Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays Build Hardware Technology

Has the 3-D Hype Bubble Finally Popped? 261

Posted by Soulskill
from the let's-hope-so dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Has the 3-D Hype Bubble Finally Popped?

Comments Filter:
  • Potential. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nospam007 (722110) * on Saturday July 14, 2012 @12:38PM (#40649249)

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

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:09PM (#40650391) Homepage

      Yep. I'm a "potential buyer" of a new Ferrari and a speedboat. There's just a few financial matters I need to sort out first.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I am an "Actual" buyer, having bought 3 TV's in the last 18 months (1 not for myself).

      1) Bedroom TV - 3D is no draw whatsoever. Neither me or the wife would wear 3-D glasses to bed
      2) Main TV - I splurged here, and got a top-line Plasma set. It does have 3-D, and we have 1 pair of glasses. Needless to say, we don't watch much 3-D content. I would have paid $100 or so to keep the 3-D, but if I could have saved $200 to skip it, I'm pretty sure I would have; my main draw would be 3-D games but I realized years

    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      Well considering theaters are looking at going to 4D [latimes.com], aka smell-o-vision and moving seat speakers because the 3D thing ain't selling well enough I'd say maybe, just maybe, the fad is dying out. And can i say "Thank the FSM" if it is? 3D movies and TV give me a headache, I'm sure that 3D gaming would probably do the same. my youngest intends to get the larger 3Dsi or whatever its called come XMas but only because some game series he's hooked on will only be for the 3D and I have a feeling once he's played it

      • by bryan1945 (301828)

        Did someone resurrect William Castle? (He was known for adding these types of things to his showings, such as at "The Tingler" the chair would vibrate to simulate an electrical shock.)

    • Re:Potential. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:23PM (#40650475)

      Given the type of products we're talking about, "actual buyers" are unlikely to be re-entering the market for a while. So why would manufacturers and retailers care about their opinions going forward?

      But speaking as an actual buyer of a 3D television set (LG 47LW5600), I can say I didn't care about 3D much. However LG reserved certain features only to the 3D set (at least at that time), and the price difference between the 3D and 2D equivalent versions was only about $60 - so I bought the 3D model. It also came with four sets of 3D glasses... that are still sitting, unopened, on the shelf.

    • Re:Potential. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Divebus (860563) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:41PM (#40650565)

      I'm not sure how many "potential buyers" there were to start with. In the TV/Movie business, it was the set manufacturers and Hollywood driving the whole thing, not customer demand. Set manufacturers needed to start selling everyone a new TV, even though they just bought one. Hollywood had a new gimmick to sell movies, which they've tried before and it didn't stick then either.

      A few years ago at the NAB convention, you almost couldn't walk into a booth without being handed 3D glasses. The technologies were quite complex, like simply adding titles to any production, you now had to worry about the Z-space of the title. Camera settings were nuts to get the correct stereoptic convergence. Data storage and plant bandwidth demands went up. Displays looked dull because you had those stupid sunglasses on. You couldn't use today's common production techniques with rapid shot changes, camera angles, closeups mixed with medium shots, things going on and off screen - your eyeballs would unscrew and fall out of your head within minutes. It was headache inducing and everyone knew it.

      Back in the 1950s when the first popular run of 3D movies happened, the production was very different - more like a relatively static camera shooting a stage where the actors performed. The only current content creators starting to use 3D were either trying to differentiate themselves or trying to not appear left behind.

      The last NAB convention was very different. It was clear that 3D was swept into the back corner. It's still around if you want it, but they're done. When it comes back again, the displays will need to be much better and not require glasses, nor will the glasses-free displays require you to stand still in one of the 18 lanes which give you proper stereoptic perception.

      • by Divebus (860563)

        Forgot to mention... in place of all the former 3D stuff in this year's NAB booths was a whole bunch of 4K displays and camera technology. The commentary from onlookers was "wow, it looks 3D". Problem solved.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14, 2012 @12:41PM (#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.

  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @12:41PM (#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.

    • by kasperd (592156) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @01:09PM (#40649517) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by descubes (35093)

        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 reall

        • by kasperd (592156)

          They are comfortable, not very expensive, work in the theater and double as sunglasses.

