What do you think about 3D? Do you like it? Hate it? Think it's better than 4K?

[Lovemy3D]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

The trailer to Chrionciles of Narnia Voyage of Dawn Treader looked very good in convered 3D. Almost as good as the native 3D feature that followed (Toy Story 3). Fox seems to have devoted a good amont of time to the movie and I think we have little to fear in that regard.

Well that is good to hear. I only saw one trailer, and that was in 2D.

The 3D trailer to Pirhanna on the other hand looked awful. The depth looked unatural like cardboard cutouts and the special effects were only a small step above the sci-fi channel. Unless that movie is revamped immensely I think we could be in for another Clash of the Titans with that one.

I was afraid of this. They could have made this kind of a cheesy horror movie kind of fun if the 3D was good. I guess they didn't want to put too much work into it. They should have just left it 2D then.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3D

Well that is good to hear. I only saw one trailer, and that was in 2D.

I was afraid of this. They could have made this kind of a cheesy horror movie kind of fun if the 3D was good. I guess they didn't want to put too much work into it. They should have just left it 2D then.

From what I hear the 3D for Piranha was done on a low budget and was almost scrapped during production but instead they settled for crap.

The 3D from the trailer (which proceeded Avatar) had as few as 3 layers of depth. Only slightly improved over a televisions real time conversion. Compare that to native 3D which naturally produces an unlimited depth as does the real world. A quality conversion can add enough layers of depth to bring it close to realistic depth but that costs money and time and people behind Piranha don't seem interested.

If 3D can't be done right it shouldn't be done at all

[that1guystudios]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

From what I hear the 3D for Piranha was done on a low budget and was almost scrapped during production but instead they settled for crap.

The 3D from the trailer (which proceeded Avatar) had as few as 3 layers of depth. Only slightly improved over a televisions real time conversion. Compare that to native 3D which naturally produces an unlimited depth as does the real world. A quality conversion can add enough layers of depth to bring it close to realistic depth but that costs money and time and people behind Piranha don't seem interested.

If 3D can't be done right it shouldn't be done at all

Agreed, the 3-D in Pirahna looks almost as bad as the 2D to 3D conversion on the Samsung TV's. I would even say it is worse than Clash of the Titans.
Narnia looked more like Alice in Wonderland. More layers of depth, less "comin at ya" effects.

[Lovemy3D]

It sucks to hear that Piranha is going to be that bad. I'll probably check it out anyway, if it's at one of the theaters near to me.

Just watched Step Up 3D, it was really cool. I got into it more than I thought I would. Some great 3D effects too.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Lovemy3D

It sucks to hear that Piranha is going to be that bad. I'll probably check it out anyway, if it's at one of the theaters near to me.

Id avoid it or at least see it in a 2D screening. Fact is every 3D ticket sold for a bad conversion like Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender, and now Piranha is a vote against quality 3D. If studios think the people won't know the difference between cheap conversions and native 3D they won't have any incentive to but in the time and money for quality 3D and more bad 3D presentations will fill the theatres. Not to mention everyone who sees one of these movies could be turned off to native 3D as well. Fake 3D presentations like Piranha are a huge drag on native 3D and informed 3D fans need to stand against them.

[Hale-Bopp]

Totally agreed, Jimmy. I've been boycotting ALL converted 3D movies. If I want to, I'll watch their 2D counterparts instead. I'm only ever going to pay for TRUE 3D movie viewing, not the converted crap they're selling. Not interested.

The good news is that more and more movies are being created now with 3D cameras first, which is great because everyone will have the choice in the future of watching either 3D or 2D versions of the same movie. Blu-ray is living proof of this, since you can watch either version with the same disc. That's pretty damn special.

Speaking of true 3D movies, damn, I cannot WAIT for Tron: Legacy. I hear it's a bit more refined than Avatar.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Hale-Bopp

Totally agreed, Jimmy. I've been boycotting ALL converted 3D movies. If I want to, I'll watch their 2D counterparts instead. I'm only ever going to pay for TRUE 3D movie viewing, not the converted crap they're selling. Not interested.

