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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
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.
 
2012-09-29 09:37:27 AM

fluffy2097: 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.


It looks like a gaming device. I just hope people aren't going to go delusional and say how we are going to live in white boxes and use the VR goggles to simulate furniture and wallpaper...
 
2012-09-29 09:39:59 AM

dready zim: 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.


I had the same experience. Avengers was the first (and hopefully last) 3D movie I watched. All the 3D sequences with fast motion (Iron Man zipping by or whatever) looked choppy, like a zoetrope. I felt like the only real value of 3D was the subtle changes, like when an object like a support beam swings through the foreground and the 3D gives the scene a little more depth than it otherwise would have. But all the scenes that were made specifically for 3D looked bad.

I hope this fad disappears soon and doesn't return until they figure out how to get the glasses out of it. When 3D was building up following Avatar, movies started pulling the ultimate lame-stunt of inserting scenes for no purpose other than to flash out the 3D graphics. Fark every part of that.
 
2012-09-29 09:42:07 AM

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


I like the folks who claimed that people that didn't like 3d were just old grandpas that would have railed against movies in color.

/where's Nature Trail to Hell?
 
2012-09-29 09:43:45 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


THIS

If you can't choose to see the front or back of something, it's not 3D--just a crappy popup illusion.
 
2012-09-29 09:45:36 AM

Jgok: 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.


A significant percentage of the population can't see the 3D effect at all (about one in ten), or the current tech bothers them to vs. degrees (as high as half). 2D is never going to go away because of that.
 
2012-09-29 09:49:39 AM

Yankees Team Gynecologist: If you can't choose to see the front or back of something, it's not 3D--just a crappy popup illusion.


This reminds me of that TED talk where a computer scientist shows how we're about halfway to that kind of 3D using nothing but the Wii remote.
 
2012-09-29 09:55:44 AM
I bought a Panasonic Viera 3D plasma T.V. Not because I wanted the 3D but because I wanted the 9000 mhz rate so football games wouldn't have that blurring effect that some of the LCD ones do. Plus I got a great deal on it. I have zero interest in the 3D, but Blu-Ray/PS3/Football games look stunning on it. People compliment how crystal clear the picture is all the time. I also had to turn down the refresh rate all the way cause that "hyper real" effect blu-rays get was beyond distracting. When I watched Game of Thrones on it, felt like I was on the set watching them film it. So if you find a great deal on a 3D set, get one. They should be getting cheap soon since no one wants one.

Wish I had known about the plasma screen glaring effect though. Had to make the living room dark as a movie theater to get rid of the glare.
 
2012-09-29 10:09:24 AM
Thought I would chime in with "Up" was a good movie in 3D, I think it was "real 3d" when I saw it in the theaters. Course maybe I felt that way as I liked the film and didn't get bored and my mind wandering to pick out flaws in the technology.

What Hollywood is doing is trying to use technology to pump up otherwise bad films.

I really liked the poster's comments about paintings, sculptures, and dioramas. For now I can only see 3D really working in video games where you want to become immersed in the game. It works as I'm controlling the character -- when in a movie someone else is driving the ship.

/ no I don't want to control the camera when watching a film
 
2012-09-29 10:27:39 AM

lelio: Thought I would chime in with "Up" was a good movie in 3D, I think it was "real 3d" when I saw it in the theaters. Course maybe I felt that way as I liked the film and didn't get bored and my mind wandering to pick out flaws in the technology.

What Hollywood is doing is trying to use technology to pump up otherwise bad films.

I really liked the poster's comments about paintings, sculptures, and dioramas. For now I can only see 3D really working in video games where you want to become immersed in the game. It works as I'm controlling the character -- when in a movie someone else is driving the ship.

/ no I don't want to control the camera when watching a film


3D probably works best for something where you are expected to take control. I got a 3DS with the hopes they would put it to good use, so far, meh, but I have hopes. I'm sure directors like Kubrick could have put together very good explanations for 2D, after all, when controlling every factor of a movie from the lighting to the camera angles, impact is put into the hands of the viewer if they decide (in say, a virtual reality movie) to watch the scene from behind the actors. We also forget that films are based on camera trickery, and presumably the best way to make a 3D movie would be in totally CGI. That would eliminate revealing mistakes. Of course, 3D storytelling has existed for millenia, they are called plays, and still are pretty successful.
 
