Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Has the 3-D Hype Bubble Finally Popped?

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the let's-hope-so dept.

Displays 261

An anonymous reader writes "An article at Time speculates that the recent hype surrounding 3-D display technology has finally peaked and begun to subside. As evidence, they point to comments from Nintendo president Satoru Iwata, who does not seem particularly enthusiastic about it, and concedes it won't be a major selling point if the company continues to have 3-D enabled products in the future. He said, 'So, now we've created the 3DS and 3DS XL and also have some games out there that are really using that 3D effect that we can see, from my point of view, that it's an important element. But as human beings are this kind of surprise effect wears off quickly, and just [having] this 3D stereoscopic effect isn't going to keep people excited.' Revenue from 3-D films is also dropping, and while 3-D television sales are rising, only 14 percent of potential buyers think 3-D is a 'must have' feature."

cancel ×

261 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Has the First Post bubble popped? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649231)

No because I am awesome at Slashdotting.

Potential. (5, Interesting)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649249)

'Potential' buyers, unlike actual ones have no idea what they are talking about.

Re:Potential. (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649879)

very true. I have potentially thought about buying many things, but ended up not buying them or changing my mind and buying something else.

More like not enough hot air (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649275)

being pumped in. There was a huge hole in it to begin with. There was just enough hot air being pushed in to somewhat inflate it, like a tire with a leak, so not really a pop so much as that leaking sound.

Re:More like not enough hot air (1)

cognoscentus (1628459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649331)

Agree. I barely met anyone excited about 3D stuff, other than those with more money than they knew what to do with.

Re:More like not enough hot air (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649897)

I guess that means I am rich..WOO HOO! hHowever, I have never been excited about live action in 3D, but animated(CGI/CELL) I like because it looks better in 3D than live action.

Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (5, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649279)

Now that we've had it for this generation (i.e. 2010) thankfully we won't have to worry about it until 2030 or so.

Or until we have REAL 3D breakthrough where your can walk around a solid appearing image to see it from different perspectives, without glasses.

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (0)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649321)

Who knows, maybe like the PC, 3D is flat-lining [slashdot.org] .

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (1)

murdocj (543661) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649767)

You mean, because everyone has 3D, like everyone has a PC?

Something better will come... (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649769)

Who knows, maybe like the PC, 3D is flat-lining [slashdot.org] .

Whatever they're introduced on will jump straight up when the feelies [wikipedia.org] are invented.

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649385)

I will do whatever it takes to get my holodeck.

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (5, Insightful)

kasperd (592156) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649517)

Or until we have REAL 3D breakthrough where your can walk around a solid appearing image to see it from different perspectives, without glasses.

No pragmatic person will ask for such technology today. There is nothing wrong with researching, but it will take many years before we see any feasible technology for that.

A more reasonable request is more standardized 3D glasses and better quality. There are many people who wear glasses all the time in order to be able to see anything at all. Glasses made for that are more comfortable to wear. Let's have 3D glasses that are as comfortable to wear as ordinary glasses. And let's have 3D glasses suitable for people who need glasses, such that those people don't have to wear two pair of glasses on top of each other in order to watch a 3D move. Fix those two things, and 3D technology will become more popular.

I find 3D equipment for home usage to be less convincing than 3D equipment for the cinema. I still haven't seen any equipment for home usage moving away from active glasses. Produce an LCD with circular polarization for 3D, and I will be much more interested in buying it. Even more so if I can buy a good pair of 3D glasses for it, and use the same good pair of 3D glasses in the cinema.

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649835)

This "reasonable request" is like a request to paint a cardboard house in a prettier color. Sure, it'll be an improvement, but it's still useless in most climates.

Current iteration of 3D cinema uses only single channel to pass depth information, difference between left and right image. Actual 3D perception involves this plus focus/convergence distance and parallax. Lack of parallax is what killed this for me - I can watch 3D while sitting perfectly still, but whenever I move and the 3D picture stays exactly same, I get nauseous. There's a lot of people like me out there, and there's people for whom this is not nauseating, but immersion breaking nevertheless.

Until they work it out, there is no sense to buy it, no matter how "standardized" they make their gadgets as those gadgets are likely to become obsoleted by better 3D technology. What use would be standard 3D glasses when there's already prototypes [mit.edu] of no glasses, parallax supporting 3D displays in the works?

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650201)

This "reasonable request" is like a request to paint a cardboard house in a prettier color.

Perhaps better known as putting lipstick on a pig [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (1)

descubes (35093) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650045)

Let's have 3D glasses that are as comfortable to wear as ordinary glasses. And let's have 3D glasses suitable for people who need glasses, such that those people don't have to wear two pair of glasses on top of each other in order to watch a 3D move.