          I'm not so sure about the last part. The polarisation requirement for sunglasses is very different from the requirement for 3D glasses. Is it physically possible to make glasses, that can achieve both? I think the uncertainty principle would work against you. A pair of 3D glasses could be made to do everything a pair of sunglasses would do for you, except from blocking horizontal reflections. The page you link to says: "w

          • by descubes (35093)

            A representative of a manufacturer told me that their 3D glasses filter UV the same way and have the same effect on polarized light (e.g. minimizing reflections for driving), but are more lightweight and as a consequence more prone to scratching. So they don't pass EU tests for outdoor sunglasses on mechanical grounds, not anything related to vision. Also, unlike sunglasses, their objective is to let as much light through as possible. So they only filter UV but do not reduce light intensity nearly as much.

      • by he-sk (103163)

        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.

        Not gonna happen. There is a huge market for real glasses because people actually need them and thus they chose the pair they like and which fits them comfortably. There is no such market for 3D glasses because, wait for it, people don't actually need glasses to see in 3D.

        3D is a fad that has been around since there have been moving images, i.e. for over a hundred years. It comes and goes. The cinemas jump on it because it allows them to milk their patrons. It's a brilliant artistic choice for very few movi

      • by DrVomact (726065) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @09:23PM (#40652573) Journal

        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.

        Let me ask a more fundamental question: what would be the point of such a technology? I doubt whether this even qualifies as an item that should go on our wish list of "stuff I wish they would invent". Let's consider some of the possible uses for such a technology.

        I don't want to watch a drama in a fish tank. Think of Hamlet in your living room. (Let's just pretend we have a living room that would permit life-sized characters; a miniaturized Ophelia or King Claudius in a fish tank sized "screen" are too ridiculous on the face of it.) I suppose you could walk around and see the eponymous protagonist agonize from all angles. Maybe you could even walk between Hamlet and his father's ghost during that scene. Observe the theatrical fencing techniques in the fight scene from different angles. How much fun is that really going to be? After the first time. I suppose plays could be written that allow you to participate in them, but this has been done before (with real actors), and it's not much fun after the first time, either.

        What's true for plays is just as true for any dramatic entertainment—I don't understand how a movie would be better if it were shot in REAL 3D (in the OP's sense) as opposed to shown on a flat screen. It seems to me that seeing the action in a "fish tank" (no matter if it's a huge fish tank) would actually interfere with my ability to immerse myself in the action. (As, in fact, today's feeble 3D prevents immersion, at least in my case.)

        OK, how about games? There's more latitude here. Maybe a first-person shooter in a 3D environment would be cool. You and your friends could meet in each other's living rooms, with appropriate armor and armament superimposed by the software...hmm...this could be hard on the furniture as you throw yourself around to avoid incoming fire. Maybe you could play in special venues set up for this kind of thing. But wait, don't we have something like that already? It's called "Lasertag", I think. And if you have to travel to a special arena, how does the 3D thing help much? Hmm. There must be something I'm missing.

        It seems like the technology to project realistic 3D images anywhere you want to is bound to be useful. Literally hundreds of science fiction books tell us so. But caution should rule here—remember that before we all got cell phones, science fiction heroes were always rushing to the nearest "videophone booth" to make the call that would save the world. OK, if you look like Princess Leia, you could better use your feminine wiles to plead for the help of Obi Wan Kenobi if you could make a REAL 3D call. But other than that...do you really want to turn on your REAL 3D scanner so that you and your friend can appear to be mutually sitting in each other's living rooms having a conversation? When a simple phone call would do?

        I'm not saying there wouldn't be a use for REAL 3D, but it's not making movies or phone calls. Maybe it would be nice for games, maybe a kind of game that hasn't been invented yet. But my imagination is not exactly coming up with lots of money making reasons for anyone to work on this technology. Of course, that's not the same as saying that there aren't any.

    • 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.

  • Hallelujah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Koyaanisqatsi (581196) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @12:48PM (#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.

    • "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 :)

    • by antdude (79039)

      Ditto. 3D don't work with my old compound eyes. I'd rather have 2D IMAX/digital. :P

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14, 2012 @12:50PM (#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: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

    • by Immostlyharmless (1311531) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @02:20PM (#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.
      • by Beardydog (716221)
        Prometheus was fookin' gorgeous in 3D. I generally keep my weather eye open for tacky usage of 3D in movies, but Prometheus just felt like a normal movie that happened to be in 3D. It added a lot to the experience, for me.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • 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 plan

    • by pepty (1976012) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @02:48PM (#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.

