Topic: Everything is in 3D!

[MaryJane]

So, it's pretty obvious that a lot of movies are being filmed in 3D, the 3DS and other small screen gadgets are introducing autostereoscopic 3D, and Youtube 3D and ESPN3D exist, and yet, the debate about whether 3D is a fad continues.

3D has been around before, in niche movies in the 50's and 80's, and also in the VirtualBoy, but we've come a long way since then.

3DTVs are decently affordable, the 3DS has received high praise from those lucky few who have experienced it, and as mentioned before, there are now 3D channels available to home TVs.

Further proof of 3D's viability is that DirecTV is launching a full time 3D channel (powered by Panasonic who is pushing 3D with their TVs) and there's a new Norelco shaver they are calling 3D much like how companies begane calling everything new HD when that was the hot new tech. There are even 3D cookie cutters now; 2D isn't good enough anymore.

Ultimately, 3D is the predecessor of holographic technology (Japan says they could have done holographs of the 2016 or 2020 World Cup and displayed them in otherwise empty stadiums around the world) and I think that is more proof that 3D is here to stay.

In the end, the saturation of 3D technology leads me to believe that it is more than a fad, but that can be discussed here, as well as other 3D products, like that camera someone posted about in the handheld section, since this is the General section.

Am I really the only one who thinks 3D is here to stay? It seems to be following the same path as HD/widescreen except the movie-to-home transition has taken place a lot faster.

[broodwars]

I hope 3D doesn't stick around and (somehow, though it's looking increasingly unlikely) fails hard.  I'm not against 3D so much as a concept, and I have enjoyed my time with it at various theme parks.  My main issue with it is that it's being treated by the gaming and movie industries as a magic bullet: a cure-all for all the creative failings of both industries and an easy excuse to up the cost for the consumer.  Have a lackluster and derivative animated movie?  No worries, because all you have to do is add THREEE DEEEEE!!! and people will look past your shoddily-written script and lazily-animated film and pay at least double what the experience is worth.  Because if James Cameron managed to make an incredibly derivative and somewhat lame (though beautiful) movie in Avatar sell ridiculously well, obviously everyone can.  And right now, adding 3D to a movie or game has negative side effects in decreased resolution and framerate (for games).  Sorry, but no thank you. 
 
I wouldn't even mind 3D being used in movies or games now if every other company wasn't constantly trying to shove the experience down my throat.  3D should be a tool to sell a creative vision, not a cheap marketing ploy.

[ThePerm]

hey Avatar was the best version of ferngully I ever saw, i would put Last Samurai(thats plural gdmit) up there though. They have to use gimmicks to sell consumer electronics, mainly because processing is hitting a brick wall pretty soon.

[MaryJane]

Every movie is derivative.
The trick is to take a known premise, like save the rainforests through a person originally sent to destroy them, and make the story orginal; taking place on a moon of Jupiter with an alien race whose deity is an interconnecting of all life forms on the moon, and humans who can cognitively inhabit cloned recreations of the native sentient species.

Movie prices were already on the rise, so personally, I'd rather they'd give us something extra than continually raise the price on the exact same product. And what mainly drains the color from a 3D movie is the fact that you have to wear dark glasses to view the effect. With autostereoscopic screens, the colors are represented much better although there is still a little fading from what I understand, but haven't personally noticed.

And when they build a computer that can create an acurate and real-time holographic display of our entire universe, then processing will have hit a brick wall, until then, expect new leaps. Graphically there is a brick wall (that is further away than people think) but for processing, I'm not so sure.

[TJ Spyke]

"decently affordable"? Not quite, the cheapest one I have seen was about $900 and that was only on sale. I am not convinced 3D is here to stay and isn't just a fad. It's a gimmick and I don't see people continuing to be willing to pay extra (how many $15+ movies are people willing to see before the novelty wears off and they get sick of paying $5 extra for it?). Even if they get over the barrier of needing to wear glasses, they still have to get people to buy 3D-capable devices (it is still very niche), and they need to make it more affordable. It's bad enough Blu-ray Discs costs more than their DVD counterparts, but 3D versions are even more.

[ThePerm]

what they ought to do is make the glasses optional and tell you not to recycle your glasses, i just keep mine...

