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?

[ThePerm]

probably not

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIcsYBZSQ48

[Shorty McNostril]

But that still wouldn't work.  The image would be projected in a 2D shape onto the floor. 

Sorry if that link explains it more, but my internet has been capped. 

[ThePerm]

oh yeah i forgot to illustrate the second laser, you would need 2. or one disk with lots of lasers on the disk

[MaryJane]

I'm not really sure on the technical aspect of holograms, but I know that in the next 10 years we can expect to see the tech grow a lot, especially out of Japan because their economy is wisely based (mostly) on technology (rather than manufacturing like China, and consumption like the U.S) and their government will be pouring a lot into it. In their bid for the 2020 World Cup Japan said they would have been able to holographically broadcast the games to otherwise empty stadiums around the world. They should have won the bid, but somehow Qatar won and all they're offering is 100+ degree weather...

[ThePerm]

might as well have the Olympics in Yuma Arizona

[bustin98]

Holographic broadcasts will never be a mainstream idea. Too many cameras needed to capture all the angles, and if an angle is missing, it'll stand out and take away from the experience. It'll be something for niche programs, things where the subject matter doesn't move around too much or too fast.

3D broadcasts will be more likely, and probably could be done at any point now that movie companies are creating a demand for the specialized cameras.

[Shorty McNostril]

I still don't understand how you can limit light, but I digress.....

[MaryJane]

@Bustin98
I bet people said the same thing about 3D... Like in this very thread.

@Shorty
If it can be focused (laser) why can't it be limited? Or at least focused in a way that makes it seem limited to our eyes? Like I said previously, I'm not in the know-how on holographs, but what if the display sat on your floor, broadcast light all the way to your celing and created a cross section with the bouncing rays where the image formed?

Generally speaking, some 3D news out of CES: VUDU players will begin streaming 3D movies starting next week, so I imagine Netflix and others won't be far behind.
Toshiba is also showing off a very early prototype glasses-free 3DTV capable of also displaying 2D in 4k (4 times 1080p).
Both stories are at Engadget, and they note that while the 3D images on Toshiba's TV aren't as good as active shutter 3D, it shows promise in the tech.

[Shorty McNostril]

@Shorty
If it can be focused (laser) why can't it be limited? Or at least focused in a way that makes it seem limited to our eyes? Like I said previously, I'm not in the know-how on holographs, but what if the display sat on your floor, broadcast light all the way to your celing and created a cross section with the bouncing rays where the image formed?

Like you I am most definitely not an expert on properties of light, but as far as I'm aware light doesn't just stop.  It needs to be stopped.  Something needs to be in the way. Now I don't know of any substance (solid or otherwise) that can stop light in its tracks that would be useful for a holographic image.  Bearing in mind of course that it would need to move and be invisible (or close enough to it). 

And another thing in turn is that the beam of light would need to change colour as it moves through the image being projected. 

Don't get me wrong, I would love this to happen.  But I just don't see how it would be doable at all in a specific environment, let alone one's loungeroom.

[ejamer]

I think a lot of the excitement surrounding 3D video is the (real or imagined) potential that people hope to see in the near future.  Dreams about true holographic displays might not be within reach in the short term, but it doesn't stop people from dreaming.
 
Personally I hope that 3D media doesn't become a standard.  The glasses are annoying, the effect doesn't always work, long-term effects on people are unknown (especially with children), and companies expect us to willingly pay for this?  Well, they are probably right.  Many people will pay for 3D tech because it's the "next big thing"... but as someone who hasn't even adopted the HD standard there is no chance I'm going to be moving to 3D in the near future.

[Shorty McNostril]

I'm kind of undecided about 3D becoming cemented as the next must-have feature.

While I have to admit, I do really enjoy the 3D effects, the current way of 3D at home with the shutter glasses just isn't cool.  I watch the demo unit at the shops and it full on annoys me.  Not so much the glasses themselves, but the way they work.  It just looks wrong.  If they used the method that the movie cinema's use with passive glasses I would not mind at all.  I forget I'm wearing the glasses 5 mins in anyway. 

Of course viewing angle needs to be acceptable too.  Does anyone know why they all decided to use active glasses, rather than passive? 

