3D TV JUST HYPE?

[techristian]

Have you noticed the new 3D TVs? They all need special glasses. So why do you even need a physical TV screen? You could have the 3D image on the inside of your glasses and it could look like a virtual 100" screen if you want ! This has already been done.

 

That's just my thoughts.

 

Dan

[rasputin1963]

At the bottom of it, it's a pure moneymaking gimmick and gambit, and i don't think serious media consumers are going to want to wear glasses or see serious subjects treated in 3D... not for very long, that is.

 

The novelty wears off quickly in 3D.

 

YMMV.

[MikeRivers]

The automobile is just hype. Let's go back to the horse and buggy.

 

The thing about the 3D TV glasses is that there are different systems and the hardware isn't cross-compatible. You can't take your 3D glasses over to your buddy's house to watch the game together if you have different TV sets. This is one of the things that will be addressed at the NAB show coming up in a couple of weeks.

 

Sure, it'll catch on. Haven't cell phones that are are more than phones? Hasn't surround sound? I doubt that anyone but game players will go for the system with no screen, just glasses, but one of these days someone will come up with a scheme with lasers and holograms that doesn't require glasses and only costs $100. But you'll probably have to subscribe to something expensive in order to make it work. That's the ultimate business goal.

[Alndln2]

Will they have perscription 3-D Glasses?

[blue2blue]

 

The automobile is just hype. Let's go back to the horse and buggy. The thing about the 3D TV glasses is that there are different systems and the hardware isn't cross-compatible. You can't take your 3D glasses over to your buddy's house to watch the game together if you have different TV sets. This is one of the things that will be addressed at the NAB show coming up in a couple of weeks. Sure, it'll catch on. Haven't cell phones that are are more than phones? Hasn't surround sound? I doubt that anyone but game players will go for the system with no screen, just glasses, but one of these days someone will come up with a scheme with lasers and holograms that doesn't require glasses and only costs $100. But you'll probably have to subscribe to something expensive in order to make it work. That's the ultimate business goal.

 

3D movies have been around well over a 100 years.

 

They're irritating and annoying to watch and distract from storytelling.

 

They're reappeared in flurries as different technologies have come up but usually go away quickly.

 

The new "smart" glasses appear to have caused less complaints but are still uncomfortable for many and all but impossible for some, from what I've heard.

 

 

I'm not sure, at all, what the adoption of cell phone technology has to do with it. If we're just talking about adopted technologies -- more are cast aside than adopted.

 

There are some that will buy anything new and hyped (but they'll be busy trying to figure out what to do with their new iPad and then moreseo with the next new iPad they have to buy six months later when there's a new model that has some hot new feature withheld in the initial release). The rest of us will probably go see a few weekend blockbusters and resume normal life.

 

I could be wrong, but this smacks of the latest quadrophonic sound...

[CME]

FWIW I won't be adopting 3D anytime soon. I'm mostly blind in my left eye. I don't see 3D in real life lol. So to me Avatar was a typical movie that looked kinda dark due to having to wear the glasses. I know I'm in the minority here but just saying not everyone will adopt 3D.

[techristian]

 

The rest of us will probably go see a few weekend blockbusters and resume normal life. .

 

 

Right! I saw Avatar and CLASH OF THE TITANS also looks interesting, but to have a pair of 3D glasses glued to my head at home doesn't make sense to me.

 

"release the kraken"

 

Dan

[Will Chen]

I love 3D movies. However, 3D imaging without the use of glasses is right around the corner...

 

http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/7202929/18764408

[blue2blue]

I should probably have explicitly added an IMHO back there... but it's probably pretty obvious I was speaking for myself, I suspect.

 

 

I suppose it shouldn't be too suprising that someone is 'remaking' the 1981 Clash of the Titans.

 

I guess... Ray Harryhausen was responsible for some utterly brilliant special FX but, well, I thought CotT really, really sucked eggs both on the technical level and particularly as a story and movie. (Who TF came up with the brilliant idea of casting beef-and-cheesecake personalities Harry Hamlin and Ursula Andress in the supposedly 'toney' mythic retelling? [They joined real actors Maggie Smith, Claire Bloom, and Laurence Olivier, among others.])