[MaryJane]

@TJ
I still don't understand how you say $900-$1500 isn't affordable for a TV. Honestly, it isn't for me, or a lot of other people struggling through a global recession, but things are getting slowly better, and there are still a lot of people with disposable income. Also, 3DTVs are niche right now (2% of all TV sales for 2010) but their first year performance is better than HDTV's, their adoption rate is expected to double next year and prices come down even more and more content is being provided in the forms of movies, videogames, and channels. Discovery is launching a 3D channel next year, and HBO is launching a 3D VOD channel next year as well. Sony is pushing developers to make 3D games, and as you know, Nintendo is coming out with a system that will (almost certainly) have every game in 3D.

@Perm
What? Aren't you recycling the glasses by keeping them? Or do you mean you're collecting them?

[BlackNMild2k1]

@TJ
I still don't understand how you say $900-$1500 isn't affordable for a TV. Honestly, it isn't for me, or a lot of other people struggling through a global recession.....

I think that statement says it all.

[Armak88]

I really despise 3D. It seems to me that there are two types of 3D showing up in movies now. The first type are those that are filmed with insanely expensive 3D cameras, where the 3D effect is much more authentic. The second is the type where 3D is added retroactively and it looks like a cheap gimmick. If you've seen the new jackass 3D then you can clearly tell which parts were shot with the expensive 3D equipment and which parts weren't. At first I thought that 3D would drive up the price of movie development similar to the way that HD drove up the development of video games, but since the majority of 3D movies seem to be content to tack it on after the fact I'm not sure it's the same.

I don't like 3D for all the same tired reasons that other people don't. I don't want to wear glasses, I don't want to pay extra at the movies, I don't want to replace the HD TV that I JUST got for my new place with a 3D one. On top of all that I don't think the effect (even when it's done properly) is all that impressive and certainly not worth the trouble. My problem is that the things on the screen that pop out of the screen are still flat objects. If a character is displayed in 3D then it looks like a card board cut out is moving around instead of a truly 3d image.

This all being said I'm pretty pumped about the 3DS. The 3DS really solves most of my problems with 3D. No glasses probably being the biggest deal breaker, but also that it doesn't matter if sprites appear flat in 3D.

[ThePerm]

@maryjane I'm collecting them. I pay an extra couple of bucks to watch the movie, might as well keep the glasses. Like I said in my theory. IF you can get the glasses to have widespread ownership then the added cost of 3d should go down at least a bit. I think at this point 3d is here to stay, mainly because CG animated movies are now all being produced in 3d. Not to mention if they weren't planned for 3d they can be converted seamlessly unlike live action movies. IF i ever become a director, i think I would make a 3d movie. Something bladerunner-esque.

[Ian Sane]

3D seems like just a gimmick largely because it doesn't seem necessary.  When films got sound it was here to stay for obvious reasons.  Same with colour.  But it always seemed that films being silent and in black & white were obvious restrictions that would not be there if the technology permitted.  It was like once sound or colour arrived the response was "Finally!  Now we can really do movies right!"

Now we see in 3D so you could argue that it's a natural progression, just like how we hear and see in colour.  Seeing a movie in 3D is, in theory, more immersive.  It's like you're there.  But is that truly what we want from movies?  When you see a movie do you think of it as if you're a ghost observing the lives of the characters or are you just focused on the story?  For me I just want to be told a story and being able to see and hear it is essential.  Being able to touch, taste or smell it is not really so crucial.  I don't need to be in the story.  It doesn't need to be virtual reality.  In fact I'm quite content just watching the story unfold on a screen.

3D is neat but what it adds to films is so minor, which is why its popularity has been cyclical, gaining popularity about once a generation.  No one ever looked at the first movies and thought "it needs to be in my face like I can really touch it".  It was never so obvious like sound and colour.  Do you even truly notice a difference between "flat" screen images and the real world in 3D.  Think about your favourite movie scene in your head.  Does it look flat?  To me it just looks like real life.  Seeing in 3D is something I don't really notice until I need to interact with something but with movies you don't interact with anything.  My computer monitor that I'm looking at right now shows a flat image.  But I can tell what window is in front of another one.  The window border uses a certain shading effect that makes it look ridged.  Perm's Crypt Keeper image is such that I can tell that the end of his Santa cup is closer to me than his face.  I can view depth on a flat screen and it really looks no different to me than real life.  Like I know it's a screen but I don't feel I lose anything with the flat image, unless I wanted to see the other side.