[MaryJane]

@Shorty
1. Think laser at different intensities and colors bouncing between mirrors (really, I think even your ceiling would work, with the mirror in the same unit as the laser) and the cross-section forming an image.
2. It's more profitable for the companies to make cheap TVs and expensive glasses. Vizio is coming out with a line that does the opposite, hopefully it goes well so others follow.

There's a lot 3DTV news coming out of CES including a glasses-free mobile 3DTV from LG, 40-60" glasses-free TVs from Toshiba in early 2012, maybe late 2011, and a 3D laptop from Fujitsu that needs glasses.

[MaryJane]

Another 24/7 3DTV channel is launching this weekend from Sony, IMAX, and the Discovery channel, called 3net. 3 companies, 3D, 3net... how clever.

Aside from the lame name, they do promise to offer new shows in a rotation every night at 9p.m, (I'm guessing more than 5 or 7 shows, depending on what they mean by every night) and they pledge to have the most native 3D content by the end of the year.

With ESPN3D to begin looping their 3D library and continuing to show live games, and DirecTV's own n3D, there are now 3, full time 3D channels on DirecTV. I don't have a 3DTV yet, because I'm hoping to restrain the desire to buy one until Black Friday and Christmas deals come. I have however been spending time at the house of the aquaintance where I watched the Knicks vs. Heat game in 3D (probably too much time...) and I am hooked. Even with as little content as there is, there are a shots of things (even as "ordinary" as a shot of rolling hills or underwater caves) that just make me go wow! I want one! He has DirecTV, and n3D does have some decent programming, I also have DirecTV but will need a new receiver also, so I'm going to wait for the end of the year with my 3DS to hopefully tide me over until I buy one of the Avatar 3D bundles from Panasonic.

Oh, and since I can't link, I saw the article about the new channel on Engadget. And one other thing I saw on there a while back was that the British are going to staart having holographic broadcasts of those 'helpful' people at certain points in their airports.

[MaryJane]

The LG Optimus 3D is a glasses-free 3D smartphone launching later this year (TBA) in the U.S. It has a 4.3 inch screen, that according to Engadget, works well.

I bring it up now, because it is competition to the 3DS (not in terms of gaming, but in terms of those who simply desire 3D and for whom glasses-free portable is a viable option) and two new features have been announced for it at MWC. One of which we know the 3DS does not have, and the other Nintendo has yet to mention, but also seems dubios at this point. 1. Video out over HDMI
2. A Youtube 3D app

So, obviously no video out over HDMI, but neither have we heard anything about Youtube 3D. It is likely that with the browser you can watch 3D videos on Youtube, but the purpose of the app is more for uploading video. Is Nintendo going to allow us to share 3DS video on other devices? Will there even be 3DS videos? Now, like one of the iPods or Phones they could do a firmware update that allows video, but in light of competition, Nintendo seems to have made a huge oversight with the 3DS's cameras, and sharing video. Could they really not afford to lose the $7-$15 per system it would have cost them to put better cameras on the 3DS?

For the first 6 months or so of its existence the 3DS will be a unique product, but when other devices like the LG Optimus 3D come out, the 3DS will be a step behind.

The reason I put this here and not in the 3DS discussion, is because this phone is just the first of what will be many competitors for the portable 3D market, but not in terms of gaming. For now, and the foreseeable future, Nintendo will have a lock on 'serious' 3D gaming, but I do think there are people who would have/will buy a 3DS just for the ability to watch 3D on the go. Nintendo has got to do some serious hustling if they want to compete on that front, a front that is sure to grow, even as they are the ones who prove it to be a successful market. LG also has a 3D tablet coming out that needs glasses, but you can still take and share 3D videos.

[NWR_insanolord]

I don't think the 3DS will be in trouble in that regard until someone releases a glasses-free 3D tablet. Smart phones are a crowded market, and I don't see 3D being a major selling point in a device like that. Nintendo is treating 3D video playback as a secondary feature for a reason: doing it with that size screen has limited appeal. A lot of people will try it out once or twice for the novelty, but I doubt there's a significant market for it. People only watch video on a handheld device because they don't have a better option. Nintendo's in the best position because they have a device people are going to buy for other purposes (gaming), and should have the largest market share for glasses-free 3D in handhelds for the forseeable future (until and unless Apple makes an iPhone with it, which I don't see happening anytime soon).

