3D Frustrating, pathetic lack of 3D software... (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

Doug,


Your assessment of home 3D is correct.


From my experiences over the past week

I have noticed focusing problems when there

is just too much going on within the frame or

eye strain when the content is not properly

encoded.

However, when it's good -- and there is good

stuff out there -- it's a real pleasure to watch.

 

[David Wilkins]

I've been truly surprised by the big push for home 3-D; I never would have guessed such a development. While Disney theatrical 3-D has been a huge step forward, so far as quality of effect, the concept of 3-D has always seemed gimmicky in nature and very limited in appeal and application...and I'm not one of those old-school guys. I'm ready to embrace anything that represents true and significant advancement in home theater, but to my way of thinking, 3-D just isn't an all the time, across the board feature. To top it off, the public will no doubt get swamped with existing titles, poorly converted to 3-D, or simply poor 3-D candidates...which probably describes 90% of existing titles. Would 3-D actually enhance the viewing experience of 'Winter's Bone'? How about 'Up in the Air', or even 'The Hurt Locker'? Aside from sophisticated animation and action films, it seems to me an application looking for a purpose.

 

[RickER]

I have said it before, and I will say it again. 3D is ultimately a fail until you can do it without the glasses.


Until that time, no way will I buy into it, when the glasses cost over $100 each. My wife, kids, friends and family would be out of luck on a home movie night, wouldn't they?


Avatar is the only movie I had any interest in seeing 3D at the movies. Shoot, the price just for my wife and i to get in was $25! Less than a year later here I am buying the Blu-ray (in 2D of course) for less than the movie tickets cost.


Avatar was fun, and worth the extra price to see in 3D. But Shrek, Toy Story, or anything else I can think of on the horizon. Eh, 2D is good, especially if it was not even shot with 3D in mind! Those converted fake 3D movies will kill it fast for either the home or cinema.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

You guys may be on to something....


http://www.twice.com/article/460107-3D_TV_Sales_Gets_Failing_Grade_So_Far.php

 

[urbo73]

I don't know that it will fail. I think if done right, it can look good. And that may just take a bit of time. Right now, I think the only place it's done right is in the theaters. But I think it's just a matter of when and NOT if.


On the other hand, I do think it's very unhealthy, even if you don't currently experience headaches, eye fatigue, or other symptoms as many people do. Some are just more sensitive, but in the long run I believe everyone is affected whether they realize it or not. Watching a 3 hour movie can cause more fatigue, etc. But this is the age of technology, and a lot of it is simply bad for people's health. But that won't stop it!

 

[Richard--W]

Fact: people are buying into 3-D.

The demand is greater than the supply.

There aren't enough 3-D films being made, and those that are being made are mostly computer animation.

Too much of the same thing and not enough variety.

3-D hardware sales would be a lot busier if consumers were offered more 3-D movies.

Not just classics, but new films, in all genres.

Why buy 3-D hardware if you can't buy 3-D movies to watch it with.

 

[SilverWook]

The studios could dust off some of the classics, and release them in theaters around Halloween. That would certainly strike up some interest in a Blu-ray release.


I seriously doubt prolonged 3D viewing with current technology is anymore unhealthy than staring at a computer monitor all day. If theaters can avoid the sloppy projection that marred the process in the old days, (which did give people headaches, myself included) the future is deep.

 

[Adam Gregorich]

I understand why sets aren't selling. Initially there was a huge premium on them. and there is still very little content. Over the next year or two the prices of 3D sets will come down to parity with 2D sets and more software will be available. I don't see 3D being a failure. Its just hard to be a smashing success with less than 15 titles available and only a few are movies. Hopefully a lot of the exclusives like Monsters v Aliens, Shrek films, How to Train Your Dragon, Avatar, Ice Age 3, Bolt and Alice in Wonderland will soon be available for purchase. That would just about double the titles available.

 

[SilverWook]

Originally Posted by Bradley-E /forum/thread/305948/frustrating-pathetic-lack-of-3d-software#post_3752084

 

[Richard--W]

Good writing, directing, acting, and photography helps, whether it's in 3-D or not.


3-D is a visual language, not a gimmick. Depth is a subtle and subliminal experience as well an overt one. It is no more a gimmick than the pan, the tilt, the dolly in or dolly out, the tracking shot, the close-up, the medium shot, the wide shot, the establishing shot, the coverage shots of singles and pairs. You have two eyes to see in depth. It is only natural that films be shot with two lenses and viewed in depth.


People who call 3-D a gimmick are as uncomprehending and nonsensical as the earliest audiences who objected to D.W. Griffith's close-ups because they paid to see the complete actor from head to toe, or the studio bosses who said in the late 1920s that sound would never catch on, and that color would be injurious to the eyes.


Audiences become acclimated through repetition.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by SilverWook


Yes but sound and color weren't tried and failed twice (now 3 times) times over the course of almost 60 years. Sound was an instant hit, and 3 strip color was popular with audience right away. With in 15 years more color films were being made than B&W. Also people don't have to do anything special to see color or hear sound. Unlike watching a 3d movie which many people find uncomfortable or even painful to watch.