2012-09-29 10:34:25 AM

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


I don't see the attraction for 3D-walkaround in my living room. The viewing arrangement for that would very different from 2D, unless some sort of projection from a wall unit is how it's done. But a unit that sits in the middle of the room with chairs around it? Nah. Too much reconfiguring when I want to watch an old 2D movie.

Or do I have 2 units - 2D on the wall and 3D in the middle of the room? Nah, still have chairs/sofas facing all kinds of directions that have to get moved around.
 
2012-09-29 10:44:53 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: fluffy2097: 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.

It looks like a gaming device. I just hope people aren't going to go delusional and say how we are going to live in white boxes and use the VR goggles to simulate furniture and wallpaper...


Occulus is a gaming device.

They've forgotten some key things though. Some people like to look at their keyboards while gaming and some games have so many controls, looking down is required. Flight sims in particular have this problem, and flight sims are one of the best possible uses for this thing.

In an FPS, you can only turn your head so far before you have to turn it back to center. mouselook setups are all designed with the ability to turn left and right forever (either by holding your gamepad joystick down, or lifting your mouse up and moving it back to the middle of the mouse pad), and your head cannot do that. You'd have to give up your ability to strafe in order to be able to turn around, and you'd have to recenter every time you looked forward again.

The final problem is packing a 720p or 1080p resolution display into a piece of headgear. We've had the head tracking and the headgear for decades. We've never had a good display.

/has head tracking hardware for flight sims
//yes they can control mouselook in skyrim/borderlands2/codblops, but it's unplayable.
 
2012-09-29 10:46:18 AM
If I were to get a 3D TV, it would probably most used to watch old 3D content - Bwana Devil, Robot Monster, Creature from the Black Lagoon - assuming anyone converted them from the old processes. And I haven't even checked that.
 
2012-09-29 10:49:20 AM
Throughout high school and college, I did all sorts of odd jobs during my summer vacations. As a result, I was blinded in one eye by a bit of metal while working at a construction site. Sufficed to say, I am glad to see 3D televisions are not catching on. The current technology just looks blurry to me.
 
2012-09-29 11:01:36 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. 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


i486.photobucket.com
Sorry Man, there is no sanctuary.
 
2012-09-29 11:12:12 AM
3D is the reason I'm not going to theatres

I'm not going to sit there for two hours with my head in lock with the 3D orientation of the screen. And doubly so for IMAX 3D because the system DOESN'T WORK WORTH A shiat. You have to maintain lock with the orientation, but that only gives you lock on the middle of the screen. 70% of the screen isn't viewable in 3D. Then there's the fact that the inner surface of their glasses isn't treated with anti-glare. A bright scene on the screen and I can't see it because of the glare off the people behind me.

farkers, stop making movies ONLY in 3D. You're just pissing me off now.
 
2012-09-29 11:21:09 AM

Shadowknight: 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.


The Shadows speak truth.
 
2012-09-29 11:41:28 AM

lelio: Thought I would chime in with "Up" was a good movie in 3D, I think it was "real 3d" when I saw it in the theaters. Course maybe I felt that way as I liked the film and didn't get bored and my mind wandering to pick out flaws in the technology.


This.

The flying sequence in "How to Train Your Dragon" was pretty awesome in theater 3d. But I don't think it added anything to the rest of the movie. And for all I know the scene would have worked just as well in 2D.
 
2012-09-29 11:50:53 AM

wildcardjack: 3D is the reason I'm not going to theatres

I'm not going to sit there for two hours with my head in lock with the 3D orientation of the screen. And doubly so for IMAX 3D because the system DOESN'T WORK WORTH A shiat. You have to maintain lock with the orientation, but that only gives you lock on the middle of the screen. 70% of the screen isn't viewable in 3D. Then there's the fact that the inner surface of their glasses isn't treated with anti-glare. A bright scene on the screen and I can't see it because of the glare off the people behind me.

farkers, stop making movies ONLY in 3D. You're just pissing me off now.


