×

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!

Movie Theaters Aim for Live 3D Sports

ScuttleMonkey posted about 8 years ago | from the maybe-try-movies-that-don't-suck dept.

150

teutonic_leech writes "ZDNet has an article claiming that movie theater operators plan to be screening live 3D sports events by 2007 in a bid to lure sports fans away from their home theater systems and bolster sagging mid-week ticket sales." From the article: "Other chains are looking to much-improved digital three-dimensional projection for an experience theatergoers can't get at home. But while the projection has greatly advanced from the early 3D days, special glasses must still be worn to achieve the full effect."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

150 comments

Stereoscopy? (2, Funny)

michaelhood (667393) | about 8 years ago | (#14993057)

Why hasn't "3D" technology advanced in the last 15 years?

It's severely lagging behind all the other technologies. Where are holograms?

Re:Stereoscopy? (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | about 8 years ago | (#14993099)

We have better 3D video cards, better holograms, and all kinds of great graphics research. I would say that the 3D technology has advanced greatly.

how can you keep them in the movie theater (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993264)

after they've seen YouTube.com? Wait'll 3d clips are shown on the internet. DUMP PARAMOUNT!

Re:Stereoscopy? (1)

hackstraw (262471) | about 8 years ago | (#14993457)

Why hasn't "3D" technology advanced in the last 15 years?

First, you had red/blue glasses.

Then there was passive linear polarized glasses.

Then active shutter glasses with linear polarized glasses.

Now, there are passive achromatic circularly polarized glasses.

Its brand new. Some info here: http://www.wipo.int/cgi-pct/guest/getbykey5?KEY=98 /44746.990304&ELEMENT_SET=DECL [wipo.int]

Holograms exist, but they suck in color reproduction and you can't move your head too much.

Beer? (4, Interesting)

TwilightXaos (860408) | about 8 years ago | (#14993062)

So they are actually going to be selling beer in the movie theater for sports?

The cinemas brought in vendors to stroll the aisles with hot dogs, peanuts and beer

Will the prices be the same as at the ball park?

If so, I would reckon that it won't be a big hit. The main reason I do not go to the movies is the price, and not just of the tickets. I would pay $8 or so a ticket if I could get a 42oz Coke for under $2 or so.

Re:Beer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993088)

Is there any reason why you can't buy a coke elsewhere and bring it with you?

Re:Beer? (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | about 8 years ago | (#14993094)

Yes. The sign at the theater not to bring in outside food or drink.

Re:Beer? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993167)

Yes. The sign at the theater not to bring in outside food or drink.

Are you serious? Wow, your country is even more screwed up than I thought. Here in Australia there was public outrage when the major cinema chains tried to implement a similar policy last year, and it was quickly reversed. I'm surprised the same thing didn't happen over there.

Re:Beer? (1)

StarvingSE (875139) | about 8 years ago | (#14993280)

I live in the US, and I have been bringing my own snacks to movie theaters for years. Obvious things too, like microwave popcorn in a plastic zip lock. No one has ever said anything to me about it. Maybe it depends on the theater.

Re:Beer? (1)

hjf (703092) | about 8 years ago | (#14993343)

I live in Argentina. People here mostly don't eat at the movie teather, or stadium, or while walking down the street or WHATEVER. We have breakfast, lunch, and dinner (some have a mid-morning snack and afternoon tea).

One wonders why americans are so obese and then you see how they can't have their mouths empty for 2 hours.

Re:Beer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993357)

yo momma can't keep her mouth empty for 2 hours

Re:Beer? (2, Insightful)

RajivSLK (398494) | about 8 years ago | (#14993107)

A little off topic but what the fuck do you need a 42oz coke for? Personally, I think the theatres are doing you a favour buddy. I'm guessing this is an american thing.. (are the seats wider too?)

Re:Beer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993142)

I don't know what they're like in other countries, but a lot of theatres in the United States have seats that must have been designed for children. Some have so little leg room that it's actually difficult to walk through them as your calf and knee will jam between the front of the seat and the back of the one in front.

