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.

(The Verge)   3-D is dead. What, again?   (theverge.com) divider line 76
    More: Spiffy, Ces, OLED, digital recording  
•       •       •

5382 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Jan 2013 at 7:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-09 07:21:32 AM  
You mean a gimmick tech from the 1880s isn't exactly pushing new units out the door? I'm shocked!
 
2013-01-09 07:21:42 AM  
So

(1) I'm glad that someone figured out a protocol for transmitting 3-D TV

and

(2) I'm glad that no one will ask me to watch it.

I got headaches watching Avatar in 3-D. 2-D is just fine, thanks.
 
2013-01-09 07:22:03 AM  
Luckily, all of my interactions with the outside world is in 2-D. It makes diving into swimming pools just a little more interesting.
 
2013-01-09 07:22:28 AM  
In other news, sales of aspirin drop.
 
2013-01-09 07:24:28 AM  
My only regret is that I wasn't the one to knife the son of a biatch in the carotid.
 
2013-01-09 07:24:46 AM  
It's dead Jim.
 
2013-01-09 07:26:22 AM  
Curved televisions???

dvice.com

Cool
 
2013-01-09 07:27:45 AM  

pkellmey: Luckily, all of my interactions with the outside world is in 2-D. It makes diving into swimming pools just a little more interesting.


atulkarmarkar.com

Knows what you mean.
 
2013-01-09 07:28:47 AM  
Id like to hold to the illusion that dredd 3d would have made at least SOME money if they didn't market it as 3-d.

//Watched it last night, that movie was great.
 
2013-01-09 07:31:27 AM  

Brick-House: Curved televisions???

[dvice.com image 550x309]

Cool


I had one of those with my old CRT screen. Not impressed.

Oh, wait. Curved the other way?
 
2013-01-09 07:34:30 AM  
3D is just a fad that comes around every 20-30 years or so.

Expect another 3D fad around 2035, when the consumer electronics industry insists it's the wave of the future and going to catch on this time around. Really.
 
2013-01-09 07:35:22 AM  
If all 3D looked like The Hobbit, then cool. But it doesn't, and it won't. And I actively dislike 3D.

On the other hand, a 4K OLED TV has me drooling. I can't wait until 2017 when the common man can afford them.
 
2013-01-09 07:42:13 AM  
You know, they 3D in Avatar was great. It wasn't of the movie, it enhanced it. It drew you in. They didn't do what almost every other 3D movie does, which is throw things at you just because "people paid for 3D and we need to film something that makes it 3D-ish."

I think the death of 3D won't be because of the technology, it'll be because Hollywood won't be able to figure out how to make it a passive part of the movie and still make the bean counters happy that they spent all the extra money on the 3D equipment and no one threw a tire at the camera "for the awesome 3D effect".
 
2013-01-09 07:45:06 AM  
And something else. Just because 3D wasn't a big thing at CES doesn't mean it's dying. CES is always about showing things off that will be years down the line and the cutting edge of tech. At this point, 3D TVs are far more common in more houses. There's not that much new or innovative to show off at this point. It's a show that if you bring the same stuff you did last year, you're going to get laughed off the stage. Maybe the new thing isn't 3D this year, but I don't think that means it's a harbinger for the medium.
 
2013-01-09 07:47:23 AM  
3D just plain sucks. I saw The Hobbit in 3D HFR, and if some reviews are to be believed that it's the best 3D since Avatar, then 3D is immersion-breaking, story-distracting, cinematography-ruining technology. It doesn't contribute anything to telling the story, and it makes what would be great frame composition in 2D into a weird disconnected mess. The worst is when there's an out of focus object in the foreground. Focus is a useful and necessary tool for directing the eye of the viewers and for creating nice images, but it's just weird when the audience can focus on something in the 3D-space foreground and yet it stays out of focus. It's distracting, disorienting, and headache-causing.

