Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television

The Coming Problems For Rolling Out 3D TV 232

Posted by Soulskill
from the just-wait-for-our-3d-firehose dept.
holy_calamity writes "Now that Sony has announced it will sell 3D-capable televisions in 2010, people are thinking more seriously about the rocky road leading to mainstream 3D TV adoption. New Scientist says that not only do program makers lack the technology to make shows in 3D, but that little is known about the creative problems posed by shooting shows that make use of a whole new dimension, and what works for audiences. Engadget's own pundit focuses on the more predictable problems of format wars between competing 3D display technologies. Suddenly 2010 seems a little too soon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Coming Problems For Rolling Out 3D TV

Comments Filter:
  • by dintech (998802) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @10:38AM (#29365813)

    My TV is already 3D. It goes with my 3D furniture and 3D house.

  • by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @10:38AM (#29365815) Homepage
    If I have to wear any sort of headgear, even paper glasses, it's a no deal. I like to multitask when I watch TV.
    • +1 insightful. I don't even watch TV most of the time, preferring to just listen. The only time I actually watch a show is for a favorite program like Doctor Who or Babylon 5.

      I guess that's why I'm satisfied with my current set even though it's "only" an analog 720x486 NTSC set.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Martin Blank (154261)

      Most television will probably remain 2D, but the 3D tech integrated for those shows that are in 3D will probably require something like polarized glasses for at least the first generation.

      It will take some time to transition to 3D. At first, it will be for special use. I can see HBO shelling out for a new series, and some movies made for 3D presentation (mostly animated films right now) will benefit. Provided viewers can accept it, as it becomes more common, it will become less expensive, and eventually

      • SONY actually isn't planning on a polarization scheme (which would require either retrofitting existing TVs with polarization masks (column, typically, byebye half of the horizontal resolution, but that may be acceptable), or telling people 'tough luck - buy our new special 3D TV!') at first..

        SONY is pushing 3D on BluRay as simply two separate streams and doesn't specify how this ends up being displayed.

        SONY themselves, however, are at the moment pushing for shutter systems. I.e. the TV - and this can be '

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          I had this on my Canon XL1 back in the 90's it came with 2 set's of the glasses and worked on SDTV without too much of an issue. each field was the other image so you got 30fps that was not bad to watch.

          The adapter for my camera was expensive as hell, and I sold it all on ebay shortly after for the 3X zoom lens that was more useful.

      • Provided viewers can accept it, as it becomes more common, it will become less expensive, and eventually fairly ubiquitous, such that the next generation may regard 2D as we often regard black & white.

        You mean with an emphasis on the characters and story rather than the effects thus producing better although dated looking films?

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        Hell even HD is not mainstream in TV yet. 90% of all Tv content is SD and is likely to stay that way for at least another decade.

        if they think anyone is gonna jump on their new darling tech that will require millions for a network to outfit just ONE studio with they are on some really good drugs.

        It's like pulling teeth to get Tv stations and networks to go 720p HD. and they want to try and make it even more prohibitive for these penny pinchers?

    • vertigo (Score:4, Interesting)

      by goombah99 (560566) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:02AM (#29366125)

      If I have to wear any sort of headgear, even paper glasses, it's a no deal. I like to multitask when I watch TV.

      You do bring up an interesting point indirectly. Will 3D perception even without headgear cause vertigo or other disorienting effects to people moving in a room? As the 3D gets better and better you will genuinely perceive the TV as a hole in the wall to another room but the attachment of that room to yours will be constantly shifting relative to your floor. Your brain may choose to perceive it as your floor is tilting.

      Additionally the may be problems with filming in 3D that are hard for actors to accomodate. Certain kinds of motions in stereo vision systems can cause the image to become momentarily fuzzy. You can see this in many 3D animated movies where combinations of fast charater motions or doors moving while the camera pans result in anomolously fuzzy images in the otherwise infocus foreground. Someone once tried to explain to me why this is: I think it was somthing about the object sheering rates exceeding the framing rate. Supposedly this is why disney equiped theaters use a faster framing rate and show each frame four times to each eye interleaved.

