3D Stuff

[Deth Muncher]

So, I'm really sick and tired of 3D everything. I mean, as a kid (yeah, I know, I'm 19, it wasn't that long ago) I remember the cheesy red and blue glasses for 3D stuff. Yeah, okay, I think we're all agreed that it's a good thing we moved past that. But why oh why is everything trying to be 3D now? You can't hardly go to the movies without having to watch whatever you're watching in 3D - which sucks for me, and probably some of you too, since I usually wear glasses to the movies, and the new 3D glasses do not interact with regular glasses all that well. Or otherwise, I forsake my normal glasses and have to sit closer to the screen. And NOW, I hear that not only is Nintendo making a 3D handheld, but Sony is (or has been?) making a 3D TV? What is this nonsense? Why is there such a sudden hype? Is it because they can charge more for 3D things? That'd make sense to me, but I really hope that's not the case.

[Prime32]

It's harder to pirate 3D things. Plus, the new glasses look less stupid.

[Maximum Zersk]

For movies; Blame James Cameron for bringing the hype back.

For Games; The 3DS doesn't need glasses, so it's going to be pretty interesting. Plus, it doesn't cost any more than games on the old DS. And what did you expect from Sony anyway? Their shtick is to copy everything Nintendo does, so why bother with them anyway? :smallwink:

[Fan]

For movies; Blame James Cameron for bringing the hype back.

For Games; The 3DS doesn't need glasses, so it's going to be pretty interesting. Plus, it doesn't cost any more than games on the old DS. And what did you expect from Sony anyway? Their shtick is to copy everything Nintendo does, so why bother with them anyway? :smallwink:

Except they were making 3D T.V.'s before Nintendo did anything with 3D.

So you know, it's actually more Nintendo copying Sony.

Their stuff is already out (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670954-REG/Sony_KDL55HX800_KDL_55HX800_55_1080p_3_D.html) to boot.

[Zevox]

For Games; The 3DS doesn't need glasses, so it's going to be pretty interesting. Plus, it doesn't cost any more than games on the old DS.
Also the 3D on the 3DS can be turned off if you like, and it's Nintendo's next-gen handheld and already has some impressive-looking games lined up for it, so that one at least I'm completely happy with.

But yeah, 3D movies rather annoy me, since the 3D at best seems to add nothing to the movie, and I really don't like having to wear a second pair of glasses to see the movie.

Zevox

[Maximum Zersk]

Except they were making 3D T.V.'s before Nintendo did anything with 3D.

So you know, it's actually more Nintendo copying Sony.

Their stuff is already out (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670954-REG/Sony_KDL55HX800_KDL_55HX800_55_1080p_3_D.html) to boot.

OH, I thought by 3DTV, that meant some sort of PS3 add-on. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me.

[The Rose Dragon]

OH, I thought by 3DTV, that meant some sort of PS3 add-on. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me.

PS3 doesn't even have any 3D games waiting.

Of course, there aren't any 3D TV broadcasts or movie discs, either. Makes you wonder exactly what the use of a 3D TV is.

[Fan]

I personally don't see the point, it's a gimmick that their using to soak up the glorious cash from Sports Lovers. Which is the only (current) 3D T.V. broadcast.

[AngelSword]

Personally, 3 dimension doesn't add anything to the experience of movies (and will actually detract in some instances), so I wouldn't mind seeing the novelty of 3-D media ::insert horrific visual here::.

The problem with 3-D is that it requires an additional investment. The glasses. Regardless of how you attain them (thank you, military discounts), you still need to be wearing them for the whole thing to come together. And when it comes to home entertainment, the price of admission jumps from $13 (in most cases) at the theatre to approximately $2,800 (USD) for the display alone, plus an additional $100 for the glasses per person you wish to impress with your apparent wealth. And you'll still be wearing these awkward plastic lenses, which only work straight forward.

Were 3-D simply the cost of the display itself, it probably wouldn't be so bad. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Scorpina]

Thus far, the only thing I've seen in 3D was Alice in Wonderland and, except for the butterfly at the end, I didn't really notice much of a difference. What I did notice is that it gave me a pounding headache.

So yeah, not a fan of 3D. Two dimensions are enough.

[Lord Seth]

For Games; The 3DS doesn't need glasses, so it's going to be pretty interesting. Plus, it doesn't cost any more than games on the old DS.While your'e right on the fact that the 3DS doesn't need glasses, what's your source for the second bit? I don't think they've announced prices yet, either for the system itself or what its games will cost.

