3D: The Most Predictable Flop in Recent History

A

admin

Audioholics Robot
Staff member
I've been a big critic of 3D for some time now. The industry has been pushing it full steam for over a year and it's really been amazing to see such a concerted effort being poured into something that I have felt is only destined to fail as a mainstream format. I'm not alone in my thoughts, but I am certainly unwelcome in an industry that seems to be hanging its hopes on a new way to make money from consumers being consistently drawn into new and decidedly non-traditional ways of consuming media. There are several reasons for my skepticism that 3D will somehow take over the industry anytime soon...



Discuss "3D: The Most Predictable Flop in Recent History" here. Read the article.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Slumlord
I agree completely with everything you have to say about 3D. I have been saying that on these forums since introduction.

From a medical standpoint I think watching 3D is unsafe from a number of aspects.

Until a holographic screen is developed, I think 3D will DOA and should be.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Overlord
I agree as well that this 3D is just another gimmick and I don't think it will last very long. Like TLS said, until holographic projection is perfected, this 3D stuff will remain an expensive fad.
 
gmichael

gmichael

Audioholic Spartan
3D is a lot of fun while at one of the Disney rides. It doesn’t impress me for home use though. I already wear glasses. I don’t want to wear 2 pair at a time.
 
majorloser

majorloser

Moderator
Damn it

I thought I told Clint not to take my picture at the pool. :mad:
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
I thought I told Clint not to take my picture at the pool. :mad:
It worked out well for all involved that you weren't wearing your thong.:eek::D
Back to the OP:
It's such a blatant attempt to get people to spend. Even more half-baked than the DHCP associated with HDMI. Let them fix that first.
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Overlord
It worked out well for all involved that you weren't wearing your thong.:eek::D
Back to the OP:
It's such a blatant attempt to get people to spend. Even more half-baked than the HDCP associated with HDMI. Let them fix that first.
fixed....

DHCP = is Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Honestly, I'm even getting sick of 3D at the Theaters. Do I need to spend $15-20/head to watch a cartoon movie with the family in 3D? My kids don't even like 3D. My youngest takes her glasses off within minutes and is then watching a blurry movie for the next 1.5 hours. Some theater by my house only offer the newest kids movies in 3D so we are stuck.

Keep 3D for Disney attractions and movies in the theaters that were originally shot in 3D.

Now we have THX getting in the 3D game:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/thx-blufocus-3d-blu-ray

It's only a matter of time before cable vendors claim their cables are 3D compatible too.
 
J

jotham

Audioholic
Too Harsh!

Ok, I agree with probably all the points in the editorial but I still have hope that 3D doesn't go away. As you mentioned, it makes much more sense for gaming where much of the underlying gaming architecture is "relatively" easily rendered in 3D. As a lightweight gamer, that has enormous attraction for me. I can't imagine how scary something like a first person shooter would be in 3D. Or how exciting a simulator could be.

As far as movies go, I do think that post conversion is basically a waste of effort but movie making technology should make filming in 3D much easier in the near future. I would imagine that it is simple to flatten an existing 3D film for 2D showings. Also, most animation (well, Pixar) is created in a 3D space so it's a re-render for some good quality stuff there.

Some of the points raised about visual issues are more of a bleeding edge problem on par with single speed DLP color wheels and rainbows. Does it suck, yeah, will it get better in short time, yeah, will some people still complain, hell yeah.

A lot of this is a chicken and the egg problem in the content front with consumers being asked to bear the burden for limited payback at the present. I do know that my wife is a huge Avatar fan and has given me carte blanche to buy the first 3D projector that comes out for Avatar alone. Trust me, that's a remarkable endorsement. Even if Avatar were the only 3D movie we owned, I think she would be happy. So, when the first semi-decent 1080P projector is released, I will likely be making that upgrade with her blessing. Which is weird...

My point is, the justifications aren't really here yet but I have hope that this will not go the way of the dodo but will rather be the beginning of a beautful friendship. Of course, I invested in HD-DVD because I thought it was a superior solution so keep that in mind :)
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
I have no problem with 3D at all. What I DO have a problem with is the industry trying to make EVERY movie IMAX or 3D or IMAX3D. I've been going to the theaters again recently and given the choice, I chose the standard version because I didn't want to spend another $6 to see the same movie on a bigger screen and have to wear the glasses. It is a fad and it will pass...they came up with something that they felt would "freshen" the same old thing, BOTH in the theater and at home, to get consumers interested. I just don't see it lasting.
 
H

hopjohn

Full Audioholic
It's only a matter of time before cable vendors claim their cables are 3D compatible too.
LOL, very, very true.

3D is such a gimmick. I look at it as no different than smell-a-vision. Humans have 3-D built into their brains. Even, for the dumbest, the brain is a more sophisticated component than any electronic device that man has ever made. So I'm pretty confident in saying we can do without.
 