You'd think it'd be the other way around given how fucking huge so many Americans are.

Re:Beer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993157)

Wider seats? Ha! The ones around here have armrests that fold up to be even with the backs, with padding on them, you can fold them all up and create a sort of bench.

Why do you need that much soda? Giant tubs of popcorn. I would also guess that yes, it is an american thing.

Re:Beer? (1)

Dachannien (617929) | about 8 years ago | (#14993308)

With those 42oz soft drinks, you'd think they'd have to install ballpark-style urinal troughs in the movie theater restrooms to handle all the traffic.

Re:Beer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993644)

With those 42oz soft drinks, you'd think they'd have to install ballpark-style urinal troughs in the movie theater restrooms to handle all the traffic.

What do you think you're supposed to do with the now-empty 42 oz. cup?

Re:Beer? (2, Funny)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 8 years ago | (#14993120)

So they are actually going to be selling beer in the movie theater for sports?

The cinemas brought in vendors to stroll the aisles with hot dogs, peanuts and beer

Will the prices be the same as at the ball park?


They shouldn't have to charge stadium prices for the concessions, since no studios will be taking away the majority of the theater's ticket sales, which is why the theaters usually charge those horrendous prices for snacks. That is where their earnings mostly come from.

Hopefully, the NFL and other sports associations will negotiate a truly fair agreement with the theater owners instead of following the studios' lead.

Re:Beer? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#14993274)

Please explain why one theatre in my city charges $5 for a movie, and the other charges $12. They both play the same movies, they are both owned by big corporations, and as far as I'm concerned the quality is about the same. The super-duper multiplex is the one charging high prices, while the one with only 3 screens charges less. I guess movies don't scale well.

Re:Beer? (1)

GundamFan (848341) | about 8 years ago | (#14993470)

That is actualy close to right.

The large theaters are in higher demand (more flexable show times, stadium seating maybe and it likely is newer) so they charge what ever the like... plus they have to prop up other less successfull members of the chain... aren't these big corporations wonderfull?

I could stand the exspensive conssesions (I don't eat in theaters) and the expensive tickets (I don't go to movies alone or very offten) what gets me is the 30 minutes or mor of comercials before the film (it uses to be local busnesses mostly) now it is all this mass produced corprate crap.

Re:Beer? (3, Insightful)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 8 years ago | (#14993268)

I would pay $8 or so a ticket if I could get a 42oz Coke for under $2 or so.

I see it as a good thing that theaters charge so much for food and drinks. They need to make money. If they make it from people paying absurd amounts for popcorn that means that my cost is subsidized.

Re:Beer? (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 8 years ago | (#14993369)

I see it as a good thing that theaters charge so much for food and drinks. They need to make money.
You can't necessarily make more money simply by charging more. People don't like getting ripped off, even the "stupid masses" we love to deride here on /.

Re:Beer? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#14993269)

I usually just bring in my own food. I haven't ever been told I couldn't and as long as you don't bring food that disrupts the other patrons (chips make lots of noise, bag and eating) I don't think they really care.

Where's my holodeck? (1)

michaelhood (667393) | about 8 years ago | (#14993064)

I was promised a holodeck [wikipedia.org] many, many years ago. What gives?

Obligatory Futurama reference (4, Funny)

n0dalus (807994) | about 8 years ago | (#14993132)

Kif: The Holoshed's on the fritz again -- the characters turned real!
Zapp: Damn! The last time that happened, I got slapped with three paternity suits!

Re:Where's my holodeck? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#14993276)

I was pretty sure star trek took place around the year 2400. If so, I think you have a while to wait for your holodeck. Cue the Trekkies correcting me on that date.

Re:Where's my holodeck? (1)

cptgrudge (177113) | about 8 years ago | (#14993692)

Of course, you could have just done a Google Search [google.com] to find that info. But, the act of actually doing a search to find an exact date perhaps would label one as a "Trekkie". Does that make me one? I hated Enterprise, if that helps. Except for T'Pol. She was HAWT [google.com].

