Isn't it time for stereo 3D???

[b_panther_g]

Why don't people make 3D movies and games? There doesn't seem to be any reason why it can't be done. With a little practice, I'm sure it can be done very well. But there doesn't seem to be anyone trying. Why?

I think it will be the next big thing in HT – If anyone starts using the technology, that is.

What are your thoughts about 3D technology?

 

[Francious70]

Umm... 3d games have been around since the early 90's. ??

Paul

 

[b_panther_g]

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm talking about stereoscopic 3D - the stuff that pops off the screen.

As it stands now, a 3D video game is a 3D representation of a space that's viewed in 2D. I'm talking about a 3D representation of a space that's viewed in stereo 3D.

I hope that makes sense.

Enjoy

 

[BMXTRIX]

Stereo 3D games have been around a long time - including the Nintendo Virtual Boy (got one stuffed in my closet right now) and years before in arcade games. The thing is, they just don't look that good and because it is a 2-D image presented to create a 3-D appearance, it isn't close to true 3-D and just ends up giving people headahces.

Holographic video games?

Now you're talkin'!

 

[b_panther_g]

Hey BMX.

What you are saying is true. But there has been a lot of advancement in A/V since the Nintendo Virtual Boy.

Systems are a lot more powerful. Video games are a lot more sophisticated.

Anaglyph glasses have changed from red/blue to red/cyan – so now the image combines to a true RGB image.

Basically the technology has advanced but the presentation hasn't.

And that doesn't explain why there are no movies in 3D. For example, as impressive as LOTR is, I'd love to see the Shire, Balrog, Golem, and the Ring in 3D. That would have made a great experience that much better.

I'm just wandering what's holding back the content. Any thoughts?

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Creating a 3-D image on a 2-D screen still requires the use of a headset. Not only do theaters not enjoy lowering their profits by giving away movie glasses (Last one I remember was a Nightmare on Elm St. sequel). There have been a few computergames, but they required a specific frame-refresh rate, and ugly glasses.

Plus some people argue that the 3-D film process screws-up the colour.

 

[b_panther_g]

Hey R&R Ninja.

Headsets are often used but 3D doesn't require a headset. Headsets are good for PCs and small screens. Movie theaters could use other technology.

For example if they use 2 projectors, they could show polarized 3D movies. The polarized glasses don't affect the color.

There are single projector solutions available for business presentations that can do 3D. I think it's basically 2 DLP projectors in one. The resolution is low (800 x 600) but the point is - If they are being made for small screens, they can be mead for large screens.

Plus today's Red/Cyan glasses don't screw up colors nearly as much as the old Red/Blue glasses used to. The link below is an anaglyph 3D image. If you had the Red/Cyan glasses, you'd see it in 3D.

http://www.anachrome.com/glenc.htm

I know the color of the water at the bottom of the pic are off, but if you had the glasses they'd look right. Anyway, that's a lot better than the older red/blue images that I remember.

Plus movie theaters can just sell the glasses. So they won't loose any money.

I still believe that (from a technical standpoint) we should have stereo 3D media. There isn't any reason why it isn't more popular.

Wouldn't your HT be that much better with your movies and the big game in 3D? I like that idea. How about you?

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I think 3D is a gimmick that saw it's heyday in the 50s and deserves to be left there.

 

[b_panther_g]

Hello S_F,

I think a lot of people believe the same way you do. But here's why I don't agree.

(Begin Rant)

3D is a technology, a tool. It is neither good or bad. It's just a tool – like a hammer or saw. Or, for a comparison more relevant to the HT world, its like surround sound (SS). You can have a good movie w/o SS but a good SS mix adds to the experience. That being said, 3D technology is rarely ever implemented properly. This has been going on for a long time...

When movie studios thought they were going to go out of business because of the VCR – they turned 3D, the technology, into a gimmick. The public was suckered into paying for bulls*it movies.

The old 3D movies, for the most part, sucked. More to the point – the movies sucked. It didn't matter if they were in color, b/w, stereo, mono, 2D, or 3D – those movies still sucked!

Then what followed? More crappy 3D movies. But that practice ended in... Wait, it NEVER ended!

The movie people still view the public as dumbass suckers. So that put some crap on film (Spy Kids 3D), use outdated technology (the cheapest Red/Blue glasses they can get their hands on – not even Red/Cyan that makes a true RGB image), and shovel it down our throats! Because of their misuse of the technology, 3D continues to suffer a bum rap when it comes to movies. But that's not the case with photography.

In the photography world, 3D isn't looked at as a gimmick. Why? Because 3D photographers, most of whom are on a shoe-string budget, know what the hell they're doing. So they take some amazing 3D pics. But...

In the movie world, almost everyone sees 3D as a gimmick. Why? Because the movie studio execs (who, BTW, have hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal and have tons of skilled and creative people all around them), choose to fund AN ENDLESS STREAM OF CRAPPY MOVIES (The Son of the Mask, RollerBall, From Justin to Kelly)! Some of these crappy movies star people who, IMHO, shouldn't be acting. Why is Britney Spears starring in a movie? But does it have to be this way?