      We have binocular vision which means that our sense of 3D for left and right comes from our eyes directly but our sense of 3d for up and down is less direct by the eyes and aided by head motion which stereo 3d systems don't provide (actually get wrong).

      hence it does make sense that how a scene is staged, how pans and zooms are done, and how moving objects traverse the screen will matter to filming good 3D products. and bad results can look worse than 2D, even seeimg less dimensional when they suddenly become fuzzy. and then there may be vertigo effects as well if you are moving around.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ephemeriis (315124)

      If I have to wear any sort of headgear, even paper glasses, it's a no deal. I like to multitask when I watch TV.

      Agreed. No way in hell I'm wearing anything extra to watch TV on a daily basis.

      Maybe the occasional special program or event... I could probably put on some goofy glasses to watch the Super Bowl, for example...

      But on a day-to-day basis? Not happening.

    • That's fine, I for one welcome headgear for shows i watch and dont really look at the tv much for shows the background that i mainly listen to. For a film/nature doc/anything i actually sit down and watch I'd be fine wearing paper glasses (what is the advantage of fancy other stuff over paper glasses?).

    • If you don't want any headgear, then at the moment your only viable option is a display with lenticular lenses.

      You can kiss half the horizontal resolution goodbye, any '2D' image is going to look odd, you have to remain in a relatively specific area (your left eye sees the left image, your right eye sees the right image. Now move your head 2.5 inches or so to the left. Hey that's odd, now your left eye sees the right image, and your right eye sees the left image. woo fun!).

      So I'm not sure how much multit

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @10:39AM (#29365825) Journal

    Everyone's already upgraded to shiny-new HDTVs and premium HD services. The manufacturers need to invent a new "toy" that people will demand and spend copious amounts of cash. They need 3D to succeed.

    Oh and forget Bluray. You say you already upgraded your movie collection from VHS to DVD to Bluray? That's a shame because the new technology will be 3D Crystal technology. They want us to keep repurchasing the same thing over-and-over.

    (Yes I've turned cynical in my old age.)

       

    • by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @10:45AM (#29365917) Homepage
      I have yet to find that my movie watching experience was in any way noticably improved by watching a film on Blu-Ray instead of DVD.
      • That might be a personal preference. Keep in mind you need A Blu Ray Player, HD Cabling, HD Sound Devices (That support Dolby 5.1 preferably), and an HDTV.

        If you don't notice a DIFFERENCE, then you aren't doing it right. If you don't find yourself more entertained, that means you enjoyed the movie for something more. I know what you're going to say, and I agree:

        The Notebook does not need HD.

        • I get 5.1 off my DVD, and 480p works fine for live action movies. Yes, a full CG movie is better in Blu Ray, but everything else has a filter on it. They LOWER the resolution on movies on purpose, so you don't see all of the little defects. 480p and 1080p are not that different when you blur the source.
          • I've found the more recent Bond movies and those actiony type films have not done those soft filters when shooting an intense action sequence.

            See, my understanding was that they reformatted it to fit my television screen, or at least thats what the little blue message at the beginning has led me to believe.

        • >>>you need A Blu Ray, HD Cabling

          Well of course. You can't send HD video over an old S-video or composite cable. That's only common sense and I think the person you were talking to already knew that.

          >>>HD Sound Devices (That support Dolby 5.1 preferably)

          This isn't HD. It isn't even something new. I've had Dolby 5.1 since 1997 when I got a Sony received equipped with it. Heck even my old VHS deck supports 4.1 sound, and that's a feature that goes back to the 1980s. Please don't miscat

          • woah buddy, chill out.

            Alot of people think their HD player will send to their HD TV with regular cabling, you'd be surprised. I'd say about 2 in 5 make that mistake.

            5.1 has been out for a while, yes, we know that. There IS such thing as HD sound, that kind of stuff comes on High Definition Discs like Blu Ray. The speakers required to output these properly are generally the higher end, packaged 5.1 deals. If you get 2 speakers and are expecting HD Sound you'll have trouble getting that full experience.

            The po

      • by Zantac69 (1331461) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @10:53AM (#29366005) Journal
        You have got to be kidding!!! Blu-Ray gives you the time you need to make popcorn, go to the bathroom, mix a drink, and make yourself comfortable - all in the time it takes to load the menu screen.
        • by Golias (176380)

          You have got to be kidding!!! Blu-Ray gives you the time you need to make popcorn, go to the bathroom, mix a drink, and make yourself comfortable - all in the time it takes to load the menu screen.

          Many conventional DVDs also possess this "feature."