      • by tloh (451585)

        Thanks for your insights. Of the many people I've asked so far, your response is the most practical from a "user's" perspective. I've been primed onto this trajectory of inquiry based on one suggestion that I ought to look to specific software packages in determining what hardware is supported. One well known tool from UCSF called "Chimera" does indeed have some relevant documentation.

        http://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/chimera/data/downloads/1.6.2/stereo.html [ucsf.edu]

        But those requirements are way too extravagant for a casu

    • by descubes (35093)

      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?

  • 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.

  • by SternisheFan (2529412) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @01:02PM (#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]
  • Duh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by multimediavt (965608) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @01:07PM (#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... (Score:4, Informative)

      by spire3661 (1038968) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @01:19PM (#40649609) Journal
      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"
    • by t0y (700664)
      Yeah, it's like saying 1378x768 is the preferred laptop resolution.
    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      >>>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.

      You know what I think is "silly"? People who are so unaware of the world around them. You see, when I attach my antenna to my TV I want to tune-in the local channels via the tuner. YOU would have it so I could not see anything... now that's silly. And stupid.

  • 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%.
    • 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.
  • by Osgeld (1900440) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @01:16PM (#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.

    • 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.)

      • by Knuckles (8964)

        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.

      • 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.

      • by Osgeld (1900440)

        no pirated content, DVD's and digital cable tyvm

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        >>> Copied, recompressed, ads and logos added, recompressed again

        That's not pirated content. That's cable and dish content which costs 70-90 a month. Considering pirate stuff is free, I don't care about quality (I d/l the smallest files), but when I am PAYING for something I expect it to look fantastic..... and cable/dish rarely does. Hell I get better quality HD off my antenna!

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

  • by Ostracus (1354233) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @01:21PM (#40649627) Journal

    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?

  • by DWMorse (1816016) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @01:22PM (#40649649) Homepage
    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.
    • by amiga3D (567632)

      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.

  • 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!

  • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @01:45PM (#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!
  • by Tommy Bologna (2431404) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @02:08PM (#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.

    • by pepty (1976012)

      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? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cyberax (705495) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @02:21PM (#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? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mashiki (184564) <mashiki@gmai l . c om> on Saturday July 14, 2012 @02:54PM (#40650291) Homepage

      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.

      • by Cyberax (705495)
        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.
    • 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 forge

    • by Misagon (1135)

      Many years ago I worked with stereoscopic imaging and shutter glasses when it was not so common.
      What I learned then, is that approximately one fifth of all humans (~20%) can not see 3D using 3D glasses. It is not that they don't want to, it is that they can't, no matter how hard they try.

      It is a physiological limitation due to a common natural variation within the human species.

      Not showing a movie in 2D is barring 20% of potential movie-goers from seeing the movie in cinemas. It is madness.

    • by bloodhawk (813939)

      And in fact most people actually prefer 3D over 2D movies.

      In what imaginary land did you find this fact. I think if ever there was a need for a citation you just found it, please provide. 3D is hated not because people are too cool, It is hated because it is psuedo 3D which causes a significant part of the population headaches and nausia, It is also hated as studios use it as an excuse to charge more for tickets, charge more for TV's and spend more time tacking on useless gimmicks to a movie rather than actually making a good story. Your "most people actually pref

      • by Cyberax (705495)
        Well, I have anecdotal data - here in Russia 3D movie theaters are almost always booked on the first days while 2D theaters are quite often free.

        http://boxofficequant.com/ [boxofficequant.com] has 3D statistics, the 3D revenue is growing and is about the same as for 2D films, even though 3D theaters are only a fraction of 2D theaters. The move to 3D is actually one of the smartest investments for film studios, it's hardly a 'continued struggle'.
    • by hkmwbz (531650)

      And in fact most people actually prefer 3D over 2D movies.

      So why are 3D sales sinking like a stone?

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

  • by Dwedit (232252) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:19PM (#40650463) Homepage

    How to kill adoption of home 3D display technology:

    * Make any movies that people want an "Exclusive" to a particular brand of Blue-Ray player. Want Avatar? You need to buy this brand. Want Shrek? You need to buy this brand.

    Yes, pulling shenanigans like this early on will kill a product. Just like an invite-only system that arbitrarily refuses people killed Google Plus.

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @03:28PM (#40650507) Homepage

    There simply are intrinsic problems with stereoscopic 3D. The first is that the point of the technology is to increase realism. When you are experiencing that increase realism, 3D enhances the experience.

