If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   So it turns out that no one cares about 3-D TV. Why, it's almost like 3-D was a crappy gimmick that failed in the 1960s for a good reason   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 97
    More: Obvious, SNL Kagan, IHS, technophiles, Augusta National  
•       •       •

3496 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Sep 2012 at 3:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-29 03:08:52 AM  
It'd probably sell better if having 3D didn't require you upgrading your ENTIRE entertainment system for... okay it's a gimmick.
 
2012-09-29 03:18:21 AM  
Said this when they first were announced. Got told I was an idiot and that 3D TVs were the future.
 
2012-09-29 03:30:36 AM  
I don't want anything to d with 3D until it's real 3D. Like, a coffee table that serves as a holographic projector, like the space-chess game in Star Wars. Because even the best 3D shows just make it look like a diorama moving around on a slightly-less than flat surface. It adds nothing to the narrative and actually feels like it takes away from the visuals since directors now have to plan on how to exploit this gimmick so the studios can boast about it.

And quite frankly, since I wear glasses I can't stand to wear a second, poorly fitted set over my prescription set...

/I could rehash this mess all day
 
2012-09-29 03:31:19 AM  
3D is a great idea.
At least for archival until they figure out how to make my tv 3D without having to wear any type of glasses.
 
2012-09-29 03:35:11 AM  

Torion!: 3D is a great idea.
At least for archival until they figure out how to make my tv 3D without having to wear any type of glasses.


They kind of have, but it's like the Nintendo 3DS. You have to be at just the right angle to see it. That's why I said that the advent of holographic projectors will probably be the only time you'll see 3D truly take off.
 
2012-09-29 03:43:40 AM  
I refuse to see movies in 3D any more. They all suck. When I next get a TV, it's going to be a high end 2D, as God intended.
 
2012-09-29 03:53:46 AM  

Shadowknight: I don't want anything to d with 3D until it's real 3D. Like, a coffee table that serves as a holographic projector, like the space-chess game in Star Wars.


Would you settle for a holographic display that acts more like a window to a 3D space than a screen showing a "3D" image? (Like, if I'm understanding the technology correctly, you could go to one side and see stuff that you wouldn't see by looking straight-on.)
 
2012-09-29 03:54:17 AM  
The reason I bought a 3D TV is ALL because of my retarded brother, Shep.

We play pranks on him. We keep yelling at him to run and get more salsa for the nachos. It's hilarious. He comes back with more dip, puts on his 3D glasses, and then we proceed to scream and his retarded ass to get up and get more salsa.

He can't stand it. Taking those 3D glasses on and off frustrates him SO bad that he nearly starts crying and almost goes into seizures. We just sit back and laugh and laugh. LOL!

Well worth the money.
 
2012-09-29 04:01:40 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Shadowknight: I don't want anything to d with 3D until it's real 3D. Like, a coffee table that serves as a holographic projector, like the space-chess game in Star Wars.

Would you settle for a holographic display that acts more like a window to a 3D space than a screen showing a "3D" image? (Like, if I'm understanding the technology correctly, you could go to one side and see stuff that you wouldn't see by looking straight-on.)


That's better, but I don't really seeing it add anything. I've never watched a movie, from a thriller to a drama to an action flick, and thought "You know, it was GOOD, but if that bird flying past the frame looked like it was coming right at me it would have been SO much better."
 
2012-09-29 04:02:35 AM  
It's not 'true 3D" it more multi plan..layers of images. There's really no depth on images in so called 3-D images..but a depth of layers of 2D images that focus on different planes.

Sure, some effect are true 3D in modern films...that seems to pop out from the screen.....but ultimately it's gimmicky and forced for the "wow factor"...


Which this SCTV bit lampoons.

Link
 
2012-09-29 04:08:06 AM  

Shadowknight: That's better, but I don't really seeing it add anything. I've never watched a movie, from a thriller to a drama to an action flick, and thought "You know, it was GOOD, but if that bird flying past the frame looked like it was coming right at me it would have been SO much better."


