Let's just say it: 3D TV is a joke.

http://technologizer.com/2010/09/03/3d-tv/

by technologizer • 16 years ago

96 100 16 years ago

Amen.

silencio• 16 years ago

Indeed. I just recently shopped around and bought a new TV. As someone that had a budget of upwards of $2k, everyone and their mother in every store I went to, including Fry's and Costco, were pushing 3D TVs at me. They all needed $200+ glasses to work (that's just awesome when you have lots of friends over...), were all giving me nothing other than 3D to justify the increased cost, and nobody really mentioned what I already knew: there's a dearth of 3D content out there. I think every store that had a 3D TV I could try out was permanently tuned to either ESPN 3D or the manufacturer's demo video.

By the time my new 46" Samsung LED TV needs replaced (I give it 5 years at the earliest), I bet neither the 3D technology nor the content will have improved significantly. I haven't seen much 3D content that adds rather than detracts in a very uniquely gimmicky way, ever, and I don't see all the studios and manufacturers agreeing to a common set of standards very soon...

prawn• 16 years ago

At least it's driven down prices on decent non-3D TVs. Got a nice 55" recently that has two USB ports and plays all my AVIs/etc straight off external drives.

nazgulnarsil2• 16 years ago

This argument only holds true if people buy TV's to watch stuff on them. TV's aren't about watching stuff. At least they aren't only about watching stuff.

hnal943• 16 years ago

What are they for, then?

nl2• 16 years ago

Gaming. And 3D games might just save the 3D TV industry from being a complete flop.

nazgulnarsil2• 16 years ago

big screen TV's used to differentiate the haves from the have nots. we need a new generation of pointlessly expensive TV's to fulfill this niche.

jschuur• 16 years ago

I have a lazy eye, so 3D doesn't work on me, so I upvoted this on principle.

I refuse to bow down to my stereoscopic overlords.

brettnak• 16 years ago

I do too. My friends always want to go to 3d movies and are confused when I refuse to go. It takes me about 5 - 10 minutes to explain that while they're seeing 3d, I'm seeing a 2d movie tinted red.

VBprogrammer• 16 years ago

Interesting, I certainly do get some of the effect but don't find it very pleasant to watch. Like when they float the subtitles right in format of you, it almost hurts my eyes.

zephjc• 16 years ago

Tinted red? They don't use blue/red glasses anymore for 3D movies

tallanvor• 16 years ago

I'm blind in one eye, so I agree. There is no way I'd pay extra for a 3D TV when I can't make use of the functionality.

kevinh• 16 years ago

I thought the iPad was a joke, and by all accounts it seems to be a success, so I'm wary of judging a product's future success based on my own personal opinions.

w1ntermute• 16 years ago

The deciding factor with the iPad was that it was made by Apple. I'm sure that if Apple were to make a 3D TV, it would sell like crazy.

cubicle672• 16 years ago

Are you implying that people would buy it, just because it's made by Apple (like they all went out and bought Apple TVs), or that if Apple were to make one it would actually be worth buying?

mrtron4• 16 years ago

I'll bet once 3D content gets there Apple will sell an amazing 3D TV/monitor for somewhere like 5000.

I am sure they aren't ignoring it on their iTouch/iPhone/iPad lineup either.

jsz0• 16 years ago

To use your comparison to the iPad I think current 3D technologies/implementations are comparable to the clunky oversized Windows tablets that failed. They had the right form factor but were missing some important bits (software, battery life, price) to make them really compelling. Someone will come up with a great enhancement to film in the future that leap frogs today's gimmicky 3D effects and it will be very successful. I think maybe VR glasses could make a comeback now that we have very tiny high resolution displays and advanced types of motion tracking. I don't think we're that far away from an amateurish holodeck sort of experience. A gyro tracks your head movements and a camera tracks your body movements. The VR glasses wrap around your entire field of vision with highly detailed multi-channel headphones. It would be very immersive. You couldn't reach out and touch something of course but you might get a really strong sense of being in a 3D space.

chrischen• 16 years ago

Add 2 way treadmill and we can play 3d games!

points• 16 years ago

The iPad is a joke. I've yet to see a normal person owning one (But then I don't live in the valley either).