You should look at 3D glasses made by vendors of regular solar glasses, e.g. Polaroid Eyewear [polaroideyewear.com] . They are comfortable, not very expensive, work in the theater and double as sunglasses. We have a few at Taodyne, and the 3D separation quality on passive TVs is really good.

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (1)

slasher999 (513533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649685)

You are so absolutely correct! Every couple of decades 3D comes around again for a few years, then once the fad wears off it's gone again. I remember going to 3D films in the 80s, some of which were just rereleases of films from the 50s - the wax museum horror movie for example. I guess this dates back to the stereoviews of the late 19th century, at least that's the earliest 3D media I can think of.

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (4, Interesting)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649837)

Yup

From
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1777404&cid=33478946%5Bslashdot.org [slashdot.org]

1860-1915 Holmes Stereoscope
1920 3D movies in NYC -- unknown which ones ...
1952 3D movie "Dial M for Murder", "Creature From The Black Lagoon", "Kiss Me Kate"
1970 3D movie Any Warhol's Frankenstein
1983 3D movies "Jaws 3D" and "Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone
2009 3D movies Avatar, Coraline, How to Train your Dragon, Monsters Vs. Aliens, Up, etc.

The clothing industry has the same ~20 year fad-cycle too.

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649921)

hahaha, I remember hypercolor back in the early 90s

Re:Lame 3D tech is a once per generation fad. (1)

garyoa1 (2067072) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650125)

Yeah, I watched some 3D movies back in the 50's on TV. (Yes, I'm olde') I was excited for about 5 minutes.

On the other hand, MIT or someone is playing with a new technology to kind of incorporate 3 LED panels into one giving "true" (?) 3D. No glasses required. But another problem arises. If you have someone sitting way over on the left and someone way over on the right... they may see two different variations on the same scene since it's viewed at different angles.

Hallelujah! (5, Insightful)

Koyaanisqatsi (581196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649333)

Personally, I'm sick and tired of small theaters only offering you the 3D version of a given movie. I rather see it in normal 2D, without having to put up with dirty and inconvenient passive glasses, and dizziness in scenes with fast motion ...

At home, for gaming, with a good TV and glasses things might be different, but I'm not much of a gamer myself to justify the extra expense.

Re:Hallelujah! (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649365)

"Personally, I'm sick and tired of small theaters only offering you the 3D version of a given movie."

The article seems to be accurate though - after months of offering blockbusters only in 3D, our local theater is offering 'em up in all their 2D glory again... I"m so overjoyed that I'll actually be there tonight, spending way too much money on an uncomfortable seat, bad sound, overpriced popcorn and warm-ish beer watching that new Spiderman movie :)

Re:Hallelujah! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649429)

Re:Hallelujah! (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649479)

I don't understand why you don't like to pay more for a movie. You get the added benefit of dizziness. Sure you could do it cheaply at home while spinning in a chair, but at least at the movies you get to pay for overpriced popcorn and drinks.

We don't need 3D, we need much higher resolution. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649339)

"OH! THAT SHRAPNEL FLEW RIGHT TOWARD YOU! WOW!" seems to be the main use of 3D these days so it's nothing but a gimmick. A gimmick that needs to go away. Higher resolution displays are beautiful and future-proof. I wish the industry would adopt 4K instead. *sigh*

Re:We don't need 3D, we need much higher resolutio (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649541)

no, we need displays that can produce HDR imagery deep black and high whites.
resolution is yet another gimmick which doesn't contribute to colour or contrast range.

modern tv's can't reproduce true colours, they are seriously crappy at any resolution.

Re:We don't need 3D, we need much higher resolutio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650047)

> resolution is yet another gimmick

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious...

Re:We don't need 3D, we need much higher resolutio (4, Insightful)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650079)

Actually, No, the main use of 3D nowadays is to produce content that uses depth. With the exception of kids movies and horror flicks, hardly any of the new 3D movies has any of those atrocious 'coming out of the screen at you' gimmickry. Personally, I like seeing the depth in a film, Glad I was an early adopter.

I think I'll wait to see what kind of sales are driven by the release of Titanic, the Pixar back catalog and a non exclusive release of avatar before I'd start going on about the death of 3D.

3D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649355)

3D has never, ever, improved a movie's story or characters, and never will.