The good news is that more and more movies are being created now with 3D cameras first, which is great because everyone will have the choice in the future of watching either 3D or 2D versions of the same movie. Blu-ray is living proof of this, since you can watch either version with the same disc. That's pretty damn special.

Speaking of true 3D movies, damn, I cannot WAIT for Tron: Legacy. I hear it's a bit more refined than Avatar.

No no no no no

I have never and will never recommend boycotting all converted movies. I agree when the option to shoot in 3D is avalible its by far the superior option then converting. Filmmakers actively seeking out conversion when they have all the recourses to make a native 3D movie at similar cost makes little sense to me.

However The Nightmare Before Christmas and Alice in Wonderland looked very good in converted 3D. Converted 3D movies are not all bad. I absolutely love the technology exists to someday allow filmmakers to convert there catalog to 3D if they choose. Though I don't believe this should be done against the filmmakers wishes. Im only against cheap and quickly done converted movies. If you want a 3D presentation for a movie not shot that way then be prepared to put in alot of time and money. Conversions need started 6 months to a year before release date and need to be done with consent and aid from the original filmmakers. That all Im saying.

[that1guystudios]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

No no no no no

I have never and will never recommend boycotting all converted movies. I agree when the option to shoot in 3D is avalible its by far the superior option then converting. Filmmakers actively seeking out conversion when they have all the recourses to make a native 3D movie at similar cost makes little sense to me.

However The Nightmare Before Christmas and Alice in Wonderland looked very good in converted 3D. Converted 3D movies are not all bad. I absolutely love the technology exists to someday allow filmmakers to convert there catalog to 3D if they choose. Though I don't believe this should be done against the filmmakers wishes. Im only against cheap and quickly done converted movies. If you want a 3D presentation for a movie not shot that way then be prepared to put in alot of time and money. Conversions need started 6 months to a year before release date and need to be done with consent and aid from the original filmmakers. That all Im saying.

I couldn't have said it better myself, Jimmy...I totally agree with you! 3D conversions can be great when done with care and effort. Or they can suck. I for one am all for presenting anything in 3D as long as the director and DOP are involved in the conversion process.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by that1guypictures

I couldn't have said it better myself, Jimmy...I totally agree with you! 3D conversions can be great when done with care and effort. Or they can suck. I for one am all for presenting anything in 3D as long as the director and DOP are involved in the conversion process.

At the same time even the best conversions fall just short of native 3D. Alice in Wonderland was definutely one of the best conversions ever done and it still fell short of the quality 3D Avatar or The Final Destination delievered. Ive never seen a native 3D presenation that I didn't like (baring the quality of the movie of course) while conversion have proven themselves very hit and miss and often times screwed up. I can't understand for the life of me why Step Up can afford native 3D and Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia, Thor, and Capatain America are all conversions. When consumer sold camcorders are now 3D capable it makes little sense such major Hollywood productions are still being shot in 2D.

So I say a well done quality conversion is a better option then 2D only at the same time I find conversion to be needlessly overused and Hollywoods slow adoption of native 3D shooting frustrating

[greenray]

I must admit to being rather amazed at all the negativity surrounding 3D. I first saw a 3D film nearly 40 years ago and kept hoping that it would take off, but it never did, and I could never understand then why it had so little impact on people. People seemed to be much more amazed with colour than with 3D. Frankly I think I would rather watch a film in black-and-white and (good) 3D, rather than a flat film in colour.

It seems obvious that one can enjoy watching a film perfectly well in 2D, just as people used to enjoy movies in black-and-white, and even in black-and-white without sound. So 3D is not essential, any more than colour is (or was). But surely it is better to have this extra dimension than to not?

People have two ears and can hear stereo sound, and so now nearly all sound is recorded and played back in stereo. We have color vision, and so now that we have the technology to reproduce color, nearly all video is recorded and played back in color.

Well we human beings also have two eyes and stereoscopic vision, and we see the real world in 3D. Why deliberately avoid 3D video? It seems to be a simple logical progression. What do we gain by leaving it out?

3D is not the be all and end all of movies - it won't make a bad movie into a good one, anymore than it being in color does. 3D movies won't cure cancer either (unfortunately), but does it really do so much harm we have to exclude it?