[Maximum Zersk]

While you're right on the fact that the 3DS doesn't need glasses, what's your source for the second bit? I don't think they've announced prices yet, either for the system itself or what its games will cost.

I remember hearing stuff about the prices of these games. I can't remember exactly where I got it from. But it's been on both sides of the 3DS arguments.

[Drascin]

Were 3-D simply the cost of the display itself, it probably wouldn't be so bad. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Fun thing? There are screens that do allow 3D wthout glasses since years ago. It's the tech Nintendo is using in their 3DS. They only require viewers to stay relatively in front (say, about a 60º angle and such at most, which honestly I don't think is THAT restricting. I mean, does anyone usually watch their flatscreens from the side instead of, y'know, turning the TV towards the table?). But for some reason, polarized glasses is the one that has become publicized by the big companies. Why, don't ask me.

[Syka]

I refuse to watch a 3D movie if it's not native. Non-native 3D gives me serious headaches. Native 3D is far smoother, in my opinion. I too wear glasses but have no issue with the newer (so much better) glasses; those old red-and-blue ones drove me nuts. If I'm not mistaken, most of the new one's use shutter glasses, which increases the quality.

But seriously...if you have issues with motion sickness, etc in 3D movies...double check if it's native or not.


However, it was NOT James Cameron who repopularized 3D. He vastly improved the technology, making live-action 3D films better in quality, but he did not bring it back. Well before Avatar, films were being dual-released. Bolt is one that comes to mind, and most cartoons (Monsters Vs. Aliens, etc).

Similarly, 3D television technology has been around for some time. Back in Fall of 2008 I actually attended a convention that exhibited many different varities of 3D technology- including several TV's, and associated programing (there was even a 3D pornographic movie...:smalleek:). We watched a football game in 3D and it was actually very cool.

This technology is not new. It's been around for a while. It's just taken a couple years to be able to mass produce it in a manner that is cost effective.

[Maximum Zersk]

I refuse to watch a 3D movie if it's not native. Non-native 3D gives me serious headaches. Native 3D is far smoother, in my opinion. I too wear glasses but have no issue with the newer (so much better) glasses; those old red-and-blue ones drove me nuts. If I'm not mistaken, most of the new one's use shutter glasses, which increases the quality.

But seriously...if you have issues with motion sickness, etc in 3D movies...double check if it's native or not.


However, it was NOT James Cameron who repopularized 3D. He vastly improved the technology, making live-action 3D films better in quality, but he did not bring it back. Well before Avatar, films were being dual-released. Bolt is one that comes to mind, and most cartoons (Monsters Vs. Aliens, etc).

Similarly, 3D television technology has been around for some time. Back in Fall of 2008 I actually attended a convention that exhibited many different varities of 3D technology- including several TV's, and associated programing (there was even a 3D pornographic movie...:smalleek:). We watched a football game in 3D and it was actually very cool.

This technology is not new. It's been around for a while. It's just taken a couple years to be able to mass produce it in a manner that is cost effective.

Oh, I know it's been here for a long time. I've seen videos of Holographic Projector-thingies.

It's just that James Cameron helped repopularize it. I think. I mean, not MANY 3D movies were being made recently before Avatar. But now, it seems every second movie being made is.

[valadil]

They're pushing 3d TV because HDTV has finally taken off. Electronics companies want you to be replacing your electronics. You can't justify buying another HDTV every year, but if 3d TV is a whole new technology, then why not buy one.

Personally I'm not interested. But I also haven't seen 3d TVs in stores yet. If they look really cool maybe I'll get one. I don't see the point in watching Daily Show in 3d, but it might be worthwhile for video games. Depends on how annoying the glasses are.

[Maximum Zersk]

...but it might be worthwhile for video games. Depends on how annoying the glasses are.

But there AREN'T any glasses. That's the whole point.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

The way I see it, it's just the next big fad. Wait a year or two and it'll go away.

[The Rose Dragon]

The way I see it, it's just the next big fad. Wait a year or two and it'll go away.

They said the same thing about automated mobiles and interconnected networks.

Of course, they also said the same thing about disco.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

They said the same thing about automated mobiles and interconnected networks.

Of course, they also said the same thing about disco.

And Zubas, and slap bracelets (and well just about anything that came out of the 80's). and a whole host of other things that nobody cares about any more. I see it as the new toy in the sandbox, and it will be shiny and interesting for a while, then people will have seen it through, it will be come old hat/run of the mill, people will get tired of the stupid glasses, and it will go away. Again, it may take a few years, but that's the course I see this going. I mean people get annoyed having to wear those stupid things for two hours, let alone a whole afternoon/evening of watching tv or playing video games.

