Newsletters
Facebook
RSS Feed
EH Store
That alone almost proves why television and movies will never fully “transition to 3D,” at least for the foreseeable future, but there are other factors. For viewers, it takes a conscious effort to watch something in 3D - putting on glasses, extra focus on your eyes, brain processing, etc. It’s hardly a sit back, veg out, and lose-yourself experience. Even the content itself is often a reminder you’re not a part of what you see in front of you, but a viewer wearing a pair of glasses to make things jump out of the screen.
On the production side, they’re learning that it takes effort to make something “good” in 3D. James Cameron did it, but it cost nearly half a billion dollars to do it right. Animation studios like Pixar and Dreamworks have done it repeatedly, but not only can they do it well for far less money, the viewing audience is much more open to a 3D interpretation of a cartoon world than the real one. After all, we don’t have anything to compare 3D in a cartoon to, but we view live action 3D every day.
I hope more and more we see studios end the last-minute 3D conversion process and get more selective about 3D theatrical releases, reserving 3D for those films actually made in 3D to begin with. Unfortunately, that’s doubtful given the premium in ticket sales.
I worry more about the quality of 3D television content when the networks really start experimenting in the format. Once it’s proven something in 3D can attract an audience more than that same program in 2D, prepare for a massive push of converted and poorly produced content to try and grab ratings. That may work for a short while, like how people are flocking to see some poorly made 3D films, but it will backfire eventually.
Reading above, it almost sounds like I don’t believe there are many quality experiences in 3D possible. Untrue. I believe there’s a bright future for 3D in movies (both live action and animated), games and sports, in particular, as well as some kinds of television content. However, I don’t foresee watching things like the local news, CNN, C-SPAN, or The Biggest Loser in three dimensions. It’s not because it isn’t technically possible; it’s because it wouldn’t offer a better experience.
Going forward, the entire pitch for 3D TV needs to change. What everyone needs to understand is that 3D TV is not a fad, nor is it an all-in or fold proposition. 3D capabilities are going to be included in television displays going forward; some models now, many more in the years to come, and eventually all of them. However, unlike the high resolution abilities of modern TVs, which are essentially always on (even if artificially), 3D capabilities will always be a moderately used feature for specific types of content - which is exactly what it should be.
3D is a distraction while watching a movie.
Sure, it might be fun watching a James Cameron or a Disney animated film but the cheese factor is high on the fromage scale.
Can you imagine watching “Precious” or “The Hurt Locker” in 3D? You’d be wondering what the hell the filmmakers were smoking during pre-production.
It is a gimmick that is being pushed by the gaming industry.
The big thing that annoys me is that people keep acting like this 3D thing is a paradigm shift in TV technology.
All it is is an extra feature like the internet or 240hz or now with super contrast or things like that. The addition of 3D didn’t make TVs any more expensive than last year,
it didn’t make them any worse, it doesn’t make them any heavier or thicker or have any better sound quality. It is just a feature some guy at the factory probably installs off of a flash drive.
Premium TVs are still good TVs even though they say 3D on them. I am excited on how low the prices on good quality large format LEDs and plasmas are getting, even the best 3D set is only about $2200 retail for a 50” display. And if you see it in 2D IMHO it looks far better than any $3000 TV from last year.
3D is a fad that I’m not buying in to, I can see it being popular for gamers but for the average viewer it will flop.
I keep seeing articles online and CE experts on tv raving about 3D but I still haven’t seen sales numbers to backup their claims, all I hear them say is “there’s interest”.
Why should we expect a lot? The industry has still not delivered consistent, if any, televisions with true color spectrum, crispness and clarity let alone the whole issue of what is ‘black’. It’s a “yeah, but . . .” type of thinking that is delivering less than stellar technology at entire month salary pricing for most families.
Then top that with the cable/satelite industries gouging the consumer at the movie, satelite or cable connection. As you said, charging $5 extra for movies not even filmed in 3D. Then until just lately less than half the channels a consumer was purchasing were filmed/broadcast in even HD!
Most people are being flim flammed into beliving “digital” is HD, and that “HD” is ‘blu-ray’ quality. Analog is dead so drop the need to portray you are getting something special by whomever giving you “digital”.
In all, 3D and all this is snake oil salesmenship by these industries. Milking the gullible and nieve with less than real product(s).
- News
- Cool Homes
- Blogs
- Photo Galleries
Phorus and Blumoo Offer Easy, Wireless Audio
One is a subsidiary of DTS, with the other looking to gain traction via Indiegogo.
Family Theater Beams with Durable LED Projection
A SIM2 Mico 50 LED projector and 110-inch screen shine in this room.
Brighter LCD TVs on the Horizon?
3M technology poised to boost the vibrancy and richness of colors on LCD screens.
22 Outdoor Speakers for a Sizzling Summer
We take a peek at some of the current options for outdoor audio.
I agree with this article. 3D will probably always have its place and it will take time for studios and tv providers to see that and to allow it to fall into that category. I just don’t like how fast things are moving. I still only have 25 out of 100 HD channels. Anymore and I have to pay a pretty big premium for my cable service. Now 3D will be added and they will most likely put another premium on those channels if you want more than just a couple free demo channels. I personally don’t enjoy 3D very much. I have given it a try and find it distracting. Its a gimmick that in most cases is an attempt to distract the audience from that fact that they are watching a crappy movie with plots that have been done over and over again (toy story3 excluded). I’m so happy christopher nolan didn’t hop on the band wagon and convert Inception to 3D. Atleast someone still believes in making at truly good film these days.