Re:3D (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649471)

The same could more or less be said about CGI in movies or upgrades to graphics in games. That being said, they can improve the overall quality of movies or games, when they are in the background and not the primary attempted selling point. I think the core issue of 3D movies, is the filmers think to take advantage of it, if something isn't flying in your face every 5 minutes, they are wasting their time. Same could be said about the decrease in quality of movies due to special effects. Many movies are going the direction of porn, where the plot just has to be some loose half attempt to string things together to give half a believable transition from one explosion to the next. If 3D could just go in the background without overtaking and replacing the plot/characters, it could be a good thing. That being said, I don't see it happening until they invent screens that do not need glasses, and that can be watched comparable amounts of time to normal screens without causing headaches etc... Until then 3D is going to be in front and get in the way of the movies/games instead of add a nicer looking background to the movies/games.

Re:3D (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649987)

oh you've been watching michal bay movies haven't you. that is only true of action movies(well certain comedies only replace explosion with a B.A.) in my experience, other genres are better about there plot because they actually need one. Unfortunately scifi has become a sub genre of action. That is why i robot sucked, the souce matterial wasn't action/explosions so they wrote a new script and through a few charecter names in. If a decent director would do asimovs books right, (not foundation it does not fit the movie format) they would be great. the robot series would work so would empire and the series prequals and sequals would be great as movies. but we will never see them because it would require skill to do not several thousand gallons of gasoline, propane and giant cg robots distroing cities and landmarks. I think i need to go watch dune now.

Re:3D (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649871)

You could say the same thing about fonts in books. I'm sure the first time fonts were available at a printing press authors and publishers massively overused the feature, and did more harm than good to their books by overdosing people on fonts.

And then people started thinking about how fonts could convey meaning, or style, and how fonts effect readability, and suddenly the choice of font(s) can help better convey the story and characters, and sometimes to a wider audience.

3D, colour, surround sound, CGI, all of it are just tools for the storytellers to use to tell their story. We don't even think about colour in film, but it was a huge technical milestone for a lot more than just 'improving a character or story'. But then the use of colour, once its available can very much impact story telling, see schindlers list if you want an example.

There are clearly lots of artists who think 3D will help better convey the world their story takes place, make their characters more believable or real and so on. Most of them are probably wrong, but it takes time for people to appreciate just how it could be used to their benefit, and importantly, how to use it well.

Re:3D (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650111)

I'm sure the first time fonts were available at a printing press authors and publishers massively overused the feature, and did more harm than good to their books by overdosing people on fonts.

Uh, no. One didn't see such an explosion of typefaces within a single book during the era of printing presses, because the process required a lot of effort. It wasn't until word processors came about and made it easy that amateurs went crazy and sadly some of the results made it onto bookstore shelves.

And then people started thinking about how fonts could convey meaning, or style, and how fonts effect readability, and suddenly the choice of font(s) can help better convey the story and characters, and sometimes to a wider audience.

Calligraphic scripts and then typefaces developed quite slowly in antiquity and the early modern era and with much attention to aesthetics. It was my no means a free-for-all. I really encourage you to read a history of the field like Simon Loxley's Type [amazon.com] , because you have things all mixed up.

Using 3D for storytelling (4, Insightful)

descubes (35093) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650227)

3D, colour, surround sound, CGI, all of it are just tools for the storytellers to use to tell their story. We don't even think about colour in film, but it was a huge technical milestone for a lot more than just 'improving a character or story'.

This is very true. 3D is a tool that has been abused initially (the "shrapnel flying towards you" another poster referred to). But 3D is also the normal way for us to see the world, so when done right, it enhances the suspension of disbelief [wikipedia.org] . However, it matters that you do it right. Just like color could be distracting when you had over saturated hues or bizarre skin tones [google.com] , 3D can break the immersion spell if not done right. On the other hand, if you do it right, it is transparent on the conscious level but ads realism and makes the story more believable.

It's not just for movies either. At Taodyne, we brought 3D to interactive presentations. We have a kind of 3D interactive multimedia LaTeX called Tao Presentations [taodyne.com] . In our experience, 3D presentations are something that people still remember one year after having seen them. Most people don't necessarily remember movies better when they are in 3D, but ask any kid in France about the 3D Haribo ad [youtube.com] , and chances are they remember it. The same is true for presentations. Showing models or charts in 3D gives them more impact.

Another interesting effect of 3D for storytelling is that you can put more data on a screen without causing confusion. You can put things in front to draw attention, or in the background for things that are less important. You can create true 3D charts, where the depth ads another useful axis. And the Star Wars effect in real 3D is an interesting way to show data (it's a built-in demo of Tao Presentations).