HFR causes similar issues in different ways, but I think it's less of a gimmick, and has a place in the cinematographer's toolbox. I do think it was the wrong choice for The Hobbit. Why would you want to make a story with wizards, dwarves, and dragons more lifelike? Costumes looked like costumes, fake beards looked like fake beards, sets looked like sets, CG (especially the dwarf city in the prologue) looked like a video game. I haven't seen it in 2D/24 yet, but from what I've read, all of those problems go away at the traditional framerate.
 
2013-01-09 07:48:15 AM  

FunkyBlue: You know, they 3D in Avatar was great. It wasn't of the movie, it enhanced it. It drew you in. They didn't do what almost every other 3D movie does, which is throw things at you just because "people paid for 3D and we need to film something that makes it 3D-ish."

I think the death of 3D won't be because of the technology, it'll be because Hollywood won't be able to figure out how to make it a passive part of the movie and still make the bean counters happy that they spent all the extra money on the 3D equipment and no one threw a tire at the camera "for the awesome 3D effect".


Agreed. The gimmicky use of the technology is what is killing it. To see what directors do with that extra dimension is nice. Avatar certainly made good use of 3D, as did Hugo. Adventures of Tintin was brilliantly done.
 
2013-01-09 08:03:26 AM  
3-D is dead.

Crap, and I just got a bunch of these to practice with:

rinehart3d.com

rinehart3d.com

rinehart3d.com

rinehart3d.com

/Got the velociraptor because genetic engineering is moving at an ever increasing past. Can't be too careful.
 
2013-01-09 08:03:51 AM  

FunkyBlue: I think the death of 3D won't be because of the technology, it'll be because Hollywood won't be able to figure out how to make it a passive part of the movie and still make the bean counters happy that they spent all the extra money on the 3D equipment and no one threw a tire at the camera "for the awesome 3D effect".


This was the brilliance of Pixar when they were pioneering computer animation.  There seemed a universal acceptance from the bottom to the top that the animation method was ultimately just the means to tell a story.  They knew that the moment they allowed the animation method to drive content, they would lose.
 
2013-01-09 08:06:57 AM  
I'm a big fan of DD, but I'm not quite sure what a DDD would look like.

/best I've got
/hate 3d because the glasses are stupid, and don't fit over mine
 
2013-01-09 08:11:27 AM  
Went to see my first 3D movie with the wife and kid last Saturday. Went to the matinee and paid 42 dollars for the tickets to a 12 year old movie. I've see Monster Inc a million times but the 3d version just sucked and didn't work.

Fark 3D
 
2013-01-09 08:12:01 AM  
Because there isn't enough 3D porn available.
 
2013-01-09 08:17:06 AM  

dittybopper: 3-D is dead.

Crap, and I just got a bunch of these to practice with:

[rinehart3d.com image 450x449]

[rinehart3d.com image 441x450]

[rinehart3d.com image 450x444]

[rinehart3d.com image 450x449]

/Got the velociraptor because genetic engineering is moving at an ever increasing past. Can't be too careful.


Need to get me one of those raptors.
 
2013-01-09 08:28:22 AM  

Doc Daneeka: 3D is just a fad that comes around every 20-30 years or so.

Expect another 3D fad around 2035, when the consumer electronics industry insists it's the wave of the future and going to catch on this time around. Really.


Bingo. I really hope the nail in the coffin this time was that awful Sony commercial - the one with the sassy little 7-year-old girl "hey, you ever heard of 3d, Grandpa?" At no point did any of the writers or producers stop and say "wait... Grandpa was watching 3D movies around the same time that kid's potential aunts and uncles were becoming stains in a tube sock by his adolescent bed." 'Cause if "Grandpa" had been remotely impressed by 3D in his own youth, we wouldn't need prime-time commercials to sell it in today's market.
 
2013-01-09 08:37:00 AM  

Babwa Wawa: This was the brilliance of Pixar when they were pioneering computer animation.  There seemed a universal acceptance from the bottom to the top that the animation method was ultimately just the means to tell a story.  They knew that the moment they allowed the animation method to drive content, they would lose.