3D is a novelty because it adds nothing to the storytelling of the movie.  I'm sick of CG but it lets them put something on the screen they couldn't before.  You can add some big monster that would have been too expensive to do in stop motion or would be too limited in movement.  Surround sound lets you hear where the sounds are coming from and can be used to hear things not shown on the screen.  But 3D just shows what is on the screen, only it's in your face.  It's isn't like virtual reality where I turn my head to the side and now see the profile of the character that was in front of me.  That could be a significant addition.  It's really just the same thing I see on the screen with depth to it.  To truly add something you would need some sort of 3D image room where it's like you're there and if you move around you see it from all angles.

Much like with motion control I feel that the Holodeck or the Matrix is the true future of entertainment that people want (even then I don't think it replace flat screens, just co-exist with them.)  3D is just a half-baked in between idea because what we really want isn't available. 

They had 3D in the 50s and if it was so essential then I don't see why that didn't become the standard then.  You can argue that now we can have 3D at home but in the 50s the concept of having movies at home PERIOD didn't exist so it would not have mattered.  It just does not add enough.

I also think the fact that this 3D boom coincided with the release of a huge 3D blockbuster suggests that this is really all just Hollywood copycat stuff.  I remember when every film, regardless of how stupid it looked in context, had wire fighting like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.  Or bullet time like the Matrix.  Everyone copying the big movie of the week is routine and does not mean that Feature X is here to stay.

[ThePerm]

when i say cg animated...i mean pixar/dreamworks stuff, not some clash of the titans 2010 bullshit

[Ian Sane]

I'm using CG in the Clash of the Titans bullshit way.  But also in the Gollum in Lord of the Rings way where the benefits of GOOD CG used properly and appropriately can improve the storytelling of the film.

[Stogi]

Too my knowledge, unlike any of you, I have actually produced 3D video. For my project, the benefits were as obvious, in the way that you described it Ian, as the benefits of sound and color. In those videos of dissections, seeing the depth of an incision and knowing the scale and girth of an artery, muscle or ligament as if you are there looking at it yourself is beyond any high resolution picture; because it ceases to be a picture and transforms into a window instead. That is when 3D becomes its most "obvious". Do you understand now?

And yes, I'll concede that all movies and films today probably don't need 3D, like some films really don't need color. But it's disingenious to say that it's a "gimmick" as a whole.

"3D is a novelty because it adds nothing to the storytelling of the movie."

You could easily say the same thing about HD pictures and THX sound, but that would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

[MaryJane]

First of all, the reception of color and sound was not as rosy a picture as Ian paints it. Turner Classic Movies had two separate documentaries on those issues, and though I missed the one on color, sound was met with trepidation, and they hinted that it was the same for color (they were shown back-to-back with a preview in between then I went out). A lot of 'artistic' directors refused to use sound in their films the guy (can't believe I can't remember his name) that always wears a bowler hat and has a mustache in the most popular silent films continued to make silent films for years after the introduction of sound despite studios insistance movies be made with sound. There was also the problem that adding live sound (as opposed to a recorded track) was expensive.

3D, like all technology is not as good in its infancy as it will be on a few years. James Cameron did a fantastic job on Avatar, and next year's movies are going to blow it away, visually. As Ian inadvertantly stated with his CG examples, visuals are important to movies. Maybe seeing a character in 3D is not the greatest, but a good explosion, bullet, or other such flying object does add greatly to the movie, and I do recall the 3D scenes I've seen in 3D; it makes them a lot more memorable.

For the people who don't want to wear glasses, think of them as the price of early adoption, glasses-free is coming, it just has a few hurdles to cross. Also, while $900 for a TV (or anything besides a life saving surgery which unfortunately would cost way more) is too much for me, something like 60% of the world was not adversely affected by the recession, and I really meant comparitively affordably, as in compared to HDTVs when they first came out.