In short, 3D can be a gimmick. Or it can be used well and make a difference. It's all a matter of how you use it.

Immersion, Immersion, Immersion (5, Interesting)

Vecanti (2384840) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649899)

3D has never, ever, improved a movie's story or characters, and never will.

"To me 3D should be about making it feel like you are IN the movie, not that the movie is coming OUT at you."


Pirates of the Caribbean 4. No, I didn't like the movie.

However, the only thing that made me glad I spent money seeing it in 3D was I think was the "first" time I actually saw GOOD 3D cinematography. A few scenes at least. One of the scenes was when they were in the hull of the ship plotting a mutiny. The scene looked like all lit in with natural candle light. In the scene there was round table with just 1 candle in the middle.

And in the scene there was nothing flying out of the screen! No explosions with shrapnel shooting at you in 3D. It was just a beautiful scene. It was filmed in a small space with beautiful lighting, but in 3D you FELT like you were there. Something that watching it in 2D doesn't give you.

There were other things in that movie as well like in the light house, where again it wasn't 3D SHOOTING out crap at you, but you could see all the beauty of the gears and working of the insides of the lighthouse and you just get immersed. Which was nice since the story sucked.


What I would love to see if a beautifully filmed "3D Black and White" movie, something Schindler's List-esque in it's cinematography. To me 3D should be about making it feel like you are IN the movie, not that the movie is coming OUT at you. Unfortunately, movie makers seem to only use to make it look like Spider-Man is shooting is Spider Wad at you or something lame and gimmicky like that.

Re:3D (0)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650099)

Yeah but it's not like you're choosing to read the script over watching the movie.

moving to 4D now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649371)

Theatres are moving to "4D". [latimes.com] Maybe games will too.

3-D spawned better TV hardware (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649377)

The main feature I like from the 3-D push was the increased graphics processors in TVs. The sharpness and upgraded video quality is a major plus.

Ebb and Flow (1)

tylikcat (1578365) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649405)

I suspect 3D in movie theatres is here to stay - especially for the fun high on explosion summer flicks. And hopefully, past the initial wave of hype, people will focus on using it in interesting and intelligent ways. (I'm so tired of exaggerated perspective.)

...and really, I'm hoping it stays mainstream enough that the prices go down. In our lab we (well, mostly my roommate) has be retrofitting microscopes with the receptor arrays from high quality web cams (cheaper than buying the components) and then piping the image to a 3D monitor. Better ergonomics, good quality image - and a vast improvement when it comes to teaching or recording your work.

Re:Ebb and Flow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649473)

in europe, NOBODY want to see 3D movies.
in Amsterdam you'll actually see people leave if the movie isn't shown in a regular format, and these aren't 2 or 3 people but 10 to 30 at a time...

people don't care how a movie is projected people just want a high-quality image/sound system...
typical Bill Gates moment: THAT DOESN'T MATTER!

Re:Ebb and Flow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650297)

It's much the same here in Stockholm.

And prices on 3D TVs keep dropping like the proverbial stone because almost nobody's buying them.

they are dumping 3d tv's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649419)

they are dumping 3d tv's in europe, just saw a 32" LG 3D model for 299 euro...

i always thought it was a lame gimmick (-1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649421)

proof: the story i submitted to slashdot titled exactly that:

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/11/01/25/2231254/3d-cinema-doesnt-work-and-never-will [slashdot.org]

Walter Murch, one of the most technically knowledgeable film editors and sound designers in the film industry today, argues, via Rogert Ebert's journal in the Chicago Sun-Times, that 3D cinema can't work, ever. Not just today's technology, but even theoretically. Nothing but true holographic images will do. The crux of his argument is simple: 600 million years of evolution has designed eyes that focus and converge in parallel, at the same distance. Look far away at a mountain, and your eyes focus and converge far away, at the same distance. Look closely at a book, and your eyes focus and converge close, at the same distance. But the problem is that 3D cinema technology asks our eyes to converge at one distance, and focus at another, in order for the illusion to work, and this becomes very taxing, if not downright debilitating, and even, for the eyes of the very young, potentially developmentally dangerous. Other problems (but these may be fixable) include the dimness of the image, and the fact that the image tends to 'gather in,' even on Imax screens, ruining the immersive experience.

we will need a major technological breakthrough in imaging 3D objects before the gimmick really takes hold. we aren't there yet

let the 3D fad die

Re:i always thought it was a lame gimmick (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649771)

I think something akin to google glass could solve the problem of asking our eyes to converge on one point and focus on another. I don't know whether google glass has this functionality in whatever kind of light emitter it uses, but I would imagine that if it had a some sort of lens system built in to adjust the focus to where it should be, then the convergence and focus could easily be made to match.