It's a toy for people who have more money than they know what to do with.

cubicle672• 16 years ago

I raise your anecdotal evidence with my anecdotal evidence.

I know 5 people personally who own iPads. All are over 30, two are male, 3 are female and all except 1 are what I'd consider "normal" people (non tech type people). I also happened to sit behind two people using them on the train on Friday. Oh, and I'm most definitely not in the valley.

brc2• 16 years ago

I'll also throw in an anecdote. My father, in his '70's has never, and I mean never, turned on a PC and used it. I got an iPad for him, and now he's sending me email and sharing jokes with me, like every new internet user. I expect the dancing baby clip any day now.

The iPad is the missing link between people who want to get online but can't be bothered to learn how to use Windows or Mac OS. It really is a big step forwards because of battery life, display clarity, ease of learning the gestures and lack of scary buttons.

shrikant• 16 years ago

I'm visiting London for a while on work, and been here for about a month now.

Every single day I've travelled to work by the Underground, I see at least one iPad user. Business, casual, kids, teens. It's scary really.

olegkikin• 16 years ago

3D is the future. Even if these first attempts aren't perfect, we will get there.

sorbus• 16 years ago

So, why is it the future? Is it the future because it's a huge improvement over current technology, presenting compelling reasons to move over to it, or is it the future because everything thinks that it's the next big thing, to make people buy stuff again, and produce an ongoing revenue stream in the form of horribly expensive glasses needed for it to work?

DannoHung2• 16 years ago

Because binocular vision represents one ofthe complete capacities for human sensation. It's about as big a jump as it was from mono to stereo in terms of fidelity.

It's one step closer to total sensory immersion.

nlogn• 16 years ago

It's the future because it presents a new and powerful way to view and potentially interact with content. I think these implementations requiring glasses to use are a poor representation of the potential of 3D display technology. The 3D DS, by contrast, is more in line with where I think things should/will go.

dkokelley2• 16 years ago

The problem with 3D TV adoption:

  -Lack of 3D content
  -Lack of 3D TV standards - which causes the previous problem.
  -Increased cost
  -Decreased 2D quality
  -Extra equipment required for some implementations

If 3D TV had a single standard that content producers could use to create their 3D content, and if consumers could watch it on TVs that required no extra equipment, and if the vast majority of 2D content still looked good on 3D displays, AND if the cost is not prohibitive, then 3D TV will have a shot at thriving in the market. As it stands right now, I think the best application for 3D displays is in specialized research and design, and limited consumer experiences (Avatar, shows at Disneyland, etc.).

electromagnetic• 16 years ago

I believe it will become more popular if gaming takes it and runs. Virtually any game released on PC, Xbox 360, PS3, PS2, Xbox, Wii, N64... you know with 3D design can easily (more easily than a 2D video) be converted on the fly into 3D because it's already being created in 3D and 'broadcast' as a 2D image.

nl2• 16 years ago

Lack of 3D TV standards - which causes the previous problem.

That's not true - there is a 3D broadcast standard. There's no standard glasses/TV interface, but that is a separate problem

Decreased 2D quality

There's no reason why 3D TVs should have decreased 2D quality. IF they do that's a problem with the current implementations, but something that is fixable.

I think the only hope for 3D TV is gaming. Everything else seems pointless to me.

dkokelley2• 16 years ago

You're right about the 3D standards. Creating raw 3D content is one thing - use two cameras at perspectives that mimic the human eyes. I think I meant to say that the standards for publishing weren't there. You could release a 3D film for one standard, and it would be useless on another. It seems similar to the HD DVD and BluRay problem. The filming wasn't an issue, it was choosing which standard to package it with that was causing the issue.

noonespecial• 16 years ago

3D's just fine. I'm sure it'll sell a bunch of TV's the same way printing 'MEGA-BASS" on boomboxes and hooking the crossover to a little switch sold those in the 80's.

