3D, here to stay or just a passing trend?

[Kenno]

3D is nothing new and has been around before so I was wondering what do you reckon?

I saw some films recently in 3D and wasn't impressed. There is no depth to the picture and everything is right up front, it doesn't feel or look natural at all. This is especially true with long distance shots of landscapes and horizons where detail is lost in the picture. I couldn't watch some films in 3D like the Godfather, Heat, Braveheart or Gladiator for example and the ones I have seen recently like Clash of the Titans and Avatar were no better than ordinary film, some worse.

Seems to me the big movie studios, plasma, Lcd and projector makers are possibly looking for a gimick to sell more tickets and tv's?

The movie studio's and cinema's should be concentrating on better big screen picture quality and better sound quality as some can improve in picture and most definately on sound. At home I have better sound quality than most cinema's and find myself much more immersed in the movie because of the sound. I also find myself reacting more to explosions, gun shots and planes flying overhead than I would in any 3D movie because of the sound. On my TV (non 3D) at home there is a very close 3D effect as the picture is good enough to have it look 3 dimensional.

I don't know how 3D is going to take off for the home as I think it might for a while but in the long run I'm thinking it will fade out like it did in the 70's n 80's when we had a few 3D films at the movies.

Me, I much prefer a more beautiful natural looking picture with detail and depth.

 

[gaseousclay]

definitely a passing trend. remember Jaws 3D and Friday The 13 Pt. 3-D?

 

[tempestivo]

3D ,I personally hate it so I hope this is a passing fase.

 

[wdwrx]

What goes around comes around. This is the second (in my life) go 'round with 3D. I can remember a bunch of cheesy movies in the '80's coming out in "3D!". There was a spurt of 3d movies in the '60's as well, I believe (before my time). Now it seems to be the latest "fad"... again.

I for one, find the whole 3D experience a little under-whelming, to say the least. My son, who is moderatley color blind, can't watch a 3D movie without getting a tremendous head-ache. He'll get up and leave, eventually.

my vote? ---> fad.

 

[bradyarz]

i sure hope it's a fad. the quality of picture is nowhere near that of a good hi-def tv.

have you seen the manufacturers' warnings for the new 3D tvs? kinda scary.

 

[ph33nyx]

I would think it's just a passing fad since 3D has been arround, especially in theaters, for decades.

 

[ouch]

It's all Bwana Devil to me.

 

[kyo_clone]

i think its here to stay especially when they get to charge 14 for 3d and 17 for imax. Avatar in imax was amazing ......

 

[Nishnabotna]

Part of it is that alot of the recent 3d films weren't actually filmed in 3d; that was added post production (like the recent Clash of the Titans.) God knows how they can do it, but... I'm sure that has something to do with the quality and efficacy of 3d use.
I thought Avatar made good use of the 3d. It was subtle instead of in your face.
I'd still rather not sit there with the glasses though. Gives me a headache after a while.

 

[Seraphim]

I, for one would LOVE to see better CONTENT in all areas of entertainment. I have no interest whatsoever to watch "Dancing with the stars", "Dr. Phil", "American Idle", or whatever other abomination they are foisting upon the masses in HD, 3D, what have you...

I still have a 20" CRT TV, because I'm not going to spend the $$$ for a big screen to watch the above garbage.


Oprah in 3-D??



*Shudder*

 

[raisindot]

I think 3D movies are here to stay, at least in the mindless action/superhero/SF/kidanimation genres. All the studios and most theaters are converting over to 3D technologies for their next generation of stupid superhero superviolent braindead action flicks.

However as far as 3D-TV is concerned, this stands to become the betamax and webtv of the current generation.

What its fanboys fail to understand is the TV watching has always been a passive activity, relying on people shutting off their brains and splaying out on couches. That's why the whole convergence thing has never worked. The geeks fail to understand that people don't want to sit and surf the web and pay bills and check stock quotes in their living room--they watch TV to get away from all that.

Same with 3D TV. Who wants to spend hours wearing a pair of bulky glasses that will have to be recharged every few hours? Most of the new TVs only come with one pair of glasses, and extras cost $100 or more. After spending $2K on a TV, who will want to spend another $300-$500 to make sure all of the kids can watch at the same time? What happens when these expensive glasses break when fat Dad sits on them (as he will).

As usual with these kinds of fads, sales of 3D will be led by single geeks and divorced men who can't possibly afford them. There will be huge outcries over the shoddy quality of the 3D-TV, the huge cost of replacing broken glasses (and rechargeable batteries), the lack of any decent 3D programming, and the overall boredom that follows all such trends. In three years, you'll barely see any companies making or selling 3D TVs any more.

Jeff in Boston

 

[Thebigspendur]

It's here to stay. previously it was just a few oddball movies. Now it's going mainstream and it's another opportunity for the makers to sell all new products initially for the technogeeks and then to the mainstream public. Just wait until they start pushing the ads.