And more to the problem than that (2)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650263)

No matter where you sit, you have the same view. Unless you view a stereoscopic pair bang on centre with an unmovable eye position, the illusion fails when you move your head. To be exact, the illusion is only perfect if your eye position exactly corresponds to the position of the lenses in the camera which made the pair. Victorian stereoscopes were like this: the images were 1:1 positives of the negatives, and the viewers were basically a copy of the camera, but with the positives in the negative position and, of course, light allowed in to illuminate them. (I did some research on this years ago for a thesis.) In a cinema, most of the audience are viewing from the wrong angle and the wrong distance. Even at home, if more than one person is watching, the viewing angle must be less than optimal.

fun. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649425)

I like to play with wooden alphabet blocks. It's fun.

3D Movies Don't Snap My Socks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649431)

Though to be perfectly honest, I have yet to see one. $40 for one movie for two is in the What Are They Thinking category. About the only thing they could do to make me less likely to buy a ticket would be if I had to take off my shoes and choose between the backscatter X-ray nudie pix or or having my genitals groped.

ask slashdot: 3d with regular LCD ? (1)

tloh (451585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649441)

A few days ago, I helped my boss set up a demonstration PC to show high school kids protein visualization in 3d stereo. The setup was pretty old (vintage late 1990's). We had to scrounge a dusty CRT for need of compatibility with the active shutter goggles that provided the stereo effects. We had LCD monitors in plenty supply, but didn't have enough time to determine if they worked with the system. Simple web searches were inconclusive, with the most relevant result appearing to be an outfit called planar 3D that provides dedicated 3D systems. For the slashdotter with more experience: Can 3d Stereo be achieved with regular commodity LCD monitors?

Re:ask slashdot: 3d with regular LCD ? (4, Insightful)

pepty (1976012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650251)

For viewing molecules, the easiest method is a cheat: many programs will rock the molecule back and forth on the vertical axis. You can keep the same part of the protein (active site, for instance) in view indefinitely while the rocking motion gives depth cues and it works pretty well even for people not sitting directly in front of the screen. I'd go with that; most protein visualisation and modeling software has it as an option and it will work on any display or projector.

The other method that will work with any hardware is cross eyed or wall eyed stereo. It gives you much better depth perception and is much better if you are trying to dock/move molecules around each other onscreen. Unfortunately lots of people can't do one or the other (I find wall eyed difficult), or they get headaches. If you're viewing from off-center the problems get worse. Again, most protein visualisation software has the option.

I used those active shutter goggles sometimes back in the '90s while modeling proteins on Silicon Graphics workstations. The whole process was so cumbersome that I just switched over to cross eyed stereo instead.

Re:ask slashdot: 3d with regular LCD ? (1)

descubes (35093) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650307)

For the slashdotter with more experience: Can 3d Stereo be achieved with regular commodity LCD monitors?

Given their current prices, you should go for 3D-enabled LCD monitors, e.g. the HP 2311 gt [tomshardware.com] . Look for reviews like this one [cnet.com] . I personally strongly recommend passive displays (less expensive, and way more comfortable e.g. under fluorescent light).

And if you want to show stuff in 3D easily, why don't you give Tao Presentations [taodyne.com] a spin?

Glorified pop-up books (1)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649447)

Remember those pop-up books [wikipedia.org] we used to read as children? (I'm assuming you're old enough to have lived without a Web browser for at least part of your life.) All the 3D movies I've seen thus far are like that. They don't look like solid objects. They look more like cardboard cut-outs placed at varying distances or like layers of 2D images.

Re:Glorified pop-up books (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649775)

They look more like cardboard cut-outs placed at varying distances or like layers of 2D images.

That's what "Disney Real3D (tm)" is. Anything "converted" from 2D to 3D actually is a stack of layers of 2D images.

Re:Glorified pop-up books (3, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650335)

Except the Pixar stuff. That they could re-render.

3D technology was an improvement (1)

jennatalia (2684459) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649455)

3D technology, although hated by some, has provided us with upgraded graphics in TVs. Combined with a 3D Bluray player, regular DVDs and even Bluray movies look better when the foreground and aft are separated and recombined.

What's next? (1)

Bobke (653185) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649457)

The key general marketing trends so far, as I see it:
turbo
quantum
eco
3D

Missed some? What's next?

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649513)

3D What's next?

4D, of course. [cepro.com]

Re:What's next? (1)

descubes (35093) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650327)

Don't forget "2.0", ".com", "lickable" and "easy".