Doug

 

[SilverWook]

3D's previous failures were both bad projectionists and bad movies. A stinker is not going to pack them in no matter how many dimensions it has. And if the illusion didn't work for you the first time, or your eyes hurt, you're not likely to want to repeat the experience.


I happen to be a migraine sufferer. I've yet to have any problems with the new technology. I've gotten headaches from movies being out of focus and those shot in nausea-o-rama like Blair Witch. (IIRC, a lot of people had viewing problems with that little 2D film!) Even at home, those tv shows whose producers think "shaky cam" is the bomb make me a little queasy on a large flat panel.


If Hollywood can figure out the best projects to use 3D for, and always give people the 2D option, there ought to be a way to keep everyone happy.

 

[Ron-P]

Originally Posted by Ronald Epstein

Ron,


I feel this is different than your experience with HD-DVD.

That was a format war with two different technologies

battling it out for supremacy.


However, I do understand your concern about where 3D

may be a year from now. Personally, I don't see there

any chance of failure. What is going to happen is that

3D capability is going to become more standard in lower

priced displays. This means that consumers who were

going to buy a new display anyway will have the capability

of 3D thrown into the mix.


Right now, the price of 3D plasmas, LED and LCDs are

plummeting. It doesn’t really cost much more to move up

to a 3D display.


But the advantages of waiting will mean better pricing and

a better amount of available software once you make that entry.

I realize that Ron. But, if these manufactures and studios don't get on the same playing field and do away with this "exclusive software with hardware programs" deals it will do nothing to promote the technology and only do harm to it.


While it may not be a format war, it is a war between hardware manufactures and the software, and as we've seen in the past, this is not good for the consumer and getting them to buy into a new format.


As always, waiting, is the key. Prices drop, that's guaranteed, it's just a matter of time. I just learned my lesson with the HD-DVD / Blu-ray war. From here on out, I'll wait.

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by SilverWook I seriously doubt prolonged 3D viewing with current technology is anymore unhealthy than staring at a computer monitor all day. If theaters can avoid the sloppy projection that marred the process in the old days, (which did give people headaches, myself included) the future is deep.

Well you can doubt all you want, but there is a reason manufactures put out warnings and this has been discussed. Think about what is being fed to your eyes. Watching 3D programming might cause motion sickness, lingering depth perception problems, disorientation, and what have you. The simple fact is that it ALREADY does for many! For those that are more sensitive, the effect is immediate. For others, they may just experience a form of fatigue, drowsiness, etc. down the road, or who knows. To me it's pretty apparent that it cannot be healthy but in small doses and in a proper environment. If it's to be the main way we watch TV, the effects will be bad. I have not heard of someone working with computers and getting sick (although there may be the odd case). I have heard and know people who've gotten sick just from watching Avatar in the theater. Many! So the analogy fails, unless you want to talk about someone who plays video games on a large computer monitor all day. And those cases have been documented too. Just because you may not feel something now, doesn't mean it's good for you in the long run. 3D is the latest to add to the crap that's feeding people's eyes and senses as they sit still like zombies. To each his own..


Also, IMHO, until we won't need glasses, I just can't see it taking off at home. Forget the costs associated with multiple glasses, which will have to come down. It's just impractical and a bit silly to sit around with friends or family and have those glasses on. In the theater, yes. That's different. Imagine you have your friends over to watch some 3D sporting event. Everyone is wearing glasses and as you reach for the beer and nachos - just doesn't fit the picture. TV is a social environment at home most often. Wearing glasses makes is very unsocial. But perhaps that's the trend - moving towards more isolation, information fed fast to the brain, etc. In fact, come to think of it, that IS the trend..

 

[bob kaplan]

Wearing glasses makes is very unsocial. But perhaps that's the trend - moving towards more isolation, information fed fast to the brain, etc. In fact, come to think of it, that IS the trend..

OMG! i have been unsocial for 51 years!!

 

[Mike Frezon]

Originally Posted by urbo73 /forum/thread/305948/frustrating-pathetic-lack-of-3d-software/30#post_3752834

 

[SilverWook]

Originally Posted by urbo73

I seriously doubt prolonged 3D viewing with current technology is anymore unhealthy than staring at a computer monitor all day. If theaters can avoid the sloppy projection that marred the process in the old days, (which did give people headaches, myself included) the future is deep.

Well you can doubt all you want, but there is a reason manufactures put out warnings and this has been discussed. Think about what is being fed to your eyes. Watching 3D programming might cause motion sickness, lingering depth perception problems, disorientation, and what have you. The simple fact is that it ALREADY does for many! For those that are more sensitive, the effect is immediate. For others, they may just experience a form of fatigue, drowsiness, etc. down the road, or who knows. To me it's pretty apparent that it cannot be healthy but in small doses and in a proper environment. If it's to be the main way we watch TV, the effects will be bad. I have not heard of someone working with computers and getting sick (although there may be the odd case). I have heard and know people who've gotten sick just from watching Avatar in the theater. Many! So the analogy fails, unless you want to talk about someone who plays video games on a large computer monitor all day. And those cases have been documented too. Just because you may not feel something now, doesn't mean it's good for you in the long run. 3D is the latest to add to the crap that's feeding people's eyes and senses as they sit still like zombies. To each his own..