          I have a 119" projection system, but my reluctance to adopt Blu-Ray has everything to do with the fact that I find little plastic disks inconvenient. What few movies I buy, I rip to a computer hard drive (using HandBrake), and everything else is either downloaded or streamed. Blu-Ray rips take up A LOT more space.

          The result of this is that almost nothing I watch is in full 1080p or even 1080i. The stuff I download or stream is typically 720p, at best, an

      • by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:14AM (#29366307) Homepage

        Speak for yourself, to me 480p vs 1080p is the difference between a movie and a moving picture. All the little details that that aren't important but somehow my brain notices aren't there are there in 1080p. Of course it doesn't make a good movie anu more than CDs make good music, but it's definately improvement if you ask me. Now if only we could get 1080p60 for smooth pans under all circumstances, I'd be happy. If you desperately want the p24 feel, you can put a filter on it.

        • by Hadlock (143607)

          How far do you sit from your TV. I have a chart to show you.
           
          You are correct though, 60hz "p" (and eventually 120hz "p") television is the next wave.

          • by Kjella (173770)

            How far do you sit from your TV. I have a chart to show you.

            About 2 meters from a 42" LCD screen when I'm in my chair, more like 3 meters if I use the couch if it's a movie or good enough, otherwise I might just watch it on the monitor (1920x1200) which is definitively close enough.

        • Lets watch x at 480p and watch x at 1080p you will see a difference...

          Watch y at 480p and watch z at 1080p you may know as much. Until you see y at 1080p

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          Um no.

          i dont enjoy being able to seethe film grain.

          i find my DVD copy of blazing saddles or Evil dead to be far superior to the Bluray version I have.

      • >>>I have yet to find that my movie watching experience was in any way noticably improved by watching a film on Blu-Ray instead of DVD.
        >>>

        I have. Movies on DVD are frequently plagued with compression artifacts (especially in dark scenes) whereas those same movies on Bluray make the artifacts disappear. This is because a Bluray can hold about 6 times more data, and therefore doesn't need as much compression, so fewer errors appearing on the screen.

        However one drawback to Bluray is watchin

        • by Lumpy (12016)

          I have. Movies on DVD are frequently plagued with compression artifacts (especially in dark scenes) whereas those same movies on Bluray make the artifacts disappear.

          Which is why I only bought Superbit versions of DVD movies.

          any mildly serious Video guys knows about superbit discs.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by makomk (752139)

          However one drawback to Bluray is watching old shows that were never meant to be HD. Like Star Trek. When a hairy caveman throws a spear at Spock, it looks like a spear on the old analog sets, but on the new HD sets the spear looks like a piece of foam.

          Yeah, this was the BBC's official reason for not broadcasting the new Doctor Who in HD. Apparently, they were still using an old prop for the police box and it only looked convincing at standard definition.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        you are sitting WAYY to far from your TV.

        you need to be 5-6 feet from a 42" 720P set to see the difference over SDTV.

        your eyes cant resolve the resolution if you sit more than 6 feet away from a tiny 42" screen.

    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      Yea, why does progress have to keep happening. Can't they see we already have enough stuff. Why do they keep making more?

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        The problem isn't "progress" but the sinking feeling that we all
        are going to end up wearing those funky paper glasses from the 50's.

        3-D is a technology that film makers continue to push and always seem
        to fail at.

        When 3-D movies are considered less of a joke, perhaps then it will
        be time to try and push that technology into every living room on the
        planet. Perhaps by then the technology aspects and the artistic aspects
        will have been sorted out.

      • Yea, why does progress have to keep happening. Can't they see we already have enough stuff. Why do they keep making more?

        Well, see, Ben Franklin and the forces of Hell were going to invade Earth at the start of the Rapture in order to harvest all the human-made Stuff - but the angels in heaven got greedy, imprisoned God, and delayed the Rapture in the hope of getting more Stuff for themselves - not realizing that doing so would also cause the world to become progressively more distorted as time went by.

      • >>>Yea, why does progress have to keep happening. Can't they see we already have enough stuff. Why do they keep making more?

        I keep asking the same question. Although the VHS to DVD upgrade was worthwhile to remove the blur, I often wonder if the DVD to Bluray upgrade is worth it. I don't enjoy buying the same movie or television show three times.

        I'm also annoyed that all my old Super VHS-C camcorder home videos are going to be difficult to play due to lack of hardware. Yeah I know - "copy them o

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by shadwstalkr (111149)

      Everyone's already upgraded to shiny-new HDTVs and premium HD services

      According to Nielsen, only one-third of US homes had HDTVs in February 09. Most people don't care about HD, they'll just get one when their current TV breaks.