They can have their 3d. Just please, please don't make the 2d experience worse in order to shoehorn this nonsense into what should just be passive wall monitors. If there must be 3d on most tvs, please provide an easy way to turn it off.

TheNewAndy• 16 years ago

One thing I noticed was that when sport is being broadcast in 3d, they will use some completely useless camera angles which have lots of people at different distances. Although I don't watch a lot of sport, I've only noticed this in games where they are available in 3d.

DannoHung2• 16 years ago

I dunno, I think three dimensional video is an exciting medium once creators get over the novelty factor. It's going to be quite popular once the technology for glasses free displays are in homes.

dusing• 16 years ago

We just finished our first 3D commercial production (airs on ESPN3D this weekend) and it felt a little hoakey the whole time, but damned if it didn't look really cool in the end. I hope someone enjoys it cause I'm not buying one.

est• 16 years ago

The so called 3D TV on today's market is really 2D x 2. Sometimes it's even 3D for one spot, one person only.

I guess real 3D, or holographic TV could be rotated at any POV like in-game cameras.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1127195

eru3• 16 years ago

It would probably be enough to make it as 3D as a theatre. Theatre scenes do not have to look good from behind.

aaronmoodie3• 16 years ago

hi guys, first post here.

As it stands now, 3D tv is going to be a flash in the pan. Advancements in tech is about making things easier, not more difficult/annoying to use.

Having to wear ($200) glasses to watch tv takes all the ease out of it, and as silencio mentioned, is pointless when watching a movie/game with friends.

rapind5• 16 years ago

I hear you but I think it depends on the situation. Headphones can be annoying but it sounds so much better. You don't wear them at a party but there are still plenty of situations where you do.

aaronmoodie3• 16 years ago

True, but the benefits of having personal, portable music outweigh the annoyance of having to wear headphones. And as you said, you don't wear them in social situations, which is exactly what will be required with 3D tv. It is in effect like having a party and making everyone wear headphones.

Sure, it might sound better, but is it worth the hassle?

sprout• 16 years ago

The real problem with 3D video is that it requires a lot of production work to get right. You can't just record in 3D and expect it to work. You have to carefully manage focal length. And when it comes right down to it, it only adds things to carefully crafted shots like the bioluminescent plants in Avatar, or the birds flying through hallelujah mountains.

And the fact is 90% of television doesn't have visuals that are going to benefit from that. The remaining 10%, few people will miss it when it's gone. There just isn't a huge value proposition for most styles of video, and there's not a clear case that 3D video is a superior art form to 2D, it just costs more and takes more production time.

Avshalom• 16 years ago

>>The real problem with 3D video is that it requires a lot of production work to get right.

This, it should be pointed out, is going to be the dominant problem, making 3d that doesn't make your eyes bleed is hard. It's also why 3d porn is unlikely to take off anytime soon, porn isn't in the business of high production values and carefully thought out cinematography. It will end up with people's eyes hurting after 5 minutes of constantly re focusing.

mprovost• 16 years ago

Sports is the thing that's going to sell 3D TVs and there's no mention of it in the article. The broadcasters are investing a lot in their live sports 3D tech and it looks good.

rapind5• 16 years ago

I couldn't agree more. I checked out the directv sample at the Sony booth last CES and both football and soccer looked amazing. Sports will be a massive driver.

I can see 3d TVs starting their life in man caves all over the world. I'm not sure they'll move out of the cave up to the living room, but who knows once people get used to them.

I also think there'll be a lot of improvement on the eyewear situation.

eru3• 16 years ago

Man caves: So porn should help sports to drive adoption?

jasonlotito2• 16 years ago

Saw something similar at the store yesterday. Sony 3D TV showing football.

I wasn't impressed. And if you don't have glasses, the quality is piss-poor. This means buying a LOT of glasses. Unless you are a recluse, this really doesn't allow for easy expansion.

andrewcamel• 16 years ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11178043

I'm skeptical just like this reporter, but at the same time, I would really like to see 3D more widely available.