Also, IMHO, until we won't need glasses, I just can't see it taking off at home. Forget the costs associated with multiple glasses, which will have to come down. It's just impractical and a bit silly to sit around with friends or family and have those glasses on. In the theater, yes. That's different. Imagine you have your friends over to watch some 3D sporting event. Everyone is wearing glasses and as you reach for the beer and nachos - just doesn't fit the picture. TV is a social environment at home most often. Wearing glasses makes is very unsocial. But perhaps that's the trend - moving towards more isolation, information fed fast to the brain, etc. In fact, come to think of it, that IS the trend..

[/QUOTE]
If you're worried about entertainment technology turning people into mindless zombies, people have been worrying about that since tv first caught on. I heard the same arguments about video games in the 80's. And I'm sure to hear the same about holographic displays if I live long enough.



I get motion sickness from a lot of things, amusement park rides, trying to read in a moving vehicle, FPS games with "head bob" turned on. I tend to avoid those. If 3D does that to anyone they should take the glasses off. Nobody would seriously want or suggest you ought to watch 3D all day long. I don't think the technology will be forced down anyone's throat.

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by SilverWook

I seriously doubt prolonged 3D viewing with current technology is anymore unhealthy than staring at a computer monitor all day. If theaters can avoid the sloppy projection that marred the process in the old days, (which did give people headaches, myself included) the future is deep.

Well you can doubt all you want, but there is a reason manufactures put out warnings and this has been discussed. Think about what is being fed to your eyes. Watching 3D programming might cause motion sickness, lingering depth perception problems, disorientation, and what have you. The simple fact is that it ALREADY does for many! For those that are more sensitive, the effect is immediate. For others, they may just experience a form of fatigue, drowsiness, etc. down the road, or who knows. To me it's pretty apparent that it cannot be healthy but in small doses and in a proper environment. If it's to be the main way we watch TV, the effects will be bad. I have not heard of someone working with computers and getting sick (although there may be the odd case). I have heard and know people who've gotten sick just from watching Avatar in the theater. Many! So the analogy fails, unless you want to talk about someone who plays video games on a large computer monitor all day. And those cases have been documented too. Just because you may not feel something now, doesn't mean it's good for you in the long run. 3D is the latest to add to the crap that's feeding people's eyes and senses as they sit still like zombies. To each his own..


Also, IMHO, until we won't need glasses, I just can't see it taking off at home. Forget the costs associated with multiple glasses, which will have to come down. It's just impractical and a bit silly to sit around with friends or family and have those glasses on. In the theater, yes. That's different. Imagine you have your friends over to watch some 3D sporting event. Everyone is wearing glasses and as you reach for the beer and nachos - just doesn't fit the picture. TV is a social environment at home most often. Wearing glasses makes is very unsocial. But perhaps that's the trend - moving towards more isolation, information fed fast to the brain, etc. In fact, come to think of it, that IS the trend..

[/QUOTE]
If you're worried about entertainment technology turning people into mindless zombies, people have been worrying about that since tv first caught on. I heard the same arguments about video games in the 80's. And I'm sure to hear the same about holographic displays if I live long enough.



I get motion sickness from a lot of things, amusement park rides, trying to read in a moving vehicle, FPS games with "head bob" turned on. I tend to avoid those. If 3D does that to anyone they should take the glasses off. Nobody would seriously want or suggest you ought to watch 3D all day long. I don't think the technology will be forced down anyone's throat.


I'm only 37, and yeah, I am worried looking at the way things are going with a 3 year old son. And yes, for the most part, the advent of technology, TV, Internet, etc. HAS turned more and more people into unhealthy beings over the last 50+ years. Shorter attention spans, information overload, etc. This is perhaps off topic - wiser men have already discuessed this - my main point here was that 3D in its current state can and does cause problems. Sure, nobody is forced to do anything. But I've heard of too many people having headaches, etc. for this format to really take off en mass. The necessity for glasses is a 2nd factor. A 3d factor is obviously as you point out - lack of content.


The interesting thing is that I used to race Formula Ford cars 10 years back, and still go out on track occasion. I can ride on any rollercoaster I can imagine. I have no motion sickness with real things, cornering forces, etc. I DO have motion sickness with video games, 3D TV, etc. It's fake perception. It's just bad for the brain. I do think it will work at some point. I'm just saying, IMO, it's not a healthy thing. That's all.

 

[SilverWook]

Some of you might get a kick out of this. Vintage 3D movie clips.


http://www.youtube.com/user/underground3dmovies


If you can do the cross your eyes thing with the "side by side" viewing mode, you don't even need glasses!

 

[urbo73]

Originally Posted by SilverWook

Some of you might get a kick out of this. Vintage 3D movie clips.


http://www.youtube.com/user/underground3dmovies


If you can do the cross your eyes thing with the "side by side" viewing mode, you don't even need glasses!

These guys are onto something!