      • by berashith (222128)

        the only reason I will be buying an HD set is that when my current set breaks, I will have no options except flatscreen super HD +++ . This will come at premium dollars, as the cheap models using older but functional technology wont be in stores for purchase.

      • by theJML (911853)

        Wow... that's a lot considering it just came into full mainstream a few years ago. 1/3rd of homes in the US is a LOT of people, especially considering we're in a recession and people "aren't buying luxury items", and HDTV's fit squarely in that category.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Snarf You (1285360)
      I know exactly how this is going to go down. The new format will be called RedRay. Each disc will contain 2 encodings of everything (BluRay for one eye, RedRay for the other). You will need another HDTV placed beside your existing HDTV (note that they must be identical, and very expensive). Then, in order to enjoy the 3D-o-vision, you must sit far enough away from the TV's that the images of each TV can overlap like an autostereogram [wikipedia.org].

      The good news? You save 79 cents because it doesn't require any s
    • by sorak (246725)

      Of course. How else are we going to watch the new remake of "The Parent Trap"?

    • I think not. I know a lot of people who still don't have a HDTV. I still use my 20" CRT TV from 1996. Same with my parents, relatives, friends, strangers. Some don't even have a TV!

    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Everyone's already upgraded to shiny-new HDTVs and premium HD services. The manufacturers need to invent a new "toy" that people will demand and spend copious amounts of cash. They need 3D to succeed.

      really? MOST tv networks are still broadcasting in SDTV. Most homes do NOT have a HDTV.

      How has everyone already upgraded when less than 35% of the population has it and less than 50% of all TV networks use it?

  • console wars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cruelworld (21187) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @10:47AM (#29365939)

    The next generation game consoles will support 3D TV's. I suspect that much like the PS3 driving bluray adoption whatever format the winning console chooses will be the new 3D TV format of choice.

    People forget but real HDTV's came out more than 9 years ago. In the start there wasn't any HD content to watch either; just upconverted DVD's. But now every one I know has a HDTV set.

    • by edmicman (830206)
      And there's still little HD content. Ok, the major networks have *most* programming in HD, but there's still stragglers. A lot of the basic cable channels (Comedy Central? MTV? VH1? off the top of my head) are still lacking HD channels, at least in my area.

      IMHO, HD content is still far from being ubiquitous. It seems like it's still treated as a novelty, reserved for sports and higher budget productions. Does anyone have any stats on what percentage of total available common cable/satellite program
    • by AmIAnAi (975049) *
      Everyone may have a HDTV set, but how many are watching HD content. Most people are still happy with standard definition DVDs and TV and bought the set to get a large, slim screen - the HD part was just an extra.
  • Of course there will be problems at first. Of course there will be a format war. Of course artists will have to experiment in a new medium before perfecting their art. OF FUCKING COURSE. This is true for just about EVERY new technology.
  • 2D TV is just fine. HiDef TV is a great enhancement that enables more detail It works and it serves its purpose. What purpose does 3D solve? Things already look "real" enough.

    FWIW, I have seen 3D porn. It didn't offer much in my opinion. 3D for games is good. 3D is good for anything that uses focus and concentration. 3D for TVs and movies? Not so much.

  • by Dr. Manhattan (29720) <sorceror171@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @10:57AM (#29366061) Homepage
    Crossfading in 2D, when everything's in one focal plane, is no problem. In 3D, different objects are in different focal planes, and everything's a confused mess until the fade's over. Your eye has no idea how far away to focus. A lot of transitions will be jump-cuts, I suspect, with important objects in the old and new scenes at approximately the same focal depth to keep the eyes from straining from the transition. (Say... what would the 3D equivalent of a star-wipe be?)
    • Crossfading in 2D, when everything's in one focal plane, is no problem. In 3D, different objects are in different focal planes, and everything's a confused mess until the fade's over.

      Depends on the scenes. Going from one "complex" scene to a "simple" one, or vice versa, wouldn't be nearly as bad ("simple" meaning the entire scene was at basically the same focal depth – distant would work well, a near wall would still work tolerably well I suspect).

    • by david.given (6740) <dg AT cowlark DOT com> on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:09AM (#29366235) Homepage Journal

      Say... what would the 3D equivalent of a star-wipe be?