I hate 3d movies (the glasses give me a headache), but I thought Coraline was done really well. The texture on the shoes, the fuzz on the sweater, all the really subtle stuff made the movie seem much more rich than it would have otherwise.
 
2012-09-29 04:13:58 AM  

Torion!: 3D is a great idea.


It really isn't.
 
2012-09-29 04:15:19 AM  
I've tried it at the store...it was underwhelming. If it was a free feature, maybe I'd use it once in a rare while, but as it is...no sale.
 
2012-09-29 04:17:24 AM  
Trying to shoehorn existing entertainment paradigms into 3D is the core problem. People get wow'd by stuff popping out of the screen for only so long before the novelty wears off.

What will be a killer app is realistic immersive 3D like the Star Trek Holodeck. Virtual Reality is much more likely to deliver this (in 3D too) than the medium of television and movies.
 
2012-09-29 04:17:42 AM  

Shadowknight: Olympic Trolling Judge: Shadowknight: I don't want anything to d with 3D until it's real 3D. Like, a coffee table that serves as a holographic projector, like the space-chess game in Star Wars.

Would you settle for a holographic display that acts more like a window to a 3D space than a screen showing a "3D" image? (Like, if I'm understanding the technology correctly, you could go to one side and see stuff that you wouldn't see by looking straight-on.)

That's better, but I don't really seeing it add anything. I've never watched a movie, from a thriller to a drama to an action flick, and thought "You know, it was GOOD, but if that bird flying past the frame looked like it was coming right at me it would have been SO much better."


Similarly, we should really get rid of color in film. I mean, I've never thought "You know, it was GOOD, but if that guy's shirt had been red rather than grey it would have been SO much better."

More seriously: There are real problems with the current 3D film tech (such as the fact that doesn't work well for a wide variety of viewing angles, such as in a home), but the idea that it should be abandoned because we currently make very good movies without it is pretty damn ridiculous. People made good films without computer graphics, without color, without sound, ...; the idea that something has to make all other films obsolete to be worthwhile is absurd.
 
2012-09-29 04:21:19 AM  

Clipsy: Similarly, we should really get rid of color in film. I mean, I've never thought "You know, it was GOOD, but if that guy's shirt had been red rather than grey it would have been SO much better."


I would totally agree IF you had to wear special glasses to see the color and it gave you a headache and reduced the brightness of the film by 10% or more.

3D is a cheap gimmick poorly implemented by people who don't care about quality and just want an excuse to charge a premium.

Not to mention the fact that many directors break the 4th wall with lots of straight at the face 3D moments. Total amateur bullshiat.
 
2012-09-29 04:24:19 AM  
But how else can I show the neighbors what a pretentious free-spending dick I am without getting an overpriced TV?
 
2012-09-29 04:25:13 AM  
Shadowknight:That's better, but I don't really seeing it add anything. I've never watched a movie, from a thriller to a drama to an action flick, and thought "You know, it was GOOD, but if that bird flying past the frame looked like it was coming right at me it would have been SO much better."

Well, yeah, that part's lame and gimmicky and lame. What this technology would do is allow you to look at a scene from different perspectives, so you could see things that would normally be hidden by other objects or "behind the black." It would create problems for filmmakers, obviously, since they would no longer be able to rely on the same old camera tricks. But I have to think that they would devise all-new tricks to get around those problems, tricks that would (hopefully) revolutionize the medium of film.
 
2012-09-29 04:33:35 AM  

Clipsy:
Similarly, we should really get rid of color in film. I mean, I've never thought "You know, it was GOOD, but if that guy's shirt had been red rather than grey it would have been SO much better."