I saw a DVD bonus about the time they first showed the "pixar lamp" short, at a special convention. At the time, most CGI movies where modelisation of space travels, representation of monuments, and other non-living things, and where often treated more as proof-of-concept and empty pretty exercices than anything else.
Then they present the movie to the audience. The moment the lamp moves its head, the audience starts to lose it, and cheer until the end.
After the movie was shown, someone approached the pixar guy (Lasseter, I think, but not sure), and say "can I ask you a question ?"
Lasseter thinks "okay, now he's going to ask me questions about the hardware, the software, and other technical questions".
But the guy asks : "The grown-up lamp. Was a male, or a female ?"
And that's when Lasseter realized they accomplished something, that CGI was not a simple tool to create pretty picture anymore, but a true story-telling tool.
 
2013-01-09 08:41:23 AM  
3D isn't dead. Moving ViewMaster is dead.

What the industry has been trying to fob off as 3D for the past decade (and every previous time) isn't 3D at all. It's elaborate stereoscopy, a ViewMaster show at 24 frames per second. And when the stereoscopy conflicts with all the other 3D cues that you're used to processing, it's no wonder your head hurts.

The really sad part is that one of these years somebody is actually going to build a real 3D display -- one where the stereo separation, perspective, parallax, depth of focus, relative motion, and other cues are all consistent, where solid objects actually look solid instead of looking like one flat cutout floating a few feet in front of another flat cutout -- and nobody will pay attention because they've been burned so many times.
 
2013-01-09 08:44:52 AM  
By the way, in case anybody thinks that the CE industry is softpedaling 3D because they've wised up, sorry to disappoint. The reality is that they just have a cooler new toy to sell us, i.e. 4K (and 8K) displays.
 
2013-01-09 08:49:38 AM  

czetie: and nobody will pay attention because they've been burned so many times.


I believe that a true volumetric display would sell itself.
 
2013-01-09 08:50:19 AM  

czetie: By the way, in case anybody thinks that the CE industry is softpedaling 3D because they've wised up, sorry to disappoint. The reality is that they just have a cooler new toy to sell us, i.e. 4K (and 8K) displays.


I'm ok with this. A lot of films are already shot in 4k, so the transition to the home makes sense. The higher resolution looks great as well. 3D is useless and does absolutely nothing for me.
 
2013-01-09 08:51:35 AM  
 
2013-01-09 08:55:41 AM  
Saw Hobbit in 2D. Plenty of sweeping spinning shots clearly planned for 3D, and just stood out as odd in 2D.
 
2013-01-09 09:17:39 AM  
First I saw The Hobbit in 2D, then a week later I saw it in IMAX 3D at 48 fps. To my eyes there was no noticeable improvement, and there were a few times when the 3D was distracting. I didn't suffer any ill effects, although having the 3D glasses over the top of my regular glasses was an annoyance that didn't fade over the course of the three hours I was there.

In summary: it didn't add enough, if anything, to make me willing to pay $4 more for the ticket and wear an extra set of glasses in the future. As long as a 2D version is available I'll see that.
 
2013-01-09 09:33:13 AM  
I thought the Hobbit looked like shiat in 3D. Saw it again in 2D and loved it.

3D is stupid.
 
2013-01-09 10:05:13 AM  
I still have high hopes for Smell-O-Vision

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-09 10:09:14 AM  
I just purchased a 3D TV a couple of months ago, it's was only $100 or so more than the Other TV I was looking at buying.

First, I think it's fun to watch a movie like Brave or avengers in 3D, I have the lorax, green lantern, born to be wild and the ISS all in 3D, but haven't had a chance to watch them, but will enjoy it when I do.

Watching the sugar bowl in 3D was great and the NC game was pretty cool except the game sucked which isn't 3D's fault it's Norte Dames.

I even switched from dish to directTV do I could get the 3D channels,

All in all I'm happy I did it and have the choice,

The Super Bowl and new X games are going to be awesome.
 