      You could do a z-axis wipe from far to near (probably after cross-fading the background plane). That would avoid most of the issues with shifting focal planes. It wouldn't be too dissimilar from the 2D effect where you cross-fade the background and then a bit later cross-fade the foreground. OTOH, in real 3D it might look really freaky --- only way to know is to try it...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by greenglyph (814070)
      I'd imagine a 3D crossfade would be something like standing in front of a shop window on a sunny day, where you can still the street behind you 'semitransparently' overlayed on the shop interior. Once your eye commits to either scene, you can essentially stay focused on it without difficulty. While a 3D crossfade would have changing scene opacities, the only difficult part would possibly be the 50/50 point, which may end up being no more disorienting than a traditional crossfade. The eye would likely stay f
    • by Aladrin (926209)

      Yeah, they're going to have to learn to make movies to use the tech... No big surprise there. The same thing happened with the initial movies, then sound, then color, etc etc. Things change and directors/etc have to improve their abilities to keep up.

  • Engadget's own pundit focuses on the more predictable problems of format wars between competing 3D display technologies.

    What format wars? If Sony beats everyone else to market by a few years, Sony wins the next few decades, end of discussion.

    Now, if (as has happened so often in Sony's history) someone else comes to market with a similar product at half the price... Well, BetaMax 3d, we hardly knew ye...
  • Point of view (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gr8_phk (621180) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:02AM (#29366137)
    If by "3D" they mean stereo images, then 3D TV is going to die a quick death. Stereo images are best viewed from one correct place, which means ONE seat in the center and at exactly the correct distance. It also means not tilting your head while watching. Headaches will ensue for a large part of the audience, and all other sorts of discomfort. Add onto that any annoyance of having to wear glasses and it's just over before it gets started.

    If first person games haven't driven sales of "3D" computer monitors through the roof (or even off the floor) what makes anyone think 3D TV has a snowballs chance?
    • by joaommp (685612)

      I agree. 3D technology for games has been out for quite a while and so far, the adoption seems far from a reality. The games industry is one of the industries that pushes more interface technologies into the wild and I'm yet to see a "best played in 3D" label on a game.

      3D has been on movie theaters already. Where I live, almost all theaters are already 3D capable (using polarized glasses). At least a bit of distortion is noticeable and it's not easy to immediately get accustomed to it, but it's usable.

      On th

    • If by "3D" they mean stereo images, then 3D TV is going to die a quick death. Stereo images are best viewed from one correct place, which means ONE seat in the center and at exactly the correct distance. It also means not tilting your head while watching. Headaches will ensue for a large part of the audience, and all other sorts of discomfort.

      Which is, I suppose, why stereo "3D" doesn't work in movie theaters and isn't being adopted more broadly by studios and theaters as the technology to do it becomes m

  • Meh (Score:2, Informative)

    by ThomsonX (1196551)
    Meh stereoscopic 3d sucks anyways, it not a natural way of viewing things.
  • hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by UncleWilly (1128141) * <UncleWilly07 AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:04AM (#29366167)

    With regular TV it looks like she has a cute mole..

    With HDTV I can see a hair growing from the mole..

    With 3DTV...AHH....AHH....THE HAIR...IT'S TOUCHING ME

  • by Tim82 (806662) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:04AM (#29366169)
    I can see this (and the whole of 3D cinema, to be honest) being a nightmare for directors/cameramen/producers.

    I know that in the LOTR trilogy, they did a lot of clever work with perspectives, using split furniture/scenery and having actors closer/further away from the camera to make Gandalf appear significantly bigger than the hobbits, for example. I imagine this kind of trick is done quite a lot in TV production as well.

    Stereoscopic cameras will mean that this trick just can't work - certain types of production just couldn't be done using camera tricks alone. It might be possible to add these effects using CGI or something - but would be a lot more expensive.
    • by natehoy (1608657) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:28AM (#29366537) Journal

      Agreed, 3D is hard and limits your ability to use cheap tricks to make scenes look the way a producer wants.

      For a big blockbuster movie, I can see it being worth the cash. You can drop megamillions on producing a movie and run a reasonable expectation of making it back over a relatively short period. 3D would just be added to the list of expensive special effects, and some people will pay a premium for the 3D version for home if it's available. But I really only see this useful for big blockbuster films.