 

 

I'm sure the remake will be spectacular.

 

[yawn]

[blue2blue]

 

I love 3D movies. However, 3D imaging without the use of glasses is right around the corner... http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/7202929/18764408

 

But, of course, that's not 3D stereoscopic presentation, it's just a form of 3D-in-2D animation wedded in realtime to the accelerometer in the game unit to allow tilting the unit to generate different views.

 

The iPhone has had similar applets, like the "3D" dice app... whose animation subject (a pair of dice rolling on a felt 'tabletop) is less ambitious but also much more satisfyingly (quasi-)photorealistic.

 

I've heard such apps referred to as virtual Faberg

[MikeRivers]

3D movies have been around well over a 100 years. They're irritating and annoying to watch and distract from storytelling. They're reappeared in flurries as different technologies have come up but usually go away quickly.

The ones that came out when I was a teen ager were all horror movies. They were annoying to watch even before 3D and there wasn't much story, but the effects were . . . effective. I saw a couple. I think House of Wax was one. And then there was The Stewardesses.

 

But now there are 3D animation films that are just the ticket for the kiddies, who think wearing the glasses is cool. The Disney organization knows how to turn technology into a money maker.

The new "smart" glasses appear to have caused less complaints but are still uncomfortable for many and all but impossible for some, from what I've heard.

They don't work well if you already wear glasses.

I'm not sure, at all, what the adoption of cell phone technology has to do with it. If we're just talking about adopted technologies -- more are cast aside than adopted.

But that's not the case with cell phones. It's something that nobody thought we needed or even wanted - after all, who wants to feel at least somewhat obligated to answer the phone all the time - yet now even I have one (but it's in my pocket waiting for when I need to make a call, like to 911 if I get hit by a bus.

There are some that will buy anything new and hyped

Right - and they spent a lot of money.

I could be wrong, but this smacks of the latest quadrophonic sound ...

That was just at the wrong time and didn't have enough applications. Today people even have surround sound on their computers. It took movies or video productions to sell it, however. It doesn't impress most people who are concerned only with sound.

[Will Chen]

 

But, of course, that's not 3D stereoscopic presentation, it's just a form of 3D-in-2D animation wedded in realtime to the accelerometer in the game unit to allow tilting the unit to generate different views.   The iPhone has had similar applets, like the "3D" dice app... whose animation subject (a pair of dice rolling on a felt 'tabletop) is less ambitious but also much more satisfyingly ( quasi- ) photorealistic.   I've heard such apps referred to as virtual Faberg

[UstadKhanAli]

)

 

I know this doesn't necessarily make for great movie-making, but I'll cut 'em slack for Ursula Andress, if only for "Dr. No."

 

[Ed A.]

3D TV is to video what quadraphonic sound was to audio.

A gimmick.

[Coaster]

http://www.wipeout44.com/video/3d/real_3d_wii.asp

 

WOW! THAT WAS COOL!!! EVERYONE WATCH THIS!!!!!

 

ME WANTEE!!!!!!

[elsongs]

Here's what will end The Recession once and for all:

 

 

3-D PORN.

 

 

You're welcome.

[nat whilk II]

I don't see any point or even common sense in writing off an undeveloped/developing technology as a sure-fire dead end. I mean who knows??

 

Avatar, at least to me (and a lot of other voices I've heard/read) took the combo of CGI and 3D to a new level. It's not an increase simply in wow-power, but in subtleties more than anything. A refinement. A window into things to come.

 

Personally, my prediction FWIW is that 3D will eventually become the new norm. It is taking a lot of time for both the technology and the artistic use of it to coalesce into something that is an obvious advance and not just a gimmick. Can't argue with that. But it just keeps creeping along the upgrade path.

 

Early wax records sounded like crap. Early stereo was implemented crudely. Early color was unrealistic. Early widescreen was a gimmick. Early digital sound was harsh. The majority of these sorts of innovations are surrounded by crowds of contemptuous (and unimaginative) critics UNTIL.....