WilliamLP• 16 years ago

I think like many other nascent entertainment technologies, the first really profitable use cases for this could be porn and gaming.

richardw• 16 years ago

Social location-based porn gaming...app.

ronnier• 16 years ago

Yes, disrupt that space.

b3b0p2• 16 years ago

Peoples expectations for 3D TV is a bit higher than some illusion produced by wearing some glasses staring directly at the correct angle at a flat screen.

I'll look at 3D TV when it is similar to a Star Wars 3D hologram. I don't think I'm alone. No one wants to pay extra for glasses and watch a faux 3D illusion.

kscaldef• 16 years ago

No one wants to pay extra for glasses and watch a faux 3D illusion.

Really? Because I remember a lot of people here a few months ago saying that you were wasting your money if you didn't pay extra to see Avatar in 3D.

Personally, I agree with you. I hate 3D movies. I'll go out of my way to see the non-3D version. But, there's plenty of people willing to pony up the extra $4 for it.

erikstarck2• 16 years ago

I think it works better on the cinema.

The cinema is and should be kind of an alternative reality. You enter this large, dark room and from now on you're in an artificial fantasy. Wearing goggles almost adds to the experience.

Your living room is something different.

dagw• 16 years ago

In the case of Avatar, the only reason to see the film was to see a slightly too long demo reel on what the current state of the art in CGI movies looks like. The 3D was an integral part to the whole tech demo experience.

b3b0p2• 16 years ago

Paying an extra $4 to see it at the theater in 3D with glasses seems quite different than shopping for a TV that costs hundreds to possibly thousands of dollars and adding in some $100+ glasses on top of that.

afterburner• 16 years ago

The author mentions blurriness and ghosting; I must say, with the Sony and Panasonic demos in stores, I noticed no such problems. And it would be pretty nice for games. The glasses and lack of content are a real drawback, though.

wccrawford• 16 years ago

I tried the Samsung products in the store, and they were perfect. I ended up buying a cheaper Samsung model (one that wasn't on display) and the ghosting is really bad.

Is it the TV? Is it my environment? I dunno. But I wasn't willing to pay twice the price to go up to the next set, and I really, really like 3D, so I kept mine. When the next generation comes out, and they've got things worked out a little better, I'll likely buy one of the better sets.

I enjoy the 3D on it, but it could be better.

pontifier• 16 years ago

Some 3D is admittedly bad. Some is terrible, such as when someone incorrectly swaps the L and R images. But when 3D is done right you aren't looking at a screen any more. For me at least, with 3D games, what I have instead is a window to another world, a window that things can come through. A window that makes me feel like a giant with little people playthings that jump at my command... plus playing a tomb raider game in 3D is just awesome.

danilocampos• 16 years ago

Let's all hope that 3D television with expensive, goofy spectacles is to 2010 what Laserdisc was to the 80's.

brc2• 16 years ago

The crazy part about laserdisc? You had to get up and flip the disc over halfway through the movie!

c1sc0• 16 years ago

I remember Laserdisc mostly as the thing that almost killed the BBC Domesday Project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project

Lazlo_Nibble• 16 years ago

The huge disks look stupid in retrospect, but during the '80s (and well into the '90s) Laserdisc was the only way to get movies in their original aspect ratio, with digital sound, or with special features like commentary tracks. It was a huge step up from VHS, and totally worth the expense and inconvenience if you were seriously into movies.

Don't knock 'em if you weren't there, is all I'm saying.

slashcom• 16 years ago

"As a medium, 3D remains remarkably self-trivializing. Virtually nobody who works with it can resist thrusting stuff at the camera, just to make clear to viewers that they’re experiencing the miracle of the third dimension."

Reminds me of a film class a took. The professor explained how when prerecorded sound was first introduced into film, the movies ended up people just talking to each other. It took some time for them to get over the novelty of the technology and use it artfully.