2013-01-09 10:30:58 AM  

czetie: 3D isn't dead. Moving ViewMaster is dead.

What the industry has been trying to fob off as 3D for the past decade (and every previous time) isn't 3D at all. It's elaborate stereoscopy, a ViewMaster show at 24 frames per second. And when the stereoscopy conflicts with all the other 3D cues that you're used to processing, it's no wonder your head hurts.

The really sad part is that one of these years somebody is actually going to build a real 3D display -- one where the stereo separation, perspective, parallax, depth of focus, relative motion, and other cues are all consistent, where solid objects actually look solid instead of looking like one flat cutout floating a few feet in front of another flat cutout -- and nobody will pay attention because they've been burned so many times.


True dat.
 
2013-01-09 10:44:09 AM  
The part of 3D I really hate (other than glasses over my glasses) is that I am forced to watch the exact spot on the screen that the 3D wants me to watch. Sometimes it's fun to see some action that's going on in the background, over to the side etc. But no, that's not where the 3D makes me watch so I actually get less of a viewing experience because the screen is shrunk to the point where I have to watch one location on the screen.
 
2013-01-09 10:59:52 AM  
I'm going to send this link to all my friends who felt the need to let everyone know they went out and bought a 3-D tv because they are better than everyone else.
 
2013-01-09 11:00:43 AM  

clkeagle: Doc Daneeka: 3D is just a fad that comes around every 20-30 years or so.

Expect another 3D fad around 2035, when the consumer electronics industry insists it's the wave of the future and going to catch on this time around. Really.

Bingo. I really hope the nail in the coffin this time was that awful Sony commercial - the one with the sassy little 7-year-old girl "hey, you ever heard of 3d, Grandpa?" At no point did any of the writers or producers stop and say "wait... Grandpa was watching 3D movies around the same time that kid's potential aunts and uncles were becoming stains in a tube sock by his adolescent bed." 'Cause if "Grandpa" had been remotely impressed by 3D in his own youth, we wouldn't need prime-time commercials to sell it in today's market.


This is what annoys me about the "3d haters are old fogies that can't accept change, why, there were people hating color and sound too" argument. I liked the 3d in Avatar, Hugo, and Life of Pi. But I'll be damned if I'll be told that I'm a Luddite for not wanting Count Floyd style stuff being tossed at the screen. (Except Nature Trail to Hell, still unmade for some reason)
 
2013-01-09 11:03:38 AM  

Fano: I'll be damned if I'll be told that I'm a Luddite for not wanting Count Floyd style stuff being tossed at the screen. (Except Nature Trail to Hell, still unmade for some reason)


I'd be down with a showing of Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses.
 
2013-01-09 11:03:51 AM  

pkellmey: Luckily, all of my interactions with the outside world is in 2-D. It makes diving into swimming pools just a little more interesting.


static01.mediaite.com
 
2013-01-09 11:14:50 AM  
Sony CEO Kaz Hirai spent more time during his keynote talking about professional-grade Sony cameras attracting M. Night Shyamalan over to digital recording

There's just all kinds of fail in this one paragraph.
 
2013-01-09 11:30:30 AM  
3D farking sucks.

Flat sprites that jump out from the screen, that made everything go out of focus when your eye tried to focus on them.

/yes I saw avatar
//It sucked and gave me a headache.
 
2013-01-09 11:33:30 AM  

czetie: The really sad part is that one of these years somebody is actually going to build a real 3D display -- one where the stereo separation, perspective, parallax, depth of focus, relative motion, and other cues are all consistent, where solid objects actually look solid instead of looking like one flat cutout floating a few feet in front of another flat cutout -- and nobody will pay attention because they've been burned so many times.


I will pay attention.

I will buy that 3D TV.

It will make a great picture window to whole other parts of the world if nothing else.
 
2013-01-09 11:46:48 AM  

traylor: Because there isn't enough 3D porn available.