    The problem is that because of the geometry of stereoscopy, 3D in a theatre only increases realism if you are sitting in a rather small sweet spot in the middle of the house; in a home, only if you're sitting on one properly placed piece of furniture. Sit farther back, and depth is exaggerated. Sit farther forward, and it's flattened. Sit to the size, and everything is skewed--cubes become rhomboids. Instead of being more realistic than flat cinema, it becomes less realistic.

    This Cabinet-of-Dr.-Caligari effect is novel and stimulating, but it is not realistic or story-enhancing. It's rather like the early days of color TV. Colored snow, and actors changing from purplish to greenish as they walk across the screen, have a gee-whiz appeal, but in the long haul it has to be accurate or it doesn't satisfy, and it can't be accurate if they want to fill a theatre.

    A second problem is that 3D doesn't really work unless the picture is so big that you are never looking close to the screen edges, where you get insoluble problems with binocular disparity if any object in the screen image is closer than the physical screen.

    The second is that you only get an increase in realism if the director and cinematographer throw out a century of screen grammar, and limit themselves to using lens of one focal length. And, the more realistic the basic process, the more jarring something as ordinary as a cut is. We've learned to take cuts from a long shot to a closeup in stride, but it's harder if the image is so realistic that every cut induces a sense of physical movement. The re-thinking of how to tell a story on the screen might be possible. After all, the introduction of sound posed similar problems in the early days. But adding sound meant adding a whole new sensory modality. 3D is really, at heart, just a better picture... just like Cinerama or 48 fps Showscan, neither of which had staying power despite being a breakthrough in realism.

  • There are TWO problems with today's 3D technology on TV sets.

    1) The biggest problem - lack of 3D films, especially within a reasonable price range. And lack of 3D compatible games.

    2) The 3D technology isn't really 3D, it's just a 2D illusion, technically you perceive it as 3d, but if you MOVE your HEAD from SIDE to SIDE - the weakness becomes apparant, you simply can't look around, nor past anything...so it's not really 3D. In other words, just yesteryear's "oh that was fun" fad...

    The most interesting 3D se

  • Killed any interest in it for me.

  • The problem with the 3DS is the main marketing gimmick was IT'S 3-D!!! GAMES IN 3-D ITS GONNA BE AWESOME!!! Well, its awesome for about... 5 minutes or so, then you just get a headache. But really, the 3DS isn't a bad console but will most likely sell fairly poorly because 3D is the main gimmick.

    Aside from battery life (which is better with recent firmware updates) there's nothing really bad about the 3DS. There's been a few good games that have come out, Super Mario 3D Land, Mario Kart 7, Tales of the
  • The Nintendo President's attitude might be the way to save 3D: it's a good effect to improve immersion, it's no big deal, you can turn it off if you want.

    That's the way it will become mainstream, not "YOU MUST BUY A NEW TV THIS YEAR!"

    There's certainly less of a push now. At E3 last year it seemed that you couldn't see a game without having to put on special glasses.
    This year, I was only reminded of 3D when I saw the Virtual Boy at the Videogame History Museum
  • Our local multiplex theater in Silicon Valley is running fewer screens in 3D. All their projectors are digital and 3D-capable. When the 3D boom started out, about 80% of showings were in 3D, with only 20% in 2D. Now it's about 50-50.

    There's a strong tendency in 3D movies to have a big "3D scene". These tend towards either roller coaster simulations or stuff coming at you. Both are boring after you've seen a few of them.

  • by cowtamer (311087) on Saturday July 14, 2012 @06:01PM (#40651339) Journal

    In true Slashdot fashion, might I humbly suggest the following:

    If you don't want a 3DTV, please do not purchase one!

    If you don't want to see a 3D movie, see the 2D version -- or get creative, obtain two 3D cinema glasses and fashion some "2D" ones for yourself that only show the left (or right) eye image to both eyes.

    Why is there this collective attitude of "OMG I HATE THIS TECHNOLOGY IT MUST DIE NOW"? Some of us have been waiting patiently for some of this tech to reach mass market maturity so that we can do cool stuff with it (3D gaming, head tracking, affordable multiple screen virtual reality, etc.).

    3D is not really the whole issue -- I fear that we now have a generation techies who completely lack imagination about anything beyond higher frame rates, the latest handheld gizmo, and the right to download music for free. (You also see this type of hate spewed on advances in space exploration by so-called 'nerds' ).

I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman

Working...