[Maximum Zersk]

or playing video games.

But you won't need them for video games, ugh.

And they also said the same thing about sapience and abstract thought, too.

[The Rose Dragon]

And they also said the same thing about sapience and abstract thought, too.

Well, my hope is still that it is a passing fad. Sapience and abstract thought did almost nothing but bad things (except when they were mine).

[Soras Teva Gee]

It's harder to pirate 3D things. Plus, the new glasses look less stupid.

Except its not... Okay if exclusive it prevents cam rip pirating reasonably (not that people are looking for quality there though) but most feature aren't even exclusively 3D yet. And even should that day come it will be even longer before the home market converts. And after that you'll just have people rip the new 3D HD Blu-rays for their stuff. In the end it will still be information, and information cannot be owned.

Not that studio execs are necessarily susceptible to such logic.

I'd put it up more to shoring up theater-going to stave off the wait-for-DVD desire since unless you go alone that's the cheaper option. And the desire to make things "bigger and better then ever!"

Too bad I've only seen one movie in 3D that wasn't "meh" level at best. And it was as good on regular screens. Because How to Train Your Dragon was good enough to see twice so I checked.

[Moofaa]

I'm only interested if the movie was made from the ground-up for 3D, like Avatar. Most movies, especially right now, are tacking it on to get their ticket to "me-too" land on the hype train.

I'd also like to see games in 3d, as I have yet to experience that. However I don't think any of the hardware thats out now PC-wise is really ready for it, let alone software. At least not to the extent that it won't be glitchy, suffer performance issues, or otherwise really take advantage of the effect. Current-gen graphics cards are all capable of 3D but theres no real advantage from what I have read.

[Athaniar]

Me, I enjoy 3D, and hope it will become commonplace. I think it really enhances the experience, at least in movies. Not sure how it works in games, since I haven't tried any.

[Texas_Ben]

They said the same thing about automated mobiles and interconnected networks.

Automobiles and Networks significantly increased quality of life and revolutionized society. Don't even think about comparing them to 3d.

3D will never catch on until they can make it work without making you wear the stupid glasses. People don't want to wear stupid glasses watching a movie, and as long as they have to 3D will be relegated to a gimmick theatres use to charge you extra.

[Soras Teva Gee]

They said color would never catch on, and there are still proponents bemoaning it as the death of artistry.

It be may be faddish but that doesn't mean it will fade, until it fades.

Its well possible that its the glasses that will be the next step to be expanded and separate screens will fade in importance. After what's a bigger screen then capturing the entire field of vision with hugging glasses designs.

[Maximum Zersk]

3D will never catch on until they can make it work without making you wear the stupid glasses. People don't want to wear stupid glasses watching a movie, and as long as they have to 3D will be relegated to a gimmick theatres use to charge you extra.

But they DID!

[Texas_Ben]

They said color would never catch on, and there are still proponents bemoaning it as the death of artistry.


You didn't need to wear headache-inducing, screen-darkening glasses to see the color.

[Xyk]

But they DID!

I don't know why people keep ignoring you. But seriously, those glasses suck, they really need to get rid of them if it's gonna catch on.:smalltongue:

[Soras Teva Gee]

You didn't need to wear headache-inducing, screen-darkening glasses to see the color.

And yet Avatar knocked off Titanic's record. Despite the doofy glasses, or maybe because people were interested enough in the effect to tolerate them. And they are a far sight from the cheap blue and red ones.

I don't presume to like it, but that's different then predicting its doomed to failure because its fatally flawed beyond anyone's ability to tolerate.

[Maximum Zersk]

I don't know why people keep ignoring you. But seriously, those glasses suck, they really need to get rid of them if it's gonna catch on.:smalltongue:

:smalltongue:

I guess that's true. But they should work on getting that steam engine to work first.

[derfos]

I just thought I'd mention that Playboy announced that they are going to have a 3D Centerfold.

[Dr.Epic]

Plus, the new glasses look less stupid.

Now if only we could get them to look like Cyclops's visor from X-Men!:smallbiggrin:


For movies; Blame James Cameron for bringing the hype back.

I tend to just blame James Cameron or Michael Bay for all life's problems. But as for movies and them being in 3-D, I don't mind it so much.