 

[Fairlight]

It depends on what you mean by "3D". There will always be a drive to create images that are more realistic to your eyes, and that inevitably means that some form of 3D is destined to someday replace flat video entirely.

That said, I personally do not believe the kind of "3D" which requires you to wear special glasses is a very serious technology, and I'd be willing to call that a fad.

Open-air holograms are a long way off from present technology, but they'll happen eventually.

 

[Uncle Erik]

3D is the latest sales gimmick considering how BluRay and HD-DVD didn't generate the revenue hoped and prayed for. I don't think 3D will work, either.

The content just isn't there. Avatar was good in 3D (though I would easily
trade it for a script that wasn't an endless string of clichés), but there are maybe five or six other movies worth seeing in 3D. Is that worth the premium TV and media?

My biggest complaint is the awful glasses you have to wear. I need prescription glasses and am not fond of contacts (wore them for a few years), so I have to put a pair of glasses over my glasses. And, no, I am not going to invest in prescription 3D glasses just to watch a movie a few times a year.

 

[icedoverfire]

I think 3D is just gimmicky. And dangerous:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1271618/How-watching-3D-films-bad-brain.html

-ice

 

[bmc1979]

I hope its a fad for TV. Like has been stated, the last thing I want to do is have to wear a pair of stupid 3D glasses just to watch TV. Plus the cost of buying extra ones so your wife, kids, grandparents, uncles, aunts, dog, cat, etc can watch it too. My Hi-Def TV and channels is good enough for me.

I don't mind it if the movie was made with the intention to be 3D. It's when they weren't and just trying to cash in on the new trend (that's right Clash of the Titans, looking at you) is when it's a bad choice. With that being said I hope it doesn't go overboard in Hollywood. Not every movie needs or should be made in 3D.

 

[Fairlight]

The content just isn't there.

I say the bigger problem is that the technology just isn't there. It's not ready for prime time yet and probably won't be for at least another 5-10 years.

Even putting aside the stupid glasses thing, the fidelity isn't good enough, and it's not convenient enough to make content. IMO it won't really catch on until you can film true 3D with a single camera and watch it without glasses.

Don't judge "3D" by the current crop of stereoscopic garbage. Last I checked, the real world is 3D and that doesn't really seem to be a fad.

 

[BladeRunner001]

Depends on how we look at 3-D. Hollywood has shown that people will pay extra for 3-D films in cinemas ($14-$16 compared to $10-$12...that's added revenue at the box office). Of course, manufacturers and media companies alike hope that 3-D television will follow the path set by high-definition TV. We all remember the cost of switching to high-definition. Consumers had to shell out roughly twice as much on televisions.

By contrast, 3-D technology is a bargain. Although shooting an action film in three dimensions costs more because of the higher price of computer-generated imagery, shooting a tennis match or a comedy is no more expensive. It costs only a little more to build an active 3-D set than a high-end HDTV set. This is according to an executive at LG Electronics. There is no need for a special set-top box...Yahoo!! I like that . Consumers in focus groups say they are prepared to pay more for 3-D.

So what’s not to like?
The content, for one thing. Some of us eluded to this very fact in this thread. Even if a TV network bought the rights to every modern 3-D film released until the end of this year it would still end up with less than a month’s-worth of prime-time viewing.

The eye shades:
The biggest question-mark is over whether consumers will want to don what looks like a pair of lightly tinted sunglasses before flopping down in front of the TV set. Those glasses may enhance the viewing experience, but they would not help with checking e-mails, flicking through magazines and all the other things that people like to do while watching television.

Obvious beneficiaries:
1. Film
I guess 3-D TV watching is not something you want every day. Although 3-D pictures will eventually become ubiquitous in cinemas they will remain an occasional treat in the home. Come on guys, who's going to sit down and watch the BBC world news in 3-D?

So what warrants the third dimension? The obvious answer is films.

2. Sports
Even then, that's not a stretch for me. But the thing that will really drive people to buy 3-D sets, is sport. If the measure of a new visual technology is not that it looks cool but that it allows viewers to see things they have never seen before, sport is the clear winner. Watching football in three dimensions is a revelation.Now, you've got something.

3-D cheers,
-Robert

 

[Wisdom]

3D is here to stay for many reasons, but most of all, it will stay and thrive because it will be, as all successful technologies have been, supported and exploited by the porn industry.
-\Visdom

 

[Go West Young Man]

Pornography has been the driving force behind many of the major technological innovation in the viewing experience of the last 20 or so years*, so when 3D porn starts coming out I'll be ready to accept it as mainstream.

* to wit, home video, DVD, downloadable video, streaming video, video on demand, secure online payment and probably a dozen others. All only took off when the porn world adopted them.