      For regular TV shows? Umm, no. Not anytime soon, at least. There will probably be a few shows that will be produced just because they want to be first to 3D, but they'll probably be about the same quality as a /. "first post" message thread.

      You can take months and months to shoot a single movie and everyone can be OK with that because it's a movie - it's a one-shot deal and audiences expect a lot so you have to produce something special. For a TV show, you have to release 16 or 38 minutes of footage (once you chop out the commercials and credits from a 30- or 60-minute show) EVERY WEEK, for at least 10-15 weeks out of the year (used to be in the 20s, but most series release a lot fewer shows now).

      So, release one movie a year, you have to create ~100-110 minutes of actual show. To release one short (10-episode) season of a "1-hour" show, you've got to create 380 minutes. Your return probably isn't going to be nearly as high, so you simply can't afford to sustain 3D filming for that amount of time year after year and make good money, unless 3D becomes a HUGE ratings boom for your show.

      Add to that the complexity of setting up certain convincing shots (long lenses that can give the appearance of an actor being in the middle of an explosion when in reality he's hundreds of feet away, perspective shots, etc), and TV shows would have to either get a lot more expensive, or a lot shorter. Most shows wouldn't even be candidates. Reality shows, sitcoms, talk shows - what would be the point? Cinematic-quality shows like the "X-Files" would be excellent candidates, but they are cinematic quality because the producers used a LOT of camera tricks, so those would be priced right out of reach.

      Still, there will probably be a demand built eventually. That's why I conditioned it with "not anytime soon". Possibly someday... but in order to have a big ratings boost because of 3D, you've got to have people watching and desiring 3D shows, which means they all need 3D gear at home, and they won't do that en masse until there's enough content to watch. Home video in 3D will start the adoption because movies are easy to justify in 3D. If that takes off some TV shows might eventually follow once adoption is high enough to get the eyeballs in, and filming becomes cheap enough to afford it.

    • When cinema went from black-and-white to color, lots of special effects had to be done in completely different ways (blue/green screens, etc). Cinematography, set design, costuming, even make-up (which had once focused on contrast rather than color), now had be done differently. 2D to 3D will be a similar transition with similar obstacles.
  • At first there won't be too much 3D programming, but as the technology catches on, it will become more widespread. The same thing happened for HD shows in the early 2000s. And before that, stereo sound in the 80s. And before that, color in the 70s. And before that, actual television shows in the 50s.
    • by lxs (131946)

      Or it will die a slow death of neglect. Like so many forgotten technologies.

      Stereoscopic images have been touted as the next big thing every decade since 1880 or so. Why would this time be different?

  • by AP31R0N (723649) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:07AM (#29366211)

    Dodging money shots.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Try dodging dumb shows or plot lines revolving around constantly over doing the 3D effects.

      All we need is a "Michal Bay of 3D" and the whole 3D hype will die in an instant.

      Imagine actors continuously throwing things or lunging towards you. Nobody does this in real-life.

      • by AP31R0N (723649)

        Such is the nature of new toys. Someone makes a new toy, everyone gets excited about it, everyone uses it, we get sick of it, toy finds its rightful place. See Wire-fu and virtual camera.

        3D is likely to be the way most films and tv shows will be made. Once the novelty wears off there will be less silly uses (i hope).

        What i'd like to see are movies "filmed" in full CGI where i can move the camera wherever the hell i want it. Bob and Lisa are arguing in the kitchen, i can head upstairs to watch Timmy cryi

  • IIRC, when HD and Blu Ray were fighting it was over the rights to the movies from big-name studios like Disney and Sony (duh!) and Fox. Now, it will be MyHotBabes Studios competing with BrownWrappedPackage Inc.
  • Will 3D TV support Quad Sound?

  • Fah. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by snspdaarf (1314399) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:14AM (#29366305)
    I would be happier if all the bugs were worked out of the switch to HD first. Like how the picture and sound do not sync up, strange artifacts, the whole thing just cutting out and back in. This was on Cox at a relative's house over the weekend. There were still problems over the air, and this location is less than five miles from the transmitters for all the stations in the area.
  • Why bother with creating better content when you can throw in a technology gimmick, right?
  • Single-lens 3D (Score:3, Informative)

    by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:17AM (#29366353)
    Despite what the articles says, I think projection is still just a big of a challenge as capture. Firstly, consumer acceptance will remain low as long as you need to wear silly glasses. Second, there are some neat technologies in development for capture.

