3-D At Home: Why It's Not Going to Work

[AndyDursin]

I listened to Leo Laporte's great Tech Guy radio show via podcast as we flew down and back from Orlando this past week. He did a whole segment with Scott Wilkinson of Ultimate AV Mag, who has the new Samsung 3D TV and the corresponding BD player. Basically he summed it up this way:

-3D in theaters is dimmer than standard brightness. 3D at home is even DARKER than 3D in theaters. You lose a huge amount of the TV's brightness, which is inherently pumped up as soon as you turn on a 3D movie. Sounds great, no?

-The glasses. Want to plan a 3D Super Bowl viewing party for your friends? Think again! The TV comes with 2 pairs of glasses. Need more -- $150 EACH. Yes, $150 each. Then remember that the Panasonic 3D glasses and Samsung 3D glasses aren't interchangeable...they're their own standard....so people bringing over their own glasses will need to have the same TV model. Forgettabout it.

-He didn't feel the need to watch anything else in 3D after sitting through MONSTERS AND ALIENS. 90 minutes was enough, as he started to get a headache.

Leo went on to talk about how 4K HDTV would be twice, or more, of the resolution of current HDTV -- and wondered why the manufacturers and studios aren't pushing that, but ARE behind the "gimmick" and quick buck that 3-D affords.

After watching AVATAR and ALICE I'm of the opinion that 3-D adds absolutely nothing remotely integral to the filmmaking process in any way, shape or form. This is a money grab by studios hungering to add premiums onto ticket prices and that's it. It's no less of a gimmick than it was in the 1950s and 80s, though the DESIRE to make more cash and add instant revenue seems to be driving studios, manufacturers and even film directors more than ever to make it happen.

I don't see it working at home for reasons discussed above and also because I just don't see the DEMAND there for it.

As for me, I'm not paying to watch another film in 3-D and I hope they keep cranking them out so people will eventually stop going to them altogether.

[Eric W.]

The only real demand for this that there's ever been was from this CE industry that desperately had to come up with something "new" to generate more sales after the economic meltdown of late 08/early 09.

[Paul MacLean]

After watching AVATAR and ALICE I'm of the opinion that 3-D adds absolutely nothing remotely integral to the filmmaking process in any way, shape or form.

If 3-D was truly a "revolutionary" process that enhanced the cinema experience, why didn't it catch-on when it was first introduced in the 50s?

The only reason it is "catching on" now is because audiences loved Avatar -- and studios assume 3-D was the reason. That may have been part of the film's allure, and of course the kids who flocked to see the film are totally unaware that 3-D movies have been around since Dial M For Murder.

But this is just another novelty that is bound to wear-off. Typically, the studios believe they've found the "goose that laid the golden egg", and are failing to heed the mistakes they made 30 years ago -- when Star Wars convinced them to green-light a slew of effects-intensive films because "people want special effects!" Yet, nearly all of those movies BOMBED because they had nothing to offer except effects.

3-D won't make up for bad storylines and shallow characters indefinitely.

[Monterey Jack]

If 3-D was truly a "revolutionary" process that enhanced the cinema experience, why didn't it catch-on when it was first introduced in the 50s?

Maybe because the red/blue glasses made the image look like ASS?

Using this argument, the advances of sound, color, and widescreen processes would also be considered "gimmicks" when first released, but yet they're all still around. It's all about making a new technical breakthrough as good as possible. Within a generation, even the 3D movies of today will look as primitive as the 3D of the 50's does today. Like it or lump it, 3D is here to stay.

[AndyDursin]

Maybe because the red/blue glasses made the image look like ASS?

This is the same process used in the 1980s and even earlier. Just because it's "better" now for some people (I would disagree myself) because of CGI doesn't make it any less of a gimmick than it was 30 years ago. I've yet to see any film actually improved, dramatically, by its presence.

Using this argument, the advances of sound, color, and widescreen processes would also be considered "gimmicks" when first released, but yet they're all still around. It's all about making a new technical breakthrough as good as possible. Within a generation, even the 3D movies of today will look as primitive as the 3D of the 50's does today. Like it or lump it, 3D is here to stay.

If 3D really was a "technical breakthrough" on the level of sound, color and widescreen, then why has it vanished EVERY time they've tried to sell it from one generation to the next? And you can't say "because it sucked ass" in the 1980s when it was the SAME PROCESS they're using now with polarized glasses and the movies being projected in color, not red/blue.