Are there many movies released only in 3D? I haven't noticed that problem since every movie I've been interested in has had a 2D version.
 
2012-09-29 12:04:18 PM

the_freelance: 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.


High refresh rate + moar pixels, at least for the short term. Haven't heard of a buzz worthy name for it though. HDPlus? UltraVision?
 
2012-09-29 12:14:22 PM
Tried 3D watching Avatar. It gave my son and I splitting headaches. Never again.
 
2012-09-29 01:28:44 PM

the_freelance: 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.


Easy. You add another channel to your 12.42 surround sound system, and force people to use the display as a HDMI pass-through.

Of course, they'll also need a new receiver to handle the new "up your ass" speaker channel.
 
2012-09-29 01:30:50 PM

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


Same here. It's like people totally forgot 3D movies/TV was a thing before and failed miserably. Sure we've come a long way in technology, but it's still just a novelty thing.
 
2012-09-29 02:10:44 PM
Even if we had real 3D (not the flat puppet-show effect everyone in here is talking about)... I think that would actually distract MORE from a film.
 
Filmmakers frame shots for effect.  But what's the use when someone sitting on the other end of my couch is now seeing a slightly different shot?  Will I have to move around the room so as to not miss subtle things in the shot?
 
It all seems silly to me.
 
Now, you could say... that would be no different than a live play.  But movies are not plays.  Good cinemetography would be thrown out the window if one could see 3 dimensions of angles.
 
2012-09-29 02:11:32 PM

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


Why would anybody want this? Who is going to waltz around their living room constantly trying to find a good angle to watch a TV show? How do you have a close-up? Suddenly you'll have a huge head floating in your room and you might end up looking at the back of the guy's head. You can't show settings because there's no background. Instead of there being a fourth wall, there aren't any walls whatsoever. Everything would be like watching a play at the Globe Theater. It'd literally be the most restrictive/most expensive form of media possible.
 
2012-09-29 02:33:03 PM

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 refuse to see any post-conversion 3D because it adds nothing. (Excepting Pixar 3D Nemo added a lot of depth to the image that was fantastic.) If it was filmed for 2D, I'm seeing it 2D. However, movies filmed in 3D by people who get it are great. I loved Transformers DotM in 3D. It looked amazing and sucked me right in. Yes, the plot was annoying, but it looked great and was well done. Hugo was also fantastic 3D. Even Jackass 3D used the technology well. So it can be done, but it's a rare thing.

As for 3D TV, I'm not even thinking about it for at least another 5 years. I got my big, fancy HDTV just a few years ago and it works just fine. I see no reason to upgrade, especially since there's very little to upgrade for. The reason I got the HDTV was because the price fell enough for me to get a quality set and there was enough HD content to justify the purchase. This is not the case for 3D, and like HD, I need the technology to significantly improve before I even think about it.

Right now, I wouldn't mind having to use glasses as long as they are like the ones at the movies - not requiring batteries and not costing a bundle per pair. Of course, by the time I'm ready to get one, they might be like the 3DS, which would also suit me fine.
 
2012-09-29 03:07:53 PM
simplicimus: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.

Blue/green screen work wouldn't change a thing. You still need a holographic camera that can capture those thousands of angles, whether the actor is on a real set, or a green screen. Green screen work would still require just as much rendering as a full CG holographic movie. Thousands upon thousands of extra renderings for each and every frame. As I said, technology has a long way to catch up before this takes effect.

And yes, someone with only one eye is not going to see 3D, just like they can't see 3D in real life. I don't see how that's relevant. A holographic display will still show one view to your one working eye. Move your head and you see a different view with your one working eye.
 
2012-09-29 03:09:56 PM

doglover:
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.


THIS!

