I found 3D TV broke the experience. I'd get into a movie, then at some point into where the 3D effect would get shown off, and it would pull me out of the movie entirely. Perhaps that is more about poor usage of the technology than a problem fundamental to 3D TV.
For a while, it was really hard to go to the theater. Everything interesting was only in 3D. I didn't want to pay more for an experience I liked less than the previous status quo.
I have a 3d TV and it's really excellent. I think people have associated the annoying extra cost of 3d in cinemas, for not much benefit, with 3d on TVs. I don't know why. It's very immersive at home.
The only annoyance is that there aren't enough 3d films available. So I guess this will just cement that issue.
I have never bothered to use the 3d part of my tv and I have yet to enjoy a 3d movie at the theaters. I'm kinda surprised this fad has lasted this long.
There are several things that bother me with the current 3D craze.
First - and I'll admit this makes me biased - I'm blind in one eye. This means that it doesn't matter what technology they use, I'm not going to be able to see the movie in 3D.
Second, the only movie I tried to watch in 3D (in the last 10 years), was Coraline. It was a great film, but having to wear the glasses meant the film was very dark.
Third, I've yet to talk to anyone who didn't come out of the film without either a headache or at least a somewhat spacey feeling. The technology strains your eyes, and while I don't believe it causes any lasting damage, it still leaves you worn out after the film. Or maybe my friends and I are just too old.
Still, as far as I'm concerned, as long as you have to wear special glasses, 3D movies aren't likely to be considered a normal part of going to the movies.
Well, I love 3D movies but I've never been interested in a 3D TV, I think because watching movies in a theater and at home are very different experiences. If I always watched TV sitting up straight without leaving my seat, I'd probably buy a 3D TV.
I don't really understand how enjoyment is a moot point. Enjoyment is pretty much all that matters for a consumer entertainment product.
The main problem with 3D tv was the content. 3D really only works with bad movies like resident evil. You are not going to have need or want 3d in a movie that is an oscar contender.
3D has come and gone many times over the history of cinema, from the red/cyan glasses, the (Pulfrich) glasses with a single shaded lens, shuttered glasses and polarized screens.
While the image quality and frame rate have improved, there are still fundamental limitations on the technology. One common pushback is that some people will get headaches due to scanning the scene, trying to focus on objects at their false depths.
3D film is a pain, way more than double the work. So most 3D content actually was made 3D in post rather than filming with multiple cameras.
Still, the way you would frame a scene to be 'interesting' in 3D is different from how you would do so in 2D. This usually results in being able to 'tell' whether a movie you are watching was primarily made for one market or another.
VR adds something other than image quality - it adds the ability to be immersed in the content. However you still have the same issues:
- So far, we don't have consumer headsets that enable you to actually focus on the objects in the scene. For example, you can't hold a piece of paper up to your face to read the fine print.
- Trying to capture certain kinds of media is infeasibly expensive in VR, both from a post-production cost perspective and a data size expectation. Live action basically is too difficult.
The latest incarnation of 3D movies were in a sense a clever business maneuver - it created a premium tier of movie experience and got many theaters to start upgrading their older projection equipment and screens to newer digital alternatives.
For home use, 3D movies were weird because they didn't follow the traditional hype curve. A lot of early adoption was by families, where unfortunately the shutter glasses still tended to be too expensive for young hands. But that market has the same thing - manufacturers will eventually take technology and reduce it down to cost, so how can you compel people to buy the newest fancy screen where you still have a good margin?
Note several television manufacturers are now trying to proceed advertising and sales revenue, which is why smart TVs have now taken over - a 15-30% cut on a HBO Max subscription adds up to real money quickly over their typically poor margins on the sale of the set.
Where 3d movies failed is the complete and utter lack of streaming content. Content is king and the content remains locked behind paywalls. People owning actual 3D TVs were required to buy expensive movies. Meanwhile, netflix, amazon prime, youtube, etc. stayed (mostly) 2D because the intersection of people with the right hardware and the interest to pay for content was not a large enough market.
It's a problem of a lack of standardization and studios who have been producing 3D blockbuster movies jealously guarding their content to the point that the vast majority of 3D TV owners would have an extremely hard time getting their hands on it.
VR/AR has the same problem. Build it and they will come does not work. It's going to be an empty room with nothing interesting happening until somebody fixes the content side.
For something like the metaverse to work, basically it needs to be compelling and addictive. The novelty factor wears off quickly otherwise. Second life briefly had that but it was a bit too weird for a lot of people and also required a lot of patience, bandwidth, and was underwhelming from a technical point of view.
Speaking only for myself, there are two big reasons I never go to 3D shows anymore.
First is that the technology is just plain uncomfortable. The glasses feel bad, and my eyes hurt after a while.
Second is that filmmakers seem to have no clue how stereoscopic depth perception actually works. Objects only have perceptible parallax out to a couple dozen feet. Beyond that, depth is perceived purely by other means. But 3D movies keep applying parallax to objects much farther away. All this does is make them look closer and therefore smaller. The worst example I saw of this was an IMAX film at the Smithsonian about the development of the Boeing 777. There was a scene of a distant 777 in flight which popped the plane out of the screen. The result was that this 100-ton building-sized machine looked like a child's toy.