More seriously: There are real problems with the current 3D film tech (such as the fact that doesn't work well for a wide variety of viewing angles, such as in a home), but the idea that it should be abandoned because we currently make very good movies without it is pretty damn ridiculous. People made good films without computer graphics, without color, without sound, ...; the idea that something has to make all other films obsolete to be worthwhile is absurd.


Never said that it couldn't be done, just not with the current tech. There have been plenty of movies that have used color for effect, and to change the mood of a scene, or even the lack of color (think Sin City) to really make things feel like the director wants them to feel.

3D just makes people pay more at the theater and come out underwhelmed and with a headache.
 
2012-09-29 04:34:29 AM  

doglover: Clipsy: Similarly, we should really get rid of color in film. I mean, I've never thought "You know, it was GOOD, but if that guy's shirt had been red rather than grey it would have been SO much better."

I would totally agree IF you had to wear special glasses to see the color and it gave you a headache and reduced the brightness of the film by 10% or more.

3D is a cheap gimmick poorly implemented by people who don't care about quality and just want an excuse to charge a premium.

Not to mention the fact that many directors break the 4th wall with lots of straight at the face 3D moments. Total amateur bullshiat.


To be clear: I agree that current 3D tech is poorly implemented (at best), and misused by most directors. I just take issue with the seemingly Luddite opinion that 3D is worthless because 2D films can be very good. If we had taken the same opinion with previous steps forward in film/theater technology we would miss out on rather a lot of what we enjoy in movies currently. And while color was certainly a smaller upgrade than 3D is, sound was an enormous upgrade for theaters and an enormous change for film-makers that took some time to get accustomed to. Yet (hopefully) no one will object to the idea that including sound was a good idea for films.
 
2012-09-29 04:45:59 AM  

Clipsy: To be clear: I agree that current 3D tech is poorly implemented (at best), and misused by most directors. I just take issue with the seemingly Luddite opinion that 3D is worthless because 2D films can be very good. If we had taken the same opinion with previous steps forward in film/theater technology we would miss out on rather a lot of what we enjoy in movies currently. And while color was certainly a smaller upgrade than 3D is, sound was an enormous upgrade for theaters and an enormous change for film-makers that took some time to get accustomed to. Yet (hopefully) no one will object to the idea that including sound was a good idea for films.


Again, though, those innovations added things to the film. Added WORTHWHILE things to the film. Sound and color could be used to impart story, drama, feel, texture... Yes, there were gimmick films then too, and let's not forget the trend they had of colorizing old black and white films (that was decried as pointless at the time, if I remember correctly).

The basic tech for 3D had been around since the 50s and 60s monster matinees, and despite the upgrade in tech from bi-color glasses to active shutter, the actual effect hasn't really changed much. It's just 2-D layers moving around like a high tech puppet show, and to me looks even flatter than just having regular 2D. At least in 2D, I don't have a pseudo uncanny valley effect distracting me because Brad Pitt looks like a cardboard cutout walking around New York.

And not only has the effect remained the same, but so has it's use. Movie companies still advertise "IN THREEEEEEEE DIMENTIONS!" all over their posters and commercials, directors are still having random objects flying at the camera, and all it does is distract the crew from important things like telling a story or showing a cool set piece and distracts the viewer because they are too busy watching flat surfaces seemingly moving around in front of each other.

They implement it in a way that actually adds to the process or at least isn't distracting, uncomfortable, and horribly inconvenient, I'll look into it. But as long as they keep trying to force this crap like they have every ten years or so for half a century, people are just going to reject it like the gimmick it is.
 
2012-09-29 04:51:34 AM  

Olympic Trolling Judge: Would you settle for a holographic display that acts more like a window to a 3D space than a screen showing a "3D" image? (Like, if I'm understanding the technology correctly, you could go to one side and see stuff that you wouldn't see by looking straight-on.)


I'll take one. I know the technology is way off though. Same reason that no-glasses 3D won't exist anytime soon.