Its really all about getting the most realism. And an image will never be truly fully realistic if is it is flat. All we need now is to improve the resolution - 4K here we come!

I won't sell my soul or my grandmother to get 3D, its not that important or essential, I can survive without it. But i see no sense in trying to avoid it.

By the way, if some kind person out there wants to donate a 50 inch 3D Panasonic Plasma to me, I won't refuse it. Just contact me for my address! And thanks in advance!

[j2531bel]

Originally Posted by greenray

I must admit to being rather amazed at all the negativity surrounding 3D. I first saw a 3D film nearly 40 years ago and kept hoping that it would take off, but it never did, and I could never understand then why it had so little impact on people. People seemed to be much more amazed with colour than with 3D. Frankly I think I would rather watch a film in black-and-white and (good) 3D, rather than a flat film in colour.

It seems obvious that one can enjoy watching a film perfectly well in 2D, just as people used to enjoy movies in black-and-white, and even in black-and-white without sound. So 3D is not essential, any more than colour is (or was). But surely it is better to have this extra dimension than to not?

People have two ears and can hear stereo sound, and so now nearly all sound is recorded and played back in stereo. We have color vision, and so now that we have the technology to reproduce color, nearly all video is recorded and played back in color.

Well we human beings also have two eyes and stereoscopic vision, and we see the real world in 3D. Why deliberately avoid 3D video? It seems to be a simple logical progression. What do we gain by leaving it out?

3D is not the be all and end all of movies - it won't make a bad movie into a good one, anymore than it being in color does. 3D movies won't cure cancer either (unfortunately), but does it really do so much harm we have to exclude it?

Its really all about getting the most realism. And an image will never be truly fully realistic if is it is flat. All we need now is to improve the resolution - 4K here we come!

I won't sell my soul or my grandmother to get 3D, its not that important or essential, I can survive without it. But i see no sense in trying to avoid it.

By the way, if some kind person out there wants to donate a 50 inch 3D Panasonic Plasma to me, I won't refuse it. Just contact me for my address! And thanks in advance!

To question whether the technology used for 3D, and 3D TVs are currently ready for market is not being negative. All have valid questions including what is the impact and costs associated to going 3D.

Those who currently support 3D blindly are not being realistic in their approach. Even the experts are questioning.

J

[greenray]

Originally Posted by j2531bel

To question whether the technology used for 3D, and 3D TVs are currently ready for market is not being negative. All have valid questions including what is the impact and costs associated to going 3D.

Those who currently support 3D blindly are not being realistic in their approach. Even the experts are questioning.

J

My post was not aimed at those who question the technology, which is as you point out perfectly valid, but rather at those who question the very point of 3D - e.g. those that think movies and tv should remain 2D. I think there are a large number of those people around - but perhaps not so many of them are on this forum.

[Al_The_Strange]

I can see 3-D being mainstream in the future, especially as 3-D TVs, glasses, films, games, and more are being produced and released all the time now. I think the studios are pushing to make this the next big technological jump. And in the end, it probably will produce better quality films (from a technical standpoint), and a stronger film experience.

The problems I see are more generic and long-term, and are probably influenced more heavily by my futurist imagination.

I've hear folks complaining about eye strain, headaches, and the like. Who's to say that prolonged exposure to 3-D won't cause eye damage of some kind? They always tell us "dont sit so close to the TV!" for a reason. 3-D may cause bodily harm that we currently cannot fathom (you say it can't cure cancer, but maybe it can cause it ).

And if 3-D does become so mainstream that every single film, broadcast, image, etc jumps off the screens at us, what impact will all this have on our society? We could wind up living in a world where images bombard us everywhere we go. I don't know about you, but I might find it aggravating walking past a TV store and having colors and lights flashing in my face.

Then again, if they offer porn this way, it might not be so undesirable...

And ultimately, what will happen to human senses? Not just eyesight either. It's already getting hard for some people to differentiate what is real and factual and what isn't. 3-D imagery will further blur the lines between reality and fantasy, and probably will pave the way for fully similated or augmented realities. At what point will a film end and reality begin again?