 

nat whilk ii

[blue2blue]

 

I don't see any point or even common sense in writing off an undeveloped/developing technology as a sure-fire dead end. I mean who knows?? Avatar, at least to me (and a lot of other voices I've heard/read) took the combo of CGI and 3D to a new level. It's not an increase simply in wow-power, but in subtleties more than anything. A refinement. A window into things to come. Personally, my prediction FWIW is that 3D will eventually become the new norm. It is taking a lot of time for both the technology and the artistic use of it to coalesce into something that is an obvious advance and not just a gimmick. Can't argue with that. But it just keeps creeping along the upgrade path. Early wax records sounded like crap. Early stereo was implemented crudely. Early color was unrealistic. Early widescreen was a gimmick. Early digital sound was harsh. The majority of these sorts of innovations are surrounded by crowds of contemptuous (and unimaginative) critics UNTIL..... nat whilk ii

I have not written off 3D. I believe that a time may come when they can make a 3D movie that I will actually enjoy.

 

Haven't seen Avatar in the theater. Was not impressed with the body animation of the CGI humanoid puppets. But I thought the faces were the best yet. Of course, it's easier if you're doing a humanoid face rather than one that's actually supposed to look like a real human. But, yeah, CGI is coming along fairly well.

 

I think the increasing prevalence and power of virtual set design is going to make some very interesting story telling possible.

 

I predict a renaissance of historical drama and adventure as more and more elaborate virtual backlots become possible. Sci fi and fantasy stuff is relatively easy to get away with -- because there are no real rules about how you have to make things look.

 

But historical film making presents some interesting challenges to the virtual set and model makers since folks already have an idea about how things are supposed to look. (That said, how many members of our mainstream culture have any real idea? Probably a tiny handful. Most folks are clearly as willfully ignorant as they can get away with.)

[rasputin1963]

 

Here's what will end The Recession once and for all: 3-D PORN. You're welcome.

 

 

 

 

I've watched some. Albeit in red+cyan anaglyph.

 

 

Pss-sst! Do you own some 3D glasses (red + cyan)? Wanna watch some 3D porn? Okay, go download this via Torrent:

 

http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/56267909/kama+sutra+3d?tab=summary

[rasputin1963]

Interestingly, I saw two hardly-known (or lesser-known) animations which were presented in 3D

 

FLY ME TO THE MOON

 

and

 

CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS

 

 

These two not-Disney "cartoons" demonstrated much more amazing, spacious, convincing 3D effects than did ALICE in IMAX for me. Just sayin'.

 

 

After having asked around to lotsa people, i am now convinced that the showing of ALICE I recently saw in IMAX, was exhibited under poorly-prepared technical settings. Somebody had their head up their ass, basically, and no Hollywood eggheads were around to ensure that the technical requirements of this film--- and I'm sure a number of rigorous specifications exist---- were met.

 

As I wrote earlier, all of us can remember a time when, if a cinema movie was out-of-focus or if the sound was too quiet-- some Dudley Do-Right in the audience would leap up and chase down the projectionist. Why drop $20, then sit through a movie that isn't being shown right?

 

Now there is a discomfiting "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome: the audio and the image can be dramatically {censored}ty, but no-one in the audience would dream of saying anything to anybody (especially in Bum{censored} San Antonio, where culture is always an epiphenomenon) because they just assume that this is a fancy new technology that they shouldn't, couldn't question.

[blue2blue]

These two not-Disney "cartoons" demonstrated much more amazing, spacious, convincing 3D effects than did ALICE in IMAX for me. Just sayin'. After having asked around to lotsa people, i am now convinced that the showing of ALICE I recently saw in IMAX, was exhibited under poorly-prepared technical settings. Somebody had their head up their ass, basically, and no Hollywood eggheads were around to ensure that the technical requirements of this film--- and I'm sure a number of rigorous specifications exist---- were met. As I wrote earlier, all of us can remember a time when, if a cinema movie was out-of-focus or if the sound was too quiet-- some Dudley Do-Right in the audience would leap up and chase down the projectionist. Why drop $20, then sit through a movie that isn't being shown right? Now there is a discomfiting "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome: the audio and the image can be dramatically {censored}ty, but no-one in the audience would dream of saying anything to anybody (especially in Bum{censored} San Antonio, where culture is always an epiphenomenon) because they just assume that this is a fancy new technology that they shouldn't, couldn't question.