Incidently, the first TNG episode was in the year 2363, according to one of those Google links. Holodecks were around sometime in the first season. So you were right, relatively speaking. It's still "a while to wait".

Re:Where's my holodeck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993337)

I watch in 3D by going to the stadium... Am I missing something?

Re:Where's my holodeck? (1)

c_forq (924234) | about 8 years ago | (#14993630)

Half of the season that consists of away games. Even more then that if your favorite team doesn't play in your state.

Re:Where's my holodeck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993373)

I was promised a holodeck many, many years ago. What gives?

How come The Next Generation never showed the poor enlisted guy who had to go mop up the holodeck after Commander Riker was done?

(Heh. The image word to submit this post is "stickier.")

Advancement Rates (1)

TimCeeteSmith (961812) | about 8 years ago | (#14993073)

Q: "Why hasn't 3D technology advanced in the past 15 years?" A: "It isn't marketable." Prediction: "Desperation does not improve the marketability of 3D technology." May the wind be always at your back, -TimCeeteSmith

Re:Advancement Rates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993263)

May your Return key never be used,

-Anonymous Coward

Good Idea (1)

shaedee (963455) | about 8 years ago | (#14993082)

Well i reckon it's a good idea, they could extend it out to other genres too
i reckon war doco's would be cool, but how cool would Nascar be... or V8 supercars for those of us down under

Psh, this will never work (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | about 8 years ago | (#14993085)

while the projection has greatly advanced from the early 3D days, special glasses must still be worn to achieve the full effect."
Glasses? Glasses are for nerds! Sports fans won't get on board with this until they make 3D contact lenses.

Re:Psh, this will never work (1)

KylePflug (898555) | about 8 years ago | (#14993148)

Wait a second, has anybody tried this? What if you just bought heavily tinted contacts? I am totally up for it :P

Re:Psh, this will never work (1)

Hakubi_Washu (594267) | about 8 years ago | (#14993266)

You're think red/green glasses which only allow a kind of black/white picture in 3D. State of the art are polarized glasses with left/right spirals, so you can have full color and change your viewing angle (unlike the early polarized glasses, which were linear and had you feel nauseous when you tilted you head a little). They could indeed be made into contacts, as far as I see, but they still have one of the major problems of polarized optics: They massively reduce the amount of light that reaches your eyes, so it's a bit like wearing shades all the time (The cinema can counter this be cranking up the projector, the real world however...)

Excuse me, wtf r u doin (-1)

mofomojo (810520) | about 8 years ago | (#14993087)

There's an article about live 3D projection here, which is apparently an awesome experience and a whole lotta "TL;DR".

Seriously, pics people, PICS: I don't want to be told about how great something looks and never actually see it.

God damn, the hypocracy of this site is ludicrous. I should choose these freaking stories, we'd only get two a day and they'd be fuck-mazing.

Re:Excuse me, wtf r u doin (0)

mofomojo (810520) | about 8 years ago | (#14993159)

Also, they would be Google.com and Digg.com, both seem to offer better and thorough reporting maybe I'm just trolling, maybe I'm just dropping flyers from a plane.

You decide.

watching sports in groups (4, Insightful)

mieses (309946) | about 8 years ago | (#14993100)

i can imagine watching ice capades this way (dark room, stadium seating) but not competitive sports.

how are you supposed to watch sport in a movie theatre? are you supposed to be loud? order drinks? heckle the other fans? get up to the bathroom, step on someone's toes and block their view? it seems very awkward, formal, and not very relaxing.

Re:watching sports in groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993212)

I do this all the time. I've a habitual user of immersive 3D sports technology. Actually a specific kind called a "Season Ticket Holder." If you're lucky, that's pretty much exactly what it'll be like.

Re:watching sports in groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993229)

i can imagine watching ice capades this way (dark room, stadium seating) but not competitive sports.