[MaryJane]

I believe you're thinking about movies. Watching a video on Youtube, a movie trailer, or other short videos, a 4.3 inch screen is sufficient. Also, smartphones outsold laptops last year, so as full as the market is, there's room to grow, and as 3D continues to grow its library of full production and viral content, having a 3D smartphone will seem like a good idea. Watching people get pranked in 3D is the best.

[BranDonk Kong]

I don't think there's any real competition here. The 3DS was made for gaming, the LG Optimus is made for phone calls, but it also has glasses-free 3D. Unless it has a controller attachment (well, you can sue a Wiimote on Android phones actually), then it's really not any form of competition at all. They're not competing with Nintendo, so Nintendo doesn't need to do anything to compete with them.

[MaryJane]

So people don't want portable media devices?

The LG "phone" and the 3DS do everything the other can, except one can make calls, and the offers one of a kind gaming. Every other software feature is identical. When someone goes into Best Buy and asks for a portable glasses-free 3D movie player, they will be shown a 3DS and the LG Optimus 3D, and then choose their poison based on whether they'd rather game or have a flashy phone. Or if Nintendo doesn't get their act together, the decision will be made on taking and sharing 3D video.

[Stogi]

Thats completely backwards. What people will say is "I'm looking for a new phone." or "I'm looking for a new gaming device."

[MaryJane]

Okay, let's assume those are the only two things someone would say. The salesperson's answering question (if they weren't trying to sell a particular product no matter who came in or what they asked) would likely be, "What kind of phone or gaming device?" Or something to that effect. Now, what if the person says they are looking for a 3D version of either phone or gaming device, is shown the corresponding device, and asks if there's anything else. The answer is, "No, the only other portable 3D player is the" (one of the of two in existence in the U.S 3D portable media players they weren't being shown) "and that one doesn't do" (the thing they orginally asked for).

Nintendo has made the mistake of underestimating the competition a few times in the past, (and hopefully the 3DS's eShop will rectify some of that with $.99, $1.99, etc. games) and this could be another one of those times. Are you (not a personal 'you') really going to tell me that it would be a bad idea for Nintendo to be the premiere portable 3D media player? Even if people never bought a game for the system, their purchases increase demand, thus supply, driving down manufacturing costs, and filling Nintendo's pockets with money.

[Stogi]

That's the same argument that Nintendo dismissed but in regards to DVD support for the Wii.

[BranDonk Kong]

So, obviously the customer will decide to either cancel their current cell phone service, or pay an ETF to upgrade early, or sign up for a new service, so they can get the phone and pay for it every month, instead of buying the 3DS.

[Plugabugz]

I'm generally against 3D because its an extra ÂŁ1.50-a-time fee on top of my ÂŁ200/year (nearly $330/year) unlimited pass. I go 20+ times a year, even if the film im going to watch is terrible, so that unnecessarily adds up.

And then another ÂŁ1.50 for the glasses (though they now encourage reusing the glasses).

Even without the unlimited card it adds another ÂŁ4 on top of the ÂŁ10+ Central London pricing which makes it nearer towards ÂŁ15. It's not worth it for the money to get the same movie plus eyestrain.

[MaryJane]

Penthouse 3D launches in Europe today, and is coming to America in the second quarter of the year.

Porn is always a motivating factor of 'new' video technology, and this channel will feature native 3D content (not converted like Clash of the Titans, and its sequel) that Penthouse has been shooting since June of last year.

Also, as I mentioned before, the sequel to Clash of the Titans is going to have converted 3D. Now, they shot the movie expecting it to be converted, which apparently what they did for Pirahna 3D, but with all the terrible reviews Clash of the Titans got, especially for its weak 3D, you'd think they'd do things differently.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Clash of the Titans has a sequel coming? and they still aren't filming it in 3D?

[TJ Spyke]

It's called Wrath of the Titans and supposed to come out in March 2012. Liam Neeson is confirmed to be retuning for it as Zeus. I can't confirm it, but I have also seen reports that it will be filmed in 2D and then converted to 3D. I guess they don't feel like renting or buying the 3D cameras.