Those are my thoughts for whatever they're worth. Sorry if they seem too much like sci-fi (I am a sci-fi writer after all), but that should only prove my point that it's getting harder to tell fact from fiction.

I'll probably still get a 3-D TV when the next generation comes out.

[BRu-LAy]

I was at the movies this weekend watching despicable me, and I was rather annoyed as to how the trailers ended with the statement "in 3D". It reminded me of the .com super bowl back in 2000.

[Tok]

I don't have a problem with 3D at the local cinema or in the home IF it was filmed/developed natively in 3D. The problem I have is the studios using 3D as cash grab device. Look at the horrible conversion job they did on CotT and that was done so they could get away with charging an extra $4-$6/ticket.

Which brings us to the bigger issue... why do we really need 3D @ home at this point if the amount of native 3D content is miniscule? I can't justify spending the money on it for a handful of BD titles and a few channels which other than ESPN I would have little interest in.

Another problem I have is all the standard changes around the 3D formats. There is no reason HDMI needed an update. HDMI should just be a dumb pass the data through network. HDMI 1.3a has more than enough available bandwidth to pass 3D Blu-ray and the half resolution (left/right and up/down) formats. The CE industry like the movie industry saw 3D as a cash grab opportunity. There is no reason we needed to upgrade the entire signal path. All we really needed for 3D was a new BD profile (which I am sure some players out there could be upgraded to) and a new 3D capable display.

Now with HDMI screwing with things you need to upgrade the whole signal path. Again HDMI 1.3 was 3D capable as far as bandwidth was concerned. For that fact alone I hope the new home 3D implementation along with HDMI 1.4 fall flat on their face.

[that1guystudios]

Originally Posted by CraigW

I don't have a problem with 3D at the local cinema or in the home IF it was filmed/developed natively in 3D. The problem I have is the studios using 3D as cash grab device. Look at the horrible conversion job they did on CotT and that was done so they could get away with charging an extra $4-$6/ticket.

Which brings us to the bigger issue... why do we really need 3D @ home at this point if the amount of native 3D content is miniscule? I can't justify spending the money on it for a handful of BD titles and a few channels which other than ESPN I would have little interest in.

Another problem I have is all the standard changes around the 3D formats. There is no reason HDMI needed an update. HDMI should just be a dumb pass the data through network. HDMI 1.3a has more than enough available bandwidth to pass 3D Blu-ray and the half resolution (left/right and up/down) formats. The CE industry like the movie industry saw 3D as a cash grab opportunity. There is no reason we needed to upgrade the entire signal path. All we really needed for 3D was a new BD profile (which I am sure some players out there could be upgraded to) and a new 3D capable display.

Now with HDMI screwing with things you need to upgrade the whole signal path. Again HDMI 1.3 was 3D capable as far as bandwidth was concerned. For that fact alone I hope the new home 3D implementation along with HDMI 1.4 fall flat on their face.

Most HDMI 1.3a (10.2gbps) cables can pass 3D video and HD audio at the same time in 1080p 24fps. It's the software (that allows HDMI handshaking) in certain receivers and components that has to be updated, or cannot be updated due to software/hardware limitations. Most Audio receiver manufacturers are not updating older receivers in order to sell them over again. HDMI 1.4 added an audio return channel, and more Ethernet bandwidth/capabilities over HDMI.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by that1guypictures

Most HDMI 1.3a (10.2gbps) cables can pass 3D video and HD audio at the same time in 1080p 24fps. It's the software (that allows HDMI handshaking) in certain receivers and components that has to be updated, or cannot be updated due to software/hardware limitations. Most Audio receiver manufacturers are not updating older receivers in order to sell them over again. HDMI 1.4 added an audio return channel, and more Ethernet bandwidth/capabilities over HDMI.

I know they added other features, but the one they are trumpeting the most is 3D compatible.

Again, the point is that they designed the HDMI switcher/repeater spec for AVRs too stringently. It should just pass/repeat the video data on to the display device. What the ____ does an audio device care if the video meets a valid video EDID definition? Again repeat the signal unaltered and send it to the display and just pass the handshaking through the AVR. Again all that matters is that the display and source can negotiate.

What was the point touting the max datarates of HDMI 1.3 if it is never going to be utilized?