A

Alain Singapore

Audioholic Intern
The main issue with 3D movies and 3D TV, if we exclude the health hazard potential, has more to do with the fact that we are passive viewing the content that is broadcast to us. This lack of involvement creates a barrier between the viewer and the 3D aspect of the content. Watching a movie is involving in itself when the storyline is involving. You do not need any 3D to get into the story. When you watch a movie, you want a good story, good actors, good decors, minimum FX!

Things get different when you bring direct interaction between the content and the player - which cannot be considered anymore a mere viewer. When you can interact with the content, going 3D really brings a level of immersion that enhance the impression of being there, being part of this alternate reality. This is true for games. It is also true for training materials.

Sports could be the main driver for 3D in the home if done right. Broadcaster will have to give the viewer the impression of being there in the stadium and that there involvment can have an effect on the game... bring on the virtual Vuvuzella!
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
Gotta keep those Pacific rim countries working..

How can we solve their unemployment problems unless we continue to buy their new, improved, can't-live-without, products every year?
 
B

BBF

Enthusiast
I agree. 3D doesn't automatically make a bad movie good.
But as long as the studio can earn more than the cost of 3D conversion, they'll keep on doing them.

I also can't see how 3D can make the human sports we watch now any better than the huge leap in quality that HD vs. SD had for sports. Maybe they'll mount 3D cameras on NASCAR cars so we can see the car behind us giving us a bump.

I have dabbled in 3D gaming over the last 8 years and finally have a set up that works reasonably well. (IZ3D monitor, but the 120Hz shutter glasses are much superior.) And even with the ghosting of the IZ3D setup, playing Role Playing Games (Fallout3, Oblivion) and First/Third Person Shooter games (Bioshock2, Battlefield Bad Company2) are much more enveloping in 3D. Especially now that graphics cards in the $300 range can handle rendering a 1920x1200 screen at at least 30 fps per eye. (60fps) The PS3 doesn't have the processing power to render even 30 fps 3D in 720p... 480p maybe.

I think 3D gaming is the future of 3D. When the PS4 and Xbox 720 come out, they'll most proabably be able to do 30 fps per eye at 720p.

Honestly, I think 3D will be entrenched in home theatre as well, since even with the current range LCD and plasma displays, they're all capable of displaying 60fps per eye with minimal cost (the manufacturers just stick it to you for the priviledge of having the "feature") and with increased public adoption, cheap, reasonably good quality Chinese knockoff wireless LCD shutter glasses will be available for <$20 a piece. (They've had poor-LCD-shutter-quality wired LCD shutter glasses for cheap for years now for use with the computer systems.)

If I were to replace my main TV today, I would definitely get one that supported 3D. I wouldn't expect to *refuse* to watch things in 2D like how I refuse to watch things in SD now unless there's absolutely NOTHING in HD, and I mean absolutely nothing. (Bridezillas HD... I'll take that. :-O) But the thing is, I'm not going to replace my TV just for 3D.
 
Last edited:
Patrick_Wolf

Patrick_Wolf

Audioholic
3D is best for games, but is also the worst health-wise (so they say) as you spend many more continuous hours with them then the occasional movie.
 
J

JPMulder

Audiophyte
Any sane person and 3D enthusiast like me will understand exactly where the author is coming from.
I'm one of the "lucky" ones that went and saw "Clash of the Titans 3D", and what a disaster it was. I will never ever go see any 3D film again without doing proper research on the production method of the 3D Film.

I've also gone to look at 3D TV's and maybe some-one can comment on this,
Not any of the top brand TV's gave me any satisfactory 3D picture. It almost looked like the 3D picture wasn't 100% in Register. But then again the 3D Projectors where much better on the eyes.

I totally agree what's being said here and will never watch any post production 3D anything in any format ever again.
J
 
N

Nugu

Audioholic
It's only a matter of time before cable vendors claim their cables are 3D compatible too.
This made me think of the new Qwest "HD Internet" commercials I've seen on TV.

HD standing for 'Heavy Duty' but the obvious design being to ride the 'HD' wave.
 
A

Alain Singapore

Audioholic Intern
I've also gone to look at 3D TV's and maybe some-one can comment on this,
Not any of the top brand TV's gave me any satisfactory 3D picture. It almost looked like the 3D picture wasn't 100% in Register. But then again the 3D Projectors where much better on the eyes.
The main problem with TV is that most of them use LCD panels that are not quite fast enough to avoid effects like ghosting. Plasma screen should be better option. Also the TV display size is pretty small and gets imersive only if you get close enough to the screen.

Projectors offer a larger picture and all 3D projectors today use DLP engines that are faster and cleaner with 3D material. One of the best possible experience is standing close to a rear projection screen with 3D material synch to your head motion (i.e. the picture follows your eyes). Surround yourself with more screens, floor and ceiling included, for the ultimate ride :)
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top