[Stogi]

Yeah, I'm confused about that as well. Where's the link?

[TJ Spyke]

I found a link: http://www.movieweb.com/news/wrath-of-the-titans-to-be-converted-into-3d

Basically the director chose to shoot on 2D film because he wanted a "grittier" look (which is BS to me, he could have done that on digital cameras too). He didn't event want to have it in 3D, but Warner Bros. convinced him that the conversion process has improved. They also plan to convert it to 3D from the beginning rather than make the decision after the film is finished and 6 weeks before it is released (like with the first movie).

[Ian Sane]

To me filming a movie in 2D with the specific plans to convert it to 3D comes across like filming a movie in black and white and then colouring it later.  It just seems completely idiotic.

But I love how the director says he wanted a "grittier" look.  Dude, you're making the Clash of the Titans sequel!  You don't get to pull any of this artistic BS when you're making mainstream pandering trash.  I always find that hilarious when a director is all talking about motivating the actors and the subtle meaning of this or that and his film is complete ****.  And not "I'm trying to be artistic but I suck at it" **** but "the studio wanted to make a National Treasure sequel and assigned it to me" ****.  It's one step away from a guy directing commercials and then doing a full-of-himself pretentious interview about its artistic merit.

Wrath of the Titans is product.  You don't compromise the 3D effect to get a specific look for product.  You film it straight because it's going to be a **** film anyway and you might as well give its low brow audience exactly what they want.  With such a movie the only reason to make it look grittier is if that look is what sells.

[MaryJane]

Yeah why should a director try to be artistic? What sense does that make? Aronofsky shouldn't be artistic with the next Wolverine movie because anything Marvel is just fan service, and product pandering, or whatever. And of course a forum troll should be the one to tell a successful director what to do with his movie.

[Morari]

Aronofsky shouldn't have signed up for Wolverine. The X-Men franchise was milked dry two or three films back, as far as live-action adaptations go. Of course, from his point of view, I can see how trying to be artistic would be frustrating. Hardly no one has even heard of The Fountain, despite being one of the finest films, ever.

I think more to the point though, Clash of the Titans was an unneeded remake. It certainly doesn't need a sequel. All remakes are cash ins, and really don't deserve any assumption of artistic integrity. The fact that it's being put out in 3D at all doesn't help. If you want to see the craft at it's finest, go watch the original Clash of the Titans. The f/x in that are worth it if nothing else.

[MaryJane]

I don't mind remakes and I like 3D.

One of my favorite movies of all time is Gone With The Wind and I would love a remake done right. For me, a movie boils down to whether or not I'm entertained, then branches out into plot, character depth, lead female hotness, and cinematography. Whether it's a remake, shot in 3D, or a sequel, ultimately has nothing to do with the movie itself. The movie is trying to tell a story, and if it can do so while entertaining me, call me satisfied. Everything else is nitpicking from a Netflix generation who think themselves film critic purists. If you can't watch a movie simply for what it is without letting outside and (usually) irrelevant aspects influence you, you've already failed as a viable critic. I don't say that to insult anyone, but not liking a movie just because it's a remake, or in 3D, seems a little shallow to me.

[Stogi]

I agree with you to a point, but I would **** bricks if someone ever made a Groundhog's Day remake.

[Morari]

The movie is trying to tell a story, and if it can do so while entertaining me, call me satisfied.

Of course, you don't get that with remakes. The story has already been told, and told better at that. The only reason remakes exist is for the money. That's the problem with movie-goers today. They don't care about plotlines or characters. They just show up at the theater and arbitrarily pick something to watch with their friends. That's why Hollywood puts out nothing but popcorn thrillers and trash. That's why we get to see the same handful of lame actors in everything

Plenty of people have viable opinions of films, without being art critic and snobs. If you like 3D, then that's fine. I won't pay to see anything in 3D, nor will I indulge the industry by purchasing some overpriced television to "enjoy" the crap. I know that it's a fad and a gimmick, just like it is every thirty years when Hollywood tries it. Why? Because it doesn't work. It's distracting at best, and simply doesn't work at worst. Your eyes are made to focus on one thing at a time, which makes the illusion of 3D generally infective.