Milking the cow til it hurts. (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649459)

Yep, the film industry is going to keep milking the 3-d cow for a while. What is a 4-D movie? "It refers to physical effects that are coordinated with the images on the screen that involve your other senses," says media analyst and entertainment lawyer James Hirsen. "It is things like moving seats during a chase scene, the smell of gun powder when there is an explosion on the screen and during a spooky foggy scene you are surrounded by real fog." http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/4-d-movies-coming-soon-theater-near-172042434.html [yahoo.com]

Re:Milking the cow til it hurts. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649485)

gotta keep up with the gimmicks. what do you want them to do, make better movies?

Surely, you jest, sir. Most surely.

Re:Milking the cow til it hurts. (4, Insightful)

SternisheFan (2529412) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649905)

gotta keep up with the gimmicks. what do you want them to do, make better movies?

Surely, you jest, sir. Most surely.

Better movies! Where I find movies worth watching nowadays is on TMC. The movies made in the 30's, 40's and 50's. They may be old, but they're new to me. They have great involved plotlines, top-notch acting and directing, and some innovative (for the time in which they were made) camera direction. I can watch those old films all the way through, while most recent movies on dvd's I borrow from my library get ejected before they're halfway watched. Whiz-bang 3d/cgi means nothing after you've seen it a few times. Give me a good story that's believeably acted, and then I might actually pay theater prices to see it.

Books are only remnants of creativity left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649955)

gotta keep up with the gimmicks. what do you want them to do, make better movies?

HA!! Today's movies have shorter plot then Dr. Seuss kids books and it is shallower than any of the Arny or Stallone movies - at least those movies had *characters* in them, today, not even that. You just get retarded not-so-special effects and remakes of remakes.

If you want originality, you have to actually read books. At least then every reader gets slightly different, more personalized experience. Something that is quite impossible with movies.

Next to pop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649465)

All the delusional crap from the "private space" lunatics.

Re:Next to pop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650089)

Son, you are a complete moron.

Most of the space industry IS private.

Re:Next to pop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650361)

And which delusional crap are they spewing?

Duh... (5, Insightful)

multimediavt (965608) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649503)

and while 3-D television sales are rising

Of course their sales are on the rise when there aren't many alternatives if you want a decent new TV. That's like saying TVs with digital tuners are on the rise, duh! 3D has some uses, but it's mostly another ploy by the manufacturers to keep their price points up by making it seem they are adding value to the device. Also, why they still put tuners in monitors (let's face it TVs are just big LCD monitors) by default these days is a little silly if you ask me.

Re:Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649579)

Tuners are a good fall back when the cable/satellite goes out.

Re:Duh... (3, Informative)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649609)

Because some of us still use the tuners. TVs and Monitors are legally separate things in the U.S., subject to different rules. Its not as easy as 'lets jsut drop all tuners because i dont see a need for them"

Re:Duh... (1)

t0y (700664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649983)

Yeah, it's like saying 1378x768 is the preferred laptop resolution.

Re:Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650055)

No kidding.

Cable? You need a box or cablecard anyway.
Sat? Same thing.

Why exactly does my tv have all these features built in..... and i cant use them because the content providers are douchebags.
Why did i pay for that crap? I coulda got a monitor twice this size for the price of a 'tv'.

Re:Duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650143)

Also, why they still put tuners in monitors (let's face it TVs are just big LCD monitors) by default these days is a little silly if you ask me.

How else would you watch TV on your TV? You're not dumb enough to pay for a service, are you?

what bubble? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649535)

For something to be a bubble, people have to want it and be buying it in the first place. You know, like new houses or netbooks. Every survey from the start of this technology on showed that basically nobody wanted it. I think the highest "has to have 3D because I'm actually going to use it" result on a survey was 14%.

Re:what bubble? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649657)

I have the sony 24" Playstation 3D monitor. Its neat , but every time i use it with glasses I say to myself "very few people are ever going to want to use a monitor this way." I myself barely want to use it. I have to admit some games in 3d are pretty sweet like uncharted 3, God of War, batman, etc. FPS/racing view type games arent nearly as compelling.

3D? Hell Im still not sold on HD (3, Informative)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649573)

I really have no desire to go out and drop a pile of money on a TV that's got a rep for short lifespans and every time I walk pas one it looks like MPEG vomit. Sure they look good when you have all the right sources, but since I sont spend my life building a movie collection most normal content is stretched and full of digital garbage.

My stupid CRT looks much better for non HD content, and if you want HD content it cost out the ass, fuck it, its a gimick for dumb consumers, and a slight advantage to the unwashed masses playing console games.