But I agree. 3D is way over-marketed and overhyped.

nanairo4• 16 years ago

So far my main complain looking at 3D films have been:

1- They are darker and therefore you lose some details, simply because polarised glasses cut half of the light

2- But most of all every time something is coming towards me in the film is impressive only until it reaches the edge of the screen... at which point I get one massive reminder that I am watching a film and not reality and it completely kills my suspension of disbelief. Maybe with time I'll get use to it, but so far I've been much more aware that I was in a cinema when watching 3D... ironically it was a lot less immersive. ;)

Where I do think it can have a positive effect is either where the film maker makes careful use not to go beyond the screen's size (for example "How to train a dragon" was quite nice in 3D because of all the dogfighting which was a lot clearer in 3D), or in sports where the director can be sure the ball and the players will stay within a certain area.

mrtron4• 16 years ago

Avatar was brilliantly glowing and didn't feel dark at all. Am I the only one?

nanairo4• 16 years ago

I am not sure since Avatar was one of the few films I had to watch in 2D. :D But I don't think there's any particular reason why a 3D film ends up being darker: the cinema people simply need to raise the brightness of the lamp.

bd• 16 years ago

It's harder to tell when you watch just 3d because eyes can adapt pretty well to low light.

I removed my 3d glasses while watching the Avatar to check how it looks. It was indeed much brighter and afterwards 3d felt quite dim (for some time, till my eyes didn't adapt again).

Brighter 2d felt right and 3d was dim as opposed to 3d feeling normal and 2d being too bright.

It's a bit like changing between good desktop LCD and notebook. If you work just on notebook, it feels perfectly ok, but if you have it side by side with a good monitor, it looks quite bad.

JanezStupar2• 16 years ago

I also think that this is a fad - and only industry fad if I may add. I don't believe that people will start throwing out their 2D HD sets just because of 3D.

It's unpractical - this is the worst. I can't imagine sitting in my living room watching the stupid TV with stupid 3D glasses.

But I kinda like the emergence of 3D sets - because it will probably bring down prices on 2D sets, which is good. And I guess that people might start buying 3D sets - if they phase out 2D sets and not increase the price too much. But people buying and using stuff - that's completely different on the other side - I divine that entertainment industry will try to charge even more for 3D movies than what they charge for already overpriced 2D movies - and that certainly WILL kill 3D.

And also it is interesting to see corporate drones all droning to the same failed hype.

Call me when the holo-TV is ready. kthxbye

nanairo4• 16 years ago

I agree. But those who need to buy a new TV anyway may end up getting some 3D TV to be future-proof... then all you need it's a bit of spin doctor magic telling everyone how many 3D TV are out there, and bang: instant success.

... or maybe I am just cynical. :)

But yeah, don't you think that long-term thinking people may end up buying 3D systems just because? If the 2D quality is not any worse for it, I fear that may very well be the avenue to sell it.

viraptor• 16 years ago

> It's unpractical - this is the worst. I can't imagine sitting in my living room watching the stupid TV with stupid 3D glasses.

I believe that the argument for "radio > tv" sounded very similar. People said that it would require doing stupid things like sitting and concentrating on what's on the screen, instead of "just listening".

JanezStupar2• 16 years ago

Similar, maybe - but spending evenings on couch with polarization glasses on my nose, enduring headaches really seems way more unpleasant to me :)

If you're after an analogy - people have been trying to build various 3D mouses for quite some time now and this one (http://www.ecal.ch/ra&d_mandats.php?id=521&lang=en) seems in the same league as 3D TV - regarding inconvenience to the user.

I have a similar opinion about speech recognition as interface. Why would I want to talk to a computer ("Turn on the Lights!") - when it ought to just "recognize" that I'd like more lighting - so I'm just gonna wait for Brain-Computer Interfaces and Holo-TV :)

jasonlotito2• 16 years ago

The difference between radio to tv and tv to 3d tv is that with radio to tv, you upgrade a single element (radio to tv) to get the benefit. You also gain a substantial benefit: visual as well as audio.

With 3d tv, you can't just upgrade the TV. You also don't get any major upgrade like radio to tv. You get the simulation of depth, but that's it.