In order for a holographic display to work, you'd need a thousand times greater pixel density in the display. Every slight shift in the viewing angle means that a whole different scene is shown.
 
2012-09-29 04:57:16 AM  

Clipsy: I just take issue with the seemingly Luddite opinion that 3D is worthless because 2D films can be very good.


Statues have been around since time immemorial. Paintings have been around since time immemorial. Dioramas combine the elements of both into a 3D image.

Statues are still immensely popular.

Paintings are still immensely popular.

Dioramas are relegated to children's playthings.

The idea of a 3D image is nothing new, and indeed they can add something, but until they can make it work naturally it's just not gonna work.

Imagine if you will Smell-O-vision done right. a machine wafts in the odor of wet pine needles and earth as the four hobbits crouch under the hill, some rotting corpse stench as the ringwraith rides up, the stench disapears when the wraith's gone. Sulfur from Mt Doom, chicken and ale from the tavern, roses and sex from Galadriel. It would make movies like Lord of the Rings 20 times more epic.

But now take a minute and think the same idea of 3D. 1% better? Maybe?

3D movies are a classic example of change being conflated with progress. Hollywood keeps pimping it out, and the consumers keep saying no. Nobody wants this but the jerks who invented the tech. And they are jerks because their tech gives people migraines and ruins movie experiences while simultaneously raising prices. Clearly bad juju. But they don't apologize, they just keep pimpin' it.
 
2012-09-29 04:58:55 AM  

Rodrigues: Olympic Trolling Judge: Would you settle for a holographic display that acts more like a window to a 3D space than a screen showing a "3D" image? (Like, if I'm understanding the technology correctly, you could go to one side and see stuff that you wouldn't see by looking straight-on.)

I'll take one. I know the technology is way off though. Same reason that no-glasses 3D won't exist anytime soon.

In order for a holographic display to work, you'd need a thousand times greater pixel density in the display. Every slight shift in the viewing angle means that a whole different scene is shown.


Just 2 little points: a holographic display means no green/blue screen special effects, and 3D only works for people that have 2 functional eyes.
 
2012-09-29 05:04:22 AM  
Why on earth would I want to watch 3D movies on a screen that was smaller than lifesize?

Little miniature people acting out plays through a window just seems like it would be bizarre.
 
2012-09-29 05:15:34 AM  

Shadowknight: It's just 2-D layers moving around like a high tech puppet show, and to me looks even flatter than just having regular 2D. At least in 2D, I don't have a pseudo uncanny valley effect distracting me because Brad Pitt looks like a cardboard cutout walking around New York.


There..that's my issue with current "3-D" it is NOT 3-D but same old tech for layering backgrounds and occasionally doing a 'something sticks out from the screen' effect in explosions etc..which is forced and a gimmick. Like you say there is no depth for subtle things for the actors etc...but like you say a layers of background for '3D effect'...to me it's distracting as actors are still 2-D and look even more flat 'cutout' as you say...on sets with '3D".
 
2012-09-29 05:18:03 AM  
When I watch a 3d movie, there's no focus. I have to decide which part of the screen to look at. The increase in depth is not helpful.
 
2012-09-29 05:22:54 AM  

optikeye: Shadowknight: It's just 2-D layers moving around like a high tech puppet show, and to me looks even flatter than just having regular 2D. At least in 2D, I don't have a pseudo uncanny valley effect distracting me because Brad Pitt looks like a cardboard cutout walking around New York.

There..that's my issue with current "3-D" it is NOT 3-D but same old tech for layering backgrounds and occasionally doing a 'something sticks out from the screen' effect in explosions etc..which is forced and a gimmick. Like you say there is no depth for subtle things for the actors etc...but like you say a layers of background for '3D effect'...to me it's distracting as actors are still 2-D and look even more flat 'cutout' as you say...on sets with '3D".


This.

If they could make actual 3D images of infinite resolution, maybe even make them adjustable so you could choose which depth of field to enjoy, that would be true innovation.