Yeah, I can't think of any type of competitive sport that would use something as stupid as stadium seating... :-/

Re:watching sports in groups (2, Informative)

rob colonna (72681) | about 8 years ago | (#14993377)

This has actually become very popular already in the Boston area, where Fenway Park sells out most of the Red Sox' season by February. While baseball is kind of a religion here, not everybody can fit in the church. Several local movie theaters show the local cable broadcasts on the big screens, sell concessions, and make it a fun time, from what i've heard. It's cheaper than tickets to the game, and moreover, for things like Red Sox-Yankees games, it's the closest most people can get. And yes, there is cheering, booing, heckling, etc. The local broadcasters like to have fun with the theater-goers by giving them marching orders to do 'the wave' and other things like that, and though nobody can see them, no one doubts that they're actually doing it. If it were in 3-d, i might consider it, but then again, i wait in line on a snowy december morning for tickets to the real thing.

Good idea but.... no. (4, Insightful)

DeadboltX (751907) | about 8 years ago | (#14993102)

The appeal to watch a sports game on a huge screen is very appealing.
The appeal to watch sports in 3d is nonexistant.

When people get together to watch a game they are always cheering booing, having fun, being noisy.. This is what you would find at a sports bar where it is acceptable.
I can't imagine this going over very well inside a theater where you are confined to your small seat.. the atmosphere is a lot different and I can see a lot of people getting annoyed at other people for being loud.

Re:Good idea but.... no. (1)

neonstz (79215) | about 8 years ago | (#14993140)

Think about how a 3D view from the cameras that move over the field in Football would look. That is one experience you can't get from watching the game live.

I saw the 1998 World Cup final... (3, Interesting)

CaptainPotato (191411) | about 8 years ago | (#14993158)

...at a cinema in St Kilda (Melbourne) at 4am with 400-500 other people. The atmosphere was absolutely fantastic. People were standing up, cheering, waving flags (no firecrackers or flares, at least). I'd definitely do it again. In fact, I did. I organised about six games to be shown live in the University cinema where I was working. Even though it wasn't brilliantly advertised, the cinema was pretty much full each time and people really enjoyed the group atmosphere and got into the swing of it.

Trust me, a sports telecast in a cinema is very different from seeing a normal film, at which people are expected to be quiet (unless it's a 1950s b-grade, I suppose). It's a lot more like being at a stadium than watching a television.

If I could go to a cinema on a Sunday night and see a live Formula One race (no waiting around for a delayed telecast), I'd be there every race.

Re:I saw the 1998 World Cup final... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#14993282)

Yeah, they do the same thing with WWF (I refuse to call it WWE) in Canada. I've never actually been to see WWF in theatre, but I imagine the crowd is quite loud and spirited. I would expect it to be. Just because it's in a cinema doesn't mean it has to be quiet. It just usually is that way, because a lot of movies are reliant on dialog, and missing out can make you lose the store. I don't imagine people cared very much if others were quiet during the silent movie era.

Someone has never been to see Rocky Horror! (1)

jpatters (883) | about 8 years ago | (#14993693)

In my experience, the limiting factor to how loud and obnoxious the audience gets is not the audience but the management. I once went to a showing of Rocky Horror that got shut down in the middle because the operators were worried about damage to the upholstery or something. Shutting off the film was, perhaps, the single worst thing they could do to protect the seats, though, since the crowd did get rather annoyed at being told to stay put until the police showed up. (I guess they figured the cops would have nothing better to do than grill a bunch of Rocky Horror fans to root out the one who set off the shaving cream bomb.) Fortunately, the multiple fire exits made that demand impractical.

If you want to make this work (4, Funny)

fred911 (83970) | about 8 years ago | (#14993103)

I've got 1 word

PORN

It built the net

Re:If you want to make this work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993112)

Hmm, big bouncy and obviously fake titties eh?

Re:If you want to make this work (2, Funny)

mcon147 (960793) | about 8 years ago | (#14993236)

and where are you supposed to wank in a cinema?

