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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 76 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