    The article points out the most obvious way to do capture: use two independent cameras. However I recently found out about efforts to build "single-lens 3D" cameras. One example of a company working on this is I See 3D [isee3d.com] (disclosure: I'm indirectly a small-time investor). The idea is to use special high-speed shutters inside the camera (intersecting the optical path) to select left-biased or right-biased imaging. The advantage is that it is much cheaper, since you only need a single sequence of lenses, and only a single detector. This also means that it should be possible to rather cheaply build this into existing manufacturing lines. And a 3D camera of this sort could revert to 2D mode quite easily. A drawback of this type of system is that you can't alter the effective distance between the left- and right- viewing angles (which could be a big deal, depending on distance to subject and the zoom you want to use).

    I think such technologies are in particular interesting because they have the chance of being integrated into consumer devices in the near term. I think 3D will really "take off" when people can actually capture 3D with their cell phones and digital cameras. Once people are able to make their own 3D home movies, they will be much more inclined to invest in 3D TVs, players, and so on.
  • by thredder (1211746) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:17AM (#29366367)
    I think I'll just wait until 4D Tv comes around. Just a matter of time....
  • There already is 3d entertainment, its not doing too hot. It's called plays.

    • There already is 3d entertainment, its not doing too hot. It's called plays.

      Err .. maybe I suggest that Slashdot isn't the most appropriate audience for that comment?

      Plays, BTW, are very much 2D. Theatre, by contrast ... ;-)

  • by peter303 (12292) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @11:35AM (#29366625)
    The New Scientist is correct in saying that new artistic techniques are necessary to properly utilize 3D. However Hollywood has been working on this for several years now. My eyes were opened at recent SIGGRAPH sessions on technical and artistic issues involved. Technical includes avoiding complicated scenes where a foreground object might block one eye-view of the region of intersest. You might not notice these drop-outs consciously, but they can cause viewer headaches.

    From an artistic point of view the director has control on the "amount of 3D" in a scene. Elements of interest can be highlighted or even exaggerated in 3D, while backgrounds or less important elements may fade to 2D. For example the company that has been "dimensionalizing" Star Wars movies for Lucas ("dimensionalizing" is converting old stock to 3D from stereo clues in film, similar to what "colorizing" does to B&W). The showed a minute-long clip of a Star Wars space battle scene dimenensionalized in around eight different ways. And the results are artisitically different depending on what the director wants to emphasize.

    (P.S. Lucas is perfectionist and not completely happy with the current state of dimensionalization, so he hasnt released the 3D versions yet. The parts I saw were amazing and I cant wait for the entire movies.)
    • Technical problems are technical problems, but artistic ones are... not so problematic. I've noticed that artists involved in semi-technical fields play up the technical problem solving aspect of their work when talking about it. Really what they're doing is playing about until it looks okay. The truth is that there are myriads of okay artistic effects, and hitting one that is acceptable isn't that hard. Of course, finding the few that are exceptionally good is very hard indeed--but come on, this is televis

  • For broadcast, etc, it should be important that any standard should be fully open, and not encumbered by patents or licensing. Having a aformat controlled by Sony sounds like a bad idea anyway, and most other private companies are not a lot better.
  • will be porn... will bring a whole new meaning to "in your face"...
  • by Animats (122034) on Wednesday September 09, 2009 @12:31PM (#29367353) Homepage

    As the article mentions, shot length in film has been declining for decades. The average is now around five seconds. In 3D, more adaptation time is required at shot changes. The article says 10-15 seconds is required. If you do too many fast focal length changes, viewers get eyestrain.

    There's a database of film shot lengths. [cinemetrics.lv] "Batman Begins" clocks at 2.8 seconds for the entire film. (Don't take the values in that database as definitive. Click on an entry to check it. Some entries are from clips or trailers, not the entire film.) The Bourne films are even shorter. This is going to be a real problem for action films.

  • bwahahahahahahahaha 3D TV in 2010 ... oh my gosh ... that was a good one ... muahahahahhahahahah

    We don't even have working HD television stations in most places and the adoption rate of HD TV sets is a joke. The people that need and want HD do so because of specialized applications like Blu-Ray ... pushing for 3D TV now is the most ridiculous waste of money imaginable. Cameron really chose a bad time to try to become the spokesperson for a completely unnecessary technology ahead of it's time.

    Show me o

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...