And Unagi, in a few months a lot of people here will get the chance to not only shoot short 3D videos and show them off, hopefully that will make them see the benefit of 3D. I didn't produce it, but I have seen 3D surgical footage at a hospital in NYC few years ago.

Speaking of a few years ago... IMAX 3D.

[ThePerm]

yeah Chaplin wasn't a big fan of sound in pictures

a particular 3d thing i watched as a kid was some Birds thing at universal studio...i remember the birds flying in your face and then like big red steel beems coming at your face...it was awesome

[NWR_insanolord]

There are people for every technological advance in every medium, no matter what it is or how successful it winds up being, that think it's worthless and ridiculous and refuse to support it. And Ian is pretty much always one of them.

[Stogi]

*Applauds*

@Maryjane

Hmmm, so you seen a 3D surgical video? Maybe that's why we both like 3D so much.

[MaryJane]

@isanolord: LOL!

Tonight, the first NBA game (and presumably first overall basketball game) will be broadcast in 3D. Knicks vs. Heat, so now people can hate on LeBron James from more angles.

I'm a Knicks fan, and they're probably going to lose, but I'm going to watch the game in 3D at a friend's co-worker's house both of whom are Knick fans. We're not overly excited to see the Knicks lose, but rather to see if watching basketball in 3D is any good right now.

I have yet to watch anything 3D from a home TV so I'm a little skeptical, but it's just another step forward in making 3D a staple in our lives.


***Breaking News***

Literally just saw on CNN that MIT has done it again!
They've come up with a screen that senses and emits light to detect a 3D object in front of it (like a human hand) and interpret its gestures to control objects on the screen. Why is this big? Autostereoscopic screens! We've discussed before how having an autosterescopic touch screen would ruin the effect, but with this tech you would be able to hold your hand slightly to the side or above/below the objects, websites, etc you want to manipulate, and not lose the effect. This could also help on public touchscreens (hospitals, public computers, things we've yet to see) to reduce the transfer of germs. My favorite part of the segment was the guy from MIT saying that all the technology already exists, it's just software (he said 'our keen sense of mathematics') that allows this to work, so this could be in the public's hands 'fairly soon' which I would guess means like 12-24 months for the prototype to show up at CES. They of course mentioned smartphones as a recepient of this since nearly everyone has one now, but my first thought was of this being in this utilized for the 3DSi.

[MaryJane]

Toshiba is going to have an autostereoscopic laptop (a fairly rough prototype) at CES this year, and says they plan on releasing a few before the end of 2011.

This another step in the right direction for getting 3D into people's homes. Glasses-free is definitely more appealing, laptops are more popular than desktops, and where laptops go tablets are soon to follow.

They'll soon get autosterescopic screens above 22' and then I think we'll see an even bigger reception of 3D.

@ Unagi
I missed your post somehow, but yes that is very likely the reason. I was invited to witness it by a surgeon for whom I transcribed some of his old cases from cassettes and it was easily the most impressive 3D presentation I have ever seen. It was like I was the surgeon and digging around this woman's chest.

I know how that might sound, but surgery is anything but perverse.

Also, let me just say that the Knicks/Heat game I saw in 3D showed as much potential as it did inexperience. There were some good shots, one in particular made you really feel like you were at the game, and the slow-motion replays were pretty damn great as well. There were early miscues, and some shots that were frankly crappy, but overall, good effort.

[BranDonk Kong]

I don't think this whole 3D thing will be a fad, and soon, passive glasses will be the thing. I can't imagine the glasses-free tech working on big screens too well, because of the range you need to sit at to get the proper effect, so passive glasses will be the way to go. They don't have the flickering that active glasses do, they're cheap, and you just put them on. No batteries.

[MaryJane]

I agree with you on passive glasses for now, but I think they'll get glasses-free on bigger TVs. Either that or they'll simply leap frog to holographic projections.

[Shorty McNostril]

I hope I haven't missed anything, but I don't see how holograms are possible.  You have to limit light.  And I imagine the pure horsepower needed to do that at any decent resolution would be ginormous.

[ThePerm]

spinning mirrors

[Shorty McNostril]

Is that exactly practical?