Now... I wouldn't consider myself a "critic". I'm simply discerning about what I spend my time on. Movies, books, video games, whatever. With films however, I not only watch them, I also study them. I make films as a near constant hobby, and even on commission from time to time. Just because I'm not as easily duped into favoring something as much as Joe Sixpack, doesn't mean it's my tastes that are lacking. I'd rather see original films, with new ideas that make me think. Remakes don't do that. If anything, they make mockeries of what are already good films. of course, that's what Joe Sixpack wants... He doesn't want to have to think, because that hurts.

And if it isn't a remake for old, then it's some lame comic book adaptation instead. I really have to wonder what Hollywood's going to do in another ten or twenty years when they completely run out of material to rape... are they going to start doing remakes of their remakes?

Note: I have a hard time believing that Gone with the Wind is one of your favorite films if you're so eager to see it butchered with modern ideas of entertainment. That said, it wouldn't be a remake so much as a new adaptation of the book. If you do truly enjoy the film for the story (and not just superficial things like "female hotness") then I'd suggest picking up a copy at the library. See, the originals are always better, even if they transcend mediums.

[NWR_insanolord]

I wouldn't say originals are necessarily always better, they just almost always are because of the circumstances of the remake. Most movies/TV shows/games could be done more effectively than the original, but you rarely see the most talented people at the helm of them.

[MaryJane]

If it wasn't for the 3DS, I might be more inclined to believe that 3D is a fad. But with 3D games, movie trailers, comedy shorts, and personal films to be in the hands of about 10million people at years end, I think it's here to stay this time.

There is some beautiful and absolutely stunning cinematography in GwtW that trumps anything I've seen in most movies to date, but there are also some shots and scenes where it's just like, why? There are also some inaccuracies that come from the source material that I'd like to see corrected as well. I wouldn't want the lines to change, but the movie's pace could be picked up with a few shaven scenes.

And nothing against you Morari, but I hate when people make the point that studios do things for money, yeah, no ****. It's the director, screenwriters, and actors, who are the artists and usually when they agree to a remake it's to pay homage to a classic, just like whem a musician covers a song.

And I cannot agree with the sentiment that the original is always better. The original Manchurian Candidate was crap, utterly broken, plot-hole filled crap. The premise was good, and there were some good moments, but overall, it was very bad. The remake wasn't exactly a masterpiece but it was at least, fluid and entertaining.

King Kong is another example. That movie has been remade like 4 times, and I think gotten better each time. I've seen all the remakes, but there was also a sequel or two in there, so I might be remembering wrong, but either the first b&w version sucked the big one or its sequel did, or something, but I remember one being crap and liking all the rest.

There's another glaring example on the tip of my brain, but it won't fall off... I would say the two Planet of the Apes movies were about equal, with the modern version getting a slight edge for being, well modern. Sci-Fi movies always benefit from better technology and understanding of the universe.

[TJ Spyke]

Speaking of 3D, Lucasfilm announced today that the 3D version of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace will be released on February 10, 2012. The reason is that it lets the movie avoid the summer blockbusters, and also give the company more time to make money from licensing deals through the rest of the year. The plan is to then release the five following movies a year apart each February (so Episode VI would be released in February 2017).
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/03/us-starwars-idUSTRE72264G20110303

[Morari]

And nothing against you Morari, but I hate when people make the point that studios do things for money, yeah, no ****. It's the director, screenwriters, and actors, who are the artists and usually when they agree to a remake it's to pay homage to a classic, just like whem a musician covers a song.

No one cares to pay homage to the original. That's lip service they give to interviewers and fanboys. They make it because there is a pre-installed audience and guaranteed profit. I realize that no one in the industry is going to make a film because they love the medium. It's all profit. That said, you can still create a great experience and make money. Or not... since all Hollywood films are made at a loss due to their famous accounting tricks.

Musicians generally shouldn't cover songs either. Unless it's something fun to do as an encore at their concert or something. Otherwise, the results are generally disappointing, and often downright enraging when used as singles for music videos.

