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 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 26 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