Finally, with radio, you could invite people over to listen, as well as with the TV. 3d tv prevents that.

auxbuss• 16 years ago

The medium is great, but the current implementations are v0.1 alphas. Unfortunately, marketing will buff and shine, or attempt to, until reality bites.

As they say in the music business, "You can't polish a turd".

Now, v2.0 should be interesting, when the goggles and the crappy picture have been axed, and the content isn't focused on the "gee whiz".

erikstarck2• 16 years ago

Agree. The Star Wars sequence where Luke and Obi-Wan plays the "you're my only hope"-message from Princess Leia would look so much less cool if they were forced to wear 3D goggles. Now where's the holograms?

acon• 16 years ago

3D TV could work if producers showed restraint and only used it to add depth behind the frame, instead of throwing stuff at the audience for effect. Clipping of objects thrown towards you really kills the experience for me.

I think it will work for sports and nature shows. In the same way BBC's Planet Earth is great in HD I think some future production of the same kind will work great in 3D. Let's face it, that is basically what Avatar is – a gorgeous nature show set on an alien planet. At least that was the best part of it for me.

wazoox2• 16 years ago

Even 1080p isn't really working yet. All systems I've seen out of high-end post production gear (yes, that includes broadcasting gear) have visual timing problems. Maybe I'm biased because I've worked in professional video and TV for too long, but I'm tired of seeing gradually worse quality becoming the norm (compression artifacts, poor color, bad timing, poor sound sync are more and more common) because apparently quantity trumps quality.

So what's the last trend in "quantity trumps quality"? Adding a 3d dimension of course! I've looked at some 3D streams during the World Cup, just to check, on my 2D set. How does this work? Simple, halved horizontal resolution. Oh, BTW it's 720p, so that means actual resolution is 640x720. 5% more pixels than good ol' PAL, that's basically a step back to low def. Hu.

Did I mentioned that the first time the industry tried to impose 3D on an unwilling public was in 1958, with Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder"? Wow, now that's a new technology!

cma2• 16 years ago

640x720 PER EYE; you still get a 720p amount of pixels, your brain just has to combine them; which it does in spades.

wazoox2• 16 years ago

When I look at 2D 720p, I see 1280x720 per eye too... When you encode a new information with the same bandwidth, there must be a trade-off.

JoeAltmaier• 16 years ago

I'll only buy it if the dial goes up to 11.

mark_l_watson• 16 years ago

I have to disagree: my Dad bought a 3D TV about 2 months ago, and with the LCD shutter glasses the visual quality is good and it is a lot of fun (at least we all enjoyed the few movies my Dad had). My Dad makes his own blu-ray videos, is totally into video editing,is very fussy about quality, and likes the new TV for regular blu-ray viewing.

About 16 years ago in our SAIC virtuality lab (we made a few prototype race car simulators, starting with taking 3 days of lessons at Laguna Seca from NASCAR drivers) we had LCD shutter glasses to experiment with and even back then the quality was stunning.

Before you diss on 3D TV, try watching a movie in a comfortable home setting with friends and see how much fun you have.

jdietrich• 16 years ago

A couple of wagers:

The Nintendo 3DS will be a massive driver for stereoscopic gaming, both in increasing demand for it and in creating a base of knowledge amongst developers on how to make use of stereoscopy.

Gaming or porn (probably gaming) will put stereoscopic displays in a lot of living rooms. We're well on our way to critical mass in terms of distribution.

Over the next 10 years or so, stereoscopy will fade into the background, in much the same way as stereo or surround sound has - some people will ignore it completely, others will be fanatical about it, but it will be a normal part of the film-making process.

We've been here before with sound. Listen to early stereophonic records and you'll hear what we're seeing now with stereoscopy - crudely exaggerated balances designed to show off the technology. "Revolver" by The Beatles is a good example - the record is quite uncomfortable to listen to on headphones because tracks are panned hard left or right, creating a completely artificial sound. Classical recordings sounded good in stereo quite quickly because the engineers just stuck two microphones in front of an orchestra, but pop records took a lot of development to sound natural and pleasing, most significantly the development of good stereo reverb.