That's probably a good thing. You never know what that kind of technology can do.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-01-09 11:50:40 AM  
czetie

The really sad part is that one of these years somebody is actually going to build a real 3D display -- one where the stereo separation, perspective, parallax, depth of focus, relative motion, and other cues are all consistent, where solid objects actually look solid instead of looking like one flat cutout floating a few feet in front of another flat cutout -- and nobody will pay attention because they've been burned so many times.

That's a dead-on description of my only 3D TV viewing experience. World Cup soccer on a big Samsung 3D TV at Best Buy. A bunch of cardboard cutouts kicking around a cardboard cutout of a ball. Thrilling.
 
2013-01-09 11:51:10 AM  

Wellon Dowd: Fano: I'll be damned if I'll be told that I'm a Luddite for not wanting Count Floyd style stuff being tossed at the screen. (Except Nature Trail to Hell, still unmade for some reason)

I'd be down with a showing of Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses.


Rip and tear Bruno! Rip and Tear!

/ooooo...that was scary huh kids?
 
2013-01-09 11:54:19 AM  

FunkyBlue: You know, they 3D in Avatar was great. It wasn't of the movie, it enhanced it. It drew you in. They didn't do what almost every other 3D movie does, which is throw things at you just because "people paid for 3D and we need to film something that makes it 3D-ish."

I think the death of 3D won't be because of the technology, it'll be because Hollywood won't be able to figure out how to make it a passive part of the movie and still make the bean counters happy that they spent all the extra money on the 3D equipment and no one threw a tire at the camera "for the awesome 3D effect".


Yup. There's very few movies where the director fully used 3D to enhance the film experience. Avatar and The Hobbit used 3d as a cinematographic technique, using the sense of depth to guide the audience's attention. Prometheus, despite my general 'meh' about the film, used 3D very well in creating realism for the touch screen holographic computer displays.

Everyone else filming in 3D is still stuck in the 'Dr, Tounge's 3D House of Stewardesses' mode.
For those too young to get the reference (NSFW-ish)
 
2013-01-09 12:16:15 PM  
These companies knew the bubble was going to burst, so just went gangbusters on selling 3D before it did.

I think that Avatar was great because it proved you could make a movie that used the technology well, where most previous 3D movies (Spacehunter, Jaws 3D etc) were just full of out-of-the-screen gimmicks.

But it needs to become an occassional thing, where it fits the form of the movie.
 
2013-01-09 12:16:38 PM  

Andric: I thought the Hobbit looked like shiat in 3D. Saw it again in 2D and loved it.

3D is stupid.


Well, I'll see your anecdote and raise you mine. I saw the Hobbit in 2D and was underwhelmed. I saw it again a couple of weeks later in IMAX 3D and thought it was great. 3D done right is awesome. So, there.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:56 PM  

smimmy: Andric: I thought the Hobbit looked like shiat in 3D. Saw it again in 2D and loved it.

3D is stupid.

Well, I'll see your anecdote and raise you mine. I saw the Hobbit in 2D and was underwhelmed. I saw it again a couple of weeks later in IMAX 3D and thought it was great. 3D done right is awesome. So, there.


I've not seen the Hobbit in 3D yet, but I've heard that the higher frame rate made the 3D experience much easier on the eyes for people with motion sickness.
 
2013-01-09 12:26:52 PM  
3D. This is the 3D that a minimum of 20% of the population can't actually see and another percentage get headaches, watering eyes and such when they look at right? Of course it's a dead end and won't really go anywhere.

1. People don't like wearing two pairs of glasses.
2. There is a massive difference between passive & active shutter systems in terms of 'compatibility', the majority of theatres went with the passive 'Real3D' branded system which has the most 'compatibility' issues.
3. The ticket price has been jacked up, again, to cover (as far as the public can see) a cheap pair of disposable glasses (that aren't comfortable).

And 4. Beyond one or two films the majority of those proclaiming 3D are having it added as a post production effect and worse yet it's being used exactly the same as the old two colour glasses system was (hands rushing out of the screen style gimmicks) and doesn't add anything to the story or indeed the quality of the movie you are seeing.