Re:3D? Hell I'm still not sold on HD (1, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649701)

Sure they look good when you have all the right sources, but since I don't spend my life building a movie collection most normal content is stretched and full of digital garbage.

Well, that's what happens with pirated content. Copied, recompressed, ads and logos added, recompressed again, and reassembled from blocks on multiple overloaded servers. Of course it looks like crap.

(That's what most of YouTube looks like, too.)

Re:3D? Hell I'm still not sold on HD (2)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649941)

I have never, ever, seen pirated content with ads and logos added (overcompressed stuff I did see, of course). I see ads and added logos only when I watch media I paid for.

Re:3D? Hell I'm still not sold on HD (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650103)

where have you been torenting that they put in ads? all of mine they have taken them out some went to the effort to blur the the network watermarks (for tv shows) the only ads in any of my pirated vids are the horrible ones syfy puts in mid content that reach half way across the screen.

Re:3D? Hell I'm still not sold on HD (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650313)

no pirated content, DVD's and digital cable tyvm

No Wonder (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649583)

It's not 3D! I've seen it, it's shit. Lot's of money for a shitty gimic.

Benefits, benefits, benefits. (3, Interesting)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649627)

Revenue from 3-D films is also dropping, and while 3-D television sales are rising, only 14 percent of potential buyers think 3-D is a 'must have' feature."

Has 3D technology really benefited anyone but the display makers and the content industry?

Re:Benefits, benefits, benefits. (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650169)

Has 3D technology really benefited anyone but the display makers and the content industry?

For those of you playing along at home:

This is known as a rhetorical question [wikipedia.org] .

The reason I like "3D" TVs (2)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649649)

I like the rise of "3D" HDTV's is because it's a good way to identify a 120hz or higher panel. The idea of gimmicking into the 3D junk itself and wearing glasses, giving myself a headache, all that makes me chortle a bit. But I do love me a smooth motion picture.

Re:The reason I like "3D" TVs (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650153)

I know what you mean. I got a 240hz LCD 2 years ago and everyone who's seen it comments on how great the picture is. When I tell them why they don't even know what I'm talking about. It's hard to believe how many people bought those 60hz Walmart TVs.

Well screw that (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649675)

recent hype surrounding 3-D display technology has finally peaked and begun to subside.

Well, screw it then, I'm going to LOOT THE VENDING MACHINE!

Just to raise movie cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649711)

lol I think it was just a ploy to raise the cost of movies...

bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40649731)

god you people are morons. lets get super 10k on our 50" tv's but hey, 2x the perceived resolution offered by 3d is no longer good enough. theres an idiot born every day.

Of course the FAD is over (1)

NSN A392-99-964-5927 (1559367) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649751)

MOD up the original poster 3D is just a Fad. Not much changes, Just like BIOS Basic input and output system; sounds like a good pr0n film for geeks :P

Let's hope so - bring on the 4k2k hype instead (2)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649827)

Let's hope so - bring on the 4k2k@50fps hype instead.

I, for one, can't wait for all the content creators and hardware companies to start pushing everyone toward it.

  • Yeah right, and charge $2.50 more per ticket, no doubt!
  • They want me to buy Star Wars again even though I bought it on VHS back in the 80's!? (and bought the LaserDisc, the DVD set, the Blu-Ray box...)
  • They're just doing this to thwart piracy! Well screw them - I'll keep downloading the 480p rips!
  • What's the point, I can't even watch it 1:1 on my retina display New iPad, LOL!*
  • The smooth picture gives me a headache!
  • Omg it looks so FAKE without proper camera shutter!
  • I'm not buying into this until I no longer have to wear those ridiculous glasses. Oh, wait, they're my prescription glasses.
  • Digital cinema like 4k2k commands killed movies for me; bring back film, the scratches, blotches, jitter and off-key audio are part of the soul of a movie!

Re:Let's hope so - bring on the 4k2k hype instead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650119)

Reads like timecube you gaffet

I only pay to see a film in the theater if it's 3D (1)

AdrianZ (29135) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649963)

I really have a hard time understanding all the hate around 3D. Sure there are some films that do it poorly, but that's true for any new approach that enjoys some popularity (SFX, musical scores, camera motion, film/digital medium, plots, etc). I can only assume it's some physical differences between viewers, making it mostly just unfortunate that it doesn't degrade gracefully for users that can't/don't enjoy it.