3D is an expensive pain in the ass, doesn't really add anything, and requires special cameras AND projectors. Smell-o-vision (or whatever they choose to call it) would add WAY more to the experience, cost less, and would only require a few aerosol sprayers placed around the theater with a link-up to the computer that interprets the timed release of particular smells.

Why nobody has gone full-on with this idea is a mystery to me. Being a foley artist is a reputable career in Hollywood. Imagine how much the industry could boast about the olfactory artist whose job it is to assemble the scents for a major motion picture. Imagine the Academy Award for Best Olfactory Experience in a Major Motion Picture! Imagine how the porn industry could use this technology (oh, wait... Maybe not...) -- And it wouldn't take much to convert ANY theater-- Even old "classic" ones-- to be able to utilize the scent cues in a film.

That would be awesome. I'd pay an extra $2 to see a movie with a full olfactory experience. It would be better than smelling popcorn, farts, and the guy in front of me wearing too much Skin Bracer. It would be immersive in ways that 3D can NEVER be.

Yes. Sign me up. I'd love to see a Lord of the Rings movie with smell-o-vision. Others, too!

Pirates of the Caribbean: The smell of the ocean, a fishy smell when Davy Jones comes on screen, the smell of exotic incense in the voodoo witch's hut, etc.

Star Wars: The smell of ozone when lasers are blasting away, slightly wet dog when Chewbacca is on screen, and garbage (mild, so as not to make viewers ill) in the garbage compactor.

Any war movie: Smoke, gunpowder, outdoor smells, etc.

Romance films: The smells of flowers, perfume, chocolate, New York in autumn, rain, etc.

Jeez..... If Demeter can make perfumes that smell exactly like a rainstorm, freshly-cut grass, dirt, or October in the midwest, I don't see why Hollywood can't incorporate that advancement into movies.
 
2012-09-29 03:53:05 PM

ZeroCorpse: full olfactory experience


Even during Imodium ads on TV? Baby diapers? Kitty litter?
 
2012-09-29 04:01:34 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: ZeroCorpse: full olfactory experience

Even during Imodium ads on TV? Baby diapers? Kitty litter?


If they have the sense not to show the poop on TV (and they do), they'll have the sense not to make us smell the poop on TV.

And Kotex commercials will smell like blue raspberry instead of menstrual blood.
 
2012-09-29 04:30:48 PM
The only good thing that came out of 3d tech was that it could be used to show different scenes to two different people, so you could play a 2 player game, but each player got their own viewpoint.
 
2012-09-29 05:28:31 PM

lordargent: The only good thing that came out of 3d tech was that it could be used to show different scenes to two different people, so you could play a 2 player game, but each player got their own viewpoint.



Agreed.  Not a gamer, but I was facinated by this concept when I first read about it.
 
I hate racing games where you only get 1/2 the screen for your view.
 
2012-09-29 05:40:52 PM

soporific: Hugo was also fantastic 3D. Even Jackass 3D used the technology well. So it can be done, but it's a rare thing.


And in those cases, 3D was thought about carefully.

I should have seen Hugo at the cinema as my DVD player seemed to kick up a lot of dust near the end ;)
 
2012-09-29 05:45:23 PM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: 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.


Now I can see how the voyeur subset of the porn industry could get excited about this.
 
2012-09-29 05:50:51 PM

Olympic Trolling Judge: If they have the sense not to show the poop on TV (and they do), they'll have the sense not to make us smell the poop on TV.


Or sweaty people.

ZeroCorpse: Smell-o-vision (or whatever they choose to call it) would add WAY more to the experience, cost less, and would only require a few aerosol sprayers placed around the theater with a link-up to the computer that interprets the timed release of particular smells.


Betcha enough people will be allergic to at least one compound in there, and wanna bet that the compounds will leave a film of crap over everything in the long term? You can't keep pumping stuff into a living room over weeks and months and not end up with some residue somewhere.
 
2012-09-29 06:37:12 PM
3D will never take off so long as it isn't much more than depth perception. You already get that effect even from a 2D video.
 
2012-09-29 06:51:45 PM
 
2012-09-29 07:51:47 PM
downstairs: I hate racing games where you only get 1/2 the screen for your view.