So yeah. Glad it's dead. Again. See ya in a few years when someone else stumbles on the gimmick and tries to ram it down our throats again.
 
2013-01-09 12:37:38 PM  
Called it since day 1.
 
2013-01-09 12:42:50 PM  

pkellmey: smimmy: Andric: I thought the Hobbit looked like shiat in 3D. Saw it again in 2D and loved it.

3D is stupid.

Well, I'll see your anecdote and raise you mine. I saw the Hobbit in 2D and was underwhelmed. I saw it again a couple of weeks later in IMAX 3D and thought it was great. 3D done right is awesome. So, there.

I've not seen the Hobbit in 3D yet, but I've heard that the higher frame rate made the 3D experience much easier on the eyes for people with motion sickness.


At best, the 3D in Hobbit did absolutely nothing for the movie. Whereas Avatar used it to provide (at least what seemed like at the time, not having been to a 3D movie before) a lot of visual depth, the Hobbit's visual depth did not seem very substantial. What depth there was seemed entirely unnecessary to the enjoyment of the movie.
 
2013-01-09 12:55:23 PM  
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

Only two more years.....they really need to start cranking out the Jaws movies.
 
2013-01-09 01:05:25 PM  
3D as it currently exists is dead. I'm still convinced the next "big leap" in television technology will be 3D, but it will be glasses free 3D. There's a dozen reasons the current iteration of 3D televisions hasn't caught on.... people like multitasking, people hate the glasses, whatever. But when 3D becomes a low-effort affair, when it's just ON when you flip to that channel, no need for anything else, it will start catching on.

What will not catch on is the 4K UHD. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool concept. But it's incredibly impractical at the moment from a content standpoint. HDTV was easy... networks just needed to get HD cameras and consumers HD televisions, and bam, HD content. That won't work for the 4K UHD. The tech is way ahead of the delivery system, we simply do not have the infrastructure for it. You know how it takes many gigabytes to stream an HD movie to your house? For 4K technology, that would be measured in terabytes instead. It's just not happening without a drastic overhaul of infrastructure in the USA and pretty much everywhere else except South Korea. ISPs can't maintain anything close to that kind of steady connection, downloading a single movie would demolish any data caps, and we have no physical medium that can hold that kind of data, unless you want to use 20 blu-ray discs.

We're 15-20 years away from having a feasible way to deliver 4K-quality movies directly into a home. The technology will exist in the next generation of televisions, but people won't buy into it without content. It's amazing to me some people are already talking about 8K televisions....
 
2013-01-09 01:18:35 PM  
3D for TV or Movies I can just take or leave, but I've been enjoying it a decent bit in games. When my wife and I did some PC upgrades recently, I went ahead and forked over for the nVidia 3D Vision kit. The drivers do a pretty good job of converting most games with a decent 3D engine into stereoscopic 3D, and the effect is nice. I think it's improved greatly by sitting at a desk rather than looking at a big-ass TV from across the room. It's by no means a 3D "Killer App" but it was worth the extra $125 on top of about a couple grand's worth of other hardware (standard 5-year PC upgrades plus an Xmas present of 3x monitors).
 
2013-01-09 01:23:01 PM  
I saw Hobbit in 24 fps first and 3d 48fps seconds. I thought the 3d 48fps was better. I just felt really sorry for all the people in the audience that were forced to see it in 3d 48fps.
 
2013-01-09 01:34:13 PM  

Supes:
We're 15-20 years away from having a feasible way to deliver 4K-quality movies directly into a home. The technology will exist in the next generation of televisions, but people won't buy into it without content. It's amazing to me some people are already talking about 8K televisions....


I'd buy a 4k TV even if its only uses are as an awesome computer monitor or a way to view movies (not streamed or broadcast) in their native resolution. I've been waiting for the day that I could own a TV that is 300dpi+ that doesn't fit in my pocket.
 