For all the talk of how AMAZING "Avatar" was, the 3-D added nothing for me. Nothing. It darkens the screen, it blurs the details. It added some depth of perception -- which after 10 minutes I forgot I was even watching. And THAT'S the movie that's supposed to be the CITIZEN KANE for 3-D? No thanks. I have no intention of ever watching another film in 3-D unless I absolutely have to. ALICE IN WONDERLAND was awful as well.

It's a gimmick -- not a storytelling tool, no matter what Cameron believes. Not a replacement for story, acting, music, cinematography, direction, etc.

A movie can't live without those aspects. It certainly can live without 3-D.

[Paul MacLean]

Maybe because the red/blue glasses made the image look like ASS?

This is the same process used in the 1980s and even earlier.

Yes, only cheapie exploitation flicks relied on red and blue glasses. Expensive color films from big studios (like Dial M For Murder) used clear polarized glasses -- exactly like those used today.

[Eric W.]

Maybe because the red/blue glasses made the image look like ASS?

The new ones aren't much better when it comes to simulated 3D and trying to "convert" 2d to 3D.

They look better on your face. That's about it, really.

Using this argument, the advances of sound, color, and widescreen processes would also be considered "gimmicks" when first released, but yet they're all still around. It's all about making a new technical breakthrough as good as possible. Within a generation, even the 3D movies of today will look as primitive as the 3D of the 50's does today. Like it or lump it, 3D is here to stay.

You clearly have fallen for the marketing spin.

Fundamentally, this isn't anything brand new right now at all.



Long term I agree with you.

But this is all half steps. What we have RIGHT NOW is nothing new at all if you do some basic research and reading up.



This is the most blatant "pay premium dollars to be glorified beta testers" situation I've seen out of the CE industry in a long time. It's a feint.


If that gets you excited? More power to you.

I have no intentions of buying any "3D" hardware unless I get very unlucky and any of my current equipment kicks the bucket.


REAL 3D, the kind I'm waiting for, is AT LEAST 5 years off by even the most optimistic of market analysts' research and outlooks. I'm thinking closer to 10 myself and that's probably a more realistic timeframe.

The accessory free prototypes right now are just ghastly. Try practically a zero degree viewing angle, for one, loss of resolution...and a bunch of other garbage I won't even get in to.



My definition of real 3D: Looks awesome and requires no accessories.

The only item I disagree with you there is the bolded one. This isn't brand new tech. Yet.


For further reading and research:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/08/what ... vie-to-3d/


http://hdguru.com/3d-hdtv-and-hdmi-explained/1336/


http://hd.engadget.com/2010/03/04/hdmi- ... -format-s/




For the movie theaters, it's a nice boon: Charge even more dollars on the already outrageously overpriced movie tickets for the "3D" version of the film. They sorely have needed some kind of revenue injection for the last several years. They certainly can't count on Hollywood to actually offer quality or substance and good movies that would make people come out on their own so it's time to go the technical tricks.

And for now, it's working. We're guaranteed to see even MORE polished turds get cranked out left and right.

You think this is really all some kind of accident or coincidence?

Short term, I see the theaters having far more success with this "3D" and yes, the quotes are deliberate. How much staying power remains to be seen because after a point they have to finally put out some movies with some substance and quality under all the pretty gloss but the way things have been going I'm not holding my breath.

[Paul MacLean]

My attitude is why do movies need to be in 3-D at all? Widescreen and surround sound enhance the experience of the film, but 3-D is a gimmick as far as I'm concerned.

Our eyes only discern depth perception for objects which are relatively close-up, or within arms' length (in order to facilitate our kinetic interaction with them). Go outside and look at the landscape -- is it in "3-D"? Nope.

3-D could add a level of "realism" to close-ups, but it looks hopelessly fake when applied to model shots or imposed on panoramas or landscapes. Shooting a star destroyer or the Enterprise in 3-D would immediately reveal that they are a three-foot model (as was the case with the space station in Avatar).

Maybe 3-D will enhance video games -- I don't know, I don't play them -- but its going to RUIN movies. I'm a filmmaker, and I don't WANT my work to be 3-D, because it is a stupid, distracting gimmick (not far removed from "Smell-O-Vision").