If the technology can be improved so it doesn't hurt, and if filmmakers can figure out how to use it without it looking utterly stupid, I'll give it another shot. Until then, I'm sticking with 2D.
About a third of the population, myself included, can't really watch 3d movies on flat screens (hardwired focus to crossing in the brain). Having all the marketing try very hard to shove into my face a feature that literally gives me a headache was a nuisance.
This was pushed more by the theatres (extra fees on the ticket price) then pulled by the customers who wanted it. I personally really dislike the 3D experience and always seek out 2D showings - and fortunately that's easier and easier to do. The 3D sequences were often randomly tacked on and not critical to the story, and the rest of the time you had to watch the movie through tinted shades. No thanks.
I wish everyone would have tried 3D on a home TV, because in my experience it's far more immersive and special than in a cinema. It's really disappointing to me that 3D TVs aren't being made anymore.
I agree. Three-dimensional movies just are not very good. Ticket sales are falling and 3D televisions have disappeared (I have one; the effect is just as good, and nausea-inducing, as the theater's, but like most people who own one I've used the feature for about 15 minutes).
I'm convinced 3d tv/movies only had that resurgence because movie theaters were using the '3d' (along with some other gimmicks') to raise the price of tickets.
I have yet to go to a 3D movie where I felt 3D really added to the experience. Avatar came close, and there were times when it was really cool, but there were also times when I turned my head or something didn't line up right and 3D took me out of the movie. Maybe a part of that is that right now the tech is immature, but I know that every time I've paid for 3D it's felt like a ripoff.
Ebert's point on focus really hits home for me. When you are watching a movie in 3D it feels like I should be able to focus my eyes anywhere I like, instead of accepting the focus the director has chosen in traditional movies. When I want to look at something in the background in a 3D movie, I expect to be able to focus on it. So either all 3D movies need to be filmed with really high depth of field, or 3D will always feel broken.
-Lack of 3D content
-Lack of 3D TV standards - which causes the previous problem.
-Increased cost
-Decreased 2D quality
-Extra equipment required for some implementations
If 3D TV had a single standard that content producers could use to create their 3D content, and if consumers could watch it on TVs that required no extra equipment, and if the vast majority of 2D content still looked good on 3D displays, AND if the cost is not prohibitive, then 3D TV will have a shot at thriving in the market. As it stands right now, I think the best application for 3D displays is in specialized research and design, and limited consumer experiences (Avatar, shows at Disneyland, etc.).
3D TVs were always a solution in search of problem. I've seen 3D movies before and it was always lackluster. I even have a 3D TV because that's all that was being sold when I bought mine, I never bought glasses for it or even cared to try it out.
AR is a whole other ballgame, it's a layer on top of reality whereas 3D was a super-niche format that could only be viewed with special glasses in front of a special screen. If you remove the need for the screen OR the glasses then you have something interesting and that's what AR is. If my TV could do 3D without glasses I might be slightly more interested in it.
It’s honestly just more trouble than it’s worth. I have a 3D TV (by relative accident) and I’ve never used the 3D functionality. Even going to the movie theater it was honestly never a big draw once I got over the novelty of it, which happened approximately 2/3 of the way through Avatar. That was almost the only content that was ever specifically made for the 3D format—a quickly forgotten, crappy science fiction movie that wasn’t even that much better in 3D compared to 2D.
VR might be another story, since VR content has a much more convincing 3D effect. But that entails pretty fundamental changes to cinematography, and requires the viewer to wear a massive headset that blocks out the real world; having some friends over for a movie night is virtually impossible.
My problem with 3D is simply that I find I can't disappear into the movie. I'm steadily aware of myself sitting and watching the 3D effects, which ruins the experience.
The same man who says games will never count as art. He's just scared the entertainment industry is changing.
I've watched literally dozens of 3D movies and have never once had any kind of side effect. I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for most people - they expect to feel something, so they do.
The brightness issue is exactly why 3D screens have higher powered projectors and more reflective screens. I saw a 3D film in the 1990s and that was dark; modern ones are not.
Strobing is a side effect of crappy framerates (24fps should not be acceptable for anything, ever), not 3D.
I'm not even going to bother with the focus 'issue' as so many people, me included, don't even experience it, but yes, it is resolvable.
As for immersion, meh, he can speak for himself, the most immersive experiences I've had were 3D, and the main immersion-breaker is other people moving around, making noises, eating, etc. What annoys me the most is badly done 3D movies though, as they look bad and ruin the overall perception. A movie made in native 3D will always look better than a postproduction kludge like Clash Of The Titans or most things Disney did. I also hate it when 3D is used an excuse for cheap effects like having things fly directly at the viewer or hover in front of them, as that ruins both the credibility of the quality of the effect and the seriousness of how it can be used.
When audio was added to movies, people said it ruined them; then colour; 3D is just the next step of that iteration.
For a while, it was really hard to go to the theater. Everything interesting was only in 3D. I didn't want to pay more for an experience I liked less than the previous status quo.
reply