Is 3D really the next big thing or it is another....

[Tok]

overhyped technology?


I guess I am not too fond of the idea. 3D in cinemas today is a subtle way the studios are using to increase ticket prices. Sure it looks better than that old red-blue, but using polarizers has been around since the 80s so some of the 'new' systems are not that new. Sync glasses sound headache inducing.

I love the big picture, but I have not been overly impressed with the 3D offerings. UP was a good movie because of the creative team behind it. I thought the 3D showing took away from its colorful world.

How are these going to translate to the home environment? Most users are probably viewing on 50-in or smaller sets. Is the 3D really going to be that impressive when sitting 10 ft from a 'big screen' 50-in set when your field of vision is not entirely taken up by the screen?

I have a FP setup with a large screen and I am not interested in replacing it anytime soon. 3D faces the same problem HD did initially. Where's the content? Sure they can re-render the CGI films of the last decade, but the reality is that there is very little content available. I for one don't want Blu-ray releases mucked up by trying to cram too much on the disc. Don't sacrifice quality (ie. over-compress, filter detail, add edge-enhancement, etc) just to give a small base of users another 'dimension' of vision.

3D is being used today the same way it was in the 1950s, a marketing excuse by the movie studios to fight off the ever increasing entertainment options.

[surfdude12]

yeah its probably overhyped for the most part.

however, when i've watched it in the dark on my 67" DLP at 8 feet viewing distance, it works pretty decent. if i'm getting 2D and 3D on the BD, i dont understand what i have to lose?

[Hammie]

I hope not. I really don't enjoy sitting watching movies with glasses on. I feel it's more of a gimmick for the kids than any credible movie watching experience.

I'll admit the 3D Imax movie 'Take me to the Moon' was very well done and cool, but not something I would want to see all the time.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

yeah its probably overhyped for the most part.

however, when i've watched it in the dark on my 67" DLP at 8 feet viewing distance, it works pretty decent. if i'm getting 2D and 3D on the BD, i dont understand what i have to lose?

My concern is that we will start getting dual encodes for 2+ hour movies and even if we don't and they somehow add a secondary stream that stream will be taking up just as much data if it needs to contain 1080p24.

Remember Blu is limited to hard specs of 50GB/disc and roughly 50Mb/s throughput. Quality is going to suffer and the days of getting reference 2D transfers will disappear if they try to incorporate 2D and 3D versions onto the same disc.

Not saying it is going to happen but if this is their plan I won't buy any disc that incorporates a bitstarved 2D/3D transfers.

If 3D Blu is going to become a reality, I would like to see a new profile that adds compatibility with 100GB or greater disc capacity. And then we are back to the same question the HD DVD group had about their hypothetical 51GB disc, is it going to be compatible in existing drives? Personally I would rather see separate 2D and 3D releases, but I doubt that is going to happen.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by louhamilton

I hope not. I really don't enjoy sitting watching movies with glasses on. I feel it's more of a gimmick for the kids than any credible movie watching experience.

I'll admit the 3D Imax movie 'Take me to the Moon' was very well done and cool, but not something I would want to see all the time.

Exactly... I think the CEs are jumping aboard the bandwagon now because 1080p TVs are becoming the standard and Blu-ray players are no longer commanding the huge premiums. They have already tried to foist 240Hz processing.

I think the CEs are just desperate to come up with new features to command high premiums.

And here comes HDMI 1.4...

[mtbkr]

3-d is cool for kids movies like CORALINE or TOY STORY. just keep it away from BRAVEHEART and HEAT

[Goldengirl]

A Christmas Carol while watching Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and that looks like it will be AWESOME in IMAX 3D. No, it's not appropriate for Braveheart, etc. but I have to admit I'd like the option to see a 3D version of The Hobbit. Thing is, if it's done right (and A Christmas Carol looks like it is done right) it can be an immersive experience. Those snowflakes fell right in front of my face during that trailer! I'd love to actually go to Middle-earth like that.

[Al Bundy]

Originally Posted by mtbkr

3-d is cool for kids movies like CORALINE or TOY STORY. just keep it away from BRAVEHEART and HEAT

Can't say it much better then this. Who would want to see there fav films 3d?

[Tok]

Originally Posted by mtbkr

3-d is cool for kids movies like CORALINE or TOY STORY. just keep it away from BRAVEHEART and HEAT

But would the above movies suffer not being shown in 3D or would 3D make a bad movie better?

I don't necessarily have a problem with 3D, but the possible content pool is so small and costs to upgrade to a home 3D system will be large. The big thing is that I don't want comprimises made with the 2D presentations to better facilitate a 3D version. Keep 'em separate and that way they can also gauge the customer interest more accurately.

[Anthony P]

I think it i9s the next big thing, the tech is ready now and the studios/theatres want something to draw the crowds.

[Hep]

I really do think the future will be 3D. The studios are on board, and it's the only tech on the horizon to keep the media/electronics wheels spinning. Resolution increases have reached the point of significant diminishing returns. After that it will be holographic projection; it's a great time to be alive.

[Beta Man]

I've never been a big fan of 3-D, and I think the "future" is going to be increased resolution, thinner/lighter displays, and much much much bigger via a technology that is capable of doing so without exponential cost based on size, and much less energy consumption.

Basically I think it's the trend that is already occurring.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

I've never been a big fan of 3-D, and I think the "future" is going to be increased resolution, thinner/lighter displays, and much much much bigger via a technology that is capable of doing so without exponential cost based on size, and much less energy consumption.

Basically I think it's the trend that is already occurring.

You’re absolutely right, thinner lighter and more energy efficient displays are a certainty if you extrapolate current trends into the future; and since past performance is the best indicator of future performance, it’s all but fact.

I don't think you will find any push for introducing a new resolution standard for the mass market until after HD reaches maturity. In any case, increased resolution won't occur until well after 3D is established; it just doesn't make any sense to introduce a new standard when so few people will actually benefit from it. The only factor I see that could possibly slow the Blu-ray juggernaut is the rate of HD adaptation.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Beta Man

and I think the "future" is going to be increased resolution, thinner/lighter displays, and much much much bigger via a technology that is capable of doing so without exponential cost based on size, and much less energy consumption.

agree, but that is for home, none of it applies to theatres and since movies are made for theatrical presentations the trend we should look at is theatres. If studios make more and more 3D features for the theatres, then wouldn't you want 3D at home as well to see it as it was meant to be seen?