Re:If you want to make this work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993238)

i would make a joke about the floors always being sticky in theaters, but thats kinda easy

Re:If you want to make this work (1)

kaufmanmoore (930593) | about 8 years ago | (#14993262)

Its been tried before, porn saved off the demise of the drive in theatre for a couple of years, but then a number of states passed laws that banned porno in theatres.

Re:If you want to make this work (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 8 years ago | (#14993346)

Live porn?

Re:If you want to make this work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993513)

Between 2 porn movies. We have this on the country that I live. But still, nobody go, and all those crapy theaters are closing.

Armchair button pushing is a sport? (1)

The Mgt (221650) | about 8 years ago | (#14993121)

in a bid to lure sports fans away from their home theater systems

Welcome to the Land of the Fat.

Where was this technology... (3, Funny)

blank_vlad (876519) | about 8 years ago | (#14993134)

...when Janet Jackson's boob flopped out at the Superbowl?

Re:Where was this technology... (1)

maxume (22995) | about 8 years ago | (#14993553)

It was working great, but they decided to hold off a few years until they had something to display that was worth looking at.

Auto Racing (1)

DAharon (937864) | about 8 years ago | (#14993147)

I would love to see this happen, just as long as they don't focus on only football/baseball/basketball. Formula 1, Champcar, WRC would be awesome in the theater. Especially because I can't see it on TV without paying $100+ a month (which is literally impossible for me). Unfortunately, I bet the only auto racing they show is NASCAR. */me spits on NASCAR's antiquated technology and boring tracks*

Re:Auto Racing (2, Insightful)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 8 years ago | (#14993187)

I would love to see this happen, just as long as they don't focus on only football/baseball/basketball.


Mmmmm... Katerina Witt or Michelle Kwan in 3D on the big screen... I'd be a regular theater patron for that.

Re:Auto Racing (1)

r00t (33219) | about 8 years ago | (#14993506)

Auto racing would be way more interesting if it involved all the cars that I would consider buying (100% stock), ran them on a difficult track (ice, potholes, speed bumps, gravel, greasy spots, grooved pavement, hills, sideways slopes, metal plates...), loaded them up with crash dummies and luggage, and factored selling price into the scores. If an automaker won't participate, punish them: buy the car and let some random person drive it.

3d video games (3, Insightful)

Statecraftsman (718862) | about 8 years ago | (#14993161)

They've got the 3d part right but it's not 20th century sports we want to watch. It's 21st century video games. I would seriously love to go watch Counterstrike or Doom3 in a theater in 3d. The games don't have to be played live but if they wanted to go the extra mile, there's a lot of potential. For example, supply wireless controllers, create games that use them cleverly and the theater could turn into an amazing 3d interactive environment.

video in stereo (2, Interesting)

thedletterman (926787) | about 8 years ago | (#14993180)

I've been a long-time proponent, that HD wasn't the next logical step in video, but stereo vision. Our eyes use 2D with lighting coming from different angles at two receptors to build three dimensional images using our mind. We don't truly see in 3D. Portble movie players like the video ipod will not take off with a 2" screen... but with a special pair of glasses that use a 1/4" lcd projection onto the lenses to create a 3D stereo effect with the device(s) connected via bluetooth broadcast... now we are taking advantage of technology. Super-low power consumption, 3d video, share the experience with your friends... it's how portable video was meant to be. Add a charging pad similar to many digital cameras for the glasses.. no wires.. you've got the ipod video killer. Now if only i could patent a stereo-video encoding format...

Re:video in stereo (1)

zalas (682627) | about 8 years ago | (#14993259)

Better yet, store video as a sequence of light fields [stanford.edu], and then project the field using an array of projectors onto a diffuse screen with microlenses to create an auto-stereoscopic display. (Sorry, I can't remember off the top of my head which site had the info about the microlens diffuse screen projection) I've also seen a demonstration where one places a microlens sheet over a specially generated image to create a nice "stereo" view, much like holograms but in full color.