I would say the two Planet of the Apes movies were about equal, with the modern version getting a slight edge for being, well modern.

I can no longer discuss films with you.

Planet of the Apes was pretty much the turning point of Tim Burton's career. He went from fairly original and unique works to common dribble immediately. While some sequences of his adaptation were closer to that of the novel, the overall theme was completely lost however. The one thing that makes for good science fiction is a compelling plot that parallels modern issues. The original film had that in spades, while Burton's remake sacrificed it for contrived action. Hell, the make-up wasn't even as convincing.

[oohhboy]

I don't like remakes due to the fact they are almost universally crap. It's not unlike licensed games. They are destined to be crap. However there are steps down from even this.

Hollywood for some asinine reason feels the need to parallel import shows that are already in english like The Office, Top Gear, Who's line was it and Americanise them. I mean what? Is it not in english? Australia is not immune from this in the abortion that is Top Gear Australia.

Even worse than that they remake a perfectly good foreign film and **** that up. Example Infernal Affairs and the Departed. Sure they threw the HK film industry a "bone" by giving Scorsese Best adapted screenplay Then gave him best director for 151 minutes of bloated competent plagiarism?!. Bollocks. What?, is America deathly afraid of reading subtitles or you can't?

Then there is the French Taxi trilogy which got Americanised in 2004 staring Queen "Never funny or Talented" Latifah.

Oh course other countries remake and rip films off too, but damn it is that **** funny. You got things like Indian Super/Spiderman, Turkish Star Wars and as bad as there are, were entertaining in their incompetence.

As for 3D movies, Ian Sane said it best. If you want 3D, shoot it in 3D or don't shoot it at all.

[TJ Spyke]

A lot of times British humor is only funny to British people (and vice versa). Did they really need to make a UK version of Law & Order, for example? They are just taking season 1 plots and changing them to fit the UK legal system. Not every adaptation is good, but many are.

[Morari]

What?, is America deathly afraid of reading subtitles or you can't?

I don't think they can. Have you heard the way most of them talk? I'd be surprised if your typical American has more than a fourth grade reading level.

[MaryJane]

How can you decide that a remake is done solely for profit and not to pay homage? Again I say to you that directors, writers, and actors are artists, and like musicians love to pay tribute to those who came before them. Does it not matter that in Starsky & Hutch they brought the original actors back for the movie? Or is this just a referendum on Americans? I'm not going to argue this any further except to say that you're doing yourself a great disservice by prejudging everything, but it's your life so do with it what you will.

As for the Star Wars movies, I'll be glad to see the 3D release. Space in 3D is always a great viewing experience, and I can already think of multiple shots in episode IV that would greatly benefit from 3D (the other five movies aren't as prevelant in my mind).

[BlackNMild2k1]

A lot of times British humor is only funny to British people (and vice versa). Did they really need to make a UK version of Law & Order, for example? They are just taking season 1 plots and changing them to fit the UK legal system. Not every adaptation is good, but many are.

Brititsh Humor, British Accent & British Slang don't always translate over very well. I've tried watching some UK shows a while back, and I couldn't get into them because either couldn't understand what they were saying or I just didn't get what they meant. Other shows I understood just fine.

Shows like Skins on MTV didn't need a tamer remake where the kids talk almost the same anyway. They didn't even Americanize the show.

But since we are off the topic of 3D, I'll just throw this in too; What is up with these stations that are remaking UK shows in American shows and then calling them Network Originals?

example.
Being Human (a UK remake) is now a SyFy Original - does that strictly mean that Syfy is producing the show internally? because they sure as hell didn't come up with the idea, so to me that means that it's not all that original (even if it is a pretty entertaining show).

[TJ Spyke]

Maybe it's the same logic that Cartoon Network uses when they air "new" episodes of Family Guy (after they aired on Fox). Since the remakes are technically new shows, I guess that is why they can call it original. At least that is why I think they do it.

[nickmitch]

At least [adult swim] acknowledges that it's been aired previously. They advertise "all new, never before seen on this network episode of Family Guy!" SyFy is just flat out lying.

[TJ Spyke]

But the shows are technically original, it is a new version created specifically for Syfy. So it's not lying (it would only be lying if they were taking the UK version and just airing that).