Also, has anyone linked this yet? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weP6aliP7ms&feature=related)

[MikelaC1]

The first movie I saw in 3D was A Christmas Carol. I thought the effect was mostly pointless. Then I saw Shrek4 and Toy Story3. In those 6 short months, the effect has advanced incredibly far in my opinion. I like it, and hope it keeps going.

[Froogleyboy]

I just thought I'd mention that Playboy announced that they are going to have a 3D Centerfold.
o.0 That's just . . . awesome!

[Texas_Ben]

And yet Avatar knocked off Titanic's record. Despite the doofy glasses, or maybe because people were interested enough in the effect to tolerate them. And they are a far sight from the cheap blue and red ones.

I don't presume to like it, but that's different then predicting its doomed to failure because its fatally flawed beyond anyone's ability to tolerate.
Please show me where I predicted it was doomed to fail. All I said was that as long as you need obnoxious, headache-inducing glasses to watch movies in 3d, it will remain a gimmick.

[Dogmantra]

All I said was that as long as you need obnoxious, headache-inducing glasses to watch movies in 3d, it will remain a gimmick.

I like the glasses. They make me feel like I'm wearing a pair of oversized sunglasses (which is cool!) but they're also incredibly nerdy (which is also cool!). I wear them inside sometimes. I've not gone out in them yet, but that's because I never go out. It's the new fashion. Get with the times.

[Mathis]

I've never had problems wearing 3D glasses to movies and I wear glasses normally which means whenever I watch a movie in 3D at the theatres, I wear two pairs. I don't get it, wearing the two pairs are uncomfortable for you? Then if you absolutely can't stand wearing two pairs try lenses. And if that's too much for you aswell then don't go to the movies that are shown in 3D, suck it up and stop moaning about it like a little kid. Remember: It's not a problem until you make it a problem.

The "you" I am referring to in this post is not the OP or anyone else that has posted in this thread, it's a general "you" and it is not meant to offend anyone.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Please show me where I predicted it was doomed to fail. All I said was that as long as you need obnoxious, headache-inducing glasses to watch movies in 3d, it will remain a gimmick.

Its simple I dispute that you need to dispense with the glasses to have it be successful. And a gimmick which is successful enough ceases to be so, 3D has been around a long time now and this is the least gimmicky its been.

And I've never had a headache from them yet. I feel like I barely see what 3D is there but I recognize that as being me more then anything. I have dodgy depth perception at the best of times. Otherwise they are completely reasonable as far as glasses go. Labeling them obnoxious sounds like a less then fair criticism.

Now that there is only one 3D movie I've seen so far worth seeing (and I saw it in 2D first) is the far more serious issue.

[Texas_Ben]

suck it up and stop moaning about it like a little kid.
And the moment you dismiss an opponent's criticisms as "moaning about it like a little kid" is the moment I stop taking anything you have to say seriously.



Its simple I dispute that you need to dispense with the glasses to have it be successful. And a gimmick which is successful enough ceases to be so, 3D has been around a long time now and this is the least gimmicky its been.
I think we're talking about two different things. When I'm talking about widespread mainstream adoption, I'm thinking about 3d TV's, computer moniters, etc. which the powers that be are attempting to push now. I'm not including theatres in my assessment because at this point theatres themselves are largely a gimmick. People are willing to don silly glasses to watch movies at a theatre, but I don't see it working for watching a movie on the couch.



And I've never had a headache from them yet. I feel like I barely see what 3D is there but I recognize that as being me more then anything. I have dodgy depth perception at the best of times. Otherwise they are completely reasonable as far as glasses go. Labeling them obnoxious sounds like a less then fair criticism.
It varies from person to person. The reason you get the headaches is something about each eye being held at a slightly different angle, and the stereoscopic 3d doesn't take that into account. So if you get headaches from it or not depends on your eyes.
And the "obnoxious" part is having to don glasses to properly enjoy my entertainment. For the most part, people want to be able to sit down, and enjoy their movies, they don't want to have to grab the glasses, worry about if they have enough glasses if there are people over, etc.

[Elana]

First thing you have to keep in mind is that the so called 3D is a misnomer.

It should be called if you keep your head in the right position and focus on whatever we we want you to focus, it will look like 3D.


With a true 3D display, changing my head position would actually change what pictures my eyes see. (Instead of giving you a headache)

Until they are actually able to make holographic displays (and record the amount of data to actual get a movie recorded in holographic quality) it will be nothing than a short fad.

Of course with the current rate of increase in storage capacity it might be possible that we get TRUE 3D in about 15 years.