But that's not what they do. They give you two 2D movies simultaneous to simulate basic depth.

It's kind of like being invited to a threesome by a beautiful woman (or man) who really likes you, but when you get to the hotel suddenly your two attractive partners have a headache and need to go home, but you can go give yourself a handy in the bathroom with this old porn mag they found under the matress if you want. Oh and could you be a dear and pay for the room you're now not using. Thanks.
 
2012-09-29 05:24:01 AM  
The last 3D movie I watched was Avatar, and that only because the girl I took insisted on the 3D version. I stumbled out of the theater with a blinding migraine that lasted for several hours, and that made me surly enough that I pissed her off and she went home. I went back the next week to rewatch it in 2D. It was 1000% better, and THAT date came home with me.

I'll embrace 3D when it stops cockblocking me.
 
2012-09-29 05:27:02 AM  
TRON Legacy was the only movie i've seen in 3D, and I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. I don't actually recall any 3D effects to justify the extra $4 pricetag. So yeah, I'll pass.
 
2012-09-29 05:45:38 AM  

Old enough to know better: extra $4 pricetag


I have to over 10 dollars extra here.

God damn, boy. For only 4 extra... I'd still hate what they call 3D and the nasty glasses, but I'd be happier.
 
2012-09-29 05:45:48 AM  
Hell I'm sick of 2D. I want a movie displayed as a single point. Is that so much to ask?
 
2012-09-29 05:53:00 AM  

Shadowknight: Like, a coffee table that serves as a holographic projector, like the space-chess game in Star Wars.


My advice to you... let the MPAA win.
 
2012-09-29 06:01:14 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Shadowknight: Like, a coffee table that serves as a holographic projector, like the space-chess game in Star Wars.

My advice to you... let the MPAA win.


I may have to turn in my geek card, because it took me almost half a minute to get that. Why would I let those bastards win? Why would I roll over on basic consumer rights?

Then the quote pierced through my migraine induced fog, and the image of Chris Dodd in a bandoleer ripping off my arms while going "GRWOOOAAAAAAAA!" popped into my head.
 
2012-09-29 06:13:43 AM  
Other than Avatar, I've not heard a single person comment that a particular film was a lot better being seen in 3D. And Avatar was great in 3D because it was just epic scenery porn. But it's still a good movie in 2D.

The 2nd best film I've heard about was Hugo, and you know, I still cried big manly tears at the end, on DVD, in 2D , on a TV.

The problem is that most films are not being made with the sort of commitment that Cameron had to 3D. He thought about how things would look in 3D, made things brighter to compensate for loss of light. To most film makers, they aren't thinking about how something will look in 3D, they're just shooting a movie as they would a 2D one, and then doing 3D conversion, because the studio is insisting on it. I saw the Avengers in both 2D and 3D and honestly, 3D added nothing. 2D was better because it was brighter and I didn't have to wear glasses.
 
2012-09-29 06:16:31 AM  
Back to the topic at hand...The fascinating thing will be watching the display makers try to find some way to create margin now that this trial balloon has popped.
 
2012-09-29 06:17:19 AM  
hmm...what happens when you visuals distract from your story...
 
2012-09-29 06:36:26 AM  

rogue49: hmm...what happens when you visuals distract from your story...


Bronies?
 
2012-09-29 07:07:27 AM  
True 3D with no glasses and 360 walkaround? sign me up.

Crap 3D with glasses you can lose or break that only works in a limited range of angles? Didn`t want that in the 90`s . 80`s . 70`s . 60`s
 
2012-09-29 07:10:06 AM  

farkeruk: Other than Avatar, I've not heard a single person comment that a particular film was a lot better being seen in 3D. And Avatar was great in 3D because it was just epic scenery porn. But it's still a good movie in 2D.

The 2nd best film I've heard about was Hugo, and you know, I still cried big manly tears at the end, on DVD, in 2D , on a TV.