Re:video in stereo - I'm not so sure it's good. (1)

MickLinux (579158) | about 8 years ago | (#14993325)

I was just to a 3D Imax. They use perpendicularly oriented polarized lenses, and I assume polarized metallic strips on the screen, with active projector targeting.

That's all very nice, and very immersive. However, there was something a bit disquieting about it for my vision -- as if my retina had to be out of sync with my focus (which indeed is the case).

I'm not sure that's a bad thing -- maybe it would help my nearsightedness, or maybe not. But I can say it bothered me just slightly, and my 1.5-year-old son prefered no glasses (though I held them on him) for half the show, and then simply ignored the screen for the second half of the show.

This Is True. (5, Interesting)

CheeseburgerBlue (553720) | about 8 years ago | (#14993226)

A company I was contracting for flew me down to L.A. two summers ago to pick the minds of Hollywood 3-D talent before engaging in the production of a complex 3-D corporate production up here in Canada.

(The experts I talked to were mostly Canadians themselves. L.A. seems to have more Canadians than Canada.)

At any rate, that's when I heard all about James Cameron's new manga-derived massively budgeted 3-D feature ("Battle Angel", if memory serves), George Lucas' plans to 3-D invigoroate all six of his Star Wars picturers, and learned that Fox has been recording Superbowls and other big, big sporting events in 3-D for a couple of years now, in order to create a library of games for 3-D viewing.

The company I consulted had even developed a high-definition 3-D Steadicam-like unit, and I got to see the test footage they'd shot at a recent football match. The cameraman could literally wander right into the field, with somebody tapping his shoulder whenever he needed to get out of the way of play.

To repeat a 3-D cliche, IT WAS LIKE YOU WERE ACTUALLY THERE, ON THE FIELD.

I have no interest in sports but it was obvious that someone who was into sports would definitely think it was the coolest thing they'd ever seen.

Re:This Is True. (1)

MickLinux (579158) | about 8 years ago | (#14993330)

So now instead of chunking rocks towards the viewer to keep him engaged, you get an upclose shot at a lineman coming up from a surprising direction -- the hit -- the sky -- then switching to another cameraman as they discuss the unexpected development...

Re:This Is True. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993667)

Cameron has had the rights to gunnm/battle angel for so long now. I hope the 3d thing pulls through and he actually does something with it. Ive been a fan battle angel for 10~ish years, and Ive been waiting on this movie for what seems like forever.

Now there is a rumor that it may be the most expensive movie since waterworld.

2009 they say. 2009. I'll want to see that.

The 3D I see at Disney doesn't do fast motion (3, Interesting)

ScrewTivo (458228) | about 8 years ago | (#14993316)

well. With sports isn't that the idea? It is truly awesome, you see everybody reaching from their seats to grab items that appear right in front of their eyes, but when the motion gets to fast then it gets blurry. It happens even at their newest 3D movie Mickey's PhilharMagic. All the parks have a 3D movie and I enjoy seeing them over and over because the effects are so awesome and the air conditioning is great!

I thought they needed special theaters to show these movies but the family just saw Chicken Little in 3D at a regular theater. It is impressive. The glasses are just polarized lenses at 90 degree offset.

I don't know if this is the system they are talking about here, but Disney is typically on the cutting edge of this stuff and they have been doing 3D for years. Kodak sponsors the exhibits.

Visual overload (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | about 8 years ago | (#14993360)

I dunno, I think we're all getting so visually overloaded. It's enough looking at computer and TV screens. Most 3D technologies also cause extra brain-strain trying to perceive a virtual object as "real" or solid. I don't think we're going to get enough resolution and solidity to get around this problem any time soon.

2D screens also suffer from this problem, but to a lesser degree, because there is another layer of abstraction there. We aren't trying to trick ourselves into thinking it's real - we just go to watch a show. I'd prefer to spend more time looking at natural objects, anyway. Mmmmm. Boobies.