But as long as it is just stereoscopic it will never be widely accepted for home use.
(You can't even watch such a movie while lying on the couch..as the pictures would no longer match what your eyes should see. )

[Mathis]

And the moment you dismiss an opponent's criticisms as "moaning about it like a little kid" is the moment I stop taking anything you have to say seriously.


You are wrong sir, I did not dismiss any "opponent's" criticism as childish moaning. I was simply making a comment on one area of the subject the OP provided a discussion around, mainly 3D glasses, something that is different from engaging in a debate. Also, if you had read my entire post you would have noticed the last sentence. I am going to provide it here for your convenience aswell.


The "you" I am referring to in this post is not the OP or anyone else that has posted in this thread, it's a general "you" and it is not meant to offend anyone.

Lastly, I do not have any "opponents" in the playground since I am not currently enganged in a debate about anything, and I'd prefer you not to suggest that I do. Thank you for your time.

[Maximum Zersk]

Until they are actually able to make holographic displays (and record the amount of data to actual get a movie recorded in holographic quality) it will be nothing than a short fad.


They did that too, I believe. The 3D Holographic Display.

[Elana]

Sure there are holographic prototypes.

But you don't just need the hardware in series productuion quality (and price range)

You need a way to actually record a movie in that quality.

And if they don't want to lose resolution, that means we go to 10,000 to 20,000 times the amount of data.
(Assuming we put the display in a box, to restrict the possible angles to view it somewhat. But if we don't there isn't just an increase in the amount of data, it would also become practically impossible to record a movie. And having everything being CGI is a bit meh)

[Maximum Zersk]

Sure there are holographic prototypes.

But you don't just need the hardware in series productuion quality (and price range)

You need a way to actually record a movie in that quality.

And if they don't want to lose resolution, that means we go to 10,000 to 20,000 times the amount of data.
(Assuming we put the display in a box, to restrict the possible angles to view it somewhat. But if we don't there isn't just an increase in the amount of data, it would also become practically impossible to record a movie. And having everything being CGI is a bit meh)

That's going to be pretty hard. Unless you have a way to freeze the photons in mid-air...

[Deth Muncher]

As a brief side related note to Mathis, one of my major beefs with 3D is that often, the one movie theatre close to me will only show 3D versions of movies, in hopes to generate higher profit (I guess), which means I have to drive farther and go to the more expensive movie theatre that doesn't even give student discounts on weekends.

So yeah. That's...y'know, that. But that's just a tangential note to the 3D discussion, and more my hatred of people being jerks and not showing the 2D versions of movies.

[Texas_Ben]

As a brief side related note to Mathis, one of my major beefs with 3D is that often, the one movie theatre close to me will only show 3D versions of movies, in hopes to generate higher profit (I guess), which means I have to drive farther and go to the more expensive movie theatre that doesn't even give student discounts on weekends.
That's... pretty terrible actually.

[Coplantor]

Huge movie fan here, what do I think about 3D? I dont want it to dissapear, I want writters, directors, editors and technicians to develop it and make it an important part of the experience. As someone said, there are those who said that color was going to kill the movies, it didnt, and guess what? Those who want to make black and white movies still can.

More tools give more options, the way 3D is used right now is kind of annoying, being used mostly for the bling bling effect, but who says that it cannot be taken by someone with vision to greatly enhace the experience of a movie?

So far, I haven't really liked the 3D, except for one particular scene of Cloudly With a Chance of Meatballs. The parade scene, with all the glitter paper confetti falling, it was pretty cool actually.

[Elana]

That's going to be pretty hard. Unless you have a way to freeze the photons in mid-air...

Freezing photos in midair would be a bit pointless.

The moment they get slowed down below light speed they stop being photons.


Luckily the eye has a rather low resolution, so you don't need to record all the single photons to make a recreation.

All you need is recording Voxels of the area.

Of course the actual area mist be of about ten times the diameter of what is supposed to be visible on the "viewscreen"

Everything further away can be depicted on a flat wall as the stereoscopic effect of the eyes is limited..


(That means on your typical 20 inch screen the furthest away an object can appear is 200 inch.)


Sure that are a lot of Voxels that would have to be saved, but that is not nearly as much as an holographic film would use.


But since I use a viewscreen you can't walk around the picture(Just have a 180° field of possible view arcs)...and that gives one actual side to put on the recording equipment.

The position of the Voxels to use can even be extrapolated from the picture of a few normal cameras, so the recording equipment would be possible to be build even today.


So all that is left to do, is developing good enough storage mediums and a proper display in an affordable price range.