Likewise in stereoscopy, we're currently seeing stereoscopic images with a hugely exaggerated depth effect, partly to show off the technology, partly because the technology and technique still needs to mature. We have films not shot stereoscopically being rendered to 3d, stereoscopic images being digitally 'widened' and all sorts of other shenanigans. There just isn't a body of technique for stereoscopic cinematography, so directors and DPs are struggling to figure it out.

I reject the argument that stereoscopy will fail now because it has failed previously. We now have a critical mass of technology that has massively reduced the cost of filming, editing and exhibiting stereoscopic pictures. We have overcome most of the significant technical problems, although this is not evenly distributed yet. This time around, stereoscopy is a big deal precisely because it won't be a big deal for very long.

MrRage• 16 years ago

> "Revolver" by The Beatles is a good example - the record is quite uncomfortable to listen to on headphones because tracks are panned hard left or right, creating a completely artificial sound.

The Beatles were only preset for the mono mixing of most of their albums; they were not there for stereo mixes of albums like "Revolver." This probably just reinforces what you're saying, but I would like to think if they were around when the stereo version was mixed there wouldn't be as much hard panning. I believe they mixed "Abbey Road" in stereo and the mixing vastly better.

Hoff• 16 years ago

Alan Parsons did become rather well-known for his abilities as an audio engineer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Parsons

tel• 16 years ago

Tl;dr: look at a 3D tv, move your head to the side. It doesn't work right and your brain knows it. That is the reason they are not going to succeed.

I still don't think the technology is there. Current stereoscopic offerings don't (can't, perhaps) produce an acceptable simulation of a 3D space.

Stereo sound can be faithfully reproduced by multiple speaker setups or even perfectly reproduced by headphones. It's acceptance didn't just hinge on tasteful, realistic usage of the technology but also the fact that it's "close enough" that our brains can fill in the details.

Current 3D technology (at least what I've seen in movie theaters) cannot represent a HUGELY important sensory feedback loop at all in that if you move your head the picture doesn't shift.

Consider any object in your office. Attempt to investigate and understand it's shape and position with respect to yourself. You, I nearly promise, just wiggled your head back and forth to scan the object and make fuller use of our inherent depth perception machinery. Until that can be accurately simulated with a 3D tv, I don't believe in it. Until that can be accurately simulated for multiple observers with a 3D tv, I don't believe in their use beyond a few first person shooters.

There are of course people doing cool stuff with that kind of technology. Cue the obligatory movies of that guy who uses Wiimotes to track head motion. Totally amazing stuff! I believe his tech can get so much closer to truly deceiving my brain into believing the 3D experience than Avatar did and it makes use of a normal TV.

As a final coffinnail, even if Wiimote headtracking tech does get into everyone's homes, that stuff depends on having a complete model of the space you're viewing. It'd make for fantastic gaming, but the hurdle to making a movie or TV show like that is another huge technological/economic/social holdup.

mrtron4• 16 years ago

I just saw the latest 3D TV (no glasses required) demo'd in HK.

Every previous 3D TV looked like garbage. This one seemed to add a new level of depth to the movie without being blurry or looking ridiculous.

It is coming, and it is stupid to ignore it. People love 3D movies and 3D tv too, and the market will drive the products.

forensic• 16 years ago

3D TV right now is badly used in everything EXCEPT animated features.

Pixar does 3D right. Toy Story, Up, etc benefit greatly from 3D and it is used well.

Non-animated shows haven't yet figured out how to use it. But they will. And when they do 3D TVs will become the norm.

igrekel2• 16 years ago

No one seem to mention one of the things that annoy me the most with 3D movies: the focus. If you are looking at something different than what the director wants or expects you to look at, it all blurry because its out of focus.

igrekel2• 16 years ago

The real question for me is why so much 3D TV and more importantly, why now??

Are they only trying to make things more difficult to copy a movie? Or just another excuse to have people purchase new hardware as the cycle for HD is not even over? Or is it a reason to justify HD and put those extra pixels to use?

Let's just say it: 3D TV is a joke.

Related Stories