Personally the only reason I even go to the movie theater any more is to see a film in 3D. Otherwise, it'll wait until I can watch it from home. The friends I go to 3D films with generally feel the same way. The theater just doesn't have enough value add for its price without it. When you include dinner, drinks, and a quality theater with reserved seating, the 3D surcharge is too minor to worry about... the biggest issue really is that it sort of dulls the films if you ever want to watch them at home.

Re:I only pay to see a film in the theater if it's (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650181)

I differ entirely. I love to see films on the big screen. Even with surround sound and a big HDTV setup at my house it does not compare to the theater. I watched Avatar in 3D and it was cool I suppose but I can't see where it added anything much to the movie. I certainly don't care about seeing it on a 3D TV set. I can't see any reason to pay more for 3D as I get nothing of value in return for my money. When they come out with holovision I might be interested.

Shabby Parlor Tricks (2)

Tommy Bologna (2431404) | more than 2 years ago | (#40649975)

3D content creators seem to ignore the reason we evolved 3D vision -- to navigate rapidly in real 3D space and to range-find. Without those needs, we probably would not have developed binocular vision and a capability to process the resulting data. Cinematic storytelling remains linear. There is no interactive component that requires either spacial navigation or range-finding; so in the context of filmmaking, 3D serves as a sort of vestigial organ to the larger non-cinematic reality in which we are normally immersed.

3D Filmmakers rely heavily on a small set of gimmicks (e.g., an object protruding from the screen plane into the audience space) to exploit the 3D technology. These gimmicks do not add to the experience beyond superficial self-actualization -- "Hey Look! Three-dimensions!" These visual bits are unnecessary parlor tricks that neither advance the story nor develop the characters.

Re:Shabby Parlor Tricks (2)

pepty (1976012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650365)

3D content creators seem to ignore the reason we evolved 3D vision -- to navigate rapidly in real 3D space and to range-find. .

Which brings up the two things I'd like to be able to watch in 3D: sports and computer games - but in order for it to be watchable they first need to solve the convergence/parallax issues mentioned upthread. I don't see that happening outside of holographic glasses anytime soon.

Groupthink? (4, Insightful)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650083)

So basically we have a groupthink "3D is uncool because I'm too cool to like it!" here.

In reality, 3D movies are getting better and better. Some of the effects are much more pronounced in 3D and directors are starting to use them correctly. And in fact most people actually prefer 3D over 2D movies.

Re:Groupthink? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40650135)

No, it's just you. No, really.

Re:Groupthink? (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650137)

Maybe not sooo much 'groupthink' as you put it.
I prefer my CGI in 3D(Toy Story, How To Train Your Dragon, Brave, etc) in 3D. Live-action movies, not so much. I think it is more pronounced in a movie done solely CGI than a live-action. The live-action 3D is really only pronounced in certain areas(a scene done in CGI, explosion or the little CGI bits mixed with the live-action.)
Over all, I would rather see a CGI in 3D and a live-action in 2D.

Re:Groupthink? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650349)

Well, most so called 'live action' films are so CGI-laden these days that very soon they might replace actors with CGI (that's why I actually prefer pure CGI films). And I agree that the impact of 3D in live action movies is much less, but it's still more interesting than plain old 2D movies.

Besides, it looks like 3D forces directors to pay attention to small details - a scratch on a wall has to have depth and you won't get away by simply painting it.

Re:Groupthink? (0)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650187)

Most people? Maybe most 13-19 year olds.

Re:Groupthink? (3, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650291)

No, this isn't groupthink. There's some of us who simply can't stand "3D" because it's a terrible technology that gives us splitting headaches and migraines. I just happen to be part of that crowd. Then again, the longer I watch it the close I move from headache to migraine, to: "Why am I on the floor and throwing up."

Great stuff.

Re:Groupthink? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650355)

We'll evolve past you, don't you worry. There were quite similar reactions in a lot of people for the first 2D movies. Maybe it takes some time to get used to 3D or maybe you need to start viewing 3D movies as a kid.

Re:Groupthink? (2)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650367)

In reality, 3D movies are getting better and better.

3D movies suck because they have to rely on the 3D gimmick to get anyone to come to them. Seriously, the only people I know who supposedly like 3D also shop at Walmart and think Golden Corral is fine dining. 3D movies (this time around, just like in the 30 years ago, and 15 years before that) are like velvet paintings, garden gnomes, and Elvis Pressley collectibles. Tacky to the max.

Toy Story 3 and Up were good 3D movies, but that's because the were good 2D movies to start with, and in both cases, you forget they are even in 3D.

There was a 3-D Hype Bubble? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40650121)

Guess I missed that. Next time I'll try not to blink.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?