The problem is that most films are not being made with the sort of commitment that Cameron had to 3D. He thought about how things would look in 3D, made things brighter to compensate for loss of light. To most film makers, they aren't thinking about how something will look in 3D, they're just shooting a movie as they would a 2D one, and then doing 3D conversion, because the studio is insisting on it. I saw the Avengers in both 2D and 3D and honestly, 3D added nothing. 2D was better because it was brighter and I didn't have to wear glasses.


I took my glasses off for most of avengers 3D and THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL. Most of the so called 3D films are not 3D they are 2D with a couple of scenes that flicker without your glasses and don`t look any different with them on.
 
2012-09-29 07:56:24 AM  

dready zim: True 3D with no glasses and 360 walkaround? sign me up.

Crap 3D with glasses you can lose or break that only works in a limited range of angles? Didn`t want that in the 90`s . 80`s . 70`s . 60`s


Don't forget they're proprietary and brand specific. Your active shutter glasses for your Sony won't work on your buddy's Panasonic.
 
2012-09-29 08:20:30 AM  
I've been disappointed with this new era of 3D since it started. I want stuff flying at me all the time. Instead, it looks like the movie goes further away. The movie can totally suck, but if I'm having fun dodging things on the screen then it's worth my money.
 
2012-09-29 08:27:58 AM  
The idea that I would invite 10 friends over to watch the Super Bowl, and we all wear glasses is insulting. fark you Sony and fark you George Lucas. I hope you both lose millions on your investment in this forced gimmick nobody wants or asked for.
 
2012-09-29 08:43:33 AM  
3D tv was/is the Vista/Windows ME of entertainment devices.

Just a space filler until 4k or 8k tv comes around full force.
 
2012-09-29 08:50:54 AM  

parkerlewis: I've been disappointed with this new era of 3D since it started. I want stuff flying at me all the time. Instead, it looks like the movie goes further away. The movie can totally suck, but if I'm having fun dodging things on the screen then it's worth my money.


Wouldn't it make more sense to play a 3D computer game rather than watch a movie if that is the effect that interests you?
 
2012-09-29 09:05:58 AM  
Well, I was looking at the last flyers from electronic stores last week and noticed that not a single of the TV mentioned 3D, so I figured that the fad was finally over.

It's been probably over for a while but I seldom check the flyers about TVs anyways.
 
2012-09-29 09:13:24 AM  

crab66: Said this when they first were announced. Got told I was an idiot and that 3D TVs were the future.


You know what else that is 3D that people think is the future but a certain someone says is a gimmick and a fad?

Where is my virtual reality helmet?
 
2012-09-29 09:13:37 AM  

imfallen_angel: Well, I was looking at the last flyers from electronic stores last week and noticed that not a single of the TV mentioned 3D, so I figured that the fad was finally over.

It's been probably over for a while but I seldom check the flyers about TVs anyways.


I was at the base NEX yesterday thinking the same thing. They still have a 3D display up with a pair of glasses to watch Despicable Me or something, and a couple of the TVs say they can do both, but there isn't a huge sign advertising huge sales or price points for it.

I'm taking it as a good sign.
 
2012-09-29 09:25:13 AM  
I'll agree that watching Avengers on a brand new 55 inch 3D TV was fantastic and I can't remember any other film looking as good. But I can't get over how much it costs to get to that right now.

Still going alright on a 32 inch Bravia that's 4 years old... going to wait to see what the next Xbox / Playstation comes to the table with and get a new TV then to suit that - it'll be interesting to see how far MS / Sony get onboard with 3D for the next generation hardware.
 
2012-09-29 09:25:55 AM  

Quantum Apostrophe: You know what else that is 3D that people think is the future but a certain someone says is a gimmick and a fad?

Where is my virtual reality helmet?



The occulus rift has a kickstarter.

/it's a fine piece of vaporware.
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report