[BlackNMild2k1]

New show using the same name. Same characters but with different actors. The same plots on similar sets marketed to a new audience on a different network in a different country.

their is technically nothing original about it.
It's still a good show and I would have never watched it if they hadn't brought it over, so I'm not knocking the show in any way, just the use of "Original" in it's advertising, as "original" obviously can't be referring to the show itself but as to the production of it for that network which is just a little misleading.

[Ian Sane]

The thing with remakes is typically it isn't like some director with artistic intentions approaches the studio with the idea of remaking a classic film.  It probably does happen but that would be rare.  In the case of Clash of the Titans, considering what the resulting film turned out like, I think it's clearly an example of a studio wanting to go with a pre-existing safe idea to cash in on recent trends.  Remakes and sequels are often given the green light because they're "safe" projects with an assumed existing audience.  Same with films based on licenced properties.

The Clash of the Titans remake is widely considered to be junk.  It's a **** film.  No one with artistic intentions would then try to get in as the director.  It wouldn't even be their idea, it would be the studio wanting to make a sequel.  The incentive to direct such a film would be entirely career-oriented.  The experience would help you get your foot in the door for later work, perhaps including more artistic films.  Having a box office success would also help your profile in Hollywood as well.

If I was in such a position I would consider it like a job.  In that case my goal would be to get the film in on budget and give the target audience what they want to see: an entertaining popcorn flick.  Therefore having really good looking 3D would be a top priority since that's one of the selling points.  It's a sequel to a critical disaster.  Everyone else involved is only thinking about money or they wouldn't make the film in the first place.  The director should have pride in his work but not compromise the commercial potential of the film.  This is a work-for-hire project and he should treat it like that.  And the thing is this doesn't even mean his film has to suck.  Coherrent story, good pacing, exciting set pieces, happy ending = good popcorn flick.

I think considering what this film is a sequel to it would be incredibly naive to assume this is anything but a cash grab.  It's damn obvious.  And those involved should know that.  The screenwriter can consider this a work-for-hire like the director where furthering his career is an obvious incentive.  And actors?  There are tons of actors who do it for the money and especially for the FAME.  Some actors are artists.  Some actors are attention whores and staring in a big budget blockbuster will make them rich and famous.  Would you call actors who later show up on reality shows artists?  Or is it more likely that they need the money or just crave attention so much that they'll do anything to remain famous?  There are a lot of people in the entertainment industry that are just doing a job or have other intentions beyond artistic ones.

Regarding musicians it is usually pretty easy to spot whether the choice of a cover is for artistic purposes or not.  If it's just an album track and they're doing something really different with it, maybe they just like the song.  But there are pop artists for which their first single is a cover song and it's a really well known hit.  Bullshit that that's for artistic purposes.  When Nirvana covered Lake of Fire, it was this obscure song by an obscure band that most people had never heard of.  Meanwhile Kylie Minogue's career got going with a cover of "Loco-Motion" a song that had already been a number one single TWICE before she covered it and her cover sounded incredibly similar to the original.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I would have to agree with everything said in that post.

You do films like this to give your self the credibility, name-sake and finances to do the films you really want to make.

Look at someone like Guillermo Del Torro. He is currently signed on to do The Hobbit. It's not something he's been creatively wanting to explore, but it's a guaranteed hit as long as it everything it's supposed to be (I'm not saying that he didn't have input on the script or that it is purely a cash grab, just that it's guaranteed money to put in his creative freedom bucket). The Hobbit will rope in all the LoTR fans and then some which will give him the financial freedom to move onto projects that he's been wanting to do like At The Mountains of Madness which he will have the creative freedom to explore any which way he sees fit.

[MaryJane]

HTC is making a glasses-free 3D smartphone called the EVO 3D.

It has a 1.2Ghz (single-core?) CPU, 1GB RAM, 1080p video out, 1.3MP front facing camera, and 5MP dual rear cameras for 3D pictures and video. It will also be launching with Blockbuster and Youtube 3D apps, and runs Android.

Those are some pretty killer specs, on a phone with a recognizable name, by a company building quite a reputation for itself. The video out and 5MP cameras put it above the 3DS in terms 3D functionality and content, respectively.