2013-01-09 01:39:38 PM  

Supes: 3D as it currently exists is dead. I'm still convinced the next "big leap" in television technology will be 3D, but it will be glasses free 3D. There's a dozen reasons the current iteration of 3D televisions hasn't caught on.... people like multitasking, people hate the glasses, whatever. But when 3D becomes a low-effort affair, when it's just ON when you flip to that channel, no need for anything else, it will start catching on.


Maybe, but but aside from the obstacles that introduces (viewing angles, moire, etc.) it still ultimately just another version of the "viewmaster" style 3D that we're accustomed to. We're still watching content displayed on a 2D surface. The human eye can already distinguish depth without an effect trying to reinforce it.

"Real" 3D will be something that introduces parallax to the viewing experience. Something like holographic imagery of course. But when that happens, we're not even talking about tv/film anymore. That's an entirely new type of medium altogether.
 
2013-01-09 01:49:20 PM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Maybe, but but aside from the obstacles that introduces (viewing angles, moire, etc.) it still ultimately just another version of the "viewmaster" style 3D that we're accustomed to. We're still watching content displayed on a 2D surface. The human eye can already distinguish depth without an effect trying to reinforce it.

"Real" 3D will be something that introduces parallax to the viewing experience. Something like holographic imagery of course. But when that happens, we're not even talking about tv/film anymore. That's an entirely new type of medium altogether.


Oh, agreed. But that's quite a bit further away. It will be in the form of some sort of holographic projection device, and it will be awesome. Someday, I look forward to being able to watch Broadway musicals in my living room with the performers practically being there.
 
2013-01-09 01:59:20 PM  
Looks like I'm in the minority here but I enjoy 3D when it's done right and I like it much better at home than in the theater.

Something about 3D at home makes it "pop" more.

Prometheus and a number of other titles are absolutely stunning.

Post-converted lazy garbage like Clash of the Titans brings down the good stuff.
 
2013-01-09 02:02:20 PM  

WalkingCarpet: Looks like I'm in the minority here


Technically you are yes. The majority of people have problems just watching a 3D movie for anything more than 5min at a time.

This makes you a mutant... we should burn you... for science you understand.
 
2013-01-09 02:18:32 PM  
Understood.  Just make sure you fashion my bones into a kick ass pair of active shutter glasses.
 
2013-01-09 02:44:13 PM  

andrewagill: So

(1) I'm glad that someone figured out a protocol for transmitting 3-D TV

and

(2) I'm glad that no one will ask me to watch it.

I got headaches watching Avatar in 3-D. 2-D is just fine, thanks.


That's funny, I get headaches watching it in 2D. Maybe 3D isn't the problem?
 
2013-01-09 03:22:19 PM  

Brick-House: Curved televisions???

[dvice.com image 550x309]

Cool

i.qkme.me
 
2013-01-09 03:22:24 PM  

JayCab: 3D for TV or Movies I can just take or leave, but I've been enjoying it a decent bit in games. When my wife and I did some PC upgrades recently, I went ahead and forked over for the nVidia 3D Vision kit. The drivers do a pretty good job of converting most games with a decent 3D engine into stereoscopic 3D, and the effect is nice. I think it's improved greatly by sitting at a desk rather than looking at a big-ass TV from across the room. It's by no means a 3D "Killer App" but it was worth the extra $125 on top of about a couple grand's worth of other hardware (standard 5-year PC upgrades plus an Xmas present of 3x monitors).


3d makes a hell of a lot more sense for games, where you are interacting with another world. Watching a movie just puts the audience in another passive location. I guess unless you are doing one of the questor 4d amusement park rides, 3d should be used for more subtle effects.
 
2013-01-09 06:10:02 PM  
img707.imageshack.us

How am I going to watch Captain EO without a 3d television? HOW!?!?!
 
2013-01-09 06:20:12 PM  

Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: That's an entirely new type of medium altogether.


That's an entirely new type of medium.
 