I am going to be very surprised if 3D is still around in five years.

HDMI and the CE industry is just trying to make this whole 3D thing sound alot more complicated than it really is... all 3D Blu-ray is 1080p48 with a blanking interval between left-right frames[(1920x1080)p24 + (48x1080)p24frame blanking interval + (1920x1080)p24]. HDMI 1.3 is well capable of 1080p60, last I checked 1080p48 is still less bandwidth. They PURPOSEFULLY made it uncompatible with HDMI 1.3 to force consumers to upgrade.

HDMI has nothing to do with the syncing of the display to the glasses. Again that is all up to the display after the video is received and decoded.

[greenray]

Originally Posted by BRu-LAy

I was at the movies this weekend watching despicable me, and I was rather annoyed as to how the trailers ended with the statement "in 3D". It reminded me of the .com super bowl back in 2000.

At first they will play the 3D card for all its worth, pushing every thing to an extreme as is usual in the movie industry. Eventually the novelty will wear off and hopefully things will settle down and 3D will just become the norm and will not be specifically exploited.

Mind you, the movie industry these days is all about excess - bigger explosions, louder bangs, shinier graphics - so perhaps it will be a while before the novelty does wear off.

Whats next i wonder - smell-o-vision?

[greenray]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I can see 3-D being mainstream in the future, especially as 3-D TVs, glasses, films, games, and more are being produced and released all the time now. I think the studios are pushing to make this the next big technological jump. And in the end, it probably will produce better quality films (from a technical standpoint), and a stronger film experience.

The problems I see are more generic and long-term, and are probably influenced more heavily by my futurist imagination.

I've hear folks complaining about eye strain, headaches, and the like. Who's to say that prolonged exposure to 3-D won't cause eye damage of some kind? They always tell us "dont sit so close to the TV!" for a reason. 3-D may cause bodily harm that we currently cannot fathom (you say it can't cure cancer, but maybe it can cause it ).

And if 3-D does become so mainstream that every single film, broadcast, image, etc jumps off the screens at us, what impact will all this have on our society? We could wind up living in a world where images bombard us everywhere we go. I don't know about you, but I might find it aggravating walking past a TV store and having colors and lights flashing in my face.

Then again, if they offer porn this way, it might not be so undesirable...

And ultimately, what will happen to human senses? Not just eyesight either. It's already getting hard for some people to differentiate what is real and factual and what isn't. 3-D imagery will further blur the lines between reality and fantasy, and probably will pave the way for fully similated or augmented realities. At what point will a film end and reality begin again?

Those are my thoughts for whatever they're worth. Sorry if they seem too much like sci-fi (I am a sci-fi writer after all), but that should only prove my point that it's getting harder to tell fact from fiction.

I'll probably still get a 3-D TV when the next generation comes out.

Ive often wondered what effect long term exposure to the current 3D tech will have. None of the current tech avoids the problem of accomodation - that the brain receives conflicting information between stereopsis (the different left/right views), which might tell the brain something is close, and the eyes plane of focus, which is firmly fixed to the screen, that tells the brain the object is farther away. Maybe the brain will adjust to this situation, or maybe it will cause problems.

On a completely different topic, one thing I have noticed recently with movies is that extra realism does not necessarily improve the movie watching experience. By definition, movies are fantasy (documentaries excepted of course), and perhaps making fantasies look more real is counter productive. They are not real, and making them seem real undermines the role of the imagination. This is especially true at the moment, when movies are less real and more fantastic than they have ever been.

Making a scene where the hero falls from the top of a ten story building and suffers only some mild hair displacement before dusting themselves off and launching into a fast run, look more real does not really help. Its obvious the scene is absurd and that in reality the hero would either be dead or a paraplegic - a blurrier picture might help support the illusion. 2 million pixels and 3D only rams home how ridiculous it all is more forcefully.

Its quite possible that there is an optimum level of realism that suits a particular kind of entertainment. However in the case of documentaries and
educational material I see no negative effect from enhanced realism. The more the merrier.

[BobbyC1987]

I can only speak for myself, but I think many people see 3-D as a distracting gimmick. I'm not really that interested in it.