Hopefully Blockbuster doing mobile 3D movie delivery will force Netflix's hand, and this phone and the 3DS lead the new 3D revolution. This phone is rumored to be revealed at CTIA and I hope it is releasing this year.

The evolution of mobile devices could be what finally brings 3D out of the niches it has been stuck in since its inception many moons ago. Mobile 3D actually works better (in terms of marketability and ease of use) than its big screen brothers and will foster the technology to make it 3D as common as HD. Maybe...

[BlackNMild2k1]

Netflix better beat this product to market.

Actually, Netflix still needs an Android app, they are seriously lagging in this department, so I hope all their efforts right now are on the Netflix3D app for the 3DS, because no 3D device will have as much exposure this year as the 3DS. about 100k people might own that 3D smartphone this year, but 5 million people will own a 3DS(assuming production keeps up), so I hope all their efforts are concentrated where it will get the most support.

[Stogi]

3D front facing cameras? Phone sex just got a hell of a lot more interesting.

[MaryJane]

Sorry Unagi, when I typed camers, that was me hitting the s instead of the a and not just missing the a for the plural. I fixed it now, but phone sex could still be in 3D, you just can't watch...

And I do hope Netflix decides to put 3D on the 3DS first. For the sake of the 3D industry as a whole I want Blockbuster on the 3DS and Netflix on the EVO 3D (and both on other things) but I might buy the EVO. I'm still torn between buying a tablet and skypeing it, and buying a new phone (which I need because this one is developing some aging problems) but if this new EVO gets the kind of reviews the original EVO got and comes out this year, I will almost certainly buy it.

It would be especially cool if they made the EVO 3D part of the Android gaming push.

[MaryJane]

Engadget reports that Vizio is releasing three new budget 3D HDTV (1080p in 2D) sets.

There's a 47" for $899, a 42" for $729 ($698 at Walmart), and a 32" for $549 ($498 at Wm). They all come with Wifi, Vizio internet apps built-in, and two pairs of passive glasses. Passive glasses are the cheaper kind that means that the T.V does more work, and you pay less to have six extra pairs for hosting the big games.

[Morari]

Everything in 3D!!!

Nothing in 3D!!!

[MaryJane]

Everything in 3D!!!

qfta: "With the Spectacle, you’ll experience one-eyed 3D so real, you’d think you were using both eyes!"

[BlackNMild2k1]

Bring 3D home to the HDTV you already have. 60Hz/120Hz compatible.
http://www.3d-vip.com/

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hk9bQhcwr0

3D Theater(Games, Movies, Satellite/Cable & Internet and 60Hz/120Hz TV/projector) Reviews from AVSForum
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1323671
http://ww.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1323736

Comes in 3 packages:
Gamer - PS3/Games & 120Hz DLP/LCD
Displayer - Games, Movies & 60Hz/120Hz DLP/LCD
Theater - Games, Movies, Satellite/Cable/Internet & 60Hz/120Hz DLP/LCD

[MaryJane]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/04/intel-will-mass-produce-22nm-3d-transistors-for-all-future-cpus/

"Looks like 3D isn't just a fad, folks, so long as we're talking about silicon -- Intel just announced that it has invented a 3D "Tri-Gate" transistor that will allow the company to keep shrinking chips, Moore's Law naysayers be darned. Intel says the transistors will use 50 percent less power, conduct more current and provide 37 percent more speed than their 2D counterparts thanks to vertical fins of silicon substrate that stick up through the other layers, and that those fancy fins could make for cheaper chips too -- currently, though, the tri-gate tech adds an estimated 2 to 3 percent cost to existing silicon wafers. Intel says we'll see the new technology first in its 22nm Ivy Bridge CPUs, going into mass production in the second half of the year, and it's planning 14nm chips in 2013 and 10nm chips in 2015. Also, 3D transistors won't be limited to the cutting edge -- Intel reps told journalists that they "will extend across the entire range of our product line," including mobile devices. Three videos and a press release await you after the break."

[Ceric]

Intel seems to always find a way to help their bottom line.  Though smaller chips are cool but man you keep going devices are going to turn into Speck, screen, battery, speaker, and antenna.