2013-01-09 06:33:56 PM  
t3knomanser: "You mean a gimmick tech from the 1880s isn't exactly pushing new units out the door? I'm shocked!"

But, like, technology and stuff? Computers? What's happening to you? I thought you were going to watch 3D movies on Mars with Elon? Or are you waiting for a holodeck?
 
2013-01-09 07:51:32 PM  
The author's argument:

"3D is ubiquitous to the point where people have stopped mentioning it. Like having a remote control included.

3D is dead because remember how people on the internet like saying that?"


fark every motherfarker who ever got a headache from 3D. I don't need to hear you biatch, I need to hear that you went to the eye doctor so you don't crash into me on the highway when your depth perception fails.
 
2013-01-09 08:08:13 PM  

sidcart42: fark every motherfarker who ever got a headache from 3D. I don't need to hear you biatch, I need to hear that you went to the eye doctor so you don't crash into me on the highway when your depth perception fails.


depth perception > stereoscopy
 
2013-01-10 12:58:37 AM  

smimmy: Andric: I thought the Hobbit looked like shiat in 3D. Saw it again in 2D and loved it.

3D is stupid.

Well, I'll see your anecdote and raise you mine. I saw the Hobbit in 2D and was underwhelmed. I saw it again a couple of weeks later in IMAX 3D and thought it was great. 3D done right is awesome. So, there.


Good for you, guy!
 
2013-01-10 01:14:46 AM  

Nuclear Monk: pkellmey: smimmy: Andric: I thought the Hobbit looked like shiat in 3D. Saw it again in 2D and loved it.

3D is stupid.

Well, I'll see your anecdote and raise you mine. I saw the Hobbit in 2D and was underwhelmed. I saw it again a couple of weeks later in IMAX 3D and thought it was great. 3D done right is awesome. So, there.

I've not seen the Hobbit in 3D yet, but I've heard that the higher frame rate made the 3D experience much easier on the eyes for people with motion sickness.

At best, the 3D in Hobbit did absolutely nothing for the movie. Whereas Avatar used it to provide (at least what seemed like at the time, not having been to a 3D movie before) a lot of visual depth, the Hobbit's visual depth did not seem very substantial. What depth there was seemed entirely unnecessary to the enjoyment of the movie.


Just saw it yesterday in IMAX 3D, and I have to agree. The 9 minutes of Star Trek: Into Darkness they showed beforehand, on the other hand...wowza!
 
2013-01-10 02:46:32 AM  
I think 3D is best served for animation (Coraline was awesome, and Avatar basically was an animated movie). Hugo would be an exception though. Really, it just needs to be used as more than just a gimmick, and not something added on in post-production for more cash, though I'm sure that'll never happen.
 
2013-01-10 02:55:51 PM  
I don't get headaches from 3D, but I feel like I have something in my left contact, even if I'm not wearing contacts.
 
2013-01-10 04:20:00 PM  

Supes: Joey Jo Jo Jr Shabadu: Maybe, but but aside from the obstacles that introduces (viewing angles, moire, etc.) it still ultimately just another version of the "viewmaster" style 3D that we're accustomed to. We're still watching content displayed on a 2D surface. The human eye can already distinguish depth without an effect trying to reinforce it.

"Real" 3D will be something that introduces parallax to the viewing experience. Something like holographic imagery of course. But when that happens, we're not even talking about tv/film anymore. That's an entirely new type of medium altogether.

Oh, agreed. But that's quite a bit further away. It will be in the form of some sort of holographic projection device, and it will be awesome. Someday, I look forward to being able to watch Broadway musicals in my living room with the performers practically being there.


This will probably never come how you imagine it, at least not in our lives. Most likely it can come in the form of augmented reality. Some kind of heads up display that can make it appear on the clear glass in front of your eyes (contacts being either impossible or an extremely long time away) that there is a holographic display of a Broadway musical on your living room floor. Something like what google glass is trying to do, but with more processing power and newer screen and display materials. The technology of which the bones are clearly already being developed.
 
Displayed 76 of 76 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report