Dude... look at how many people spend $3K to get a huge TV that then shows the wrong aspect ratio most of the time because they can't be bothered to figure out how to change the settings.

 

You expect too much of people.

 

 

[Will Chen]

Dude... look at how many people spend $3K to get a huge TV that then shows the wrong aspect ratio most of the time because they can't be bothered to figure out how to change the settings. You expect too much of people.

 

A bunch of people I know got HD TVs before "the switch" and then stretched their broadcasts to fit the TV. Drove me absolutely crazy!

[nat whilk II]

 

As I wrote earlier, all of us can remember a time when, if a cinema movie was out-of-focus or if the sound was too quiet-- some Dudley Do-Right in the audience would leap up and chase down the projectionist. Why drop $20, then sit through a movie that isn't being shown right? Now there is a discomfiting "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome: the audio and the image can be dramatically {censored}ty, but no-one in the audience would dream of saying anything to anybody (especially in Bum{censored} San Antonio, where culture is always an epiphenomenon) because they just assume that this is a fancy new technology that they shouldn't, couldn't question.

 

 

I've noticed that passivity in many many contexts, and it is particularly evident in people under 35 or so.

 

Seems to me that, over the last two decades or so, there has grown up a terrific social taboo against making a scene or over-reacting or otherwise standing out and being an embarrassment in public contexts, even when justified by an occassion.

 

Ever noticed how much modern TV comedy is premised on the absurdity of over-reacting, of getting all worked up about trivialities?

 

George and his family on Seinfeld

The Office

Curb Your Enthusiasm

Parks and Recreation

 

It's not a brand-new premise (think Barney Fife or Ralph Kramden), but the newer comedies work up the intense social discomfort aspect of making a fuss rather than a classic neurotic, lovable buffoon type from earlier eras. Maybe people in the USA have slowly become more British in this way, while the British have become more brashly "American" -

 

Just some musing..

 

nat whilk ii

[rasputin1963]

I've noticed that passivity in many many contexts, and it is particularly evident in people under 35 or so. Seems to me that, over the last two decades or so, there has grown up a terrific social taboo against making a scene or over-reacting or otherwise standing out and being an embarrassment in public contexts, even when justified by an occassion. Ever noticed how much modern TV comedy is premised on the absurdity of over-reacting, of getting all worked up about trivialities? George and his family on Seinfeld The Office Curb Your Enthusiasm Parks and Recreation It's not a brand-new premise (think Barney Fife or Ralph Kramden), but the newer comedies work up the intense social discomfort aspect of making a fuss rather than a classic neurotic, lovable buffoon type from earlier eras. Maybe people in the USA have slowly become more British in this way, while the British have become more brashly "American" - Just some musing.. nat whilk ii

 

Shrewd, brilliant observations, Nat. I think both Britain and the USA will soon be divided up into only two classes:

 

 

Those who don't think or get out much

 

vs.

 

Those who think and get out much

 

 

Don't look any further than your own hometown to see Orwell's 1984 writ large.

 

 

I loved living in Berkeley, California.... in which people would set up an outdoor demonstation protesting...something, ANYTHING.... at the drop of a hat. Dissent keeps a civilization healthy. I was thrilled beyond measure to find myself in the middle of the Oakland Rodney King riots... in which blue militia on horseback with batons and shields were summoned.

[rasputin1963]

most of the time because they can't be bothered to figure out how to change the settings. You expect too much of people.

 

 

I see that habit in a number of public places: at my ISP's office (who should know better: they sell CableTV), at the bank, at malls, in sports bars.....

 

Which begs the question: Why should a bank lobby, a doctor's waiting room and a Wal-Mart meat case have plasma TV broadcasts going?