Let's just say it: 3D TV is a joke.
technologizer.com
technologizer.com
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
-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
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.
I refuse to bow down to my stereoscopic overlords.
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.
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.
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.
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
... 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.
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".
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 :)
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.
I am sure they aren't ignoring it on their iTouch/iPhone/iPad lineup either.
It's a toy for people who have more money than they know what to do with.
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.
I saw about 5 Kindles and around 10 iPads on my last flight.
There was a huge lineup in a store selling iPads and iPhone 4G's for a big markup in HK.
People are loving those products and buying them. Definitely premium goods, but there is no denying the popularity of these items.
It is easy to doubt these premium goods like 3D TV's and iPads...but there are a huge number of people who replace their phone every 6 months and their TV every 2 years.
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.
One of my cousins is severely disabled and can only really use one hand with limited movement. They are completely unable to use a normal computer without assistance, but can manage an iPad in all capacities apart from the off switch.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I love the term.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Don't knock 'em if you weren't there, is all I'm saying.
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?
I guess real 3D, or holographic TV could be rotated at any POV like in-game cameras.
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.
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.
I'm skeptical just like this reporter, but at the same time, I would really like to see 3D more widely available.
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.
Sure, it might sound better, but is it worth the hassle?
Um... YES?
The effect is pretty astounding in sports and video games, which might be enough to get away from the nerd stigma and maybe even make it a must have for some people.
I don't think it's a fad this time. This article didn't even cover the main attractions, which makes me think the author is either ignorant of the topic he's covering, or he's biased.
I'm personally not a huge pusher of 3d tv. In fact I'll probably wait until it's more mainstream and prices have dropped before I grab one. But yes, after seeing sports and video games in 3d at CES I will definitely get one eventually. Hopefully with more comfortable and less nerdy eyewear (just a matter of time before Oakley designs a set).
It will be interesting to see how it goes, but I'm still not convinced it will be the next big thing. I guess that's partially because overall I don't find it that exciting.
I agree that it's not necessarily the next big thing, but I definitely think there's a market for it, and it's not a fad as the article suggests.
Now I know what I'm doing tomorrow night. Thanks!
It's one step closer to total sensory immersion.
We use the knowledge of what covers what, the size of objects/people, and the parallax effect. The first two can already be done with 2D and the latter cannot be done in 3D either (at least not with a lot of the cheap stuff out there). Which is why it doesn't seem that big of a deal when you look at something in 3D (though surely it helps a bit).
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...