The next steps are

1) Crank the refresh rate so that you can get 4 different video streams going.

2) Have different audio streams piping through each person's controller.

3) Make games that take advantage of the above.
 
2012-09-29 07:59:00 PM

fluffy2097: the_freelance: 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.

Easy. You add another channel to your 12.42 surround sound system, and force people to use the display as a HDMI pass-through.


You joke, but 22.2 surround sound is already a thing.

Future tech includes 4K & 8K resolution screens, 21:9 aspect ratios, OLED, and of course bigger, bigger, bigger.
 
2012-09-29 10:04:26 PM

flaminio: fluffy2097: the_freelance: 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.

Easy. You add another channel to your 12.42 surround sound system, and force people to use the display as a HDMI pass-through.

You joke, but 22.2 surround sound is already a thing.

Future tech includes 4K & 8K resolution screens, 21:9 aspect ratios, OLED, and of course bigger, bigger, bigger.


Sound engineers can't even master 2 channels let alone 6 or now 7.

22 would be an absolute clusterfark.

/new on sanguneray disc! Movie theater mode! Now you can enjoy the movie thearter experience at home, as we use 12 speakers to pump in the sound of people talking on their cell phones and chewing with their mouth open!
//Swipe your credit card now to disable this feature!
 
2012-09-29 11:03:49 PM
True 3D would ruin every movie ever made after that point. You would never be able to have a punch without actually punching the person otherwise you would see just how far away the punch landed and how fake the fight scene actually was.

Things like gun fights you would see everyone aiming for empty space.

Car chases you could see just how slow they are going.

CGI would become that much more difficult to incorporate as the actors have to imagine something being there before it actually is inserted into the movie. MANY times you would have miss matches in locations, posture and direction something is looking.

There are just too many problems with REAL 3d that all you will ever get is a gimmicky version of it with only selected items flying out of the screen.

That is as far as the tech will ever go movie wise. Sure someday we might have holophones .. but we dont need to punch people for those.
 
2012-09-30 12:15:06 AM
Some movies in the theatre are worth the extra $3

A 3D television is retarded.
 
2012-09-30 01:35:13 AM
When 3D on TV started, some people claimed it would be widely adopted for the porn experience. Anybody tried it on 3D?
 
2012-09-30 03:55:06 AM

Charles_Nelson_Reilly: When 3D on TV started, some people claimed it would be widely adopted for the porn experience. Anybody tried it on 3D?


If you have the old-style coloured glasses there's plenty available on various porn sites. or so my friend told me.

He also said it wasn't really worth it.
 
2012-10-01 09:46:30 AM

haydenarrrrgh: Charles_Nelson_Reilly: When 3D on TV started, some people claimed it would be widely adopted for the porn experience. Anybody tried it on 3D?

If you have the old-style coloured glasses there's plenty available on various porn sites. or so my friend told me.

He also said it wasn't really worth it.


twoweeksonedate.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-01 02:16:01 PM

dready zim: 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.


That's interesting-- I've seen a half-dozen or so 3D films, and most were terrible. Tron, for example, was clearly done with post-processing and looked tacked-on and fakey. Avengers was the only one I found well-done, and I've been using it as the example of what 3D should be.

The difference with the glasses on and off was pronounced. I wonder if the 15-year-old who presses "play" on the projector screwed things up at your theater, or if it was a different projection/glasses tech, or what?
 
2012-10-01 03:40:05 PM
Would love to watch sport in 3D, but Uverse dropped ESPN 3D right as I got the capable hardware.
 
x23
2012-10-01 04:13:25 PM
this is pretty useful for determining if a movie was actually shot in 3D or if it was a post-processed deal.


http://realorfake3d.com/


i have a 3DTV and have Hugo and now Avengers for it. so one 'real' and one 'fake' 3D movie to try out. i haven't yet though.

i watched a few streaming real 3D documentaries on some Samsung 'channel' the TV could download. they were pretty awesome looking i thought. watched some trailers for some post-processed movies and they were much less impressive.
 
Displayed 97 of 97 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report