have time for that.
It's pretty obvious that there are only 10 dimensions. This is essentially the easiest thing to understand ever...
Famous last words, it already exists.
I get it conceptually, I just have no idea how it works.
...and tried to sell it to me in a tv. Yet.
As far as anyone knows.
I saw one of the animated movies in 3D, and I had a headache afterward.
I don't really understand the furor over 3D TV's. The glasses alone cost more than $100.
How about 36D?
Those cost as much or even more, but they are way more fun to watch or play with. They also give you headaches, a different kind of headaches.
P.S. My apologies to the ladies on this blog.
I completely agree. I have seen 5 films in 3-D and none of them were worth wearing awkward glasses and paying $3 extra per person to see the movie. At first the idea of 3-D is awesome. When you actually see a movie in 3-D however you are not as pleased as you thought you would be. Some people think they are worth it however. So IMO if they are going to make 3-D movies go ahead, just make a 2-D version too for people that are not willing to pay $11.50 for a not so awesome 3-D version.
People do realize that the same 3D that was done for Avatar in the movie theaters can be done on a standard TV, right?
The leap in performance between 3D TVs and 3D that can be formatted on existing sets might as well be the difference between 1080p and 1081i.
Is it better technology? Yes. Is it worth the money? No.
I am however getting jazzed for 3d sporting events in HD. With a good surround sound system and quality TV Saturday and Thursday night could get much much better. I won't be buying one of these 1st generation sets though.