Re:Visual overload (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993397)

"Most 3D technologies also cause extra brain-strain trying to perceive a virtual object"

Brain-strain is not a real phenomenon. I'm not even sure what you're talking about. The only people I've heard talking about an experience of brain-strain were describing the anxiety they felt over having trouble comprehending a concept.

Re:Visual overload (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 8 years ago | (#14993557)

Brain-strain is not a real phenomenon. I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

You mustn't have much experience with virtual 3D images, stereoscopy and similar technologies, then. I was actually a stereoscopy enthusiast, and have made them and seen many examples, over many years. Even the best photographic stereocopic images, with a viewer specifically adjusted for the individual, require some strain to coalesce the images. It can look fantastic, but it's never quite "real." Even with 2D computer and TV displays, your brain has to work to fill in the gaps between the pixels. But you are still looking at a 2D surface, at some distance, and you are not trying to fool yourself into thinking it's real. people still get eyestrain. With a virtual image, you are focusing on an image that doesn't really "exist" as such.

People are impressed by the novelty, but they aren't really interested in seeing it all the time. This will take a long time to overcome. Even if it did get nearly "real" - that's not what people want, either. Look at art, at film. Most viewers don't go to art galleries to see photorealistic images. Even in photography and film, the most celebrated work involves interesting camera angles, and abstraction. It's not about realism, it's about emotion, creativity, entertainment, telling a story. When people look at porn, most don't want a gynaeocological, medically accurate picture of genitalia. They want eroticism. Sport is about the battle, the heroism and the camaraderie, not the pixels or realism.

Whether you look at it on a technological level, a philosophical, artistic or entertainment level, 3D just isn't ready yet. Almost all breakthroughs in media begin with some sort of artistic or philosophical underpinning. The technology alone is not enough.

But purely technically - our best supercomputers cannot even come close to simulating reality. Nobody with experience in the real world is tricked into believing that 3D or high resolution images are real.

Re:Visual overload (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 8 years ago | (#14993496)

Right, because it takes the brain more effort to put together a 3D image from two eye image sources than a 3D image from two eye image sources.

IE, reality or special glasses.

Re:Visual overload (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 8 years ago | (#14993569)

Right, because it takes the brain more effort to put together a 3D image from two eye image sources than a 3D image from two eye image sources. IE, reality or special glasses.

That is correct. It is very different. Physical objects are much easier for your brain to process than virtual images. That's not even taking into consideration resolution limits - or a big one for theaters - different viewpoints. A stereoscopic image only truly works from one vantage point. A theater, by necessity, has many different seats, with widely different perspectives. It just won't work for everyone.

Will it be like Walt Disney World? (2, Funny)

Jim in Buffalo (939861) | about 8 years ago | (#14993378)

At the 3D attractions at Walt Disney World, like "Honey I Shrunk the Audience," and that Muppets one and the Bug's Life one and the other one with Donald Duck, there are smells put out and wind generated to enhance the experience, along with the occasional spray of water or cascade of bubbles. Maybe they should do that with the sporting events.

Some of us can't see it... (1)

RoloDMonkey (605266) | about 8 years ago | (#14993386)

It is surprising to most people, but some of us can't see 3D illusions. I remember watching some horror movie (Friday th 13th or Nightmare, I don't rember which) in 3D in the theater, everyone was screaming, and I asked my date, "Do you really see things coming out of the screen?" She said, "Yes." All that was happening to me was that I was getting nauseous. Later, the same thing happened in one of those curved IMAX theaters that are supposed to "feel" 3D. I ended up having to close my eyes or get sick. My father has the same problem.

It's funny, because I have perfectly normal depth perception, and I don't normally get motion sickness. I love sailing, and perception-dependent sports like dogeball, volleyball, skiing, and driving. A good percent of people have this problem, and our brains cope with the missing perception with other visual cues. We just can't see most 3D illusions.

