Why People Should Stop Being Duped By the 3D Scam 394
Phoghat writes "The entertainment and electronics industries keep trying to push 3D on consumers, even though a lot of smart people have caught on to the fact that it is a scam and not innovation as the industry would like you to believe. From the article: 'This is a bad experiment that the industry is forcing consumers to subsidize. And since they can’t create a better product, they’ve simply latched on to 3D as a marketing ploy that the entertainment and electronics industries can use to trick people into thinking that they are getting a superior experience. It’s only working because just enough people are falling for the scam to keep it alive.'"
It's not a scam if people like it (Score:5, Insightful)
The movie industry are selling entertainment, people pay for what they find entertaining, if they pay more money to watch the 3d version then the 2d version, then that means that they think that the 3d version is more entertaining.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that everyone else is getting scammed. (However it's worth noting that some movies are scamming in that they're doing really shitty 3D just to get the higher ticket price, but just like anything else shoveled out the door for a quick buck word catches on quick and their sales become abyssmal)
They push 3D every 20 years or so... (Score:4, Insightful)
3D gets a push every couple of decades and can be likely traced back to popular stereoviews of the later half of the 19th century. It's a fad that hangs around for a year or two, then it's gone. The reason it goes away is because it's simply inconvenient compared to 2D movies and television. Glasses, special viewing angles, etc. are not something people are willing to commit to on a large scale just to watch a film or sitcom.
It's entertainment. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's entirely subjective. If people believe that they are getting a "superior experience" then they are. If you like it watch it. If you don't like it don't watch it. If many people like it there will be more of it. If not, then not.
*sigh* (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical geek blither-blather. "I don't like it therefore everyone who does is an idiot who's being duped." Here on /. I've seen this argument used against: Apple, craft beer, very spicy chiles, tablets in general, 3d film and TV, hybrid cars, wind power, solar power, drug laws, Democrats, Republicans and organized sports.
Just accept that people like different things and move on. I realize this is a strain to the borderline Asbergers types who are rife around here, but come on. Sometimes there isn't a "right answer" for everyone.
Re:I have to nitpcik TFA: (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously if you liked something that someone else didn't, it's because you were tricked into it. Haven't you ever been on the internet before?
Yep, I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
3D is just a scam, I didn't really watch Avatar in 3D and enjoy it far more than when I watched it in 2D, nope, that was all just part of my imagination.
Really, this is one of the more fucking retarded Slashdot stories I've seen in a while, the article can be summed up entirely as:
"3D is a scam, because I, Mr Random Nobody, says so. End of."
Sure 3D isn't brilliant everywhere, some attempts at it are pretty naff, sure sometimes it's misused, but so is audio particularly the likes of surround sound, so are special effects, so is colour. It's a tool, and like any tool, when used right, it can be pretty effective. But a scam? That's like saying a hammer is a scam because you can't screw screws into the wall with it when you try. It'd help if there was anything in the article other than his mere reiteration of his personal opinion that it's a scam and absolutely nothing more than that backing up his point.
The guy is a douche of the highest order, but the Slashdot editors moreso for letting such utter shite through. If someone is going to suggest something is a scam, they at least need to explain why. People spouting unfounded shite without an ounce of evidence to back up their point is what I expect from the comments, not the story... I know, I must be new here.
Re:They push 3D every 20 years or so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the movies would probably be better if they DIDN'T use computers so extensively. Stereo video recording provides a much more realistic 3D experience than any digital editing (ab)used for campy effect.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a 'scam' (Score:4, Insightful)
The effects are self-evident, there isn't some unfulfilled promise of what it is or some sort of placebo effect making people think things look different, it just is different. It's a feature that one can evaluate and decide for themselves what they think. I personally am waiting because I recognize the flaws in the current system and will see if they get better.
Now he does hit upon some points of interest:
-Adding 3D after the fact. For rendered movies, it's not too hard to do right (add 'camera' with offset, re-render), but live-action stuff is indeed awkward and I hear the biggest source of complaints about headaches.
-Less defined picture. With polarized lenses, this is true. You are effectively halving the resolution of the screen. On the other hand, shutter glasses will preserve the resolution at the expense of refresh rate, but that's compensated by 240 Hz displays. However I do find shutter glasses a tad awkward with the battery and cost. Instead of 1920x1080 displays with 240 Hz and shutter glasses, I'd prefer 1920x2160 with 120 Hz and polarized lenses (or double the column count).
However, his gripe about TVs supporting 3D is off the mark. A TV isn't magically 3D only if it has the *capability* of doing 3D. You can still do it fine and sometimes the requirements for 3D drive enhancements that up the quality standard for 2D viewing. An exception to this could be auto-stereoscopic displays, which would cause me concern depending on how much resolution they provide.
Re:Oh for goodness sake (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they are a horrible idea. They encourage people to spend money on 3D movies while avoiding the 3D.
Basically, every movie you watch while using those glasses is telling Hollywood that you are willing to pay for the 3D effect. When in actuality, you are willing to pay for the 3D effect to be removed.
A better idea is would be to ask the ticket clerk 'do you have a showing in 2D? No? Oh, well, we'll go somewhere else then. Bye.' Enough of those and it'll get reported to the manager. Enough of those and it'll get reported to the theater owner. Enough of those and it will get reported to the distributer. Enough of those and it'll get reported to the film studio. (Of course, the theater owner has long since been supplying the local demand for a 2D movie at that point.)
Then the'll stop making them, and you won't need those glasses.