[AndyDursin]

I totally agree with Paul. It's a gimmick, it adds nothing for me from a cinematic experience. AVATAR has the same problems in 2-D that it has in 3-D. After a few minutes I forgot I was watching a 3-D movie, it wasn't that effective other than adding a light depth of field which, again, did nothing for me. I didn't sit there and go "wow, look at the 3-D! Things are coming right at me! I feel a part of this world!!" the way some people obviously do.

As I wrote above, a movie can't "live" without music, cinematography, performance, editing, direction, production design, and on and on.

It CAN live without 3-D. Easily, in fact. Movies have for decades and will continue to do so.

There's no good reason for all these films to be in 3-D -- except for money.

Which it's all about, after all.

[mkaroly]

I have to admit that I am not sold on 3-D and it really doesn't do anything for me. I know there are lots of people who enjoy it, which is fine, but making a movie in 3-D will not get me to the theaters to see it. I can see where kids would have a good time though.

I agree with Andy and Paul on this one. Personally I will take a good story with well crafted characters and a well directed and executed film in 2-D any day over a special-effects laiden 3-D film whose story, characters, and overall presentation are weak.

As far as a 3-D TV goes, I wouldn't be interested in that product. I guess I'm just not down with 3-D. I am also living without an iPod, Blu-Ray, plasma TV, etc., so I am not in the demographic that marketers are trying to appeal to with these types of products.

[DavidBanner]

I haven't seen any of the new 3-D materials, having missed Avatar in the theaters, and not feeling a need to see any of the other films with it. But I've been invited to a Blu-ray HDTV 3-D demo this week that I'll attend wtih curiosity just to see what people are talking about.

I understand the current iteration of 3-D to be less a matter of doing the two-plane overlay created by the red/blue glasses idea, and more an idea of opening up the depth of the screen. But I need to see this in action to confirm that. Either way, I agree it's still a gimmick. And the new HDTVs they are marketing with 3-D are something I have a feeling may be looked on like 8-track players in another couple of years.

As for Avatar, I've watched about 30 minutes or so of it on Blu-ray, and was struck by how poor the writing is. In typical fashion for James Cameron, the technical aspects of the movie are great - there's some great craftsmanship on the screen. But I can't find any strong characters, story or dialogue to follow. And this has been a pattern with him.

[AndyDursin]

As for Avatar, I've watched about 30 minutes or so of it on Blu-ray, and was struck by how poor the writing is. In typical fashion for James Cameron, the technical aspects of the movie are great - there's some great craftsmanship on the screen. But I can't find any strong characters, story or dialogue to follow. And this has been a pattern with him.

You said it! What's worse, I watched it TWICE. The second time because Paul visited and I felt, why not, let's see how wrong I was about this.

I wasn't.

[Paul MacLean]

What's worse, I watched it TWICE. The second time because Paul visited and I felt, why not, let's see how wrong I was about this.

I wasn't.

Andy, I'll never forget you're willingness to be twice-martyred on my behalf!

[AndyDursin]

What's worse, I watched it TWICE. The second time because Paul visited and I felt, why not, let's see how wrong I was about this.

I wasn't.

Andy, I'll never forget you're willingness to be twice-martyred on my behalf!

Haha, I made you sit through SUPERMAN III, we're even! (though I do think SUPERMAN III was superior!!).

[Paul MacLean]

I across this post on the Amazon discussion board, by someone who only has one eye, and he makes some interesting points...

http://www.amazon.com/tag/3d/forum/ref= ... NSVI2GW6F0


I guess people with one eye are left out of this technology

Initial post: May 11, 2010 12:39 PM PDT

Pablo says:
I have only one eye. So if i go to a 3D movie, to avoid the double effect on the screen i have to wear the glasses, not to get the 3D effect -- impossible for me, but rather simply to watch the movie as a normal 2D movie. Since i don't like glasses on my face without a good reason, i hope they won't stop the regular 2D movie.

A few decades ago, when i was a kid (with 2 eyes), i remember the 3D movies and 3D comic books as well (the latter used glasses with a red and a green lens and the books were illustrated with line drawing (doubled in red and green). I even did my own 3D drawings for use with the comic book glasses and i was pretty good at it.

I wonder if there will ever be a 3D technology that us one-eyed folks could use. (Note: having one eye does not mess with my depth perception in real life. The stereoscopic vision of 2 eyes really applies only to things closer than about 6 inches. Further out, your brain uses speed and other cues to "see" in 3D. I drive, for example, and have no problem judging distances. It's just the 3D technology for movies that requires the stereoscopic capabilities of a pair of eyes.