Video killed the radio star. (1)

CCFreak2K (930973) | about 8 years ago | (#14993391)

Sure, it sounds neat: watch things in 3D at the movie theater (or "cinema," I guess). But, the question is: how long until something like this gets ported to the home sector? Someone won't want to pay $10 to get into the theater, and companies like DirecTV (not necessarily DirecTV) will pay the companies that run the 3D cameras to upload the stream to their feeds, and offer the package to home users. I guess the best way to gauge that is to look at Pay-Per-View vs. box offices.

Re:Video killed the radio star. (1)

Mattwolf7 (633112) | about 8 years ago | (#14993441)

No, there is a specific advantage to going to a theater and rooting on your team, the environment that you create with other fans cannot be duplicated with PPV. That is was is going to sell here, not 3D...

Theater + Sports = Lame (2, Insightful)

joel8x (324102) | about 8 years ago | (#14993394)

-Will they allow you to drink beer and eat wings? Probably not

-Will they let you pause the DVR so you can take a phone call or take a piss? Definitely not

-Will you be allowed to scream obscenities at the top of your lungs when you team screws up? Most likely not

Sports viewing in public belongs in Bars. A movie theater seems like a lousy place to watch a game.

No beer no background noise (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 8 years ago | (#14993483)

And make sure you squawk and cluck and complain if the person next to you dares talk on the phone.

Paying to watch commercials? oh yeah.

Futile... (1)

Darth Maul (19860) | about 8 years ago | (#14993500)

When I read stories like this one, and the one about theater wanting to move to digital projection, I just can't help of thinking of someone rearranging deck chairs on some large cruise ship that was built a while ago. I'm pretty sure it met a rather depressing fate..

/theater is dead
//it's not dead because of the lack of "technology"

I can do this now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993501)

I can watch live, 3D sports right now, without any special glasses. I just go to the local football stadium.

This wont happen... (1)

taubman (61645) | about 8 years ago | (#14993527)

Not by 2007, anyway. I build mobile production trucks for a leading vendor to the networks. 99% of our business is sports broadcasting. I can tell you without any hesitation that 3D is not even on our radar. Its not on our vendors radar. Given the economics of the business, if we arent planning for it, it isnt going to happen. We're only just now getting HD done correctly. If 3D happens, its a LONG way off.

JT

The tech behind the 3D (0)

autophile (640621) | about 8 years ago | (#14993542)

In order to provide realistic, immersive, full 3D imaging, they first direct you to an imaging building specially equipped for the projection of realistic 3D images. In the building, you are assigned a seat. The seats are placed around the projection area in a rough oval, with seats closer to the projection being more expensive.

Prior to the show, the projection area is filled in with green, looking somewhat similar to a green screen.

Special projectors on the sides of the screen project the players entering the field, one by one, and finally the game commences.

During the game, the new "physical/virtual object interface" is turned on. This allows audience members to throw things like cups and popcorn into the projection screen, where they actually appear in the game! Likewise, occasionally the audience is thrilled when a virtual object such as a baseball is thrown out of the projection screen and into the audience. The lucky audience member catching the ball can either keep it, or throw it back, where it re-appears seamlessly in the game.

Due to the expense of these imaging buildings, there will generally be only a few built per major city, and it is expected that traffic during showings will increase in the general area.

--Rob

DUI Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#14993639)

People at home-guys, guys with families and owned houses who have extensive home theater-do NOT want to go out to bars or cinemas because of DUI laws and the dangers associated with drinking to watch a game on the weekend. And watching your favorite team for most people is enjoyable with drinking, and past one drink you are at risk. Guys want to sit around on their couch and run out to the backyard and flip steaks on the grill and etc.

I am generally speaking, I am sure there are anecdotal exceptions to the rule so that isn't needed to be commented on, I'll concede that.

They'll get customers for 3-d sports, but they will be more younger single guys living in apartments who need to go to bars or these cinemas to "socialize". And if they don't offer booze at the 3-d games, I doubt they'll get a lot of business. This tech is in competition with sports bars, not home theater systems and family guys.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...