Re:Been there done that YMMV (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, you probably will. I don't like 3D movies and I ended up with a 3D capable TV just because most of the really good new TV's have this capability. If I could have bought the exact same model without 3D, I would have.
Re:I have to nitpcik TFA: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have to nitpcik TFA: (Score:4, Insightful)
In the case of Toy Story the 3D information is already there, 2D is "the wrong way" to view it.
When making a "3D" animation, a lot of things are actually 2D backdrops to save on render time. People overestimate the simulation aspect and underestimate the showmanship of computer graphics.
Re:Oh for goodness sake (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, I think it's an interesting phenomenon that generally "techy" people seem to sometimes get really bent out of shape about new tech. We saw the same thing with HD TVs. We used to see it more with new versions of OS's and software.
In my completely subjective opinion, it's an aversion to marketing. A lot of the population see the world of technology as filled with magic black boxes. Techies see objects with an innate desire to understand at least the basics of how they work. When their understanding of how things work, and consequently the implications of that functionality existing in the real world, doesn't match with the marketing it is perceived as bullshit. A negative opinion is formed. The stronger the marketing effort and the more that marketing deviates from perceived reality, the more strongly the resistance and desire to communicate that negative opinion.
Which isn't to say techies' perceptions are always on par with everyone else or even in agreement with other techies. But I think it goes a long way towards explaining various flame wars, pseudo-religious product followings / anti-followings, and long-running arguments that are the stuff of techie communities / forums / blogs.
It mostly sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
A big problem with "3D movies" is Disney "Real3D(tm)", which is Disney Fake3D. The image was delaminated in postprocessing, and reassembled with shifts to simulate depth. That stuff sucks, and it sucks worse if the 3D producer overdoes it. (Ref "Pirahna 3D").
"Avatar" is good 3D. It was really shot and animated in 3D, and Cameron put a lot of effort into getting it right and not overdoing it. At no time in Avatar is something positioned in front of the screen plane. Few other directors are that good.
Even so, film 3D is inherently fake, because of the scaling issue. In the real world, there's no noticeable stereoscopy beyond a few meters of range. Our eyes are too close together. 3D distant shots with wide separation are a cinematic convention, not visual reality.
TV 3D is far worse, It can't be watched casually. If you're off-axis, or lying on your side, the effect is totally wrong. Having to wear glasses or sit in the correct position is too restrictive. I'm curious to see how 3D sports bars work out.
My guess is that after a while, 3D will be scaled back, and it will only be used for content worth showing in Imax.
Re:Forget cost, it's focus control (Score:5, Insightful)
This technology fools the eye into thinking that objects are close while the actual image is still distant.
That is an absurd complaint for 3D movies in the theater.
Why? Because we only use the convergence of our eyes and focal length of our pupils for distances less than 30 feet.
Looking at stuff beyond that, our focus is completely 'relaxed' and our eyes are parallel. We have no actual depth perception past that, we're just inventing it from the size of objects and their location on the ground.
This is one of the reasons people prefer to sit at the distance they do in a theater. Sitting closer is tiring for the eyes, not just because they can't see the whole screen at once, but because the eyes keep trying to focus past the screen, and then back to it.
And, no, the 3D effect can only make things further away from the screen, not closer. It can't trick your eyes into focusing 10 feet away or whatever. The whole 'popping out of the screen' is just because we mentally think of the screen as a window where the actual stuff in it is at a distance.
Why can't people understand the differences? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look back at movies and TV, you see this same complaint against any new advance, that the improvements are useless. Silent film to "talkies" was a clear advance, and I am sure that there were SOME complaints from those who didn't care for it. When color came out, some saw it as useless and then there were more complaints. Color TV was the same way, an added expense that did not add to the quality of the movie or show in the eyes of some. When stereo first came out, again, some complained and they didn't hear how it improved things, or surround sound. All of these things added to the overall experience of going to the movies or watching TV/movies at home, even if not everyone notices or cares about the improvements that have been added.
I remember the first time I watched Star Trek: The Next Generation in stereo, there was a background ship hum that on older "mono" TVs just did not have that added to the experience of watching it. It may not have been amazing by modern standards, but it was cool that it was an obvious improvement. For surround, watch most action movies with a decent surround sound system, and you can hear bullets flying AROUND you, some behind, some moving from behind and then to the front. This is the sort of thing that, as I said, enhances the experience, yet would not be "required" for the movie or show to be entertaining.
So, 3D. For the most part, most 3D is very poorly implemented, with a few objects that pop out of the screen at the viewer, and does NOT enhance the viewing experience as a whole. The 3D is really just an extra "layer" that is added, and in these cases, those shooting down 3D are correct, it is NOT worth extra money in these cases. Now, Avatar is an example of 3D done fairly well, because there is a true "depth" throughout the movie, at least that was my impression when I saw it in IMAX. It wasn't about objects popping off the screen, it was about the entire movie feeling like there was more depth to EVERYTHING. This is where people want to see 3D go, where 3D isn't just for "cute" effects, but enhances how things look overall. If the home 3D experience is anything like what they did with Avatar on IMAX, then 3D is a very good addition.
All special effects have always had their origins start in a way that it really WAS just a gimmick, and often replaced good acting or story, but as time has gone on, special effects have improved to the point where even some modern commercials would awe someone from the 1970s. In time, there will be no extra expense for filming in 3D, and the costs will drop. As I said, the real key is if 3D focuses on adding that depth of field to all scenes, rather than being focused on a few objects that just pop off the screen but otherwise leaves the movie as a 2D film. Only time will tell if 3D matures into a true way to enhance the movie-going experience.