No. All they, the execs, have to do is fund 1 GOOD MOVIE that uses 3D technology THE RIGHT WAY. That would create a movie going experience that's more engaging than anything else – EVER!

(End Rant)

So, I don't think that 3D is a gimmick. I think it's a technology that has been misused.
If used correctly, it can truly enhance the movie going experience.

Just my thoughts.

Enjoy.


P.S.
My rant wasn't directed to anyone in particular (unless you are a movie studio exec.). I do not mean to offend anyone. Thanks.

 

[dlorde]

I think there are just too many negatives with 3D at the moment, and too little demand. It's more expensive to make, takes more bandwidth and storage, and, for decent usability, requires new consumer products. Existing 3D shutter glasses work fairly well, but systems are pricey and cumbersome.

There are some new 3D viewing products in the pipeline, such as 3D TVs that don't require glasses, but they will need an expensive boost to capture enough market to justify the production and distribution costs, and above all, some hook to make 3D systems desirable (like the hype of flat screen TVs that have caught the consumer imagination for being large, flat, and cool, despite being far more expensive and having poorer quality than an equivalent CRT TV)...

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

No. All they, the execs, have to do is fund 1 GOOD MOVIE that uses 3D technology THE RIGHT WAY. That would create a movie going experience that's more engaging than anything else – EVER!

And then they'd have to upgrade every cinema in the world to using multiple digital projectors so that only a small square of the seats could get the proper effect.

 

[Audioholics]

Tends to give me headaches when done incorrectly, and no headaches when done correctly. Could also be random based on seated position however, I could be incorrectly attributing good vs. bad quality to the film when it may be another reason. I haven't seen enough to tell.

 

[Shadow_Ferret]

I think I'd rather wait for holographic projection TV.

 

[b_panther_g]

And then they'd have to upgrade every cinema in the world to using multiple digital projectors so that only a small square of the seats could get the proper effect.

They're going to do that anyway. As soon as JVC or someone else comes up with a digital projector with high enough resolution - cinemas will either up-grade or not show digital films.

Cinemas have upgraded in the past...Movies weren't always in surround sound or even in stereo. Every industry has to advance or go away.

I just think that 3D, if done right, is worth seeing. I also think that good 3D is technically possible right now. But even if I'm wrong about the state of technology, I don't know of anyone trying to make it work. Does anyone know?

If we look at movies and HT in general, both audio and video have become more realistic. Color video was more realistic than b&w. HDTV is more realistic than SDTV. UDTV will be more realistic than HDTV. Similarly, we went from mono to stereo to surround sound. I think 3D is the next advancement. It's a more realistic or true-to-life experience than 2D. I'm hoping it will be here sooner rather than later. Am I alone in wanting a good 3D HT? Please let me know.

Enjoy.

 

[jmanlp]

I saw this 3D presentation at Disney Land once when I was littler and I was stunned how the images came out at me, I don't know what 3D technology it was, but it was crazy looking. The actual show was terrible, it had Michael Jackson in it as some space captain. I think it was called Captain Neo. Anyway, that 3D technology was far superior than any other 3D I had seen. It seemed the objects could be 2 inches from you face or over a mile away, I'd like to see something else that uses that technology. just my 2 cents

 

[b_panther_g]

I agree with you, Jmanlp.

Disney's got some great examples of 3D technology. I also agree that the movies suck, but hay it's Disney.

I think that Disney uses 2 synced projectors and polarized glasses. It was really high-end when they introduced it. But now just about anyone could do it. It's still a good demo of what 3D could do.



Hello Clint,

Audioholics is based in Florida, right? If you can, try to visit Disney. You'll see some good 3D there. Besides, you run a A/V website/business, right? Talk to your accountant; it would qualify as a tax right off. But I'm not an accountant, so don't take my word for it – OK.

Enjoy.

 

[Trevor]

The T2 3d thing was great too I saw it like 7 years ago though I really want to see it again now because I don't remember everything and I thought the content was pretty good and the 3d was great I would keep taking off the glass es when those the t1million's tentacles looked like they were going to poke my eyes out.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

It is obvious none of you have ever been to an Imax 3D movie. I suggest you look one up in your area and check it out. I saw the Aliens of the Deep and Sharks in 3D a few weeks back and it was stunning. Crystal clear, with perfect colors. The new 3D process used today uses polarized glasses, not colored ones. It is amazing. James Cameron said he will do a full length feature film in 3D, and there have been several already. The Polar Express was in 3D.

 

[b_panther_g]

YES!!!

I was starting to think that I was the only one who thought 3D was worth pursuing.

I'm convinced that good 3D movies (well knowing Hollywood – barely average 3D movies) will eventually be commonplace. I just think that we could do it now as opposed to later.

I'd love to see Spiderman 3 in 3D. Well, if it's a good movie, that is.

Enjoy,
Panther

 

[korgoth]

yes.. the imax experience is pretty awesome.. you have to wear these huge clear goggles but the experience was well worth it.

forget what it was called, but it had something to do with underwater fish or somethin.. it was a few years back in seattle